Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The easier solution would be to only rebuild Oxford Road to 4 longer platforms and make some services 8 coaches.

Is there not already a plan in place to upgrade Manchester Oxford Road railway station?

Incidentally, why does timber feature so heavily in the station canopy and buildings there.

 

[furnessvale]

Is there not already a plan in place to upgrade Manchester Oxford Road railway station?

Incidentally, why does timber feature so heavily in the station canopy and buildings there.

I believe it is an architect designed, prizewinning and listed structure.

 

[edwin_m]

The easier solution would be to only rebuild Oxford Road to 4 longer platforms and make some services 8 coaches.

I would have 12 run through Oxford Road mostly using platforms 3 and 4. The CLC stoppers could terminate and start at platforms 1 and 2. A service pattern of:

Northern:

2tph - Lime Street (all stops DMU via Warrington Central - Starting at Oxford Road)

Not strictly relevant to you point, but the CLC slows have to skip some stops or they are caught up by the following fasts. Also changing the layout so they terminated in 2 or 3 would reduce conflicts.

2tph - Preston (EMU via Bolton) - double 319s

The platform at Salford Crescent is too short for double 319s and there is no way of extending it due to junctions each end. Would you skip this key interchange?

 

[mr_jrt]

This is pure uninformed Google maps, but how about moving all the junctions north of the station and extend southwards? Or if there's no room there, given it's effectively a two-track section through the station (abet with a loop), why not move the junction north to Indigo St and have a two-track section from there to the junctions south of the station, and obviously then extend the station northwards.

 

[FQTV]

Incidentally, why does timber feature so heavily in the station canopy and buildings there.

Limited load-bearing capability of the underlying viaduct structure, apparently.

 

[Chester1]

Is there not already a plan in place to upgrade Manchester Oxford Road railway station?

That is what I was referring to. The plan involves closing platform 5 and extending 1-4 westwards. If it is done without two extra through platforms at Piccadilly it reduces the capacity of the corridor. However, that may not be a bad if there are no grade separation works in Manchester. Ordsall Chord has shown that the network in the city has too many flat junctions to cope with the intended services and that slighter fewer but longer services.

Not strictly relevant to you point, but the CLC slows have to skip some stops or they are caught up by the following fasts. Also changing the layout so they terminated in 2 or 3 would reduce conflicts.

The platform at Salford Crescent is too short for double 319s and there is no way of extending it due to junctions each end. Would you skip this key interchange?

I meant the existing service pattern, which I should have remembered is not quite every stop. Salford Crescent is a tough problem to solve but it will need to be at some point because its inposes a big limit on future capacity otherwise. I think the best bet would be to simplify the tracks at either end and remove the through track to free up more space at either end and to widen the platform. There is enough space to fit in an 160m, wider island platform.

I believe it is an architect designed, prizewinning and listed structure.

Grade II listed which means it could be demolished but that would be highly unlikely. I think the rebuild plan retains the listed parts but not most of the rest and adds a new entrance and exit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not strictly relevant to you point, but the CLC slows have to skip some stops or they are caught up by the following fasts. Also changing the layout so they terminated in 2 or 3 would reduce conflicts.

The platform at Salford Crescent is too short for double 319s and there is no way of extending it due to junctions each end. Would you skip this key interchange?

Use SDO. If not fitted, fit it.

 

[edwin_m]

I meant the existing service pattern, which I should have remembered is not quite every stop. Salford Crescent is a tough problem to solve but it will need to be at some point because its inposes a big limit on future capacity otherwise. I think the best bet would be to simplify the tracks at either end and remove the through track to free up more space at either end and to widen the platform. There is enough space to fit in an 160m, wider island platform.

Use SDO. If not fitted, fit it.

There are busy junctions pretty much right at each end of the platforms, the geometry is very tight and removing the through track wouldn't change this. A train with SDO would overhang at least one junction during its station stop. Short of closing the Atherton line or moving the entire station up to Frederick Road I can't see there is much to be done.

 

[Chester1]

There are busy junctions pretty much right at each end of the platforms, the geometry is very tight and removing the through track wouldn't change this. A train with SDO would overhang at least one junction during its station stop. Short of closing the Atherton line or moving the entire station up to Frederick Road I can't see there is much to be done.

Removing the through track would at least allow the platforms to be widened and move the stairs to be moved into the middle to allow platform access either side. What are the current platform lengths and what do you think the maximum possible length is? Perhaps something that @Joseph_Locke can answer? Could double 323s fit? I think they are 11m shorter which would provide a significant boost to capacity. I think longer units makes more sense for the EMUs into Piccadilly 13 and 14 than more services. 2tph Preston-Bolton-Piccadilly is sufficient after factoring in services between Bolton and Victoria.

