Quite the opposite is happening, they are making it bigger with more capacity and new entrances etc.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Could stations in Manchester receive a better service?
- Thread starter Daniel740
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Wonderful, more traffic to contented with when it kicks out.
it has to have been the worse place to build an arena.
Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 17,286
Nearby to a train/tram/bus transport interchange and car parks? Can think of worse places!
When built in 1995, the (Manchester) Arena didn't impinge upon Manchester Victoria station, did it?
It’s pointless travelling by train for most as there’s very few services that are running after the concerts finish. The roads around the venue were never designed to cope with the level of traffic that is seen when the concert finishes.
It occupies the land that platforms 12-17 were on.
Everything to the right of the class 25.
It occupies the land that platforms 12-17 were on.
Everything to the right of the class 25.
Attachments
Purple Orange
On Moderation
The idea that the current Arena will be demolished is for the birds. The only reason to build an arena at Eastlands is because the backers believe there to be an unserved market in Manchester for concerts and other events of that can attract 20,000 people. The current arena has been a huge success and is very popular. Yes in hindsight it would have been better to have built the Arena on the other side of Trinity Way, but back in the early 90s that land was not available anyway.
In the meantime, if 4 bay platforms can be built creating a 10-platform station, that would be very useful. Victoria’s long-term use will be for regional and local commuter services with all Intercity traffic likely to be threaded in to Piccadilly. It will never be a pretty station and it doesn’t need to be.
Looking towards the next 10-15 years, the Greater Manchester Spacial Framework has just been published which highlights (again) aspirations for expanding metrolink with an underground tunnel, a connection at the airport to the mid-Cheshire lines and tram-trains across many existing heavy rail lines, creat8ng a much higher frequency service. Looks good to me.
In the meantime, if 4 bay platforms can be built creating a 10-platform station, that would be very useful. Victoria’s long-term use will be for regional and local commuter services with all Intercity traffic likely to be threaded in to Piccadilly. It will never be a pretty station and it doesn’t need to be.
Looking towards the next 10-15 years, the Greater Manchester Spacial Framework has just been published which highlights (again) aspirations for expanding metrolink with an underground tunnel, a connection at the airport to the mid-Cheshire lines and tram-trains across many existing heavy rail lines, creat8ng a much higher frequency service. Looks good to me.
Last edited:
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Why don’t you see tram trains coming to fruition? There appears to be a fairly big network planned for such operation.
As far as I’m aware, the Sheffield-Rotherham tram trains are still operating.
There’s plans for lots of things that never end up happening.
The lower speed of the trams will be a deciding factor in greater Manchester. Its more likely that metrolink will take over existing railway lines. The two that always seem to get mentioned are the Rose Hill line and the Atherton line.
The lower speed of the trams will be a deciding factor in greater Manchester. Its more likely that metrolink will take over existing railway lines. The two that always seem to get mentioned are the Rose Hill line and the Atherton line.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
They took over the heavy rail lines to Bury, Oldham & Altrincham. However what has the lower speed of trams got to do with it? Whatever units are used, they will be different to the trams that are used on the current network. I still don't see what evidence there is to sa6 tram trains wont work in Greater Manchester, when they are working in South Yorkshire and plenty of examples in Germany.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I’m not proposing, TfGM are. We know the Atherton, Warrington, Glossop & Marple lines are proposed, but if you don’t know the capabilities of the units that would be operating on these lines, how can you be sure that speed will be an issue? What insight do you have that TfGM or the Sheffield Supertram do not have?
adrock1976
Established Member
Or alternatively, extend the present Southport - Hunts Cross Merseyrail to Warrington Central calling all stations every 15 minutes, and having an electric Warrington Central - Oxford Road (or Airport when Oxford Road is finally rebuilt) calling all stations every 30 minutes to start with.
The Regional Express towards Sheffield and onwards would be switched to run via the Earlestofwn route, however this would sever the long standing regional connection between Warrington and Stockport/Sheffield.
telstarbox
Established Member
The GMSF still has a way to go before it's done and dusted...
They should extend the third rail from ormskirk to farington curve jn and use 319’s. They could even operate on the lime st underground system.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Just my opinion as a railway worker in the greater Manchester and surrounding areas.
It certainly did. Until then the station had 5 through platforms, an extra east-facing bay and through roads, as well as a lot more circulating space on the platforms and a much higher roof, meaning better light and less diesel smoke.
py_megapixel
Established Member
Assuming Burnham's bus franchising scheme gets through, all public transport in Greater Manchester is soon to be under the control of one body, with the exception of course of heavy rail.
Unfortunately I fear the downfall of this will be the lack of encouragement of people out of their cars. If the buses get stuck in the same traffic as private vehicles then what's the point, of course?
The issue with the capabilities of the tram-trains will be that the city centre sections of Metrolink have very sharp curves, meaning that quite short, narrow vehicles must be used. It's hard to see how you'd build vehicles suitable for main line railway speeds and longer-journey comfort that could still operate on the Metrolink city centre network. Bear in mind too that some of the lines mentioned have other longer distance services operating over them. It's no longer acceptable to ruin good services to towns beyond the GM boundary in order to grab the route for a local tram operation.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
What towns & cities beyond Wigan & Warrington can’t access Manchester via a different line? We are talking about 20 years from now, when Liverpool fast services will be on NPR and Southport services go via Bolton.
