We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[Purple Orange]

Regarding the Arena I have previously thought about how hard it would be to construct a brand new one, possibly larger on the car parks just North of it! Obviously this may not be needed now depending on how well Easlands develops. As for the comments about it being famous, ain't it famous in name ?

I don't think it ill matter too much if it was moved slightly as long as they're is something somewhere called 'Manchester Arena'.

View attachment 78697

The land north of the arena where the car parks are already has plans for redevelopment, up to beyond where the travelodge is.

 

[daodao]

Victoria doesn't need more platforms, just a couple of sidings east of the station, at least one of them electrified, to hold long-distance trains entering the station from the west (in particular Scotland and North Wales) until they are ready to depart. It also needs the 2 tph Airport-Huddersfield-Leeds-York and beyond removing from it, and diverted to terminate at Piccadilly, to free up capacity.

 

[Clip]

It doesn’t work like that for football grounds or the other three venues Manchester uses outside the city (four including the Apollo). It doesn’t work like for Wembley, London’s o2 arena, or for that fact many cities. So why should it work like that for Manchester?

Doesnt United have a railway station by it? Also masses of car parking. Any other fans will be happy walking to get a connection and thats the same for all fans generally - who are vastly different to concert goers.

 

[Ianno87]

Victoria doesn't need more platforms, just a couple of sidings east of the station, at least one of them electrified, to hold long-distance trains entering the station from the west (in particular Scotland and North Wales) until they are ready to depart. It also needs the 2 tph Airport-Huddersfield-Leeds-York and beyond removing from it, and diverted to terminate at Piccadilly, to free up capacity.

And destroy the Leeds-Manchester service offering in the process...

 

[LOL The Irony]

Doesnt United have a railway station by it? Also masses of car parking. Any other fans will be happy walking to get a connection and thats the same for all fans generally - who are vastly different to concert goers.

AFAIK it hasn't been used since the May 2018 timetable fiasco.

 

[Ianno87]

AFAIK it hasn't been used since the May 2018 timetable fiasco.

United does however have 3 Metrolink stops in close proximity (Exchange Quay / Wharfside / Old Trafford)

 

[daodao]

And destroy the Leeds-Manchester service offering in the process...

Why? The 4 fast trains per hour from Liverpool to Manchester already run to different stations in Manchester and this doesn't seem to cause a problem. The service frequency to Leeds from Manchester is far better than in years gone by when there was only an hourly service on each of the Standedge and Summit routes, albeit the trains are too short and often over-crowded.

 

[Purple Orange]

Why? The 4 fast trains per hour from Liverpool to Manchester already run to different stations in Manchester and this doesn't seem to cause a problem. The service frequency to Leeds from Manchester is far better than in years gone by when there was only an hourly service on each of the Standedge and Summit routes, albeit the trains are too short and often over-crowded.

Well actually it does. It’s bloody annoying. At Lime Street there are the fast TPE & EMR services, but in Manchester you need to pick your station, meaning that depending on whether you are on the south side or north side of the city, the frequency is halved when you’re in Manchester.

 

[daodao]

Well actually it does. It’s bloody annoying. At Lime Street there are the fast TPE & EMR services, but in Manchester you need to pick your station, meaning that depending on whether you are on the south side or north side of the city, the frequency is halved when you’re in Manchester.

A train every 30 minutes is fine for an express medium distance interurban service of 30-40 miles.

 

[Ianno87]

Why? The 4 fast trains per hour from Liverpool to Manchester already run to different stations in Manchester and this doesn't seem to cause a problem. The service frequency to Leeds from Manchester is far better than in years gone by when there was only an hourly service on each of the Standedge and Summit routes, albeit the trains are too short and often over-crowded.

Because the 4 fast trains from Liverpool have *never* gone to the same station. The Chat Moss ones didn't exist before 2014. And the 2 via Warrington are actually quite slow...


Leeds-Manchester, 4tph from one station is key to its attractiveness.

 

[Ianno87]

A train every 30 minutes is fine for an express medium distance interurban service of 30-40 miles.

Really? So why have there been 4 trains per hour for the last 20 or so years....? They exist for a reason - to be competitive with the M62.

