Salford Crescent improvements

[Inox]

Hi

It appears over the next few days Salford Crescent and Central are shutting for improvements (limited services between Bolton and Vic). Is this the final push on work on Crescent. They've made plenty of progress already:

These photos are a few weeks old. I think they've already installed the suspended walkway between the new booking office and the top of the stairs...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Anything would be an improvement on what was there before, with steps leading down to the booking office on the narrow-width platform with not enough space for passenger circulation, where passengers queuing to purchase tickets were in the way of those accessing and egressing the railway station.

 

[Inox]

my guess is that they maybe doing signalling work? If they're shutting the up and down?

I think they're 90 pc there with the construction of the new bits of the station, but haven't yet done anything about demolishing the old ticket booth or waiting room (i guess 'till the new facilities are open they won't do)

 

[WatcherZero]

Someone I think on another thread mentioned they were switching the primary access to the platforms from the old staircase to the new staircase this weekend, new ticket office wont be ready just yet. But thats just what ive heard, dont know for sure.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

There are signalling and minor track alterations associated with extending the platforms at Crescent, but I don't know whether that's this weekend - I'd guess it would be sensible.

 

[175001]

The signalling and track work was completed a few months ago, with some signals moved further down to accommodate the new platforms.

 

[WatcherZero]

The new station entrance opened today im told.

 

[Inox]

Yeah,

been past it twice today. Old steps have been removed (bridge still there - to be retained?)

It was funny, there was a guy who got off my train and went to walk up the non existent steps - took him a moment to focus on the new steps in the distance.

Now that the old stairs are removed, i can tell this whole thing is going to be a major improvement. Can't wait for the old ticket office and waiting room to go.

Are they replacing the canopy does anyone know?

 

[CJ]

Yeah,

been past it twice today. Old steps have been removed (bridge still there - to be retained?)

It was funny, there was a guy who got off my train and went to walk up the non existent steps - took him a moment to focus on the new steps in the distance.

Now that the old stairs are removed, i can tell this whole thing is going to be a major improvement. Can't wait for the old ticket office and waiting room to go.

Are they replacing the canopy does anyone know?

Do you know if/when they'll be removing them?

I agree, with the removal of those giant stairs it should allow for more room for passengers waiting for their train service. It can be quite busy at peak..

 

[Inox]

no idea. presumably when the new ticket office is up and running. at the moment it hasn't got any walls, just concrete pillars. Months away, i think.

 

[WatcherZero]

No their keeping the existing platform canopy and demolishing all platform buildings under it apart from the platform guards office. The new station access has been built to be strong enough to have a canopy added in future but wont intially feature one (budget limitations, TfGM did press Network Rail quite hard to include a canopy). The old bridge will remain open as a pedestrian route with no station access.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No their keeping the existing platform canopy and demolishing all platform buildings under it apart from the platform guards office. The new station access has been built to be strong enough to have a canopy added in future but wont intially feature one (budget limitations, TfGM did press Network Rail quite hard to include a canopy). The old bridge will remain open as a pedestrian route with no station access.

Can you clarfify that under the new proposals, there will be no waiting room for passengers on the station platform, leaving it effectively in the same situation as to be found at Cornbrook Metrolink station.

 

[Skimble19]

No their keeping the existing platform canopy and demolishing all platform buildings under it apart from the platform guards office. The new station access has been built to be strong enough to have a canopy added in future but wont intially feature one (budget limitations, TfGM did press Network Rail quite hard to include a canopy). The old bridge will remain open as a pedestrian route with no station access.

What's the point in demolishing the existing buildings? Can they not simply be closed temporarily until needed again in the future? This insistence on demolishing everything now is so wasteful.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What's the point in demolishing the existing buildings? Can they not simply be closed temporarily until needed again in the future? This insistence on demolishing everything now is so wasteful.

I think the current situation with overcrowding has meant that it's better to clear away any unneccessary obstructions- It might have been a better idea to completely rebuild the station, with more and bigger platforms rather than the cramped island, but that's another story.

 

[WestCountry]

What's the point in demolishing the existing buildings? Can they not simply be closed temporarily until needed again in the future? This insistence on demolishing everything now is so wasteful.

The entire point of the rebuild is to permit the demolition of those buildings!
The platform is very small compared to the number of people who use it at peak times, and the buildings split it into a pair of very narrow sections - thus causing even more crowding on whichever side the next train leaves from - in addition to the space they take up. When they've gone there'll be more space in total, and far more space from which each platform face can be conveniently accessed.

