Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[B&I]

I was involved with a study circa 2000 where someone suggested double-decking the viaduct, one deck for each direction I think. Not sure how they planned to untangle it at Castlefield Junction, nor how it would have played with the listed building at Oxford Road.

How about shifting Metrolink down to street level, moving the CLC trains onto.the upper viaduct before Castlefield, continuing along the old approach to Central, then double decking from around City Road to just west of Piccadilly, then continuing these new tracks as an Ardwick flyover onto the Guide Bridge lines ? That way you could retain routing options while achieving mucho grade separation

 

[Greybeard33]

Deansgate Junction is next to Deansgate signalbox in Timperley, whereas Castlefield Junction is next to Knott Mill station in Castlefield - not confusing at all!

The OS map First Series, Sheet 80, 1856, shows a hamlet called Deans Gate near Timperley, before the railway was built. This was around what is now Deansgate Lane, the road over the level crossing by the signal box.

Nothing to do with Deansgate in Manchester.

 

[edwin_m]

The OS map First Series, Sheet 80, 1856, shows a hamlet called Deans Gate near Timperley, before the railway was built. This was around what is now Deansgate Lane, the road over the level crossing by the signal box.

Nothing to do with Deansgate in Manchester.

That's interesting. I always assumed (when I wasn't forgetting it existed entirely) that it was the junction for the MSJ&A, whose far end was close to what is now Deansgate.

I'm guessing any capacity enhancement via Oxford Road will depend on what happens with NPR, as this provides some alternative east-west capacity.

 

[Chester1]

That wouldn't help relieve the issues between Castlefield and London Road Junctions caused by trains from Windermere, Barrow, Blackpool, Southport, Kirby, Liverpool and Traffod Park all converging.

Also, do you honestly think that such a tunnel would cheaper that building some portal frames over the existing viaduct? Even at 1 in 50 (which is pretty steep) on the East you'd have to start tunnelling near Thorpes Bridge to get under Victoria, the Irk and the Irwell. From the West you're better off, but probably out towards Eccles to get under the moat and back up. Then miss Guardian and come back up well south of Ardwick (which is above you on a viaduct still) ... that'd all need to be twin bore as well due to the length.

Roughly how much do you think double decking would cost?

How about shifting Metrolink down to street level, moving the CLC trains onto.the upper viaduct before Castlefield, continuing along the old approach to Central, then double decking from around City Road to just west of Piccadilly, then continuing these new tracks as an Ardwick flyover onto the Guide Bridge lines ? That way you could retain routing options while achieving mucho grade separation

I don't think its viable to move Metrolink to street level and maintain capacity of 45tph. Street level running is less reliable and slower. If Metrolink was moved it would have to be to the old viaduct which would need very extensive work to be able to take the weight of trams after decades of not being used. My bet is that no huge works will take place on the line that would require enormous construction works in the city centre.

Network Rail owns all or most of the land for platform 15 and 16, rebuilding Oxford Road, smaller schemes at Castlefield Junction and grade seperation at Ordsall Lane Junction. I can't forsee a situation where the Castlefield corridor requires more capacity than those projects would create, combined with a long term roll out of longer trains e.g. 8 x 20m coaches. The question is what should be done next, in terms of capacity its 15 and 16 but I am not convinced that reliability would improve. Yes it would be better to have 18tph using 4 through platforms at Piccadilly than 12tph using 2 but it would mean even more trains using flat junctions. I would probably get the ball rolling on rebuilding Castlefield Junction to secure all the necessary land before the area is completely redeveloped with tower blocks very close to the viaduct. That is very much what is happening in the area, including planning permission for a tower block on the land next door but one to Deansgate Station and one under construction litterally squeezed into a small plot of land between Deansgate-Castlefield tram stop, Trafford Street and Albion Street.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Who said the other two had to go alongside?

Putting an extra pair of lines above the existing track is something that I've long wondered about.

But... to play Devil's advocate... You'd need some space west of Piccadilly next to the existing tracks for the two new tracks to climb high enough for the elevated section. Is there enough space for that?

Also, would a more cost-effective solution be to wait for the promised 'digital railway'? I'm guessing with that technology, you'd be able to easily run a train every two minutes or so each way on the existing track - especially given that you can expect every train to call at both Piccadilly and Oxford Road, so linespeeds between the two stations are never going to be very fast. Have two platforms each way at both stations (in other words, build platforms 14 and 15 at Piccadilly), and all you need to do is clear each platform within 4 minutes - which is regularly achieved at stations like London Bridge. Deansgate may be more of a problem if the station is retained with only some trains stopping, so maybe you'd still need extra tracks to separate fast and slow trains west of Oxford Road (or close Deansgate).

In fact, would a better place to stack some new tracks above the existing tracks be around the maze of junctions between Deansgate and Salford/Salford Crescent, in order to grade-separate all those junctions?

