Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Ploughman]

Are any of the old trackbeds of the old Manchester Ship Canal railway system suitable for coping with the freight traffic?
Realise that a fair amount of the trackage may involve street running but better for Rail passengers if it reduces the traffic through Man Picc.

 

[Jonny]

Are any of the old trackbeds of the old Manchester Ship Canal railway system suitable for coping with the freight traffic?
Realise that a fair amount of the trackage may involve street running but better for Rail passengers if it reduces the traffic through Man Picc.

Are they even in the right place to take the traffic? All the freight yard outlets point east...

 

[B&I]

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

That's what I suspected you would say. Only way to do it I can think of is to move Metrolink from the higher viaduct, put the eastbound CLC trains up there, and connect the east end of that to the current heavy rail viaduct just west of Oxford Road.

The more time goes on,, the dafter it seems to have added yet another flat junction to the whole tangle for the Ordsall Chord.

What sort of thing did you have in mind for Ordsall Lane ? The ideal solution would seem to me to be a flyover from the Chat Moss lines towards Salford Central, perhaps with a connection enabling eastbound trains from Chat Moss to cross above the eastbound line from.the Windsor Link before.dropping onto.the line towards Castlefield.

 

[Chester1]

That's what I suspected you would say. Only way to do it I can think of is to move Metrolink from the higher viaduct, put the eastbound CLC trains up there, and connect the east end of that to the current heavy rail viaduct just west of Oxford Road.

The more time goes on,, the dafter it seems to have added yet another flat junction to the whole tangle for the Ordsall Chord.

What sort of thing did you have in mind for Ordsall Lane ? The ideal solution would seem to me to be a flyover from the Chat Moss lines towards Salford Central, perhaps with a connection enabling eastbound trains from Chat Moss to cross above the eastbound line from.the Windsor Link before.dropping onto.the line towards Castlefield.

For once we agree on both! You wouldn't even need to put both Metrolink tracks on the unused viaduct. It could take the Metrolink eastbound services with the existing Metrolink viaduct being used by westbound Metrolink and eastbound CLC (depending on health and safety rules). It would be more practical to reopen the viaduct with the weight of only one track with no possibility of two trams next to each other.

 

[markem41]

Are they even in the right place to take the traffic? All the freight yard outlets point east...

There is an exisiting exit westwards but it leads to Kelloggs then along Barton Dock Road into the dead-end container terminal at Barton Dock Estate. I'd recommend building an extension through the middle of the Trafford Centre . But if freight could get onto the CLC towards Warrington it couldn't be passed until Glazebrook loop.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

That's what I suspected you would say. Only way to do it I can think of is to move Metrolink from the higher viaduct, put the eastbound CLC trains up there, and connect the east end of that to the current heavy rail viaduct just west of Oxford Road.

The problem at Castlefield Jn is the proximity of Deansgate station. Even if this was to close in favour of a pedestrian link to the west end of an extended Oxford Road station I'm not sure about the status of the original station building. This has its original name (Knott Mill) built into the facade and may be listed: does anyone know either way?

What sort of thing did you have in mind for Ordsall Lane ? The ideal solution would seem to me to be a flyover from the Chat Moss lines towards Salford Central, perhaps with a connection enabling eastbound trains from Chat Moss to cross above the eastbound line from.the Windsor Link before.dropping onto.the line towards Castlefield.

That's about it. The new Chat Moss link (double-track though not necessarily on the same structure) would probably be slightly to the north of its current position and would certainly need the complete reconstruction of the Oldfield Road viaduct; it's a brick arch structure so at least the demolition may be simple enough. I would also eliminate any link between the Windsor Link route and Victoria: all trains from Salford Crescent heading that way should go via the existing Salford Central platforms. But I don't know if the Middlewood Locks development will infringe on the space needed to fit it all. It may be that some juggling room could be provided by removing the now disused freight facilty at Ordsall Lane.

 

[markem41]

The problem at Castlefield Jn is the proximity of Deansgate station. Even if this was to close in favour of a pedestrian link to the west end of an extended Oxford Road station I'm not sure about the status of the original station building. This has its original name (Knott Mill) built into the facade and may be listed: does anyone know either way?

