We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester Arena (under whatever name it currently has) being a case in point.

There is no reason why building on top of stations should be a massive issue. If anything the problem with it is that it isn't all on top so blocks adding another couple of long island platforms.

 

[Ianno87]

Either of these ideas would cause years more delay for design, planning inquiries etc and would cause much more disruption during construction than the existing, shovel ready P15/16 scheme.

Would it be more disruptive? If you "just" built some platforms alongside the existing viaduct to the west, opened them, then closed the old ones, that might be very un-disruptive. With the benefit of not being left with any "legacy" Platform 13/14 infrastructure with its passenger circulation compromises.

It may be "shovel ready" but may no longer be the right thing to do if the baseline (and thus benefits generated) have fundamentally shifted.

The eventual cost would be, at best, a substantial proportion of the cost of P15/16 but the benefit would be much less.

My idea would require (in theory) relatively little alteration to track and signalling, and (as above) potentially very little disruption, if it's just sticking some new platforms alongside the existing viaduct to the west, then closing the old ones.

One argument against the P15/16 scheme used to be that it would "only" allow two or three more paths than the existing infrastructure. But the Task Force options reduce the capacity of the existing infrastructure, so the benefits of the extra platforms have become correspondingly greater.

You are assuming that it is only 15/16 that would be required to realise any further paths, beyond that proposed in Option A/B/C. With a new timetable baseline, other stuff might now be needed too.

 

[notlob.divad]

Would it be more disruptive? If you "just" built some platforms alongside the existing viaduct to the west, opened them, then closed the old ones, that might be very un-disruptive. With the benefit of not being left with any "legacy" Platform 13/14 infrastructure with its passenger circulation compromises.

It may be "shovel ready" but may no longer be the right thing to do if the baseline (and thus benefits generated) have fundamentally shifted.




My idea would require (in theory) relatively little alteration to track and signalling, and (as above) potentially very little disruption, if it's just sticking some new platforms alongside the existing viaduct to the west, then closing the old ones.

If you *just* built new platforms on the viaduct immediately to the west, you would clash with an existing junction on the bridge over London Road.

If you went further west to avoid the junction, you would then no longer be at Manchester Piccadilly and kind of negate the functionality of interchanging to the main shed.

If you are not bothered about the interchange possibilities, then just don't stop at piccadilly you may as well make everyone use O-Road.

Basically what I am saying is, you cannot *just* build new platform faces, and any other possibility 15&16 becomes the least disruptive, most benefitial option. That isn't saying that other more disruptive things would not be better in the long run, however taking it to the extreme, we quickly get to the point where the *best* option is flattening Manchester city centre and starting again.

 

[Ianno87]

If you *just* built new platforms on the viaduct immediately to the west, you would clash with an existing junction on the bridge over London Road.

Good point, although that could (relatively simply) be plain-lined as it would be semi-redundant with relocated platforms partly negating its purpose.

If you went further west to avoid the junction, you would then no longer be at Manchester Piccadilly and kind of negate the functionality of interchanging to the main shed.

If you are not bothered about the interchange possibilities, then just don't stop at piccadilly you may as well make everyone use O-Road.

Although I wager that starting the platforms from roughly the present London Road crossover means a walking distance to the main Piccadilly concourse no greater than the existing route to 13/14 today (which is hardly short)

Then if a similar rebuilding/extension of Oxford Road pushes the "centre of gravity" of that station slightly westwards, that offsets Piccadilly expanding partially into its current catchment.

Basically what I am saying is, you cannot *just* build new platform faces, and any other possibility 15&16 becomes the least disruptive, most benefitial option. That isn't saying that other more disruptive things would not be better in the long run, however taking it to the extreme, we quickly get to the point where the *best* option is flattening Manchester city centre and starting again.

Yes, regardless of my crackpot ideas, I'm dubious about whether 15/16 is really "worth it" in isolation. And whether Option A/B/C, plus train lengthening etc with some more minor modifications to 13/14 and Oxford Road to make them work better will "do" in the medium term.

 

[tbtc]

Well said.

