Northern Hub?

[PR1Berske]

Dont see why they cant use the old mayfield station and build a bridge from there and connecting up to the oxford road line.

That's the plan I have in my head. How tight would those tracks be? There's the hotel at a rather odd angle which my brain (non engineer, I concede) can't move out the way

 

[YorkshireBear]

Werent the extra two platforms just splitting 13/14 in half to take two trains at once?

 

[northwichcat]

I take it you've used public transport in London?

Yes I've used Virgin, Southeastern and London Underground services in the last couple of years.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Werent the extra two platforms just splitting 13/14 in half to take two trains at once?

No, that is already the case at present, as platforms 13 and 14 are both plated with different letter suffixes to reflect that fact.

Platforms 15 and 16, should they ever be built, would be line parallel with platforms 13 and 14, on a bridge over the street underneath.

 

[snail]

Dont see why they cant use the old mayfield station and build a bridge from there and connecting up to the oxford road line.

It's a terminus station, at the wrong angle for through tracks to connect with Oxford Road, and a long way from the main Piccadilly concourse. By the time you have spent a fortune reconstructing Mayfield to present-day standards, you may as well have built the proposed structure parallel to the current platforms. I think it's a magnificent looking structure, but totally unsuited for the kind of working envisaged here.

 

[John55]

The Northern Hub is more than just a renaming of the Manchester Hub. As you have said yourself the Manchester Hub didn't include electrification. Now any rail improvements in the North seem to be put under the 'Northern Hub' category.

There were actually 3 separate rail projects proposed by the previous government for the North of England, in addition to the Manchester Hub:
1. Improvements to the 10 worst mainline stations in the country, which were mainly in the North, such as Manchester Victoria. This was cancelled by the Coalition government, however, some of the Victoria improvements are going ahead under the Northern Hub.
2. Procurement of new DMU vehicles for extra capacity to be in service by December 2012. This was cancelled as a result of a realisation that if new vehicles were ordered for Thameslink that there would be numerous vehicles sitting around spare unless they were put to use.
3. North West Electrification and refurbishment and cascade of existing Thameslink EMUs to North West.



Therefore Northern Hub predates electrification and none of its objectives are dependant on methods of powering the trains, but the methods of achieving those objectives may. The North West electrification may well be inter-related with the Thameslink project but it is not part of the Northern Hub option 2 schemes which are listed below.



A recent post quoting a PTE states these will not be going ahead as it will be possible to achieve up to 6 fast services on North TPE without these.



They are needed before then. TPE services will be diverted away from Bolton in the May 2014 timetable change, or possibly December 2013 if TPE get approval. The DMUs released off Chat Moss are needed to plug this gap. If there are no EMUs to replace the DMUs on Chat Moss then it causes all kinds of problems.

Originally the 319s were supposed to start being replaced in 2012, to give time for refurbishment and crew training prior to going in to service in the North West in 2013: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...rification-planning-to-start-immediately.html



The reason I brought up DLR is because it is a much more sensible comparison for the Northern Hub, opposed to Thameslink or Crossrail.



Corrected that sentence for you.

Daily ridership of DLR is 192,000.
Daily ridership of Tyne and Wear Metro is 113,000.
Daily ridership of Merseyrail was over 100,000 before the frequency of Chester services was doubled.

Northern Rail are very short of capacity on their rolling stock and the total capacity of all their rolling stock is more than double what DLR have so I very much doubt the daily ridership on DLR is higher than Northern alone.



If you look at my previous posts on here the only tram lines I support in Manchester are the city centre lines and the line out to Salford Quays.

This reference I found to the change of name for the Manchester Hub project comes from TGfM one of the sponsors so I am happy to accept their statements.

“Momentum GMPTE’s transport briefing for senior decision makers Summer 2010

Formerly known as the Manchester Hub, it has been renamed the Northern Hub to reflect the benefits for other parts of the north of England.”

No mention of any change in scope.

The project has been taken forward by Network Rail in the Manchester Hub report I mentioned last time.

You have listed 3 projects in addition to the Northern Hub.

1 The Better Stations report sponsored by the DfT listed 10 National ‘B’ Interchanges which were a priority for improvement which included Barking, Clapham Junction, Luton, Crewe, Liverpool Central, Manchester Vic etc. The work was not cancelled as shown by all sorts of rebuilding work which has either started or is about to start (i.e. Liverpool Central).

