Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[js1000]

Platforms 15 and 16 would basically reduce demand for 1-12 because of Slade Lane having a limit of 22tph. While that would be useful for train lengthening in the medium term, in 2033 it will be excessive. Maybe a couple more services will run from Glossop or Marple / New Mills. As things stand 15-16 add flexibility and resilience but don't really add extra capacity unless Stockport services are diverted away from Slade Lane. I know its not a popular thing to say on here but 15 and 16 are not necessarily a good way to spend £200m.

I understand why people saying spending £200m isn't the wisest investment in the world - particularly with Slade Lane and the Airport Line being very limited in terms of tph. As such you're clearing a bottleneck but with little benefit on top of that.

What I think platforms 15 & 16 give you is resilience - not capacity.

If a people are taking too long to disembark and embark on the train, then the train behind can be filtered into the other platform. Having seen first hand the chaos on platforms 13 & 14, the time it takes for this process is too long - particularly on the end-door only units such as the Sprinters.

Having trains backing up to Oxford Road, Deansgate, Castlefield Junction because of effectively one train blocking the line at Piccadilly seems daft - I think for £200m it's right to be sceptical but after a few years of the problem remaining you'd eventually go "right, just build the new platforms because this problem is never going to go away". All those delayed minutes stack up and impact on the network. Extrapolate that over the course of the year and you would get you millions back over the next few decades. Would add making marginal gains is important. Having purpose built trains suited for a quick throughput with double doors would be a good start!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If your in favour of building platforms 15 and 16 which extra services should use them?

None. The whole point is to restore punctuality and reliability to the existing service.

 

[Chester1]

The Northern Blackpool service that currently reverses is planned to extend to Macclesfield once electric trains can be used. The Northern franchise agreement requires one of the Leeds/Bradford via Calder Valley services, which currently terminates at Victoria, to be extended to the Airport via the Chord once P15/16 are available. There is also an option for a 4th Chord service, from Blackburn to the Airport via the Todmorden Curve. Together with a second hourly freight path, these two extra Airport services would use up all the available capacity through Castlefield Junction.

The franchise agreement also requires two additional services into Piccadilly via Stockport, from Greenbank and Hazel Grove, which have not started yet. So, even if the CLC stoppers are linked to two Stockport line services, there will be the same number of services as now terminating in the main shed.

The franchise agreement also requires longer trains on Northern's Hope Valley/New Mills Central/Rose Hill Marple services, which will reduce scope for multiple occupancy of P1-3. It will surely not be feasible to reduce the number of terminal platforms.

Ok, So that destroys my argument! Piccadilly to Slade Lane Junction will have 26tph of passengers and 2tph freight! That is not going to work reliably!

 

[Greybeard33]

Ok, So that destroys my argument! Piccadilly to Slade Lane Junction will have 26tph of passengers and 2tph freight! That is not going to work reliably!

Why not? Piccadilly to Slade Lane is 4 tracks with no stations to clog things up.

Actually I make it 24tph passengers at the moment. 9tph Airport line (including the ATW), 1tph Altrincham, 4tph Wilmslow (1 VT, 1 ATW, 2 Northern), 5tph Macclesfield (2 VT, 2 XC, 1 Northern) and 5tph Hazel Grove (1 EMT, 1 TPE, 3 Northern).

So that would go up to 28tph + 2tph freight through Slade Lane, assuming that the ATW N Wales service is cut back to Piccadilly (the ORR only granted ATW access rights to the Airport up to the end of the current franchise in September).

 

[Senex]

What I think platforms 15 & 16 give you is resilience - not capacity.

But the problem is that we don't do resilience in this country, either with the railways or in other sectors. We prefer to assume that facilities can be run smoothly all the time at near maximum capacity and face the chaos from time to time when things don't work. Unfortunately it looks as though planning with the MSJ has slipped up so that there's going to be some chaos most of the time rather than just from time to time.

 

[jopsuk]

What I think platforms 15 & 16 give you is resilience - not capacity.

Given what you describe, in this case resilience clearly is capacity, as the situation is that the real life capacity of the line is below that that has been calculated due to the lengthier-than-allowed-for dwell times

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given what you describe, in this case resilience clearly is capacity, as the situation is that the real life capacity of the line is below that that has been calculated due to the lengthier-than-allowed-for dwell times

Yes, the practical (punctual) capacity of the line is much lower than the optimal capacity of it.

