Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Rob F]

Its not reverence to call somewhere by its name! Especially when its the name of the city not some tiny village. Its also not helpful to refer to places using names that members may not have heard. Until HTAFCs post I not know Leeds-Bradford Airport was once called Yeadon for instance.

Well, at least you’ve learnt something then.

 

[Chester1]

Well, at least you’ve learnt something then.

Yes because old names of airports are really useful in todays world!

 

[notlob.divad]

Yes, I agree that, pedantically, Newton-Le-Willows would benefit less from a rapid connection to the Scarborough service than would St Helens Junction, Earlestown, Patricroft and Eccles. But do you expect everyone from the St Helens area to railhead to Lea Green or NLW when they want to travel to Leeds and beyond?

No, and you know it. With the current setup people can use the local stopping service from anywhere west of Newton-le-Willows, and then with a single change get onto a Crosspennine service. Newton (/ Lea Green) for North TPE and O-Road / Pic for South TPE).
Your suggestion of reverting all services from West of Earlestown to Victoria introduces a 2nd change for a not insignificant proportion of those people. The fact that it involves cramming onto an already packed North Wales coast service doesn't escape those of us who have had to do it regularly.

given your professed concern for GM rail users, what about those who live near Patricroft or Eccles?

Well I would prefer to see a 2nd stopping service per hour to ensure Patricroft and Eccles had an hourly direct service to each of the main transit corridors. They are suburban stations that should receive at least 2 calls an hour if GM politicians gave east-west connectivity anything like the same kudos at NW-SE through services, they would be in that position.

So you really believe Huyton and St Helens are more deserving of direct services to Manchester Airport than are Leeds, York, Newcastle and Middlesbrough?!

Ahh yes, the deserving, thereby implying the un-deserving. Segregating places into whether they 'deserve' something is not my business clearly that is yours.

I would suspect that the number of journeys made per head of population (and perhaps in absolute terms) to Manchester Airport from St Helens or Huyton is larger than the number made from any of those other cities.

Quite possibly. As the stopping service along the line, it at least gives everyone and every settlement on the line a chance to bask in the economic benefits a connection to an international airport brings.
I travel for work a lot, and when I used to live in the North West and travel on business I made equal use of Liverpool Manchester, Birmingham and Even East Midlands airport. The only time I ever got the train to Manchester was a leisure, flight (Ski holiday). Direct train was cancelled due to a signal failure, had to change twice, Earlestown, and Piccadilly. Resulting on 1hour late arrival. Sprinted across the airport air-bridge with a 20kg rucksack. Made the check-in by 30sec.

My company insisted they put on a taxi to the airport for business travel because the trains where too unreliable. I did get the train when flying on business via East Midlands though. On a trip that had me posted overseas for 4 months. So 4 months worth of luggage and I had to cross both Manchester Piccadilly and Sheffield. (But it was a good job I went the day before, because... the train was predictably unreliable and I was an hour late.)

The lesson learned, there is no point any trains going to an airport unless they are reliable. As TPE infest the Castlefield corridor with delays from the otherside of the pennines, and vice versa, they should be redirected. Castlefield (including the chord if you must) should be kept for an S-Bahn style all stops service to serve Greater Manchester. And its surrounding towns and cities. If you want direct pan regional connectivity to an airport, and Manchester is your chosen one, it needs new dedicated infrastructure not ramming more trains through the same congested two track railway.

 

[Killingworth]

Certainly agree with reliability.

Friend of mine's daughter was going to Manchester Airport last Thursday taking an East Midlands service from Sheffield and changing on 13/14 at Piccadilly. Coincidentally it was the one immediately after a TPE I'd taken and had to stand all the way. It was running late so was diverted round the Dore curve and missed out Sheffield. The following TPE service was terminated at Doncaster. Dad got out his car and drove her to the airport rather than chance trying any other train!

