Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[dggar]

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.

There are some people who reckon Levenshulme will become a new gentrified area to rival Didsbury and Chorlton. I'm sure they'd welcome London trains stopping there.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

No, from previous discussions Oxford Road Platforms 3 and 4 cannot be used concurrently because of inadequate signal overlaps at the eastern end. When a train is signalled out of one platform, a second cannot be signalled into the other until the first has cleared the section. So there is no capacity advantage over using just one platform.

Platform 1 is too short for 5- or 6-car trains, and anyway there is no point in using it when westbound services are dispatched sequentially from a single platform at Piccadilly.

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.

Deansgate is too close to Castlefield Jn for all services to stop there. Trains must clear the junction as quickly as possible to achieve the required capacity.

 

[Chester1]

I think I'd rather see it closed totally than have everything stopping there.

Google "Owen Street, Manchester" 2 Skyscrapers are under construction and another two ready to start construction when the first 2 are completed next year. Gary Neville's Jackson Street Tower will be nearby and a 40 story office block next to the Beetham Tower has been granted approval. Its also the most convenient station for the two 36 story office blocks being built on the former Granada Studios site. 5 residential towers between 100m and 213m have planning permission near the Museum of Science and Industry and another at Deansgate locks is under construction. There is the demand to stop more services at Deansgate which is basically in the middle of Manchesters attempt to replicate Manhatten! It would also increase the number of people changing on or off Metrolink services which is currently low because of the poor service level at the station.

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.

That is the key issue. I can't see the project being funded in the current financial climate until the increase of 4tph has been analysed. I think the extra capacity will be quickly filled and services will be a bit unreliable leading to eventual approval of P15/16. Planning a jump in passenger services into the through platforms from 8tph to 18tph in a short space of time was with hindsight too ambitious.

 

[edwin_m]

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 Norwich–Liverpool service is probably getting diverted through Vic at the same time.

This also allows 9–12 at Picc to get used more than they currently are due to constraints on the throat.

Do you mean Ardwick rather than Ashburys? The Airport trains won't go through Ashburys as they will run via Ashton.

I've not heard of any plan to divert the Norwich-Liverpool and to do so would mean avoiding the important intermediate station of Stockport on the slower route via Marple, then even more time for the long trek round Ashburys and Miles Platting. It would also split the Sheffield services between the two Manchester stations while failing to concentrate all the faster Liverpool services on one station (there will still need to be a fast via CLC).

 

[CdBrux]

No, from previous discussions Oxford Road Platforms 3 and 4 cannot be used concurrently because of inadequate signal overlaps at the eastern end. When a train is signalled out of one platform, a second cannot be signalled into the other until the first has cleared the section. So there is no capacity advantage over using just one platform.

Platform 1 is too short for 5- or 6-car trains, and anyway there is no point in using it when westbound services are dispatched sequentially from a single platform at Piccadilly.


Deansgate is too close to Castlefield Jn for all services to stop there. Trains must clear the junction as quickly as possible to achieve the required capacity.

How solvable is that signalling?
Is platform 1 a possible help for a train of suitable length behind another that stops at Deansgate?

What is the reason that Oxford road is 4 through platforms vs Deansgate and Piccadilly as 2 each? Was it always overkill?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the reason that Oxford road is 4 through platforms vs Deansgate and Piccadilly as 2 each? Was it always overkill?

It was worked at least in part as a terminus, with tracks for DC EMUs towards Altrincham and for the other direction.

 

[Sceptre]

Do you mean Ardwick rather than Ashburys? The Airport trains won't go through Ashburys as they will run via Ashton.

I've not heard of any plan to divert the Norwich-Liverpool and to do so would mean avoiding the important intermediate station of Stockport on the slower route via Marple, then even more time for the long trek round Ashburys and Miles Platting. It would also split the Sheffield services between the two Manchester stations while failing to concentrate all the faster Liverpool services on one station (there will still need to be a fast via CLC).

Mostly I'm going from memory of the original Northern Hub document from 2010, which I believe discussed diverting Norwich–Liverpool via the Marple lines and some TPE services via Ashburys and Mile Platting. It's very possible that the ITT is different.

 

[Greybeard33]

How solvable is that signalling?
Is platform 1 a possible help for a train of suitable length behind another that stops at Deansgate?

The signalling is solvable by the Oxford Road remodelling project, which would extend the station westwards and provide four full length through platforms.

