• 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!

HS2 at Manchester

Status
Not open for further replies.

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,714
The route into Manchester will probably follow existing transport corridors which has been the policy so far with tunnelling kept to a minimum due to cost. Given that HS2 station in Birmingham has 6 platforms presumably a similar number and certainly no more will be provided at Manchester. A key issue will be onward connections so a location next to Piccadily is my bet - the Mayfield site being an obvious one. As mentioned before the need to demolish the MEN arena probably rules out Victoria while the approach to former Exchange site would require a listed church to be taken out so is probably a no go.

Key question for me is Manchester going to be a terminal or a through station?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Wouldnt really need a large area to cut and cover a station, use the method used on Crossrail consruction of building a large access shaft to lower down tunneling equipment and extract the waste material. A lot of manchesters problems with tunnels are shelters, building foundations and basements just like London, you only have to dig deeper, sure it makes some lengthy escaltor rides to the surface but its not an impediment to construction. Proposed Heathrow Hub would have been built entirely underground too with no surface access direct to the construction site.

As to cost difference an underground station would cost around £800m while an aboveground station costs around £200m.

The question of whether Manchester would be a terminal or through station is a good one. Under original Labour plans it would have been through station rejoining the WCML afterwards, original Tory plans it would have been a through station with trains going onwards to Leeds. Now its up in the air until HS2 publishes their detailed Birmingham-Manchester plans in roughly 9 months time. Probably 50-50 of a terminal station similar to how WCML is arranged now with a line leaving the Airport parkway and rejoining the WCML just north of Warrington (I believe HS2 mentioned this briefly early on), or (and especielly if its an underground station) there would be large time savings and probably some cost savings of it continuing northwest of Manchester underground and rejoining the WCML somewhere near Preston.
 
Last edited:

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,857
One problem with that, Where is Manchester South Parkway going to be? and why approach over the A34 when there's plenty of empty land that you can approach Heald Green on? The A34 is very very curved and runs through the middle of some tight town centres and through Wilmslow and other towns and villages that will not want an HS Line
I already said that HighSpeed running (northbound) would end near Alderley Edge, so the line wouldn't be any more noisy than the road and the curves wouldn't be so much of a problem. Not having been to Manchester, I am going solely from Google Earth, and following dual carridgeways and motorways is the oftern the only way I can think of of getting so far into cities before having to tunnel, although in this case coming in near Manchester airport instead might only need a few short tunnels to reach the point my route enters the main tunnel. I tend not to use existing rail lines to enter the cities as they probablly don't have the capacity or the space to quadruple or 6-track the lines to provide that capacity. This is another issue I have with the HS2 Ltd. proposal, as it uses existing lines for some distance north-west from Old Oak common. An alternative (double-decking motorways) would I think be possible there but would be slower and require just as much tunnel as their route. I also still need to know the gradients trains are able to manage immediatly outside stations.

Underground station, Manchester, Not going to happen!
I don't think there's anyway of building a through station in Manchester without a tunnel, if so a tunnel station it's going to have to be. Only classic compatible trains would need to use it, the other stock (which I'm begining to think might not be needed anyway) would be able to use surface terminal platforms at Mayfeild.

If you're leaving Manchester in the direction of Worsley, why not just use the old trackbed to the South Wigan Junctions via Tyldsley and Atherleigh?
Simply because I didn't realise they were there when I plotted the route, I've moved it now, thanks for the suggestion. The tunnel would need to be longer to reach that line, but at least there'd be no double decking motorways on that side of Manchester (except for the Liverpool - York HS-X route if that's a good idea anyway).
 

RichW1

Member
Joined
9 Aug 2010
Messages
400
Location
Harrogate
Mayfield is being sold off for private development AFAIK.

What?! I missed a trick here. This is unbelievable; how short sighted can people be. It's obvious this may be needed in the future. God planners really **** me off sometimes.

HS2 will require a lot of work but I'm sure it would be thought about in any future Manchester Hub project on cost grounds? Most developments in london now have parts that are developed bearing in mind future use. The same must be true here. As to where it would go, I'll look at the planners development zones and guidance and get back on that!
 

CosherB

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2007
Messages
3,041
Location
Northwich
HS lines in France use conventional rail into city centres. I presume HS2 will do the same with the HS line running north, parallel but east of WCML, with a turnoff (the main HS2 continuing north to Scotland) to join the conventional line somewhere west of Alderley Edge.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Mayfield isnt being sold for private development, its for government development creating a 'Whitehall of the North' gathering all the government offices in Greater Manchester into one location conveniently next to Piccadilly for travel to London, there was also supposed to be relocation of some jobs from London to Manchester as part of the last governments moving jobs out of London plan.

