• 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!

Ordsall Chord

Status
Not open for further replies.

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
4,005
Location
St Neots
If it was possible to start with.

You can't just 'reform' DMU's such as 185's.

It's not as simple as just shunting around some Mk3's but it can be done. Cab and mid cars are identically powered (2'0' per car), so it's not like the power:weight ratio would change.

The matter that you have to bear in mind is the service expansion of Manchester Victoria proposed by the implications of the Ordsall Chord. It is not just a time comparison between the two routes that you have stated.

Not according to NR. (I was mistaken about 15mins, it's 10mins. Still seems very generous.)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,810
It's not as simple as just shunting around some Mk3's but it can be done. Cab and mid cars are identically powered (2'0' per car), so it's not like the power:weight ratio would change.

Almost anything can be done if you throw enough money, time and effort at it.

I was pointing out that it could not be done easily - reprogramming the TMS, installing additional emergency equipment (it in the centre car - so two driving vehicles together would have none unless modified). It isn't all about shunting them around and if they would be powerful enough or not.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,662
reforming 185s would be a monumental waste of time and money, A lot of seats lost with the cabs so a 4 car 185 (formed of 2 2 car sets) would probably have little more capcity than the 3 car sets do now. It would be simpler to electrify TPE north :)

Should any 170s become avaliable they could be used to boost capcity too and NW electrification will also help by 2014. Reforming them would be stupid.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,782
Location
Somewhere, not in London
The main advantage is being able to keep at full chat all the way to Victoria, if through roads are provided at Stalybridge it would help, theres also no need to reverse at Piccadilly with the cord.

The problems I can see though are just capacity on the Oxford Road corridor, at at Victoria..

Realistically it's asking the Ox Road Corridior to take 16tph...

or 13tph if routes have services cut, eg...

CLC 1tph Fast 2tph Slow
Chat Moss 1tph Scot, 1tph Chester 1tph Liverpool
Windsor 1tph Barrow, 1tph Preston, 1tph Blackpool (Drop the Southport)
and 4tph off the Ordstall Cord

Realistically service levels demand 4tph on each one...

2 fast 2 slow CLC, 2 liv, 1 che 1 sco Chat Moss, 4 Windsor, 4 Cord.

Then realistically Victoria will be seeing...

4tph Bolton
2tph Atherton
4tph Ordstall Cord
2tph Wigan via Chat Moss
2tph Liverpool Fast via Chat Moss
2tph Liverpool slow via Chat Moss

Thats 16tph at low level sensible service levels

You could realistically shove that up to 24tph.

2tph Leigh
2tph Bolton etc etc

There is one thing that could do to help the Oxford Road corridor...

Link Vic to Pic on the Ardwick side too, electrified, then the likes of these services could be transfered to Piccadilly East via Victoria.

Llandudno - Piccadilly via Victoria etc.
Extending terminating services from Liverpool to Piccadilly

But realistically that isn't going to happen for the transit of passengers. If it where provided it would be handy for sending anything coming in on the southernmost lines at Victoria (Through Platforms 3 and 4) be sent onwards to terminate at Piccadilly.

The same to free platform space could be acceived by platforms at Stalybridge though, and running services through Victoria rather than terminating, but electric slows wouldn't have anywhere to go, so onwards to an electrified Stalybridge would make good sense.

If for example the Chat Moss sees...

2tph Liverpool Slow (Onwards to Stalybridge)
2tph Wigan via Paitcroft (Onwards to Stalybridge)
2tph Liverpool Fast (TPE, from Leeds)

Before I rant on too much since I've typed this too many times now....

Basically since nothing can be done with the internals of Victoria, we need 4 platforms toward Windsor Br Jcn at Salford C, and sidings on the Eastern approaches to push terminating services into.

Idealy of course, as an extention to the what I hope will be grade seperated Ordstall Ln Jcn to go with the cord, double stacking the viaduct from there to Manchester Central to provide terminating space for the Chat Moss and Windsor Link lines, all other directions have plenty of expansion space for terminating lines (except the CLC).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,263
Location
Yorks
I did ask the Network Rail chap doing the consultation at Leeds about congestion at Victoria, and he did say that they planned to put in the West facing bays - although I didn't notice any mention of them on any of the promotional material.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
There is one thing that could do to help the Oxford Road corridor...

