Salford Crescent platform extension feasibility

[NotATrainspott]

When the topic of newly-electrified train services around Manchester is discussed the length of the platform at Salford Crescent seems to be brought up quite often. My understanding is that it is limited to only 6x23m carriages, which is fine at the moment when the longest trains are doubled-up 185s, but since Northern now has a fleet of 4x20m EMUs to run services it means that there's now a problem. Once the TransPennine North line has been electrified, eventually, it also seems likely that 8x23m EMUs would be used, again causing a problem at Salford Crescent. Since the station is hemmed in at either end by junctions, what prospects are there of platforms being extended?

I'm not intimately aware of the issues surrounding this station but from what I can see on online mapping sites, it seems that platform extensions would have to be to the north rather than to the south. However, it seems that it would be quite difficult to move the junctions without then making it all quite sub-optimal. What I'm wondering is if a better option could be to take advantage of how the two diverging routes remain quite close together for a reasonable distance before finally diverging. If it would be possible to run services on only two tracks, then one of the two routes could be abandoned and the junction moved to the forested area where they take different routes. If four tracks would be necessary, then what about the possibility of using both routes but with the current Atherton tracks used for north-west bound trains and the current Bolton tracks used for south-east bound trains? Then the platform(s) at Salford Crescent could safely extend northwards as there would be no need for the current crossovers. Increased grade-separation wouldn't hurt either.

 

[WatcherZero]

Thats what ive said before, create a new junction further along the line as they run in parallel for quite a distance. You can also install another two platforms (space has been reserved for this) which would increase throughput from the current three track setup and if you segregate the platform allocations according to Atherton/Bolton lines you could also reduce conflicting moves using the replacement junction.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What exactly was the recent platform extension at Salford Crescent station supposed to achieve?

 

[WatcherZero]

To allow 2x185 and 3xSprinter/Pacer formations to call and use all doors.

 

[stockport1]

Thats what ive said before, create a new junction further along the line as they run in parallel for quite a distance. You can also install another two platforms (space has been reserved for this) which would increase throughput from the current three track setup and if you segregate the platform allocations according to Atherton/Bolton lines you could also reduce conflicting moves using the replacement junction.

certainty i'm not calling you a liar but i fail to see how salford cresent could have 4 platforms! its such a squeeze now.

surely the long term answer is to rebuild the station to the south with 4-6 platforms.

 

[WatcherZero]

Check the planning application for the refurbishment, the location for the two extra platforms is protected.

 

[northwichcat]

To allow 2x185 and 3xSprinter/Pacer formations to call and use all doors.

The existing platform length at Salford Crescent would actually allow Pacer formations of 9 carriages with them only being 15.5m long, so 4 x 142s or 3 x 3 car 144s would both be possible.

 

[stockport1]

That would do the trick! thank you for the plans.

 

[6Gman]

Some extra platform width would be useful!

One of the very few stations I've actually felt things were dangerous because of crush of passengers on a narrow platform.

 

[Haydn1971]

Check the planning application for the refurbishment, the location for the two extra platforms is protected.

Any indication of platform lengths ?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Some extra platform width would be useful!

One of the very few stations I've actually felt things were dangerous because of crush of passengers on a narrow platform.

I totally agree with your sentiments on that specific matter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That would do the trick! thank you for the plans.

On the plans, does part of the Network Rail boundary area impinge upon what was once the line of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal?

 

[edwin_m]

Any indication of platform lengths ?

The plan suggests the existing platforms are as long as they can be with the present track layout. I believe the southern junction continues under the bridge almost to the end of the western platform - you can see part of the converging track to the south of the bridge but as the plan is based on Ordnance Survey the rest is hidden under the bridge itself. I can't immediately find a picture on Google Images that shows this well but it is discernable on this one:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68628359@N04/8442655450

We have already established that the length is enough for a 6-car 185 and it looks unlikely it could be extended further without some sort of remodelling of the track layout. SDO wouldn't be acceptable because a train calling at the platforms would lock up one or both of the junctions.

 

[Bevan Price]

I believe that one suggestion was to "move / relocate" the entire station to a new location, north of the junction. More suitable for the operators, but a much longer walk for many of the passengers. I suspect it would be too expensive to implement, and the solution will be to limit "Blackpool" trains to a single 4 car Class 319 -- and for 8 coach "Scotland" services not to stop here.

 

[Boysteve]

I don't mean to be rude but who ever planned this 4 platform station is an idiot. Let me explain;
A properly planned 4 platform Salford Crescent station would have two island platforms, one for North/West bound and one for South/East or Manchester bound. Customers travelling from the Atherton line to Piccadilly or the Airport, and customers travelling from Preston or further North to Victoria usually have to change train at Salford Crescent. Are we going to make them all use the footbridge to change platforms? To spend any money on this station that cannot then be incorporated in to achieving the two island platform solution is a complete and disgraceful waste of tax payers and customers money. There are space issues in the current location but which is easier to fit? 4 tracks and 3 platform surfaces as the plans show, or 4 tracks and 2 platform surfaces?
Thank you for listening to my rant!