 

[HSTEd]

British Rail discovered a long time ago that higher frequencies are better - indeed that was one of the primary drivers behind Sprinterisation.

Thats why we have no Sprinters at all over three cars long, even though they replaced units (and loco hauled formations) that were much much longer than this.

Class 124s were 6 cars long after all!

 

[daodao]

Because the 4 fast trains from Liverpool have *never* gone to the same station. The Chat Moss ones didn't exist before 2014. And the 2 via Warrington are actually quite slow... Leeds-Manchester, 4tph from one station is key to its attractiveness.

Historically, the Manchester to Leeds services were each about hourly, with 1 from M/c Exchange to Leeds City via Huddersfield, and the other from Victoria to Leeds Central via Todmorden and Low Moor. The Chat Moss service is historic (it was the first inter-city railway line in the world) and had an hourly express service in 1910 and in the 1960s/70s. I have very clear memories of the comfortable Class 124 Trans-Pennine express inter-city 6-carriage dmus.

Given that Manchester has 2 principal stations with different potential connections, it is more useful for trains to run alternately to Piccadilly and Victoria, and if each service is half-hourly, that is a good frequency. There is never going to be one large central station in Manchester.

Really? So why have there been 4 trains per hour for the last 20 or so years....? They exist for a reason - to be competitive with the M62.

Part of the reason for rail congestion in Manchester is the use of frequent but short (typically 2-4 carriage) trains on most of the services. Once service frequency is half-hourly (other than for short suburban services), it is better to increase train length rather than frequency to make better use of limited infrastructure. For local suburban services, light rail (e.g. Metrolink) is the best way to increase frequency, reduce costs and free up heavy rail lines for other uses.

 

[HSTEd]

Given that Manchester has 2 principal stations with different potential connections, it is more useful for trains to run alternately to Piccadilly and Victoria, and if each service is half-hourly, that is a good frequency. There is never going to be one large central station in Manchester.

But engineering such a thing is well within our capability, and unlikely to be substantially more expensive than some of the huge tunnel mad schemes proposed by many people.

The current system is incredibly unsatisfactory for passengers and an operational nightmare.

 

[Purple Orange]

A train every 30 minutes is fine for an express medium distance interurban service of 30-40 miles.

No it’s really not adequate for two cities the size of Manchester and Liverpool. The two are growing, as are the towns in between, and we need to see better commuting links (both fast and slow).

If you believe a half hourly frequency is good enough for Manchester to Liverpool, do you believe we should scrap NPR now? Are 3 tph to London too much? Should Leeds to Manchester be reduced?

 

[daodao]

British Rail discovered a long time ago that higher frequencies are better - indeed that was one of the primary drivers behind Sprinterisation. Thats why we have no Sprinters at all over three cars long, even though they replaced units (and loco hauled formations) that were much much longer than this. Class 124s were 6 cars long after all!

There is a balance between train length and service frequency. Sprinterisation of the Marches line, using 2 coach class 155 trains initially, changed an irregular loco-hauled service every 3-4 hours into a regular hourly one and was an excellent improvement, increasing patronage on the Cardiff-Manchester route (including by myself). However, given limited infrastructure capacity, increasing service frequency beyond half-hourly on longer distance services probably has little benefit and it is probably more efficient and cost-beneficial to increase train length to handle increased demand.

In the case of Manchester's links to its 2 nearest/largest cities (Leeds and Liverpool), a half-hourly fast service from each of its 2 main stations to each of these 2 cities (i.e. 4 tph to each) is adequate. Manchester developed earlier as a major industrial town than many equivalent places and it was not possible by the time railways arrived on the scene to create 1 main central station; that remains true today.

 

[Purple Orange]

There is a balance between train length and service frequency. Sprinterisation of the Marches line, using 2 coach class 155 trains initially, changed an irregular loco-hauled service every 3-4 hours into a regular hourly one and was an excellent improvement, increasing patronage on the Cardiff-Manchester route (including by myself). However, given limited infrastructure capacity, increasing service frequency beyond half-hourly on longer distance services probably has little benefit and it is probably more efficient and cost-beneficial to increase train length to handle increased demand.

