Manchester & North West Transformation Programme

[wobman]

Would it? Is there substantial commuting from west of Chester to Warrington? (The Northern Chester-Vic service would continue running via Warrington, wouldn't it?)



Where can one reach by changing at Warrington that one can't by changing at Liverpool, Chester, Crewe or Manchester?

(CLC local stations are not major destinations and the walk across Warrington is inconvenient)

Chester will lose its direct connection to the Manchester Airport which for the people of the N Wales coast will be a big loss.
Helsby and Frodsham plus runcorn East will have no services to Manchester or Warrington BQ and Frodsham / Runcorn east are quite busy for commuters.
Unless the Leeds services are made to stop at all stations but it then loses its paths and Chester loses its frequency over the route.

On the second point a lot of people going to Scotland travel to WBQ for the connections and that would be a loss as the Leeds services are not very frequent. Plus Northern quite often cancel the Leeds services for some reason and if that's the only services via WBQ it could be disastrous if TFW don't take the customers as this is the method now.

It would be the loss of a long established route that tfw want to keep and much needed revenue for them.
Then there's the huge amount of road learning for Chester/n Wales coast depots, that's another expense that tfw woukd need compensating for.

 

[cle]

Would it? Is there substantial commuting from west of Chester to Warrington? (The Northern Chester-Vic service would continue running via Warrington, wouldn't it?)



Where can one reach by changing at Warrington that one can't by changing at Liverpool, Chester, Crewe or Manchester?

(CLC local stations are not major destinations and the walk across Warrington is inconvenient)

I'd sooner have both fast (XXX-) Chester-WBQ-Manchester (-YYY) services run to Victoria at an even interval - from Warrington at least, knowing they have different stopping patterns west/south of there.

Running it via Northwich is just a horrible solution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd sooner have both fast (XXX-) Chester-WBQ-Manchester (-YYY) services run to Victoria at an even interval - from Warrington at least, knowing they have different stopping patterns west/south of there.

Running it via Northwich is just a horrible solution.

More people want to go to Piccadilly than Victoria. It's Southport all over, but a different origin and FAR more political. OPSTA can be told to shut up and ignored if needs be; doing that to the Welsh Government is a lot harder.

 

[Greybeard33]

If two platforms at Victoria were indeed proposed as you say, then that's definitely not the reason they were not built. Network Rail put in an application to the DfT for an order under the Transport & Works Act for the works at Piccadilly and Oxford Road, it went to public inquiry, and the DfT have been sitting on it ever since. There was no such application for Victoria, and if the platforms would have been on railway land, none would have been required.

I do not recall Victoria platforms ever featuring in the Northern Hub programme. As well as Piccadilly P15/16 and Oxford Road remodelling, the Northern Hub included the fourth platform at Manchester Airport and the west facing bay at Rochdale, both of which were built. Regarding Victoria, the emphasis was on services from the west running through to Stalybridge or Rochdale, to avoid clogging the through platforms.

AIUI, the proposal for the west facing bay(s) arose from the Network Rail Congested Infrastructure report and the subsequent work of the Recovery Task Force. These identified that the reliable capacity of the Castlefield corridor is less than envisaged in the Northern Hub studies and so there is a near term need to divert more services to Victoria than can be reversed at Stalybridge and Rochdale.

 

[Chrisyd]

If two platforms at Victoria were indeed proposed as you say, then that's definitely not the reason they were not built. Network Rail put in an application to the DfT for an order under the Transport & Works Act for the works at Piccadilly and Oxford Road, it went to public inquiry, and the DfT have been sitting on it ever since. There was no such application for Victoria, and if the platforms would have been on railway land, none would have been required.

There definitiely was aplan for new Platforms at Victoria from the time of the redevelopment inclding the new roof, as this archive screen grab of the time line shows:

Manchester Victoria redevelopment timeline

 

[cle]

More people want to go to Piccadilly than Victoria. It's Southport all over, but a different origin and FAR more political. OPSTA can be told to shut up and ignored if needs be; doing that to the Welsh Government is a lot harder.

Piccadilly is a long time muscle memory. People will adapt.

Victoria is just as central for most folks, and it is now the main connection point for journeys to Leeds and York too. For London and Birmingham, there is WBQ (plus direct from Chester/Crewe).

