• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Manchester & North West Transformation Programme

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
I agree. I remain unconvinced that the rail planners have fully grasped that what is needed primarily is not necessarily more infrastructure but a more rational use of the existing infrastructure on the Castlefield corridor. However, the recommended electrification of the CLC line to Liverpool will help. Facing down special interest lobbies (e.g. from Southport) is also desirable, where their aims conflict with the best use of current infrastructure (thinking of you @Bletchleyite and @507020).
I doubt its the Planners that have got in the way, but the politics of the situation of who wants to go where. Effectively the most convenient solution would be one that sees the fewest amount of conflicting moves at critical junctions, like Slade Lane and of West of Oxford Road.

It is becoming clear to me that Platforms 15/16 is sitting on Shapps desk or already filed away quietly in the hope it will disappear into the long grass never to be found again.

Reference your comment about CLC Electrification can that be done without feeder stations and therefore using existing ones from adjoining / adjacent routes or does it rely on a new being built, that will cost.

They are the two services that won’t be removed from the corridor, whether people like it or not.

Cutting off the Lake District from the nearest airport? That would down well in what was a Lib Dem marginal…

Much better to remove the closer services, such as Southport.

The Cumbria services are a political necessity - cutting off a world heritage site from it's nearest airport would not be good. It's also important to remember that they form part of 4tph to Preston from the Airport - which is a perfectly reasonable proposition.

Could you run 6 cars from Manchester Airport as far as Preston / Lancaster and split for Barrow and Windermere on an hourly basis?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Could you run 6 cars from Manchester Airport as far as Preston / Lancaster and split for Barrow and Windermere on an hourly basis?

I have proposed that in the past, but have heard it suggested that it would be hard to path it at Lancaster northbound as it would block P3 for too long. (Southbound there's the option to stick it in 5 until the other half shows up).

The plan now I believe is the timetable unchanged but running as double sets. That will be luxury on the Furness Line which is rather busy these days, and at least goes back to the days of double 156s which were the best it's had in capacity terms up to now. (If a double 185 went up there half was locked out as there's no SDO).
 

NorthWestRover

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2018
Messages
1,459
decent retail/cafe offering - footfall is huge so it should wash its face, though I'm conscious there is a good independent coffee place on the approach.
Java, yes it is excellent. There is also a pizza takeaway now where the paper stand used to be. Unfortunately a Gourmet coffee shop has opened next door to Java.
 

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,835
Location
Southport
I have proposed that in the past, but have heard it suggested that it would be hard to path it at Lancaster northbound as it would block P3 for too long. (Southbound there's the option to stick it in 5 until the other half shows up).

The plan now I believe is the timetable unchanged but running as double sets. That will be luxury on the Furness Line which is rather busy these days, and at least goes back to the days of double 156s which were the best it's had in capacity terms up to now. (If a double 185 went up there half was locked out as there's no SDO).
Could my proposal of a loop at Carnforth be used northbound, with the service dividing there and the Windermere portion rejoining the WCML and then P5 at Lancaster be used southbound to avoid the Windermere portion having to foul the down line to access the platform at Carnforth?
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
Reference your comment about CLC Electrification can that be done without feeder stations and therefore using existing ones from adjoining / adjacent routes or does it rely on a new being built, that will cost.
I would be very surprised if it could. Certainly not without increasing the capacity of existing feeder stations at which point it may be cheaper to install a new one. It's not as if there's a lack of high voltage grid connections in the area though!
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
Reference your comment about CLC Electrification can that be done without feeder stations and therefore using existing ones from adjoining / adjacent routes or does it rely on a new being built, that will cost.
Certainly wouldn't be fed off the WCML, not enough hamsters in the wheel as it is.
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,019
There is loads of interchange on Thameslink, including plenty of passengers with luggage and irregular users - it does after all connect several major termini, plus Gatwick and Luton airports.

What's true of any high density metro style operation is that it's the pedestrian flows at and around the platform that are the key bottleneck. Note how much is invested in London in deeper platforms and enhanced pedestrian interchange e.g. recent improvements at Bank, KXSP, Faringdon, etc. None of these schemes effectively involved provision of additional tracks or platforms (albeit some were replacements) it's all about improving pedestrian space and circulation. Multiple platforms just introduce additional pointwork, which increases headways and reduces throughput.

IMO there is no practical reason why a selection of similar schemes in Manchester could not achieve similar results. The only real difference is the freight flows and many of these these could be rerouted away from the city centre with some moderate interventions
How? I don’t understand why people keep saying this. It’s just awful rotting wood. The footbridge is a disgrace. Rather than attempting expansion at the south side, the track could be slewed over the footprint of P5/6 AND the building to provide increased platform space and a more suitable building built in what space is left.