2 Procurement of new DMUs. I presume this is the December 2008 procurement for Great Western, Trans-Pennine and Northern. As far as I can tell none of these were related to the Northern Hub project. There was certainly no press comment on those lines at the time.

3 Great Western and North West electrification a DfT project coming out of the Croucher/Shooter initiative which forced the DfTs hand to reconsider electrification not Northern Hub.

From my last post “The Manchester Hub (now renamed Northern Hub) is option 2 of the Manchester Hub Rail Study Report produced by Network Rail in 2009. This was almost complete when the unexpected announcement of the Chat Moss electrification was made and the report states quite reasonably that the plans would have to be reviewed in the light of the electrification announcement.” This is clearly being done and no doubt other things will change as circumstances demand.

I think it quite reasonable not to spend money when a perfectly acceptable alternative is on offer. If you think hard enough about running more trains on a Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds axis the expensive to resolve issue of the approaches to Leeds station will need to be addressed and any money not spent elsewhere could be usefully be applied there.

In the May 2014 timetable I understand the Manchester - Scotland TPE trains are being diverted to the Chat-Moss & Wigan NW route and that TPE will receive 10 x 4 car Class 350s to run them. There will be no other route capable of running EMUs until December 2014 when the Liverpool to Manchester and Liverpool to Wigan NW services are electrified.

If you had read the article from RGI about the 319s transfer it said from 2013 nothing about 2012. The halt during the comprehensive spending review has pushed that back to 2014 at least if Thameslink is ever sorted out.

Please do not change my text and show it as a quote this is misleading (especially when it is wrong). Just add a comment underneath.

In 2009/10 the passenger total for the DLR was 69.4 million (m). In the same year the passenger total for Merseyrail was 29.3m and for T&W Metro was 40.8m a total of 70.1m. In 2010/11 the figures are DLR 78.3m, MR 44.9m, T&W 39.9m a total of 84.8m. About 8% difference in 2010/11.

For the Northern comparison to DLR in 2009/10 Northern carried 83.7m passengers and in 2010/11 86.8m so last year DLR was 10% less than Northern and 8% less than Merseyrail + Tyne & Wear but such is the rate of growth of the DLR that in the year just finished (ie now) I expect the passenger numbers to be equal.

So no hugely exaggerated myth just my very reasonable estimate of when DLR would catch up and/or overtake the other operators.

 

[WatcherZero]

The Name change was at the request Leeds and Liverpool PTE's to help with marketing. They wanted it to reflect that it was for their benefit too not just Manchesters if they were to lobby in favour of it. The original name and research of course came from Pteg, the collective lobbying group of all PTE's.

You may also find this interesting
http://www.wymetro.com/news/releases/120217YRNS

Study by Yorkshire that the Northern Hub would unlock £12b of benefits to Yorkshire.

Leeds station also had £245m invested in it (half of the total cost of Northern Hub) recently with the understanding more would be needed.

 

[daniel3982]

Would a better comparison between the Northern Hub and a London project be the superb Overground/ELL project (and current extension to Clapham Junction).

Though I really don't think it should be either/or. We need transport investment in both London and the regions?

 

[northwichcat]

In the May 2014 timetable I understand the Manchester - Scotland TPE trains are being diverted to the Chat-Moss & Wigan NW route and that TPE will receive 10 x 4 car Class 350s to run them. There will be no other route capable of running EMUs until December 2014 when the Liverpool to Manchester and Liverpool to Wigan NW services are electrified.

There are threads on the proposed TPE changes from May 2014 based on the ORR applications, these include less TPE services via Bolton than at present.

There are peak time services between Manchester and Hazel Grove, Manchester and Crewe and Manchester and Macclesfield run by 2x142s because there are not enough 323s to go around. Having extra EMUs in time for the TPE timetable change will mean these Pacers can be switched to the Bolton corridor and other EMUs will be available for crew learning ahead of Manchester-Liverpool and Liverpool-Wigan going fully over to electric traction.

If you had read the article from RGI about the 319s transfer it said from 2013 nothing about 2012. The halt during the comprehensive spending review has pushed that back to 2014 at least if Thameslink is ever sorted out.