It was a cost-saving initiative by the last government, these offices would cost a bit to build but then it would be cheaper to rent and they could pay staff less than they would in London so over a decade it would actually save money.

The current state of the project is unknown, its not been officially cancelled as part of the cuts and architects are still drawing up plans. It is supposed to be an efficency cost saving program though with a high initial capital cost which may save it. There hasnt been much official talk of it since the election though.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,714
Mayfield isnt being sold for private development, its for government development creating a 'Whitehall of the North' gathering all the government offices in Greater Manchester into one location conveniently next to Piccadilly for travel to London, there was also supposed to be relocation of some jobs from London to Manchester as part of the last governments moving jobs out of London plan.

It was a cost-saving initiative by the last government, these offices would cost a bit to build but then it would be cheaper to rent and they could pay staff less than they would in London so over a decade it would actually save money.

The current state of the project is unknown, its not been officially cancelled as part of the cuts and architects are still drawing up plans. It is supposed to be an efficency cost saving program though with a high initial capital cost which may save it. There hasnt been much official talk of it since the election though.

An outline planning application has been submitted for the Mayfield site - further complicating the issue of HS2 in Manchester is Network Rail's Northern Hub proposals which restrict HS2 options at Piccadily
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Yes though the Mayfield development has been designed to allow the two extra through platforms proposed for Northern Hub.

I dont think the site will work for HS2 for many reasons, but the Birmingham experience shows they are willing to use a site with already planned development and even with enabling works for the development already completed.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Well, hopfully if it is needed when the official HS2 report comes out, if it says mayfeild, it will get reserved for use by HS2 Ltd. at that point as part of the preferred route. Meaning the govt. can start buying up anything on that route that is for sale, and begin clearing works, even if it becomes grassland or a carpark in the meantime, it will be more useful than deralict buildings.

Simple steps if it does wanna be used by HS2

Buy all property for sale
Demolish all said property
Lease land to NCP until needed
Negotiate with moving remaining businesses elsewhere with financial incentives.
Demolish remainders and lease to NCP if not yet needed
HS2 is ready to build
Kick NCP off
Build...

Enabling works can happen in the middle of this, such as moving the leccy substation next to pt. 13/14 at picc to allow 15/16 to be built. and building up viaducts etc.
Still need central back though...
 

Invincibles

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
511
Location
Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
What is Manchester Central needed for?

I do like the idea of opening a small terminal on the car park to create a metrolink interchange, but the only trains that could use it would be the current oxford road terminators. Nothing else can be routed into there.

West facing bays at Victoria would be a much better bet, with extra platforms at Salford Central as well.

If money were no object I would close the roundabout at the end of the M602 and build space for 4 tracks through there, after that there is room above the line that dives down to trafford park to have running lines. Expensive though for potentially little gain.

In terms of HS2 that does not achieve very much anyway.

I think we are going to see a solution that brings more trains on the existing classic lines and into Piccadilly as is. There might not be capacity but that is what I expect and is what I based my last suggestion on.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
I came up with a rather radical concept this afternoon.

One thing you could do taking the existing WCML design methodology, is for the line to run to Manchester Airport then split, one line would run to the centre of Manchester then back out north to rejoin the existing WCML just after Preston, this would be underground at key points but aboveground where possible, it would be windy and slow 'classic'. A second 'faster' line would instead more closely follow the WCML/M6 with a station just north of Wigan (near M6 junction and likely called 'South Lancashire Parkway') serving Bolton and Preston as well it would then rejoin the WCML north of Preston at a similar location to that of the Manchester loop. This would mean the 'Classic compatible' Scotland services first WCML stop at Lancaster/Oxenholme/Carlisle. This offers the opportunity of faster services bypassing Manchester and a extra lucrative parkway (according to GMPTE Wigan NW has the highest number of Scotland passengers of any station in Greater Manchester, most Manchester users head south apparantly).

An alternative would be for a split earlier around Warrington, the airport would be on the Manchester loop and the mainline running closer to Merseyside would allow a full spur to the outskirts with classic trains into the centre. In a way the first allignment and stations layout kinda mirrors that around London/Heathrow.
 

