My ideas for Manchester Mayfield's Future

[Manchester77]

Manchester Mayfield, for those who don't know, is a disused terminus adjacent to Manchester Piccadilly. It has been closed to passengers in 1960 and could possibly be a key player in manchester's future transport needs if used to its full potential. There are various options for the future use of Mayfield.
Option A:-
Use mayfield as a terminus for new High Speed Two trains into Manchester. Being adjacent to MAN allows for good interchange as well as capability for HS trains to exit onto classic lines. However, there is limited space for an extra pair of tracks for dedicated HS use and even less for connections onto classic lines.
Option B:-
Use Mayfield as a through station for trains. With additional trains as part of Northern Hub converting Mayfield into a through station for trains which would use Platforms 13&14 may provide extra capacity. However, converting the station into a through station would be difficult and would require major re-routing works.
Option C:-
Use Mayfield as extra terminating platforms and integrate with MAN. If used as a terminus for local services as used origanaly. This would be the easiest option as it would require little track work. Reinstate the tracks into the throat of MAN to allow trains to filter in and out if the station. However MAN's throat is busy and having trains on a flat junction may cause problems in events of trains failing or late running services or cause issues in time tabling trains into MAN.
There are also non-railway options such as commercial offices or even demolition. No matter what he future holds for this forgotten railway terminal it will bit be decided quickly. In my opinion of all the options I can see, option C is the most likely as it is the least stressful and probably cheapest.

I'd like to see what other people think about Mayfield's future. What is your view and what do you think will happen?

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm not overly familiar with Manchester services, but I'd suggest that the limiting factor at Piccadilly is more likely to do with the capacity for through services on 13/14, which the Northern Hub seeks to fix by adding platforms 15/16.

So if anything all that Mayfield could realistically provide is more terminus platforms, which it doesn't really need and if it did, could possibly be better integrated using the car parking area to the northeast of Picadilly rather than a distinctly remote Mayfield.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was recently informed that the existing overall roof at Manchester Mayfield was in such as dangerous condition that its total removal was being considered.

 

[ainsworth74]

Option B:-
Use Mayfield as a through station for trains.

I'd be interested to hear how this could work without building a huge new viaduct through the middle of Manchester?

Option C:-
Use Mayfield as extra terminating platforms and integrate with MAN.

Piccadilly doesn't need more terminating platforms it needs more through platforms (and Mayfield isn't the solution to that).

 

[mwmbwls]

I was recently informed that the existing overall roof at Manchester Mayfield was in such as dangerous condition that its total removal was being considered.

A PLANNING application was submitted in October for permission to pull down the roof at Manchester's derelict Mayfield railway station.

Prior to Government cutbacks the site, next to Piccadilly Station, was earmarked for a 550,000 sq ft civil service campus, described as a "Whitehall of the North".

The planned demolition work is not a prelude to a revival of this scheme but instead an attempt to make the area safe.

A planning application states: "The existing structure is in a dangerous condition and hazardous to both authorised persons who are on site, and trespassers entering the site illegally."

The work will involve the removal of an asbestos roof covering and broken wired glazed roof lights, and the supporting structure, "all of which are in a dangerous condition".

The application has been made by British Rail Board (Residuary), the government agency that manages the site.

Given that the application relates only to the roof and the fact that at some stage the existing builiding and arches will need to be demolished it would make sense to clear the site now. Platforms 15 and 16 will be built on a raft extending over Fairfield Street next to the existing platforms 13 and 14. The tracks to service this platform will block the existing throat of Mayfield Station.

 

[Chris125]

It's hard not to look at Mayfield and try and think of ways to re-use it but it just doesn't make sense - it would increase conflict's with through service's and as has already been said there's no demand for such platforms anyway. Even if there was, at least 3 can be provided north of the station at lower cost and much nearer the concourse.

Chris

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Just so I know I'm thinking of the right building... is this the derelict building with a collapsed / partly burnt out roof that is at ground level directly opposite the London end of platforms 13 / 14 at Piccadilly?

