What level of out-of-course running will it need with that string of flat junctions to bring the job to a standstill? Presumably modelling has been done. And does anyone know if the planned timetable has simultaneous up and down movements through those junctions?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.
- Thread starter Xenophon PCDGS
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
As a northerner who lived in London for a while and who visits regularly, I'd say probably a very long time. The Waterloo upgrade could have started 10 years ago when Eurostar moved to St Pancras but it was not absolutely necessary and the government was not going to authorise £400m of spending until it was. Most tube lines are very overcrowded at peak times but occasional visitors are less likely to notice. The rebuild of Ashton and realignment of two miles of track last month is a focused and targeted improvement. I doubt a decision on P15/16 will be made until the extra 4tph have been running for long enough to judge reliability and demand. The impending jump from 8/10 tph to 12/14 and longer trains is a substantial step forward, its reasonable for then pause before a decision is made on if (or more likely) when to build P15/16. It is not realistic to expect decades of under investment to be be reversed quickly.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,727
Not a massive amount before things start to stack up, and if you get an out of course freight then it is going to be interesting.
I remember Joesph Locke saying that grade separation options for the various junctions to the west / north of Deansgate had been costed and a couple were viable. I am not sure that 18-20tph is a good idea even with P15/16, it could just cause problems elsewhere.
But we are getting all the services due to use the corridor in May 2018 without the new platforms, there aren't any *extra* services planned for the rest of the TPE and Northern franchises, which IIRC end in 2024. If the scheme was in London it similarly would be subject to review if the new work wasn't needed for >5 years.
If agree with others what is needed are longer trains (which are coming) and better access/waiting provision. If Grayling had said we are reviewing this instead of saying more trains/new technology I'd be happy.
However it's not on the cards for Oxford Road. The scheme under consideration does not include such a radical change of layout.
The Northern franchise agreement required another timetable change in 2019 adding a Manchester Airport - Calder Valley service and effectively a second tph between Bolton and Stockport. Presumably those are now scrapped, along with any chance of ever running a fourth Ordsall Chord service, which I think it was meant to deliver as well.
Here's a question: what would the business case be like for the Ordsall Chord if the planners knew 2tph was the maximum throughput?
On longer trains, I wouldn't be surprised if Northern run 2 coach 195s on at least some of the Barrow and Warrington Connect services.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,364
Honestly I am not sure the extra two platforms are really worth it unless you can push four tracks all the way through to Oxford Road, and we can't without huge demolition (although Chandos Hall, where I spent my first year at University is now being demolished) works.
It seems to me that, on the contrary, four platforms at Picc, four at Oxford Road and reducing to two tracks between them, would make a well-balanced system, with no excess capacity in any one part. Deansgate might be a bottleneck though.
Last edited:
Has anyone seen any report yet on exactly what was done? All the publicity mentioned this figure of realignment of two miles of track, but all the photos we've seen appear to relate to a maximum of about half a mile of route through the station itself, say a mile of track at most. The pictures also don't seem to shew very much change to the station platforms to improve alignment. Or was it all about the new station subway and pretty much a straight replacement of the two bridge-spans?
That's something that applies only if you're thinking of Reading, Crossrail, and other schemes in the south. Add to that the long history in this country of not going in for future-proofing and what do you expect for the English regions?
Burnley - Airport will be a 3rd service in addition to the 2 TPE services. The business case for Ordsall Chord was based on freeing capacity at the throat of Piccadilly and it still removes the two TPE services that reverse across so it will do the job.
I suspect the lack of photos is due to access. I think they have confirmed 2 miles of track were replaced. It probably only saves a minute or so but the first target is a reduction from 48 to 40 minute journey times by 2022 so its a decent start.
I refer you to the thread on Northern's timetable plan for May 2018.
The Calder Valley service is to start in May 2018 - it was always due to run on Sundays from the first timetable change, so it is unclear whether this is a change or an omission from the specs.
Similarly the 2tph from Bolton to Stockport appear to start in May 2018, with the following departures from Piccadilly.
So AFAIK from May 2018, the plan appears to be 12tph (+freight) through the platforms, with no further services in 2019:
TPE 3 (1 Scotland and 2 Leeds)
Northern EMUs 4 (2 Blackpool North, Chat Moss, Wigan NW(Flex?))
Northern DMU 3 (CLC, Cumbria, Calder Valley)
EMT 1
ATW 1
Yes, Northern would have liked to run a Todmorden Curve - Airport service and the residents of Southport would like to retain a Piccadilly service, but these aren't commitments.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Even so you could use 1/2 and 3/4 in that way at present. Not quite as flexible as you'd need to keep with the booked platforms, but still usable.
The easiest way to solve the problem with capacity at Deansgate would simply be to stop everything there, then there's nothing to hold up the fasts as there wouldn't *be* any fasts - after all, the Liverpool loop handles 14tph quite happily on a single line, and I recall was actually originally signalled for 30tph. There's plenty of demand for travel to that end of things for shopping etc, anyway.
Last edited:
The business case for the Chord was also based on a fundamental Northern Hub requirement that all "major corridors" into Manchester required a service to a single interchange station, which in practice meant a new Calder Valley to Piccadilly link.
Looking at the planned timetable it seems that pretty well every significant line in an arc from Chester to Leeds has a service to Piccadilly through the platforms, except the previously mentioned Southport (not a major corridor) and Tod Curve (which didn't exist at the time of the Northern Hub design, but would be part of the Calder Valley corridor).