Read what I said properly:

Originally the 319s were supposed to start being replaced in 2012, to give time for refurbishment and crew training prior to going in to service in the North West in 2013

and look at the time scales given at the bottom of the article:

Liverpool – Manchester
Opening 2013

Rolling stock

Thameslink rolling stock delivered
2012-15

Please do not change my text and show it as a quote this is misleading (especially when it is wrong).

Your exact words were:

The fact that DLR carries as many passengers as Northern, or Merseyrail and Tyne and Wear Metro combined suggests there were good reasons for spending the money.

Now your saying:

For the Northern comparison to DLR in 2009/10 Northern carried 83.7m passengers and in 2010/11 86.8m so last year DLR was 10% less than Northern and 8% less than Merseyrail + Tyne & Wear but such is the rate of growth of the DLR that in the year just finished (ie now) I expect the passenger numbers to be equal.

If it's a guess/assumption then how is it a fact?

With Northern getting extra capacity in time for the Dec 11 timetable change (in the form of FGW 142s and LM 150s) and passengers transferring from overcrowded TPE services to Northern, especially in the case of Chinley which lost it's TPE calls in favour of Northern calls and also a new Park and Ride station opening near Preston, I imagine the Northern increase will be much higher for 2011/12.

 

[John55]

There are threads on the proposed TPE changes from May 2014 based on the ORR applications, these include less TPE services via Bolton than at present.

There are peak time services between Manchester and Hazel Grove, Manchester and Crewe and Manchester and Macclesfield run by 2x142s because there are not enough 323s to go around. Having extra EMUs in time for the TPE timetable change will mean these Pacers can be switched to the Bolton corridor and other EMUs will be available for crew learning ahead of Manchester-Liverpool and Liverpool-Wigan going fully over to electric traction.




Read what I said properly:

Originally the 319s were supposed to start being replaced in 2012, to give time for refurbishment and crew training prior to going in to service in the North West in 2013

and look at the time scales given at the bottom of the article:

Liverpool – Manchester
Opening 2013

Rolling stock

Thameslink rolling stock delivered
2012-15




Your exact words were:

The fact that DLR carries as many passengers as Northern, or Merseyrail and Tyne and Wear Metro combined suggests there were good reasons for spending the money.

Now your saying:

For the Northern comparison to DLR in 2009/10 Northern carried 83.7m passengers and in 2010/11 86.8m so last year DLR was 10% less than Northern and 8% less than Merseyrail + Tyne & Wear but such is the rate of growth of the DLR that in the year just finished (ie now) I expect the passenger numbers to be equal.

If it's a guess/assumption then how is it a fact?

With Northern getting extra capacity in time for the Dec 11 timetable change (in the form of FGW 142s and LM 150s) and passengers transferring from overcrowded TPE services to Northern, especially in the case of Chinley which lost it's TPE calls in favour of Northern calls and also a new Park and Ride station opening near Preston, I imagine the Northern increase will be much higher for 2011/12.

The relevent sentence about the 319s in the article from RGI is quoted below;
“Railway Gazette International 23 July 2009
The delivery of a large fleet of new EMUs for Thameslink in 2013-15 will free the current Class 319 fleet. These will be refurbished and fitted with air-conditioning, entering service between Liverpool and Manchester from 2013, and on GW commuter services from 2016.” The date 2012 was not mentioned in relation to the 319s at all.

My comment about no route being available was based on the NW electrification routes particularly the Chat Moss route which you specifically mentioned. I didn’t realise you were talking about moving DMUs off several of the South Manchester lines as you only talked about moving DMUs from the Chat Moss route as quoted below.
“They are needed before then. TPE services will be diverted away from Bolton in the May 2014 timetable change, or possibly December 2013 if TPE get approval. The DMUs released off Chat Moss are needed to plug this gap. If there are no EMUs to replace the DMUs on Chat Moss then it causes all kinds of problems.”

Checking the draft TPE timetable again it seems to reduce services via Bolton in off peak hours only as there still seem to be the same number of TPE trains southbound from Bolton between 7:00 and 08:30 and northbound to Bolton between 16:45 and 18:00. For example the existing 17:15 Barrow is replaced by the new 17:11 Barrow starting from Piccadilly instead of Preston (via Bolton) and the 17:16 via Wigan to Scotland is new.