In the case of Manchester's links to its 2 nearest/largest cities (Leeds and Liverpool), a half-hourly fast service from each of its 2 main stations to each of these 2 cities (i.e. 4 tph to each) is adequate. Manchester developed earlier as a major industrial town than many equivalent places and it was not possible by the time railways arrived on the scene to create 1 main central station; that remains true today.

I feel like your idea of adequate is substandard. 4 fast tph is fine in conjunction with all-stop commuter services, but we need to look to funnelling the fast services in to one station, which is kind of the plan with NPR.

 

[daodao]

I feel like your idea of adequate is substandard. 4 fast tph is fine in conjunction with all-stop commuter services, but we need to look to funnelling the fast services in to one station, which is kind of the plan with NPR.

Why? NPR is pie in the sky, given the UK's parlous economic state, worsened by the Covid crisis. The UK is not Germany or China. Manchester is not the capital of England and the expenditure required to build a single central station (presumably underground as one can't knock down the city centre) is not value for money. It has had to make do with light rail rather than a full metro, but at least it is better off in this regard than Leeds.

 

[HSTEd]

Manchester is not the capital of England and the expenditure required to build a single central station (presumably underground as one can't knock down the city centre) is not value for money.

A huge chunk of land next to the city centre is scheduled for mass abandonment and demolition - and I can't see the redevelopment plans surviving the economic crisis.

 

[Purple Orange]

Why? NPR is pie in the sky, given the UK's parlous economic state, worsened by the Covid crisis. The UK is not Germany or China. Manchester is not the capital of England and the expenditure required to build a single central station (presumably underground as one can't knock down the city centre) is not value for money. It has had to make do with light rail rather than a full metro, but at least it is better off in this regard than Leeds.

And this ladies and gents is what 10 years of the austerity mantra and 18 years of Thatcherism has done to the country, skewing the beliefs of its inhabitants to believe that there is no money. I dont think you realise how rich the U.K. is compared to other nations. Capital spending is an economic stimulus that will be required.

NPR does not need a full new line, but it needs some new railway and electrification, which the U.K. has been proven be able to build outside London.

With regards to HS2, I still think it will be built. But if you believe it won’t, then we should cease the rebuild of Euston and Curzon Street, as they will have eleven and seven 400m platforms respectively, with nowhere to go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know about Curzon St, but Euston could do with more platforms either way.

 

[daodao]

A huge chunk of land next to the city centre is scheduled for mass abandonment and demolition - and I can't see the redevelopment plans surviving the economic crisis.

Where? If you are referring to UMIST, it is not central, and in any case the logistics of connecting all the main lines into Manchester to this point would be a nightmare.

 

[daodao]

And this ladies and gents is what 10 years of the austerity mantra and 18 years of Thatcherism has done to the country, skewing the beliefs of its inhabitants to believe that there is no money. I don't think you realise how rich the U.K. is compared to other nations. Capital spending is an economic stimulus that will be required.
NPR does not need a full new line, but it needs some new railway and electrification, which the U.K. has been proven be able to build outside London.
With regards to HS2, I still think it will be built. But if you believe it won’t, then we should cease the rebuild of Euston and Curzon Street, as they will have eleven and seven 400m platforms respectively, with nowhere to go.

Mrs Thatcher was the greatest PM in my lifetime, even though I thought she was wrong on certain issues (in particular the poll tax from a practical angle - houses don't move but people do). She managed to transform the UK from being the sick man of Europe. However, sadly it has now resumed that mantle, even literally now with the Covid death toll, yet alone economically. The UK's external debt as a % of GDP is one of the highest in the world, so borrowing yet more money is madness.

Rebuilding Euston and the new Curzon Street station are required for HS2a, for which there is justification based on traffic demand. However, HS2b (north of Crewe and the eastern segment) is not value for money in my view, as the tph using these segments will be too low to justify the expense of building them.

 

[Clip]

Well actually it does. It’s bloody annoying. At Lime Street there are the fast TPE & EMR services, but in Manchester you need to pick your station, meaning that depending on whether you are on the south side or north side of the city, the frequency is halved when you’re in Manchester.