Lampshade

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2009
Messages
3,777
Location
South London
This offers the opportunity of faster services bypassing Manchester and a extra lucrative parkway (according to GMPTE Wigan NW has the highest number of Scotland passengers of any station in Greater Manchester, most Manchester users head south apparantly).

Possibly because Wigan NW has the most services to Scotland than any other station in GM, over two hours it's 3 services from WGN but only 1/2 from Piccadilly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
What is Manchester Central needed for?

I do like the idea of opening a small terminal on the car park to create a metrolink interchange, but the only trains that could use it would be the current oxford road terminators. Nothing else can be routed into there.

West facing bays at Victoria would be a much better bet, with extra platforms at Salford Central as well.

If money were no object I would close the roundabout at the end of the M602 and build space for 4 tracks through there, after that there is room above the line that dives down to trafford park to have running lines. Expensive though for potentially little gain.

In terms of HS2 that does not achieve very much anyway.

I think we are going to see a solution that brings more trains on the existing classic lines and into Piccadilly as is. There might not be capacity but that is what I expect and is what I based my last suggestion on.

Central in my world would be used for terminators off of the Windsor Link and Chat Moss routes, it wouldn't take that much effort to build some more line to central on a new bit of viaduct, and would be a lot more effective than west facing bays at victoria, that would be a good 5min walk from the main concourse to actually get there, if the lines through central get 4 tracked (all the way to crescent) and we gain a pair of bays at Salford Crescent, Rochdale, Ashburies and Eccles then pushing services through victoria would be a much more desirable option. As for 4tracking the Chat Moss Route, there isn't too much point in 4 tracking until after the M602/A57 junction as everything needs to be in the right order for central Manchester anyway, unless you're going to have overpass viaducts at Ordstall Lane Junctions (Would be helpful, there is space, but bloddy expensive), also remember that the bridge over the M63/M60 is only fitted for 2 track, but that wouldn't be too hard to make up to 4 track with a 2nd bridge, but IMO if there is a 2nd bridge it should be single span to allow a re-think of the juncton layout below, and end up with one 4 track single span and get rid of the old bridge.

Chat Moss I'd have 4 track from east of Eccles to the WCML, in order to serve Port Salford, and a possible new stopping service allong the line, to new stations at "Barton Moss Parkway" Close to the M62 crossing to serve as a Park + Ride station, Leigh South Parkway (for the A580 and Leigh, still on the mainline, big bus links to Leigh), could look to rebuilding the line near here as a link between the CLC and Chat Moss Lines, past Cullceth, if that was done, bring the M62 Parkway station back to just north of Birchwood at the A574 Junction with the M62, would give a nice diversionary route between the CLC and Chat Moss lines, and a nice big parkway station, with the ability to run 'Loop' Services in and out of Oxford Road or Central...

PS. With a bit of trackwork in Trafford Park that would allow freight to avoid central Manchester from any direction to access Trafford Park..T
 
Last edited:

Invincibles

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
511
Location
Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
I do not see how you get a chord from the windsor link into central, there are too many listed structures in the way.

If you wanted to open a terminus on the old Liverpool road site then maybe something could be done, but that would mean the museum of science and industry being on board. Maybe a bit of clever architecture could see "blocks" built between the warehouses to represent the different techonolgies we have had over the years.

Another site would be the land south of Deansgate station, currently a car park, but I actually see that as being developed with Hulme Park coming over a very wide bridge across the Mancunian Way and continuing in as a green walking route from Stretford Road. That would help the areas around Stretford Road and beyond and show a serious commitment to the environment.

It would still be easier just to use Victoria West and use a travelator or whatever if it was absolutely necessary. I actually think the entrance at the country end of the bays would be very popularly located.

High speed is surely just going to be classic compatable into Manchester from somewhere, hence my Stockport and reroutings with a couple of chords and upgrades in East Manchester.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Clasic Compatable in the beginning yes, but when you're coiting to 3 or 4tph and the CC trains are going to cost significantly more, they should be looking at a EU Gage route, no point in being half hearted about it.

Btw. there is space to get from Ordstall Lane Junctions to Central...

11ad4yg.jpg
 

Invincibles

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
511
Location
Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
You will notice that you have gone over the top of Manchester Castle, which is not the easiest thing to persuade anyone to let you do.

Any chords there would struggle to be in keeping with the character of the area.

Whether there is room for a new line further west running over the ship canal (now it is not used for ships) I do not know, but that plan does not look workable I do not think.

Really Victoria or Liverpool Road are where the potential is, and that would not involve inconveniencing too many other uses of buildings.

