TRANSPORT | Northern Hub - Page 2

jrb · October 6th, 2007, 07:23 PM

Review of the 2000 network statemant. Under picture. (provides details of the proposed link from Mayfield to Oxford Road, suggesting a small number of through platforms)

Aerial view of Piccadilly and Mayfield.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/nms-gmpte.pdf

danz013 · October 6th, 2007, 07:24 PM

I personally think they've got their priorities wrong... New Street and other Stations are in much more desperate need of redevelopment. Didn't they expand Piccadilly the other day? I arrived there a few weeks ago and its already extremely modern and huge.

jrb · October 6th, 2007, 07:25 PM

More updated articles on the proposal below picture.

Aerial view of Piccadilly and Mayfield.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=531669

andysimo123 · October 6th, 2007, 07:39 PM

I've just been looking at some maps and I can't see where this fly over is going to go between Piccadilly and Victoria. Anyone want to draw a map?

Irwell · October 6th, 2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andysimo123

I've just been looking at some maps and I can't see where this fly over is going to go between Piccadilly and Victoria. Anyone want to draw a map?

There would be no flyover between Piccadilly and Victoria, that would be ridiculous. The Picc-Vic line will be via Oxford Road and Salford Central stations. The flyover is to the south of Piccadilly to bring trains from Ardwick way into 13/14 which are next to the MacDonald hotel.

andysimo123 · October 6th, 2007, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irwell

There would be no flyover between Piccadilly and Victoria, that would be ridiculous. The Picc-Vic line will be via Oxford Road and Salford Central stations. The flyover is to the south of Piccadilly to bring trains from Ardwick way into 13/14 which are next to the MacDonald hotel.

"There could be a new rail link between Piccadilly and Victoria, a rail flyover south of Piccadilly to allow trains to come in from the Ardwick direction and measures to ease congestion on platforms 13 and 14 where all trains from the north must pass on two lines."

Ok then! So where the hell is this new rail link between Piccadilly and Victoria then? Unless its just so mods to the line South of Salford I can't see where its going to be built.

Irwell · October 6th, 2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andysimo123

"There could be a new rail link between Piccadilly and Victoria, a rail flyover south of Piccadilly to allow trains to come in from the Ardwick direction and measures to ease congestion on platforms 13 and 14 where all trains from the north must pass on two lines."

Ok then! So where the hell is this new rail link between Piccadilly and Victoria then? Unless its just so mods to the line South of Salford I can't see where its going to be built.

It's simply a new stretch to bring trains through from the Liverpool-Manchester line and into Victoria. I couldn't tell you exactly where they'll put it though as that's one of the things the feasibility study will look into.

Accura4Matalan · October 6th, 2007, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

It's not that I'm against this good idea, but it does seem unfair Manchester gets so much money towards transport projects while the rest of the country really suffers. It's so unfair. I mean Hamsphire and Leeds have had their cheaper tram proposals cancelled...

Lets not forget though that Manchester also had its tram scheme cancelled, but fought passionately and persistently to get it back. Leeds and Hampshire didnt.

Leeds No.1 · October 6th, 2007, 11:09 PM

Yes I agree; again, Im not against this at all. However, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield all deserve their supertrams or extensions before schemes like this are put forward. £2bn would cover the cost of 2 or 3 tram networks the size of Leeds' (28km). It wasnt that long ago that Manchester Piccadilly was refurbished. I know that this is about improving capacity, but there are priorities. As mentioned, Birmingham New Street is in much more need than perhaps any other station in the UK.

Irwell · October 6th, 2007, 11:21 PM

This is the preliminary work to prepare the rail network in Manchester so that a Northern Crossrail could be implemented. Would you rather have a couple of tram lines or Northern Crossrail?

Cherguevara · October 7th, 2007, 12:12 AM

I think that's a slight exageration.

It's a feasibility study looking into doing the necessary works to improve east-west intercity links throughout the north which could in theory be utilised by any as yet hypothetical northern Crossrail scheme.

Leeds Number 1, I suppose the logic behind funding this (if that is indeed what happens) is that it's benefits will be felt far beyond Manchester and that (I believe) it was identified as a key priority in the Eddington report.

I still don't understand how a few flyovers and a tiny bit of new viaduct is going to cost 2bn pounds.

Irwell · October 7th, 2007, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

I think that's a slight exageration.

It's a feasibility study looking into doing the necessary works to improve east-west intercity links throughout the north which could in theory be utilised by any as yet hypothetical northern Crossrail scheme.

Leeds Number 1, I suppose the logic behind funding this (if that is indeed what happens) is that it's benefits will be felt far beyond Manchester and that (I believe) it was identified as a key priority in the Eddington report.

Quite simply, without this Northern Crossrail cannot happen. The Manchester hub could not take the increase in traffic. If Northern Crossrail is to happen, this needs to happen first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

I still don't understand how a few flyovers and a tiny bit of new viaduct is going to cost 2bn pounds.

Piccadilly is getting quite a bit of investment out of it. I think 13 and 14 are going to be extended onto the free space between the station and the MacDonald hotel. The flyover will cost a fair bit too, as will the improvement works at Victoria.

Irwell · October 7th, 2007, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

Since a northern Crossrail isn't a concrete proposal it is a bit disengenuous to say that without this it will never happen, since we have little solid reason to think it will happen anyway, and don't know what form it would take if it did.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

I still think 2bn is an absurb amount of money. Not that I'm complaining if that's what it takes, but if that is what this seemingly humble project requires I'd hate to think what an actual 'Northern Crossrail' would cost.