 

[snail]

Just so I know I'm thinking of the right building... is this the derelict building with a collapsed / partly burnt out roof that is at ground level directly opposite the London end of platforms 13 / 14 at Piccadilly?

That's the one, although the tracks are at the same level as piccadilly station.

It's main drawback as a terminus is the distance from the main concourse. The new platforms will be quite a drag, it's another 100M+ to Mayfield.

Converting to through use would not only entail substantial demolition of the Mayfield buildings on the west side, the MacDonald hotel would probably have to go as well. And that doesn't factor in what to do about the viaduct to Oxford Road.

Finally, it's not long enough for HS2 in its present form. It could end up as the site but is probably the wrong side of the Piccadilly shed.

It's a great railway edifice but I think we have to accept its had its day.

 

[infobleep]

If they do knock it down, what will happen to everything within the building? Will it just go to landfill or would there ever be the opportunity to own a bit of the station, even if it were just a brick?

I've photographed the station from the outside from as many view points as I could. The road way up the side is still used by network rail staff as I saw the gates open one day.

I would of course love to be able to look around inside but I have no interest in endangering myself and it is after all private property.

 

[AndyHudds]

Just because Piccadilly isn't in need of any more terminating platforms doesn't mean to say any extra ones in a refurbished Mayfield wouldn't be welcome. In my opinion Piccadilly probably does need more terminating platforms as what seems to be happenings is they stack trains up in front of each other, causing mayhem people getting on the wrong trains. But I do agree its more through platforms that are desperately needed.

If it was refurbished the local stoppers could be move into Mayfield. It does look a big site and I often think to myself when I'm on my way into Manchester that surely it could be re-opened and put to some constructive use instead of letting it rot. It would also have potential for retail units as well there is a closed pub right outside the station which could be refurbished and re-opened for some refreshment, its a big site, a walkway could link it to Piccadilly. Its just a case of does the end justify the means.If they aren't going to do anything railway related with it, tear it down and build something constructive in its place as it is becoming a bit of a eyesore.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It would also have potential for retail units as well there is a closed pub right outside the station which could be refurbished and re-opened for some refreshment, its a big site, a walkway could link it to Piccadilly. Its just a case of does the end justify the means.If they aren't going to do anything railway related with it, tear it down and build something constructive in its place as it is becoming a bit of a eyesore.

I feel that the situation in which Mayfield station is situated, is entirely the wrong side of Piccadilly railway station to site any future retail development project in the city centre of Manchester. Look where all the current such retail developments are situated in Manchester city centre.

 

[Padav]

@snail: Finally, it's not long enough for HS2 in its present form. It could end up as the site but is probably the wrong side of the Piccadilly shed.

For the purposes of information I attach a birds eye view shot, using Google Earth, of the Manchester Mayfield site. I drew a line across the site, measuring precisely 400m

Of course it's a matter of conjecture regarding the potential uses of this site but the notion that it is too short to accommodate 400m long platforms is simply incorrect - it all depends on how you configure/design the throat of the station approaches.

All of this talk about Mayfield being the wrong side of Piccadilly is just that; talk and hot air - if Mayfield is selected as the site for a HS2 city centre terminus, you can bet your bottom dollar that massive new investment will flow into the area with money being poured into improving transport links to the site - in short, to borrow from the PR blurb about St. Pancras, the station will become a destination in its own right!

 

[185]

For the purposes of information I attach a birds eye view shot, using Google Earth, of the Manchester Mayfield site. I drew a line across the site, measuring precisely 400m

Of course it's a matter of conjecture regarding the potential uses of this site but the notion that it is too short to accommodate 400m long platforms is simply incorrect - it all depends on how you configure/design the throat of the station approaches.

Worth remembering that the land usage on the south side (the side you've marked) is all either derelict or used as scrapyards etc all the way from Piccadilly to Ardwick Junction so, I would certainly say a platform alignment, either raised or set on stilts, could be built as long as about 36 coaches (!) before running into anything substantial, namely the Universal Square building, which to be fair ought to be demolished.

