Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Chester1]

Head in hands ......... but people want to go to Manchester - not the outskirts!

Mayfield has six platform faces capable of taking through traffic plus 13 + 14

Putting four faces into the space between Rail House and the train shed and you get - 4 + 12 + 2 + 6 = 24 platform faces at Piccadilly.

Use the network to remove the critical reliance on Windsor Link to Ardwick instead of relying more and more on it!

Mayfield is on the edge of the city centre and a long walk from Piccadilly. People already complain about the walk between 1-12 and 13-14! If there wasn't the remains of a station there then no one would be suggesting building a satellite of Piccadilly station but to the south west and further away from places people want to go to! HS2 will free up 2-3 terminating platforms at Piccadilly and if it is cancelled then the land allocated for its platforms would be a much better location than Mayfield and probably cost a similiar amount to build on. Mayfield is just a burnt out, falling down shell that served as an overflow for 50 years.

 

[LOL The Irony]

If the Picc-Vic Link had not been bent into such an odd shape to provide far more local stations than central Manchester really needed, Piccadilly Gardens would have been a good position for an intermediate station, with Piccadilly and Victoria serving their respective sides of the city centre.

Time to bring back the Picc Vic project in a style of Crossrail 2?

 

[HSTEd]

Head in hands ......... but people want to go to Manchester - not the outskirts!

So I am proposing through platform stations so that I can terminate trains short?
I am proposing to terminate trains on the far side of Manchester.

Mayfield has six platform faces capable of taking through traffic plus 13 + 14

Putting four faces into the space between Rail House and the train shed and you get - 4 + 12 + 2 + 6 = 24 platform faces at Piccadilly.

How on earth are you going to get through platforms out of Mayfield?
There is a huge, and very expensive hotel in the way.

Use the network to remove the critical reliance on Windsor Link to Ardwick instead of relying more and more on it!

And scattering passengers over multiple stations, discouraging connections and reducing the attractiveness of the railway as a means of transport?
Single stations make sense for the same reason that one airport per city makes sense, scattering trains over multiple not-connected stations is a fools errand.

 

[TBirdFrank]

Mayfield is a perfectly serviceable rail level platform that could carry traffic quite readily and it is perfectly possible to make the curve round the north end of the Macdonald. Ridiculous aspersions like Chester's show how little he really knows about infrastructure, intermodal arrangements, modern capacity improvements like travelators etc. Cleared to formation level, and extended westwards to the A6, Mayfield represents a saving of millions of pounds over a "new" site and has space at street level for access, taxis etc and above for offices and apartments, but there again the railway obsessed don't think that way. Further platforms and formation are always going to need additional land take and an enlarged Piccadilly has only one way to go. Using the area between the train shed and what was Rail House dispenses with the crossing of the station throat and using sparsely used and unused formations to complete other journey opportunities completes the picture. The choice to run through or turn back is still left wide open. I completely fail to understand the reference to scattering passengers around the city - that is what the current set up is doing. If we end up with a revised traffic layout from Pin Mill Brow and Grosvenor St to service it then so be it. You can't make omelettes without breaking some eggs.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Ordsall Chord service only ran off peak six times a day for 5 months so I wasn't counting it. If politically possible I would divert ATW Llandudno to Victoria due to its low capacity and long occupancy of the Mayfield siding. I would "indefinitely pause" the third Ordsall Chord service and reduce the services to something like:

2tph CLC stoppers terminating at Piccadilly and waiting in Mayfield siding
1tph CLC Northern Connect
1tph EMT
3tph TPE
2tph Northern - Blackpool /Preston /Barrow /Windermere via Bolton
1tph to Wigan/Blackpool via Chat Moss
1tph Northern - Lime Street
1tph Northern - Wigan via Westhoughton

12tph of passenger services + 1tph of freight. Everything else can run to (or though) Victoria. I would start sorting out platforms so some Bolton services can run as 2 x 319s from Preston.

Once Oxford Road and junctions in the Manchester area have been rebuilt then platform 15 and 16 should be built. If they are built first then too many services will be crammed through them again and delays will stackup.

I thought Blackpool was having 2tph to Piccadilly. Are the Cumbrian services going to be hourly? Perhaps you could allocate 1tph to a third Ordsall Chord service instead. Hard choices would have to be made but 12tph through Piccadilly is still a big improvement on 8tph + 2tph of Oxford Road terminating services that we had until December. With the disaster of the new timetable in mind, it is hard to believe that much use could be made of 2 extra through platforms while neighbouring junctions are all flat and mostly slow.



I would be interested to see the breakdown of final destinations but I guess most people are heading to Manchester not the airport. There would be a same platform change for the Airport at Newton-le-Willows, dependant on decent timings. 2 or 3 coach units are unsuitable and the service fills Mayfield siding most of the time. Extending the CLC stoppers to termimate at Piccadilly would benefit more people and be a better use of paths and the siding.