By all means a small station alongside Deansgate for terminating trains from the Warrington Central line, take pressure off Deansgate-Oxford Road and offer a more regular local service on that line (I would reinstate the 4 track near Irlam and have trains looped in the platforms there to allow a 15 minute stopper frequency)

But I struggle to see any justification for the works needed to open a full scale terminus at Manchester Central.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
The incline could be end to end supported over Manchester Castle, not too hard in the world of steel, and the land between the two viaducts doesn't really require any 'in keeping with' as it's already got half finished building developments that have been abandoned. If the Altrinham Lines were handed back over to Heavy Rail, then you could justify the inital re-opening with all the major trackwork and new bridges in the reigon of Cornbrook Interchange. Taking longer distance or express services off the Chat Moss route (that don't stop at Paitcroft or Eccles), it would be possible to re-open the line from Glasebrook to Kenyton with some new junctions onto the Chat Moss Route, with a 4tracking of the CLC route to said junction would mean that 2tph Central - Liverpool L St (All Stations) and 2tph Central - Glasebrook - Wigan N Western would be entirely possible. (With associated electrification of the CLC) That would make it back into a proper commuter line, and provide a diversion away from the Chat Moss line through eccles to Central and Oxford Road, be it needed without much of a time penalty, if the CLC has it's fast lines of the 4 track at 100 or 90mph. slows at 75/90.

The only complicated parts are of that would be some of the 4 tracking from Cornbrook Interchange to Glasebrook East Junction, and moving some things aroun at Cornbrook, slewing the metrolink lines on the viaduct to fit 6 track on the two viaducts again, met in the centre of the two NR routes, a small amount of platform moves at the Deansgate Castlefeild metrolink station, and a shiney new walkway to the Central Concourse, or an additional set of Metrolink platforms at the front of the Central Concourse. Taking services into Central from the Windsor link is expensive but not do-able, but running them through Victoria and Philips Park would mean more services could be sent into victoria anyway, without having to add more platforms. Basically configure services at Victoria so that nothing terminates from the West, currently (feel free to correct me on this) 4tph from Bolton 2tph from Atherton and 1/2tph from Eccles, one already continues to Rochdale anyway, adding in some West Facing bays would mean more could be sent up to Rochdale, say 3tph, 2tph could then be sent to Stalybridge, would need some trackwork at Stalybridge, but yet again, not that difficult to do. A slight bit more difficult would be starting passengers services cross manchester via Philips Park to Ashburies, but yet again, not too hard to acceive, re-signalling with better headways, new station at Sportcity for Metrolink Interchange and two or four new platforms at Ashburies to terminate services at, and allow them to run through to other parts of East Manchester and North Stockport (Rose Hill Marple - Victoria - Atherton - Wigan Wallgate) for example. Aaaanyway, off topic massively now.

I've seen somone mention a Manchester Bypass for HS2 some time ago, where Manchester would be on a loop for HS2, this sounds like a good idea as linespeeds in Manchester will have to be reduced for either tunnels or tight curves, and if if where on a Loop, say from either Crewe or Manchester South Parkway to Manchester North Parkway or Preston, depending on the size of the loop. Say it ran from Manchester South Parkway (Manchester Airport) to Manchester North Parkway (Horwich Parkway area) with the stations located on the junctions, if the previously shown inferstructure where employed at Manchester South Parkway, allowing services to run either from north or south into Manchester on the southern approach, and had a Manchester West Parkway station built, so long as the bypass route where built as 4 track, a new station at 'Manchester North Parkway' or Horwich Parkway area, could be built as a terminal station, with the mainline running through, and 'Javalin style' services run for Manchester Commuters, With appropriate motorway Junctions at the M61 (already there, Horwich Parkway and Middlebrook), M62 and M56 (Already there, Manc Airport), 3 extremely large parkway stations could be built, with even the possibility of a 4th or 5th at Bolton Town Centre, next to the Bus Station and Train Station (spanning the two), there is kinda enough space to slot the track through and out toward the old M601 alignment to access Central Manchester, this means there could be a new motorway spur between Junction 16 and 17 for 'Manchester East Parkway'. This would mean the Central Manchester station having to have some through platforms, there is space to route a new viaduct through the city centre, albeit at low linespeed, and it would need to dive into a tunnel near Oxford Road station, have the incline next to the current viaduct, and make a couple of roads a bit narrower, or, build it up higher, to fly over all other lines at the Central throught, double deck it with the line from Deansgate to Ordstall Lane and either keep it at high level over the A6, Crescent, through the Salford University Campus and onto the M601 alignment. This would all need to be built a level above the current castlefeild viaduct, and climb an additional level to clear the metrolink lines and any additional lines into Central that could be built later, an alternative would be to run through Victoria, if all standard services from the East ran through the station, then the High Speed lines could run through part of it, this could mean, running the HS lines from, say Piccadilly South (Mayfeild terminus) out toward Philips Park, basically doing a U turn, re-instating the 4 track through there and around to Victoria, at HS linespeeds this would only take 2 mins, also crating a fast link to Victoria, splitting the remaining heavy rail platforms and providing a centre road could mean being able to still terminate some services from the west, add some west facing bays if needed. then follow the trackbed on the level through Salford Central, removing (or using) platforms 1 and 2 for the HS lines, use 3 and 4 for standard services instead. That would provide a link taking say 5mins from Piccadilly to Crescent (only the same as currently, but possibly much cheaper as there is no tunneling needed). If all this could be put in place then with a through line at piccadilly a service pattern could be in a Loop to provide:

Manchester N Parkway - Bolton T/C - Manchester E Parkway - Manchester Piccadilly - Manchester South Parkway - Manchester West Parkway - Manchester North Parkway

Or the one way terminal with loopthrough at Victoria would provide a service pattern of...
Manchester N Pway - Bolton T/C - Manchester E Parkway - Manchester Victoria - Manchester Piccadilly
AND
Manchester N Pway - Manchester W Pway - Manchester S Pway - Manchester Piccadilly each to be 4 or 6tph

I know providing a station at Bolton might sound silly, but a lot of passengers do interchange at the station onto piccadilly services, so it makes sense in my world. I'm estimating journey times at, from Piccadilly

Picc - Victoria (3mins) - Manc E (7mins) - Bolton (10mins) - Horwich (15mins)
Picc - Manc S (7mins) - Manc W (13mins) - Manc N (17 mins)

Rant over, I hope...
 

Invincibles

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
511
Location
Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
I just do not see how you intend to design anything that would be acceptable at a place like Manchester castle. There might be part completed buildings everywhere but that does not mean you can attach part of one to something as important as the viaducts or the castle.

That is before you start putting trains into a station that has been converted for other purposes and disturbing people in the Beetham Tower still further.

I suggested the loop earlier with a little tweaking of the classic infrastructure. I think it will be effective.

However I expect most HS services will be destination Manchester and that the through services will run on an avoiding route calling at the Lancashire parkway or the Manchester Airport station (calling at both would mean a lot of slowing and would make it almost just as easy to go through central manchester)

I am interested to see what the consultations eventually propose.
 

bf2142

Member
Joined
2 Mar 2011
Messages
8
Is there any need for a Manchester city centre HS station? Why not just have the HS line run roughly equidistant between Manchester and Liverpool and interchange on the soon to be electrified Manc - Liv line. That would avoid an awful lot of extra building work and expense in running new HS lines into both cities.
 

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,810
Is there any need for a Manchester city centre HS station? Why not just have the HS line run roughly equidistant between Manchester and Liverpool and interchange on the soon to be electrified Manc - Liv line. That would avoid an awful lot of extra building work and expense in running new HS lines into both cities.

Liverpool won't be part of the HS network, it will use 'classic compatible' trains - and Manchester would have to as well under your idea. Plus you would still need hue building works for a station at Manchester. With your plan they would be going into Manchester from the west - so Piccadilly is not an option and Victoria would need huge amounts of work. This is in addition to the route being far slower.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
The best place for HS2 to go in Manchester is Piccadilly, end of...

It will also need tunneling due to the lack of spare land in South Manchester

A route to the North is available, as is a route to Victoria (for through services, but not as a terminus, as at victoria it would mean having 2 normal platforms and 2 HS platforms, heading out to the north following the planned path of the M601, up through Bolton (with a station there) and meeting the (new) mainline again at Horwich Parkway.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
It appears to be confirmed that a couple of platforms at Piccadilly (existing WCML ones) will be extended to 400m for phase 1 so that two 200m classic compatible trains could occupy them at the same time. Still no idea on the phase 2 station till the end of this year.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
5,612
I wouldn't be surprised if that is it, to be honest. If by then, there are 3 or 4 suitable platforms, they could probably handle the frequency (max 6tph?) if the real dwell time and restocking was done at London or Birmingham.