Deansgate would then be so close to the western end of Oxford Road that it would arguably become redundant. From another thread:

Deansgate is planned to close after Oxford Road is rebuilt so no point in installing barriers.

Not able to comment any further at the moment, sorry. There is a plan however for the Metrolink bridge to be linked by a moving walkway from Oxford Road station.

 

[Chester1]

The suggestions for closing Deansgate rely on removing Oxford Road platform 5 which relies on building Piccadilly platforms 15 and 16. Its all a good project but in total its probably going to cost £250-300m so I can't see it happening for a while.

 

[edwin_m]

There's little point in doing the Oxford Road remodelling unless Piccadilly 14/15 is also done, as Piccadilly would remain as the bottleneck (fewer platforms and more passengers).

 

[Joseph_Locke]

There's little point in doing the Oxford Road remodelling unless Piccadilly 14/15 is also done, as Piccadilly would remain as the bottleneck (fewer platforms and more passengers).

Not that straightforward; the signalling arrangement at Oxford Road is extremely restrictive in the Up direction, and Northern do crew changes there. There is point doing Oxford Road without Piccadilly, but none the other way round. Of course both is best, but that would be even better is Castlefield Junction was improved and Deansgate station removed...

 

[Chester1]

Not that straightforward; the signalling arrangement at Oxford Road is extremely restrictive in the Up direction, and Northern do crew changes there. There is point doing Oxford Road without Piccadilly, but none the other way round. Of course both is best, but that would be even better is Castlefield Junction was improved and Deansgate station removed...

What is the best way to improve Castlefield Junction?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

What is the best way to improve Castlefield Junction?

In descending order of final capacity:

1. Remove the need for it by four-tracking all the way from London Road Junction; or
2. Remove the need for it by taking away heavy rail services on the eastern half of the CLC and closing Trafford Park FLT (move to Port Salford?); or
3. Grade separate it by making use of the bridge currently being used for Metrolink's trams and close Deansgate; or
4. Remove the need for it by four tracking from just west of Oxford Road station and widen Deansgate; or
5. Locally widen the viaduct, replace it with a faster (30mph) junction, close Deansgate.

At least three of these have been examined previously and only the last one has any chance of being affordable, in my opinion.

 

[Chester1]

In descending order of final capacity:

1. Remove the need for it by four-tracking all the way from London Road Junction; or
2. Remove the need for it by taking away heavy rail services on the eastern half of the CLC and closing Trafford Park FLT (move to Port Salford?); or
3. Grade separate it by making use of the bridge currently being used for Metrolink's trams and close Deansgate; or
4. Remove the need for it by four tracking from just west of Oxford Road station and widen Deansgate; or
5. Locally widen the viaduct, replace it with a faster (30mph) junction, close Deansgate.

At least three of these have been examined previously and only the last one has any chance of being affordable, in my opinion.

What sort of capacity gain would option 5 provide when combined with resignalling Oxford Road but not doing platform 15/16? Would it allow an increase in capacity without building P15/16?

It seems there is no best solution short of upgrading everything! I am wary of closing Deansgate without massively improving Oxford Road and linking to Deansgate-Castlefield tram stop.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

My memory of the Northern Hub work was that it gave one extra path an hour but I am quite possibly wrong!

 

[Bletchleyite]

How much were the Oxford Road platforms being extended to reach that far? 11x23m?

Maybe a new station should be built, starting just west of the existing Oxford Road. But that'd be costly - a new bridge.

 

[Altfish]

How much were the Oxford Road platforms being extended to reach that far? 11x23m?

Maybe a new station should be built, starting just west of the existing Oxford Road. But that'd be costly - a new bridge.

IIRC they were being extended to enable them to be long enough for an 8-carriage set; ie 2x350/4 or equivalent.
Currently double 350/4s cannot fit in Oxford Road

 

[Altfish]

Google "Owen Street, Manchester" 2 Skyscrapers are under construction and another two ready to start construction when the first 2 are completed next year. Gary Neville's Jackson Street Tower will be nearby and a 40 story office block next to the Beetham Tower has been granted approval. Its also the most convenient station for the two 36 story office blocks being built on the former Granada Studios site. 5 residential towers between 100m and 213m have planning permission near the Museum of Science and Industry and another at Deansgate locks is under construction. There is the demand to stop more services at Deansgate which is basically in the middle of Manchesters attempt to replicate Manhatten! It would also increase the number of people changing on or off Metrolink services which is currently low because of the poor service level at the station.