Yes, Blackpool is to have 2tph to Piccadilly, but both via Bolton post electrification (one to the Airport, the other to Macclesfield). The 1tph from Cumbria will take over the Wigan - Chat Moss route. To run the CLC stoppers through Picc 13/14 and have 3tph over the Chord, you would have to sacrifice another service as well as the ATW.

The ATW service only uses the Mayfield siding in the peaks - it terminates at the Airport off-peak.

How do you propose to free platform capacity at Victoria in order to terminate the ATW service there? My understanding is that Vic will be maxed out for services from the west, once the Atherton line goes to 4tph and the Northern Chester to Leeds service starts.

I still do not understand the benefit of your proposal to remodel Oxford Road without building Piccadilly 15/16. This would effectively reduce the corridor passenger service capacity from the planned 12tph through Picc + 2tph Oxford Road terminators, to only 12tph through.

The Northern Hub specification originally included a requirement for a second hourly freight path to/from Trafford Park, which formed part of the business case for Platform 15/16 and the Oxford Road remodelling. Has there been any DfT/TftN announcement that this is no longer required?

 

[Domh245]

Mayfield is a perfectly serviceable rail level platform that could carry traffic quite readily. Ridiculous aspersions like Chester's show how little he really knows about infrastructure, intermodal arrangements, modern capacity improvements like travelators etc. Cleared to formation level, and extended westwards to the A6, Mayfield represents a saving of millions of pounds over a "new" site and has space at street level for access, taxis etc and above for offices and apartments, but there again the railway obsessed don't think that way. Further platforms and formation are always going to need additional land take and an enlarged Piccadilly has only one to go. Using the area between the train shed and what was Rail House dispenses with the crossing of the station throat and using sparsely used and unused formations to complete other journey opportunities completes the picture. The choice to run through or turn back is still left wide open

It certainly doesn't look very serviceable from the later photos from this album, taken earlier this year. Filled in trackbeds, crumbling masonry, and generally dubious looking, I would think that a near full rebuild would be in order before you would run any trains over it, and if you are doing that, you might as well bite the bullet, spend a little more, and build something that is convenient for passengers as well.

Also, note what the photographer wrote in the description:

It is now owned by a property developer, who will retain the building, but convert it to flats, with a hotel being incorporated. Those on the tour were told that the work should take around ten years to complete, and the project is certainly a large one. This therefore was possibly my last chance to wander round the building before rebuilding work starts.

Whilst it is a shame that it will be redeveloped, much of the original structure is now either missing (booking hall, waiting rooms etc.), or just too dangerous to walk around, so what is proposed is probably the best of the options available.

 

[HSTEd]

The best option is to put as many of the trains to and from the centre of Manchester through Oxford Road and Picadilly's through platforms as possible.
This will require two extra platforms at Picadilly and platform rationalisation and lengthening at Oxford Road to put 12 car trains through the corridor.

With ETCS type signalling near RER A train spacings will be possible (allowing 24+ trains per hour once recovery slots are accounted for)

 

[B&I]

Time to bring back the Picc Vic project in a style of Crossrail 2?

Either that or bulldoze another 2 tracks through parallel to the existing viaducts. I'd prefer the tunnel myself

 

[Altfish]

Tunnelling in Manchester is not straight forward, underground rivers in particular cause problems.

 

[TBirdFrank]

Mayfield was BRBR to the end.I don't know to whom H M Guvmint transferred it last time, but if it is out of the public sector and any strategic role in transport it is simply more of the same from this bunch of illiterates.

As to its structural capacity - its heavy duty with a capital H - I don't think its ability to carry a few aluminium tubes is going to get called into question anytime soon.

 

[Altfish]

Mayfield was BRBR to the end.I don't know to whom H M Guvmint transferred it last time, but if it is out of the public sector and any strategic role in transport it is simply more of the same from this bunch of illiterates.

As to its structural capacity - its heavy duty with a capital H - I don't think its ability to carry a few aluminium tubes is going to get called into question anytime soon.

As you say, it is in private hands, due for demolition and development.

 

[Chester1]

Mayfield was BRBR to the end.I don't know to whom H M Guvmint transferred it last time, but if it is out of the public sector and any strategic role in transport it is simply more of the same from this bunch of illiterates.

As to its structural capacity - its heavy duty with a capital H - I don't think its ability to carry a few aluminium tubes is going to get called into question anytime soon.

The station building is certainly not heavy duty. The development plans basically involve carefully rebuilding it using the exterior as a facade because the fire in 2005 wrecked its structural integrity. The platform roof was falling apart therefore was removed in 2013. All there is of use is the embankment and the platforms themselves, over the long term it would be cheaper just to build on flatter land. If Piccadilly needs more terminating platforms then nostalgia is the only reason to reuse Mayfield rather than extend Piccadilly eastwards. Having 18 terminating platforms and 2-4 through platforms to the west is a much simpler signalling and pathing arrangement than having the through platforms between 12 and 6 terminating platforms. It is not 1960, services to Mayfield would conflict with Airport services and it would be a timetabling and opperational nightmare unless a flyover was built. Any review will say that the best location for new terminating platforms is on the eastern side of the station.