Link Vic to Pic on the Ardwick side too, electrified, then the likes of these services could be transfered to Piccadilly East via Victoria.

Llandudno - Piccadilly via Victoria etc.
Extending terminating services from Liverpool to Piccadilly

Once the chord is built and Victoria is getting up to four trains an hour to the Airport, there's really not much justification for the Llandudno service to continue to use scarce paths at Piccadilly.
 

Phil6219

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2011
Messages
578
Location
Manchester, UK
Restoring Manchester Victoria to its former glory and making it a major interchange station

Probably the best line I have ever read in any publication.

I just hope they can deliver.

They did mention their intention to remove a number of bottlenecks in the Manchester Area (regarding freight) so perhaps that means they do intend on sorting Victoria out (countless times I have been waiting for ex-Salford freight and it can't depart as all 4 through roads at Victoria are blocked with units - usually two of which are shut down and not in service). I take it they have a plan to get freight through Deansgate and Oxford Road too.

One thing that puzzles me though is why they don't fit a sidings just to the east of the FL (& EWS) yards at Trafford Park to allow freight to run around and depart to the west on less congested lines, I know those lines are not electrified beyond the terminals but there are only 1/2 electric trains booked. It's nice to see them planning for Port Salford too.

The big question is, that document looks old (2009) so how much of this has been officially consigned to the dustbin?

Phil 8-)
 

bluenoxid

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
2,658
Once the chord is built and Victoria is getting up to four trains an hour to the Airport, there's really not much justification for the Llandudno service to continue to use scarce paths at Piccadilly.

I would expect them to increase the amount of them running to Manchester Airport. I do not believe that this is the best use of capacity but it offers a lot of direct access to Man Air from a range of destinations that are not being accommodated.

I personally would want to see less trains terminating at sidings outside of Man Vic and running through to other destinations such Stalybridge, Hadfield, Glossop, Rochdale, Marple, Rose Hill Marple, etc. There is a lot of traffic coming in from that direction and it is squandering a lot of potential capacity parking it in sidings.
 

stockport1

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2011
Messages
169
aimed mostly at nym (i like your detailed posts) :lol:

how will picc plat 13-16 be used?

a. single direction lines to oxford road...

13/14 - up
15-16 - down

b. bi-directional

13/14 - stockport/east
15/16 - style line/airport

c. both uses?

will the new platforms be as long as 13/14 or of a shorter length?

will 13/14 be officially split into a and b platforms? or will we see less trains sharing platforms 13/14?
will access to 12 be improved if stops were frthur rearward of 13?

where will the crossings be made? on the viaduct/picc main appoach/oxford road?

how will electrification affect future potential 6 tracing between salford(6 platforms?) and victoria?
if 2 bays are added to the west of victoria will there be an additional main entrance of will it be a long trek through the station to access these?

any other thoughts ...?
 
Last edited:

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
I would expect them to increase the amount of them running to Manchester Airport. I do not believe that this is the best use of capacity but it offers a lot of direct access to Man Air from a range of destinations that are not being accommodated

With additional services linking Manchester Airport to Bradford (etc), I'm not sure that there's any more paths to spare to the Airport. Plus there are already twenty coaches an hour (significantly more than most places get to Manchester CIty Centre) - how many more are needed?
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,662
With additional services linking Manchester Airport to Bradford (etc), I'm not sure that there's any more paths to spare to the Airport. Plus there are already twenty coaches an hour (significantly more than most places get to Manchester CIty Centre) - how many more are needed?

I personally think a train from the calder valley is a good idea. But as you say an awful lot go to airport as it is! So therefore it would be in place of an different service which i would then terminate at victoria or piccadilly. Ie maybe the middlsborough service. I would also toy with the idea of making the sheffield one not go there either.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,391
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
I personally would want to see less trains terminating at sidings outside of Man Vic and running through to other destinations such Stalybridge, Hadfield, Glossop, Rochdale, Marple, Rose Hill Marple, etc. There is a lot of traffic coming in from that direction and it is squandering a lot of potential capacity parking it in sidings.

The matter of west-facing bays at Rochdale was raised on another thread recently and some doubts were expressed with regard to space and a suggestion was made with regard to a new track alignment that would make matters easier for the provision of new bay platforms there.