In fact I can't see how many extra services you would want to route through the platforms, especially in the long term if NPR gets the go ahead and provides extra capacity to Liverpool, Manchester Airport and Leeds.
I agree. Once the Owen Street skyscrapers are built (first two due for completion next June) demand will rise further, its an area under going huge redevelopment, particularly the parts not well served by Oxford Road. The station would need a huge make over though, its grubby and has few facilities. It is currently under used as a interchange with Metrolink because too few train services stop there. Not sure what the platform lengths are though.
mrbluelips
Member
- Joined
- 15 May 2013
- Messages
- 32
Agreed. Even just getting to platforms 13 and 14 at present is a nightmare. The only obvious way to get there is up the travelator, which is often blocked by two people standing side by side, a buggy or worse... By the time you've said "excuse me" and they've fannied around you're almost at the top anyway. Not ideal if you want to walk or are in a rush. especially if one travels daily and just wants to 'get on'.
I know one can take the stairs up from platform 10 (and others) but it's not so obvious or direct.
If extra platforms are to be built, access to them needs improving/widening. I'd even say it needs doing regardless.
notlob.divad
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,609
It would given quite often the trains that don't stop there get checked by a signal and end up sat at the platform anyway. However, not everybody wants to go to Manchester, some just want to get through and out the otherside as quickly as possible. The crawl along the castlefield corridor is bad enough with the 2 stops already, it would be even worse having to stop at Deansgate as well.
Its why I am much happier the North TransPennine trains are transferring to Victoria. 1 stop in Manchester is plenty enough. However I used to regularly do the EMT service to/from Sheffield and for what should be an intercity service that was and remains to be extremely painful.
Altfish
Member
I think I'd rather see it closed totally than have everything stopping there.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
NR has spent all its enhancement money on GW electrification (and others), so there's none left for anything else.
The year's delay in starting the Ordsall Chord didn't help, either.
I agree its looking gloomy, but the enhancement funding up to 2024 isn't decided yet.
Although we are concentrating on Picc P15/16, the Oxford Road enhancements are just as important.
Both sets of current platforms are shabby and "not fit for purpose", considering the footfall and revenue taken.
Agreed. It's bad enough that even the Scottish trains stop at Oxford Road as well as Piccadilly, and to add on Deansgate for the sake of capacity for short-distance traffic would be adding insult to injury for trains which are slow enough in any case.
I disagree - this is almost a 'Thameslink' for Manchester and helps distribute people across the city, stimulate demand and activity in other areas, and relieve Piccadilly. Deansgate is very handy for a lot of employment at the lower end of its namesake, decent for Spinngfields (if coming from that way, better than Salford Central perhaps), Castlefield, and newer builds out that way. Plus the Metrolink, which only keeps growing.
Manchester is big enough to support several stations - S Bahn style.
Manchester is big enough to support several stations - S Bahn style.
Altfish
Member
If HS2b ever gets built (including the now cut Scotland link) and HS3 I may agree. But currently that is the main line to Preston, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Chester and North Wales, it would be like stopping London trains at Levenshulme.
notlob.divad
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,609
Agree with Altfish with the added requirement of NPR first. If you are removing the Intercity trains from this corridor, and devoting it to commuter/ shopper flows from the suburbs and wider hinterland, then stopping at all stations makes sense. However if this is to remain the main route for intercity flows and direct links between those same major cities and the airport then 3 stops along this corridor are 2 stops too many.
To be honest, for this exact reason, I am still not 100% sure why the new chord has been built. I understand the issues on the Piccadilly throat and how sending them through Victoria is better, but I can't see why anyone would want to stay on an intercity train that has already stopped at Victoria, whilst it crawls through Salford Central, around the chord, through Deansgate and Oxford Road to finally get off at the most inaccessible platforms at Piccadilly. Pretty sure I could walk to anywhere in Manchester City Centre and beat whoever decided to do that. If I had any input on decisions I would have sent the extra 2 TPE trains to Chester and Blackpool in place of the Northern Connect Services and have done with it. There will still be 2 tph to/from Piccadilly across North TPE to provide connectivity, and the Castlefield corridor could have been devoted to services stopping at all stations.
Mostly for the Airport services; instead of the ~10 min time penalty from crossing the throat, they can go around the long way to Ashburys in the same amount of time. The NorwichLiverpool service is probably getting diverted through Vic at the same time.
This also allows 912 at Picc to get used more than they currently are due to constraints on the throat.
We would expect nothing less from you.
(But weren't you complaining about the loss of the pub associated with the 15/16 scheme?)
If I understand correctly then 12 plus 2 freight (would freight would actually run 2 times each hour?) is the requirement from the various franchises and from other comments this is seen as possible, if somewhat tight, given the 2 platforms at Piccadilly plus some signalling upgrades? 15 and 16 would be then needed for better reliability and if there was an agreement to run additional services. This would mean those additional services would need to show some good benefits to justify them above other projects. Infact if you were to spend money building NPR to relieve the corridor then those extra services would form part of the NPR business case.
Greybeard33
Established Member
A second hourly freight path has always been a required output from the Northern Hub, but I do not believe that can be fitted through Piccadilly 13/14 in addition to the planned 12 passenger services. I believe it was also intended that there should be a 4th hourly train around the Ordsall Chord, although that is not a commitment in the current Northern franchise agreement.
- Status