Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[Bletchleyite]

I guess what I am saying is that the airport services are here to stay. No major stakeholder in them or the airport has any desire to stop this being the case, and so the next thing that is needed is the proper investment that will allow both them & all the other services in the area to offer more capacity, more services & more efficiency. You can bemoan them all you like, blame them for all manner of ills, but those involved are not interested in what you might like to believe but in what solutions are needed to deliver the capacity needed, not what might be convenient for a bit. Or at least they should be!

But fundamentally the airport traffic is not and will not be anywhere near as large as the traffic to Manchester city centre. Therefore, the tail cannot be allowed to wag the dog. At present, it is being allowed to do so, and the effects are disastrous.

 

[yoyothehobo]

But fundamentally the airport traffic is not and will not be anywhere near as large as the traffic to Manchester city centre. Therefore, the tail cannot be allowed to wag the dog. At present, it is being allowed to do so, and the effects are disastrous.

You are right here, when everything used to reverse in Picadilly shed there was nearly always a big turf out of passengers from the TP route being replaced by those on a quick service to the airport and vice versa. You might as well have a split of TP services that terminate in the shed at Picadilly and those which go Vic-Ox-Pic-Air and back. You dont miss anymore stops on the way across, reduce conflicting moves and stop an entire train load of passengers trying to get on at 14.

 

[pieguyrob]

I have just signed the petition, it is at 895 signatures now.

 

[Altfish]

You are right here, when everything used to reverse in Picadilly shed there was nearly always a big turf out of passengers from the TP route being replaced by those on a quick service to the airport and vice versa. You might as well have a split of TP services that terminate in the shed at Picadilly and those which go Vic-Ox-Pic-Air and back. You dont miss anymore stops on the way across, reduce conflicting moves and stop an entire train load of passengers trying to get on at 14.

As a regular traveler from Leeds to Piccadilly/ Victoria I can assure you that the direct trains to the Airport mean a lot to travelers.
The Leeds/Manchester service is now so regular that I don't even check a timetable from Leeds, I just turn up and get on the first train.
BUT Airport passengers will wait for a direct train, often letting two trains go in front of their train

 

[swt_passenger]

Wouldn't these trains coming from the Ardwick curve have to cross the throat at some point in order to get to the airport lines?

I thought the original NR optioneering (that resulted in the Ordsall Chord) already discussed all the theoretical alternatives involving a possible Ardwick curve in great detail? So yes, it was definitely considered, before being ruled out.

 

[Sceptre]

Hasn't the TWAO sat on Grayling's desk for over three years by now?

I don't think a petition is going to help him miraculously find the paperwork, but I've signed it anyway.

 

[Bantamzen]

But fundamentally the airport traffic is not and will not be anywhere near as large as the traffic to Manchester city centre. Therefore, the tail cannot be allowed to wag the dog. At present, it is being allowed to do so, and the effects are disastrous.

No it won't, however over a billion has been invested in the airport upgrade which is designed to increase passenger traffic by 40+% if I recall correctly. And as it grows, it's economic importance to Greater Manchester grows, it will create more jobs for the area, encourage business, tourism and so on. This is why I say the stakeholders are fully invested in having better long distance links to it, because that helps grow the airport's value.

You've got to think the bigger picture.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it won't, however over a billion has been invested in the airport upgrade which is designed to increase passenger traffic by 40+% if I recall correctly. And as it grows, it's economic importance to Greater Manchester grows, it will create more jobs for the area, encourage business, tourism and so on. This is why I say the stakeholders are fully invested in having better long distance links to it, because that helps grow the airport's value.

You've got to think the bigger picture.

I am doing. You simply cannot aim to grow traffic when you cannot adequately serve existing traffic. That is just wrong in every possible way.

I'm fine with it being a long-term strategy, but NOT until the infrastructure is ready.

 

[Bantamzen]

I am doing. You simply cannot aim to grow traffic when you cannot adequately serve existing traffic. That is just wrong in every possible way.

I'm fine with it being a long-term strategy, but NOT until the infrastructure is ready.

Well you can thank an erratic central government for that. Greater Manchester, and it's airport have long had aspirations to grow and all the upgrades along the Castlefield corridor were a part of that. That the idiots that are Grayling and Co did a U-turn mid-project is irrelevant as far as the airport growth is concerned. That is well under way, and capacity is increasing all the time as are passenger flows. The airport needs better connectivity, because more people than ever are using it. There's simply no getting away from it, everyone angry at the direct services are angry at the wrong thing. All the planned upgrades should have gone ahead, and you should be angry at the Minister in charge of not delivering them all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All the planned upgrades should have gone ahead, and you should be angry at the Minister in charge of not delivering them all.

