Northern Hub?

[tbtc]

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

That sounds a lot cheaper and simpler to resolve than reopening Mayfield, building a flyover at Ardwick or other complex infrastructure schemes though.

 

[northwichcat]

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... :/

Connections is an important consideration but isn't the only consideration. Someone from Helsby might work in the Ardwick area of Manchester and walk to and from Piccadilly station, move the service to Victoria and their journey changes to involving both a train and a bus.

 

[Nym]

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).

The problem isn't lack of platform space, or available platform space, there is space for three platforms next to Sheffeild St, two or four more over Fairfeild St and six in Mayfeild in its current state, or ten with the HS2 platform considerations, likely to be 6, 8 or 10, depending on how much the network is integrated. Anyone reading my HS2 plans will realise what I mean about HS2's northerly connection from the Manchester Delta providing a route for all terminating in Manchester services from the Chat Moss Line area, including: Blackpool North (New Route via Wigan NW), Liverpool Lime Street, North Wales via Warrington BQ and Scotland via Wigan, freeing up more local stoppey paths on the CLC, Chat Moss and Windsor Bridge lines where terminating platform space is at a premium.

With HS2 coming it isn't inconceivable for Piccadilly to reach close to 30 platforms, the problem is getting all of the foot traffic in and out of the station, significant retail development blocks most of the potential additional exit paths onto the Station Approach at Gateway House, although proper foot traffic moving sciences haven't been applied yet so these could help.

The idea of having an additional station or platforms provided elsewhere, would be providing additional means to exit the rail system in Manchester, not just additional space to park trains, as most people on here seem to think is the only problem. The accesses into Piccadilly create an incredible bottleneck for passenger flows.

Indeed if HS2 does (oh I hope it does) come into Baring St Ind Est. and triggers a redevelopment of that area to accomadate an insanely good interchange, one can get over, or improve the passenger access situation, indeed I personally see little point in widening the entrances onto the Approach Road much more (other than removing parts of WHSmith to create a concave entrance, providing decision making information at this entrance) as then it would shift the bottlekneck into the much more dangerous area crossing the roads at the bottom of the station approach.

Providing improvements to other roads in the area, and more accesses and exits would probably provide a better solution, such as major layout changes to Fairfeild St (Road Narrowing, bigger footpaths) creating a route for foot traffic via Fairfeild Street and Chorlton Street. Indeed the new 'floating concourse' could have access from Fairfeild St as to avoid needing to cross London Road, and provide another North Westerly exit route, other than the current bridge through 2 Piccadilly to Aytoun Street. Moving all vehicular interchanges to the new Baring St area wouldn't go amiss either.

 

[snail]

The problem isn't lack of platform space, or available platform space, there is space for three platforms next to Sheffeild St, two or four more over Fairfeild St and six in Mayfeild in its current state, or ten with the HS2 platform considerations, likely to be 6, 8 or 10, depending on how much the network is integrated. Anyone reading my HS2 plans will realise what I mean about HS2's northerly connection from the Manchester Delta providing a route for all terminating in Manchester services from the Chat Moss Line area

What your plans haven't considered is how you get an HS2 train to fit into into Mayfield. There isn't the room for several 400m trains without substantial changes to the Piccadilly approach, or a complete rebuild of the station. Which kind of defeats the object.

Like ukrob said, why is there such an obsession with Mayfield?

 

[WatcherZero]

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

Also isnt there going to be something like a 5 minute frequency heavy rail connection between Victoria and Piccadilly post Hub.

 

[Nym]

What your plans haven't considered is how you get an HS2 train to fit into into Mayfield. There isn't the room for several 400m trains without substantial changes to the Piccadilly approach, or a complete rebuild of the station. Which kind of defeats the object.

Like ukrob said, why is there such an obsession with Mayfield?

Snail, honestly, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but actually read what I have planned for HS2 into Manchester.

Tunnel portal at Longsight Intl, new viaducting parallel to the existing one and the WHOLE area of Baring St Ind Estate for the HS2 station, not "Mayfeild".

