Salford Crescent station to close for safety improvements

[northwichcat]

A multi-million pound scheme will improve safety at a railway station and ease the threat of passengers falling off the platform. Network Rail is proposing to spend £12m on Salford Crescent station – which serves the city’s University – because the platforms are too narrow. Transport bosses warned four years ago that a passengers could be accidentally pushed on to the tracks.

Now the station, used by more than a million people a year, will be closed for three months while work is carried out.

Salford Crescent is the only central stop where passengers can catch a train to either Manchester Victoria or Piccadilly - thanks to the 750-yard Windsor Link, built in the 1980s to connect Manchester’s north-south rail divide. But it has proved so useful to students and commuters that its narrow platforms have become dangerously overcrowded.

One idea was to move the station a few hundred yards but that has been rejected because it would cost more than £50m.

Instead, Network Rail will move the ticket office from the platforms to the road level above and build a new staircase with a lift for disabled passengers. Platforms will be lengthened at each end, and a new canopy built so passengers can wait under cover.

Network Rail’s Simon Leyshon said the platforms are too short to take the six-carriage trains which TransPennine Express use at busy times and doors have to be locked to prevent passengers getting out of them where there is no platform. At two metres wide in places, they are only two thirds of the current minimum width of three metres. But councillors on the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority remain unconvinced a single lift will be enough for disabled passengers.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...form_peril_at_danger_salford_crescent_station

 

[ukrob]

Shouldn't the title of the thread be "Salford Crescent station to close during works" - slightly less misleading.

 

[northwichcat]

Shouldn't the title of the thread be "Salford Crescent station to close during works" - slightly less misleading.

I tried to put something like "Salford Crescent station to close for 3 months for safety improvements" but it was too long to be accepted.

I've changed it slightly now.

 

[ukrob]

I tried to put "Salford Crescent station to close for 3 months for safety improvements" but that was too long to be accepted.

Fair enough

 

[Mojo]

What is the exact width of the platforms here? It says 2 metres, presumably that is that the width of either side of the building to the edge of the platform. There are some platforms on the Underground this narrow, and much busier.

 

[ukrob]

What is the exact width of the platforms here? Certain Underground stations look busier than this with a similarly narrow width.

Indeed - but they can't easily be widened as they are in tunnel, and already have no buildings or furniture on them (I'm thinking of the Northern Line Clapham stations). I don't know the exact widths.

If you see Salford Crescent here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northern_Rail_150_148_at_Salford_Crescent.jpg You can see that removing the buildings will make a huge difference (although it will still be narrow).

 

[Mojo]

Well they can, as I'm working on such a project at the moment

But the point I was making is, if the platforms really are 2m wide, why is money being spent on this, when much busier Tube stations manage with platforms equally narrow.

 

[ukrob]

Well they can, as I'm working on such a project at the moment

But the point I was making is, if the platforms really are 2m wide, why is money being spent on this, when much busier Tube stations manage with platforms equally narrow.

I didn't say they couldn't be - I said couldn't easily be - compared to this station, which is just moving removing platform buildings.

Besides which, why should Network Rail spend ANY money on tube platforms?

 

[strange6]

It will be interesting to see how they will manage the passage of the trains through there when building starts. There is only one through line that is away from the station itself

 

[Mojo]

Besides which, why should Network Rail spend ANY money on tube platforms?

What's that got to do with my question? I am simply asking why do these platforms need to be wider, when platforms equally as narrow when compared to the passenger numbers, on a much better run railway, cope.

I suspect the answer may be because passengers on the Underground tend to apply a lot more common sense and know what they are doing as to those on National Rail and because London Underground generally apply a common sense approach as to how they go about managing passenger numbers and station control.

 

[ukrob]

What's that got to do with my question? I am simply asking why do these platforms need to be wider, when platforms equally as narrow when compared to the passenger numbers, on a much better run railway, cope.

You appear to be saying that because a station on a different rail network 'copes', that other stations on other rail networks should 'cope' too, and that the money being spent is a waste - that is how it is coming across to be anyhow. Railways shouldn't be about 'coping' and 'making do'.

I suspect the answer may be because passengers on the Underground tend to apply a lot more common sense and know what they are doing as to those on National Rail and because London Underground generally apply a common sense approach as to how they go about managing passenger numbers and station control.

Also something to do with knowing that EVERY train will fill the WHOLE length of the platform - where at Salford Crescent it is obviously not the case with the majority of services being two carriages long - and if you aren't near a door then you won't get on in the peaks.

 

[Mojo]

You appear to be saying that because a station on a different rail network 'copes', that other stations on other rail networks should 'cope' too, and that the money being spent is a waste - that is how it is coming across to be anyhow.