Stalybridge would be a logical choice for new west-facing bay platforms once the Ordsall Chord will see the opportunity to provide more services and the continuation of the proposed electrification from Liverpool to Manchester Victoria onwards to Stalybridge would be a logical progression.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
4,005
Location
St Neots
reforming 185s would be a monumental waste of time and money, A lot of seats lost with the cabs so a 4 car 185 (formed of 2 2 car sets) would probably have little more capcity than the 3 car sets do now. It would be simpler to electrify TPE north :)

Should any 170s become avaliable they could be used to boost capcity too and NW electrification will also help by 2014. Reforming them would be stupid.

It's not like there is no precedent. The entire fleet of 153s were made in a similar way, that even went further and involved building extra cabs into every car.

No overall capacity would be lost, it's not like you're physically removing even a single seat. The idea is to be able to make the most of peak paths by having a 4-car work the slot, while a 2-car or 2+2cars would be at the other end of the network where demand is lower.

Extra rolling stock wouldn't solve the issue, as far as I'm aware; the route is already congested enough (where it matters) that there's no room for additional services, and I believe a 3+3 would be too long for some of the platforms. TPE don't have any 170s anyway, and they're still 3car units.

Replacing some services' 185s with 180s or 220/221/222s would be ideal, but unlikely. Perhaps a 158+158 set would be most feasible (or a 158+159 to keep a 1st section).
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,609
Extra rolling stock wouldn't solve the issue, as far as I'm aware; the route is already congested enough (where it matters) that there's no room for additional services, and I believe a 3+3 would be too long for some of the platforms. TPE don't have any 170s anyway, and they're still 3car units.

Replacing some services' 185s with 180s or 220/221/222s would be ideal, but unlikely. Perhaps a 158+158 set would be most feasible (or a 158+159 to keep a 1st section).

Plenty of North TPE services are 6 car as it is. Off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere where 8 car would be a problem, but I'm sure someone will be along with somewhere soon!

TPE have 9x 2car 170s too. Mainly used on Hull and Cleethorpes services.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,782
Location
Somewhere, not in London
aimed mostly at nym (i like your detailed posts) :lol:

how will picc plat 13-16 be used?

a. single direction lines to oxford road...

13/14 - up
15-16 - down

b. bi-directional

13/14 - stockport/east
15/16 - style line/airport

c. both uses?

will the new platforms be as long as 13/14 or of a shorter length?

will 13/14 be officially split into a and b platforms? or will we see less trains sharing platforms 13/14?
will access to 12 be improved if stops were frthur rearward of 13?

where will the crossings be made? on the viaduct/picc main appoach/oxford road?

how will electrification affect future potential 6 tracing between salford(6 platforms?) and victoria?
if 2 bays are added to the west of victoria will there be an additional main entrance of will it be a long trek through the station to access these?

any other thoughts ...?

Why me? (I'll take it as a compliment)

Sense dictates, although don't hold me to this happening...

13 - 16 will be paired by direction, have seen this mentioned in several documents ie. 13/14 for Airport and Stockport (Not Leeds / Guide Bridge), and 15/16 for Oxford Road. Mainly due to the slows not seperating until Slade Lane Jcn south of Longsight, preventing crossing paths twice. Even if an extra two tracks are added the crossing movments should still happen SE of piccadilly where there is a lot more space.

Chances are that 15/16 will be shorter than 13/14, simply because the're on the inside of the curve, but I would still expect them to be quite long.

Ideally there should be no crossings on the Oxford Road Viaduct (What lies between Ordstall Lane and the old Piccadilly PSB. With 16tph + freight using it there just isn't space.

You could 6 or 8 track the approaches to Victoria, from the west, but unless additional platforms are provided theres no point as you're still limited to two two track through platforms.

Additional platforms at the end of Platform 3 would be the most sensible option, if combined with the grade seperation of Ordstall Lane Jcn as I have previously discribed, the terminating platforms could be used for all services off the Chat Moss that are terminating without crossing any paths at the Victoria approaches. Including the Cord - Vic lines.