There is space there for 8x400m platforms and an additional 2 or 3 200m platforms.

So yes, my plans have considered how to fit HS2 trains into 'Mayfeild' can I ask that next time, you actually read what I'm making reference too before you turn round and call me an idiot?

No changes to the Piccadilly Approach that require closure, independent viaduct.
Plenty of room for all the HS2 and other trains you'd need, end to end planning includes 2 more through platforms, 8 HS2 platforms and 3 additional platforms nr. Sheffield Street if required.

No, it doesn't defeat the object, it makes use of some very low value land right next to an existing transport interchange in Manchester, that is the only such peice of land of sufficient size available that isn't more than a mile from Central Manchester...!

Just a final re-iteration, read what I actually write first... Then if you have understood it all clearly, then feel free to provide critical analysis, if you're just going to be a silly *deleted* then kindly take your 'opinions', 'facts', or 'real world' somewhere else...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also isnt there going to be something like a 5 minute frequency heavy rail connection between Victoria and Piccadilly post Hub.

No, 15mins....

4tph, and they might not align properly for a 15min frequency gap. They could end up being 12/18 or 10/20 on a 30min rotation thanks to the way it's going to end up needing to run at Victoria.

Calder Vale and Diggle services both running to the Airport, Diggle wanting to be 15min and Airport wanting to be 15min, something needs to give.

 

[WatcherZero]

From reading the document again it suggests 5tph but a 15 minute service, so is taking account of those timing differences. Its also been suggested before 1tph London service would continue past Piccadilly to Victoria.

 

[northwichcat]

Also isnt there going to be something like a 5 minute frequency heavy rail connection between Victoria and Piccadilly post Hub.

I thought it was down to be 4tph - 2 North TPE plus 2 other services with at least 1 of the others a Calder Vale service.

 

[Nym]

Aye, I was wondering myself where the 4th would come from, since one of the Calder Vales is being extended out to Chester, the other to the Airport. I'm working on the assumption that the pacer operated super slow via Dewsbury will either continue to terminate, or run out as one of the via Atherton or Bolton Wallgate terminators.

Extending a London service through to Victoria, provided the timings can be fitted might be a reasonable idea, although I was under the impression that a Sheffeild service could be diverted round the 'victoria loop' to serve the Airport, rather than reversing in the Picc main shed.

As a further alternative, why not extend one of the Airport stoppers to run onwards to Stalybridge?

 

[northwichcat]

Aye, I was wondering myself where the 4th would come from, since one of the Calder Vales is being extended out to Chester, the other to the Airport. I'm working on the assumption that the pacer operated super slow via Dewsbury will either continue to terminate, or run out as one of the via Atherton or Bolton Wallgate terminators.

I think the preference is for a half-hourly service from Rochdale to the Airport but they accept that may not work so they've left the door open for other services to be extended to the Airport, quite likely a Blackburn/Clitheroe .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is there any truth in what I have been told in that once the fourth platform is constructed at Manchester Airport and all the proposed North-West electrification has taken place, only services provided by EMU will be allowed to use Manchester Airport railway station. If this is so, the existing Southport services and services on the Caldervale line will be such routes affected and the hopes for ATW to extend their Llandudno services to Manchester Airport will also be thwarted.

 

[northwichcat]

Is there any truth in what I have been told in that once the fourth platform is constructed at Manchester Airport and all the proposed North-West electrification has taken place, only services provided by EMU will be allowed to use Manchester Airport railway station. If this is so, the existing Southport services and services on the Caldervale line will be such routes affected and the hopes for ATW to extend their Llandudno services to Manchester Airport will also be thwarted.

I doubt there's any truth in that. The Northern Hub mentions 10tph to the Airport after capacity improvements at Piccadilly and Slade Lane Junction and it includes services to/from non-electrified lines.

Network Rail also mention once 10tph is reached in 2019 additional lines to the Airport need to be looked at.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I doubt there's any truth in that. The Northern Hub mentions 10tph to the Airport after capacity improvements at Piccadilly and Slade Lane Junction and it includes services to/from non-electrified lines.