 

[B&I]

No, and you know it. With the current setup people can use the local stopping service from anywhere west of Newton-le-Willows, and then with a single change get onto a Crosspennine service. Newton (/ Lea Green) for North TPE and O-Road / Pic for South TPE).
Your suggestion of reverting all services from West of Earlestown to Victoria introduces a 2nd change for a not insignificant proportion of those people. The fact that it involves cramming onto an already packed North Wales coast service doesn't escape those of us who have had to do it regularly.


Well I would prefer to see a 2nd stopping service per hour to ensure Patricroft and Eccles had an hourly direct service to each of the main transit corridors. They are suburban stations that should receive at least 2 calls an hour if GM politicians gave east-west connectivity anything like the same kudos at NW-SE through services, they would be in that position.

Ahh yes, the deserving, thereby implying the un-deserving. Segregating places into whether they 'deserve' something is not my business clearly that is yours.

Quite possibly. As the stopping service along the line, it at least gives everyone and every settlement on the line a chance to bask in the economic benefits a connection to an international airport brings.
I travel for work a lot, and when I used to live in the North West and travel on business I made equal use of Liverpool Manchester, Birmingham and Even East Midlands airport. The only time I ever got the train to Manchester was a leisure, flight (Ski holiday). Direct train was cancelled due to a signal failure, had to change twice, Earlestown, and Piccadilly. Resulting on 1hour late arrival. Sprinted across the airport air-bridge with a 20kg rucksack. Made the check-in by 30sec.

My company insisted they put on a taxi to the airport for business travel because the trains where too unreliable. I did get the train when flying on business via East Midlands though. On a trip that had me posted overseas for 4 months. So 4 months worth of luggage and I had to cross both Manchester Piccadilly and Sheffield. (But it was a good job I went the day before, because... the train was predictably unreliable and I was an hour late.)

The lesson learned, there is no point any trains going to an airport unless they are reliable. As TPE infest the Castlefield corridor with delays from the otherside of the pennines, and vice versa, they should be redirected. Castlefield (including the chord if you must) should be kept for an S-Bahn style all stops service to serve Greater Manchester. And its surrounding towns and cities. If you want direct pan regional connectivity to an airport, and Manchester is your chosen one, it needs new dedicated infrastructure not ramming more trains through the same congested two track railway.

BUT THEN WE COULDN'T HAVE DIRECT TRAINS TO THE AIRPORT FROM THORNABY-ON-TEES AND ECONOMIC ARMAGEDDON WOULD ENSUE !!!!!!!

 

[HowardGWR]

Is the SoS not willing to spend much on this part of the network due to the impending routing of NPR via the airport?

 

[snowball]

Is the SoS not willing to spend much on this part of the network due to the impending routing of NPR via the airport?

I haven't heard that any of his remarks about the P15-16 project involved any mention of HS2 or NPR.

 

[jonesy3001]

I haven't heard that any of his remarks about the P15-16 project involved any mention of HS2 or NPR.

the northern hub platforms at piccadilly might be 15 and 16.

 

[snowball]

the northern hub platforms at piccadilly might be 15 and 16.

Sorry, I don't understand your point. The proposal on which Grayling has failed to announce a decision is part of the Northern Hub and is for (changes at Oxford Road plus) two extra through platforms at Piccadilly alongside platforms 13 and 14. These if built would certainly be 15 and 16, as reflected in the title of this thread. Grayling has made various remarks suggesting this project is unnecessary. In doing so he has not, as far as I am aware, linked this view to either the HS2 or the NPR projects.

 

[Mag_seven]

I would suggest these new platforms are needed urgently. I passed through MP platforms 13/14 this evening and they were so overcrowded, people were being held at the top of the stairs. I hope none of those being held there had long distance services to catch!