In the very long term a fleet metro style fleet of EMUs like Merseyrail's new fleet would probably be the best bet for maximising capacity. If every short platform can be lengthened to its maximum affordable length then the fleet could be tailored to make maximium use of the platforms. The 319s probably have another 10 years or more to go though! Which I am not complaining about! They are huge improvement on a pacer or 150.

 

[B&I]

The best solution for Salford Crescent would surely be rebuilding as 4 platforms, with a link built from the southbound Atherton line via a flyover onto the southbound Bolton line through the open land around a mile north of the station, and moving the existing junction to the Atherton line far enough north to extend the platforms. Who knows, if it can be spun as a way of sending more trains to the airport from far-distant towns, Manchester's official bodies might be interested.

(Written from a busy double 156 on a Manchester Airport-South Parkway service, having just seen a double 185 from the Airport to Middlsbrough arrive at Piccadilly without a single person, except the driver, in the first 3 cars).

 

[Killingworth]

Do you have a source for the suggestion that the third fast service from Manchester to Sheffield might start from "Liverpool, Blackpool, Chester or somewhere else" rather than from Piccadilly?

I attended 3 rounds of public consultation about the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme and also the public inquiry and have masses of paper produced in support of all of them. I note that documentary evidence is absent regarding where the extra service would start and finish.

The question was asked more than once and the answer was always evasive. Network Rail is tasked by the DfT to provide extra paths and capacity. When they exist it's someone else's job to decide whether to run any extra services, on what routes and by who.

However, suggestions were made of likely start and finish points. Simple Piccadilly to Sheffield wasn't the assumption and the question has been asked of TOCs since.

It's easy enough to suggest places but capacity on tracks to go west of Manchester is only part of the issue. Platform capacity for terminating trains is another. We know turn round times are critical to operate reliable services.

In my previous post I mentioned Chester, Blackpool and Liverpool as possible destinations. More recently Liverpool is the place I've heard suggested most often, always verbally.

On the east side destinations such as Leeds, Hull, Lincoln and Leicester were suggested. 3 of these could fit with existing Northern services.

But first we need to get started on this modest scheme which was being planned at least 15 years ago. The time it's taken doesn't auger well for completion of Platforms 15 and 16.

Resolve one bottleneck and it's inevitable we'll move the problem down the line.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The best solution for Salford Crescent...

I don't know what to do about Salford Crescent, I'm strictly down the trainspotter end of the forum, but when I've used the station or been through it is clear something effective needs to be done. Is it used much for interchange? I suspect not, but the narrow platform isn't equal to the demand a lot of the day. Looking at Google Earth (who needs crayons?) there is a good deal of railway land in the area.

Considering the projects going on in the capital all of this seems pretty modest.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From Google Maps, it *looks* to me that if you ditched the through line[1] by building the island out to it over the top of the existing line towards Manchester, and either did a bit of realignment or built a very wide island/two separate platforms there *is* scope to continue the island quite a long way under the bridge, probably to add about 2/3 of the present length again. Is that enough for 8.319?.

[1] I'd suggest stopping everything there. With Vic no longer being a backwater the opportunity of interchange would be very valuable.

 

[edwin_m]

Removing the through track would at least allow the platforms to be widened and move the stairs to be moved into the middle to allow platform access either side. What are the current platform lengths and what do you think the maximum possible length is? Perhaps something that @Joseph_Locke can answer? Could double 323s fit? I think they are 11m shorter which would provide a significant boost to capacity. I think longer units makes more sense for the EMUs into Piccadilly 13 and 14 than more services. 2tph Preston-Bolton-Piccadilly is sufficient after factoring in services between Bolton and Victoria.

Salford Crescent platforms are 158m each for moves in both directions, so tantalisingly short of a double 319 (you need about 5m extra for variation in stopping position and signal sighting may also be a constraint). So double 323s might be OK.

Widening the platform would also shorten it. The crossover between the two tracks just north of the platforms would have to be lenghtened if they were further apart, which would push its southern end further south and with it the north end of platform 1. Something similar may well apply at the other end but that is under the bridge so not visible on Google.

The best solution for Salford Crescent would surely be rebuilding as 4 platforms, with a link built from the southbound Atherton line via a flyover onto the southbound Bolton line through the open land around a mile north of the station, and moving the existing junction to the Atherton line far enough north to extend the platforms. Who knows, if it can be spun as a way of sending more trains to the airport from far-distant towns, Manchester's official bodies might be interested.

I suspect that would cost more than the Piccadilly and Oxford Road enhancements which were where we came in! If tram-train conversion of the Atherton line ever happened then the northern junction could be removed and the platforms lengthened and possibly widened again.