In time, if these can call at reinstated Salford Central platforms, that is even better for a lot of employment and other city destinations. And maybe grab Ordsall to the airport from there too - once it's all sorted. Warrington might one day have 'NPR' / HS whatever services directly to the airport too.

Oxford Road seems more of a loss, from a destination point of view, than Piccadilly itself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oxford Road seems more of a loss, from a destination point of view, than Piccadilly itself.

This is probably very true - Victoria adds about half an hour to a journey to the Universities by the time you've walked or faffed.

I suspect that the number who would be annoyed by there being no useful direct or connectional* service from North Wales to Castlefield is greater than those who would be annoyed at changing for Warrington, though.

* The Mid Cheshire stopping service is too slow to be a viable connection.

 

[snowball]

There definitiely was aplan for new Platforms at Victoria from the time of the redevelopment inclding the new roof, as this archive screen grab of the time line shows:

Manchester Victoria redevelopment timeline

Thanks for that. That's from quite an early date, 2011, before I joined this forum.

 

[Greybeard33]

There definitiely was aplan for new Platforms at Victoria from the time of the redevelopment inclding the new roof, as this archive screen grab of the time line shows:

Manchester Victoria redevelopment timeline

View attachment 111675

Looking back at the original 2010 Manchester Hub Rail Study report, I see that the Victoria platforms were indeed listed among the infrastructure interventions for the selected option:

Scheme: Manchester Victoria Bay platforms:
Scope: Provide two new six-car platforms at Manchester Victoria connected to the Up Salford near Victoria West Jn
Capability benefit: Terminal platforms for services to/from the North West. Releases capacity on the through platforms.

Edit: That timeline shows they were not planned to be completed until 2018/19, the original date for Piccadilly P15/16. So not included in the Victoria redevelopment, which was completed in 2015. I guess they must have been removed from the scope at some stage.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Edit: That timeline shows they were not planned to be completed until 2018/19, the original date for Piccadilly P15/16. So not included in the Victoria redevelopment, which was completed in 2015. I guess they must have been removed from the scope at some stage.

How near were those projected platforms to the new-build developments in the region of the former Exchange station?

 

[Greybeard33]

How near were those projected platforms to the new-build developments in the region of the former Exchange station?

On the opposite side of the layout to Exchange.

 

[Purple Orange]

If there is a platform built at the end of the arena, what would be the best position with regards to passenger flow?

The only way I can see it working is if P6 is extended towards the end of the arena and a single platform built out from that point, but would the connection not be rather narrow? Looking at maps a platform capable of taking a 6-car 331 or 195 (no point in it being much shorter than that) needs to be at least be 150m from the arena wall. A 3-car 331 is 71.4m, whereby a 4-car 331 is 94.75m (according to Wiki)

British Rail Class 331 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A platform measuring 150m from the arena wall would end across the river. If you were to draw a line down the centre of Cathedral Approach to the grass verge on the viaduct, you’d get to roughly the platform end. A 200m platform would end roughly in-line with the end of the 101 Embankment office building.

 

[Pinus contorta]

If there is a platform built at the end of the arena, what would be the best position with regards to passenger flow?

The only way I can see it working is if P6 is extended towards the end of the arena and a single platform built out from that point, but would the connection not be rather narrow? Looking at maps a platform capable of taking a 6-car 331 or 195 (no point in it being much shorter than that) needs to be at least be 150m from the arena wall. A 3-car 331 is 71.4m, whereby a 4-car 331 is 94.75m (according to Wiki)

British Rail Class 331 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A platform measuring 150m from the arena wall would end across the river. If you were to draw a line down the centre of Cathedral Approach to the grass verge on the viaduct, you’d get to roughly the platform end. A 200m platform would end roughly in-line with the end of the 101 Embankment office building.

I think one of the reasons there's available 'space' at the throat end of the station where you highlight the new platform could be ending is because originally they had to squeeze a turntable in right next to the Irwell bridge near there.

I compared todays view to photos taken from a plane before the 1990's demolition and the position of platforms 12 to 16 shows just how much land was lost to the arena.

Slightly off thread , but reading the background to the redevelopment, it's hugely ironic the City Council was the one pushing the downsizing of the station. But 30 years later it is the railway ( and the passengers )suffering the consequences.