 

[WatcherZero]

3 platform spaces would be easier to fit of course, you have the complications of the junctions immediately either side of the platform and the time and disruption involved in demolishing the existing island platform realigning the track and building two replacement islands compared to adding two platform faces alongside the existing track alignments, well your probably talking a fourfold increase in construction cost, timewise you talking overnight working and a couple of short possessions to add two more platform faces versus completely closing the line for 2-4 weeks for a complete rebuild.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You're probably talking a fourfold increase in construction cost, timewise you talking overnight working and a couple of short possessions to add two more platform faces versus completely closing the line for 2-4 weeks for a complete rebuild.

With regards to the part of your posting that I have emboldened, I am reminded of a similar time period total closure of Manchester Airport railway station in January/February this year and also of the line closure time period owing to recent works on the Bolton to Blackburn line.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I don't mean to be rude but who ever planned this 4 platform station is an idiot. Let me explain;
A properly planned 4 platform Salford Crescent station would have two island platforms, one for North/West bound and one for South/East or Manchester bound.

Purely out of curiosity, how many stations are there with four running lines and two island platforms but no side platforms? Or six, three and none (other than, in the whole of the LM Quail: Milton Keynes Central, Leicester, Tyseley, Warrington BQ, Preston, Bolton (proposed))? How many of these have islands serving two tracks going the same direction of travel?

It's a structure-heavy arrangement, which is why it isn't common, irrespective of how efficient it might be.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't mean to be rude but who ever planned this 4 platform station is an idiot. Let me explain;
A properly planned 4 platform Salford Crescent station would have two island platforms, one for North/West bound and one for South/East or Manchester bound. Customers travelling from the Atherton line to Piccadilly or the Airport, and customers travelling from Preston or further North to Victoria usually have to change train at Salford Crescent. Are we going to make them all use the footbridge to change platforms? To spend any money on this station that cannot then be incorporated in to achieving the two island platform solution is a complete and disgraceful waste of tax payers and customers money. There are space issues in the current location but which is easier to fit? 4 tracks and 3 platform surfaces as the plans show, or 4 tracks and 2 platform surfaces?
Thank you for listening to my rant!

I see your point but the problem here is that pairing by direction would require longer junctions. For example trains from Atherton would have to cross another track needing space for another crossover or at the minimum a diamond crossing. With similar issues also at the south end, this layout would reduce further the length available for platforms and might mean there was no space for them at all!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Purely out of curiosity, how many stations are there with four running lines and two island platforms but no side platforms? Or six, three and none (other than, in the whole of the LM Quail: Milton Keynes Central, Leicester, Tyseley, Warrington BQ, Preston, Bolton (proposed))? How many of these have islands serving two tracks going the same direction of travel?

It's a structure-heavy arrangement, which is why it isn't common, irrespective of how efficient it might be.

Much more common on the ECML and other routes where the adjacent tracks are running in the same direction. If the fast lines are the middle pair then this arrangement can be done without having to dog-leg them round the platforms.

 

[AM9]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Much more common on the ECML and other routes where the adjacent tracks are running in the same direction. If the fast lines are the middle pair then this arrangement can be done without having to dog-leg them round the platforms.

Surbiton also has this layout and is a major fast/slow interchange stop.
Ideal where there is a progressive stopping service approaching a large city, where there is a SFFS layout of tracks. It allows faster swaps between slow and fast tracks as services start their fast dash to the terminus. It also makes interchanges much easier, but on the other hand there can be issues having fast faces of island platforms as a potential suicide risk.
There are also FSSF layouts as on the LU Metropolitan/Jubilee and Metropolitan stretches between Finchley Road and Harrow on the Hill, (ignoring the Chiltern lines). The splaying of the fast lines is less of an issue there as the max speeds on the Met are lower than 75mph and the current S stock only does 62mph max anyway.

 

[mwmbwls]

On the plans, does part of the Network Rail boundary area impinge upon what was once the line of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal?

Possibly - although the canal alignment is protected against adverse development by IIRC Salford City Council - the route through Pendleton has already been lost at a number of points requiring significant industry relocation and hence compensation to reinstate the canal. There are significant infrastructure breaches visible from the railway. Whilst I appreciate that many canal restoration projects start from a very decrepit base this one would be a significant challenge. I fear that the reopened stretch through Middlewood Locks will end as a decorative landscape feature of the development there. The concept of canals being stuffed by the railway has extensive precedents. Damon Runyan summarised the underlying concept:'The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, ... but that's how the smart money bets.'

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Of course if the need to actually stop longer trains is paramount then one possible rebuilding option would be to abolish the junctions altogether and route all Atherton line trains to Piccadilly/Airport and all Bolton trains to Victoria. With any long-distance services to/from the Airport running via Chat Moss. Install escalators to allow for easier interchange between the two routes and job done! Any takers?