There are some glorious original station buildings which have survived in this country as well as equally interesting modern ones. With the exception of Euston which is probably the worst London terminus architecturally, some of the WCML electrification stations from the same era as Oxford Road have significantly more architectural value as well as continuing to provide a good passenger experience.
Agree with this. Whilst it is sort of interesting, in that it is fairly unique, it is not exactly amazing and it certainly isn’t an example of interesting because it works well as a station.

I would delist it in a heartbeat to knock down the concourse and properly remodel with 4 very good through platforms. A new concourse could then be built further down the largely underused approach road. It really doesn’t need to be anything fancy. It is not a destination station and doesn’t need to be.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I would delist it in a heartbeat to knock down the concourse and properly remodel with 4 very good through platforms. A new concourse could then be built further down the largely underused approach road. It really doesn’t need to be anything fancy. It is not a destination station and doesn’t need to be.
Would the fairly steep upward slope of the approach road pose any problems to your new concourse? Do any of the "free buses" still use that approach road?
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,019
Would the fairly steep upward slope of the approach road pose any problems to your new concourse? Do any of the "free buses" still use that approach road?
Interesting passive aggressive tone.

I doubt it is beyond the capabilities of modern man to work with the incline by flattening out a section. All that is really needed is a gate line and a small ticket office. With the original concourse gone you could then find some space for some better toilets somewhere.

The free buses can be catered for either with stops at the bottom of the incline or a turning circle further down if there is space.

Neither of these things should be in any way a show stopper to creating a fit for purpose station.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Could my proposal of a loop at Carnforth be used northbound, with the service dividing there and the Windermere portion rejoining the WCML and then P5 at Lancaster be used southbound to avoid the Windermere portion having to foul the down line to access the platform at Carnforth?

Expensive I guess. Other option would be to split/join at Preston instead.
 

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,835
Location
Southport
Agree with this. Whilst it is sort of interesting, in that it is fairly unique, it is not exactly amazing and it certainly isn’t an example of interesting because it works well as a station.

I would delist it in a heartbeat to knock down the concourse and properly remodel with 4 very good through platforms. A new concourse could then be built further down the largely underused approach road. It really doesn’t need to be anything fancy. It is not a destination station and doesn’t need to be.
I’m sure you mean 4 very good through platforms AND a much needed centre turnback. What the station has in its favour is that it’s extremely well cited for the University of Manchester, much of the city centre and many bus connections. As far as that it’s a destination, but of the local kind not needing a massively grand station.
Would the fairly steep upward slope of the approach road pose any problems to your new concourse? Do any of the "free buses" still use that approach road?
The very steep uphill slope to the station and equally steep slippery stairs on the other side pose yet another accessibility issue. If the concourse extended all the way to street level, you could have a wide gateline at the bottom, with escalators and a lift up to platform level, with plentiful passenger information and toilets etc. You only have to look at the Crossrail stations for the kind of architecture, facilities and ingenious design that is needed for the central Manchester stations. You could use a diagonal incline lift as at Liverpool Street, or a more conventional lift with disabled access straight to the footbridge from street level.
Expensive I guess. Other option would be to split/join at Preston instead.
I’m assuming a single track northbound only curve from the Bentham line back onto the WCML with no crossovers would be the cheapest.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
The very steep uphill slope to the station and equally steep slippery stairs on the other side pose yet another accessibility issue. If the concourse extended all the way to street level, you could have a wide gateline at the bottom, with escalators and a lift up to platform level, with plentiful passenger information and toilets etc. You only have to look at the Crossrail stations for the kind of architecture, facilities and ingenious design that is needed for the central Manchester stations. You could use a diagonal incline lift as at Liverpool Street, or a more conventional lift with disabled access straight to the footbridge from street level.
Unfortunately, there will be considerable costs inbuilt into such well-meaning aspirations stated above, which would not be financially noticed in the Land of Crossrail, but would certainly attract the attention of those holding such project purse-strings in Manchester. Do you ever wonder why the platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly has spent the length of time it has in certain Ministerial offices gathering the proverbial dust?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I’m sure you mean 4 very good through platforms AND a much needed centre turnback

There's physically not room for that unless you bridged the whole thing over Whitworth St lengthways. The Platform 1 side has buildings right up to it so you can't expand that side.

Sorry, looked at a map, it's further over than I thought. It would still be difficult to widen the through platform section without taking a chunk out of the hotel on the opposite side of Oxford Road or having a very tightly curved platform which wouldn't be allowed.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
There's physically not room for that unless you bridged the whole thing over Whitworth St lengthways. The Platform 1 side has buildings right up to it so you can't expand that side.
We should all be aware of the particular land stability problems in the area of Manchester Oxford Road railway station that are the reason why laminated structural timber instead of heavier products was used at the time of the last major station upgrading there, when considering new options.
 
Last edited:

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
The presumably now cancelled plan was for four extended through platforms with a diamond crossover to the west and appropriate overlaps to allow both centre platforms to be used as turnbacks.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The presumably now cancelled plan was for four extended through platforms with a diamond crossover to the west and appropriate overlaps to allow both centre platforms to be used as turnbacks.

