Could Manchester Victoria ever be expanded in future?

[Chester1]

Demolish the Arena is sadly the starting price for all that, or rebuilding all the structures westward from Victoria to about the site of Deal St. Box (it is a mugger's buddle of odd decks, arches, side spans and holes). Unless it turns out that the entire GDP of the North is being strangled by capacity through Victoria I doubt the funds will never appear to do either .

I wasn't supporting perpetual five-car, BTW, just missed a , a or possibly a .

What about building over the gap in viaducts at the end of Mirabel Street, building two west terminating platforms there, replacing both footbridges to extend platforms 3-6 by 15m at each end and build an entrance and exit at the end of Hunts Bank? Would that be viable on a sensible budget if the new capacity at Stalybridge and Rochdale proves insufficient?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

What about building over the gap in viaducts at the end of Mirabel Street, building two west terminating platforms there, replacing both footbridges to extend platforms 3-6 by 15m at each end and build an entrance and exit at the end of Hunts Bank? Would that be viable on a sensible budget if the new capacity at Stalybridge and Rochdale proves insufficient?

Even if you slewed the approach to platform 6 southwards to make more room you would still be lucky to get even 100m length of platform. Not terribly useful for the longer trains which will inevitably come into use in the future. And a new entrance at Hunts Bank/Victoria Street might very well cause problems with ensuring the emergency escape routes from the Arena would still comply with necessary regulations. All in all any meaningful expansion by way of additional platforms at Victoria, as Joseph_Locke has suggested, would need the Arena to be demolished first. An extremely low probability event.

 

[Chester1]

Even if you slewed the approach to platform 6 southwards to make more room you would still be lucky to get even 100m length of platform. Not terribly useful for the longer trains which will inevitably come into use in the future. And a new entrance at Hunts Bank/Victoria Street might very well cause problems with ensuring the emergency escape routes from the Arena would still comply with necessary regulations. All in all any meaningful expansion by way of additional platforms at Victoria, as Joseph_Locke has suggested, would need the Arena to be demolished first. An extremely low probability event.

There is already enough space for an 100m platform along the northern boundary of the approach, scewing the track would allow for a longer platform. A platform 7 of ~80m and a platform 8 of ~115m would be useful, I very much doubt that all services into Victoria from the west will be more than 5x23m or 4x20m! Platforms 1 and 2 are useful despite being short. I will trust @Joseph_Locke that a significant increase in capacity would require an enormous rebuild but what about squeezing a little bit out of the existing site? Replacing and moving the footbridges at the ends of platforms 3-6 could help by extending them by about 30m turning 254m, 224m, 215m and 215m into 284m, 254m, 245m and 245m. For instance it would allow all 4 through platforms to fit 2 separate units of 5x23m. Possibly there is enough space to extend 3 and 6 further, 3 was once the longest platform in the UK! Extra through platforms would be useful but they are not necessary for the forseeable future.

 

[B&I]

I deliberately talked about Manchester and its Salford twin: as such Salford Quays/IWMN form the western limit of the commercial core. Likewise the Hospitals/University district to the south. The sports facilities certainly generate crowds but are only used sparingly across the year so don't justify significant public expenditure just by themselves. That leaves the specialist hospitals, used by relatively small numbers of people, and the Trafford Centre which is likely to get a Metrolink connection at some point. I stand by my point that Manchester's general transport needs are overwhelmingly about serving the core though in meeting these needs it is often possible to incorporate benefits to outlying areas too.

This is why a station on the CLC lines, connected to the Pomona tram stop and with a pedestrian bridge across to Salford Quays, would be a very good idea.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

There is already enough space for an 100m platform along the northern boundary of the approach, scewing the track would allow for a longer platform. A platform 7 of ~80m and a platform 8 of ~115m would be useful, I very much doubt that all services into Victoria from the west will be more than 5x23m or 4x20m! Platforms 1 and 2 are useful despite being short. I will trust @Joseph_Locke that a significant increase in capacity would require an enormous rebuild but what about squeezing a little bit out of the existing site? Replacing and moving the footbridges at the ends of platforms 3-6 could help by extending them by about 30m turning 254m, 224m, 215m and 215m into 284m, 254m, 245m and 245m. For instance it would allow all 4 through platforms to fit 2 separate units of 5x23m. Possibly there is enough space to extend 3 and 6 further, 3 was once the longest platform in the UK! Extra through platforms would be useful but they are not necessary for the forseeable future.