 

[AndrewE]

Putting an extra pair of lines above the existing track is something that I've long wondered about.

But... to play Devil's advocate... You'd need some space west of Piccadilly next to the existing tracks for the two new tracks to climb high enough for the elevated section. Is there enough space for that?

Also, would a more cost-effective solution be to wait for the promised 'digital railway'? I'm guessing with that technology, you'd be able to easily run a train every two minutes or so each way on the existing track - especially given that you can expect every train to call at both Piccadilly and Oxford Road, so linespeeds between the two stations are never going to be very fast. Have two platforms each way at both stations (in other words, build platforms 14 and 15 at Piccadilly), and all you need to do is clear each platform within 4 minutes - which is regularly achieved at stations like London Bridge. Deansgate may be more of a problem if the station is retained with only some trains stopping, so maybe you'd still need extra tracks to separate fast and slow trains west of Oxford Road (or close Deansgate).

In fact, would a better place to stack some new tracks above the existing tracks be around the maze of junctions between Deansgate and Salford/Salford Crescent, in order to grade-separate all those junctions?

I think you are wondering about what is already being discussed. Climb up westbound in the middle of the tracks between Ardwick and Piccadilly, run through (including new high-level platforms at) Picc and Oxford Rd and use the height to grade-separate the junctions at the west end of the city centre.

 

[notlob.divad]

So this discussion has recently gone,
From: 'Chris Grayling won't approve the construction of 2 new platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Road re-modelling.
To: 'Lets grade separate everything from Slade Lane to Ordsal and the new junctions of the new chord including new double decker tracks and platforms.

Call me a cynic but what on earth makes anybody think that the later will get any funding approved by a government refusing to approve the first?

 

[Chester1]

So this discussion has recently gone,
From: 'Chris Grayling won't approve the construction of 2 new platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Road re-modelling.
To: 'Lets grade separate everything from Slade Lane to Ordsal and the new junctions of the new chord including new double decker tracks and platforms.

Call me a cynic but what on earth makes anybody think that the later will get any funding approved by a government refusing to approve the first?

A rebuild of Castlefield Junction could be cheaper and would free up valuable development land. Id guess grade separation of Ordsall Lane Junction might be cheaper too. I agree grade separating more tham one junction is not remotely likely, neither is double decking. A cheap politically motivated investment would be funding the planned rebuild of Salford Central to extend + add platforms and some further improvements to Victoria, both of which could be done for a fraction of the cost of Piccadilly 15 and 16 but be a visable investment.

 

[eaet]

An underground station accommodating high-speed rail services as well as Northern Powerhouse services could be built at Manchester Piccadilly.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/option-for-underground-station-at-piccadilly

 

[Bletchleyite]

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/option-for-underground-station-at-piccadilly

If there's that sort of money flying around there is no excuse for *not* building 15/16.

I cannot think of a single rail project idea in the North West that would bring bigger benefit. Not even the Ordsall Chord.

 

[Bantamzen]

So this discussion has recently gone,
From: 'Chris Grayling won't approve the construction of 2 new platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Road re-modelling.
To: 'Lets grade separate everything from Slade Lane to Ordsal and the new junctions of the new chord including new double decker tracks and platforms.

Call me a cynic but what on earth makes anybody think that the later will get any funding approved by a government refusing to approve the first?

A rebuild of Castlefield Junction could be cheaper and would free up valuable development land. Id guess grade separation of Ordsall Lane Junction might be cheaper too. I agree grade separating more tham one junction is not remotely likely, neither is double decking. A cheap politically motivated investment would be funding the planned rebuild of Salford Central to extend + add platforms and some further improvements to Victoria, both of which could be done for a fraction of the cost of Piccadilly 15 and 16 but be a visable investment.

Interestingly enough, I was watching a video from Japanology on YouTube last night about how Japanese engineers use grade separation, double decking, ATC etc to keep the complex flows moving through Tokyo. When the commentator asked a former engineer how they justified the cost and complexity of the engineering projects, he curtly replied that you simply have to get on with because the net result will far outweigh the cost and difficulties. If only we had that attitude in this country towards major infrastructural improvements, instead of "How can we do this on the cheap?".

 

[Joseph_Locke]

So this discussion has recently gone,
From: 'Chris Grayling won't approve the construction of 2 new platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Road re-modelling.
To: 'Lets grade separate everything from Slade Lane to Ordsal and the new junctions of the new chord including new double decker tracks and platforms.

Call me a cynic but what on earth makes anybody think that the later will get any funding approved by a government refusing to approve the first?

The railway will outlast the Boiled Egg.

 

[snowball]

The railway will outlast the Boiled Egg.

I don't get the reference to the Bolied Egg, but will the railway outlast the Boiled Frog?