 

[CdBrux]

If dwell times are the main issue stopping the current timetable operating well then surely some things can be done to rectify this:
1. Try and encourage as many people to the airport with large bags whose journey is starting at Picc to use an airport shuttle train from the man shed
2. Limit the amount of carriage end door stock (as I understand though a probable issue as a lot of the new stock bought for these routes is just that)
3. Clear signage on the platforms where to stand for which coach and maybe more staff on the platform to speed things along
4. I'm sure others can suggest further ideas

 

[Bletchleyite]

Buy a load more new stock to ensure trains are running at an adequate length, as overcrowding really slows things down. Nothing going through those platforms should be shorter than 4x20m, and if anything is it needs the frequency lopping back or portion working with splitting and joining at a more resilient, multiplatform location. (For instance, if Barrow and Windermere only justify 2-car units each, run them together as far as Preston or Lancaster).

Much as the new DMUs and EMUs look nice, they are pretty much Pacer replacement and a bit - they are not the step change in capacity Northern needs. I similarly fear with TPE that there is a lot of latent demand put off by overcrowding that means the new coaches and MUs will be full and standing again within a few months - there really needs to be a willingness to up them all to 7 cars in pretty short order.

 

[Senex]

Much as the new DMUs and EMUs look nice, they are pretty much Pacer replacement and a bit - they are not the step change in capacity Northern needs. I similarly fear with TPE that there is a lot of latent demand put off by overcrowding that means the new coaches and MUs will be full and standing again within a few months - there really needs to be a willingness to up them all to 7 cars in pretty short order.

That's another example of no resilience — buy to meet the needs of today rather than look to cope with any future growth of traffic.

 

[Altfish]

If dwell times are the main issue stopping the current timetable operating well then surely some things can be done to rectify this:
1. Try and encourage as many people to the airport with large bags whose journey is starting at Picc to use an airport shuttle train from the man shed

I don't think that many start at Piccadilly - I admit I don't have any figures to back up this assertion - but most change at Piccadilly (Many from trams).
It is then down to the display boards as to where they head for connections to the Airport.

3. Clear signage on the platforms where to stand for which coach and maybe more staff on the platform to speed things along.

If only, we seem totally unable to manage to do this in the UK

4. I'm sure others can suggest further ideas

Build platforms 15/16 ....I'll get my coat

 

[CdBrux]

I don't think that many start at Piccadilly - I admit I don't have any figures to back up this assertion - but most change at Piccadilly (Many from trams).
It is then down to the display boards as to where they head for connections to the Airport.

I meant not starting from rail

Build platforms 15/16 ....I'll get my coat

well...!

 

[CdBrux]

That's another example of no resilience — buy to meet the needs of today rather than look to cope with any future growth of traffic.

I don't have the figures to hand but I believe they are a significant increase vs the current capacity and I think the MK5 loco hauled do have an option in the contract to add a 6th carriage. May not be perfect but a big step forward and far better than the mid 2000's 'no growth' franchise agreement.

 

[Altfish]

I meant not starting from rail

Yes, I appreciate that. But if you are getting a bus, taxi or a lift it is usually as easy to go directly to the Airport.

 

[Greybeard33]

If dwell times are the main issue stopping the current timetable operating well then surely some things can be done to rectify this:
1. Try and encourage as many people to the airport with large bags whose journey is starting at Picc to use an airport shuttle train from the man shed
2. Limit the amount of carriage end door stock (as I understand though a probable issue as a lot of the new stock bought for these routes is just that)
3. Clear signage on the platforms where to stand for which coach and maybe more staff on the platform to speed things along
4. I'm sure others can suggest further ideas

1. Only 1tph still serves the Airport from the main shed - the TPE Cleethorpes, which normally uses P9. The other 8tph all use P13/14. So not much hope of keeping large bags away from the island.
2. TPE will be replacing the 185s and 350s with end door Mk5As and 397s. But these are longer trains with more doors in total, so dwell times might improve through less crush on the train and the crowd being spread further along the platform. Northern will eventually be replacing the end door 15x's on Airport services with 195s and 331s, which have doors at thirds.
3. Improved signage and more staff would certainly help.
4. How about introducing ticket checks at the top of the stairs/lift, enforcing a policy of northbound/westbound passengers waiting in the lounge until their train is the next due?

 

[Bletchleyite]

4. How about introducing ticket checks at the top of the stairs/lift, enforcing a policy of northbound/westbound passengers waiting in the lounge until their train is the next due?

I did think that, but the trouble is the number of possible destinations they won't necessarily recognise.

They could make the lounge *nicer* so people would choose to wait there, e.g. proper seats rather than perches, nicer toilets and a wider variety of retail, perhaps even some kind of entertainment e.g. a TV showing BBC News with subtitles on? But to do that you'd have to make it bigger, and it'd presumably then start getting close to the cost of building 15/16.