There are already plenty of trains today formed 4x20m which depart full, and not just in the pm peak. Remember that within the network of lines serving Manchester the strongest growth in recent years has been on the Bolton and Atherton lines, both served from Victoria (and exclusively so in the case of the Atherton line). However extending platforms 3 & 6 to provide additional flexibility would be quite doable if the need should arise.

 

[Chester1]

This is why a station on the CLC lines, connected to the Pomona tram stop and with a pedestrian bridge across to Salford Quays, would be a very good idea.

That would require a lot of money, the Bridgewater canal passes between the lines and the road access from the Bridgewater way to the railway could not be used for regular traffic. Exchange Quay has very high commuter demand but has no leisure or retail destinations and relatively few flats. Even with a bridge and a very direct walking route it would be at least half a mile to Salford Quays and over a mile to the Lowry and Media City. The cheaper option would be a station at Cornbrook where the line runs next to Metrolink and it would allow Deansgate stops to be removed from CLC services and switched to other services that cannot currently stop there.

 

[B&I]

That would require a lot of money, the Bridgewater canal passes between the lines and the road access from the Bridgewater way to the railway could not be used for regular traffic. Exchange Quay has very high commuter demand but has no leisure or retail destinations and relatively few flats. Even with a bridge and a very direct walking route it would be at least half a mile to Salford Quays and over a mile to the Lowry and Media City. The cheaper option would be a station at Cornbrook where the line runs next to Metrolink and it would allow Deansgate stops to be removed from CLC services and switched to other services that cannot currently stop there.

The canal can be easily bridged. The same bridge could serve the tram stop and the walking route to Salford Quays, and the tram would get people to the further reaches. Road access is unlikely to be a priority. The main point of this is to facilitate access to Salford quays from the south-west without a long double-back via the city centre.

 

[edwin_m]

Cornbrook is probably a better option than Pomona. Although it requires extra time for Eccles line passengers to double back, this would partly be offset by the shorter walking time with the lines right next to each other. It also allows interchange with the Altrincham, Didsbury and Airport lines.

 

[Chester1]

The canal can be easily bridged. The same bridge could serve the tram stop and the walking route to Salford Quays, and the tram would get people to the further reaches. Road access is unlikely to be a priority. The main point of this is to facilitate access to Salford quays from the south-west without a long double-back via the city centre.

That would be quite a long bridge. As I said Exchange Quay has large commuter flows and thats about it. Pomona is too far from the main area of the quays to be popular for walking from. If people are transferring to Metrolink they might as well do it at Cornbrook which would also provide connections with East Didsbury, Altrincham and Airport lines.

There are already plenty of trains today formed 4x20m which depart full, and not just in the pm peak. Remember that within the network of lines serving Manchester the strongest growth in recent years has been on the Bolton and Atherton lines, both served from Victoria (and exclusively so in the case of the Atherton line). However extending platforms 3 & 6 to provide additional flexibility would be quite doable if the need should arise.

We are still a long way off Victoria, Oxford Road or Piccadilly being full. There are options for longer trains and swapping services too maximise capacity. Short platforms at smaller stations in Greater Manchester are a larger constraint on capacity.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If anyone thinks back to what the ground land area between Salford Central and Manchester Exchange was like fifty years ago (I am 73 years of age) compared the newly constructed buildings that have made this area far more vibrant and fit for the 21st century and also look at the arena and also the new buildings that now occupy the once-depressing land space between the River Irk and Cheetham Hill Road, this is far better for the city than any aspirational extensions to a four through platform station.

Why cannot certain people accept the halcyon days of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway ended some 96 years ago in 1922 and think of what actually transpires in 2018. The electrification ceases at the east end of Manchester Victoria so there is no Liverpool - Manchester Victoria onward electric services through Rochdale and Hebden Bridge into West Yorkshire that would be a useful modern adjunct to the transportation needs of that line area.

 

[lejog]

What about building over the gap in viaducts at the end of Mirabel Street, building two west terminating platforms there, replacing both footbridges to extend platforms 3-6 by 15m at each end and build an entrance and exit at the end of Hunts Bank? Would that be viable on a sensible budget if the new capacity at Stalybridge and Rochdale proves insufficient?