Network Rail also mention once 10tph is reached in 2019 additional lines to the Airport need to be looked at.

Thank you for your reassurances, as the matter of the future non-electrified Middlesbrough and Cleethorpes services of the First TPE group also needed to be considered. I have sent an e-mail to my informant with your information.

 

[snail]

Just a final re-iteration, read what I actually write first... Then if you have understood it all clearly, then feel free to provide critical analysis, if you're just going to be a silly *deleted* then kindly take your 'opinions', 'facts', or 'real world' somewhere else...

I read it. As it's got little to do with Northern Hub I shall refrain from further comment about it on this thread.

 

[Nym]

I read it. As it's got little to do with Northern Hub I shall refrain from further comment about it on this thread.

1) HS2 is part of the Northern Hub Planning

2) You evidently didn't understand what I have either written in the refereed post, or the previous HS2 infrastructure related posts.

Therefore I don't think this required any further communication....

Paul;

I don't think Middlesbrough is going to last for keeping it's Airport connection, unless it is formed from a Calder Vale service as I'd expect the TPE electrification to cut Middlesbrough off of the core TPE network.

With TPE moving over to 2tph Newcastle via Diggle and 2tph Hull via Diggle all EMU. Then Middlesbrough either being served by XC, or as an extension of a Calder Vale service, personally I'm favouring serving Middlesbrough with XC, with possibly an additional shuttle to Darlington or Northallerton.

Diesel connections certanly will remain at Manchester Airport, although I'd expect them to be less the 'bread and butter' of services that they currently are. With 10 expected paths to MIA and it being a handy way to 'get stuff out of the way' I'm expecting:

4tph from Victoria (including TPE)
1tph from Blackpool North
1tph from Southport
1tph from Scotland
1tph from Liverpool Lime Street via CLC
1tph from Cleethorpes (Expecting, not favouring)
1tph from Llandudno / North Wales

With 2tph Diesel and 2tph EMU from Victoria that would give a balance of (when electrification is completed)

4tph EMU and 6tph DMU. The stoppers I don't have any idea where they fit within the 10tph figure.

 

[northwichcat]

4tph EMU and 6tph DMU. The stoppers I don't have any idea where they fit within the 10tph figure.

Manchester Airport

Ten tph from Manchester and beyond, two tph from Crewe and beyond:
• half hourly from Leeds via Huddersfield: one from Newcastle and one from Middlesbrough
• half hourly from Preston: one from Scotland (via Wigan) and one from Blackpool (via Bolton)
• half hourly stopping service from Liverpool (via Warrington)
• half hourly from Crewe with one starting from Stoke-on-Trent
• hourly from Cleethorpes via Sheffield
• hourly from Southport via Salford Crescent
• hourly from Chester via Manchester (via Warrington)
• hourly from Bradford and Halifax

There obviously might be some revisions to that based on other studies.

For instance, the East Midlands RUS recommended the Derby-Crewe service should be extended to the Airport instead of the Manchester-Airport stopper being extended to Stoke (also recommended it being operated by a 2 car DMU.) This may mean a DMU from Derby terminating at the Airport and a separate EMU continuing to run an Airport-Piccadilly stopper.

Also the North TPE destinations may change based on electrification and whether Newcastle gets 2tph to Manchester.

 

[snail]

HS2 is part of the Northern Hub Planning

Only in terms of strategic planning, e.g. Strategic Options Objective 9 (Manchester Hub Study, p.64):

with such provision as indicated as being appropriate by the National Networks Strategy Group, to accommodate High Speed 2 (HS2) options to and beyond central Manchester, together with a possible parkway station

Nothing at the level you are suggesting, unless there is something I've missed? Like I said, this thread is about Northern Hub. If you've written something elsewhere about HS2 you're right that I probably haven't read it.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

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...

Thanks, but that is a key part of the Hub and TPE (and Northern, and East Midlands) are already a key part of the development process. The benefit to TPE is more Manchester catchment (Vic, Salford Central, Oxford Road), reduced run time and a reduction in PINEs. My counter question is "Why wouldn't a TOC want that?