Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[driver_m]

The entire thing is a complete farce. Consider:

Open an extra two tracks from Deansgate down to Piccadilly, and all of the stuff coming off the Ordsall Chord would be on the 'north' pair of tracks that match up with the slow lines as opposed to the 'south' tracks for the Airport. Therefore you'd just be conflicting all the time.

What do you do?

Do you make the Ordsall Chord stuff go down towards Stockport so as to prevent conflicts at Deansgate / Oxford Road / Piccadilly?

Do you terminate stuff from the Liverpool via Warrington direction in a new platform on the 'south' side at Oxford Road?

Do you give up and go home?

It's all remarkably difficult as each thing you do creates a new conflicting move.

You can't really 4 track it anyway. Too many buildings would need flattening at prohibitive cost. The platforms are what's needed more so one can be brought in as another leaves, without the stampede effect you get now if a unit stops.at the back of one of the current platforms, and therefore delays everything. Probably this would also re-allow crew changes to occur at Picc which are currently banned due to the huge knock-on delays if one of us didn't turn up! That would help (in theory) through WCML services from Euston to carry on elsewhere etc.

 

[Amstel]

The TWAO application that is still on Grayling's desk does not include conversion of Oxford Road to two islands. It does include lengthening and realigning the existing through platforms and closing the bay.

This is my first posting, so be gentle with me.

As a regular user of Deansgate station it is blatantly obvious that this is the pinch point and must be sorted until the infrastructure is improved.

It is ludicrous that there are so many stopping trains (5 in one direction, 4 in the other in the original timetable) when you are trying to get 14 trains per hour each way through. Further, most of these are slow DMUs which makes it worse.

In order to improve the chances of the timetable working there should be:

- only 2 trains per hour stopping each way (this is comparable with other stations in Greater Manchester with similar passenger numbers)

- electric services only (the DMUs are far too slow and waste far too much time).

I realise these changes would inconvenience me, but the other alternative would be to close Deansgate down.

 

[Mollman]

This is my first posting, so be gentle with me.

As a regular user of Deansgate station it is blatantly obvious that this is the pinch point and must be sorted until the infrastructure is improved.

It is ludicrous that there are so many stopping trains (5 in one direction, 4 in the other in the original timetable) when you are trying to get 14 trains per hour each way through. Further, most of these are slow DMUs which makes it worse.

In order to improve the chances of the timetable working there should be:

- only 2 trains per hour stopping each way (this is comparable with other stations in Greater Manchester with similar passenger numbers)

- electric services only (the DMUs are far too slow and waste far too much time).

I realise these changes would inconvenience me, but the other alternative would be to close Deansgate down.

Interesting to hear from an actual station user. TfGM will not be happy with any reduction in stops at Deansgate as it is seen as an interchange point onto Metrolink. However a new station could be built on the CLC at Cornbrook for Liverpool stoppers thus meaning they don't have to stop at Deansgate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can't really 4 track it anyway. Too many buildings would need flattening at prohibitive cost. The platforms are what's needed more so one can be brought in as another leaves, without the stampede effect you get now if a unit stops.at the back of one of the current platforms, and therefore delays everything. Probably this would also re-allow crew changes to occur at Picc which are currently banned due to the huge knock-on delays if one of us didn't turn up! That would help (in theory) through WCML services from Euston to carry on elsewhere etc.

Crew changes on trains through Manchester make no sense anyway. If they're going to have all these esoteric through trains, they need to train the crews so one set can work them through, or bin them off as a bad idea.

 

[MarkyT]

I don't think four tracks all the way along are needed, just extra platforms at Picc so a train can be arriving at one as one departs from another, improving throughput. Two tracks is no great issue if everything stops everywhere - LU manage headways of under 2 minutes in places.

You could partly achieve it by using 13a/b and 14a/b as separate platforms, but delays mess with that, whereas 4 platform faces would not be seriously adversely affected by delays, particularly if it was one island for each direction where, Schiphol style, a train could be put into whatever side was appropriate at the point it arrived at the split, with the main PIS just showing "13/14" or "15/16" until such time as it did.

If you were going to rebuild Oxford Road that would also ideally become two island platforms, one for each direction, as well, though the listed status may preclude that. That layout would prevent people needing to run over the bridge.

Deansgate could be closed as it's much less used and replaced with a walkway to the west end of the new extended Oxford Road platforms.