I think the figures I quoted from the DfT & ORR show that the phrase you used “hugely exaggerated myth” is indeed untrue as there was a difference of less than 10% between the passengers carried on the DLR and Merseyrail and T&W Metro and DLR and Northern. I was wrong to use the word fact but the sentiment is certainly correct.

I don’t know if you are aware that the DLR has had a large increase in traffic since August 2011 when the new branch from Canning Town to Stratford International opened. Shortly afterwards in the first week that the Westfield Shopping Centre at Stratford opened the DLR carried its record daily number of passengers (340,000) and reached 1.9 million in the whole week. Two more DLR routes have switched from 2 car to 3 car trains during the last year.

The extra capacity on the Northern trains will not result in a startling increase in passenger numbers as the initial effect is to allow those already on crowed trains more space but no doubt in the longer term it will be beneficial to passenger numbers. The 335 people using Buckshaw Parkway everyday will not make that much difference.

 

[northwichcat]

The relevent sentence about the 319s in the article from RGI is quoted below;
“Railway Gazette International 23 July 2009
The delivery of a large fleet of new EMUs for Thameslink in 2013-15 will free the current Class 319 fleet. These will be refurbished and fitted with air-conditioning, entering service between Liverpool and Manchester from 2013, and on GW commuter services from 2016.” The date 2012 was not mentioned in relation to the 319s at all.

It doesn't, however, mention when the 319s were expected to start their refurbishment program. The first set were expected to enter in service in the North West fully refurbished in 2013. There appears to be a mistake in the article but 2012 is mentioned for new stock being introduced on Thameslink even though in another place it mentions 2013.

My comment about no route being available was based on the NW electrification routes particularly the Chat Moss route which you specifically mentioned. I didn’t realise you were talking about moving DMUs off several of the South Manchester lines as you only talked about moving DMUs from the Chat Moss route as quoted below.

There is actually a peak time Northern service between Manchester and Wigan via Chat Moss but that may go altogether with TPE going that way.

You'd corrected me that Manchester-Liverpool wouldn't be ready for May 2014 EMUs and made the comment that there wouldn't be any DMUs ready to free up so I pointed out the DMUs being used under the wires due to there not being enough 323s to go around. In theory these could be run by the spare 317s now but Northern won't want a small number of different EMUs.

Checking the draft TPE timetable again it seems to reduce services via Bolton in off peak hours only as there still seem to be the same number of TPE trains southbound from Bolton between 7:00 and 08:30 and northbound to Bolton between 16:45 and 18:00. For example the existing 17:15 Barrow is replaced by the new 17:11 Barrow starting from Piccadilly instead of Preston (via Bolton) and the 17:16 via Wigan to Scotland is new.

Look at the current TPE timetable closely. Most of the peak time services through Bolton are 6 car portion workings and some of them will be 3 car workings instead, such as the 17:11 Barrow service you mention.

Also note with a lot of companies using flexitime and people working reduced hours due to the economic climate it means you need to look at Manchester arrivals up until around 09:15 for the morning peak and departures from 16:00 for the afternoon peak.

The 16:15 TPE departure on Fridays is 6 car and it's heaving.

We do know that TPE are planning on using less units through Bolton because they will be using more of them through Huddersfield instead.

I think the figures I quoted from the DfT & ORR show that the phrase you used “hugely exaggerated myth” is indeed untrue as there was a difference of less than 10% between the passengers carried on the DLR and Merseyrail and T&W Metro and DLR and Northern. I was wrong to use the word fact but the sentiment is certainly correct.

Originally I misread you comment and didn't realise that Tyne and Wear Metro + Merseyrail was a separate example, which is why I used the term 'hugely exaggerated' which wasn't a fair term to use.

I do think that 10% shouldn't been seen as a small amount. We may be seeing passenger numbers at some stations rising well above that level but that's due to high growth not down to 10% being a small rise.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Will it still be in July of this year when the final decisions with regard to the funding of sections of the Northern Hub will be made ? This comment appeared towards the end of a document issued by Network Rail.

 

[WatcherZero]

That is scheduled date when the Government approves Network Rails next 5 year Control Period.

 

[dggar]

Link to article in MEN regarding Northern Hub.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...to-rally-behind-rail-infrastructure-campaigns

 

[Joseph_Locke]

The Name change was at the request Leeds and Liverpool PTE's to help with marketing. They wanted it to reflect that it was for their benefit too not just Manchesters if they were to lobby in favour of it. The original name and research of course came from Pteg, the collective lobbying group of all PTE's.