Well it could be argued it is a waste of money if other railways manage without passengers falling under trains all of the time and without a huge amount of passenger discomfort.

I am always in favour of low cost quick wins to improve passenger comfort and facilities at stations wherever they are, and wanted to know the width of the platform to ascertain the reasons for the work because it looks to me the platforms are narrow but surely there could be a better short term solution.

 

[strange6]

Well it could be argued it is a waste of money if other railways manage without passengers falling under trains all of the time and without a huge amount of passenger discomfort.

I am always in favour of low cost quick wins to improve passenger comfort and facilities at stations and wanted to know the width of the platform to ascertain the reasons for the work because it looks to me the platforms are extremely narrow.

I know Crescent quite well and I must say, at peak times, it is quite dangerous. It's a very small station and as such, woefully inadequate for the demands placed on it.

 

[Inox]

they're doing nothing to increase throughput at the station? at either end you're usually waiting 3-5 minutes to move into the station. it's not just the number of passengers that's the issue it's the number of trains, too...

Not sure how they're going to lengthen the platforms, as the windsor link, atherton line, bolton line and victoria lines all come into the station at different grades, perhaps they'll just lengthen them by a couple of metres?

 

[ukrob]

they're doing nothing to increase throughput at the station? at either end you're usually waiting 3-5 minutes to move into the station. it's not just the number of passengers that's the issue it's the number of trains, too...

Not sure how they're going to lengthen the platforms, as the windsor link, atherton line, bolton line and victoria lines all come into the station at different grades, perhaps they'll just lengthen them by a couple of metres?

Like this: http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/1700/salfordcrescentplan1.jpg

Enough for six carriages.

 

[yorksrob]

Well it could be argued it is a waste of money if other railways manage without passengers falling under trains all of the time and without a huge amount of passenger discomfort.

I am always in favour of low cost quick wins to improve passenger comfort and facilities at stations wherever they are, and wanted to know the width of the platform to ascertain the reasons for the work because it looks to me the platforms are narrow but surely there could be a better short term solution.

I think that's the point of them flattening the buildings rather than actually widening the island. I wonder whether the cost is more towards the new building (since by National Rail standards at least it's busy enough to be staffed).

 

[WatcherZero]

Its a ticket office/waiting room and footbridge on stilts over a road and operational railway along with a lift. The demolition of the old ramp and station buildings along with platform extensions probably only make up a third of the cost.

 

[northwichcat]

What is the exact width of the platforms here? It says 2 metres, presumably that is that the width of either side of the building to the edge of the platform. There are some platforms on the Underground this narrow, and much busier.

London Underground is different as most people board the next service on the platform they are waiting on at Salford Crescent you've got different trains with different destinations and stopping patterns.

 

[WatcherZero]

Pedestrian flows arent optimised either, at the moment you come down a ramp straight to a ticket window (so if theirs a queue it backs up the ramp and others cant get past), then because of the narrow platforms people tend to linger round the ticket office or on the ramp itself. Unlike a decent underground station design which balances entrances and exits along the length of the platforms so people spread out and use the availble space.

 

[Inox]

Like this: http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/1700/salfordcrescentplan1.jpg

Enough for six carriages.

thanks for that. i see what they're doing. also glad they're getting rid of that foot bridge and ramp. excellent.

presumably trains will run quicker through Crescent since there'll be no station to stop at for x months.

 

[WatcherZero]

Their keeping the old footbridge just removing the ramp down to the platform. It will then be the main way people south of the station access it (crossing old footbridge to north, walking east a bit then onto the new footbridge and down the steps)

 

[185]

3 months to demolish a booking office is too much

 

[Nym]

The're also extending the platforms and building a new one, I'm expecting delays and/or weekend closures of the station, even though they could close one side at a time and use the other line with big TSRs

 

[WatcherZero]

To me it depends, the new facilities and entrance should for the most part not effect station operation. Demolition of the buildings could be carried out in stages with weekend closures but they may decide not to do that until the new facilities are ready. The main thing requiring closure therefore are the changes to the shelter (two side supports to single central pillars), demolition of existing ramp and the platform extensions themselves.

One of the difficult things they are having to plan under Northern Hub now is the impact of HS2, 5 years after Northern Hub most of the Virgin London and a few Scotland services may no longer call at Piccadilly freeing up several platforms for more local services to terminate, most locals are half the length of a Pendolino so they could fit two services into a bay as well. Its probably one of the main reasons they have decided against a platform 0.

 

[Inox]

I don't think they'll demolish anything 'till the new ramp and office are built. once built, they might close the station to remove existing structures and install an extended canopy?

 

[Bevan Price]

I hope they have the sense to do the work in summer, when most of the students are away from the university.

Bevan