If 8 track was provided (in places) where Salford Central had 4 platforms, all serving the line to Windsor Bridge Junction (I'll get to that in a moment), 2 through lines from the cord next, and the Chat Moss lines most southerly.
1/2 at Central used for Vic Bound services, 1 arriving 1 leaving etc. 3/4 Windsor Br Jcn bound services. roads (no platforms 5 and 6 for cord) and 7 and 8 for Chat Moss)
To the East of Salford Central this could drop to 6 track, with staggered 2 track ladders, ie.
1/2 combine & spare onto 5, 3/4 combine & spare onto 6, 7/8 points onto 5/6 and continue, 5/6 points onto 1/2 and continue, 7/8 points onto 5/6 and continue. Then from after this junctioning is finished, some scissor crossovers on each approach 1/2 run into Platforms 6 and 5, 5/6 run into platforms 4/3 and 7/8 run into some new bay platforms on the old Exchange campus, accessed by foot via Platform 3 in Victoria, and via a new satellite ticket office on the approach from Deansgate, improvments to overbridge to allow access to each platform without having to stumble upon couples 'in the mood'.

Passive provision added at layout for additional tracks from 1/2/3/4 to terminate services in bays to the North, but there isn't much space for them and the up to 10tph from Windsor Bridge can all be pushed through, either to a virtual station near the Metrolink Depot, or as continuations of the Calder Valley services (you'll notice I'm trying to minimise crossing movments and improve segregation) basically, if you want to go to Bolton, chances are you need to be on Platform 5.

TPE would run in from Stalybridge very nicely, cross nothing on it's way through. Liverpool services would pull left on exit onto the ex bay lines for liverpool, curve services would stay on their line.

Realistically, through services on the 'southern' platforms would be 8tph, and on the northern platforms, initially 8tph, that should cope fine.

To the west...
5/6 (6tph initially) handling the 4tph to Bolton, 2tph to Atherton and 2tph spare. (Taking 2tph off the Calder Valey lines to send on to somwhere, proberbly Wigan via Bolton, remaning services continue onwards either to Rochdale, Stalybridge, or new centre road sidings) This may increase to more tph from Bolton or Atherton if services are cut via Oxford Road. Or the stopper is broken free of the normal timetable and run as an additional terminating Bolton, hence allowing upto 10tph, 2tph extra for Bolton and 2tph for Leigh.

3/4 (6tph+) handling the 4tph TPE (Or 6tph if that happens, although the additional 2tph may be sent via Guide Bridge) 1tph Northern from Calder Vale, then there are the additional services that might want to be pushed through the cord, or through Victoria to free space at Piccadilly.
Liverpool - Norwich, Cleethorpes - Airport, etc.

Services from Liverpool and Wigan via Chat Moss will all terminate in the new platforms, and won't cross anything on their way in/out of Victoria, so 4 - 6tph on 4 platforms is a realistic level of service. Liverpool - Stalybridge cut to Victoria, as Windsor Bridge services will be sent through that way.

If you don't have the bays, all these extra tracks make no sense as theres nowhere to send them, with the extra 'Exchange Station Bays' theres a lot of scope added to take services away from Piccadilly as well, such as Lllandudno, Chester, etc, running into the additional bays at Victoria.

Running all services through would be nice, but when you're faced with trying to fit 10tph through each pair of platforms, thats the upper limit, something needs to run into bays, and when it's somewhere like Victoria, where one side will see between 8 and 11tph and the other will see upto 24tph, you can't simply run everything through.

Oh, and if there isn't grade separation at Ordstall Lane you can kiss reliable journeys good bye anyway, it's needed.

Chat Moss has a lot of potential for services, and it should be exploited as much as possible, as should Victoria, routes to divert from Stockport to Victoria should be electrified when mainlines are completed, and personally, there are a couple of routes I'd like to see open again that would also mean more being able to see Victoria, this time the other side, such as Rose Hill - Macclesfeild, and electrified, nice diversionary route away from a congested line there. But thats another matter.

The cord using services were planned to be 2tph Leeds, 1tph Calder Valley 1tph Cleethorpes. The latter might not happen, as IMO Cleethorpes should be extended over the CLC semi fast instead of the Airport, make up for the loss of the Fast TPE from Leeds.

Plenty of North TPE services are 6 car as it is. Off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere where 8 car would be a problem, but I'm sure someone will be along with somewhere soon!

