Can a completely new station in central Manchester be the answer?

[Purple Orange]

If central Manchester infrastructure is the problem, yet passenger demand for travelling to central Manchester remains high, is there a case for building a new station with both terminating and through platforms by Middlewood Locks?

From my vantage point of looking over the Ordsall Chord, I can't help but think there is a better way to utilise the existing infrastructure layout.

This question is on the assumption that HS2 and NPR infrastructure will not see the light of day, but the competing demands of intercity and local traffic needs to be addressed.

I see several benefits to this:

• Provision for Scotland and North Wales terminating trains.
• An interchange for services to the Airport and destinations east of Victoria.
• An opportunity to direct all Liverpool services via one station. This could comprise a high capacity terminating shuttle and enable services to Leeds & the Airport to continue from Liverpool.
• Potentially clear Oxford Road and P13-14 of any long distance services.
• The location of Middlewood Locks is fast becoming a part of the city centre and it opens up the possibility of better links to Salford Quays when the tram network eventually expands.

 

[Mogz]

You could call it... Manchester Central!

 

[Purple Orange]

You could call it... Manchester Central!

Well that is the thing isn't it. The central station will never be reopened as it once was, but the infrastructure provision is needed.

 

[Mogz]

I completely agree. Didn’t mean it to sound flippant

 

[Halifaxlad]

I found this whilst looking for a thread about a tunnel under Manchester, now how about a station under the city centre that could be approached from both East & West ?

Now found the thread that does include scope for a station not just a tunnel.
'Tunnels under Manchester City Centre where and what for'
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...entre-where-and-what-for.197419/#post-4367681

 

[Purple Orange]

I can certainly see the appeal for an NPR station underground or an east-west tunnel with several stations along the route, but if we are in an environment of caution of infrastructure of that scale, I’m of the opinion that Manchester needs to meet the needs in the cheapest way possible.

Thinking back to Metrolink, it was/is a cheaper method of delivering the Pic-Vic line and, the tram network today is probably much more comprehensive network than the pic-vic network could ever be.

So, without building additional track outside the centre, this is where my thinking is about building platforms at Middlewood locks, with the corresponding (and continued) regeneration of the area.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Would this be as well as Victoria/Piccadilly/Oxford Road/Deansgate or instead of? I can see the attraction of replacing some or all of the central stations - if nothing else, land sales could provide funding for a new station - but the railway has had its fingers burnt like that before (Victoria and the Arena).

 

[snail]

You could call it... Manchester Central!

Not if it's in Salford!

 

[snail]

If central Manchester infrastructure is the problem, yet passenger demand for travelling to central Manchester remains high, is there a case for building a new station with both terminating and through platforms by Middlewood Locks?

Try searching for the discussions around the Ordsall Chord project. There was a suggestion to put the lines through Middlewood Locks to avoid MOSI but it would have compromised the Middlewood development. Where's the space for something of the size you are proposing?

 

[Gareth]

Still think an East/West tunnel with platforms at Piccadilly, would be best.

 

[HSTEd]

There is always the University North Campus site which is scheduled for mass redevelopment

 

[Purple Orange]

Would this be as well as Victoria/Piccadilly/Oxford Road/Deansgate or instead of? I can see the attraction of replacing some or all of the central stations - if nothing else, land sales could provide funding for a new station - but the railway has had its fingers burnt like that before (Victoria and the Arena).

In addition to. If we consider Piccadilly HS2/NPR station asdfitional, I see no reason to close any other central station. Particularly as it can form a metro route.

 

[Purple Orange]

Try searching for the discussions around the Ordsall Chord project. There was a suggestion to put the lines through Middlewood Locks to avoid MOSI but it would have compromised the Middlewood development. Where's the space for something of the size you are proposing?

It wouldn’t encroach on the middlewood locks development.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is always the University North Campus site which is scheduled for mass redevelopment

The old UMIST campus? That'd be no use, it'd just be clogging up Castlefield even more.