I like much of that although it might be particularly difficult to build the walkway between the west end of rebuilt Oxford Road and the east end of Deansgate-Castleford Metrolink. Probably best to go over the existing tracks on the viaduct, with a new connection over Whitworth St W at the east end of the Metrolink station. A pair of tracks can fairly easily deliver a technical headway of 30 tph in each direction for non stop trains, even with colour light signals rather than any new-fangled ETCS overlays as per Thameslink. It is the platform dwell and consequent reoccupation time that defines the achievable headway, together with the constraints in this case of the flat junctions. With Deansgate main line station and the current pedestrian link bridge gone there might be space to create a grade separation for the CLC eastbound line to fly over, moving Metrolink over onto the disused bridge. I see using the old bridge as less of a problem than many have expressed above. Any concerns about the structure's condition can be sorted out 'offline' before any railway reconstruction commences and as it was a three track alignment before there should be no clearance problems encountered accommodating a simple pair of tram tracks, indeed with room to spare to create a safe parallel access way for maintenance along its entire length. The trams are lightweight and short so should not exceed any original design loads. The current tramway bridge, which would be taken over by the eastbound CLC flyover, would only need to accomodate a single track so, again, clearances and loading should not be a significant problem.

The TWAO application that is still on Grayling's desk does not include conversion of Oxford Road to two islands. It does include lengthening and realigning the existing through platforms and closing the bay.

Two directional islands at Oxford Road would be ideal but very expensive and possibly difficult to steer through any heritage restrictions applying to the listed station. As that layout is proposed anyway at Piccadilly, which among other things allows easy cross platform interchange there, it probably isn't worth it also at Oxford Road, which is (presumably) the conclusion NR already came to years ago when the project was being planned. I assume the redevelopment design and passenger flow analysis already takes into account the likelyhood of substantial numbers of peak time people waiting 'railside' in the concourse or on the bridge to see which platform the next train in a particular direction will use. My over-track walkway option would join directly to the west side of the rebuilt footbridge.

I'd also build a grade separation at Ordsall Lane Jn. Non of the Mark Whitby suggestions though, rather a diveunder taking the Windsor Link pair under the Eccles - Victoria Connecting chords also incorporated for Eccles - Picadilly, but not for Salford Cresent - Victoria as those trains can go via the other route avoiding Orsall Lane entirely.

 

[Grumpy]

between the west end of rebuilt Oxford Road and the east end of Deansgate-Castleford Metrolink.

So the form of the Trans Pennine upgrade is revealed

 

[driver_m]

Crew changes on trains through Manchester make no sense anyway. If they're going to have all these esoteric through trains, they need to train the crews so one set can work them through, or bin them off as a bad idea.

When you have a number of signing on depots there, you’ll find it does make sense, if for instance, you don’t sign Ardwick or Longsight.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This is my first posting, so be gentle with me.

Welcome. We look forward to your contributions.

 

[PR1Berske]

Interesting to hear from an actual station user. TfGM will not be happy with any reduction in stops at Deansgate as it is seen as an interchange point onto Metrolink. However a new station could be built on the CLC at Cornbrook for Liverpool stoppers thus meaning they don't have to stop at Deansgate.

A tangent we could use a new thread for, could any extension of Oxford Road allow for the closure of Deansgate and/or a Cornbrook Interchange station? I might hit "New Thread" later tonight if not beaten to it

 

[B&I]

I like much of that although it might be particularly difficult to build the walkway between the west end of rebuilt Oxford Road and the east end of Deansgate-Castleford Metrolink. Probably best to go over the existing tracks on the viaduct, with a new connection over Whitworth St W at the east end of the Metrolink station. A pair of tracks can fairly easily deliver a technical headway of 30 tph in each direction for non stop trains, even with colour light signals rather than any new-fangled ETCS overlays as per Thameslink. It is the platform dwell and consequent reoccupation time that defines the achievable headway, together with the constraints in this case of the flat junctions. With Deansgate main line station and the current pedestrian link bridge gone there might be space to create a grade separation for the CLC eastbound line to fly over, moving Metrolink over onto the disused bridge. I see using the old bridge as less of a problem than many have expressed above. Any concerns about the structure's condition can be sorted out 'offline' before any railway reconstruction commences and as it was a three track alignment before there should be no clearance problems encountered accommodating a simple pair of tram tracks, indeed with room to spare to create a safe parallel access way for maintenance along its entire length. The trams are lightweight and short so should not exceed any original design loads. The current tramway bridge, which would be taken over by the eastbound CLC flyover, would only need to accomodate a single track so, again, clearances and loading should not be a significant problem.

Two directional islands at Oxford Road would be ideal but very expensive and possibly difficult to steer through any heritage restrictions applying to the listed station. As that layout is proposed anyway at Piccadilly, which among other things allows easy cross platform interchange there, it probably isn't worth it also at Oxford Road, which is (presumably) the conclusion NR already came to years ago when the project was being planned. I assume the redevelopment design and passenger flow analysis already takes into account the likelyhood of substantial numbers of peak time people waiting 'railside' in the concourse or on the bridge to see which platform the next train in a particular direction will use. My over-track walkway option would join directly to the west side of the rebuilt footbridge.

