Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Chester1]

Kicking a decision into the long grass ussually means the project is useful but not neccessary. Further upgrades to the Piccadilly-Castlefield corridor currently fits this description. The government will want proof that the extra capacity provided is insufficient before funding more work.

 

[Senex]

Kicking a decision into the long grass ussually means the project is useful but not neccessary. Further upgrades to the Piccadilly-Castlefield corridor currently fits this description. The government will want proof that the extra capacity provided is insufficient before funding more work.

Though other European countries do tend to manage some future-proofing and have a long history of doing so. Our way of doing things means that the disturbance comes not once but several times and that quite possibly the overall costs end up higher. This isn't just a matter of railways, for roads would offer just as good an example (a very local one being the case of the York ring-road with its history of piecemeal changes when everyone recognises what the only satisfactory solution has to be). But then Britain is so different from other places in Europe ....

 

[Chester1]

Though other European countries do tend to manage some future-proofing and have a long history of doing so. Our way of doing things means that the disturbance comes not once but several times and that quite possibly the overall costs end up higher. This isn't just a matter of railways, for roads would offer just as good an example (a very local one being the case of the York ring-road with its history of piecemeal changes when everyone recognises what the only satisfactory solution has to be). But then Britain is so different from other places in Europe ....

There is a difference between future proofing and gold plating which is demonstrated by the absurd overspends on electrification. For instance the decision to cut back the Wrexham redoubling to 5.5 miles providing only 1tph of extra capacity when 7.5 miles would have provided an extra 3tph was short sighted because of the significant extra cost of doing the extra 2 miles as a seperate project and because it is needed in the near future. Piccadilly-Castlefield upgrades are less dependent on each other and can be done seperately. There is not a significant added construction cost of building P15/16 years after the Ordsall Chord for instance. It is also not clear that 12/14tph is insufficient. It could be several years before this is clearly inadequate.

 

[Senex]

There is a difference between future proofing and gold plating which is demonstrated by the absurd overspends on electrification. For instance the decision to cut back the Wrexham redoubling to 5.5 miles providing only 1tph of extra capacity when 7.5 miles would have provided an extra 3tph was short sighted because of the significant extra cost of doing the extra 2 miles as a seperate project and because it is needed in the near future. Piccadilly-Castlefield upgrades are less dependent on each other and can be done seperately. There is not a significant added construction cost of building P15/16 years after the Ordsall Chord for instance. It is also not clear that 12/14tph is insufficient. It could be several years before this is clearly inadequate.

I'm not going to disagree with your first sentence at all, but we shall have to agree to differ on how well and properly the Manchester area is being treated in comparison with the sort of railway investment we have seen in cities other than capitals in a number of European countries in recent years, where major schemes with good forward-looking provision have been carried through. Manchester is my own main interest, but much the same could be said of Leeds and Liverpool—Leeds being a case of where the major investment that was carried out just a few years ago is already proving inadequate for the demands being made upon it. I suspend judgement on Manchester-Leeds plans for the moment, as we wait to be told just what the infrastructure plans are. But I can't help comparing the northern investment with the brilliant job NR has done at Reading, providing a fine high-speed alignment and facilities that should be good for quite some years to come. And wasn't all that done on time and on budget?

 

[TheGarner]

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.

Somewhat new here, when is this going to happen? I currently travel from Warrington Central > Manchester Piccadilly on the 6:45 service. So I assume this train would then be routed to Victoria as its a TPE train.

 

[Geeves]

Unfortunately not as the TPE that currently goes to Warrington is being diverted to Newton Le Willows line so can no longer call at sunny Warrington. How ever Northern will run an express service in its place using new 195 DMUs when they arrive.

 

[TheGarner]

Unfortunately not as the TPE that currently goes to Warrington is being diverted to Newton Le Willows line so can no longer call at sunny Warrington. How ever Northern will run an express service in its place using new 195 DMUs when they arrive.

Cheers for the info. Do we have a rough estimate on when these changes are taking place?

 

[158756]

On another point, is there actually any point lengthening the platforms at Oxford Road now that 5 cars is the maximum train length for the foreseeable future?

 

[notlob.divad]

Cheers for the info. Do we have a rough estimate on when these changes are taking place?

It was originally supposed to be the December 2017 timetable change. However I am led to believe the delays to electrification of Manchester - Blackpool, means it is being pushed back until May 2018.

In essence the current TPE Liverpool - Scarborough and Northern Liverpool - Manchester Airport, are swapping, so for you journeys too the nearest two cities should see little change, however if you want to make journeys beyond Manchester, you may find yourself having to change trains, or use Warrington Bank Quay instead.

 

[158756]

It was originally supposed to be the December 2017 timetable change. However I am led to believe the delays to electrification of Manchester - Blackpool, means it is being pushed back until May 2018.