I'm fairly sure it involved a complete rebuild to only three platforms, I think the idea was two islands with a single turnback between them. This would allow for them to be far straighter than otherwise.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
We should all be aware of the particular land stability problems in the area of Manchester Oxford Road railway station that are the reason why structural timber instead of heavier products was used at the time of the last major station upgrading there, when considering new options.
* My bolding

I thought the problem was the strength of the viaduct (which is Grade II listed - as opposed to the station itself) rather than the actual 'land'?
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
I'm fairly sure it involved a complete rebuild to only three platforms, I think the idea was two islands with a single turnback between them. This would allow for them to be far straighter than otherwise.
The plan which Grayling filed in the bin was as now two side platforms and one island with four through roads. The platforms would have been extended to take account of the required overlaps, and a diamond crossover added to the west, to allow CLC trains to turnback on the inner roads.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
I understood it to be two islands with the middle two roads as potential turnbacks. Not that it matters a great deal now.

Three (long, straight, wide, accessible, signalled) faces/roads will still be an improvement on today. Ideally nothing would terminate there, except for emergencies.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
My proclivities to use the redevelopment of North CAmpus of the University to replace Piccadilly with a huge through station on the Castlefield corridor are well known on this forum, so I won't go on about that.

But Oxford Road, with its potentially excellent bus connections, could probably become the most useful of the three main Manchester stations if it could be properly redeveloped. Priorities should be easier access to the adjacent bus stops and making sure we have enough through platforms for traffic on the corridor, anything else should be secondary.

Turnbacks just sound like they are asking for trouble to be honest.
We already have the Styal Line and Manchester airport as a sink for services coming from the west.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,673
Location
Leeds
I understood it to be two islands with the middle two roads as potential turnbacks. Not that it matters a great deal now.

Three (long, straight, wide, accessible, signalled) faces/roads will still be an improvement on today. Ideally nothing would terminate there, except for emergencies.
I'm pretty sure it was as tomuk says: under the plan in the aged TWAO application, Oxford Road would have had two side platforms and a two-sided island platform, as now but realigned and with the bay removed.

I remember the contrast between the proposed Piccadilly and Oxford Road layouts. At Piccadilly you would have been able to stand on the westbound island or on the eastbound island and wait to see which side of it your train would be on. At Oxford Road you would have needed to know which platform to go to.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I thought the problem was the strength of the viaduct (which is Grade II listed - as opposed to the station itself) rather than the actual 'land'?
Sorry for not making matters clearer in my posting. Yes, I am very much aware of the MSJ&AR viaduct problems and that the said viaduct is a listed structure, but the area of "Little Ireland" where the station was first constructed was said to have geological problems near the banks of the River Medlock.
 

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,835
Location
Southport
Would a Static Frequency Converter such that you could feed off all three phases get you more power (aka more hamsters on the wheel)?
I’d never thought of that but if you were drawing the same power from all 3 phases at the same location as you currently draw from a single phase (putting an uneven load on the grid) then you must be able to have 3x the power from the same amount of substations and grid feeds.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,673
Location
Leeds
I’d never thought of that but if you were drawing the same power from all 3 phases at the same location as you currently draw from a single phase (putting an uneven load on the grid) then you must be able to have 3x the power from the same amount of substations and grid feeds.
Aren't traditional non-SFC feeder stations connected across two phases?
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,609
Location
Nottingham
Aren't traditional non-SFC feeder stations connected across two phases?
Yes, they take their feed from two of the three phases in the high-voltage circuit. There's nothing else to connect to! But it still creates phase imbalances, and you can't take more than a fraction of the power that would be available from the HV circuit if you took all three phases equally.
 

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,835
Location
Southport
Yes, they take their feed from two of the three phases in the high-voltage circuit. There's nothing else to connect to! But it still creates phase imbalances, and you can't take more than a fraction of the power that would be available from the HV circuit if you took all three phases equally.
That is of course assuming that the grid itself has all the spare generation capacity for the railway to use more sophisticated power supply equipment.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,609
Location
Nottingham
the grid itself has all the spare generation capacity for the railway
The power used by the railway is a tiny fraction of national demand. (I think it's about 1%?) If the National Grid is that short of capacity, then keeping the railway going is the least of their worries.

But looking to the South-West of Manchester as a whole, there is going to be a huge increase in railway electric loads in the next decade or so, with HS2, NPR and CLC all (seemingly) committed to go ahead. So they are going to have to commission one or more major feeder stations in the area. I trust the various development teams are talking to each other!

Luckily there are three 400kV lines (6 circuits) connected to Carrington and Daines sub-stations, so there should be plenty of local grid capacity to tap into. (For details see https://openinframap.org/#13.58/53.42902/-2.38644)
 
Last edited:

Top