 

[317 forever]

A little more clarity on the £84m Manchester investments from the Railway Gazette:
https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/g...nchester-rail-blueprint-emerges/61160.article


As ever, it's a confusing mix of real work (mainly platform extensions) and funding for further rounds of design work on future enhancements (if they are taken up).
There's also some shuffling of future priorities, and the CLC and Rochdale electrifications come into this category.

The article referring to the 323s coming to enable more 6-car workings indicates that this will be the reason for their cascade to Northern, rather than class 319 replacement.

 

[jonesy3001]

The article referring to the 323s coming to enable more 6-car workings indicates that this will be the reason for their cascade to Northern, rather than class 319 replacement.

Is that all or just the 17 that are transferring, unable to subscribe to read the full article.

 

[317 forever]

Is that all or just the 17 that are transferring, unable to subscribe to read the full article.

I'm not certain. I just went with what was quoted in post #133, although this article was a bit limited.

 

[WatcherZero]

If there is a platform built at the end of the arena, what would be the best position with regards to passenger flow?

The only way I can see it working is if P6 is extended towards the end of the arena and a single platform built out from that point, but would the connection not be rather narrow? Looking at maps a platform capable of taking a 6-car 331 or 195 (no point in it being much shorter than that) needs to be at least be 150m from the arena wall. A 3-car 331 is 71.4m, whereby a 4-car 331 is 94.75m (according to Wiki)

British Rail Class 331 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A platform measuring 150m from the arena wall would end across the river. If you were to draw a line down the centre of Cathedral Approach to the grass verge on the viaduct, you’d get to roughly the platform end. A 200m platform would end roughly in-line with the end of the 101 Embankment office building.

Platform 6, particularly around the bottom of the stairs is already highly congested, would be dangerous to add more footfall.
I think a better solution would be a new covered passenger bridge to it at the end of platform 3 as that platforms far less congested and it wouldnt add more pressure to the existing 4-6 bridge.

Could be worth having a minor station entrances/exit from the new platforms as well to stop people having to walk all the way through the station.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could be worth having a minor station entrances/exit from the new platforms as well to stop people having to walk all the way through the station.

Was there once not such a minor station exit on the old platform 16, leading out onto Bridge Street opposite Boddington's Brewery?

 

[Purple Orange]

Platform 6, particularly around the bottom of the stairs is already highly congested, would be dangerous to add more footfall.
I think a better solution would be a new covered passenger bridge to it at the end of platform 3 as that platforms far less congested and it wouldnt add more pressure to the existing 4-6 bridge.

Could be worth having a minor station entrances/exit from the new platforms as well to stop people having to walk all the way through the station.

Yes, that would be a better solution. Cottoning on to @Xenophon PCDGS comment about an entrance on to Bridge Street, given that Manchester is rather bereft of west facing terminal platforms, surely it would be better to build 2-3 new bays across the whole of the unused viaduct with a northern entrance facing towards Strangeways. There is a lot planned for that side of the city and another entrance would be useful. Victoria will of course feel disjointed, but I don’t think we’ll ever get away from that.

 

[Pinus contorta]

Was there once not such a minor station exit on the old platform 16, leading out onto Bridge Street opposite Boddington's Brewery?

I think there was an entrance off P16 yes. But it was only open Monday to Friday , if memory serves me correctly. As I only used to visit the station on weekends (prior to the station redevelopment) I never used it.

 

[cle]

It would be great to increase the walking catchment at Victoria - caveat being that it should be very visible and easy. Given the longstanding aversion/ignorance to Victoria. Even though it would be closer to Salford Central.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, that would be a better solution. Cottoning on to @Xenophon PCDGS comment about an entrance on to Bridge Street, given that Manchester is rather bereft of west facing terminal platforms, surely it would be better to build 2-3 new bays across the whole of the unused viaduct with a northern entrance facing towards Strangeways. There is a lot planned for that side of the city and another entrance would be useful. Victoria will of course feel disjointed, but I don’t think we’ll ever get away from that.

Going across all three would require more work, though - in particular there's a hole that would need filling, and we don't know how strong it is given that the structure has been lopped off at the Arena.