I'd also build a grade separation at Ordsall Lane Jn. Non of the Mark Whitby suggestions though, rather a diveunder taking the Windsor Link pair under the Eccles - Victoria Connecting chords also incorporated for Eccles - Picadilly, but not for Salford Cresent - Victoria as those trains can go via the other route avoiding Orsall Lane entirely.
View attachment 50023

Interesting. If the platforms at Oxford Road are going to be extended west anyway, would it be all that difficult to install a new entrance at the west end, perhaps with a street-level concourse and cross-platform access through the viaduct ?

If the new expanded Oxford Road is going to replace Deansgate mainline, and eastbound trains coming from.the CLC will be crossing from the old central approach viaduct to the extended Oxford Road, how difficult would it be to slot a pedestrian deck onto the bridge carrying this track over Whitworth Street, the continuing it to a relocated Deansgate Metrolink stop ?

And to what extent is all this going to be banjaxed by the new building going up on the corner of Whitworth and Albion Streets ?

 

[Sceptre]

FWIW, Werrington Junction's TWAO only took eight months from inspectorate's report to approval.

 

[edwin_m]

Interesting. If the platforms at Oxford Road are going to be extended west anyway, would it be all that difficult to install a new entrance at the west end, perhaps with a street-level concourse and cross-platform access through the viaduct ?

An exit of some sort would most likely be required for emergency use, although a "proper" exit would also have to provide step-free access.

 

[B&I]

An exit of some sort would most likely be required for emergency use, although a "proper" exit would also have to provide step-free access.

Not sure how far along Whitworth Street the extended platforms will .... er .... extend, but there looks to be some space south of the viaduct for installing lift towers or such like (and plain old staircases).

 

[Killingworth]

FWIW, Werrington Junction's TWAO only took eight months from inspectorate's report to approval.

Just shows what can be done when they really want it to happen. Details showing first of two consultations in summer 2016 at; https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...ne-route-upgrade/werrington-grade-separation/ and the public inquiry was completed in December 2017 resulting in approval today, see; https://assets.publishing.service.g...errington-grade-separation-order-decision.pdf

Compare that with the Platform 15 and 16 case. Kicked into the long grass, shunted into a siding, forgotten and rusting away until no longer fit for use.

 

[AndrewE]

Just shows what can be done when they really want it to happen. Details showing first of two consultations in summer 2016 at; https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...ne-route-upgrade/werrington-grade-separation/ and the public inquiry was completed in December 2017 resulting in approval today, see; https://assets.publishing.service.g...errington-grade-separation-order-decision.pdf

Compare that with the Platform 15 and 16 case. Kicked into the long grass, shunted into a siding, forgotten and rusting away until no longer fit for use.

Yes, what a surprise! Peterborough is part of Greater London's travel-to-work area!

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The Elephant in the room is Slade Lane.

The need to cross Up Slow with Down Fast is a farce.

 

[Greybeard33]

Not sure how far along Whitworth Street the extended platforms will .... er .... extend, but there looks to be some space south of the viaduct for installing lift towers or such like (and plain old staircases).

Back in 2014, when it submitted the TWAO application to the DfT, Network Rail produced a "flythrough" video of the "Manchester Piccadilly and Oxford Road railway improvement scheme" (it shouuld be remembered that P15/P16 and the Oxford Road remodelling are two interdependent parts of an integrated project, not separate standalone schemes).

The video seems to have since disappeared from the Network Rail website, but there is still a copy on the Manchester Evening News website, at https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...news/watch-how-piccadilly-oxford-road-7898576. It includes renders of the extended platforms above Whitworth Street West.

 

[Senex]

The Elephant in the room is Slade Lane.

The need to cross Up Slow with Down Fast is a farce.

Another of the casualties of the cancellation of PicVic — there was to be a flyover there.

 

[edwin_m]

More recently it was planned to swap the track between Slade Lane and Stockport to be down-up-down-up, thus reducing conflict at Slade Lane although much of it would re-appear in the Stockport area. This was abandoned with the Stockport re-signalling as West Coast Route Modernisation went out of control.

 

[Bletchleyite]

More recently it was planned to swap the track between Slade Lane and Stockport to be down-up-down-up, thus reducing conflict at Slade Lane although much of it would re-appear in the Stockport area. This was abandoned with the Stockport re-signalling as West Coast Route Modernisation went out of control.

It was a half-job anyway as it would have made serving Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel a nightmare, as no new slow line platforms were to be provided.

 

[MarkyT]

It was a half-job anyway as it would have made serving Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel a nightmare, as no new slow line platforms were to be provided.

