Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[mr_jrt]

As mentioned, a bit late given when the petition expires but a great idea that should have been done when it got greenlit! A QR code would also have been a good idea...people are lazy, and probably in a rush at a TVM. *shrugs*

 

[Bletchleyite]

As mentioned, a bit late given when the petition expires but a great idea that should have been done when it got greenlit! A QR code would also have been a good idea...people are lazy, and probably in a rush at a TVM. *shrugs*

Given that Android, bizarrely, doesn't include a QR reader as standard, that might actually be less use than you think.

 

[Greybeard33]

I'd say for now, any trains that terminate/begin at 13/14 should terminate at Platform 5 at Oxford Road as there is no point taking up valuable time on the platform if no through service is provided. Oxford Road and Piccadilly are well connected and a transfer if needed is easy enough to make.

Even removing 1 train per hour would help give a little bit more reliability, especially because the trains which terminate need to be thoroughly checked by staff to ensure no-one is still on-board, adding to the dwell times significantly.

From 20 May, the only trains terminating/originating in Piccadilly 13/14 will be a few TfW Chester/N Wales services in the peaks (off peak they continue to the Airport). These mostly reverse in the Mayfield Loop. They could not terminate at Oxford Road instead because Platform 5 is occupied by Northern trains at those times (the TfW loco hauled set is too long for that platform anyway).

I agree, but the only such trains should be the local stopping services (2/hour) from the CLC Warrington line, which have nowhere else to terminate. In particular, as there are other trains from Chester and Warrington to Piccadilly, all services from Chester & Warrington BQ should go to Victoria.

If more services from the Chat Moss line went to Victoria, while services from the Bolton line continued to go to Piccadilly via the Windsor Link, the performance risk of conflicts at Ordsall Lane Junction would increase. In any case the Victoria through platforms have no spare capacity for additional services.

 

[td97]

Given that Android, bizarrely, doesn't include a QR reader as standard, that might actually be less use than you think.

Not the most elegant (or well known) but both work on any Android:

• My preferred choice:
  • On any camera viewfinder with the QR code in the image, launch Google Assistant (long press home button) -> click 'What's on my screen?' -> done.
• Or, simpler if you can't get the above to work:
  • Launch Google Assistant -> Google Lens ('squircle' with 2 dots) -> done

 

[Bletchleyite]

I just installed an app. But my point is that "normals" who just have a cheap Android phone with no extras on it probably won't have a reader nor know those awkward workarounds, and so a QR code isn't as much use as one might think.

It not being an option in the menu on Chrome is frankly bizarre.

 

[adrock1976]

Someone needs to tell the powers that be to start off by not sending 2 car pacers through the UK's second biggest city ...

I genuinely think the terminating platform at Oxford Road is underutilised. Personally I love Oxford Road compared to using Piccadilly when given the choice, it's usually quieter and there are more places to sit.

I've also noticed trains that terminate at 13/14 have much longer dwell times than those that don't as staff have to ensure everyone is off the train. I think if trains are to use 13/14 they MUST have an onward connection to a destination either side as it both reduces dwell times and ensures that the best use is being made of the platforms.

I have never seen Pacers operating around Birmingham at all.

EDIT: I have seen a couple of subsequent posts mentioning this point after the later posts loaded after the webpage stalled.

 

[adrock1976]

Thinking through the service provision through Castlefield (and also Salford Crescent) would it work if an arrival at Salford Crescent is via Victoria, the next one would be via Piccadilly?

This means that from the Wigan/Bolton/Preston direction, and from the south and east routes, it would be a simple change at the Crescent if the trains alternated.

Regarding the Piccadilly - Airport route, I would be in favour of the following below:

2x TPE York/Middlesbrough - Airport via Victoria limited stop
1x Blackpool North - Airport via Salford Crescent limited stop
1x TPE Glasgow/Edinburgh - Airport via Salford Crescent limited stop
Piccadilly - Airport local all stations every 30 minutes
Rochdale - Airport via Ordsall Chord local all stations every 30 minutes
Both of the local services combine to give a frequency of every 15 minutes between Piccadilly and Airport, and the 4 limited stop services would be timetabled 15 minutes apart from each other and would depart Oxford Road and Piccadilly just before the local services would.