All the talk of solving 'the problems' with longer trains ignores the problem of too many people on 13/14 platforms, stairs and lift. That won't go away even if every train runs to time and every traveller knows where and when to position themselves in waiting areas and on platforms - which they never will.

Anyone who's had to fight their way against the flow to catch a connection at peak periods, maybe with luggage, keeping eyes open for platform changes, trailing young children or with a less able companion is likely to be totally put off rail travel.

...but part of this is due to the fact that there are so many destinations from 13/14.

• Norwich
• Crewe via Airport
• Hazel Grove
• Alderley Edge via Stockport
• Middlesbrough
• Newcastle
• Glasgow/ Edinburgh
• WIndermere/ Barrow
• Blackpool
• Liverpool
• Southport
• Llandudno

If you simplified the route map, you wouldn't have the variety of passengers.

Look at how narrow a lot of London Underground platforms are, but they soak up passengers pretty quickly, because the vast majority of passengers will board the first train that arrives. Same with most light rail networks.

If the timetable had a simple timetable with eight well spaced trains per hour stopping at Deansgate/ Oxford Road/ Piccadilly and all stops to Manchester Airport (with the other two passenger services on the corridor being Liverpool - Sheffield), maybe with four of the Airport services running via Bolton/ Chorley/ Preston to Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Cumbria/ Blackpool) and the other four running via Orsdall to Victoria and on to West Yorkshire then the majority of people would just board the first train that arrived (and, if not that one, the next one).

The problem that we have is all the hourly routes for Southport/ Llandudno etc - those services don't share any/many stops with the other current Castlefield services, so of course you're going to have congested platforms because people are hanging around waiting for that one specific service.

It'd be much easier to solve the busy platform situation by simplifying the mess of services - if we spend a hundred million pounds on ensuring that there's space for Llandudno/ Southport passengers to stand and wait for their hourly trains then that seems rather poor value for money to me.

I'm dubious about whether 15/16 is really "worth it" in isolation. And whether Option A/B/C, plus train lengthening etc with some more minor modifications to 13/14 and Oxford Road to make them work better will "do" in the medium term.

I don't think it is worth the money - given that there are a load of other things we could spend it on (how much to wire up the CLC/ Bolton to Wigan/ Marple etc?) - building 15/16 would just keep Manchester addicted to a mess of hourly services and probably attract more (e.g. Bradford will demand an Airport service as well as Llandudno/ Southport etc keeping their Castlefield services - and if they get them then why not Calder Valley/ Burnley/ Blackburn etc?)

 

[Jozhua]

This would be a retrograde step, destroying connectivity. The Castlefield line should be used primarily for local and regional services, calling at all 3 stations, with all longer-distance trains removed from it. These services should be operated with suburban-style emus (or bimodes), with doors at 1/3 and 2/3 along the carriages (not at the ends) to facilitate rapid boarding and alighting.

The only exception to this principle should be the 2 tph fast services from Liverpool to Sheffield (and beyond) via Stockport, for which there are no really suitable alternative routes.

Option C of the Manchester recovery plan goes some way in this direction, but isn't sufficiently streamlined and still leaves some longer-distance TPE services on the Castlefield line (from York and beyond, and from Lancaster and beyond).

It completely depends on what you decide to do with infrastructure/services. If those local services that currently stop at Deansgate are transferred to a tunnel that transits under Manchester City Centre, then that would offer the connections to Metrolink that Deansgate currently does.

I would still build 15/16 for two reasons - one, it is a bit of extra resilience, and two it would deal with the overcrowding of people. Not dissimilar to Liverpool Central which can cope fine with the timetable but struggles with the number of people there these days.

I agree with this - we look at running the level of train service, but forget moving people through the station is of equal priorities to the trains. Even if you run an 8-car train, if it takes ages to move those people on/off the train, it won't make any difference to the issues of delays.

Well said.

All the talk of solving 'the problems' with longer trains ignores the problem of too many people on 13/14 platforms, stairs and lift. That won't go away even if every train runs to time and every traveller knows where and when to position themselves in waiting areas and on platforms - which they never will.

Anyone who's had to fight their way against the flow to catch a connection at peak periods, maybe with luggage, keeping eyes open for platform changes, trailing young children or with a less able companion is likely to be totally put off rail travel.