And I am, but the point is that as that has not been delivered we need a rethink. It simply cannot be left as it is. The North presently has a barely usable rail network, and a key reason for it (other than the gross incompetence of Arriva) is the Castlefield debacle.

 

[Bantamzen]

And I am, but the point is that as that has not been delivered we need a rethink. It simply cannot be left as it is. The North presently has a barely usable rail network, and a key reason for it (other than the gross incompetence of Arriva) is the Castlefield debacle.

You can't rethink an airport upgrade that is well under way, indeed the first new pier at T2 opened not too long ago. The flows are happening now, and they can't be ignored and neither can the wider economic benefits that the area has invested in. What this should highlight is the need to push through the rest of the upgrades to aid the growing demand.

 

[RWill35396]

My personal belief is that P15-16 needs to be built at some point, BUT, before then the many issues around the railway in Manchester, as set out in previous posts needs to be dealt with. I see nothing wrong with a regular Piccadilly to Airport shuttle along the lines of the many airport to city shuttles around the world. Changing trains in Manchester would be a minor inconvenience if there was a guaranteed regular 24-hour shuttle, I for one, wouldn't mind at all if I knew that I could hop onto the shuttle and not have to wait an inordinate amount of time.

 

[Howardh]

My personal belief is that P15-16 needs to be built at some point, BUT, before then the many issues around the railway in Manchester, as set out in previous posts needs to be dealt with. I see nothing wrong with a regular Piccadilly to Airport shuttle along the lines of the many airport to city shuttles around the world. Changing trains in Manchester would be a minor inconvenience if there was a guaranteed regular 24-hour shuttle, I for one, wouldn't mind at all if I knew that I could hop onto the shuttle and not have to wait an inordinate amount of time.

A job for the old Mayfield (is that what it was called?) station - reopened to serve dedicated airport trains with a moving walkway from Piccadilly itself. But if my suggestion of building a new curve at Ardwick and going over the old line could take some trains from the east and north east away from Manchester altogether so pax from Middlesborough, Leeds, York etc going to the airport have their own direct service, frees up a little more capacity around Manchester and anyone on those trains wanting to go to Piccadilly or Victoria instead could change at Stalybridge.

 

[MarkRedon]

It is not a minor inconvenience to be forced into a change at Piccadilly. I shall shortly arrive at MAN with 40 kg luggage after two years' work overseas. My final destination is Hull, perhaps the biggest Northern centre without through airport trains. I shall favour changing at Leeds over Piccadilly. To change at Piccadilly is daunting on good days - long walk from 13/14 to a main shed Hull train - and potentially dangerous on a bad one, with overcrowded platforms. I shall make myself unpopular as I stagger off the train into an already nervous crowd on the platform!

My partner, who travels overseas frequently for work, chooses Humberside Schiphol routing by air despite it being more expensive, more restricted in choice and often overall longer because of long layovers at AMS. She recognises the additional environmental damage of depending on Humberside <-> AMS short-haul flights but distrusts the railway's ability to get her to Ringway on time. When receiving overseas visitors, she advises them to avoid routing via MAN in favour of LHR - hardly a showcase for investment in the North.

I think we all agree that a number of infrastructure upgrades are now seriously overdue. 15/16 should already be underway. Grayling is a disgrace, and an inept DfT hides behind him.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A job for the old Mayfield (is that what it was called?) station - reopened to serve dedicated airport trains with a moving walkway from Piccadilly itself.

Platform 11 or 12 would do.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It is not a minor inconvenience to be forced into a change at Piccadilly. I shall shortly arrive at MAN with 40 kg luggage after two years' work overseas. My final destination is Hull, perhaps the biggest Northern centre without through airport trains. I shall favour changing at Leeds over Piccadilly. To change at Piccadilly is daunting on good days - long walk from 13/14 to a main shed Hull train - and potentially dangerous on a bad one, with overcrowded platforms. I shall make myself unpopular as I stagger off the train into an already nervous crowd on the platform!

My partner, who travels overseas frequently for work, chooses Humberside Schiphol routing by air despite it being more expensive, more restricted in choice and often overall longer because of long layovers at AMS. She recognises the additional environmental damage of depending on Humberside <-> AMS short-haul flights but distrusts the railway's ability to get her to Ringway on time. When receiving overseas visitors, she advises them to avoid routing via MAN in favour of LHR - hardly a showcase for investment in the North.

I think we all agree that a number of infrastructure upgrades are now seriously overdue. 15/16 should already be underway. Grayling is a disgrace, and an inept DfT hides behind him.

You'd be better off changing at Huddersfield, An almost-guaranteed same-platform change there.

 

[MarkRedon]

You'd be better off changing at Huddersfield, An almost-guaranteed same-platform change there.

True, and thanks for the reminder! You're a good ambassador for Huddersfield...