If tram-train technology is proven to work, I see no reason for it not to work in Greater Manchester.
py_megapixel
Established Member
NPR is a long way from certain to happen.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
As is tram-train, but it looks more likely to happen than not. This thread is about providing a better service to stations in Manchester. The only way this can be done is through delivering NPR and expanding metrolink. Everything else is just tinkering around the edges.
Yes! Or failing that, two bay platforms at Oxford Road. Or two central turnback platforms at Oxford Road. (For the benefit of younger readers, all these things used to exist.)
Do you really believe that, even if it does go ahead, NPR will be up and running by 2040?
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I don’t believe there will be a full bells and whistles NPR, but rather a very watered down version consisting of a spur to Liverpool and electrification across the Pennines. There will be no new line via Bradford. However, as far as Manchester local services are concerned, it doesn’t need anything more than taking the intercity services off the current lines in the city centre, which is exactly what the ‘bog standard’ NPR provides. In fact NPR branded operations can be up and running as long as HS2 to Manchester with the junction built to bring Liverpool and Leeds services in to Piccadilly from the south. Could that be done by 2040? Perhaps. It’s not impossible.
It surprises me that people think NPR will be anything more than the absolute basic level of investment, but that is all it has ever needed.
daodao
Established Member
There is no need to extend HS2 north of Minshull Vernon; it would be a white elephant. North of Crewe, the main lines divide in 4 directions and no single route will carry enough traffic to justify the enormous expense of a high speed line. In any case, Manchester is not sufficiently big or economically important enough to justify any railway tunnelling; it is not London or New York. As for NPR, shaving 10 minutes off journeys from Manchester to Leeds/Liverpool will not increase rail's modal share markedly, given that most actual journeys are not city centre to city centre. The current Lime Street-Victoria service is fairly good, and could be accelerated by using electric traction and cutting out the intermediate stop. Electrification of the existing Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds-York line and smoothing out certain sections, as intended near Mirfield, should be sufficient for this route, and is all that is really affordable. One needs to remember that the UK is becoming an economic basket case with enormous debts, heading in the same direction as Argentina.
The way forward for Manchester's suburban routes is conversion of non-electrified lines to Metrolink, or electrification using 25kV where Metrolink conversion is not feasible/desirable, and reserving the Oldfield curve and Castlefleld corridor for Northern Rail local/regional services only.
Last edited:
The arena at Eastlands will be built if the backers believe it will make a profit. Whether that is achieved by catering to previously unserved markets or by attracting events away from the existing arena makes no difference. No other regional city supports two venues of such size. On top of that the events business has completely collapsed with no prospect of filling one arena any time soon never mind two.
Who actually owns the land the Arena is on? I assume Network Rail still own the operational station, but is the area of the former platforms owned by the arena? If it's privately owned judging by everything else in Manchester it'll most likely be developed as more buy-to-let flats if the Arena closes.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They wouldn't be allowed to do that. 25kV to Ormskirk would be the way to achieve that if you want to (for a single unit could it be done as a simple Windermere-esque extension with no substation?), but if it does happen battery 777s seem more likely.
More on topic, I wonder how much of Manchester's suburban network, if any, could be 25kV-ed on the cheap without substations on that basis? Or none of it?
It’d be more cost effective than putting up overheads.
That’s a good question, it would interesting to know what capacity the current substations are running at.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I’ve no idea who owns the land, but that is secondary to the outcome of two arenas operating in Manchester. We must also not lose sight of the fact that the arenas are not here to serve the population of greater Manchester, but they will attract crowds from a huge distance across the north and midlands. People travel to see a band and there are not many bands that play a gig in every U.K. city. Just because no other regional city has two arenas, it doesn’t mean that it can’t work. We also have to recognise that in Manchester we have Old Trafford cricket ground, the Etihad stadium and Bolton’s stadium that host concerts every year. Looking at the scale of gigs that have been taking place away from the MEN arena, it sugges S there is a decent chance both can operate.
However, if Piccadilly becomes a bigger hub for intercity traffic and Victoria is reduced to just local and regional commuter traffic, what need is there for building an additional 4-6 through platforms at Victoria?
That is a load of nonsense. Of course Manchester is big enough - there are circa 3 million living in GM alone and has had sustained economic growth since the 90s, with a bigger GDP and GDP per capita than the West Midlands. However the biggest red flag in your post is the fact that you are ignoring the issue of creating greater capacity on the WCML in to Piccadilly as a result of building HS2.
Given that you live in Greater Manchester, away from the HS2 line, I’m intrigued as to why you think your city region should not have HS2. Is it ideological? I say ideological because you repeat the same debunked arguments.
What about Liverpool or Newcastle, which both have successful rail systems running underground?
Cologne has a population of 1 million (similar to the population of Manchester + Salford combined) and has a U-Bahn, S-Bahn, tram, Regio, RE and ICE trains. Yet in Manchester it seems the long term aspiration is the equivalent of having just tram, Regio, RE and ICE. Is the aim of UK public transport to be vastly inferior to an equivalent German city? Manchester also has 142s and 150s on all-stops to other cities both in the same region and in neighbouring regions, which in Germany would get a Regio standard train.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
By the standards of some German cities (smaller ones, usually) Castlefield is sort of an S-Bahn, not all of them are Merseyrail like segregated systems. But I do agree, Manchester is more than justifying of a proper underground, and I wonder if it might get one at some point in the form of a Den Haag style tram tunnel.
- Status