And journeys to Scotland could be from Victoria, on classic compatible trains joining HS2 somewhere around Chat Moss. TPE is potentially going to be...so would give the station a boost!

Only thing would be how to have the Man Airport station serve the Scottish route, assuming it's on a spur of the mainline.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
It looks more likely that it will be a similar setup to Birmingham, The Airport station will be on the main route and the city will be served by a high speed spur. Part of the Northern Hub planning is on the assumption that the Piccadilly bays will be free from London services to make room for other services during the 30 year timeframe.
 

HYPODERMIC

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2011
Messages
88
Location
Chingford
The best place for HS2 to go in Manchester is Piccadilly, end of...

But that's well boring! Please can we have a brand new shiny HS2 terminus? Pleeease? We'll be really good, London, promise! ;)

I'd dearly love to a neo-Mayfield get top honours, but I'm resigned to it being a lost cause.

I also love the idea of Victoria as a north-of-Manchester HS terminus, with passengers wishing to travel further south using the Metrolink to interchange with Mayfield/Piccadilly Low Level/whatever-we-end-up-with for more HS2 connections. Sure, it's a bit inconvenient having to interchange to a south-bound terminal, but it's much cheaper than some underground super-station tunnelling out of Greater Manchester north-bound to Scotland and south-bound to London. The alternative is to build the HS2 station outside Manchester - Airport, perhaps - but this isn't this loads more inconvenient than simply travelling on the Metrolink? (...alright, forget I asked.)

And I do feel a bit sorry for tatty old Victoria - it'd be nice to see it regain a bit of glamour, pride and purpose. I know the Northern Hub will clean it up a bit, but it's going to stay as a 6 platform station, isn't it? Piccadilly Lite, someone said on SkyScraper City, which is a bitter fate for an old 18-platform'er. HS2 would take it back to at least 8 - and restore that old intercity sense of importance, as well as drag some investment towards the co-op quarter.

My thoughts, then:

  • Don't waste time trying to make a single Manchester through-station for Scotland services; London and its billion terminals manage to cope with a few interchanges - Manchester can too. Upgrade Victoria for north-bound HS2, and build a new terminal for south-bound HS2.
  • Speaking of which, yep, give us a glittering new Mayfield please. Ta.
  • The Airport should be connected, especially as we've now got an Airport City Enterprise Zone. In a decade or two it could be a thriving business park - so glam up that station too and give us a high-speed link to Mayfield.
  • So, in summary, under my plan we'd end up with Piccadilly for National Rail, Victoria for National Rail and High Speed 2 northbound, Airport for National Rail and Mayfield-bound High Speed 2, and Mayfield for High Speed 2 Airport-bound and south-bound.

This plan is messy and not entirely cost-effective, but, hold on a second lads, have you considered the warm fuzzy big city metropolitan vibe you get when considering having to choose between four major railway terminals? I think you'll agree it pays for itself. :lol:
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Victoria would gain three west facing bays to allow trains from the west to reverse or terminate under full Hub plans (at the moment terminating trains approaching from the west have to use the through platforms), it would also see a lot more frequent trains with most services doing the loop around the city (anything upto a train from Vic-Pic every five minutes).

We will have two stations, one at the Airport and one in the centre though we are still months from finding out where in the centre and whether it would approach from the East, West or South.
 

HYPODERMIC

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2011
Messages
88
Location
Chingford
Victoria would gain three west facing bays to allow trains from the west to reverse or terminate under full Hub plans (at the moment terminating trains approaching from the west have to use the through platforms), it would also see a lot more frequent trains with most services doing the loop around the city (anything upto a train from Vic-Pic every five minutes).

We will have two stations, one at the Airport and one in the centre though we are still months from finding out where in the centre and whether it would approach from the East, West or South.

Three? Blimey, even more than I'd hoped! So that'd take Victoria to a very regal 9 platforms, lovely! :D

The boom in through services is also excellent; it'll really liven the place up, and FTPE will give it a bit of sparkle that Northern sadly lack (assuming, of course, FTPE are even still operating by the time this goes ahead - we could be looking at entirely different TOCs by then). The increased service frequency and range will give Victoria greater footfall and interest, bringing in some extra investment and prominence, both of which catalyse the other. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy; people aren't demanding more services from Victoria because they don't exist - but spruce it up, throw in some new services and suddenly people do take advantage of it. Give people an alternative and they suddenly realise they quite like having one.

All in all, a really good project, this Northern Hub. I'm looking forward to watching it happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top