Once upon a time (2000) it was "Manchester and Cheshire Capacity Improvements", back in Railtrack / sSRA / SRA days.

Then it resurfaced as Manchester Hub for GRIP 1, but Northern Way covered (RIP) more than just Manchester, and the only ways of unlocking the required capacity and consequent benefits in Manchester (which is a given for the NW) was to do some work on the connecting routes into Lancashire, Cheshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire, releasing yet more benefits. Given the low-key historic rivalry involved, "Northern" Hub seemed nicely appropriate for GRIP 2, GRIP 3 and shortly GRIP 4 onwards.

Will it still be in July of this year when the final decisions with regard to the funding of sections of the Northern Hub will be made ? This comment appeared towards the end of a document issued by Network Rail.

As WZ says this is the date for CP5 funding announcements, but remember that Ordsall Chord, Stage One at Huyton, the journey time work on the Hope Valley, Calder Valley and Preston routes and from Vic to Stalybridge, as well as electrification to Stalybridge and Leeds, are all "committed" already, pending certain parties finding the right number...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's the plan I have in my head. How tight would those tracks be? There's the hotel at a rather odd angle which my brain (non engineer, I concede) can't move out the way

You can get out west betwixt the McDonald hotel and the railway viaduct, but it constrains platform length and forces you north east towards the existing 13 and 14 (e.g. on a new structure over Fairfield St.). You'd end up knocking Mayfield down and then building the new station somewhere else!

Mayfield as a site has been examined by professionals on a few occasions, and whilst it would make a great site for a remote (from Piccadilly) terminus for Airport trains, that isn't the idea of the work ongoing to open the Ordsall Chord.

My groat is on a development scheme to take over from "Westminster of the North" plan and take advantage of the location adjacent to the new stairs down from 15 /16 (which will be south west of Fairfield Street).

What I'd actively keep mentioning (if I were asked again) is that it makes a huge amount of sense as a location for the a Coach Station, adjacent to all known links (Manc Way, Metrolink, Big Rail) and is still on a route into Piccadilly Gardens.

 

[John55]

You can get out west betwixt the McDonald hotel and the railway viaduct, but it constrains platform length and forces you north east towards the existing 13 and 14 (e.g. on a new structure over Fairfield St.). You'd end up knocking Mayfield down and then building the new station somewhere else!

Mayfield as a site has been examined by professionals on a few occasions, and whilst it would make a great site for a remote (from Piccadilly) terminus for Airport trains, that isn't the idea of the work ongoing to open the Ordsall Chord.

My groat is on a development scheme to take over from "Westminster of the North" plan and take advantage of the location adjacent to the new stairs down from 15 /16 (which will be south west of Fairfield Street).

What I'd actively keep mentioning (if I were asked again) is that it makes a huge amount of sense as a location for the a Coach Station, adjacent to all known links (Manc Way, Metrolink, Big Rail) and is still on a route into Piccadilly Gardens.

Isn't the reference to Mayfield as remote from Piccadilly enough to demonstrate why there is reluctance to reuse the station site as such.

However a question I would like to see addressed is the location of platforms 13 & 14 at Piccadilly. When these were extended to their current length access to P 9-12 within the train shed was severely limited (and was the track removed from 12 altogether for a time?). On my visits to Piccadilly I rarely see trains using P10-12.

With the reconfiguration of the through platforms would there be advantage to restore better access to P9-12 so they can be used more intensively and reducing the prevalence of having more than one train in each platform. This would require P13/14 to be moved southwards at the east end at least and the building of a pretty big structure over Fairfield St, but presumably something like that will have to be built for P15&16 if not P14&13.

 

[Nym]

Tbh, the site with Mayfeild and the rest of the Baring St Ind Area should be used for the likes of the HS2 station IMO, and some new links with moving walkways put in to access them.

At the stage of 15/16 going in the main access to 13, 14, 15 and 16 should be provided by a new moving walkway and floating concourse above the current taxi area, linking into the main concourse where Costa is, wouldn't need any more lifts for the rising access as you can have a two level walkway, with rising travelators (three or four of them) to gain access to the upper level, and escalators down.