BTW, I work in Manchester and can see the viaduct between Oxford Road and Deansgate as I type.
You can make that argument for an upgraded station just about anywhere. But practicalities of the delay to the train every time it stops (minimum 3-minutes?) converts the train from an express into a stopper. It is easy enough to catch a connecting train from Deansgate to Oxford Road or Piccadilly, there must be at least 4-trains an hour. Places with a lot more residents (Knutsford for example) would kill for that service.

 

[Greybeard33]

What sort of capacity gain would option 5 provide when combined with resignalling Oxford Road but not doing platform 15/16? Would it allow an increase in capacity without building P15/16?

It seems there is no best solution short of upgrading everything! I am wary of closing Deansgate without massively improving Oxford Road and linking to Deansgate-Castlefield tram stop.

An issue with doing Oxford Road without Piccadilly is that the bay platform would be lost. So the 2tph CLC stoppers would have to reverse in one of the through platforms, occupying the platform for about 10 minutes.

Even so, a net improvement in capacity. But once done, the BCR of carrying on to do Piccadilly 15/16 would become much better

 

[Altfish]

An issue with doing Oxford Road without Piccadilly is that the bay platform would be lost. So the 2tph CLC stoppers would have to reverse in one of the through platforms, occupying the platform for about 10 minutes.

Might be easier running them to Piccadilly and using the siding that the ATW services use...if they are not already occupied.

 

[Chester1]

BTW, I work in Manchester and can see the viaduct between Oxford Road and Deansgate as I type.
You can make that argument for an upgraded station just about anywhere. But practicalities of the delay to the train every time it stops (minimum 3-minutes?) converts the train from an express into a stopper. It is easy enough to catch a connecting train from Deansgate to Oxford Road or Piccadilly, there must be at least 4-trains an hour. Places with a lot more residents (Knutsford for example) would kill for that service.

Fair enough! I guess I assumed you are a southerner. I think closing Deansgate could work well if done correctly but if done badly it could discourage rail travel to the developments in the area. The design of any walk way between Deansgate-Castlefield stop and Oxford Road station would be very interesting.

An issue with doing Oxford Road without Piccadilly is that the bay platform would be lost. So the 2tph CLC stoppers would have to reverse in one of the through platforms, occupying the platform for about 10 minutes.

Even so, a net improvement in capacity. But once done, the BCR of carrying on to do Piccadilly 15/16 would become much better

It would be a challenge to make a 4 platform Oxford Road work without 15/16 being built.

Might be easier running them to Piccadilly and using the siding that the ATW services use...if they are not already occupied.

Arriva occupy the siding for the best part of an hour when services are not extended to the airport. Even with closing Deansgate and redoing Castlefield Junction + Oxford Road 14tph + 2 freight paths through Piccadilly might not work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An issue with doing Oxford Road without Piccadilly is that the bay platform would be lost. So the 2tph CLC stoppers would have to reverse in one of the through platforms, occupying the platform for about 10 minutes.



Even so, a net improvement in capacity. But once done, the BCR of carrying on to do Piccadilly 15/16 would become much better

Could the CLC service run to Picc reversing siding now ATW aren't using it?

 

[rebmcr]

An issue with doing Oxford Road without Piccadilly is that the bay platform would be lost. So the 2tph CLC stoppers would have to reverse in one of the through platforms, occupying the platform for about 10 minutes.

Even so, a net improvement in capacity. But once done, the BCR of carrying on to do Piccadilly 15/16 would become much better

Might be easier running them to Piccadilly and using the siding that the ATW services use...if they are not already occupied.

Or extend to terminate somewhere on the other side of Piccadilly (not Rose Hill Marple, you'd have to cross on the flat to go though Ardwick).

 

[Chester1]

Could the CLC service run to Picc reversing siding now ATW aren't using it?

ATW use it for the majority of their Llandudno services and their paths to Manchester Airport are only temporary.

Or extend to terminate somewhere on the other side of Piccadilly (not Rose Hill Marple, you'd have to cross on the flat to go though Ardwick).