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1376146

 

[Grumpy]

T

The more time goes on,, the dafter it seems to have added yet another flat junction to the whole tangle for the Ordsall Chord.

.

Never mind"the more time goes on". It always seemed daft.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1376146

TFT, site duly bookmarked.

Grade II. So careful dismantling and reconstruction on another site might be acceptable. Otherwise a grade separated eastbound CLC line would turn part of Whitworth Street West into a virtual tunnel, New York or Chicago style, to avoid the building before rejoining the main route west of Oxford Road. Also worth noting that it would appear that at least some of the viaduct structures are listed too so their re-use for an alternative routing may not be a simple affair.

 

[MarkyT]

The new ramp alignment would probably miss the old station building:

 

[Ianno87]

The new ramp alignment would probably miss the old station building:
View attachment 50317
View attachment 50318

All very lovely...but rather obliterates the ambience of Deansgate Locks and the local urban realm...

 

[B&I]

All very lovely...but rather obliterates the ambience of Deansgate Locks and the local urban realm...

Deansgate Locks ruins its own ambience every weekend.

 

[B&I]

The problem at Castlefield Jn is the proximity of Deansgate station. QqEven if this was to close in favour of a pedestrian link to the west end of an extended Oxford Road station I'm not sure about the status of the original station building. This has its original name (Knott Mill) built into the facade and may be listed: does anyone know either way?



That's about it. The new Chat Moss link (double-track though not necessarily on the same structure) would probably be slightly to the north of its current position and would certainly need the complete reconstruction of the Oldfield Road viaduct; it's a brick arch structure so at least the demolition may be simple enough. I would also eliminate any link between the Windsor Link route and Victoria: all trains from Salford Crescent heading that way should go via the existing Salford Central platforms. But I don't know if the Middlewood Locks development will infringe on the space needed to fit it all. It may be that some juggling room could be provided by removing the now disused freight facilty at Ordsall Lane.

You would have thought that the good burghers of Greater Manchester would have learned the drawbacks by now of cramming development needlessly close to railway lines, but perhaps not

 

[B&I]

TFT, site duly bookmarked.

Grade II. So careful dismantling and reconstruction on another site might be acceptable. Otherwise a grade separated eastbound CLC line would turn part of Whitworth Street West into a virtual tunnel, New York or Chicago style, to avoid the building before rejoining the main route west of Oxford Road. Also worth noting that it would appear that at least some of the viaduct structures are listed too so their re-use for an alternative routing may not be a simple affair.

Oddly I think a new viaduct would add to the area, if done in suitable materials. My favourite thing about Castlefields is the steampunk atmosphere that the various bridges create

 

[markem41]

Is there any hope for increased line speed on the painful section after Castlefield Junction heading towards Old Trafford?

 

[js1000]

You would have thought that the good burghers of Greater Manchester would have learned the drawbacks by now of cramming development needlessly close to railway lines, but perhaps not

That new alignment is fine except it goes straight through a 120 metre approved skyscraper.

 

[js1000]

I'm afraid the challenge of generating additional rail capacity through Manchester city centre are not simply confined to rails and wires as they were 20-30 years ago - but adjoining developments. The city centre is developing at such a pace it's becoming a bit like central London and the problems identifying sites suitable for rail expansion.

 

[Greybeard33]

For once we agree on both! You wouldn't even need to put both Metrolink tracks on the unused viaduct. It could take the Metrolink eastbound services with the existing Metrolink viaduct being used by westbound Metrolink and eastbound CLC (depending on health and safety rules). It would be more practical to reopen the viaduct with the weight of only one track with no possibility of two trams next to each other.

The 1894 Great Northern Viaduct is riddled with rust. It would be impractical for any trams to run over it without a major rebuild.

But why all the discussion of (very costly) flying junctions, when the worst capacity constraint is currently Piccadilly P13/P14? It has now become clear that the platforms cannot even cope reliably with today's 12tph timetable. This can only have improved the case for an immediate go-ahead for the "shovel ready" TWAO P15/P16 project.

It just plays into the hands of the DfT/Treasury naysayers to suggest that the extra platforms will be useless, unless all the other, lesser, bottlenecks are tackled at the same time.

