Adding 400m platforms to Manchester Piccadilly

[Crithylum]

Here is some (digital) crayoning I’ve done for shoehorning 400m platforms into Piccadilly.

Please excuse the janky lines.

Here is the change in terminal platform count:
400m: 0 -> 2
>= 264m: 4 -> 6 (maybe 5, new platform 8 may be a bit too narrow at the end)
>= 216m: 9 -> 9

Platforms 10, 11, and 12 are unchanged, and a new platform 0 for local services if long distance is taking up all other platforms.
The main philosophy I’ve gone with is to eliminate ~240m platforms, and have long platforms either fit a 9 or 11 car pendolino. Does anyone have thoughts on my proposal?

 

[The Planner]

Not sure Id build them in the centre.

 

[JamesT]

Here is some (digital) crayoning I’ve done for shoehorning 400m platforms into Piccadilly.
View attachment 207522
Please excuse the janky lines.

Here is the change in terminal platform count:
400m: 0 -> 2
>= 264m: 4 -> 6 (maybe 5, new platform 8 may be a bit too narrow at the end)
>= 216m: 9 -> 9

Platforms 10, 11, and 12 are unchanged, and a new platform 0 for local services if long distance is taking up all other platforms.
The main philosophy I’ve gone with is to eliminate ~240m platforms, and have long platforms either fit a 9 or 11 car pendolino. Does anyone have thoughts on my proposal?

What advantages does rebuilding the existing station have over building new 400m platforms to one side as HS2 proposed?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Is there really the room to do what's proposed? The track layout at Manchester Piccadilly already fans out somewhat on the final approach into the station. At the country end, just how narrow could any new-build island or single platform practicably be?

 

[Zomboid]

If 400m terminal platforms are the requirement, I would just build the HS2 station to the north of the site and connect it to the fast lines towards Stockport. It'd want a bridge over the Guide Bridge line, so the platforms may need to be elevated.

 

[edwin_m]

Putting them in the middle replicates the existing arrangement and avoids extra conflicts or grade separation. The trains via Ashburys use the low-numbered platforms, Fast line via Stockport use the middle ones and Slow via Stockport plus Styal line use the high numbers.

However, to extend the middle platforms I think the northern approach tracks serving the low-numbered platforms would have to be moved further north onto the unused part of the wider viaduct east of the station. This might also reduce the ability to re-platform trains across the layout should that become necessary.

 

[AlexSJW]

400m platforms into Piccadilly are clearly doable. The station as a whole is not at full capacity. However, the through section, platforms 13 and 14 are.

 

[Topological]

I understand people want to solve the problem within the existing constraints, but Manchester needs the tunnel and that tunnel is part of the Liverpool "plan" as well as any "HS2b lite".

The site for the platforms is there so they just need to build them. If conflicts are an issue, 3tph only needs 2 platforms so the 4 new ones can also handle the Ashburys line trains without conflicting if that has to be a temporary solution.

However, the focus really should be getting the additional southern approach built so more paths over Stockport Viaduct can be added.

 

[HSTEd]

My own thoughts on this are to build the platforms proposed on the north side of the train shed, but primarily to allow 10-12 to go, which should make it much easier to extend the centre platforms to 400m.

The entire station throat and terminating station would essentially move towards the low numbered end.

That avoids a whole mess of crossing moves for London trains to reach the low numbered side of the station across the Guide Bridge line.

If you could combine it with the proposed conversion of the Stockport lines to paired by use, then you could untangle the whole thing by properly assigning platforms at Piccadilly.

 

[The Planner]

My own thoughts on this are to build the platforms proposed on the north side of the train shed, but primarily to allow 10-12 to go, which should make it much easier to extend the centre platforms to 400m.

The entire station throat and terminating station would essentially move towards the low numbered end.

That avoids a whole mess of crossing moves for London trains to reach the low numbered side of the station across the Guide Bridge line.

If you could combine it with the proposed conversion of the Stockport lines to paired by use, then you could untangle the whole thing by properly assigning platforms at Piccadilly.

10-12 won't go, new platforms will happen.

 

[Dr Hoo]

10-12 won't go, new platforms will happen.

10-12 are difficult to use both because of limited length and sharing a single line for access that also impinges on Platform 9. Any comprehensive plan for Piccadilly should include trying to lengthen them and allow at least a degree of parallel working (as well as some 400m faces).

 

[The Planner]

10-12 are difficult to use both because of limited length and sharing a single line for access that also impinges on Platform 9. Any comprehensive plan for Piccadilly should include trying to lengthen them and allow at least a degree of parallel working (as well as some 400m faces).

The only current plan is new low side platforms.

 

[Topological]

Given that you have 5 and 8 that can take longer trains, as well as that 6 and 7 both take 11-car pendolinos, what do you gain by being able to use the full length of 9 for a single train?

Surely building 400m platforms in exactly the way HS2 planned is the best option?