 

[fowler9]

15 & 16 need building urgently. Since the new timetable our services on the CLC from West Allerton to Lime Street have become so unreliable as to at times become unusable for commuting. Further to this they have gone from being largely 156's to being 142's and 150's and thus more crowded. One of the fast services from Parkway has gone from 2 185's to 2 156's (Which are far more frequently cancelled than the TPE services). Alright the stock may net be affected by the new platforms but we may at least get a service that we know may turn up, albeit with inferior rolling stock.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Here is a point upon which to ponder. If a typically-many suitcase loaded Manchester Airport-bound train that had come from the north-east via the former way from Stalybridge and Guide Bridge and was terminated in the main train shed at Manchester Piccadilly station as been mentioned in the past, how long would it take for the lift at mezzanine level to take all passengers with typical sized luggage to finally be taken down to the platform level of platforms 13 and 14?

 

[notlob.divad]

Here is a point upon which to ponder. If a typically-many suitcase loaded Manchester Airport-bound train that had come from the north-east via the former way from Stalybridge and Guide Bridge and was terminated in the main train shed at Manchester Piccadilly station as been mentioned in the past, how long would it take for the lift at mezzanine level to take all passengers with typical sized luggage to finally be taken down to the platform level of platforms 13 and 14?

Install an escalator what is it? 10 metre rise, platform to mezzanine 2 up 2 down, 2million would cover it. If I can take a trolley on an escalator at my local supermarket, then you can install a few in Manchester for some people and their luggage.

 

[js1000]

I would suggest these new platforms are needed urgently. I passed through MP platforms 13/14 this evening and they were so overcrowded, people were being held at the top of the stairs. I hope none of those being held there had long distance services to catch!

It was ridiculous this evening.

But it's also a joke that Network Rail and the TOCs are allowed to use single end door trains like 156s and 158s on such busy through platforms.

I was on a Northern 156 which was ultra busy as a result of the TPE service to the Airport before it being cancelled. It must of took 5 minutes for passengers to alight and embark before it left the station as a result of all the luggage everywhere.

Network Rail didn't really think this one through. Personally I think they should bin one of the hourly trains to the Airport so they can actually run on time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here is a point upon which to ponder. If a typically-many suitcase loaded Manchester Airport-bound train that had come from the north-east via the former way from Stalybridge and Guide Bridge and was terminated in the main train shed at Manchester Piccadilly station as been mentioned in the past, how long would it take for the lift at mezzanine level to take all passengers with typical sized luggage to finally be taken down to the platform level of platforms 13 and 14?

What is the relevance of that when I have proposed that if those services did terminate at Picc, an alternative Class 319 operated service should operate from the main trainshed?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was ridiculous this evening.

But it's also a joke that Network Rail and the TOCs are allowed to use single end door trains like 156s and 158s on such busy through platforms.

I was on a Northern 156 which was ultra busy as a result of the TPE service to the Airport before it being cancelled. It must of took 5 minutes for passengers to alight and embark before it left the station as a result of all the luggage everywhere.

Network Rail didn't really think this one through. Personally I think they should bin one of the hourly trains to the Airport so they can actually run on time.

There needs to be an outright ban on terminating services short at Manchester Oxford Road or Manchester Piccadilly unless this is due to a technical issue, crew incapacitation/assault or medical emergency which would make it impossible for the train to proceed in service. It is this that accentuates the issues. In order to avoid this, there also needs to be an outright ban on planned crew changes at either of these stations.

 

[notlob.divad]

But it's also a joke that Network Rail and the TOCs are allowed to use single end door trains like 156s and 158s on such busy through platforms.

And it is only going to get worse when TPE start to bring in their end door stock. Over the next 12 months.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And it is only going to get worse when TPE start to bring in their end door stock. Over the next 12 months.

Though said stock, by virtue of being longer, will have reduced overcrowding and thus will reduce the issue to some extent.

Nonetheless I do think it should be banned from those platforms, and either run to/from/via Victoria or to the main trainshed platforms instead. If you must send something round that infernal Chord, send a pair of Northern Class 150 sets that way instead. The Sandgrounders appear to be campaigning for the Southport service to serve Picc instead; that would be a welcome swap, I reckon.