Furthermore, I would also truncate the Liverpool Lime Street - Piccadilly - Crewe via Airport local all stations (or magical mystery tour) to run Crewe - Airport and Liverpool Lime Street - Victoria.

 

[VT 390]

Furthermore, I would also truncate the Liverpool Lime Street - Piccadilly - Crewe via Airport local all stations (or magical mystery tour) to run Crewe - Airport and Liverpool Lime Street - Victoria.

If you are going to have a separate Crewe to Airport service not joined up to any other service (which I think is a good idea) would it not make sense to have it operate as an extension of either the London Northwestern Railway service via Stoke-on-Trent or the Crewe East Midlands Trains service (ideally the LNWR one at it is operated by an EMU) so that Stoke-on-Trent and other places south of Crewe have a direct Airport service.

 

[Chester1]

If 16tph ran through Piccadilly it would be something like these destinations linked with a variety of options:

North:

Northern - 12tph:

Preston via Bolton
Blackpool North via Bolton
Liverpool via Chat Moss

2tph Wigan via Bolton
Clitheroe via Bolton
Burnley via Victoria
Stalybridge via Victoria
Liverpool via CLC (fast)
2tph Liverpool via CLC (slow)
Cumbria

TPE - 4tph:

Edinburgh
Newcastle
Middlesbrough
Liverpool via CLC

South:

Northern:

4tph Manchester Airport
Crewe via Airport
Crewe via Stockport
Stoke
Alderley Edge
2tph Hazel Grove

2tph Buxton

TPE:

3tph Manchester Airport
Nottingham

This plan assumes Llandudno services switch to Stalybridge (via Victoria), TPE takeover Liverpool-Nottingham, in addition to their existing Airport-Cleethorpes South TPE service. To run reliably it would need grade seperation of Ordsall Lane Junction.

I do not actually think this is a good idea! Its a demonstration of what sort of services we would get if 15 and 16 are built and inevitably some idiots decide to use it to its maximum capacity to provide more places with Piccadilly and Airport services. My priority for Manchester is rebuild Oxford Road (removing platform 5 and therefore limiting corridor to 12tph). Secondly Castlefield Junction needs sorting before the surrounding area is entirely built up with skyscrappers. Thirdly Ordsall Lane Junction grade seperation to remove Liverpool-Victoria and Bolton-Piccadilly conflict (can be done within existing railway land boundaries). Once those have been done then the corridor should be able to reliably support 16tph with platforms 15 and 16.

 

[Eccles1983]

So Wales/Chester/Warrington gets a train to Stalybridge, whilst every shack from Yorkshire gets a service to the airport.

I can't see any holes in that plan, no sir.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think the service pattern through 13/14/15/16 would be based on that specified in the Northern and TPE franchise agreements for December 2019, which assumed the Piccadilly/Oxford Road package would be completed by then.

So all the services through 13/14 in the forthcoming May 2019 timetable (11tph), plus:

• Northern Connect Bradford - Airport service
• 2tph CLC stoppers extended from Oxford Road to Piccadilly and linked to two of the diesel Buxton/Northwich line services to avoid terminations in the through platforms.

That makes 14tph. One of the other two paths might be used for a second Calder Valley to Airport service, to give 4tph around the Ordsall Chord as per the original Northern Hub plans. The final path might be left spare to improve timetable resilience.

There would then be 11tph between Piccadilly and the Airport (6 Northern, 4 TPE, 1 TfW) versus 9tph now. 12tph total at the Airport, including the Crewe service, i.e. an average of 3tph in each of the four platforms. Even without double occupancy, that ought to be achievable, with a recast to improve spacings and eliminate excessive layovers.

 

[davyp]

Freight?

 

[The Planner]

Freight?

This, remember that an Intermodal takes up the best part of two paths due to the length of them.

 

[Mogster]

When I’m waiting at Oxford Road at 16:15 each night the hourly container trains seem to cause chaos each time they run. They are so long the front end must be in Oxford Road and the rear still in Picadilly... With those and TPEs late running and over crowded services getting in the way of the commuter trains nothing runs on time...

It’s a complete mess.