 

[cle]

The attitude of waiting until breaking point before acting on anything, and doing the bare minimum is shocking. It's like something very recent in Westminster... shocking Little Englander stuff. Same with the zero sum - "well we shouldn't do X because we also need to do Y". Combative.

Just build the platforms. Invest and be ready, for once. Even if other capacity improvements are due, having them will bring immediate benefits in terms of dwells and crowding. Today. At today's critical busyness. Alternate side pathing, as at Reading GW fasts, works really well and has made services much more reliable, even before the heightened timetable comes into play. But Reading is ready - and Old Oak Common is envisaged to have the same pairs set-up. So clearly it's best practice now.

If a platform was surplus to requirements on one side (eg. 15) - it could be used to turn airport shuttles or other services. Or for recovery - or freight. It would be useful. Oxford Road is exactly the same.

 

[Bevan Price]

In my opinion, Piccadilly P.15 & 16 are pointless unless you could widen the viaducts and have 4 tracks all the way to Castlefield and Ordsall Lane Jn. In the evening peak, dwell times at Oxford Road are probably worse than at Piccadilly, as people try to board trains that are already well loaded. Then, you get checked before Deansgate, whilst a preceding train is trying to gather even more passengers, or you get stopped in Deansgate station whilst a train from the CLC line goes towards Oxford Road.

Heading towards Piccadilly from the Chat Moss line, you regularly get delayed by one or more trains at Ordsall Lane or Castlefield Jns, or at Deansgate station. Just a few minutes delay to one train can create near chaos for a while.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I'd sign the petition but I don't know where it is

 

[Chester1]

Somewhere is likely to lose its Manchester Airport service in December. There is only sufficient capacity for TPEs new longer trains to run to the Airport if they have a 10 minute layover because they require full rather than half occupancy of a platform. There is little scope to expand the Airport station therefore thats it. My concern with Platform 15 and 16 is it will require every Northern service than runs through Stockport to use it rather than terminate and start at Piccadilly. A flyover at Ardwick to link to 13 and 14 was estimated at twice the cost of the Ordsall Chord, which rules out services from Glossop, Marple or New Mills. I think we should sort of the other bottlenecks e.g. grade seperate Ordsall Lane Junction (and if possible Castlefield Junction) and improve Oxford Road before building 15 and 16.

The attitude of waiting until breaking point before acting on anything, and doing the bare minimum is shocking. It's like something very recent in Westminster... shocking Little Englander stuff. Same with the zero sum - "well we shouldn't do X because we also need to do Y". Combative.

Just build the platforms. Invest and be ready, for once. Even if other capacity improvements are due, having them will bring immediate benefits in terms of dwells and crowding. Today. At today's critical busyness. Alternate side pathing, as at Reading GW fasts, works really well and has made services much more reliable, even before the heightened timetable comes into play. But Reading is ready - and Old Oak Common is envisaged to have the same pairs set-up. So clearly it's best practice now.

If a platform was surplus to requirements on one side (eg. 15) - it could be used to turn airport shuttles or other services. Or for recovery - or freight. It would be useful. Oxford Road is exactly the same.

If 15 and 16 are built there will be 16tph through 13-16 very quickly. There is absolutely no chance they will be built just to make the timetable reliable. There are too many flat junctions in the surrounding area to run 16tph through Castlefield corridor and it won't work well.

In my opinion, Piccadilly P.15 & 16 are pointless unless you could widen the viaducts and have 4 tracks all the way to Castlefield and Ordsall Lane Jn. In the evening peak, dwell times at Oxford Road are probably worse than at Piccadilly, as people try to board trains that are already well loaded. Then, you get checked before Deansgate, whilst a preceding train is trying to gather even more passengers, or you get stopped in Deansgate station whilst a train from the CLC line goes towards Oxford Road.

Heading towards Piccadilly from the Chat Moss line, you regularly get delayed by one or more trains at Ordsall Lane or Castlefield Jns, or at Deansgate station. Just a few minutes delay to one train can create near chaos for a while.

The big problem with Oxford Road is the lack of a lift to platform 1 and it's short length. Platform 2 during the evening peak is at least as bad as Piccadilly 13 and 14. Other members have explained that sorting out platform 1 is too expensive to do without redeveloping the whole station including major structural works, which is why the station has not been redeveloped in phases. I don't think 4 tracking the whole corridor is necessary to support 16tph because that would not resolve the real problem of nearby slow flat junctions, an hourly freight train and Deansgate station. Once these problems have been reduced then 15 and 16 should be built.

 

[Jozhua]

I'd sign the petition but I don't know where it is

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232155

 

[Mogster]

I thought there was supposed to be an announcement surrounding the Picadilly and Oxford Road rail project soon.

