Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[snowball]

I think it's all gone.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think it's all gone.

Not entirely. There is a draft Environmental Statement for the scheme at https://consultations.networkrail.c...-and-piccadilly---environmental-statement.pdf. Section 3 includes a detailed description.

 

[Killingworth]

Not entirely. There is a draft Environmental Statement for the scheme at https://consultations.networkrail.c...-and-piccadilly---environmental-statement.pdf. Section 3 includes a detailed description.

Excellent, now we can wade into all those pages for facts. Trouble is the longer it's left more of those facts will need updating so it will get even harder to make a decision.

 

[B&I]

I would say you are both right and wrong! The reality is that the route through Oxford Road now needs to support a high level of traffic to meet the wide variety of demands being placed on the local network. The lack of any margin in track capacity actually stretches all the way from Ordsall Lane Jn to Adswood Road Jn and any solutions ought to consider the whole of this route. Otherwise any solution provided in isolation merely shifts the problem from one location to another.

Mention has been made of the aborted South Manchester Resignalling Scheme: this would have paired the tracks by use all the way from Piccadilly to Stockport but would have created the problem of how to serve Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel stations as well as removing the current convenience for passengers at Stockport of all Manchester trains departing from the same island. And it did nothing useful for the Edgeley area. As an aside and for clarity I would add that while it was indeed a victim of the need to contain costs on WCRM its cancellation became almost inevitable when it became clear that the contractor, Ansaldo, was unable to get its kit to interface with other modern systems thereby guaranteeing the longer term survival of so many older signal boxes nearby.

My ideal solution, as well as Platforms 15 & 16, would be for grade separation of *all* of Ordsall Lane, Slade Lane and Edgeley No.1 junctions retaining the current pairings of tracks. But it seems that such constructions are severely lacking in political "sexiness" meaning that decisions to build (or not) are down solely to pure number crunching with little consideration of wider network benefits and an aversion to spending large sums on what is perceived to be just concrete. Perhaps all concerned need to visit Utrecht to see how the Dutch converted a node of 6 double-track routes with flat junctions to the largely grade-separated complex of mostly four-track routes that now exists.

Sounds sensible. Out of interest, why did you leave Castlefield Junction off your list ?

 

[B&I]

One temporary quick-fix solution suggested is an expansion of the satellite lounge currently used to 'hold' passengers prior to them descending down onto P13/P14. The WHSmiths and Costa take up a fair amount of space and certainly one or both of them could reduce in size. Expanding the lounge via a deck over the platform and redesigning the steps down would double the size and open up more holding space for passengers. A key priority for NR should be the removal of the roof over P13/14 - (especially the west end) and replace it with a lightweight, brighter design.

The reluctance to do any major works seems related to uncertainty about the future - ie P15/16 may get built so don't spend anything - and this has gone on for 4 years now.

The single most important step at platforms 13 and 14 would be doing something about the stairs, which are woefully inadequate to handle the numbers using.them. not much point in expanding the upstairs lounge if people are reluctant to wait up there because they don't know if they'll.be able to get down to their trains in time once they're called

 

[B&I]

The original Manchester Hub study did consider a western exit from Trafford Park to the WCML, either by a chord at Dallam as you suggest or by a new link from the CLC at Glazebrook to the Chat Moss near Kenyon. But it concluded there was no business case, because the P15+16 option could provide an additional hourly freight path through Piccadilly with a better overall BCR.

I think your proposal would be very costly. Not only because of the property demolition necessary to construct the new chord, as is evident from the satellite image. But also the disused freight alignment from Padgate to Dallam has been compromised by construction of the A574 Birchwood Way, and embankments and overbridges have been removed in several places. Plus the CLC between Padgate and Trafford Park would have to be cleared to W12 loading gauge.

The Dallam chord could aurely not cost that much. The property on the old trackbed looks low-grade industrial. The clearance work could sensibly be done as part of preparations for CLC electrification.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Andy Burnham was on BBC1 this am saying Chris Grayling cancelled enhancements to central Manchester rail capacity a year ago. What did he refer to?

 

[snowball]

Andy Burnham was on BBC1 this am saying Chris Grayling cancelled enhancements to central Manchester rail capacity a year ago. What did he refer to?

He's can only be referring to Oxford Road and Piccadilly. Grayling didn't actually announce a formal decision not to make the order, but he didn't make the order, and he suggested it was unnecessary.

 

[a_c_skinner]

he suggested it was unnecessary

As in the proposed works were unnecessary or the order?

 

[snowball]

As in the proposed works were unnecessary or the order?