In essence the current TPE Liverpool - Scarborough and Northern Liverpool - Manchester Airport, are swapping, so for you journeys too the nearest two cities should see little change, however if you want to make journeys beyond Manchester, you may find yourself having to change trains, or use Warrington Bank Quay instead.

If you use Warrington Bank Quay you'll probably still want to change in Manchester anyway, because the Calder Valley line (which the through services to Leeds will travel on) is so slow.

 

[Chester1]

On another point, is there actually any point lengthening the platforms at Oxford Road now that 5 cars is the maximum train length for the foreseeable future?

It depends on whether closing Deansgate and remodelling Castlefield Junction is chosen over Piccadilly P15/16. If there was no need to terminate any services at Oxford Road, the line was being resignalled and a walkway built to Deansgate-Castlefield tram stop then it would be simpler and perhaps cheaper to remove platform 5. With no signalling issues and the space to extend it might as well be done at the same time. I doubt that project will be done any time soon though! CP6 does not end until 2024 and the next TPE or Northern franchise ITT might specify longer trains, so its plausible it could be done by 2024 if either Piccadilly P15/16 or rebuild of Castlefield Junction was done.

 

[notlob.divad]

On another point, is there actually any point lengthening the platforms at Oxford Road now that 5 cars is the maximum train length for the foreseeable future?

Option B of the TPE franchise agreement New EMU stock is for 7 x 6 coach EMUs Option C is for 7 x 8 coach EMUs. Depending on how you define 'foreseeable'*, it could be the case if the Manchester - Scotland service becomes ever increasingly popular, 8 coach trains could be ordered for that.

*It has been foreseen that it maybe needed so has been included as an option in the current franchise agreement.

 

[PR1Berske]

It depends on whether closing Deansgate and remodelling Castlefield Junction is chosen over Piccadilly P15/16. If there was no need to terminate any services at Oxford Road, the line was being resignalled and a walkway built to Deansgate-Castlefield tram stop then it would be simpler and perhaps cheaper to remove platform 5. With no signalling issues and the space to extend it might as well be done at the same time. I doubt that project will be done any time soon though! CP6 does not end until 2024 and the next TPE or Northern franchise ITT might specify longer trains, so its plausible it could be done by 2024 if either Piccadilly P15/16 or rebuild of Castlefield Junction was done.

I'm already daydreaming thanks to this thread about closing both Deansgate and Oxford Road and opening up "Manchester Medlock Street" in their stead...

 

[TheGarner]

It was originally supposed to be the December 2017 timetable change. However I am led to believe the delays to electrification of Manchester - Blackpool, means it is being pushed back until May 2018.

In essence the current TPE Liverpool - Scarborough and Northern Liverpool - Manchester Airport, are swapping, so for you journeys too the nearest two cities should see little change, however if you want to make journeys beyond Manchester, you may find yourself having to change trains, or use Warrington Bank Quay instead.

Ah thanks. Nope, I just get off at Piccadilly as that's the easier way for me to get to work. I only travel between Warrington Central and Manchester Piccadilly.

 

[6Gman]

Do you want to get into the fight with Merseytravel over who pays for the fitting of a huge number of pantographs to its fleet of new units, and pays for their ongoing maintenance?

The CLC is not the route between Liverpool and Manchester likely to have express traffic in the future. If anything the service should broken at Warrington CEntral and service west of their handed to Merseyrail with a third rail extension.
But that won't happen.

But 25kV electrification certainly is never going to happen.

But what about the Liverpool Airport traffic?

 

[urbophile]

Posted by Senex: 'the disturbance comes not once but several times and that quite possibly the overall costs end up higher. ' must be the understatement of the year.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I'm already daydreaming thanks to this thread about closing both Deansgate and Oxford Road and opening up "Manchester Medlock Street" in their stead...

As I suggested in post #119:

Which all goes to show the difficulty in establishing value for money when spending public money: easiest/laziest solution for the Treasury is to keep kicking it into the long grass or let regional bodies somehow find the funds. It may well be that the best scheme would be the biggest ie grade separation at Ordsall Lane, replacement of Deansgate and Oxford Road stations with something rather bigger along Whitworth Street, Piccadilly 15/16, grade separation Wimbledon/Ilford style (of the Up Slow including elevated junction with the Up Styal) at Slade Lane and a burrowing junction for the Down Hope Valley at Edgeley. Still much cheaper than the suggestion in another thread to six-track Stockport to Piccadilly!

though strictly speaking I should have said Whitworth Street West. Certainly Manchester Medlock Street would be an accurate location based name.

 

[158756]

Option B of the TPE franchise agreement New EMU stock is for 7 x 6 coach EMUs Option C is for 7 x 8 coach EMUs. Depending on how you define 'foreseeable'*, it could be the case if the Manchester - Scotland service becomes ever increasingly popular, 8 coach trains could be ordered for that.

*It has been foreseen that it maybe needed so has been included as an option in the current franchise agreement.