 

[Killingworth]

Though said stock, by virtue of being longer, will have reduced overcrowding and thus will reduce the issue to some extent.

Nonetheless I do think it should be banned from those platforms, and either run to/from/via Victoria or to the main trainshed platforms instead. If you must send something round that infernal Chord, send a pair of Northern Class 150 sets that way instead. The Sandgrounders appear to be campaigning for the Southport service to serve Picc instead; that would be a welcome swap, I reckon.

Banning end door stock may be a good idea, but what happens to all the old units currently expected to be dragging round the north for at least another 5-10 years, and where are all the replacement units to come from?

 

[js1000]

I'm not advocating banning end door stock - for bay platforms they're generally fine. But at busy through platforms at Oxford Road and Piccadilly their usage needs to be minimised to reduce alighting/embarking times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not advocating banning end door stock - for bay platforms they're generally fine. But at busy through platforms at Oxford Road and Piccadilly their usage needs to be minimised to reduce alighting/embarking times.

An option for 13/14 would be to tweak the timetables to allow an increased dwell time for the TPE services.

 

[Greybeard33]

Though said stock, by virtue of being longer, will have reduced overcrowding and thus will reduce the issue to some extent.

Nonetheless I do think it should be banned from those platforms, and either run to/from/via Victoria or to the main trainshed platforms instead. If you must send something round that infernal Chord, send a pair of Northern Class 150 sets that way instead. The Sandgrounders appear to be campaigning for the Southport service to serve Picc instead; that would be a welcome swap, I reckon.

So you want to banish the TPE Scottish services to terminate at Victoria, once the 397s take over from the 350s? I cannot see that proposal gaining much traction!

 

[Chester1]

So you want to banish the TPE Scottish services to terminate at Victoria, once the 397s take over from the 350s? I cannot see that proposal gaining much traction!

An exception could be made for TPE services but Piccadilly-Hull could be allocated new stock to concentrate double 185s on chord services. EM franchise will most likely lose Liverpool-Nottingham in December 2021 and W&B will be operating units with doors at thirds in the long term. Northern has enough stock to be banned from operating end door units through 13 and 14.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is the relevance of that when I have proposed that if those services did terminate at Picc, an alternative Class 319 operated service should operate from the main trainshed?

I am talking of what would now be the current situation in such a scenario. In the past, there was the shuttle service from Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Airport and also the Manchester Piccadilly-Manchester Airport-Crewe service that both left from the terminal platforms in the main train shed at Manchester Piccadilly station, but neither of these two service patterns from the main train shed now exist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you want to banish the TPE Scottish services to terminate at Victoria, once the 397s take over from the 350s? I cannot see that proposal gaining much traction!

Those ones could be an issue, but if we could get things down to only 2tph of end doored stock that would be an improvement. It could well be feasible to tweak with the timetabling to allow them a several-minute dwell. Only 1tph might be viable if the Nottingham services go over to 185s as well.

Good point re using 185s on the Chord services.

 

[Greybeard33]

An exception could be made for TPE services but Piccadilly-Hull could be allocated new stock to concentrate double 185s on chord services. EM franchise will most likely lose Liverpool-Nottingham in December 2021 and W&B will be operating units with doors at thirds in the long term. Northern has enough stock to be banned from operating end door units through 13 and 14.

I believe Piccadilly to Hull is only 4 diagrams, not nearly as many as Airport to Middlesbrough and Newcastle.

But a more fundamental issue is that, as far as I can see, the 40 minute turnrounds at the Airport, which TPE is planning to implement from December 2018 to December 2019, will require double occupancy of the Airport platforms. That implies that all the interworked Airport to Newcastle/Middlesbrough diagrams will have to be worked by single 185s until the December 2019 timetable change, with continued overcrowding causing long dwell times. Double 185s, Mk5A sets and 802s are all too long to fit in half a 200m platform.