Does anyone know exactly what is being built? It might well leave space for two more, building on the most northerly side would.

 

[Mamorin]

Platform extensions on the Bolton and Styal lines suggests that there is an intention to use 6-car 323 formations (no SDO) to replace 331s on the Blackpool - Manchester Airport services. This would enable a swap of 3-car 331s to Yorkshire in exchange for the 4-cars, as originally planned, with 6-car 331s on some Airedale/Wharfedale services to increase capacity.

If the 4-car 331s come west, they might be used on the Stoke line to increase capacity.

331/1s won’t go on Stoke services as they can’t fit in the bay at Stoke. Stoke services will remain 323 operated even if the 331/1s come west.

 

[Watershed]

331/1s won’t go on Stoke services as they can’t fit in the bay at Stoke. Stoke services will remain 323 operated even if the 331/1s come west.

There's no reason they couldn't run into the through platforms and then shunt to one of the many sidings around Stoke station (Through Siding, Up Goods, Viaduct Siding, Sideway Loop) for their layover.

 

[Mamorin]

Will there be any longer trains on the Stoke line? They were supposed to get extra services at certain stations but those extra services have failed to materialise, with trains remaining the same length.

Stoke will remain 3 car 323 operated as nothing else apart from a 319 (and that is a tight squeeze) will fit in the bay at Stoke.

All Sunday Stoke stoppers were ment to be hourly from 2017 that never happened because driver’s and gaurd’s contracts, and Northern Trains has no plans to introduce hourly Sunday stoke stopping services.

There's no reason they couldn't run into the through platforms and then shunt to one of the many sidings around Stoke station (Through Siding, Up Goods, Viaduct Siding, Sideway Loop) for their layover.

That is hell for dispatch staff and causes pathing issues with other services hence why it won’t happen.

Northern do not plan to use anything other than 3 car 323s on Stoke stoppers and there are no plans to extend the bay at Stoke to fit longer trains.

Is that all or just the 17 that are transferring, unable to subscribe to read the full article.

If more than just the 17 units set to transfer than I’d expected that to be reported on other railway news sites and in Railway magazines.

Since there has been no change to the plans reported else where it’s safe to say that only 17 323 sets are to transfer.

 

[Purple Orange]

All Sunday Stoke stoppers were ment to be hourly from 2017 that never happened because driver’s and gaurd’s contracts, and Northern Trains has no plans to introduce hourly Sunday stoke stopping services.

That is absolutely pathetic. It infuriates me that a proper service can’t be introduced as a result of something like this. No wonder people get in their cars.

 

[Watershed]

That is hell for dispatch staff

Exactly this kind of procedure happens all over the Northern network, at stations including Hazel Grove, Hexham, New Mills Central, Adwick, Preston, Morpeth, Warrington Central & Bank Quay, Horsforth, Alderley Edge, Metrocentre, Crewe, Chathill, Clitheroe and Ribblehead. Plus at Oxford Road on a Sunday morning, not to mention the vast majority of other operators also do it.

It's nothing new and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Yes, training and a defined method of operation may be required, but it's really not the end of the world and it certainly wouldn't be a roadblock if that were the way things were heading.

and causes pathing issues with other services hence why it won’t happen.

With respect, Stoke is not that busy. You've got 2tph Avanti, 1tph EMR, WMT, XC and Northern. 6 trains per hour each way in total. It really would not be insoluble, particularly given the fact that the through platforms are bidirectionally signalled.

Northern do not plan to use anything other than 3 car 323s on Stoke stoppers and there are no plans to extend the bay at Stoke to fit longer trains.

That's probably more the salient point. The 323s are well suited to the line in many respects and there is no real reason to go to the effort of replacing them with something else.

 

[PrinceBishop]

Haven’t Northern been using some 6 car 323s on some Saturday Stoke diagrams? What’s the procedure at Stoke with these?

 

[childwallblues]

Four car 331s would be more use replacing the current 319/323 operating on the LIV-MAN via Chat Moss corridor.

 

[Greybeard33]

Four car 331s would be more use replacing the current 319/323 operating on the LIV-MAN via Chat Moss corridor.

Might the 4-car 331s also be used on the Liverpool - Wigan stoppers to replace the 319s?