Exactly.

...but part of this is due to the fact that there are so many destinations from 13/14.

• Norwich
• Crewe via Airport
• Hazel Grove
• Alderley Edge via Stockport
• Middlesbrough
• Newcastle
• Glasgow/ Edinburgh
• WIndermere/ Barrow
• Blackpool
• Liverpool
• Southport
• Llandudno

If you simplified the route map, you wouldn't have the variety of passengers.

Look at how narrow a lot of London Underground platforms are, but they soak up passengers pretty quickly, because the vast majority of passengers will board the first train that arrives. Same with most light rail networks.

If the timetable had a simple timetable with eight well spaced trains per hour stopping at Deansgate/ Oxford Road/ Piccadilly and all stops to Manchester Airport (with the other two passenger services on the corridor being Liverpool - Sheffield), maybe with four of the Airport services running via Bolton/ Chorley/ Preston to Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Cumbria/ Blackpool) and the other four running via Orsdall to Victoria and on to West Yorkshire then the majority of people would just board the first train that arrived (and, if not that one, the next one).

The problem that we have is all the hourly routes for Southport/ Llandudno etc - those services don't share any/many stops with the other current Castlefield services, so of course you're going to have congested platforms because people are hanging around waiting for that one specific service.

It'd be much easier to solve the busy platform situation by simplifying the mess of services - if we spend a hundred million pounds on ensuring that there's space for Llandudno/ Southport passengers to stand and wait for their hourly trains then that seems rather poor value for money to me.



I don't think it is worth the money - given that there are a load of other things we could spend it on (how much to wire up the CLC/ Bolton to Wigan/ Marple etc?) - building 15/16 would just keep Manchester addicted to a mess of hourly services and probably attract more (e.g. Bradford will demand an Airport service as well as Llandudno/ Southport etc keeping their Castlefield services - and if they get them then why not Calder Valley/ Burnley/ Blackburn etc?)

The problem still remains the gap between north/south and the need for people to transit across the city.

 

[Greybeard33]

You are assuming that it is only 15/16 that would be required to realise any further paths, beyond that proposed in Option A/B/C. With a new timetable baseline, other stuff might now be needed too.

No, I am assuming that the full Package C (Oxford Road as well as Piccadilly) would reduce headways in the corridor through alternating use of platforms at both stations. That would enable restoration of at least as many paths as in the pre-Covid timetable without compromising performance. It would also mitigate the dangerous crowding at both stations and enable longer trains to call at Oxford Road.

That is not to say that it is the only infrastructure intervention needed, just that it is the top priority and a precondition for the others.

Next on my priority list would be remodelling of Salford Crescent station and the Windsor Bridge junctions, and a capacity scheme for the Stockport corridor, to reduce conflicts on the succession of flat junctions between Piccadilly and Cheadle Hulme.

 

[Ianno87]

No, I am assuming that the full Package C (Oxford Road as well as Piccadilly) would reduce headways in the corridor through alternating use of platforms at both stations. That would enable restoration of at least as many paths as in the pre-Covid timetable without compromising performance. It would also mitigate the dangerous crowding at both stations and enable longer trains to call at Oxford Road.

That is not to say that it is the only infrastructure intervention needed, just that it is the top priority and a precondition for the others.

Next on my priority list would be remodelling of Salford Crescent station and the Windsor Bridge junctions, and a capacity scheme for the Stockport corridor, to reduce conflicts on the succession of flat junctions between Piccadilly and Cheadle Hulme.

Sounds like a lot of money and disruption, for a grand total of 4 trains per hour?

 

[Greybeard33]

If the timetable had a simple timetable with eight well spaced trains per hour stopping at Deansgate/ Oxford Road/ Piccadilly and all stops to Manchester Airport (with the other two passenger services on the corridor being Liverpool - Sheffield), maybe with four of the Airport services running via Bolton/ Chorley/ Preston to Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Cumbria/ Blackpool) and the other four running via Orsdall to Victoria and on to West Yorkshire then the majority of people would just board the first train that arrived (and, if not that one, the next one).

If only it were that simple! Your timetable removes from the corridor the hourly services to Chester/Llandudno, Liverpool all shacks via Chat Moss and Southport, and the second hourly service to Blackpool.