 

[MarkyT]

It is the variation in the traffic and its wide feeder network that makes the conventional solution of additional parallel platforms the correct one for the Castlefield corridor. There's no point in lamenting the service isn't all high density metro stock with 1/3 door positions on a more limited network, that is not what operators are attempting to run. Instead we have a mixture of local, express and freight with varying performance characteristics and some serious crowding issues at the stations. That's with or without any contribution from the Ordsall chord. Parallel platforms give scope for longer and more variable dwells, provide overtaking capability and are good for real time resilience and emergencies. They don't require a huge varied fleet to be fitted with the latest cab signalling and ATO just to make the line work reliably at all if the existing configuration were to remain with raised traffic levels. In parallel platforms we have a sensible solution on the table that is minimally disruptive to construct, technically simple and moderate in cost. It also seems to be largely designed and 'shovel ready'. JFBI!

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is the variation in the traffic and its wide feeder network that makes the conventional solution of additional parallel platforms the correct one for the Castlefield corridor. There's no point in lamenting the service isn't all high density metro stock with 1/3 door positions on a more limited network, that is not what operators are attempting to run. Instead we have a mixture of local, express and freight with varying performance characteristics and some serious crowding issues at the stations. That's with or without any contribution from the Ordsall chord. Parallel platforms give scope for longer and more variable dwells, provide overtaking capability and are good for real time resilience and emergencies. They don't require a huge varied fleet to be fitted with the latest cab signalling and ATO just to make the line work reliably at all if the existing configuration were to remain with raised traffic levels. In parallel platforms we have a sensible solution on the table that is minimally disruptive to construct, technically simple and moderate in cost. It also seems to be largely designed and 'shovel ready'. JFBI!

Precisely - and get on with it before someone buys some of the land below it and shoves up a building that will make it awkward to build it.

 

[js1000]

If dwell times are the main issue stopping the current timetable operating well then surely some things can be done to rectify this:
1. Try and encourage as many people to the airport with large bags whose journey is starting at Picc to use an airport shuttle train from the man shed

I don't think that many start at Piccadilly - I admit I don't have any figures to back up this assertion - but most change at Piccadilly (Many from trams).

As crazy as it seems I believe there are actually no trains from the bay platforms to Manchester Airport now.

I could be wrong, the Cleethorpes via Sheffield/Stockport and then reversing out to the airport maybe still operates every hour.

But the vast majority of them are now routed through 13 & 14 with the Ordsall Chord and extension of the Crewe to Piccadilly via the Airport stoppers being extended to Liverpool Lime Street.

Logically it stops them cutting across the throat and increases tph for trans-Pennine services. But if dwell times are too long with passengers moving luggage, which I suspect they consistently are at the moment, then maybe the timetable and platform allocations needs to be reconsidered.

 

[a_c_skinner]

The only immediately practical solution suggested on here seems to be longer trains, perhaps a little less frequently. Having stood on 13&14 in busy and less busy times it looks very much as if that would speed boarding and alighting considerably. It would also make passengers more comfortable.

 

[WatcherZero]

False economy, you would still have the same people only they are waiting for longer and needing to fit more people on a platform at the same time when the platforms are already overcrowded.

 

[Killingworth]

As crazy as it seems I believe there are actually no trains from the bay platforms to Manchester Airport now.

I could be wrong, the Cleethorpes via Sheffield/Stockport and then reversing out to the airport maybe still operates every hour.

They do.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

1. Only 1tph still serves the Airport from the main shed - the TPE Cleethorpes, which normally uses P9. The other 8tph all use P13/14. So not much hope of keeping large bags away from the island.
2. TPE will be replacing the 185s and 350s with end door Mk5As and 397s. But these are longer trains with more doors in total, so dwell times might improve through less crush on the train and the crowd being spread further along the platform. Northern will eventually be replacing the end door 15x's on Airport services with 195s and 331s, which have doors at thirds.
3. Improved signage and more staff would certainly help.
4. How about introducing ticket checks at the top of the stairs/lift, enforcing a policy of northbound/westbound passengers waiting in the lounge until their train is the next due?

One issue with the Connect 195s is that (as I understand it, so correct me if I'm wrong) at least some of the diesel Northern Connect services will be operated with 158s which of course have end doors. IMO this is a big flaw with the ARN rolling stock strategy, and 170s would have been a better candidate for the balance of Northern Connect diesel services due to being similar in layout to the 195s. Of course if the Airport Connect services will all be 195s anyway then my concerns are erroneous.

RE: Ticket checks at the top of the stairs, that's all well and good if enough space is allocated for this to take place in the elevated waiting area at the top of the travelators, and if the staff doing the checks are considerably better-trained and less aggressive than the G4S/STM thugs of the past.