Given that it already exists, wouldn't it be cheaper just to run "terminating" trains from the west through to the little used turning point at Brewery Junction, 3 minutes east of Victoria? IIRC Northern planned to do that with the 2 Atherton stoppers in the original May timetable, with only a single Preston EMU per hour actually turning in the station.

 

[B&I]

Cornbrook is probably a better option than Pomona. Although it requires extra time for Eccles line passengers to double back, this would partly be offset by the shorter walking time with the lines right next to each other. It also allows interchange with the Altrincham, Didsbury and Airport lines.

I'd like to see both. Cornbrook is a densely enough developed area to justify local trains stopping and, as you point out, it would be a good interchange point with the south Manchester trams

 

[Chester1]

If anyone thinks back to what the ground land area between Salford Central and Manchester Exchange was like fifty years ago (I am 73 years of age) compared the newly constructed buildings that have made this area far more vibrant and fit for the 21st century and also look at the arena and also the new buildings that now occupy the once-depressing land space between the River Irk and Cheetham Hill Road, this is far better for the city than any aspirational extensions to a four through platform station.

Why cannot certain people accept the halcyon days of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway ended some 96 years ago in 1922 and think of what actually transpires in 2018. The electrification ceases at the east end of Manchester Victoria so there is no Liverpool - Manchester Victoria onward electric services through Rochdale and Hebden Bridge into West Yorkshire that would be a useful modern adjunct to the transportation needs of that line area.

Glad someone of your generation thinks that! Building the arena on part of the old station has become a nuisance to rail planners 25 years later but the station is not at capacity and there are still options left for small and increases in capacity without enormous spending. The area certainly has improved in recent years thanks to the arena and other developments.

I would prioritise extending Oxford Road to take 8x20m and double 802 and 397 sets over expanding Victoria. It is astounding that Oxford Road cannot accommodate 160m sets without fouling junctions and using SDO! I would remove platform 5 to extend 1-4 and run CLC stoppers through Piccadilly. Without extra through platforms at Piccadilly removing Oxford Road platform 5 would limit services through the Castlefield corridor to 12tph. From May 11tph will serve Piccadilly platforms 13 and 14 and 2tph will terminate at Oxford Road. To fit 12tph and allow the Caldervale Ordsall Chord service to start the ATW service and one of the 3 Blackpool North / Preston - Oxford Road / Piccadilly services per hour could be moved to Victoria.

Given that it already exists, wouldn't it be cheaper just to run "terminating" trains from the west through to the little used turning point at Brewery Junction, 3 minutes east of Victoria? IIRC Northern planned to do that with the 2 Atherton stoppers in the original May timetable, with only a single Preston EMU per hour actually turning in the station.

That would be using the existing platforms and capacity, the subject of the thread is could Victoria be expanded.

 

[lejog]

That would be using the existing platforms and capacity, the subject of the thread is could Victoria be expanded.

Being accused of being off-topic by someone who's been posting about Pomona, Cornbrook and the Casttlefield corridor is a bit much. If you want expansion, how about further turning points, perhaps on the other little used line on the four track Calder Valley line or elsewhere in the Miles Platting area? Rather cheaper than west facing bays, I think.

 

[Chester1]

Being accused of being off-topic by someone who's been posting about Pomona, Cornbrook and the Casttlefield corridor is a bit much. If you want expansion, how about further turning points, perhaps on the other little used line on the four track Calder Valley line or elsewhere in the Miles Platting area? Rather cheaper than west facing bays, I think.

I posted in response to another member on Ponoma and Cornbrook. I wasn't accusing you of being off topic but rather missing the point. Using existing turnbacks does not add capacity it would use exisiting capacity.

Adding further turnbacks would provide more options to serve areas west but not east of Victoria without blocking through platforms but wouldn't really increase the number of through services that the station could handle. How many EMU services will even use Victoria, just Liverpool and Blackpool? The current Bromley Street work should be sufficient for them and any DMUs can run through to Leeds, Stalybridge, Rochdale etc. I am not stating west facing platforms are necessary yet just that there are options for capacity increases without an enormous rebuild.

 

[lejog]

If that's the case then I have to question your claims of increased capacity for bay platforms. Neither turnbacks nor bay platforms increase overall capacity, they both ensure through capacity is not eaten up by dwell times of terminating trains.

The use of turnbacks effectively turns all services into through services, so yes each "terminator" uses up a through path. However as was pointed out by Shawn S Hunter in post #32, bay platforms reduce the through platform capacity through conflicts as trains enter/leave the bay and cross the through lines. So Overall again no increase in capacity.