No way can those 4tph, plus the additional 2tph to W Yorkshire you want to send round the Ordsall Chord, all be squeezed through Victoria on the existing infrastructure.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2021 ==

Sounds like a lot of money and disruption, for a grand total of 4 trains per hour?

Plus all the other aspirations - 4tph on the Atherton line, 4tph on the Ordsall Chord, a third fast Sheffield train, a second hourly freight path....

Future proofing.

 

[tbtc]

If only it were that simple! Your timetable removes from the corridor the hourly services to Chester/Llandudno, Liverpool all shacks via Chat Moss and Southport, and the second hourly service to Blackpool.

No way can those 4tph, plus the additional 2tph to W Yorkshire you want to send round the Ordsall Chord, all be squeezed through Victoria on the existing infrastructure.

You mean the Llandudno - Chester - Manchester service that Option C would divert via Knutsford/ Stockport into the main shed at Piccadilly (introducing a replacement on the Chester - Manchester bit of the route that would run through Victoria towards the Calder Valley), the Chat Moss stopper that Option C would be terminated at Oxford Road and the Southport service that Option C would run through Victoria instead?

It appears I'm not the only person suggesting taking those services off Castlefield.

Four trains per hour on the Airport - Castlefirld - Bolton - Chorley - Preston corridor could be two Blackpools, one Cumbria and one Scotland, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that there wouldn't be space for a second Blackpool train.

The problem still remains the gap between north/south and the need for people to transit across the city.

Well, we've had the high frequency tram from Victoria to Deansgate for some time, as well as the regular trams from Victoria to Piccadilly - we've spent rather a lot of money on allowing trains to get from Victoria to Castlefield via Ordsall too (as well as the opportunity to change at Salford for other journeys) - how much more do we need to spend on bridging the gaps between different lines, given that nowhere is much more than one mile away from anywhere else?

(funny how on some threads people argue that we should have kept lines that Beeching closed so that we could have had two stations in places like Nottingham but on other threads the argument is that the millions spend on the frequent trams and the millions spent on Ordsall still mean we need to spend millions more on the relatively short gap between Pic and Vic)

No, I am assuming that the full Package C (Oxford Road as well as Piccadilly) would reduce headways in the corridor through alternating use of platforms at both stations. That would enable restoration of at least as many paths as in the pre-Covid timetable without compromising performance. It would also mitigate the dangerous crowding at both stations and enable longer trains to call at Oxford Road

15/16 do nothing to solve all of the flat junctions around Manchester, and we really need to focus on the messy pattern of services that cause so many trains to swap between lines.

After finishing the Windsor Link, we built the tram to link Victoria with Piccadilly/ Deansgate (in lieu of the proposed heavy rail tunnel) - we then built the Ordsal Chord to provide more links - if we spend yet more money on 15/16 then how long until we get the answer that Manchester needs yet more money spent on it to have grade separation etc etc? Meanwhile the infrastructure changes in most northern cities has been pretty minimal in the equivalent time. But it's always Manchester that needs these expensive projects.

 

[Bevan Price]

There is no reason why building on top of stations should be a massive issue. If anything the problem with it is that it isn't all on top so blocks adding another couple of long island platforms.

There is a different big issue about building above stations. It makes the platform areas very dismal and unattractive for the passengers, and, except on fully electrified lines, it increases pollution by diesel fumes.

Or can anyone name any stations that have bright attractive platform areas that are covered by buildings?
(Excluding "Underground" stations in tunnels, where platforms are generally much better lit than stations like Birmingham New St., Snow Hill , or Manchester Victoria.)

 

[Greybeard33]

You mean the Llandudno - Chester - Manchester service that Option C would divert via Knutsford/ Stockport into the main shed at Piccadilly (introducing a replacement on the Chester - Manchester bit of the route that would run through Victoria towards the Calder Valley), the Chat Moss stopper that Option C would be terminated at Oxford Road and the Southport service that Option C would run through Victoria instead?

It appears I'm not the only person suggesting taking those services off Castlefield.