 

[HSTEd]

Surely building 400m platforms in exactly the way HS2 planned is the best option?

Well it leaves you with even more crossing moves in the absence of the tunnel out to the Airport.

Ideally the northernmost platforms in the station should be serving the line through Guide Bridge/Ashburys.

 

[Topological]

Well it leaves you with even more crossing moves in the absence of the tunnel out to the Airport.

Ideally the northernmost platforms in the station should be serving the line through Guide Bridge/Ashburys.

As per my other post.

There are to be multiple platforms, but 3tph to London only needs 2 Hence have London as 0 and -1, -2 and -3 are for the Ashburys line. 1 and 2 can still be used for Ashburys, but will have crossing moves.

Leaves CrossCountry with a lot of space on 5-8, but that will just be until they finally open HS2 and then the tunnels are in.

 

[Peter0124]

Given that you have 5 and 8 that can take longer trains, as well as that 6 and 7 both take 11-car pendolinos, what do you gain by being able to use the full length of 9 for a single train?

Surely building 400m platforms in exactly the way HS2 planned is the best option?

Also 13/14 can take long trains aswell, in theory atleast.

 

[Crithylum]

Thanks for all the replies. I decided to put the long platforms in the middle to minimise the number of conflicting movements. My aim was to see what could be done within the current footprint, however, I expect using land to the north would be far less disruptive.

 

[squingo44]

In particular, we should be aiming to remove all regional traffic to Manchester Airport (and freight traffic) off the Castlefield Corridor so that it can be reserved entirely for local commuter services. The best way to do this would be an underground HS2 station with a connection between Manchester and Preston, so that all Manchester Airport services from Blackpool and Lancaster can be eliminated in favour of transfer to HS2 at Preston. North Wales services to Manchester Airport would be taken care of by NPR, but freight may require something else - perhaps a new freight connection between Hazel Grove and Chat Moss.

 

[Topological]

In particular, we should be aiming to remove all regional traffic to Manchester Airport (and freight traffic) off the Castlefield Corridor so that it can be reserved entirely for local commuter services. The best way to do this would be an underground HS2 station with a connection between Manchester and Preston, so that all Manchester Airport services from Blackpool and Lancaster can be eliminated in favour of transfer to HS2 at Preston. North Wales services to Manchester Airport would be taken care of by NPR, but freight may require something else - perhaps a new freight connection between Hazel Grove and Chat Moss.

IF you want the Preston services (Scotland in particular) off Castlefield then the obvious thing is to reinstate the connection between NPR and the WCML.

Trying to make the 400m platforms underground is a direct route to getting the whole thing cancelled. An extra tunnel for longer distance services is simply too expensive compared to a chord at Golborne.

There may one day be a suburban service tunnel in Manchester. I strongly doubt there would ever be a HS long distance tunnel.

 

[Trackman]

400m platforms into Piccadilly are clearly doable. The station as a whole is not at full capacity. However, the through section, platforms 13 and 14 are.

The latter is the more pressing issue before extending platforms

 

[The Planner]

In particular, we should be aiming to remove all regional traffic to Manchester Airport (and freight traffic) off the Castlefield Corridor so that it can be reserved entirely for local commuter services. The best way to do this would be an underground HS2 station with a connection between Manchester and Preston, so that all Manchester Airport services from Blackpool and Lancaster can be eliminated in favour of transfer to HS2 at Preston. North Wales services to Manchester Airport would be taken care of by NPR, but freight may require something else - perhaps a new freight connection between Hazel Grove and Chat Moss.

Not sure if you took the airport traffic off the Styals that it would ever need more than 4tph.

 

[HSTEd]

IF you want the Preston services (Scotland in particular) off Castlefield then the obvious thing is to reinstate the connection between NPR and the WCML.

Trying to make the 400m platforms underground is a direct route to getting the whole thing cancelled. An extra tunnel for longer distance services is simply too expensive compared to a chord at Golborne.

The chord at Golborne is an awful lot of track.

It's going to be at least 30km.

It's going to cost a very large sum of money. It would get you half way to Liverpool on brand new track!

HS2's proposed work, especially Golborne, doesn't really make very much sense in the context of NPR existing.

 

[Topological]

The chord at Golborne is an awful lot of track.

It's going to be at least 30km.

It's going to cost a very large sum of money. It would get you half way to Liverpool on brand new track!

HS2's proposed work, especially Golborne, doesn't really make very much sense in the context of NPR existing.

Geography failure...

But, if you did want a chord then I suspect there is a way to get something cheaper than another tunnel.

 

[HSTEd]

Geography failure...

But, if you did want a chord then I suspect there is a way to get something cheaper than another tunnel.

Perhaps, but a through tunnel in another direction, for example the Preston-direction proposed above, does get you something more than would be provided by a chord somewhere, assuming a suitable location could be arranged.

The tunnels would likely be 250km/h or so, as suggested in the original plans for the airport tunnel.