 

[Chester1]

If that's the case then I have to question your claims of increased capacity for bay platforms. Neither turnbacks nor bay platforms increase overall capacity, they both ensure through capacity is not eaten up by dwell times of terminating trains.

The use of turnbacks effectively turns all services into through services, so yes each "terminator" uses up a through path. However as was pointed out by Shawn S Hunter in post #32, bay platforms reduce the through platform capacity through conflicts as trains enter/leave the bay and cross the through lines. So Overall again no increase in capacity.

I am not entirely convinced that would be a large number of conflicts with 4 tracks running all the between Victoria and Salford Central. Platforms 1 and 2 are still useful despite there being fewer services terminating from the east and creating some conflicts. Its all theoretical until we see how the new timetable and rolling stock works out. My top wish for Victoria would be some heated waiting room pods like at Oxford Road. Its pretty awful to wait on the platforms in the winter and there is sufficient space.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

My response was specific to the question - there is much to be had at Victoria simply by ceasing to use it as pairs of connected bays and start using it as quite nice four-through-platform station, for through trains. So, rather than (certainly) 9 digit sums spent on Vic, lets wire to Stalyvegas (both ways) and Roachdale and use Vic. properly; much more cost effective.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My response was specific to the question - there is much to be had at Victoria simply by ceasing to use it as pairs of connected bays and start using it as quite nice four-through-platform station, for through trains. So, rather than (certainly) 9 digit sums spent on Vic, lets wire to Stalyvegas (both ways) and Roachdale and use Vic. properly; much more cost effective.

You voice my feelings on the matter exactly, but would the matter of continuing the electrification to both Stalybridge and to Rochdale be allowed under the recent embargo on electrification projects that was announced?

 

[Senex]

My response was specific to the question - there is much to be had at Victoria simply by ceasing to use it as pairs of connected bays and start using it as quite nice four-through-platform station, for through trains. So, rather than (certainly) 9 digit sums spent on Vic, lets wire to Stalyvegas (both ways) and Roachdale and use Vic. properly; much more cost effective.

But that would require a measure of common sense and rational thinking ....

 

[MarkyT]

My response was specific to the question - there is much to be had at Victoria simply by ceasing to use it as pairs of connected bays and start using it as quite nice four-through-platform station, for through trains. So, rather than (certainly) 9 digit sums spent on Vic, lets wire to Stalyvegas (both ways) and Roachdale and use Vic. properly; much more cost effective.

You voice my feelings on the matter exactly, but would the matter of continuing the electrification to both Stalybridge and to Rochdale be allowed under the recent embargo on electrification projects that was announced?

I agree. Each platform should be able to accommodate at least 12tph, maybe up to 16tph stopping, but all working through the station, none reversing there. In London, with advanced ETCS signalling, Thameslink plan to run up to 24tph in each direction through the double track core and stations core, and they will be mostly 12 car trains.

Are there mid platfrom signals at Victoria? Even with them, using through platforms from both ends as connected bays can be particularly restrictive because (unless both incoming routes have clear overlaps between them) the first movement from one end has to come to a stand before the second starts moving in from the other. It can totally sap potential capacity. It would probably be better to put some temporary buffer stops in the middle on one of the platfroms in the short term and alter the signalling to make them function as genuine bays in order that simultaneous moves could take place.

 

[HSTEd]

Are the approach tracks grouped by direction or by use?

If they were, or could be modified at resignalling, into paired by use that would reduce conflicts coming from the West and make the timetable more resilient.
It would also allow turnarounds without crossing moves.

 

[edwin_m]

Are the approach tracks grouped by direction or by use?

If they were, or could be modified at resignalling, into paired by use that would reduce conflicts coming from the West and make the timetable more resilient.
It would also allow turnarounds without crossing moves.

They are paired by use and this does minimise conflicts at Victoria. For example TPE runs between the Stalybridge and Chat Moss lines so uses the southern pair of tracks.

 

[cle]

Will the Calder - Chester service be problematic in that case?

And should the Calder services running into the bays (which cross the eastern ‘throat’) extend to run through the northern pair of lines more? With anything using the bays being towards Stalybridge?

Maybe not yet but eventually there will be similar issues as at Piccadilly regarding capacity and crossing moves.

 

[edwin_m]

Will the Calder - Chester service be problematic in that case?