Four trains per hour on the Airport - Castlefirld - Bolton - Chorley - Preston corridor could be two Blackpools, one Cumbria and one Scotland, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that there wouldn't be space for a second Blackpool train.

Ah. So what you are suggesting is in fact based on Option C, but with the addition of 2tph extra from the Airport to W Yorkshire via the Ordsall Chord and Victoria. That would give 13tph total through Castlefield Junction (including the freight and the Oxford Road terminators), which is too many for reliable performance.

Also too many through Victoria.

15/16 do nothing to solve all of the flat junctions around Manchester, and we really need to focus on the messy pattern of services that cause so many trains to swap between lines.

We need to do both. Neither Option C, nor your variant of it, avoid many of the junction conflicts at Castlefield, Water Street, Ordsall Lane, Irwell Street, Windsor Bridge North, Windsor Bridge South, Deal Street, Victoria East, Miles Platting, Piccadilly East, Slade Lane, Heaton Norris, Edgeley No.1 and No.2, Adswood Road, Cheadle Hulme....

 

[daodao]

We need to do both. Neither Option C, nor your variant of it, avoid many of the junction conflicts at Castlefield, Water Street, Ordsall Lane, Irwell Street, Windsor Bridge North, Windsor Bridge South, Deal Street, Victoria East, Miles Platting, Piccadilly East, Slade Lane, ...

Diverting the 2 TPE Standedge line services per hour that currently run via the Ordsall curve to Piccadilly and Ringway Airport, to run instead via Guide Bridge to terminate at the ex-GC platforms at Piccadilly, would reduce this problem, and weakens the case for building platforms 15/16 at Piccadilly.

 

[Jozhua]

Well, we've had the high frequency tram from Victoria to Deansgate for some time, as well as the regular trams from Victoria to Piccadilly - we've spent rather a lot of money on allowing trains to get from Victoria to Castlefield via Ordsall too (as well as the opportunity to change at Salford for other journeys) - how much more do we need to spend on bridging the gaps between different lines, given that nowhere is much more than one mile away from anywhere else?

(funny how on some threads people argue that we should have kept lines that Beeching closed so that we could have had two stations in places like Nottingham but on other threads the argument is that the millions spend on the frequent trams and the millions spent on Ordsall still mean we need to spend millions more on the relatively short gap between Pic and Vic)

15/16 do nothing to solve all of the flat junctions around Manchester, and we really need to focus on the messy pattern of services that cause so many trains to swap between lines.

After finishing the Windsor Link, we built the tram to link Victoria with Piccadilly/ Deansgate (in lieu of the proposed heavy rail tunnel) - we then built the Ordsal Chord to provide more links - if we spend yet more money on 15/16 then how long until we get the answer that Manchester needs yet more money spent on it to have grade separation etc etc? Meanwhile the infrastructure changes in most northern cities has been pretty minimal in the equivalent time. But it's always Manchester that needs these expensive projects.

I feel like you're getting at some kind of "Manchester gets everything, we get nothing", which just isn't how it works. The government seems to pitch things as "there is limited funding, therefore we can only do this in one place and not the other", but should we not build most projects which have good economic and social returns?

Other Northern Cities are also desperately in need of more funding for their infrastructure. Leeds is also very congested, as are the lines coming North out of Sheffield Midland. But that doesn't change the fact Manchester has a railway system that is unable to provide the capacity and level of service needed.

Now, I think the key issue is that all projects built/canceled have almost been done in a vacuum with no overarching strategy. Plus, it is worth noting that when the Windsor Link was being built, trends were very different from what they are at present. Considering loads in the '80s, the rationalization and simplification made more sense. Ordsall Chord was built without the associated infrastructure improvements to enable the corridor to handle the extra traffic, essentially rendering it useless.

I think the most prudent solution for relieving Castlefield, increasing transport capacity across the city centre, and reducing conflicts that require complicated grade separation, is a tunnel. It will be expensive, but it will also be the most robust and prudent investment in the network. Projects like Crossrail, RER (Paris), REM (Montreal) create frequent service on local lines diverted into tunnels through core areas, prove to be the most successful in boosting connectivity. If you want to boost capacity, through platforms offer significantly more than terminus ones, so make more sense to build in core areas, especially for local services (e.g. Glossop, Guide Bridge)

The tram and Ordsall chord were cheaper solutions to the problem that never really fully solved it. The trams definitely did help bridge a decent amount of local journeys on the lines they served and, if the central zone was actually integrated into the National Rail fares, they could act as a reasonable solution for moving people across the city.