 

[AndrewE]

But why all the discussion of (very costly) flying junctions,

because they fit neatly with (and would make easier) double-decking the line through the busiest bit? Extra high-level platforms at Oxford Rd and Picc would be fed from the junctions/approach ramps.

 

[Killingworth]

Tunnelling will have to be used sooner or later to thread more railways and roads through heavily congested city centres. The London Underground has been proving that since the 19th Century. Crossrail and the Thames Tideway prove we have the tunnelling skills to create and build a Manchester crossrail line. Money is, of course, the problem.

 

[moggie]

The 1894 Great Northern Viaduct is riddled with rust. It would be impractical for any trams to run over it without a major rebuild.

But why all the discussion of (very costly) flying junctions, when the worst capacity constraint is currently Piccadilly P13/P14? It has now become clear that the platforms cannot even cope reliably with today's 12tph timetable. This can only have improved the case for an immediate go-ahead for the "shovel ready" TWAO P15/P16 project.

It just plays into the hands of the DfT/Treasury naysayers to suggest that the extra platforms will be useless, unless all the other, lesser, bottlenecks are tackled at the same time.

Indeed. The penny may be slowly descending Grayling's digital ivory tower which he's constructed for himself but it's clear there are FAR more components to operating the sort of frequency timetable for the likes of Thamselink (less so Crossrail) than he has factored into his simplistic assessment. Not least the ability of trains from converging sources to arrive at the bottleneck on time. The Oxford Road - Piccadilly corridor is a prime example of how unsustainable accurate timekeeping will be with the numerous instances of flat junction presenting conflict opportunities. Isn't this what London Bridge approaches / Crossrail design has been all about, providing grade separation at many of the known pinch points. Not so at Piccadilly. Then there's the myriad of passenger rolling stock types which will be unable to deliver the consistent loading performance, all adding delay and finally as other have mentioned the woefully inadequate station layout which only just about copes with existing traffic let alone growth. Grayling has simply sought to kick the capacity improvements into the digital long grass so as not to commit funds to something he's clearly disinterested in. Oh, and as we've seen from the operator which has the digitised infrastructure in place, they are finding their operating realities are a million miles away from the theory espoused by the digital boffins and as far as I know there are no current dates on when Manchester Piccadilly is due a re-lock to incorporate the interlocking changes to achieve the Level 2 closing up signal sections?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You would have thought that the good burghers of Greater Manchester would have learned the drawbacks by now of cramming development needlessly close to railway lines, but perhaps not

There are far more things important in life to those who have chosen to live and make their homes in an inner city environment than railways, though saying that will be viewed with horror by some on this website.

 

[B&I]

There are far more things important in life to those who have chosen to live and make their homes in an inner city environment than railways, though saying that will be viewed with horror by some on this website.

And some might consider having a workable rail system more important than allowing 15 storey slabs of money-laundering opportunities to be thrown up every 50 yards so they can lie empty for years

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And some might consider having a workable rail system more important than allowing 15 storey slabs of money-laundering opportunities to be thrown up every 50 yards so they can lie empty for years

What percentage of inner-city flats that seem attractive to the young professional classes in particular in the Manchester core which means no long distance commuting to their places of employment "lie empty for years"?

Rail is just one of the available modes of transport, not the "be-all" and "end-all".

 

[notlob.divad]

What percentage of inner-city flats that seem attractive to the young professional classes in particular in the Manchester core which means no long distance commuting to their places of employment "lie empty for years"?

If only they could afford them.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...opers-affordable-housing-manchester-sheffield

http://aboutmanchester.co.uk/manche...property-crisis-is-not-just-a-london-problem/

One reason for Manchester’s abundance of empty properties is the number of rich investors leaving them empty after buying them, in a phenomenon that has been dubbed ‘buy-to-leave’. Fueled by the city’s urban regeneration and London’s ever spiralling property prices, Manchester is now considered by many to be “the UK’s top-performing investment location”. This has led to an influx of foreign investors. According to an investigation by The Times, foreign residents or overseas companies bought 93% of flats in one of the largest Manchester housing developments.

Yes you read that right, 93% foreign owned, ‘buy-to-leave’. Whilst I appreciate that will be the high end, the 'average' is going to be pretty high.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If only they could afford them.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/05/british-cities-developers-affordable-housing-manchester-Sheffield

Young professional classes seem to be able to command reasonable salary levels that enable them to do just that.