I've posted this several times upthread. He apparently suggested the proposed works were unnecessary. This was apparently in the Financial Times on either the same day he cancelled MML, Swansea and Windermere (about 20 July 2017) or the next day. I haven't read the original report, interview or article because the FT is behind a paywall, but it has since been covered in Modern Railways and other publications. He allegedly compared the proposed throughput to that of Crossrail and/or Thameslink with just two tracks and suggested advanced signalling techniques would be enough.

 

[MarkyT]

I've posted this several times upthread. He apparently suggested the proposed works were unnecessary. This was apparently in the Financial Times on either the same day he cancelled MML, Swansea and Windermere (about 20 July 2017) or the next day. I haven't read the original report, interview or article because the FT is behind a paywall, but it has since been covered in Modern Railways and other publications. He allegedly compared the proposed throughput to that of Crossrail and/or Thameslink with just two tracks and suggested advanced signalling techniques would be enough.

Of course Crossrail and Thameslink don't or won't have approximately hourly half mile long intermodal trains with markedly different performance characteristic passing through their flat junctions and getting stopped unexpectedly then taking ages to accelerate back up to speed again. The extra tracks at Piccadilly will help as presumably a freight could feasibly overtake a passenger train there sometimes when expedient to keep moving. The route should remain available for freight as an alternative/diversion at quiet times but such traffic passing through a dense urban passenger core as its only access route to a major city freight terminal is clearly not optimal. I would argue that the Piccadilly and Oxford Road improvements are desirable in addition to a western access to Trafford intermodal terminals in order to allow the cross city line to meet its full passenger traffic potential. The Darnal - Padgate link is but one possibility clearly for achieving this but possibly the most practical. I agree it looks expensive though with much embankment reconstruction and sizable new bridges in addition to industrial land acquisition, route clearance on the existing line, and possibly electrification. My suggestion to split the services on the CLC and send the stopping trains from Manchester to Bank Quay and perhaps onwards to Chester might add something to the benefit side of the equation. Even the faster Manchester Airport - Llandudno trains could benefit from such a rerouting as they would avoid some junction conflicts in the Ordsall area by only joining the cross-city line at Castlefield Junction, and while losing their Newton-le-Willows and Earlstown stops, could additionally call at Irlam and Birchwood on the shorter route.

 

[Chester1]

Of course Crossrail and Thameslink don't or won't have approximately hourly half mile long intermodal trains with markedly different performance characteristic passing through their flat junctions and getting stopped unexpectedly then taking ages to accelerate back up to speed again. The extra tracks at Piccadilly will help as presumably a freight could feasibly overtake a passenger train there sometimes when expedient to keep moving. The route should remain available for freight as an alternative/diversion at quiet times but such traffic passing through a dense urban passenger core as its only access route to a major city freight terminal is clearly not optimal. I would argue that the Piccadilly and Oxford Road improvements are desirable in addition to a western access to Trafford intermodal terminals in order to allow the cross city line to meet its full passenger traffic potential. The Darnal - Padgate link is but one possibility clearly for achieving this but possibly the most practical. I agree it looks expensive though with much embankment reconstruction and sizable new bridges in addition to industrial land acquisition, route clearance on the existing line, and possibly electrification. My suggestion to split the services on the CLC and send the stopping trains from Manchester to Bank Quay and perhaps onwards to Chester might add something to the benefit side of the equation. Even the faster Manchester Airport - Llandudno trains could benefit from such a rerouting as they would avoid some junction conflicts in the Ordsall area by only joining the cross-city line at Castlefield Junction, and while losing their Newton-le-Willows and Earlstown stops, could additionally call at Irlam and Birchwood on the shorter route.

I think the freight path takes up 3 passenger paths due to the shear length of the trains and their slow acceleration. If 4 minute headways are sufficient that would increase Piccadilly 13 and 14 capacity to 15tph which would be enough stop terminating trains at Oxford Road to allow platform 5 at Oxford Road to be removed and extend 1-4. I am not convinced that a chord in Warrington would be cheaper than platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly but it certainly has other advantages as you have pointed out.

 

[Killingworth]

Over here in Sheffield we're totally fed up with the service to Manchester. Already today several services have been cancelled in each direction due to a signalling fault near Dore - no lightning recently!

Much of the cause of delays is feeding over from the west side. 2 months after the new timeables were introduced it may be interesting to look at reliabilty of our inter-city services, both fast (!) and slow. To be fair I've only chosen the last 4 weeks on the Recent Trains website, allowing a month to settle down.

From Manchester to Sheffield it is so bad that several trains have only been within 5 minutes of their scheduled arrival time into Sheffield for less than 25% of the time. East Midlands are by far the worst, their 19.42 only making it 15% of the time. 2 Northern trains scheduled to take over 1 hour 25 minutes come out best. (It's only about 44 miles.) See; Recent Trains

From Sheffield to Manchester the performance is only a little better, with only one TPE train at 3 in the morning achieving regular right time arrival. Over 70% are more than 5 minutes late, the 17.11 achieving only 30% for under 5 minutes late. See; Recent Trains

I know, statistics can be found to prove anything you like. However, I'd contend that many of the delays illustrated here are knock on delays rebounding around the entire network. There's insufficient reserve capacity to re-route and reschedule things when only one train gets out of position. When several are out of place it all goes pear shaped.