Why is this a problem for Liverpool - Manchester yet, say, in Kent, you can leave from the same station and go to 3/4 different terminal stations?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why is this a problem for Liverpool - Manchester yet, say, in Kent, you can leave from the same station and go to 3/4 different terminal stations?

Back in the day it was probably annoying. In 2020, pull your phone out and have a quick check before deciding which way to walk.

 

[Purple Orange]

Mrs Thatcher was the greatest PM in my lifetime, even though I thought she was wrong on certain issues (in particular the poll tax from a practical angle - houses don't move but people do). She managed to transform the UK from being the sick man of Europe. However, sadly it has now resumed that mantle, even literally now with the Covid death toll, yet alone economically. The UK's external debt as a % of GDP is one of the highest in the world, so borrowing yet more money is madness.

Rebuilding Euston and the new Curzon Street station are required for HS2a, for which there is justification based on traffic demand. However, HS2b (north of Crewe and the eastern segment) is not value for money in my view, as the tph using these segments will be too low to justify the expense of building them.

Until recent years, I would have said Thatcher was the worst PM of my lifetime, having systematically taken away the livelihoods of hundreds of communities where heavy industry was the only significant employer and the only industry many people were trained in. It was done without the move to assist in retraining or enable other forms of employment to establish in significant numbers. This leads directly to the sentiment that many of the ‘left-behind’ towns hold today. Now I am unsure if Johnson or Cameron are worse PMs than Thatcher. But let’s not get bogged down in political history too much.

Back to Euston & Curzon Street, if HS2 is only built as far as Crewe, there will be no eastern leg services. Therefore building stations as big as planned is a waste of money. What you are suggesting is profligate.

 

[Purple Orange]

Back in the day it was probably annoying. In 2020, pull your phone out and have a quick check before deciding which way to walk.

And if you don’t walk fast enough, or your train is cancelled at the last minute, do you walk/tram to the other side of town or wait longer at Piccadilly, Victoria or Oxford Road.

Why is this a problem for Liverpool - Manchester yet, say, in Kent, you can leave from the same station and go to 3/4 different terminal stations?

I don’t think the Kent situation as you describe is optimal at all. But how many stations in Kent have services to three of four London terminals? If it calls at London Bridge and then goes on to say Charing Cross, it’s not quite the same thing, as it is on the same line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if you don’t walk fast enough, or your train is cancelled at the last minute, do you walk/tram to the other side of town or wait longer at Piccadilly, Victoria or Oxford Road.

If Northern's woeful reliability was solved, the former wouldn't be an issue.

Most people know how fast they walk - people typically walk at a very consistent speed - if you walk to a given station from home daily your arrival times will normally be within seconds each day. If they get waylaid along the way, e.g. go into a shop, they just check again once finished.

 

[Purple Orange]

If Northern's woeful reliability was solved, the former wouldn't be an issue.

Most people know how fast they walk - people typically walk at a very consistent speed - if you walk to a given station from home daily your arrival times will normally be within seconds each day. If they get waylaid along the way, e.g. go into a shop, they just check again once finished.

Northern, TPE or EMR reliability won’t be solved any time soo though. And perhaps this won’t be solved until there is a solution for NPR. All I pointing out here is that if there is an express service to wherever, it is far easier from a passenger perspective to know that all the services you require are located at the same station. All Liverpool, Leeds services could be at Victoria. All Birmingham & London at Piccadilly (as they are). Yet passengers are clear as to where they need to be.

 

[daodao]

Until recent years, I would have said Thatcher was the worst PM of my lifetime, having systematically taken away the livelihoods of hundreds of communities where heavy industry was the only significant employer and the only industry many people were trained in. It was done without the move to assist in retraining or enable other forms of employment to establish in significant numbers. This leads directly to the sentiment that many of the ‘left-behind’ towns hold today. Now I am unsure if Johnson or Cameron are worse PMs than Thatcher. But let’s not get bogged down in political history too much.

TINA. The lady wasn't for turning.

Back to Euston & Curzon Street, if HS2 is only built as far as Crewe, there will be no eastern leg services. Therefore building stations as big as planned is a waste of money. What you are suggesting is profligate.

It would be sensible to operate 2 tph on HS2a from London to Sheffield via Derby, and give Nottingham 2 express tph via the MML.