I'm still working on the passenger flow systems, but at the moment I'm favouring setting the current access to be signed as exit for 13/14, with all of 15/16 going the new route entry and exit, and 13/14 entry handled from the new route, would give good pax flow on the platforms.

The link over to Mayfeild (HS2) would then be made using this new floating concourse and the current 13/14 access extended to access 15/16 for interchange and on to join the new concourse for more moving walkways onto Mayfeild & HS2 station. That would also have it's own foot access point, drop off points etc and car parks. Access from the Travis St triangle, now converted to foot access with lifts to the new upper concourse level. Directing traffic over the 16/15/14/13 section to the 1 - 11 over bridge for access from Fairfeild St Entrance and HS2 interchange.

 

[WatcherZero]

Did you factor in however that most passengers would prefer to walk through Piccadilly to get to the City Centre, Piccadilly is already on the edge of walking distance and Mayfield ground level would have very poor links. Even for getting to the nearby Manchester University the roads on a viaduct.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

On my visits to Piccadilly I rarely see trains using P10-12.

The Manchester - Stockport - Altrincham - Chester service is a regular user of the platforms in that area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What I'd actively keep mentioning (if I were asked again) is that it makes a huge amount of sense as a location for the a Coach Station, adjacent to all known links (Manc Way, Metrolink, Big Rail) and is still on a route into Piccadilly Gardens.

Would you not agree that the existing coach station at Chorlton Street is more ideally situated within the core of the city centre for prospective users than a re-located coach station at Mayfield would ever be. I cannot imagine the number of bus services that pass by the area of Chorlton Street coach station going in and out of Piccadilly bus station (must be a large figure) and there are Metrolink stations that are also very close to Chorlton Street.

 

[ukrob]

I don't understand this fixation with Mayfield.

 

[Nym]

Did you factor in however that most passengers would prefer to walk through Piccadilly to get to the City Centre, Piccadilly is already on the edge of walking distance and Mayfield ground level would have very poor links. Even for getting to the nearby Manchester University the roads on a viaduct.

Yes, most foot traffic will be using the new link into the Piccadilly concourse that will direct pax flow past the shopping units crescent.

You'd be surprised how many pax make use of Fairfeild Street though...

But yes, congestion at the Piccadilly entrances is a problem today, but I can't see any answer that integrates anything into the current station that doesn't result in more foot traffic coming in through the gateway house entrance.

Re-modelling Fairfeild Street in a major way and re-directing the MetroShuttle buses down that way would help significantly, (could make use of the current Travis St Triangle to turn round) and lest not forget that taxis already pick up down that end, and a significant number of 'thick' passengers that don't know Manchester head straight for the Taxi rank.

Honestly though, short of re-opening another station in Central Manchester there isn't any other way to relieve foot traffic congestion at the stations as it it, other than when Piccadilly does inevitably expand, providing as many routes and exits as is sensible. Such as direct access from 13-16 to Fairfeild St and an additional link way from Costa to the remote platforms, with the existing one demoted to linking to other platforms and entry or exit only from 13/14, I'm favouring either.

The only realistic ways to take pax away from Piccadilly is to run more through to Oxford Road that is in a worse state for Congestion than Piccadilly already is. Or stop this obsession with sending everything through that way and blow £300mil odd re-opening another major station in Manchester. Reducing the load on Oxford Road, and Piccadilly, or at least preventing it rising any more.

The 'cheap' solution being re-opening Exchange as that helps out the Windsor and Chat Moss lines a lot, but still leaves the CLC knackered for much more growth, although Exchange if done properly with a good and expensive junction at Ordsall Lane would mean that Windsor Br. traffic could be reduced (slightly) at least until Leigh re-opens and never likely to grow beyond 14tph through Crescent and 10tph through Victoria, easily handled by Platforms 5 and 6 (current) and some turnback sidings or pushing services through to Rochdale and Stalybridge.

Grade seperation at Ordstall Lane is needed for any future growth, as is major track additions between there, Deal Street and Exchange. With a predicted service level (not committee, predicted sensible levels...) of something like...

4tph Oxford Road and Airport

2tph Wigan NW via Eccles
2tph Liverpool Lime Street via Eccles Slow
2tph Liverpool Lime Street via Eccles Fast (TPE)
1tph Chester Semi Fast (Possibly 2tph with 1tph terminating at Wigan NW)

One can see a very congested set of platforms at Victoria even with reversing sidings and a very conservative timetable. The addition of Exchange platforms with a grade separated link onto the Chat Moss via Ordsall Lane and four track between there and Deal Street (2 tracks for Cord and current layout for Windsor Link diversions, 2 tracks for the Chat Moss via Viaduct).