When the fast (?) services between Sheffield and Manchester are delayed the Northern service gets delayed. In turn that is liable to delay the next fast (bring on the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme to give a little, but not a lot, of help there).

It's the services between Liverpool, and Norwich that suffer most as they pass through 13 and 14, slowly. The later they get the more passengers will be waiting to get aboard and the dwell times get longer. If TPE services are late or cancelled they can be overwhelmed, especially when short formed as this one was! Passengers were left behind and the dwell time was prolonged.



Piccadilly is a nightmare and that probably won't change for a decade. It will inevitably get worse before it gets better, especially if we keep ramming through more trains on unachievable timetables, both at the same time, on the layout we currently have.

It's not possible to reconcile all three and have robust services. Fewer and longer trains, better signalling and control sytems, better platforms for waiting passengers, and more tracks for flexibility. Where do we begin? Looks fairly obvious. What will cost most? That looks fairly obvious too!

There, that's probably the conclusion for the DfT, much as I'd like to see 15 and 16 operating today.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I've posted this several times upthread.

Sorry about that. So in point of fact the project is dead. The parallel with Thameslink certainly seems to have some validity with the right signalling and planning. One wonders how much it would cost to move Trafford Park, it cannot be a good place to get lorries to either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Much as I like Class 158s, the murmurs I heard about making doors at thirds mandatory for trains serving Picc P13/14 would probably make some level of sense.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Ah yes, Crossrail and Thameslink; prime examples of mixed traffic railways with frequent double junctions and 775m freight paths every hour.

 

[Chester1]

Much as I like Class 158s, the murmurs I heard about making doors at thirds mandatory for trains serving Picc P13/14 would probably make some level of sense.

It was apparently a condition of W&B retaining access for the new franchise and the CAF DMUs that KeolisAmey have choosen will have doors at thirds like Northern's 195s (looks like they will be same as WMRs new DMUs therefore class 196). TPEs 397s, 802s and Mark Vs will not have doors at thirds but its possible every non TPE service could be run only with units that have doors at thirds. It would certainly help the situation!

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry about that. So in point of fact the project is dead. The parallel with Thameslink certainly seems to have some validity with the right signalling and planning. One wonders how much it would cost to move Trafford Park, it cannot be a good place to get lorries to either.

It loses nearly all validity if Grayling has completely ignored the limited space to actually get passengers on and off the single island platform though...

 

[snowball]

So in point of fact the project is dead.

Not necessarily. Grayling won't be the minister for ever. Or Network Rail could tell him that its further investigations have shown that the problem can't be solved by the magical digital railway. Maybe the new chief executive might decide to tell him.

 

[MarkyT]

One wonders how much it would cost to move Trafford Park, it cannot be a good place to get lorries to either.

Surely the terminals are next to one of the largest industrial parks in the entire UK and are easily accessed from the M60 for distribution around the whole of the north west as well.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Not necessarily. Grayling won't be the minister for ever. Or Network Rail could tell him that its further investigations have shown that the problem can't be solved by the magical digital railway. Maybe the new chief executive might decide to tell him.

Perhaps we could employ https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_uncertainty.html to allow trains to pass each other - more likely than the Boiled Egg ever seeing sense.

 

[LM93]

Surely the terminals are next to one of the largest industrial parks in the entire UK and are easily accessed from the M60 for distribution around the whole of the north west as well.

According to Wikipedia, its the largest in Europe, let alone the UK

 

[Sceptre]

The Transport and Works Act, I believe, doesn't allow the Secretary of State to "pocket veto" an order. That said, given that P15+16 has taken more time waiting for the Right Dishonourable Boiled Egg to make a decision than the Ordsall Chord did from order application to spades in the ground (and that includes Whitby's judicial review case), Grayling might not give a damn about what the Act says.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Surely the terminals are next to one of the largest industrial parks in the entire UK and are easily accessed from the M60 for distribution around the whole of the north west as well.

That will teach me to keep my mouth shut when thinking aloud.

 

[js1000]

Over here in Sheffield we're totally fed up with the service to Manchester. Already today several services have been cancelled in each direction due to a signalling fault near Dore - no lightning recently!

Much of the cause of delays is feeding over from the west side. 2 months after the new timeables were introduced it may be interesting to look at reliabilty of our inter-city services, both fast (!) and slow. To be fair I've only chosen the last 4 weeks on the Recent Trains website, allowing a month to settle down.