 

[B&I]

Tunnelling in Manchester is not straight forward, underground rivers in particular cause problems.

Perhaps, but you may be aware of another large English city well-known for its underground rivers and large number of rail tunnels

 

[HSTEd]

Terminating platforms are really expensive in terms of land take as well, just consider the passenger capacity per square foot of the through platforms compared to the terminating ones.

In the hypothetical where all non HS2 services use through the through platforms the throat would be drastically simplified and flying junctions could be built to produce conflict free stacking of trains into the core.
There is a lot of railway land used up with the throat which wouldn't need to be any more.

The only problem is that the new chord is inherently a flat junction and not much can really be done about it.

 

[Altfish]

Perhaps, but you may be aware of another large English city well-known for its underground rivers and large number of rail tunnels

The Government spends money and investment in that city though.

 

[randyrippley]

Why not route all traffic approaching from the west, into Victoria and then run it around the east side of Manchester and then into the Piccadilly terminating platforms? It looks like the route is still there, may need a new bit of track...
Would take the pressure off the through platforms

 

[Altfish]

Why not route all traffic approaching from the west, into Victoria and then run it around the east side of Manchester and then into the Piccadilly terminating platforms? It looks like the route is still there, may need a new bit of track...
Would take the pressure off the through platforms

Some track is missing. You can get to Stockport but not to Piccadilly.
It is also a long way when compared to the Ordsall Chord route, and Oxford Road gets missed and that is a popular station for many commuters.

 

[HSTEd]

If Oxford Road had a tram stop it would be the perfect Manchester railway station

 

[B&I]

The Government spends money and investment in that city though.

Yes, and there is no (physical or geographical) reason why it couldn't be spent in Manchester

 

[Altfish]

Yes, and there is no (physical or geographical) reason why it couldn't be spent in Manchester

But plenty of political

 

[mr_jrt]

If somehow the viaduct from Piccadilly to Castlefield Junction were able to be widened to 4 tracks, what would be the best arrangement for the line? Pre-Ordsall chord the answer was potentially obvious - you could remove Castlefield Junction to remove that flat junction, but given the chord adds another flat junction feeding into the two-track section west of Castlefield junction anyway, would something else be more useful instead?

 

[HSTEd]

Two lines from Victoria to Picadilly and two lines to handle the other traffic woudl be the obvious answer I think.

Paired by use and not by direction.

 

[Senex]

Two lines from Victoria to Picadilly and two lines to handle the other traffic woudl be the obvious answer I think.

Paired by use and not by direction.

Why that rather than a non-conflicting layout at Castlefield Jn and pairing by direction so as to allow cross-platform interchange at Oxford Road and Piccadilly. It seems to be to some extent a choice between what serves the junction with the CLC best and what serves passengers best. I'd be very interested to hear the arguments on both sides.

 

[rebmcr]

If Oxford Road had a tram stop it would be the perfect Manchester railway station

It's really not that far from St Peter's Square. I've dashed across to head-off a westbound TPE that I was going to miss at Piccadilly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two lines from Victoria to Picadilly and two lines to handle the other traffic woudl be the obvious answer I think.

Paired by use and not by direction.

Two lines for 2tph, and the rest on the other two? Doesn't make sense.

 

[jonesy3001]

There's a section about the platforms (because of Piccadilly) on the MEN website saying that the paperwork still needs signing for the work to be done, but i dont think they will get built while failing grayling is transport secretary.
Link to article here;
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...s/nine-reasons-should-angry-northern-14743563

 

[xotGD]

There's a section about the platforms (because of Piccadilly) on the MEN website saying that the paperwork still needs signing for the work to be done, but i dont think they will get built while failing grayling is transport secretary.
Link to article here;
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...s/nine-reasons-should-angry-northern-14743563

I'm not so sure. Grayling could do with a big announcement to deflect attention from his lack of handling of the ongoing Northern fiasco.

 

[Senex]

I'm not so sure. Grayling could do with a big announcement to deflect attention from his lack of handling of the ongoing Northern fiasco.

And to deflect attention from his announcement of yet another massive infrastructure investment for London.

 

[HSTEd]

Two lines for 2tph, and the rest on the other two? Doesn't make sense.

If we had four tracks we are likely to route far more between Victoria and Piccadilly. Probably essentially all Victoria traffic from the East

And Victoria Traffic from the west would be outright transferred to Piccadilly

 

[rebmcr]

If we had four tracks we are likely to route far more between Victoria and Piccadilly. Probably essentially all Victoria traffic from the East

And Victoria Traffic from the west would be outright transferred to Piccadilly

That would mean every Liverpool-Leeds train would cross on the flat at Ardwick and we're back to square one!