That suggests a route from the WCML, via central Manchester and then back to the WCML could achieve journey times not substantially slower than the existing route. That opens up various interesting routing possibilities, for example the Manchester terminating XC services could take over the Manchester-Scotland TPE services and run through, they'd still serve the Airport after all! That particular routing would depend on how the Airport tunnel actually joined the railway however.


If you went in the Leeds direction you could get any number of interesting new routings too.

Just because the platforms are 400m long doesn't mean only HS2 services have to run on them either.

HS2 has taught us, yet again, that surface construction isn't that much cheaper than tunnels any more - the more people you interact with on the surface the worst it gets. What you save in engineering you pay in political and social terms.

 

[Topological]

Perhaps, but a through tunnel in another direction, for example the Preston-direction proposed above, does get you something more than would be provided by a chord somewhere, assuming a suitable location could be arranged.

The tunnels would likely be 250km/h or so, as suggested in the original plans for the airport tunnel.

That suggests a route from the WCML, via central Manchester and then back to the WCML could achieve journey times not substantially slower than the existing route. That opens up various interesting routing possibilities, for example the Manchester terminating XC services could take over the Manchester-Scotland TPE services and run through, they'd still serve the Airport after all! That particular routing would depend on how the Airport tunnel actually joined the railway however.


If you went in the Leeds direction you could get any number of interesting new routings too.

Just because the platforms are 400m long doesn't mean only HS2 services have to run on them either.

HS2 has taught us, yet again, that surface construction isn't that much cheaper than tunnels any more - the more people you interact with on the surface the worst it gets. What you save in engineering you pay in political and social terms.

The Leeds tunnel will presumably get built one day. It remains on the plan (as a junction if nothing else).

I can see how you might route all WCML services via Manchester, but that would create quite long dwells for services stopping at Manchester. In the case of Piccadilly the land for the station is there, so it is not a case of upsetting people building unexpected surface infrastructure.

Whether you can add another tunnel junction in the south of the station I do not know. However, you are then creating even more reversals for the Scottish service(s). I am not sure how many you are expecting to continue north and so that might also shoot down the economics of an extra tunnel.

I still think you are going to get a chord from the Liverpool line to the WCML north far cheaper than anything involving Manchester. In so doing it would be for dedicated Manchester to Scotland rather than South to Scotland via Manchester.

 

[squingo44]

Not sure if you took the airport traffic off the Styals that it would ever need more than 4tph.

Good candidate for a transit corridor that can be redeveloped then. Maybe turn it into a metrolink.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2026 ==

The Leeds tunnel will presumably get built one day. It remains on the plan (as a junction if nothing else).

I can see how you might route all WCML services via Manchester, but that would create quite long dwells for services stopping at Manchester. In the case of Piccadilly the land for the station is there, so it is not a case of upsetting people building unexpected surface infrastructure.

Whether you can add another tunnel junction in the south of the station I do not know. However, you are then creating even more reversals for the Scottish service(s). I am not sure how many you are expecting to continue north and so that might also shoot down the economics of an extra tunnel.

I still think you are going to get a chord from the Liverpool line to the WCML north far cheaper than anything involving Manchester. In so doing it would be for dedicated Manchester to Scotland rather than South to Scotland via Manchester.

We're currently planned to get an underground Manchester Piccadilly station. Given that's the case, a tunnel connecting it to the Chat Moss Line and then to the WCML to Preston will be fine.

 

[Topological]

Good candidate for a transit corridor that can be redeveloped then. Maybe turn it into a metrolink.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2026 ==


We're currently planned to get an underground Manchester Piccadilly station. Given that's the case, a tunnel connecting it to the Chat Moss Line and then to the WCML to Preston will be fine

When were the plans changed? Are there actual documents showing the new designs?

I was unaware of anything other than the original HS2 proposal for Manchester Piccadilly.

 

[The Planner]

Good candidate for a transit corridor that can be redeveloped then. Maybe turn it into a metrolink.

Unless Trafford Park decisively goes forever, that won't happen. Its also needed for whenever Wilmslow to Slade Lane ever needs maintaining or goes pop.

 

[squingo44]

When were the plans changed? Are there actual documents showing the new designs?

I was unaware of anything other than the original HS2 proposal for Manchester Piccadilly.

No plans for it have been published yet, but the political agreement behind the January announcement of NPR was that Manchester would get an underground station at Piccadilly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2026 ==

Unless Trafford Park decisively goes forever, that won't happen. Its also needed for whenever Wilmslow to Slade Lane ever needs maintaining or goes pop.

It's currently planned to close in the mid-2030s

 

[JamesT]

No plans for it have been published yet, but the political agreement behind the January announcement of NPR was that Manchester would get an underground station at Piccadilly.

The announcement in January was that the feasibility of an underground station would be reexamined. There’s no guarantee it won’t come back with the same answer as last time, a surface station is cheaper, quicker to build, and still provides the majority of the benefits compared to an underground one.