I don't know what to do about Salford Crescent, I'm strictly down the trainspotter end of the forum, but when I've used the station or been through it is clear something effective needs to be done. Is it used much for interchange? I suspect not, but the narrow platform isn't equal to the demand a lot of the day. Looking at Google Earth (who needs crayons?) there is a good deal of railway land in the area.

If the lack of capacity at Piccadilly and Oxford Road (on-topic alert!) limits service on the Chord than Salford Crescent remains important for various journeys. Whatever happens it remains the best option for Atherton line passengers wanting Oxford Road or Piccadilly.

 

[Chester1]

Salford Crescent platforms are 158m each for moves in both directions, so tantalisingly short of a double 319 (you need about 5m extra for variation in stopping position and signal sighting may also be a constraint). So double 323s might be OK.

Widening the platform would also shorten it. The crossover between the two tracks just north of the platforms would have to be lenghtened if they were further apart, which would push its southern end further south and with it the north end of platform 1. Something similar may well apply at the other end but that is under the bridge so not visible on Google.


I suspect that would cost more than the Piccadilly and Oxford Road enhancements which were where we came in! If tram-train conversion of the Atherton line ever happened then the northern junction could be removed and the platforms lengthened and possibly widened again.


If the lack of capacity at Piccadilly and Oxford Road (on-topic alert!) limits service on the Chord than Salford Crescent remains important for various journeys. Whatever happens it remains the best option for Atherton line passengers wanting Oxford Road or Piccadilly.

Double 323s would definitely fit then, they are about 140m. Of course Northern are due to get rid of all of them but both fleets are Porterbrook owned and which ever units are not used by Northern will go off lease so a swap is possible. It sounds like the extra 7m could be found at the southern end of the platform. @Joseph_Locke might be able to answer these questions. A wider 165m Island platform sounds like the best choice but may not be possible for a sensible price. If the platform can be widened then making all Northern services stop there is a good idea. I would add the proposed scheme for Salford Central to. That was orginally costed at £20m but has stalled because the Ordsall Chord work blocks any western platform extensions meaning either 4 x ~100m platforms or more much more expensive eastern platform extensions. Certainly if Piccadilly 15 and 16 are not built there needs to be more investment at Victoria, Salford Central and Salford Crescent. Oxford Road needs major works regardless, its entrances, exits and passenger facilities are all inadequate. A rebuild of the station could be done leaving the option open to change the platforms at later date by extending the bridge over platform 5 to a new extrance/exit and passenger facilities next to Whitworth Street West.

 

[Bletchleyite]

new extrance/exit and passenger facilities next to Whitworth Street West.

Doubt I'd bother with that, there's nowt there. An extension towards and walkway to Deansgate/GMex (or whatever it's called now) Metrolink would be of more value as it would allow Deansgate station to be closed.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With regards to Salford Crescent station, had it be built in the area of the line bifurcation triangle of the Atherton and Bolton lines, each with an outside platform face and a central platform common to both lines, would this have solved many problems currently in discussion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With regards to Salford Crescent station, had it be built in the area of the line bifurcation triangle of the Atherton and Bolton lines, each with an outside platform face and a central platform common to both lines, would this have solved many problems currently in discussion.

I guess you mean retaining Pendleton on the Atherton line (which closed in the early 90s after a fire[1]) and adding platforms on the other line?

Not quite as well located, unfortunately, which is why it closed in the first place.

[1] The Atherton line stations are all designed (originally) so you enter the island platform down stairs from the ticket office, all under wooden shelter. This has advantages, but does mean a station building fire means it's shut, and there isn't any real scope to leave it unstaffed, not to mention the lack of accessibility features and cost of providing them.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I guess you mean retaining Pendleton on the Atherton line (which closed in the early 90s after a fire[1]) and adding platforms on the other line?

Not quite as well located, unfortunately, which is why it closed in the first place.

[1] The Atherton line stations are all designed (originally) so you enter the island platform down stairs from the ticket office, all under wooden shelter. This has advantages, but does mean a station building fire means it's shut, and there isn't any real scope to leave it unstaffed, not to mention the lack of accessibility features and cost of providing them.

You have not understood the location that I referred to, which is nowhere near Pendleton station. If you stand on the current Salford Crescent station and look up the line the short distance to where the line bifurcations so commence, you will see the triangular shaped land area that I made reference to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You have not understood the location that I referred to, which is nowhere near Pendleton station. If you stand on the current Salford Crescent station and look up the line the short distance to where the line bifurcations so commence, you will see the triangular shaped land area that I made reference to.

South of the B6186 you mean? Not sure the space is long enough, and the location is inconvenient.

If you were going to do that you might as well have reinstated both Pendleton stations instead.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

South of the B6186 you mean? Not sure the space is long enough, and the location is inconvenient.

If you were going to do that you might as well have reinstated both Pendleton stations instead.