 

[Greybeard33]

One issue with the Connect 195s is that (as I understand it, so correct me if I'm wrong) at least some of the diesel Northern Connect services will be operated with 158s which of course have end doors. IMO this is a big flaw with the ARN rolling stock strategy, and 170s would have been a better candidate for the balance of Northern Connect diesel services due to being similar in layout to the 195s. Of course if the Airport Connect services will all be 195s anyway then my concerns are erroneous.

RE: Ticket checks at the top of the stairs, that's all well and good if enough space is allocated for this to take place in the elevated waiting area at the top of the travelators, and if the staff doing the checks are considerably better-trained and less aggressive than the G4S/STM thugs of the past.

The diesel Northern Connect services to the Airport will be from Liverpool via Warrington Central, Barrow via Wigan North Western, Windermere via Wigan North Western, and Bradford via Rochdale. I believe those will all be operated by 195s. The original franchise announcements said "brand new trains" and the Northern website currently says:

- Over 90% operated with new trains
....
We will be publishing more information about the new services and when you can expect to see them - please check back for updates.

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/travel/northern-connect
So we will have to wait for confirmation.

 

[B&I]

4. How about introducing ticket checks at the top of the stairs/lift, enforcing a policy of northbound/westbound passengers waiting in the lounge until their train is the next due?

Problem with this is that the overcrowding, narrow stairs and minimal advance notice of services (particularly in the current state of continual low level chaos) would.mean that a lot of people would end up missing trains, or in a panic trying to get them. I.prefer to stand on the platform some way in advance, rather than sitting in the lounge, for this reason

 

[jonesy3001]

Now the bald one is blaming manchester council for not letting the platforms to be built,
discuss,
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...rt-secretary-branded-fantasist-after-15039218

 

[edwin_m]

One issue with the Connect 195s is that (as I understand it, so correct me if I'm wrong) at least some of the diesel Northern Connect services will be operated with 158s which of course have end doors. IMO this is a big flaw with the ARN rolling stock strategy, and 170s would have been a better candidate for the balance of Northern Connect diesel services due to being similar in layout to the 195s. Of course if the Airport Connect services will all be 195s anyway then my concerns are erroneous.

Unless it's changed 158s are only going to be used on Connect services in the north-east, none of which go to Mancheter.

 

[AndrewE]

Now the bald one is blaming manchester council for not letting the platforms to be built, discuss,
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...rt-secretary-branded-fantasist-after-15039218

It (he) takes you breath away. Here's a quote from the MEN:

However, Mr Grayling, who has strongly denied any responsibility for the Northern Rail timetable crisis, was defiant in his response - insisting it was actually Manchester City Council standing in the way of progress.

He said: “Well I’m afraid what Andy Burnham is saying is simply not true.

“I have not cancelled any track upgrades in Manchester.

“Indeed the interesting challenge is that the proposal to expand the route between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Oxford Road, which is going through a Transport and Works Act Order process at the moment, is being opposed by Manchester council.

• After months of delays and cancellations train fares are set to increase

“What we are actually doing is we are looking at how we can put more capacity into Manchester using digital technology to increase capacity.

“Across the North and across the Manchester area we are replacing every single train with either a brand new train or a train completely refurbished as new with longer trains and more capacity.

Sue Murphy, Manchester council’s deputy leader, responded in no uncertain terms.

She said: “For Chris Grayling to suggest that Manchester council is opposed to much-needed improvements in rail capacity for Manchester is complete fantasy.”

She said the council had been a strong supporter of improvements to Piccadilly and Oxford Road stations and increased track capacity to enable more services to run through them, adding: “Indeed, we gave evidence in support of the scheme to a public enquiry about it and have been consistently vocal in our call for better rail infrastructure.

Council deputy leader Sue Murphy hit out at Mr Grayling
“Our track record in supporting improvements stands in stark contrast to that of Mr Grayling and his predecessors who have the power to deliver improvements, including the promised Northern Powerhouse rail, but have so far not demonstrated any will to do so.”

The M.E.N. asked the Department for Transport exactly which element of expansion Mr Grayling was referring when he accused the council of opposing the order, but they declined to comment.

 

[jonesy3001]

It (he) takes you breath away. Here's a quote from the MEN:

Its a believe it til you see it type thing now, now that both parties are blaming each other for messing up.

 

[Altfish]

Now the bald one is blaming manchester council for not letting the platforms to be built,
discuss,
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...rt-secretary-branded-fantasist-after-15039218

To be fair to Grayling (Which I do begrudgingly) he does in the article say he hasn't 'cancelled' any schemes. Which is probably true.
What he fails to say is that he has not 'approved' the schemes in the first place and has constantly push them into the long grass.