 

[Haydn1971]

That's too tight for 4x 400m platforms, plus the associated station infrastructure and the committed platforms 15/16.

The biggest blockage to the Mayfield site is the lack of through provision to the west. As pointed out above, you will have classic compatable trains coming from the north, Mayfield suits a terminus from the south, but not for services from the north. Routing services from the north past Manchester, then around and in from the south east of the greater Manchester area and back up along the WCML is just ridiculous. Routing services across the south of Manchester city centre, will slow the "HS" classic services by a significant amount, plus demanding in engineering terms threading a new viaduct with something like a 160kph design speed through an area scattered with existing viaducts, canals and new buildings.

West of the city centre is perfect for a 250kph design speed spur, ample space on existing surface car parks, loads of derelict land to build new infrastructure on.

 

[Padav]

@Haydn1971: That's too tight for 4x 400m platforms, plus the associated station infrastructure and the committed platforms 15/16.

For the umpteenth time - the available space depends on how you configure the throat approaches for any new station - are you assuming a through running or terminus station (the associated infrastructure sits below the station platforms) - you could actually have a bit of both with through running platforms linking back into the Oxford Road chord on the northern side, directly adjacent to Piccadilly and terminating platforms on the southern edge of any new site?

Agreed - it's tight but doable and what's more it delivers a city centre site, which is one of the main criticisms aimed at other HS2 stations by those hostile to the entire concept. Think about it - it's an easy target if phase 2 of HS2 saves 'X minutes' on the journey time yet deposits the traveller 'X+ minutes' from the City Centre?

We should also note that a pre-requisite for any new Manchester Station will be security because it will have to incoporate, due the UK's intransigent position over non-participation in Schengen, a full set of border control facilities - that means a site that can be isolated to some degree - on this aspect Mayfield again fits the bill?

 

[tbtc]

The Northern Hub will resolve the bottleneck for "through" services on 13/14.

The Ordsall Chord will free up the need for so many reversing services in the main Piccadilly "shed" (e.g. the Newcastle/ Middlesbrough - Manchester Airport services take up four departures an hour).

Really, Mayfield is a solution in need of a problem (which is like a lot of enthusiast ideas - e.g. people working backwards to try to find a question)

 

[craigwilson]

...as well there is a closed pub right outside the station which could be refurbished and re-opened for some refreshment...

I believe you're referring to the Star & Garter. Looks closed but is actually very much still open - but is more used for gigs and club nights so doesn't open much during the daytime.

Agreed - it's tight but doable and what's more it delivers a city centre site, which is one of the main criticisms aimed at other HS2 stations by those hostile to the entire concept. Think about it - it's an easy target if phase 2 of HS2 saves 'X minutes' on the journey time yet deposits the traveller 'X+ minutes' from the City Centre?

We should also note that a pre-requisite for any new Manchester Station will be security because it will have to incoporate, due the UK's intransigent position over non-participation in Schengen, a full set of border control facilities - that means a site that can be isolated to some degree - on this aspect Mayfield again fits the bill?

I agree with Haydn that once you include the infrastructure and station ancilliaries, that's just not enough space. I also think the MacDonald hotel might have something to say about that kind of proximity....

Also, will the stations on HS2 definitely be doing direct services to Europe?