Shortly to become the centre of most TPE services, Manchester Oxford Road...
Limited to 6 car and very very very very expensive to extend to 8 car, can be done, but would be in the region of £150mil to do it.

In the end of all this anyway, I know it may seem like an over provision of space at Victoria, but theres a damn good reason for that, everything needs to arrive bang on time for the Oxford Road corridor to be able to run at 16tph + Freight, things can't be waiting for platforms at Victoria or pathed in a way to wait for them, hence the extra platforms at Salford Central, it needs to run through Windsor Bridge Jcn or Ordstall Lane Jcn and get out of the way!

And what happens when demand sky rockets, Leigh gets a railway, and a massive P&R opens near Lowton, there will be space for all these services at the expanded Victoria with massive approaches. Since 4tph on other routes will make Piccadilly - Deansgate full.

2F 2S CLC
1 Scotland, 1 Chester, 1 Liverpool F Chat Moss
1 Lanc, 1 Blackpool, 1 Preston Windsor Br
4 to Victoria.

That makes 14tph, with cuts to services. Would mean diverting the Southport service into Victoria, hence Wigan loosing it's Manchester Airport link. (Unless you send Barrow & Windermere 1tph via Wigan, wouldn't be a totally stupid idea)

PS: Piccadilly has a little bit more slack on when services arrive thanks to two full length platforms, and longer approaches to get things in order, Ordstall Lane & Castlefeild Jcn aren't afforded that luxary
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
I would expect them to increase the amount of them running to Manchester Airport. I do not believe that this is the best use of capacity but it offers a lot of direct access to Man Air from a range of destinations that are not being accommodated.

Yes that seems to be what both the Welsh Assembly and Network Rail want. The Welsh Assembly were strongly against services being diverted to Victoria when it was brought up a couple of years back. Whether TPE services using Victoria will change that is another question.

Network Rail see the Airport line being at maximum capacity soon and needing the spur to be extended during CP6. Whether the government provide funding for that is another matter:

The creation of the third platform has meant that the capacity at Manchester airport will become constrained by the layover of the trains and congestion at the throat. In the future it is anticipated that extending the line underneath the airport towards Northwich will be required in order to enable the airport station to handle greatly increased traffic. This will allow for both future rail growth and the potential for new journey opportunities. However, this is not expected to be required before CP6 or later.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...utePlans/2009/Route 20 - North West Urban.pdf
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
Yes that seems to be what both the Welsh Assembly and Network Rail want. The Welsh Assembly were strongly against services being diverted to Victoria when it was brought up a couple of years back. Whether TPE services using Victoria will change that is another question

If TPE (North) services are using Victoria then I can't see any justification for keeping the ATW Llandudno service at Piccadilly. There will be connections at Victoria for Leeds/York, for Bolton/Preston, for Manchester Airport etc.

Piccadilly is obviously a nicer busier station, but we need to divert more services to Victoria to stop the current vicious circle (since we can't put *everything* through one station in Manchester).

(Then again, I'm not sure what power the WAG actually have here?)
 

Invincibles

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
511
Location
Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
Does Oxford Road not become 2 platforms in each direction and one arriving at one of the platforms as one leaves the other?

To eliminate problems with the CLC stopper I would consider pushing it through Piccadilly into the path of the EMT to take it to Stockport and further south.

The Preston train to Hazel Grove would also then go to Victoria instead with the second CLC stopper also pushed through in that path.

As the current two express trains on the CLC are being sent via Chat Moss then I think it makes sense to do a slight recast on the CLC anyway.

This would then render Platform 5 at Oxford Road redundant, and would stop any crossing moves being necessitated by Oxford Road termination.

TPE trains that ever did become 8 carriage trains might have to "stop" at Oxford Road, but would not open their doors. This would save a lot of problems (or SDO of the front unit if the train behind stopped at Deansgate)
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
If TPE (North) services are using Victoria then I can't see any justification for keeping the ATW Llandudno service at Piccadilly. There will be connections at Victoria for Leeds/York, for Bolton/Preston, for Manchester Airport etc.

Piccadilly is obviously a nicer busier station, but we need to divert more services to Victoria to stop the current vicious circle (since we can't put *everything* through one station in Manchester).