 

[transmanche]

I don't get the reference to the Bolied Egg

Chris Grayling ................ Boiled Egg

 

[B&I]

If there's that sort of money flying around there is no excuse for *not* building 15/16.

I cannot think of a single rail project idea in the North West that would bring bigger benefit. Not even the Ordsall Chord.

'Not even' the Ordsall Chord ? Has it actually brought any benefit ? Or is triggering the collapse of the TPE network a benefit ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

'Not even' the Ordsall Chord ? Has it actually brought any benefit ? Or is triggering the collapse of the TPE network a benefit ?

As I've said before I don't support the Ordsall Chord and think it was rather a waste of money and had an overall negative effect by cramming more short trains into the Castlefield corridor when we actually need there to be fewer, longer trains there instead...I was more using it as a comparison as it's one that was built.

 

[HSTEd]

If there are underground platforms for NPR at Picadilly, why on earth would we need 15/16?

Also not convinced the NPR platforms should be at Picadilly, I think Oxford Road is a better located station as it is astride or adjacent to far better transport links and is better located. (Especially with a travelator to Castlefield)

 

[Bletchleyite]

If there are underground platforms for NPR at Picadilly, why on earth would we need 15/16?

Also not convinced the NPR platforms should be at Picadilly, I think Oxford Road is a better located station as it is astride or adjacent to far better transport links and is better located. (Especially with a travelator to Castlefield)

It has to serve Piccadilly, being the main interchange for other InterCity and HS2 services.

 

[AndrewE]

Given that there are canals and things underground near Piccadilly[edit: it would have to be deep, so ]I would think a long station tube/cavern could have travellator exits emerging at both Piccadilly and Oxford Rd. Just like my preferred HS2 through station would have in Brum (New St and Moor St!)

 

[B&I]

It has to serve Piccadilly, being the main interchange for other InterCity and HS2 services.

Is there going to be that much interchange from HS3 to HS2 ? Almost everywhere on the former will be served in some way shape or form by the latter, or there will be easier and more obvious change points than Manchester

 

[cle]

If there are underground platforms for NPR at Picadilly, why on earth would we need 15/16?

Also not convinced the NPR platforms should be at Picadilly, I think Oxford Road is a better located station as it is astride or adjacent to far better transport links and is better located. (Especially with a travelator to Castlefield)

Because how would these underground Powerhouse trains get up to Oxford Road and onwards?

 

[Ianno87]

If there are underground platforms for NPR at Picadilly, why on earth would we need 15/16?

Also not convinced the NPR platforms should be at Picadilly, I think Oxford Road is a better located station as it is astride or adjacent to far better transport links and is better located. (Especially with a travelator to Castlefield)

The idea is that NPR services use HS2 infrastructure between Manchester Airport and Manchester Piccadilly (see p32 of https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0VJcyOjxCukiAqD9ZNDIND).

Therefore you end up at...Piccadilly!

 

[HSTEd]

Because how would these underground Powerhouse trains get up to Oxford Road and onwards?

An extra loop of tunnel from the Picadilly approach and then head out towards Leeds.

 

[Ianno87]

An extra loop of tunnel from the Picadilly approach and then head out towards Leeds.

Lump an extra few billion on the cost for that.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What exactly was the last-made official announcement made concerning the thread title matter of platforms 15 and 16 at Manchester Piccadilly railway station?

 

[LOL The Irony]

What exactly was the last-made official announcement made concerning the thread title matter of platforms 15 and 16 at Manchester Piccadilly railway station?

I think it was when grayling postponed it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think it was when Grayling postponed it.

If it is indeed officially postponed, that does not bode well for the continuance of actual discussion matters rather than theoretical discussion matters on this particular thread,

 

[PR1Berske]

There's been more discussion about P15/16 on this forum than inside the DfT, I'd wager.

 

[snowball]

What exactly was the last-made official announcement made concerning the thread title matter of platforms 15 and 16 at Manchester Piccadilly railway station?

The last official announcement was probably when the public inqiry closed.

However Grayling was later quoted as suggesting the scheme was unnecessary. This was in the Financial Times at about the time he cancelled MML, Swansea and Windermere.

 

[Grumpy]

Surely the answer to this is simple. HS2 proposals are to build a hideous carbuncle to the side of Piccadilly with 4 platforms and also make use of Platform 1. However proceeding with the platform 15/16 proposals and consequently routing some of the existing terminators through the link should free up some capacity in the existing train shed. Therefore convert not just platform 1 but also 2 for HS2 use and avoid building the carbuncle. I appreciate this only gives 2 platforms for HS2 but as they are only for 3 HS London trains plus one Birmingham surely this should be enough? If not then just put in one additional platform to the North of platform 1 rather than the whole carbuncle. The savings to HS2 would probably be bigger than the cost of platform 15/16 so savings to the taxpayer and well done Chris