 

[LittleAH]

Diverting the 2 TPE Standedge line services per hour that currently run via the Ordsall curve to Piccadilly and Ringway Airport, to run instead via Guide Bridge to terminate at the ex-GC platforms at Piccadilly, would reduce this problem, and weakens the case for building platforms 15/16 at Piccadilly.

No it wouldn't - it would shift a capacity problem back to the main train shed.

 

[daodao]

No it wouldn't - it would shift a capacity problem back to the main train shed.

In the short term, the Standedge line stopping service could be diverted to the bay platforms 1/2 at Victoria instead. in the longer-term, conversion of the ex-GC suburban line via Reddish to Marple Rose Hill (and possibly the Glossop/Hadfield line as well) would free up more capacity in the main train shed at Piccadilly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Mar 2021 ==

...a tunnel. It will be expensive...

And unaffordable and unnecessary. A cheaper and simpler solution for the ex-GC suburban lines via Reddish to Marple Rose Hill and to Glossop/Hadfield is to convert them to Metrolink, divert them "on street" west of Ashburys and link them to the Metrolink services from Altrincham and Bury currently terminating at Piccadilly.

I am not convinced that travel to city centres will return to pre-Covid levels, with increased office working from home and destruction of high street retail shops. It is therefore desirable to address issues regarding underperforming suburban heavy rail services in a cost-effective manner, so light rail conversion is ideal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a different big issue about building above stations. It makes the platform areas very dismal and unattractive for the passengers, and, except on fully electrified lines, it increases pollution by diesel fumes.

Or can anyone name any stations that have bright attractive platform areas that are covered by buildings?
(Excluding "Underground" stations in tunnels, where platforms are generally much better lit than stations like Birmingham New St., Snow Hill , or Manchester Victoria.)

There are a few European ones. Basically you need a high ceiling, up lighting and no DMUs.

 

[Fokx]

I am not convinced that travel to city centres will return to pre-Covid levels, with increased office working from home and destruction of high street retail shops. It is therefore desirable to address issues regarding underperforming suburban heavy rail services in a cost-effective manner, so light rail conversion is ideal.

You have to remember though that Manchester same city centre where there’s thousands of apartments being built by the year, offices for amazon are currently under construction in NOMA, there’s currently millions being spent on the new ‘Victoria North’ project and Manchester is the base of large fashion organisations such as Boo Hoo and Misguided with 6 universities and music colleges within a 3 mile radius of Oxford Rd station.

Manchester will manage the decline better than other cities and with a growing city centre population, you’re probably more likely to see an increase in people travelling away from the city, even IF travel to the city declines.

 

[Purple Orange]

You have to remember though that Manchester same city centre where there’s thousands of apartments being built by the year, offices for amazon are currently under construction in NOMA, there’s currently millions being spent on the new ‘Victoria North’ project and Manchester is the base of large fashion organisations such as Boo Hoo and Misguided with 6 universities and music colleges within a 3 mile radius of Oxford Rd station.

Manchester will manage the decline better than other cities and with a growing city centre population, you’re probably more likely to see an increase in people travelling away from the city, even IF travel to the city declines.

It will be the cities that will see growth post covid, but the towns will be where we see decline as we have seen for years. A change in working habits has seen city centre office space become more viable for employers who have opted to sit outside the city centres on the grounds of cost.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

There is a different big issue about building above stations. It makes the platform areas very dismal and unattractive for the passengers, and, except on fully electrified lines, it increases pollution by diesel fumes.

Or can anyone name any stations that have bright attractive platform areas that are covered by buildings?
(Excluding "Underground" stations in tunnels, where platforms are generally much better lit than stations like Birmingham New St., Snow Hill , or Manchester Victoria.)