 

[WatcherZero]

Checked the most recent plans, they are extending the platform canopy to cover the extended platforms after all.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

The entire point of the rebuild is to permit the demolition of those buildings!
The platform is very small compared to the number of people who use it at peak times, and the buildings split it into a pair of very narrow sections - thus causing even more crowding on whichever side the next train leaves from - in addition to the space they take up. When they've gone there'll be more space in total, and far more space from which each platform face can be conveniently accessed.

The platform is dangerously overcrowded at peak times, is sub-standard to most current standards and is on several hit-lists (with platform 13 and 14 at Piccadilly). Other than widening the platforms (and further worsening the layout in the process) clearing the buildings is the only way to go to fix the problem.

The ticket office and associated amenities are moved to the main entrance, so they can be removed. The station is heavily used for interchange and commuting rather than as the origin of long-distance journeys, so waiting facilities are a luxury (and similar facilities are provided in the new building anyway) so that can go.

That leaves the despatcher's bothy, which (I think) stays.

These buildings will never be needed again, IMHO.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

On the second of the two drawings submitted by WatcherZero, at the top of that drawing is an area shown as "Proposed future phase Platform 4". What GRIP stage does the term "future phase" refer to ?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

On the second of the two drawings submitted by WatcherZero, at the top of that drawing is an area shown as "Proposed future phase Platform 4". What Grip period does the term "future phase" refer to ?

"GRIP period?" do you mean "Control Period (CP)?" Based on hearsay, CP6 possibly.

If really did mean GRIP stage, then 2 (there is a report covering this item of work)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

"GRIP period?" do you mean "Control Period (CP)?" Based on hearsay, CP6 possibly.

If really did mean GRIP stage, then 2 (there is a report covering this item of work)

My apologies...confusion reigning supreme when I made my posting...thinking of three things all at the same time. It was the GRIP stage to what I had intended to allude.

 

[Inox]

I like the idea of an additional 2 platforms. This will give immense improvements.

There's a daily jam coming out of Central (standing time waiting for a path to Crescent). Even off peak, the trains have to wait.

I may be putting two and two together, but i guess the proposed platform 3 is the reason NR have put that (signal?) junction box on a 4 foot concrete plinth....? Clearance for the height of the proposed platform?

 

[lancastrian]

On the second of the two drawings submitted by WatcherZero, at the top of that drawing is an area shown as "Proposed future phase Platform 4". What GRIP stage does the term "future phase" refer to ?

Possibly so far into the future that non of us will live to see it. My major problem with all the work being done at Salford Crescent is very simple, at the end of it all you will still have a very cramped, narrow island platform station, which in winter behaves like a wind tunnel. There have been times when I have had to change trains there and if there had not been the waiting rooms, I would have frozen. Yes, I accept that it is mainly used for interchange, BUT if your train is delayed and it is in winter, you are going to get very cold if you cannot get out of the wind and rain.

Yes, I know there will be a canopy, but because of the very narrow platform, you have a very narrow canopy, and if the wind is blowing in the right, or wrong direction depending upon your point of view, then you will get both wet and cold at the same time.

This station was not only not built to its original plans, to have two island platforms, it is actually built in the wrong place, in a cutting which had limited space, which the planners with clever planning actually wasted most of it. It should have been built in the 'V' of the Bolton & Atherton lines, so that you had two island platforms linked by foot bridge with decent space to have proper circulation space and decent waiting rooms.

I am certain that not long into the future, they will spend another '**** load' of money to try and correct this current set of errors in this rebuilding. I just wish that for once they would all sit down together, draw up a workable plan, which is future proofed and actually consult with the people who use it, the passengers.

But that would require our politicians to use what is available of their limited intelligence. So don't hold your breath.

End of rant!

 

[HowardGWR]

Possibly so far into the future that non of us will live to see it. My major problem with all the work being done at Salford Crescent is very simple, at the end of it all you will still have a very cramped, narrow island platform station, which in winter behaves like a wind tunnel. There have been times when I have had to change trains there and if there had not been the waiting rooms, I would have frozen. Yes, I accept that it is mainly used for interchange, BUT if your train is delayed and it is in winter, you are going to get very cold if you cannot get out of the wind and rain.

Yes, I know there will be a canopy, but because of the very narrow platform, you have a very narrow canopy, and if the wind is blowing in the right, or wrong direction depending upon your point of view, then you will get both wet and cold at the same time.

This station was not only not built to its original plans, to have two island platforms, it is actually built in the wrong place, in a cutting which had limited space, which the planners with clever planning actually wasted most of it. It should have been built in the 'V' of the Bolton & Atherton lines, so that you had two island platforms linked by foot bridge with decent space to have proper circulation space and decent waiting rooms.