But that would not allow the central common platform for interchange in my plan and remember that I made reference to such a location to have been used prior to the construction of the existing Salford Crescent station, which is still near to the connecting road system of the area and still ideally situated for the University.

Being 73 years of age, I remember both the former stations in Pendleton.

 

[HSTEd]

Oxford Road should ideally have a much better direct access onto Oxford Road, ideally the current staircase would be replaced with one that drops out directly onto the bus stops.

 

[Ianno87]

South of the B6186 you mean? Not sure the space is long enough, and the location is inconvenient.

If you were going to do that you might as well have reinstated both Pendleton stations instead.

Relocating Salford Crescent station to just north of the junction was I think looked at way back in the North West RUS as an alternative to extending current platforms to 6car 185 length but I think discounted (expense and the issue of moving the station further away from where it primarily serves).

Wouldn't be surprised if it needed to be relooked at again at some point in the future if extensive (rather than occasional) 8 car working is ever required (but yes, you'd be fairly length constrained between the road bridges and current junction, albeit the junction could be brought further south if the existing station is removed)

 

[edwin_m]

Yes a relocation of Salford Crescent was looked at a few years back. Another disadvantage is that many changes currently possible by waiting on the same platform would require a walk over a bridge, and due to the diverging junction the platforms would be separated by some distance.

 

[Elecman]

The triangle of land referred to are full of turn back sidings

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The triangle of land referred to are full of turn back sidings

Which are almost never used.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The entire thing is a complete farce. Consider:

Open an extra two tracks from Deansgate down to Piccadilly, and all of the stuff coming off the Ordsall Chord would be on the 'north' pair of tracks that match up with the slow lines as opposed to the 'south' tracks for the Airport. Therefore you'd just be conflicting all the time.

What do you do?

Do you make the Ordsall Chord stuff go down towards Stockport so as to prevent conflicts at Deansgate / Oxford Road / Piccadilly?

Do you terminate stuff from the Liverpool via Warrington direction in a new platform on the 'south' side at Oxford Road?

Do you give up and go home?

It's all remarkably difficult as each thing you do creates a new conflicting move.

 

[Killingworth]

The entire thing is a complete farce. Consider:

Open an extra two tracks from Deansgate down to Piccadilly, and all of the stuff coming off the Ordsall Chord would be on the 'north' pair of tracks that match up with the slow lines as opposed to the 'south' tracks for the Airport. Therefore you'd just be conflicting all the time.

What do you do?

Do you make the Ordsall Chord stuff go down towards Stockport so as to prevent conflicts at Deansgate / Oxford Road / Piccadilly?

Do you terminate stuff from the Liverpool via Warrington direction in a new platform on the 'south' side at Oxford Road?

Do you give up and go home?

It's all remarkably difficult as each thing you do creates a new conflicting move.

It sounds like the DfT have lost the file anyway, the person who last had it took redundancy/retirement/died/was transferred over 2 years ago.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The entire thing is a complete farce. Consider:

Open an extra two tracks from Deansgate down to Piccadilly, and all of the stuff coming off the Ordsall Chord would be on the 'north' pair of tracks that match up with the slow lines as opposed to the 'south' tracks for the Airport. Therefore you'd just be conflicting all the time.

What do you do?

Do you make the Ordsall Chord stuff go down towards Stockport so as to prevent conflicts at Deansgate / Oxford Road / Piccadilly?

Do you terminate stuff from the Liverpool via Warrington direction in a new platform on the 'south' side at Oxford Road?

Do you give up and go home?

It's all remarkably difficult as each thing you do creates a new conflicting move.

I don't think four tracks all the way along are needed, just extra platforms at Picc so a train can be arriving at one as one departs from another, improving throughput. Two tracks is no great issue if everything stops everywhere - LU manage headways of under 2 minutes in places.

You could partly achieve it by using 13a/b and 14a/b as separate platforms, but delays mess with that, whereas 4 platform faces would not be seriously adversely affected by delays, particularly if it was one island for each direction where, Schiphol style, a train could be put into whatever side was appropriate at the point it arrived at the split, with the main PIS just showing "13/14" or "15/16" until such time as it did.

If you were going to rebuild Oxford Road that would also ideally become two island platforms, one for each direction, as well, though the listed status may preclude that. That layout would prevent people needing to run over the bridge.

Deansgate could be closed as it's much less used and replaced with a walkway to the west end of the new extended Oxford Road platforms.

 

[snowball]

If you were going to rebuild Oxford Road that would also ideally become two island platforms, one for each direction, as well, though the listed status may preclude that. That layout would prevent people needing to run over the bridge.

The TWAO application that is still on Grayling's desk does not include conversion of Oxford Road to two islands. It does include lengthening and realigning the existing through platforms and closing the bay.