(Then again, I'm not sure what power the WAG actually have here?)

The longer journey time for Airport journeys may annoy WAG.

There will be a lot less connections available at Victoria then Piccadilly even after Ordsall chord. I mentioned North TPE because they are the only ones that, for certain, will be available at Victoria which aren't now.

Also the platforms at Victoria which allow terminating trains from the west at Victoria are also the through platforms, so unless they have a short turnaround time at Victoria or extend beyond Victoria sending Llandudnos to Victoria may create more problems then it'll solve.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,391
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
If TPE (North) services are using Victoria then I can't see any justification for keeping the ATW Llandudno service at Piccadilly. There will be connections at Victoria for Leeds/York, for Bolton/Preston, for Manchester Airport etc.

Just as a matter of interest, has the ATW Llandudno service to Manchester ever been considered for a Llandudno-Chester-Manchester Victoria-Leeds route at any time...or would there be no demand for such a service?
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,856
I doubt there's enough call to justify it, though Blackburn could do with a second Manchester service an hour.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,782
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Does Oxford Road not become 2 platforms in each direction and one arriving at one of the platforms as one leaves the other?

Yes, but in it's current layout, anything over 4 car operation and it falls on it's ... well you can guess.

And Blackburn could have a direct airport via the Todmorden curve and Ordstall Cord?
 

Whistler40145

Established Member
Joined
30 Apr 2010
Messages
6,149
Location
Lancashire
I was meaning Blackburn to Manchester Airport via the Todmorden Curve & Manchester Victoria, not via Darwen & Bolton.
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,856
I was meaning Blackburn to Manchester Airport via the Todmorden Curve & Manchester Victoria, not via Darwen & Bolton.

I still doubt there is enough to justify an Airport extension, but another Manchester train would be useful - saying that Darwen and Bromley Cross both warrant it too!
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
The longer journey time for Airport journeys may annoy WAG

Well, it all depends on what they are paying for. Its not realistic for every town in northern England and northern Wales to have a direct service to Manchester Airport every hour.

If the WAG want to pay for infrastructure improvements in Manchester then they can start to call the shots. Otherwise...

There will be a lot less connections available at Victoria then Piccadilly even after Ordsall chord. I mentioned North TPE because they are the only ones that, for certain, will be available at Victoria which aren't now.

ISTR it's planned to be a train every fifteen minutes, presumably all from the same platform, which isn't too long to wait (bearing in mind that if you miss an Airport train at 13/14 at Piccadilly then you usually need to drag your cases into the "main" platforms for the next train...)

Also the platforms at Victoria which allow terminating trains from the west at Victoria are also the through platforms, so unless they have a short turnaround time at Victoria or extend beyond Victoria sending Llandudnos to Victoria may create more problems then it'll solve.

Run it into Newton Heath?

Just as a matter of interest, has the ATW Llandudno service to Manchester ever been considered for a Llandudno-Chester-Manchester Victoria-Leeds route at any time...or would there be no demand for such a service?

There used to be through services from Leeds to Chester (pre privatisation) that ran coast to coast, before "Transpennine" became a "core" network of services.
 

stockport1

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2011
Messages
169
Or use the extra bays they should build where exchange was...?

thx for your thoughts on picc extra platforms.

I like you replies as you have great knowledge of track layouts/routes etc and add your own imagination to potential development. this makes for some of the most interesting posts on the site imho. :)


do you have any info on the proposed vic bays? ie how they will link to the main shed? maybe there will be an extra entrance built? will they be beneath/part of extra commercial development?

also i have heard somewhere perhaps incorrectly that provision was made for rebuilding 2 extra through platforms by reclaiming men arena carpark?
do you know anything of this?

thx
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,910
Location
t'North
i have heard somewhere perhaps incorrectly that provision was made for rebuilding 2 extra through platforms by reclaiming men arena carpark?
The car park only occupies the eastern half of the station area. There is no room for additional platforms adjacent to P6 as the arena bowl and service area occupies that space (platforms 14-17 of the original layout).

I suppose you could put some east facing bays there but there is little point given the station has them already. Where the west facing bays go is open to debate, the most likely IMHO being the old Exchange Station space but that is some way from the current station.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
4,005
Location
St Neots
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top