I am certain that not long into the future, they will spend another '**** load' of money to try and correct this current set of errors in this rebuilding. I just wish that for once they would all sit down together, draw up a workable plan, which is future proofed and actually consult with the people who use it, the passengers.

But that would require our politicians to use what is available of their limited intelligence. So don't hold your breath.

End of rant!

I didn't find that at all rantish. Would the V location be as convenient for the college,etc? I am not local, so your view would help. A photo would be great if anyone has one.

 

[lancastrian]

I didn't find that at all rantish. Would the V location be as convenient for the college,etc? I am not local, so your view would help. A photo would be great if anyone has one.

Well the 'V' starts about 20 yards north of the platform end, so the station there would be about 50/100 yards to the north. Admittedly that would mean that people using that station for the college would have to walk about another 200 yard maximum. But that station in the 'V' would have four platforms and more space for waiting rooms etc. You could see how close it is by using Google earth. That might help you visualise how it could be. I hope that helps you.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Were any infrastructural questions raised by any body at the design stage for the narrow island platform that was decided upon originally for Salford Crescent railway station with regard to the lack of platform width on a station that has to serve two lines as an interchange facility ?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Were any infrastructural questions raised by any body at the design stage for the narrow island platform that was decided upon originally for Salford Crescent railway station with regard to the lack of platform width on a station that has to serve two lines as an interchange facility ?

Given that it was part of the Windsor Link, built by investment-incapable BR in the late 80s, I doubt any passenger flow work was done at all. I don know that the Manchester end track layout changed at the 11th hour because it didn't suit the proposed timetable, evidence which suggests a very rushed design job.

That said, not even the most evangelistic railway promoter would have (in 1987, when we were still closing lines and stations) predicted the rate of growth of passenger numbers we are now "enjoying", so you can't be too harsh.

Lastly, sizing platforms for predicted peak passenger numbers is a very woolly art indeed!

 

[Darren R]

I went through the station yesterday for the first time since the new entrance opened, and what was immediately apparent was that - for the first time - passengers were actually using the full length of the platforms rather than just the narrow section in the middle by the buildings (under the canopy! ) Even though it was the evening rush and the station was busy the platform wasn't as overcrowded as usual, so even though the work is not yet complete it is clearly doing its job - although the main test comes when the students return. The canopy has to be extended to the new entrance: otherwise whenever it's raining (rare though that event may be in Salford!) the overcrowding will continue.

This station was not only not built to its original plans, to have two island platforms, it is actually built in the wrong place, in a cutting which had limited space, which the planners with clever planning actually wasted most of it. It should have been built in the 'V' of the Bolton & Atherton lines, so that you had two island platforms linked by foot bridge with decent space to have proper circulation space and decent waiting rooms.

Quite so - it is appallingly badly designed, although it is far busier than anyone could have predicted at the time. I remember the station and Windsor Link being constructed. Prior to this there were six running lines at this point, although two of them were the up and down goods lines and not needed by then. I remember watching the work progress as the goods lines were lifted and the slow lines slewed across to take their place and the platform taking shape. I distinctly remember thinking "oh - I can see what they're doing here. And when that platform is finished they'll do the same thing with the fasts and the second platform will go there." Even after the station had opened, for a long time I was waiting for them to come back and finish the other half! In retrospect it was a lost opportunity.

I thought that NR's favoured plan for the rebuild originally was for a new station in the V of the junction, but that funding either couldn't be agreed or was pulled.

And on another note - I noticed something else for the first time yesterday: the station's resident garden gnomes! They look anything but a recent addition - does anyone know how long they've been there? Just wondering how many thousands of times I've passed them without noticing!

 

[snail]

Would the V location be as convenient for the college,etc?

No. Assuming it would be north of the junction the station entrance would have to be on Frederick Road, which would be away from the main bus routes and require new bridges to get to the University campus. It depends whether you see the station as an interchange or as a local amenity.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It depends whether you see the station as an interchange or as a local amenity.

An excellent observation. The Windsor Link project, of which Salford Crescent railway station is an integral part, was not built solely with the student population of Salford University in mind.

 

[HowardGWR]

No. Assuming it would be north of the junction the station entrance would have to be on Frederick Road, which would be away from the main bus routes and require new bridges to get to the University campus. It depends whether you see the station as an interchange or as a local amenity.

Yes I wasn't sure if people were referring to the V north or that south, thanks.