 

[Jozhua]

When I’m waiting at Oxford Road at 16:15 each night the hourly container trains seem to cause chaos each time they run. They are so long the front end must be in Oxford Road and the rear still in Picadilly... With those and TPEs late running and over crowded services getting in the way of the commuter trains nothing runs on time...

It’s a complete mess.

The container trains should really not be running through castlefield at rush hour...

Its madness, only in the UK would we run large freight trains through the middle of a large city at rush hour...just removing the delays from the hourly freight services would probably improve castlefield delays considerably.

 

[Glenn1969]

Could they reroute these container trains away from Castlefield? Surely if they can they should and must

 

[Tomnick]

Could they reroute these container trains away from Castlefield? Surely if they can they should and must

They can’t, not with the current infrastructure. The container terminal faces east, straight into the Castlefield corridor. Even if trains could arrive and depart to/from the west, there’s no easy route for them to ultimately head south, where they need to go. It’d surely be possible to rebuild (or relocate?) the terminal to allow access from the west, and to construct a chord line to connect the CLC to the WCML around Warrington - but at what cost?

 

[VT 390]

Could they reroute these container trains away from Castlefield? Surely if they can they should and must

They can’t, not with the current infrastructure. The container terminal faces east, straight into the Castlefield corridor. Even if trains could arrive and depart to/from the west, there’s no easy route for them to ultimately head south, where they need to go. It’d surely be possible to rebuild (or relocate?) the terminal to allow access from the west, and to construct a chord line to connect the CLC to the WCML around Warrington - but at what cost?

As a cheaper alternative would it be possible to have all freight on the Castlefield route to only operate in the late evenings and early mornings and overnight, which would mean it would run either before or after most passenger services operate?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a cheaper alternative would it be possible to have all freight on the Castlefield route to only operate in the late evenings and early mornings and overnight, which would mean it would run either before or after most passenger services operate?

Or just refuse it its path if it's late, which would concentrate minds on it not being. Traditionally passenger would always win over freight. Now it's who pays?

 

[Tomnick]

As a cheaper alternative would it be possible to have all freight on the Castlefield route to only operate in the late evenings and early mornings and overnight, which would mean it would run either before or after most passenger services operate?

I doubt that'd work with finite capacity in the terminal (so you can't just squash the whole day's intermodal service into less than half a day) nor with the tight timescales involved.

Or just refuse it its path if it's late, which would concentrate minds on it not being. Traditionally passenger would always win over freight. Now it's who pays?

Where do you hide a delayed inbound freight train, though? Admittedly you could probably recess late runners in Basford Hall, but it'll just compound the problems with traincrew running out of hours, subsequent freight trains being knocked too, and just makes it more likely that the traffic will move to the roads instead. The same applies to a departing freight - it's all well and good until you run out of space to accept a subsequent arrival. I'd imagine that most of the delays are down to passenger operators or Network Rail anyway, so penalising the FOC won't help in that case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where do you hide a delayed inbound freight train, though? Admittedly you could probably recess late runners in Basford Hall, but it'll just compound the problems with traincrew running out of hours, subsequent freight trains being knocked too, and just makes it more likely that the traffic will move to the roads instead. The same applies to a departing freight - it's all well and good until you run out of space to accept a subsequent arrival. I'd imagine that most of the delays are down to passenger operators or Network Rail anyway, so penalising the FOC won't help in that case.

Given the level of the issue in this specific location, it moving to the roads may not be a bad thing.

 

[Greybeard33]

This, remember that an Intermodal takes up the best part of two paths due to the length of them.

IIRC the Piccadilly/Oxford Road package was supposed to increase the corridor capacity to 20tph (3 minutes planning headway). 16tph of passenger services then allows for 2tph freight, per the original Northern Hub requirements (each freight occupying two paths).

 

[Bletchleyite]

IIRC the Piccadilly/Oxford Road package was supposed to increase the corridor capacity to 20tph (3 minutes planning headway). 16tph of passenger services then allows for 2tph freight, per the original Northern Hub requirements (each freight occupying two paths).

3 minutes headway will not work unless they go Thameslink style. This is idiocy.

What is it about the UK that means we won't spend money simply to make the existing service, with longer trains, reliable as clockwork?

It's totally counter to the highly successful Dutch and Swiss models.