And should the Calder services running into the bays (which cross the eastern ‘throat’) extend to run through the northern pair of lines more? With anything using the bays being towards Stalybridge?

Maybe not yet but eventually there will be similar issues as at Piccadilly regarding capacity and crossing moves.

Calder-Chester and any Calder services via the Ordsall Curve (lost track of whether/when those are starting!) will have to cross over in the vicinity of Victoria, as they have to do now to terminate in the bays. I can't see the bays being much use for Stalybridge services, as the fact some services have been extended to Stalybridge mainly to avoid reversing at Victoria shows there is more need to terminate from the west than from the east.

 

[Chester1]

Calder-Chester and any Calder services via the Ordsall Curve (lost track of whether/when those are starting!) will have to cross over in the vicinity of Victoria, as they have to do now to terminate in the bays. I can't see the bays being much use for Stalybridge services, as the fact some services have been extended to Stalybridge mainly to avoid reversing at Victoria shows there is more need to terminate from the west than from the east.

The 6tpd off peak Northern services across the chord are being cut back to Victoria on 20th May to save a DMU but TPE will run its full new timetable providing a half hourly service between Victoria and the Airport. I think the plan is to run Caldervale service to the Airport in December. There is no plan to run a fourth service for the forseeable future because there is no spare capacity through the Castlefield corridor now that extra through platforms at Piccadilly have been delayed for an unknown time. Hopefully some warm waiting space will be provided and an ATM too, both are pretty basic facilties for a Victoria after it becomes the main TPE station for Manchester.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

But that would require a measure of common sense and rational thinking ....

The drought of such things within The Department will never put me or my colleagues trying to make it happen. Ordsall Chord occupied a little over a third of my career so far - one gets resigned to being the grain of sand that eventually irritates the Department sufficiently to produce a pearl, though I doubt I'll see anything I'm currently working on actually being built within the rest of my working life.

 

[lejog]

Will the Calder - Chester service be problematic in that case?

And should the Calder services running into the bays (which cross the eastern ‘throat’) extend to run through the northern pair of lines more? With anything using the bays being towards Stalybridge?

Maybe not yet but eventually there will be similar issues as at Piccadilly regarding capacity and crossing moves.

You would hope not, since by the end of 2019 there will be 3 Calder. Valley services running towards Chat Moss and the Ordsall Chord (the Northern Connect services to Chester, Airport and Liverpool) with 4 running towards Salford Crescent (2 Rochdale to Blackburn and Leeds and Todmorden Curve to Southport.). If Northern had been allowed to run the Tod Curve service to the Airport as they wanted, then it would have been a majority of Calder Valley services heading that way.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Are there mid platfrom signals at Victoria? Even with them, using through platforms from both ends as connected bays can be particularly restrictive because (unless both incoming routes have clear overlaps between them) the first movement from one end has to come to a stand before the second starts moving in from the other. It can totally sap potential capacity. It would probably be better to put some temporary buffer stops in the middle on one of the platfroms in the short term and alter the signalling to make them function as genuine bays in order that simultaneous moves could take place.

No mid platform signals but the platforms are passed for permissive working. Generally this is used to bring in trains from the same direction into the same platform during peak hours. However it does see use at other times too. At one time 2055 to Rochdale, 2100 to Clitheroe and 2110 to Wigan all left from platform 3 with all units having arrived separately and been present at the same time. Much scope for passenger confusion but the dispatchers at Victoria did a fine job dealing with it. Indeed effective dispatchers can make quite a difference in keeping our busiest stations running and they do not get enough credit for it.

 

[cle]

You would hope not, since by the end of 2019 there will be 3 Calder. Valley services running towards Chat Moss and the Ordsall Chord (the Northern Connect services to Chester, Airport and Liverpool) with 4 running towards Salford Crescent (2 Rochdale to Blackburn and Leeds and Todmorden Curve to Southport.). If Northern had been allowed to run the Tod Curve service to the Airport as they wanted, then it would have been a majority of Calder Valley services heading that way.

So am I right in thinking that under the Dec 2019 timetable you describe, Rochdale to Victoria will have 7tph, assuming all will stop. If so, quite a healthy frequency for that route. Definitely helps the case for future wires if so, and I imagine ridership will increase a lot - especially if at that frequency, fast journeys can be made possible. When is the last time signalling or line speed improvements were made?