If that happens it'd be much cheaper to skip Oxford Road rather than spend huge amounts of money on the station and signalling for an occasional train which is unlikely to run within the next ten years.

 

[Greybeard33]

On another point, is there actually any point lengthening the platforms at Oxford Road now that 5 cars is the maximum train length for the foreseeable future?

Yes the longer platforms at Oxford Road would be of benefit even with 5-car maximum train length. Eastbound they would remove the signalling restriction so that trains could alternate between Platforms 3 and 4, increasing capacity. Westbound they would enable the 5-car trains to use Platform 1, again increasing capacity.

With two platforms in each direction used alternately at Oxford Road, the double length Platforms 13/14 at Piccadilly could achieve their maximum capacity.

 

[jayah]

Fixing point 1 would help fix all three

31x3 EMUs and is it 25x2 DMUs. With all the PRM compliance one will be far less capacious than a 323 the other less than a 150.

They should start at 4 and look for 8 and if the loadings don't justify it start thinning the service.

Andy Burnham loves moaning about the south but you don't see many 100 seat trains at Waterloo at any time of day.

 

[Elecman]

31x3 EMUs and is it 25x2 DMUs. With all the PRM compliance one will be far less capacious than a 323 the other less than a 150.

They should start at 4 and look for 8 and if the loadings don't justify it start thinning the service.

Andy Burnham loves moaning about the south but you don't see many 100 seat trains at Waterloo at any time of day.

If you want to generate traffic you don't thin services, the more regular/often the service the better

 

[158756]

If you want to generate traffic you don't thin services, the more regular/often the service the better

And hence why Northern loses so much money, because it runs frequent trains carrying one man and his dog. If you ran fewer the trains you did run would probably be busier but carry fewer passengers overall.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

And hence why Northern loses so much money, because it runs frequent trains carrying one man and his dog. If you ran fewer the trains you did run would probably be busier but carry fewer passengers overall.

The service frequencies are set by the franchise specification, not by Northern. In PTE areas there is a lot of local input but the whole thing is signed off by the DfT. If you seriously want to reduce that aspect of Northern's costs then feel free to suggest that to them but I doubt that you'll find much support for the idea! And I don't know which trains you see so poorly occupied but be assured there are a lot of very busy trains on Northern's network and not just in the peak hours. Your generalisation is wide of the mark.

 

[jayah]

If you want to generate traffic you don't thin services, the more regular/often the service the better

The objective isn't just to carry more and more people on exponentially increasing subsidies. Madness.

When you have wedged the network in Manchester with 100 seat trains and demand Whitehall pay £20bn for upgrades it is long overdue to get the house in order.

 

[lejog]

The objective isn't just to carry more and more people on exponentially increasing subsidies. Madness.

When you have wedged the network in Manchester with 100 seat trains and demand Whitehall pay £20bn for upgrades it is long overdue to get the house in order.

The yearly subsidy to Northern is targeted to reduce from £250m to £90m by the end of the current franchise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you want to generate traffic you don't thin services, the more regular/often the service the better

Within reason. I'd rather a reliable, punctual 2tph than an unreliable, unpunctual 4tph, say.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that happens it'd be much cheaper to skip Oxford Road rather than spend huge amounts of money on the station and signalling for an occasional train which is unlikely to run within the next ten years.

To be fair, when they were run by ICXC and HST/Mk2 they didn't stop there. Only the 158 "CrossCountry Express" services did.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The best way of stimulating demand is to increase frequency. The railway has significant fixed costs which apply regardless of the level of traffic, so in the long term the best thing to do is to take a short term hit on profitability/subsidy levels to stimulate traffic growth. Making significant reductions in subsidy levels, or increases in profit, is much easier from that point on.

Manchester has another option, which is to provide that extra frequency using Metrolink rather than Northern. Ramping up frequencies is much cheaper on Metrolink since everything is cheaper - the vehicles, the staffing, and most importantly the infrastructure. Adding another 10tph through Victoria or the Castlefield corridor would cost a lot of money, but you could probably get away without any real changes on the street-running section. In the worse case scenario you just need to build a Third City Crossing, which would then allow higher frequencies on other profitable branches so the financial impact wouldn't be too bad. Then, with the released capacity on the NR infrastructure, you can optimise the heavy rail services for revenue maximisation.

 

[Mathew S]

I've been wondering about using the Met like this for a while. The new franchise operator is apparently planning to introduce a new signalling/comms/'Tram Management System' which, if done right, could easily allow 60-90sec service frequency on much of the system.

Also think they missed a trick with the Oxford Road roadworks over the last couple of years. With the uni and hospitals down there, they should have extended the Met to MCO and down Oxford Road imho. Certainly a higher priority than the just begun Trafford Park line.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[jayah]

The yearly subsidy to Northern is targeted to reduce from £250m to £90m by the end of the current franchise.

Does that include the PTE subsidies and Network Grant?