This will be able to take all but the Cord and Liverpool Fast services, dropping through platforms for the busiest services down to 6tph, sharing could be put in place with 5/6 when busier but shouldn't be needed (Windsor Bridge is likely to remain at 5 + 2tph for a while, possibly drop to 4 + 2 for DMU saving, cut Wigan - Manchester via Bolton at Bolton, pax travel via Eccles instead). So you'd be looking at 6 or 7tph per pair of through platforms, if one includes freight, that's rather sensible. Terminating platforms themselves could independently take anyting up to the limit of the Chat Moss Route (I'm theorising with some passing loops running the length between Eccles and the M60) that you could jam 12tph down there.

So the Chat Moss will be seeing... (Between Manchester and near Newton)

1tph Manchester Piccadilly (Airport) - Scotland
1tph Manchester Piccadilly (Airport) - Llandudno

2tph Manchester Victoria - Liverpool L St Fast
2tph Manchester Victoria - Liverpool L St Slow
2tph Manchester Victoria - Wigan NW Slow (You say slow, there's only two intermediate stations!)
2tph Manchester Victoria - Warrington BQ (1tph to Chester)

Since Liverpool - Airport is being sent via the CLC as an extension of a Diesel service at the moment, thats the Chat Moss sorted, if Leigh Parkway gets built, the slows to Liverpool L St and Wigan NW would call there giving 4tph of a 4 car EMU. Possibly 8 car in the peaks.

Services via Bolton and Atherton to Wigan would become quieter as people would start using the new 30min services into Manchester from NW, so one can afford to save a DMU or two by cutting the Manc - Bolton - Wigan services to a Bolton - Wigan shuttle, replacing this with additional EMUs between Bolton and Manchester. Airport - Southport diverted via Atherton.

With many EMUs running about the place, if need be and growth demanding? Insane length EMUs can be run from Bolton as a crowd buster, calling at Piccadilly or Victoria only, as nothing else can take 8 or 12 cars in Manc. But enough pax should have been removed to allow 6 car 323s to be enough in the peak and 3 car 323s off peak.

Thinking something ITR of through Bolton into Manc...
2tph Blackpool North (EMU)
2tph Preston (EMU)
1/2tph Blackburn & Clitheroe, putting the loop back in, push it to 2tph?
1tp2h Lakes / Barrow (DMU)
1/2tph Bolton or Horwich Parkway (All stations to Victoria) (EMU)

Other services being:
2tph Wigan NW/Wallgate via Westhaughton.

Noticed that I'm trying to cut DMU services at all?

 

[northwichcat]

On my visits to Piccadilly I rarely see trains using P10-12.

Platforms 11 and 12 tend not to be used that much at peak times to allow more trains to use the paths available for platforms 13 and 14. However, during the day it is very rare for something not to be at platform 11 - there's only about 15 minutes every hour when there is not at least one train there.

Buxton services mainly use platform 10, while Cleethorpes-Airport services use platform 12.

The evening peaks sees empties arriving in multiple from Newton Heath, which get split up for different services making it easier for multiple departures from the same platform in quick succession.

 

[tbtc]

The only realistic ways to take pax away from Piccadilly is to run more through to Oxford Road that is in a worse state for Congestion than Piccadilly already is. Or stop this obsession with sending everything through that way and blow £300mil odd re-opening another major station in Manchester. Reducing the load on Oxford Road, and Piccadilly, or at least preventing it rising any more

...or maybe to divert more services to Victoria instead? No need for a brand new station elsewhere in the city - and the frequency of trams to/from Victoria will increase when the Oldham service opens shortly. Make additional Victoria services "through" services, so the platform dwells aren't very long.

The trouble is that whenever this is suggested (despite Piccadilly being in danger of overheating with passenger volumes) the stock response is that no route wants to lose its connections at Piccadilly.

Piccadilly is getting to be too busy, but nobody wants their services to be the ones which are diverted away from Piccadilly. Good luck to anyone who wants to solve that one...