Really, Mayfield is a solution in need of a problem (which is like a lot of enthusiast ideas - e.g. people working backwards to try to find a question)

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Padav]

@craigwilson: "Also, will the stations on HS2 definitely be doing direct services to Europe?"

visit the HS2 North West thread, where you can see specific reference (and supporting evidence) to the role of HS2 in connecting UK provincial cities to near mainland European destinations - short answer to your rhetorical question, at this juncture, is YES - let's put it like this - direct connecting services to the European mainland are highly symbolic - without those services, the current support, which spreads across the political spectrum, for HS2 in the Northern peripheries, will fall off a cliff!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

@craigwilson: I also think the MacDonald hotel might have something to say about that kind of proximity....

errrrr......it might also just be that MacDonald Hotels were extremely prescient (or were given advance inside info?) and had that very same proximity in mind when they took over the site and spent millions refurbishing the building - think about the rebuild of St. Pancras as the HS1 terminus, which was in part financed by the creation of new upmarket hotel facilities in the building forming part of the station itself?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Really, Mayfield is a solution in need of a problem (which is like a lot of enthusiast ideas - e.g. people working backwards to try to find a question)

Let's throw an alternate idea into the mix then... since MOSI loses it's main line connection when the new chord is built, why not move the museum into a refurbished Mayfield, which looks like it's a larger site anyway...?

Easy enough to maintain a main line link for the occasional stock movement, more scope to present the exhibits ( and more of them? ), room for bigger facilities as well. Plus... much easier for visitors to get to being immediately next door to Piccadilly...

The required money could come from sale of the present MOSI site?

 

[Chris125]

Just because Piccadilly isn't in need of any more terminating platforms doesn't mean to say any extra ones in a refurbished Mayfield wouldn't be welcome.

...if they aren't needed then why not spend such a massive amount of money on something which is?

As i've said before, if extra platforms are needed for terminating service's then at least 3 can be built north of Piccadilly at far less cost and in a much more convenient site.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

Let's throw an alternate idea into the mix then... since MOSI loses it's main line connection when the new chord is built, why not move the museum into a refurbished Mayfield, which looks like it's a larger site anyway...?

Easy enough to maintain a main line link for the occasional stock movement, more scope to present the exhibits ( and more of them? ), room for bigger facilities as well. Plus... much easier for visitors to get to being immediately next door to Piccadilly...

The required money could come from sale of the present MOSI site?

Sounds a much more sensible use of land

 

[snail]

Do all that and you have a new build station. It won't preserve much if any of the original Mayfield, so it's irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

 

[Manchester77]

That's too tight for 4x 400m platforms, plus the associated station infrastructure and the committed platforms 15/16

If you want four platforms you'd only need two island platforms with two faces each for four platforms.

West of the city centre is perfect for a 250kph design speed spur, ample space on existing surface car parks, loads of derelict land to build new infrastructure on.

You keep saying west of CC but could you show where on a map because that's a very vague location. And also HS2 is supposed to be 250 mph, not 155 mph.

As i've said before, if extra platforms are needed for terminating service's then at least 3 can be built north of Piccadilly at far less cost and in a much more convenient site.

Chris

Do you mind showing where please I'd be interested to compare the two locations. Thank you

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let's throw an alternate idea into the mix then... since MOSI loses it's main line connection when the new chord is built, why not move the museum into a refurbished Mayfield, which looks like it's a larger site anyway...?

The required money could come from sale of the present MOSI site?

Peter, look at the area that is currently occupied by MOSI, not just in its length along Liverpool Road from its new main entrance on Lower Byron Street down to its other site border at Water Street, but also with regard to the corresponding width of the site. You will find that it is somewhat different to that occupied by Mayfield station. The buildings that occupy the Gas and Electricity museums are the original warehouses of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and I can well imagine the outcry if these original historical buildings were lost to the current museum usage that they have so carefully been used for. The large building used for the Power Hall and the multi-story warehouse adjacent to it all have great historical value to the railway station site.

I should imagine that a very great deal of money has been spent upon MOSI over the years and there is also the matter of the building opposite that used to host the Brighter Homes Exhibition in my much younger years that now hosts the other museum of planes and vehicles, which is also part of MOSI.

Liverpool Road station is by its very nature, is most certainly something that should be retained for the populace at large, with all its railway historical connections to this part of North-West England. Would there be any legal stricture that would prevent the sale of the railway station and its land? Also, the site at MOSI is well placed for heavy rail connection at Deansgate station, Manchester Metrolink Deansgate-Castlefield station and the free Metroshuttle bus number 2 stops outside the main entrance.