Cock-eyed in that an Altrincham train could serve the intermediate stations going into Manchester, but not on the way out. Similar problems with Buxton trains able to stop outbound, but not in.

 

[Senex]

It was a half-job anyway as it would have made serving Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel a nightmare, as no new slow line platforms were to be provided.

It really was a weird plan! It might have made a little more sense if it had included quadding the three-quarters of a mile from Adswood Road to Cheadle Hulme so that the eastern pair of lines could have been the Stoke line right through and the western pair the Crewe lines, but as proposed it left a two-track bottleneck there with conflicts at two flat junctions in quick succession. Slade Lane would have become even more complex, with four crossovers between the slows, three between the fasts, and five between the up slow and the down fast. What is now the platform 0 line at Stockport was to be continued through into the up Hope Valley.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not just the weirdness I noticed then!

To do it properly you'd need to rebuild Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel to two islands - difficult if not impossible to achieve in both cases due to the former being on a viaduct and the latter being in a cutting.

 

[Greybeard33]

Cock-eyed in that an Altrincham train could serve the intermediate stations going into Manchester, but not on the way out. Similar problems with Buxton trains able to stop outbound, but not in.

Even with the current arrangement, Altrincham/Chester services do not call at Levenshulme or Heaton Chapel southbound. They run on the Up Fast to minimise conflicts at Edgeley. And some northbound services from Hazel Grove/Buxton have to cross the entire layout at Edgeley in order to serve Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme.

It really was a weird plan! It might have made a little more sense if it had included quadding the three-quarters of a mile from Adswood Road to Cheadle Hulme so that the eastern pair of lines could have been the Stoke line right through and the western pair the Crewe lines, but as proposed it left a two-track bottleneck there with conflicts at two flat junctions in quick succession. Slade Lane would have become even more complex, with four crossovers between the slows, three between the fasts, and five between the up slow and the down fast. What is now the platform 0 line at Stockport was to be continued through into the up Hope Valley.

Quadding Adswood Road to Cheadle Hulme would involve a new viaduct across the Goyt Ladybrook Valley. No doubt this is why the LNWR never did it!

 

[LOL The Irony]

Even with the current arrangement, Altrincham/Chester services do not call at Levenshulme or Heaton Chapel southbound.

They don't call there at all since May.

 

[Greybeard33]

They don't call there at all since May.

The 0758 from Chester calls at Levenshulme. The 2001 from Chester calls at both Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme.

It remains to be seen what the service pattern will be once the additional Greenbank service eventually starts.

 

[CHAPS2034]

Quadding Adswood Road to Cheadle Hulme would involve a new viaduct across the Goyt valley. No doubt this is why the LNWR never did it!

Pedant alert - it's not the Goyt valley - it is the Micker Brook which the railway crosses on the viaduct between Adswood Rd and Cheadle Hulme. The Goyt merges with the Tame in Stockport to form the River Mersey which then flows under Stockport viaduct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micker_Brook

pedant alert off

The Seven Arches viaduct as it is known locally is Listed Grade II

https://www.britishlistedbuildings....viaduct-cheadle-hulme-north-ward#.W1jE-tVKjIU

The track is above rooftop level all the way from Cheadle Hulme station north to Adswood Rd, so any quadding would require significant earthworks and land acquisition (part of it is an old tip and some of it is an existing recycling centre in the old Adswood Brickworks area) as well as an additional viaduct.

I seem to remember that this scheme was considered on the list of potential improvements for railways in the Manchester area a few years ago but fell at an early stage as the costs were excessive for whatever benefit it would bring.

Maybe Joseph Locke could point us to the right document?

 

[js1000]

The DfT wants more tph through Manchester Piccadilly but Grayling doesn't want to pay for the upgrade that will enable trains to operate reliably.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Northern Rail allow Blackpool services to continue through Piccadilly, as well as the service from Liverpool Lime Street to Crewe when thy restart next week.

Nothing infrastructure wise has changed so I envisage renewed problems for Northern. The biggest problem is the platform capacity situation at Piccadilly, as well as on the Styal Line to the airport.

 

[Ploughman]

The track is above rooftop level all the way from Cheadle Hulme station north to Adswood Rd, so any quadding would require significant earthworks and land acquisition (part of it is an old tip and some of it is an existing recycling centre in the old Adswood Brickworks area) as well as an additional viaduct.

Maybe Joseph Locke could point us to the right document?

Often wondered if there is any merit in the idea of Cantilevering out from a Viaduct instead of building a new structure and associated land take.
Probably a rubbish idea though.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Often wondered if there is any merit in the idea of Cantilevering out from a Viaduct instead of building a new structure and associated land take.
Probably a rubbish idea though.

I think the viaduct is too old and isn't strong enough.