 

[YorkshireBear]

It think TPE and Northern are the two main companies who should lead the move to victoria. London XC and some of the northern local services south will never be moved because it makes no sense (ie rose hill marple and hadfield). ATW, i would keep one at each with the mildford haven service coming into picadilly but the north wales coast service to victoria. Its not like North Wales needs the connections at picadillly anyway.

 

[northwichcat]

No need for a brand new station elsewhere in the city

I agree 4 stations is enough for Manchester. We need to expand existing stations rather than reopen closed ones or build new ones.

Manchester Piccadilly hasn't exactly reached the size of London Waterloo and having different trains arrive at different stations makes connections more difficult.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It think TPE and Northern are the two main companies who should lead the move to victoria. London XC and some of the northern local services south will never be moved because it makes no sense (ie rose hill marple and hadfield). ATW, i would keep one at each with the mildford haven service coming into picadilly but the north wales coast service to victoria. Its not like North Wales needs the connections at picadillly anyway.

TPE will serve both Piccadilly and Victoria from May 2014. The aim is for them both to have 4tph to Leeds via Huddersfield after Ordsall Chord, with the Airport services serving both Piccadilly and Victoria.

The Chester-Manchester via Warrington line should go half hourly post Northern Hub. The original plan was for Llandudno-Airport and Chester-Hull via Victoria with only the latter calling at stations like Frodsham in the off-peak but it seems as a result of consultation and plans for North TPE electrification seem to have changed that to Llandudno-Leeds via Victoria and Bradford (semi-fast) and Chester-Airport (stopping service.)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The Manchester - Stockport - Altrincham - Chester service is a regular user of the platforms in that area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Platforms 11 and 12 tend not to be used that much at peak times to allow more trains to use the paths available for platforms 13 and 14. However, during the day it is very rare for something not to be at platform 11 - there's only about 15 minutes every hour when there is not at least one train there.

Buxton services mainly use platform 10, while Cleethorpes-Airport services use platform 12.

The evening peaks sees empties arriving in multiple from Newton Heath, which get split up for different services making it easier for multiple departures from the same platform in quick succession.

From what I can see, off-peak, Buxton and Manchester Airport ex-Cleethorpes trains use 10 (though the latter sometimes is booked to use 12) and Chester services use 11.

 

[175001]

. Its not like North Wales needs the connections at picadillly anyway.

And why is that?

 

[tbtc]

I agree 4 stations is enough for Manchester. We need to expand existing stations rather than reopen closed ones or build new ones.

Manchester Piccadilly hasn't exactly reached the size of London Waterloo and having different trains arrive at different stations makes connections more difficult

In terms of what it can comfortably handle, I think that Piccadilly is getting pretty close to capacity. London Waterloo has around twenty platforms, and none of the conflicting movements of Piccadilly (e.g. Waterloo's Barnes services are independent of the Wimbledon lines, so the whole thing is much more efficient).

Since having just one big station for central Manchester would be unrealistic, and having more central stations would just complicate things further, the only solution is to give a decent chunk of services to Victoria (only a tram ride away).

There'll always be the "connections" argument, and if people had a preference most would presumably want their services to run to Pic rather than Vic, in the way that everyone would rather have a direct service to Manchester Airport than no service - but its impossible to meet all these needs unless you want a messy compromise where people don't know which central Manchester station to use and there are a lot of conflicting movements for schedulers to deal with.

 

[YorkshireBear]

And why is that?

Well for london services it has warrington and chester. For birmingham again it has chester. For the Airport it will have good connections at victoria. The only place i can think of where its connections will be reduced will be the south east commuter lines to hadfield and rose hill etc. And i can not imagine that there is a huge demand for services from rose hill to bangor... :/

 

[northwichcat]

In terms of what it can comfortably handle, I think that Piccadilly is getting pretty close to capacity. London Waterloo has around twenty platforms, and none of the conflicting movements of Piccadilly (e.g. Waterloo's Barnes services are independent of the Wimbledon lines, so the whole thing is much more efficient).

In it's current form yes but there would be (expensive) options to allow more capacity e.g. Ardwick flyover, a Piccadilly 'East' station (like Waterloo East) or a Piccadilly lower level.

the only solution is to give a decent chunk of services to Victoria (only a tram ride away).

The problem with that tram ride away is the lack of cross Manchester transfers on rail tickets from outside the TfGM area.