Can I invite postings upon this matter, please, which could expound upon the matter that I have raised in this posting when considering the proposed removal of MOSI to Mayfield station.

 

[snail]

Can I invite postings upon this matter, please, which could expound upon the matter that I have raised in this posting when considering the proposed removal of MOSI to Mayfield station.

Well, here's mine: Ludicrous. Move MOSI and you still have the Grade 1 1830 buildings to look after. As something like 80% of them are used for museum exhibits and meeting space you end up with a three site museum (unless Mr Mugridge is thinking of closing the air & space building as well).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

it might also just be that MacDonald Hotels were extremely prescient (or were given advance inside info?) and had that very same proximity in mind when they took over the site and spent millions refurbishing the building

They took over the building 6 years ago. Was HS2 even on the drawing board then? Like others have said, you're digging around looking for a problem to your solution.

 

[Haydn1971]

If you want four platforms you'd only need two island platforms with two faces each for four platforms.

Agreed, you could just fit 4 platforms in, could you fit 6 in ? I'm not sure you could, nor if 6 are required. My main problem with Mayfield its lack of through running at a 250kph line speed, let alone a potential 360-400kph line speed, which is why I believe Manchester would be a spur - which leads me to...

You keep saying west of CC but could you show where on a map because that's a very vague location. And also HS2 is supposed to be 250 mph, not 155 mph.

I could draw something up at a later time, but I'm thinking joined with Manchester Victoria, with the HS2 terminal station being to the south-west of the existing station. Ample sites are available either north or south of the existing track, heading out through Salford Central, then tracking a curve that slips into the existing line that runs parallel to the M602 - this spur would be 250kph, heading out to a main north-south 360-400kph route that I've suggested in the NW Station thread.

The WCML corridor, whilst could be paralleled south as far as the M60, crossing the Stockport becomes technically very difficult, with a massive viaduct to cross the valley and some form of tunnel to take the line under Stockport town centre and beyond under Cale Green and Davenport. Why shadow an existing mainline when you don't have to ?

 

[Chris125]

Do you mind showing where please I'd be interested to compare the two locations.

If you go to Piccadilly in google maps you'll notice a carpark on the viaduct holding the station that runs the length of the trainshed - if i remember correctly the Manchester Hub study concluded there was room for 3 platforms.

Sounds a much more sensible use of land

MOSI is situated at the terminus of the Liverpool & Manchester, the first intercity passenger railway in the world with buildings and structures that date back to its opening - the Liverpool Road site is about the most suitable site imaginable for such a museum, and infinitely more appropriate than derelict Mayfield.

Chris

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Historic buildings can be moved from one location to another ( http://www.wealddown.co.uk/ ) although I realise the costs of doing that in this case would cancel out the means of funding a relocation of the museum!

My earlier post was ( clearly, I hope! ) only a curveball anyway based on the recent outcry over MOSI losing main line access. There is, of course, no reason why you can't have a two-site museum, but again that carries the slight flaw of not providing the capital to refurbish Mayfield.

More seriously, if Mayfield is to be preserved it is unlikely to be in the present form.

The only chance of doing an "as is" would be if a separate and well funded museum were to be set up in it.

Far more likely it would have to be a case of restore the external walls and roof but stuff the interior with flats and shops. This would not be all bad - it would retain the structure itself and that roof would, after all, be rather impressive over a shopping centre...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Far more likely it would have to be a case of restore the external walls and roof but stuff the interior with flats and shops. This would not be all bad - it would retain the structure itself and that roof would, after all, be rather impressive over a shopping centre...

Peter, can I refer you to my earlier posting # 11 on this thread, with regard to retail premises.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm sure there's a way round it being "on the wrong side"; the south side isn't all that deserted is it? Or at least it wouldn't be if they developed the Mayfield area. Bit late tonight for me to go into that though!