The Airport line is full and so is Stockport viaduct. There is not a place to run a new service to so the CLC services would have to be combined with existing services. To avoid replacing a service that could be run by an EMU they would need to be either Buxton or Mid Cheshire line services. Even if they could be timetabled neither would be desirable, Buxton needs to be opperated by spinters and is ussually 4 coach. Chester-Manchester-Lime Street would take the best part of 3 hours and probably be unreliable. Therefore the chances are that CLC would then run under the wires on a service they are too small for.

It is all a mess and apart from upgrading everything there isn't an option without downsides. Extending and upgrading the waiting area above 13 and 14 then removing the waiting rooms, seats, partitions and information point from 13 and 14 is the only thing that is an immediately obviously likely to be funded.

 

[notlob.divad]

I seem to remember lots of people pointing this out when the new chord was initially proposed. Throwing more trains down this two track corridor was bound to cause problems.

From Mr Locke's list, the idea of shifting the freight container terminal out to Port Salford, Parkside or somewhere else simiar must surely be a sensible one. Also some national strategy to better utilise the Northern ports on both coasts and minimise running trains through major passenger stations.

 

[CdBrux]

An issue with doing Oxford Road without Piccadilly is that the bay platform would be lost. So the 2tph CLC stoppers would have to reverse in one of the through platforms, occupying the platform for about 10 minutes.

Even so, a net improvement in capacity. But once done, the BCR of carrying on to do Piccadilly 15/16 would become much better

OR could platform 1 be of assistance here?

 

[daodao]

The CLC line via Warrington Central should be electrified at 25kV. It shouldn't be prohibitively expensive to electrify, given that it no longer has any branches and both ends are already electrified. This would speed up the stopping service and allow these trains to be joined at the eastern end to existing local electric trains to the Airport/Alderley Edge/Macclesfield/Hazel Grove that currently terminate at Piccadilly.

 

[bluenoxid]

Are certain people who are trying to accommodate the two terminators at Oxford Road also not looking to recast the routes rather than squeeze amongst existing services. Don't know what should be diverted

If P1 disappears at Oxford Road, could a centre bay in the island be considered?

 

[Chester1]

I seem to remember lots of people pointing this out when the new chord was initially proposed. Throwing more trains down this two track corridor was bound to cause problems.

From Mr Locke's list, the idea of shifting the freight container terminal out to Port Salford, Parkside or somewhere else simiar must surely be a sensible one. Also some national strategy to better utilise the Northern ports on both coasts and minimise running trains through major passenger stations.

I would be surprised if the cost was less than £150m of P15/16 and is unlikely to bring the same benefits. There is no cheap option apart from wait and see what happens after the resignaling, Ordsall Chord completion and P13/14 + waiting area revamp.

The CLC line via Warrington Central should be electrified at 25kV. It shouldn't be prohibitively expensive to electrify, given that it no longer has any branches and both ends are already electrified. This would speed up the stopping service and allow these trains to be joined at the eastern end to existing local electric trains to the Airport/Alderley Edge/Macclesfield/Hazel Grove that currently terminate at Piccadilly.

A new electrification scheme? Not going to happen any time soon!

 

[Greybeard33]

ATW use it for the majority of their Llandudno services and their paths to Manchester Airport are only temporary.



The Airport line is full and so is Stockport viaduct. There is not a place to run a new service to so the CLC services would have to be combined with existing services. To avoid replacing a service that could be run by an EMU they would need to be either Buxton or Mid Cheshire line services. Even if they could be timetabled neither would be desirable, Buxton needs to be opperated by spinters and is ussually 4 coach. Chester-Manchester-Lime Street would take the best part of 3 hours and probably be unreliable. Therefore the chances are that CLC would then run under the wires on a service they are too small for.

It is all a mess and apart from upgrading everything there isn't an option without downsides. Extending and upgrading the waiting area above 13 and 14 then removing the waiting rooms, seats, partitions and information point from 13 and 14 is the only thing that is an immediately obviously likely to be funded.

There will be four Northern DMU services through Stockport, to New Mills Newtown, Buxton, Greenbank and Chester, so it ought to be possible to link two of them with the CLC stoppers. The issue is getting them through Piccadilly, which is why the Oxford Road remodelling and Piccadilly 15/16 are linked in an integrated package.

With the Oxford Road signalling constraints removed by the remodelling, it might be possible to use the A and B ends of 13 and 14 concurrently to improve throughput - pairs of trains moving in quick succession between Oxford Road and Piccadilly. The trouble is, that would exacerbate the platform crowding issue.