 

[Greybeard33]

3 minutes headway will not work unless they go Thameslink style. This is idiocy.

What is it about the UK that means we won't spend money simply to make the existing service, with longer trains, reliable as clockwork?

It's totally counter to the highly successful Dutch and Swiss models.

With four through platforms at both Oxford Road and Piccadilly, 3 minutes headway would mean 6 minutes reoccupancy time for each platform. That should be achievable even with end door stock.

As I understand it, the limiting factor would then be Castlefield Junction. In particular, the low speed turnouts and the proximity of the junction to the Deansgate platforms.

 

[Chester1]

So Wales/Chester/Warrington gets a train to Stalybridge, whilst every shack from Yorkshire gets a service to the airport.

I can't see any holes in that plan, no sir.

Warrington would get CLC services to the Airport. Llandudno services diverting to Stalybridge would provide 2tph between Chester and Victoria. It was an option provided to bidders for the new franchise. While its understandable that it was not chosen it is a reasonable option. The longest units on Llandudno-Manchester services in the long term will be 3 coaches.

 

[cle]

Warrington would get CLC services to the Airport. Llandudno services diverting to Stalybridge would provide 2tph between Chester and Victoria. It was an option provided to bidders for the new franchise. While its understandable that it was not chosen it is a reasonable option. The longest units on Llandudno-Manchester services in the long term will be 3 coaches.

3 car trains shouldn't be running through P13/14 - and demand should be spread a bit more. The North Wales services are definitely appropriate to run to Victoria.

 

[krus_aragon]

The longest units on Llandudno-Manchester services in the long term will be 3 coaches.

Are you quite sure of that? The longest configuration of the new CAF stock will be 3 coaches long, but they'll have end-gangways for working in multiple, like the 158s.

I'd say it's fair to expect 3 coach TfW services during the day, but they'll certainly be coupling units together for the peak workings. (Even if the extra unit is only used as far as Chester.) They've already done it with the 175s, haven't they?

Given that Manchester - South Wales will eventually be 4 or 5 coaches (once the last units are delivered and the First class service to Swansea is introduced), and the Liverpool - Llandudno / Shrewsbury (& Cardiff) will be at least 4 coaches at the Liverpool end (as the units will divide at Chester), I can't see the Manchester - Bangor services limited to no more than 3 coaches...

 

[Chester1]

Are you quite sure of that? The longest configuration of the new CAF stock will be 3 coaches long, but they'll have end-gangways for working in multiple, like the 158s.

I'd say it's fair to expect 3 coach TfW services during the day, but they'll certainly be coupling units together for the peak workings. (Even if the extra unit is only used as far as Chester.) They've already done it with the 175s, haven't they?

Given that Manchester - South Wales will eventually be 4 or 5 coaches (once the last units are delivered and the First class service to Swansea is introduced), and the Liverpool - Llandudno / Shrewsbury (& Cardiff) will be at least 4 coaches at the Liverpool end (as the units will divide at Chester), I can't see the Manchester - Bangor services limited to no more than 3 coaches...

The new services will provide plenty of extra capacity between Llandudno and Chester and Northern will be running Chester-Leeds at the end of this month. I doubt any extra capacity will provided in addition to this between Manchester, Chester and Llandudno.

 

[The Planner]

IIRC the Piccadilly/Oxford Road package was supposed to increase the corridor capacity to 20tph (3 minutes planning headway). 16tph of passenger services then allows for 2tph freight, per the original Northern Hub requirements (each freight occupying two paths).

If anyone seriously agreed to that then they need shooting, doomed to fail within a day with no resiliance.

 

[Eccles1983]

Warrington would get CLC services to the Airport. Llandudno services diverting to Stalybridge would provide 2tph between Chester and Victoria. It was an option provided to bidders for the new franchise. While its understandable that it was not chosen it is a reasonable option. The longest units on Llandudno-Manchester services in the long term will be 3 coaches.

Warrington BQ would not. Cutting the TfW service would cut all ties from Chester, (and effectively the Wirral) frodsham, Helsby, Runcorn and north wales to the airport.

I would love to see that get approved, the councils of them areas would be up in arms. Only a population of around a million people denied a service to the biggest international airport in the region.