 

[HSTEd]

The old UMIST campus? That'd be no use, it'd just be clogging up Castlefield even more.

Castlefield would be half the length and widening of it would cost a small fraction of the cost of the overall scheme

 

[Clansman]

Manchester is a classic example of somewhere that would have benefitted from a Birmingham New Street style station smack bang in the centre with 20 something platforms. Same goes for Glasgow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Castlefield would be half the length and widening of it would cost a small fraction of the cost of the overall scheme

Are you proposing a terminus with no through services at all? Can't see that being popular. Or just a west-facing terminal station with say 6tph metro-style running through, in which case that'd be no bad thing (basically bringing Central back in a different location) but it wouldn't be an Hbf.

 

[HSTEd]

Are you proposing a terminus with no through services at all? Can't see that being popular. Or just a west-facing terminal station with say 6tph metro-style running through, in which case that'd be no bad thing (basically bringing Central back in a different location) but it wouldn't be an Hbf.

Even more extreme than either.
I'm proposing the demolition of the existing Piccadilly concourse, with the concourse moving into the original trainshed (or it being converted to commercial units).

The Macdonald hotel would have to be removed, but otherwise virtually all the demolitions would be scheduled in the Uni redevelopment anyway.
10-15 400m+ platforms could be provided, with a third track between the platform lines of each pair and scissor sections to allow trains to go around each other
At least a few of the platforms could be captive-compliant and would also handle classic-compatible and other services.

Castlefield corridor would remain a bottleneck but trackwork simplifications at the west end would assist, and castlefield junction is only 1200m beyond the end of the Uni Campus, and much of that is adjacent to a major road anyway, so widening it to 3-4 tracks becomes significantly less expensive.

This layout also allows services that currently run through Castlefield and terminate at the Airport to potentially run on to Birmingham or even London via HS2.

 

[Purple Orange]

Even more extreme than either.
I'm proposing the demolition of the existing Piccadilly concourse, with the concourse moving into the original trainshed (or it being converted to commercial units).

The Macdonald hotel would have to be removed, but otherwise virtually all the demolitions would be scheduled in the Uni redevelopment anyway.
10-15 400m+ platforms could be provided, with a third track between the platform lines of each pair and scissor sections to allow trains to go around each other
At least a few of the platforms could be captive-compliant and would also handle classic-compatible and other services.

Castlefield corridor would remain a bottleneck but trackwork simplifications at the west end would assist, and castlefield junction is only 1200m beyond the end of the Uni Campus, and much of that is adjacent to a major road anyway, so widening it to 3-4 tracks becomes significantly less expensive.

This layout also allows services that currently run through Castlefield and terminate at the Airport to potentially run on to Birmingham or even London via HS2.

That seems to be a hell of a lot of disruption and not worth the hassle of knocking down hotels and such like. Manchester needs west facing bays at a minimum. Ot wold be good to have at least 4 with 4 through platforms making an 8 platform station. Would it be feasible? I think Middlewood Locks could be that answer, but not at the expense of removing any of the other stations. The circuitous route from Piccadillyto Victoria could become a metro.

 

[HSTEd]

That seems to be a hell of a lot of disruption and not worth the hassle of knocking down hotels and such like.

Such a station could quite easily become the Clapham Junction of the North, with the added advantage of being inside a city at the same time.
It's the same idea as Airports becoming hubs, the larger the station gets the better.

 

[Purple Orange]

Such a station could quite easily become the Clapham Junction of the North, with the added advantage of being inside a city at the same time.
It's the same idea as Airports becoming hubs, the larger the station gets the better.

Bit that is the purpose of the Piccadilly HS2 and NPR platforms. Failing those being built, and investment will be done on the cheap, what else could be done? Knocking down a load of city centre real estate will not be cheap.

 

[HSTEd]

Bit that is the purpose of the Piccadilly HS2 and NPR platforms. Failing those being built, and investment will be done on the cheap, what else could be done? Knocking down a load of city centre real estate will not be cheap.