I still think a further major recast of the TPE North timetable will be needed in December 2019, to sort this mess out until P15/16 can be built.

 

[dewsnapsliding]

A couple of observations from an ex-GM resident

It seems to me that some of the issue is related to Victoria and its now lack of platforms.

If Victoria could be rebuilt to something like its previous capacity or ‘just’ an additional pair of through platforms then could we see services from the West terminating at Victoria, with trains able to proceed into a rebuilt Red Bank sidings, and at the same time permit a cross platform interchange to those airport bound services coming from the East (going around the Ordsall curve)

Additionally, what’s to stop the EMT Liverpool-Norwich going via Victoria/Ashburys and then either of the other 2 routes to Hope Valley? That cuts the need through Picc and (if combined with the above) still permits a cross-platform change to be airport. (Other than the end-end journey times/scheduling of drivers/units).

The issue of everything trying to serve the airport from everywhere should lead to other approaches to the airport being considered more properly I.e. Western Approach to airport removing those Liverpool trains needing to come through 13/14. Poss even route the Liverpool Norwich service meaning that there is a serviceto Mcr Airport which from the East also, giving a more direct Sheffield Mcr Airport link (without having to go via Mcr city Centre).

I understand that some places may lose out with a direct service to the airport but that is the point of a nodal transport system with greater reliability and connectivity. Or whether connection can be made from the Airport line to that which bypasses Stockport. These services are then not dependent on the pinch point that is Picc 13/14 and the inter-city services are just that, and not airport to everywhere. Perhaps the airport should also come up with some of the money ...

 

[notlob.divad]

If Victoria could be rebuilt to something like its previous capacity or ‘just’ an additional pair of through platforms then could we see services from the West terminating at Victoria, with trains able to proceed into a rebuilt Red Bank sidings, and at the same time permit a cross platform interchange to those airport bound services coming from the East (going around the Ordsall curve)

A Couple of West facing bays on the area over the top of Mirabella street would work wonders.

Additionally, what’s to stop the EMT Liverpool-Norwich going via Victoria/Ashburys and then either of the other 2 routes to Hope Valley? That cuts the need through Picc and (if combined with the above) still permits a cross-platform change to be airport. (Other than the end-end journey times/scheduling of drivers/units).

Well the Liverpool-Norwich goes via Warrington Central providing one of the two semi-fasts along the CLC. There is no way to get from Warrington Central to Victoria. So redirecting the service via Chat Moss to be able to serve Victoria instead would leave Warrington Central with a decrease in its service level, or require a replacement, which would still suffer from the same issues in the Castlefield corridor. Having already lost their TPE service, I am not sure the people of Warringotn will be best pleased at the loss of the only other long distance East-West service calling in the city. Once again, the problem could be partially solved by sending a TPE to Chester via Warrington Bank Quay instead of the Airport, but saying that is heresy on this forum.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A couple of observations from an ex-GM resident:-

It seems to me that some of the issue is related to Victoria and its now lack of platforms.

If Victoria could be rebuilt to something like its previous capacity or ‘just’ an additional pair of through platforms then could we see services from the West terminating at Victoria, with trains able to proceed into a rebuilt Red Bank sidings, and at the same time permit a cross platform interchange to those airport bound services coming from the East (going around the Ordsall curve)

In all seriousness, being mindful of what you aspire to, noting the current lack of any funding progress made with regards to a provision of platforms 15 and 16 at Manchester Piccadilly station, how much in terms of hard finance needs to meet your aspiration at Manchester Victoria station in terms of both infrastructure and signalling requirements and also, may I ask what time scale would be required to see such project completion?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the best way to reliable serve the CLC would be 2tph all stations Liverpool to Warrington C then Birchwood, Oxford Road etc, and 2tph Liverpool, Widnes, Warrington C then all stations to Manchester and beyond. I reckon that could be pathed. All services either Class 769 or 2x150.