When the fast (?) services between Sheffield and Manchester are delayed the Northern service gets delayed. In turn that is liable to delay the next fast (bring on the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme to give a little, but not a lot, of help there).

It's the services between Liverpool, and Norwich that suffer most as they pass through 13 and 14, slowly. The later they get the more passengers will be waiting to get aboard and the dwell times get longer. If TPE services are late or cancelled they can be overwhelmed, especially when short formed as this one was! Passengers were left behind and the dwell time was prolonged.

Piccadilly is a nightmare and that probably won't change for a decade. It will inevitably get worse before it gets better, especially if we keep ramming through more trains on unachievable timetables, both at the same time, on the layout we currently have.

It's not possible to reconcile all three and have robust services. Fewer and longer trains, better signalling and control sytems, better platforms for waiting passengers, and more tracks for flexibility. Where do we begin? Looks fairly obvious. What will cost most? That looks fairly obvious too!

There, that's probably the conclusion for the DfT, much as I'd like to see 15 and 16 operating today.

Sadly, chaos has recommenced on many services through Manchester with Northern's new timetable. Similar issue with many of the Liverpool to Crewe via the Airport stoppers today. The timetable is a joke for the capacity through Manchester that is available - it's become a severe bottleneck that is having a wide impact across the rail network.

Conversely, £200+ million for only 3/4tph more paths with two new platforms doesn't make sense. Something more substantial will have to be created - maybe the Northern Powerhouse Rail?

 

[Altfish]

Sadly, chaos has recommenced on many services through Manchester with Northern's new timetable. Similar issue with many of the Liverpool to Crewe via the Airport stoppers today. The timetable is a joke for the capacity through Manchester that is available - it's become a severe bottleneck that is have wide impact across the rail network.

Conversely, £200+ million for only 3/4tph more paths with two new platforms doesn't make sense. Something more substantial will have to be created - maybe the Northern Powerhouse Rail?

It may only be 3/4 tph; but the extra lines will take the pressure off and greatly reduce delays through the pinch point. Overtaking will be possible, so delayed trains can be passed and 'expresses' given priority rather than having to wait their turn.

 

[a_c_skinner]

And, as above, it will be a marked improvement for the customers, who are the reason for running the trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And, as above, it will be a marked improvement for the customers, who are the reason for running the trains.

Here I was thinking that the reason for running the trains was to give the RMT something to have a delusion of power about, not "the collateral damage".

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Sounds sensible. Out of interest, why did you leave Castlefield Junction off your list ?

For the simple reason that in my own mind grade separation there is simply too difficult. Or at least not possible without spending seriously silly money. Much as I am in favour of grade separation of key junctions even I recognise that they are quite expensive to build.

I've posted this several times upthread. He apparently suggested the proposed works were unnecessary. This was apparently in the Financial Times on either the same day he cancelled MML, Swansea and Windermere (about 20 July 2017) or the next day. I haven't read the original report, interview or article because the FT is behind a paywall, but it has since been covered in Modern Railways and other publications. He allegedly compared the proposed throughput to that of Crossrail and/or Thameslink with just two tracks and suggested advanced signalling techniques would be enough.

Ah yes, Crossrail and Thameslink; prime examples of mixed traffic railways with frequent double junctions and 775m freight paths every hour.

If there's one thing that demonstrates how totally unsuited to the role he is it must be this. Unless of course he is actually suggesting that all routes connected to Oxford Road should not only be electrified but operated by a uniform fleet of trains of suitable length to handle future levels of peak demand. So that means 8-car for all services: even with ASDO that will still need an awful lot of platform extensions.

Not necessarily. Grayling won't be the minister for ever. Or Network Rail could tell him that its further investigations have shown that the problem can't be solved by the magical digital railway. Maybe the new chief executive might decide to tell him.

Few transport ministers last more than 2 years, though McLoughlin was one who did. Sadly I suspect that Grayling's tenure will continue at least until Brexit has been achieved given the PM's need to maintain a Brexit balance in cabinet. Unless we somehow end up with another election before then...

 

[The Planner]

I think the freight path takes up 3 passenger paths due to the shear length of the trains and their slow acceleration. If 4 minute headways are sufficient that would increase Piccadilly 13 and 14 capacity to 15tph which would be enough stop terminating trains at Oxford Road to allow platform 5 at Oxford Road to be removed and extend 1-4. I am not convinced that a chord in Warrington would be cheaper than platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly but it certainly has other advantages as you have pointed out.

Headway along there is already 3 minutes, with allowances for 2 minute headways, but there is a capacity limit we put on it at 13tph between Picc and Oxford Road. We allow 15tph between Oxford Road and Deansgate as long as 2 are terminating at Oxford Road.