 

[northwichcat]

Since this thread was started we have discovered Northern are getting brand new EMUs in 3 and 4 car formations. Also the franchise agreement specifies that Northern have to look at the option of SDO - not that SDO alone is a solution for 8 carriage trains to stop at Salford Crescent.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Since this thread was started we have discovered Northern are getting brand new EMUs in 3 and 4 car formations. Also the franchise agreement specifies that Northern have to look at the option of SDO - not that SDO alone is a solution for 8 carriage trains to stop at Salford Crescent.

And the TPE Scotland services will go to 1x5 car. Not that they are likely to stop at Crescent.
Also, no point in extending Salford Crescent without a similar solution further north (Horwich, Chorley, Buckshaw, Kirkham, Poulton).
Platform lengths at Crescent are (from the SA) 158/153 metres (P1/P2), so 2x319 is only fractionally over at 160m.
A major rebuild may not be needed there, but there is still a problem further north (and at Salford Central of course).

 

[edwin_m]

Of course if the need to actually stop longer trains is paramount then one possible rebuilding option would be to abolish the junctions altogether and route all Atherton line trains to Piccadilly/Airport and all Bolton trains to Victoria. With any long-distance services to/from the Airport running via Chat Moss. Install escalators to allow for easier interchange between the two routes and job done! Any takers?

I think the loss of connectivity particularly for Bolton towards the Airport would be unacceptable, but perhaps this idea could be adapted by keeping the south end junctions and building the platforms over where the north end junctions now are. However I'm not sure whether there is room for four platforms and tracks on the existing site. If that is so it would be better to revive the previous idea and move the whole station north of the junctions with platforms on both routes.

If the Atherton tram-train proposal ever went ahead then the northern junction would be eliminated. The tram-trains would transfer to a new off-railway alignment somewhere further north-west, with an interchange tramstop near the Crescent station. The platforms could then be extended northwards over the former junction, allowing longer trains to call on the remaining Bolton route.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Also the franchise agreement specifies that Northern have to look at the option of SDO - not that SDO alone is a solution for 8 carriage trains to stop at Salford Crescent.

How many existing Northern stations could handle an 8 car train that you describe above and what would be the cost implications in extending such stations not qualifying to take 8 car trains?

 

[northwichcat]

How many existing Northern stations could handle an 8 car train that you describe above and what would be the cost implications in extending such stations not qualifying to take 8 car trains?

I don't think anyone will know the exact answer but trying to put square 319s in to round holes was not seen as a viable option by Arriva, despite Porterbrook's desperate attempts. A pair of 3 car 331s will fit at any station which can handle a 6 car 185 and will provide 408 seats in 2+2 formation, so will be suitable for Manchester Airport to Blackpool services stopping at Salford Crescent.

There did used to be some 8 car EMU workings between Altrincham and Wilmslow via Manchester at peak times and on match days pre-Metrolink and 323s so I imagine there's still a number of platforms which can handle 8 x 20m on the Wilmslow line. There certainly wouldn't be any issue at Levenshulme, Heaton Chapel or Wilmslow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And the TPE Scotland services will go to 1x5 car. Not that they are likely to stop at Crescent.

I think the only stop TPE are permitted to do between Manchester and Preston is Bolton and not every service will stop there and those that do will have pick-up or set-down restrictions.

 

[mwmbwls]

I think the only stop TPE are permitted to do between Manchester and Preston is Bolton and not every service will stop there and those that do will have pick-up or set-down restrictions.

Does anybody have further details - I was labouring under the impression that only peak time TPE services were to be restricted. I assumed 07.00 -09,00 hours southbound 16.00 - 19.00 hours northbound. IIRC Bolton Councillors are expecting all TPE trains to stop and with the rebuilding of platform 5 they are still hoping for the extension of Pendolinos from Euston in the marginal time early morning and late evening slots - in a similar manner to way GNER trains were extended from Edinburgh to Glasgow. Because of path restraints through Castlefield, I cannot see the latter happening until HS2 reaches Manchester.I assume what might happen is that the combined HS2/ICWC franchisee will be running the reduced classic service to London via Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke. Milton Keynes etc. as foreshadowed in the Stockport Council rail reports with extensions to Bolton.

 

[lejog]

No trains into Manchester before 10am, no trains out between 4pm and 7pm. Also a couple of early morning/late night services pass through. TPE may designate any train as set down/pick up only. (M-F from 2019).

Tables A & B

 

[YorkshireBear]

And the TPE Scotland services will go to 1x5 car. Not that they are likely to stop at Crescent.
Also, no point in extending Salford Crescent without a similar solution further north (Horwich, Chorley, Buckshaw, Kirkham, Poulton).
Platform lengths at Crescent are (from the SA) 158/153 metres (P1/P2), so 2x319 is only fractionally over at 160m.
A major rebuild may not be needed there, but there is still a problem further north (and at Salford Central of course).

Are they not planning on some 10 cars?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Are they not planning on some 10 cars?

There's not much scope for that with only 12 units for an enhanced service and the addition of 3xdaily ex-Liverpool.
Some peak trains may go via Golborne anyway.
Longer trains should also avoid the need to double up, as on TP North routes.