If the plug is being pulled on 15&16 I’ll be interested to see exactly what it’s going to be replaced with, doing nothing really isn’t acceptable. As a daily peak time Castlefield corridor user it seems almost impossible for any service to run on time.

 

[Chester1]

I thought there was supposed to be an announcement surrounding the Picadilly and Oxford Road rail project soon.

If the plug is being pulled on 15&16 I’ll be interested to see exactly what it’s going to be replaced with, doing nothing really isn’t acceptable. As a daily peak time Castlefield corridor user it seems almost impossible for any service to run on time.

The review is supposed to be completed this summer. Rail and Modern Railways both reported the expectation that it would conclude that it was the only valid option for increasing capacity. If the goal becomes reliability the other options might be recommended.

I think there is some merit to rebuilding Deansgate-Castlefield tram stop into an interchange. There is enough space on the viaduct for a 4 track approach, 2 Railway platforms, 2 through Metrolink platforms and 1 bay Metrolink platform. Unfortunately the cost of restoring the viaduct that hasn't been used for 50 years would probably be prohibitive. Removing the CLC stoppers from the Castlefield corridor would help reliability, it would also enable the closure of Deansgate Station and Oxford Road platform 5 (allowing 1-4 to be extended). Bolton services would lose the easy interchange with Metrolink. However, If 11 through + 2 terminating services became 12 through to Piccadilly and half of westbound trains used Oxford Road platform 1 then reliability would be improved.

 

[_toommm_]

A sticker seems to have appeared on the TVMs at Heald Green this evening...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Removing the CLC stoppers from the Castlefield corridor would help reliability

They aren't what I'd lop, though I think they should be run with suitably performant units so they get out of the way of fasts - Class 195 would be ideal with their mechanical gearboxes. Or even better get the wires up.

If 15/16 is dropped I can't see any sensible option other than making it Thameslink-esque - run long local services only using Class 319/769/new EMUs (8 car formations only, splitting and joining elsewhere if necessary) and everything else either goes to Vic or terminates in the main trainshed. Both Thameslink and Merseyrail are capable of operating 2 minute headways without problems - only having lots of capacity, doors at thirds and in standardised places works at that kind of frequency.

 

[daodao]

They aren't what I'd lop, though I think they should be run with suitably performant units so they get out of the way of fasts - Class 195 would be ideal with their mechanical gearboxes. Or even better get the wires up.

The CLC trains via Warrington have had to go onto the South Junction line since Central station closed, but the stopping services can terminate in the bay (P5) at Oxford Rd. I agree that it would help if this busy line was electrified, and it shouldn't be complicated as both ends are already wired. It is the Standedge line trains that shouldn't be using the South Junction line as they can enter Piccadilly from the east.

If 15/16 is dropped I can't see any sensible option other than making it Thameslink-esque - run long local services only using Class 319/769/new EMUs (8 car formations only, splitting and joining elsewhere if necessary) and everything else either goes to Vic or terminates in the main trainshed. Both Thameslink and Merseyrail are capable of operating 2 minute headways without problems - only having lots of capacity, doors at thirds and in standardised places works at that kind of frequency.

This is the best way to maximise efficient use of the South Junction line, although I suspect that 6 car trains would be the effective maximum train length. It would also be preferable if most of the trains using the line are electric ones, although that would not currently be possible for trains from the CLC line or the ex L&Y line via Rochdale. The long-distance Scottish trains and those from York and beyond should not be using this route.

 

[Jozhua]

I'd say for now, any trains that terminate/begin at 13/14 should terminate at Platform 5 at Oxford Road as there is no point taking up valuable time on the platform if no through service is provided. Oxford Road and Piccadilly are well connected and a transfer if needed is easy enough to make.

Even removing 1 train per hour would help give a little bit more reliability, especially because the trains which terminate need to be thoroughly checked by staff to ensure no-one is still on-board, adding to the dwell times significantly.

 

[daodao]

I'd say for now, any trains that terminate/begin at 13/14 should terminate at Platform 5 at Oxford Road as there is no point taking up valuable time on the platform if no through service is provided. Oxford Road and Piccadilly are well connected and a transfer if needed is easy enough to make.

Even removing 1 train per hour would help give a little bit more reliability, especially because the trains which terminate need to be thoroughly checked by staff to ensure no-one is still on-board, adding to the dwell times significantly.

I agree, but the only such trains should be the local stopping services (2/hour) from the CLC Warrington line, which have nowhere else to terminate. In particular, as there are other trains from Chester and Warrington to Piccadilly, all services from Chester & Warrington BQ should go to Victoria.

 

[Sir_Sheep]

A sticker seems to have appeared on the TVMs at Heald Green this evening...

View attachment 62478

There’s one on platform 13, too.