Well almost all of the stuff I am proposing to demolish will be demolished soon anyway.
(Only real exception is the hotel)

There is a lot of land that would released for redevelopment in the aftermath of this project.
So the net cost would be relatively reasonable.

NPR underground platforms are going to cost a huge sum of money to the point where I am skeptical if they will ever be built.
And I'm essentially proposing this be built instead of the currently projected HS2 platforms, which frees that land for redevelopment as well.

In essence I'm suggesting that we concentrate all trains running through Manchester into this single station, no more sending trains only to Victoria and then on to Liverpool.

 

[Greybeard33]

Well almost all of the stuff I am proposing to demolish will be demolished soon anyway.
(Only real exception is the hotel)

It is a mistake to think that, just because a site is available for redevelopment, it is affordable for railway use. The landowner, private or public, will expect to receive a price per hectare similar to what a developer would pay to build new commercial or residential buildings on the site. Which, in the inner city, is likely to be considerable.

And the local authorities are keen to maximise the number of revenue generating new developments in their area.

 

[HSTEd]

It is a mistake to think that, just because a site is available for redevelopment, it is affordable for railway use. The landowner, private or public, will expect to receive a price per hectare similar to what a developer would pay to build new commercial or residential buildings on the site. Which, in the inner city, is likely to be considerable.

And the local authorities are keen to maximise the number of revenue generating new developments in their area.

The net reduction in land consumed by railway use will tend to mean that land costs will be reasonable or even negative.

The disposed-of portions of the Piccadilly site and savings at the west end of the city from track rationalisation would seriously offset the costs.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Well almost all of the stuff I am proposing to demolish will be demolished soon anyway.
(Only real exception is the hotel)

There is a lot of land that would released for redevelopment in the aftermath of this project.
So the net cost would be relatively reasonable.

NPR underground platforms are going to cost a huge sum of money to the point where I am skeptical if they will ever be built.
And I'm essentially proposing this be built instead of the currently projected HS2 platforms, which frees that land for redevelopment as well.

In essence I'm suggesting that we concentrate all trains running through Manchester into this single station, no more sending trains only to Victoria and then on to Liverpool.

Am I right in thinking that what you are proposing is essentially reinstating the former Mayfield station and connecting it upon the West side to the Castlefield corridor ?

 

[HSTEd]

Am I right in thinking that what you are proposing is essentially reinstating the former Mayfield station and connecting it upon the West side to the Castlefield corridor ?

Mayfield would end up under the eastern approaches to the new station.
But sort of.

 

[Purple Orange]

Mayfield would end up under the eastern approaches to the new station.
But sort of.

Mayfield is already being developed and the land where UMIST is already has development in the pipeline. Zero chance of any surface stations being built on that site. P15 & P16 is the most that will get built.

 

[HSTEd]

Mayfield is already being developed and the land where UMIST is already has development in the pipeline. Zero chance of any surface stations being built on that site. P15 & P16 is the most that will get built.

Yes, just like redevelopment of the Owens Park which is progressing apace... oh wait.

Be very skeptical about the dates that the Uni has set for abandoning the campus.
The relocation is not going well at all.

But in either case, none of those things can withstand Parliamentary Supremacy.

 

[Greybeard33]

The net reduction in land consumed by railway use will tend to mean that land costs will be reasonable or even negative.

The disposed-of portions of the Piccadilly site and savings at the west end of these city from track rationalisation would seriously offset the costs.

I think you need to provide a plan to validate the claim of a net reduction in railway footprint. Also to demonstrate that the parcels of released land, and any unused portions of the North Campus and Mayfield sites, would be of a suitable size/shape/location to be valuable to developers.

The Mayfield Partnership includes Manchester City Council and TfGM, and the planning application for the first phase has been submitted:
https://www.uandiplc.com/our-places/mayfield/.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, just like redevelopment of the Owens Park which is progressing apace... oh wait.

Ha ha. That proposal came up in the Mancunion[1] about once a year in the 90s that it was going to happen then it never did.

[1] Manchester Uni student paper.