I see you mention "The Guardian" in your quote above, but I am mindful of the side of the political divide that they espouse.

 

[Senex]

Tunnelling will have to be used sooner or later to thread more railways and roads through heavily congested city centres. The London Underground has been proving that since the 19th Century. Crossrail and the Thames Tideway prove we have the tunnelling skills to create and build a Manchester crossrail line. Money is, of course, the problem.

If money can be found for tunnelling in cities like Antwerp and Leipzig, then why not for Manchester? Or is it just that this is centralised Britain, where the only city that has a claim to high-quality modern infrastructure is London?

 

[Senex]

Indeed. The penny may be slowly descending Grayling's digital ivory tower which he's constructed for himself but it's clear there are FAR more components to operating the sort of frequency timetable for the likes of Thamselink (less so Crossrail) than he has factored into his simplistic assessment. Not least the ability of trains from converging sources to arrive at the bottleneck on time. The Oxford Road - Piccadilly corridor is a prime example of how unsustainable accurate timekeeping will be with the numerous instances of flat junction presenting conflict opportunities. Isn't this what London Bridge approaches / Crossrail design has been all about, providing grade separation at many of the known pinch points. Not so at Piccadilly. Then there's the myriad of passenger rolling stock types which will be unable to deliver the consistent loading performance, all adding delay and finally as other have mentioned the woefully inadequate station layout which only just about copes with existing traffic let alone growth. Grayling has simply sought to kick the capacity improvements into the digital long grass so as not to commit funds to something he's clearly disinterested in. Oh, and as we've seen from the operator which has the digitised infrastructure in place, they are finding their operating realities are a million miles away from the theory espoused by the digital boffins and as far as I know there are no current dates on when Manchester Piccadilly is due a re-lock to incorporate the interlocking changes to achieve the Level 2 closing up signal sections?

Presumably DfT civil servants or their advisers did model the operation of the proposed timetable over the South Junction line after the construction of the Castlefield Curve/Ordsall Chord and found that it worked. Did their modelling assume that in such a complicated area, with all the flat junctions and different types of services that people have mentioned, everything always ran on time? Or did they already assume the coming of the magic digital railway that would solve all problems at a stroke and avoid the need for spending the sort of money that seems to be available for public transport in provincial cities in civilised Europe as a matter of course?

 

[Chester1]

The 1894 Great Northern Viaduct is riddled with rust. It would be impractical for any trams to run over it without a major rebuild.

But why all the discussion of (very costly) flying junctions, when the worst capacity constraint is currently Piccadilly P13/P14? It has now become clear that the platforms cannot even cope reliably with today's 12tph timetable. This can only have improved the case for an immediate go-ahead for the "shovel ready" TWAO P15/P16 project.

It just plays into the hands of the DfT/Treasury naysayers to suggest that the extra platforms will be useless, unless all the other, lesser, bottlenecks are tackled at the same time.

I didn't say it would be cheap to reopen the viaduct! I am questioning the sense of putting an extra 4tph over a web of flat junctions that is already unreliable.

And some might consider having a workable rail system more important than allowing 15 storey slabs of money-laundering opportunities to be thrown up every 50 yards so they can lie empty for years

Its a myth that large numbers of flats in Manchester are empty. The demand and therefore rents are continuing to rise and will eventually level out once demand is saturated. Flats that are being rented when there are plenty of places much cheaper within a short commute of the city centre are affordable but not for everyone, which is hardly unexpected as its the most desirable area for young proffessionals. Building lots of flats in the city centre means less demand in other parts of the city which will help to keep prices sensible. Its private land and money as well. If NR or TfGM want to safeguard land for infrastructure there is a process for that.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Yes you read that right, 93% foreign owned, ‘buy-to-leave’. Whilst I appreciate that will be the high end, the 'average' is going to be pretty high.

Ah yes, because anything foreign-owned could never be rented out or lived in by those bloody foreigners. Good thing we have some actual data on this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34930602

There isn't a breakdown for the North West, but London has 20,000 long-term empty homes out of about 3.4 million, well under 1%. Unsurprisingly, it's higher in the rest of the country where rents are lower and there isn't a big incentive to rent houses out.