Aren't you answering your own point here? Brightly lit stations such as those on London's Jubilee Line demonstrate that it isn't necessary for stations like Birmingham New Street and Sunderland to be so gloomy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aren't you answering your own point here? Brightly lit stations such as those on London's Jubilee Line demonstrate that it isn't necessary for stations like Birmingham New Street and Sunderland to be so gloomy.

DMUs make it impossible to have a clean concrete ceiling. Ban the diesel (which needs to happen in cities anyway) and power-wash the ceiling, fit LED uplighters and Robert is your father's brother, as it were.

 

[nr758123]

In the short term, the Standedge line stopping service could be diverted to the bay platforms 1/2 at Victoria instead.

I'm not sure whether it was in this thread or another one, but the bay platforms at Victoria are 94m and 111m.

The Standedge line stopping service is already 6 carriages at peak times, and (pre-Covid) full. A six carriage Class 185 will not fit into the Victoria bay platforms.

 

[daodao]

I'm not sure whether it was in this thread or another one, but the bay platforms at Victoria are 94m and 111m.

The Standedge line stopping service is already 6 carriages at peak times, and (pre-Covid) full. A six carriage Class 185 will not fit into the Victoria bay platforms.

These services could be merged with the proposed Stalybridge terminators and extended to wherever west of Victoria these trains originate from.

 

[Glenn1969]

That would reduce the frequency at Ashton and Stalybridge and the trains in peak were already full. Not a great idea and not one that would go down well with TfGM I wouldn't think

 

[YorksLad12]

Question for the locals (and the in-forum engineers). Rather than a straight 15 & 16 on a new viaduct to the south of Fairfield Street (while not knocking down the Star & Garter, if I remember correctly), was there ever any scope in using the northenmost platforms of Mayfield, and building a new viaduct through the western end to connect with the existing line around Altrincham Street? You'd have a longer walk for passengers, and you can't do it now because of buildings in the way. Just wondered if it had ever been considered.

 

[daodao]

That would reduce the frequency at Ashton and Stalybridge and the trains in peak were already full. Not a great idea and not one that would go down well with TfGM I wouldn't think

It wouldn't reduce service frequency at Ashton, half-hourly pre-Covid.

 

[Greybeard33]

These services could be merged with the proposed Stalybridge terminators and extended to wherever west of Victoria these trains originate from.

No, they could not be linked, because the timings of the Huddersfield stopper and the Southport - Stalybridge services do not match up at Stalybridge. The paths of the stopper have to fit between the expresses over Standedge and the Southport paths have to fit between the other services on the Salford Crescent - Bolton line.

 

[Ianno87]

Question for the locals (and the in-forum engineers). Rather than a straight 15 & 16 on a new viaduct to the south of Fairfield Street (while not knocking down the Star & Garter, if I remember correctly), was there ever any scope in using the northenmost platforms of Mayfield, and building a new viaduct through the western end to connect with the existing line around Altrincham Street? You'd have a longer walk for passengers, and you can't do it now because of buildings in the way. Just wondered if it had ever been considered.

ISTR some of the area to the south of the current platforms is earmarked for development; wouldn't want to conflict with that without good reason.

 

[Purple Orange]

ISTR some of the area to the south of the current platforms is earmarked for development; wouldn't want to conflict with that without good reason.

Yep, the whole area that is Mayfield station and towards Mancunian Way is currently being redeveloped. It’s going to be a decent sized park, with office and residential buildings incorporated too.

Also the plans for P15&16 did not require the Star & Garter to be demolished. In the early days, the pub was under threat.

 

[YorksLad12]

ISTR some of the area to the south of the current platforms is earmarked for development; wouldn't want to conflict with that without good reason.

Yep, the whole area that is Mayfield station and towards Mancunian Way is currently being redeveloped. It’s going to be a decent sized park, with office and residential buildings incorporated too.

Also the plans for P15&16 did not require the Star & Garter to be demolished. In the early days, the pub was under threat.

Ta both. Sounds awful. I knew the pub was not to be demolished as it's listed. I've vague memories of the scheme from six or so years ago and I remember a bit of a fuss being made about retaining the pub while running the viaduct almost along its guttering(!)

All moot, if the whole route from Deansgate to Piccadilly isn't likely to be quadded as was proposed.