I think you might be shocked when you see the extent of it. It sounds simple on a bit of paper, but in reality it's a very complex job and it'll basically double the possible throughput of central Manchester.

Cherguevara · October 7th, 2007, 12:36 AM

Since a northern Crossrail isn't a concrete proposal it is a bit disengenuous to say that without this it will never happen, since we have little solid reason to think it will happen anyway, and don't know what form it would take if it did.

I still think 2bn is an absurb amount of money. Not that I'm complaining if that's what it takes, but if that is what this seemingly humble project requires I'd hate to think what an actual 'Northern Crossrail' would cost.

Cherguevara · October 7th, 2007, 01:01 AM

I wish the forum could put responses in the logical sequence.

Thameslink TNG (or whatever it's called this decade) is only going to cost 5 bn, and that involves new stations, a good few flyovers and a brand new viaduct slapbang through the middle of sunny and expensive central London. We shall see.

SimonTheSoundMan · October 7th, 2007, 02:18 AM

It's only a feasibility survey guys. Central government could say "no", or "come back in 10 years". The latter is what they said 10 years ago. Brum have been told to come back Q4 2008, BNS is a totally different thing.

DNA858 · October 8th, 2007, 11:58 AM

does anyone know if the work on platforms 13/14 will include modernisation work to the actual platforms, or is just work on the track?

MikeD · October 8th, 2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andysimo123

"There could be a new rail link between Piccadilly and Victoria, a rail flyover south of Piccadilly to allow trains to come in from the Ardwick direction and measures to ease congestion on platforms 13 and 14 where all trains from the north must pass on two lines."

Ok then! So where the hell is this new rail link between Piccadilly and Victoria then? Unless its just so mods to the line South of Salford I can't see where its going to be built.

It's all in this doc. It's called the 'Ordsall Curve' (p29)

http://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/down...&page=2&skin=0

heatonparkincakes · October 8th, 2007, 02:50 PM

First up

Alowing Roger the dodger near £2bn. How many Stockholm type buses will be bought.

The election that caused Rosie Winterton to rush around isnt happened yet. Will she still love you in the morning. Will that promise be remembered in 2008

If they intend to push all the East coast to Airport traffic through Victoria and past Piccadilly, then isnt that even more trains per hour using the llines aside Whiteworth Street/Anthony Wilson Boulevard?

Does it mean all the east coast trains will go east then west

And the Liverpool/North Wales trains go east then west into piccadilly?

Is the Manchester Hub, going to be ceramic or chrome?

staticmeltdown · October 8th, 2007, 02:57 PM

The report seems to suggest a figure much lower than 2bn, as it seems to suggest recommending only one of the two proposed schemes (Ardwick flyover or Ordsall).

I think the viaduct in the city centre could probably handle a lot more traffic if these schemes went ahead, because much of the constraint on platforms 13/14 is down to trains waiting due to congested tracks and congested platforms - both of which would be addressed.

October 6th, 2007, 07:24 PM	#22
danz013 Robin Hood Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Nottingham Posts: 5,063 Likes (Received): 2	I personally think they've got their priorities wrong... New Street and other Stations are in much more desperate need of redevelopment. Didn't they expand Piccadilly the other day? I arrived there a few weeks ago and its already extremely modern and huge. __________________ New Nottingham New on development and regeneration in Nottingham Follow Me - Twitter

October 6th, 2007, 11:09 PM	#29
Leeds No.1 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Leeds, EU Posts: 22,298 Likes (Received): 102	Yes I agree; again, Im not against this at all. However, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield all deserve their supertrams or extensions before schemes like this are put forward. £2bn would cover the cost of 2 or 3 tram networks the size of Leeds' (28km). It wasnt that long ago that Manchester Piccadilly was refurbished. I know that this is about improving capacity, but there are priorities. As mentioned, Birmingham New Street is in much more need than perhaps any other station in the UK. __________________ "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure, It is our light not our darkness, that frightens us"

October 7th, 2007, 02:18 AM	#36
SimonTheSoundMan Unregistered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,446 Likes (Received): 129	It's only a feasibility survey guys. Central government could say "no", or "come back in 10 years". The latter is what they said 10 years ago. Brum have been told to come back Q4 2008, BNS is a totally different thing. __________________ .

October 8th, 2007, 02:50 PM	#39
heatonparkincakes Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,028 Likes (Received): 68	Can see some problems already First up Alowing Roger the dodger near £2bn. How many Stockholm type buses will be bought. The election that caused Rosie Winterton to rush around isnt happened yet. Will she still love you in the morning. Will that promise be remembered in 2008 If they intend to push all the East coast to Airport traffic through Victoria and past Piccadilly, then isnt that even more trains per hour using the llines aside Whiteworth Street/Anthony Wilson Boulevard? Does it mean all the east coast trains will go east then west And the Liverpool/North Wales trains go east then west into piccadilly? Is the Manchester Hub, going to be ceramic or chrome?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

October 6th, 2007, 07:23 PM	#21
jrb 10th February 2008 Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Manchester Posts: 26,394 Likes (Received): 273	Review of the 2000 network statemant. Under picture. (provides details of the proposed link from Mayfield to Oxford Road, suggesting a small number of through platforms) Aerial view of Piccadilly and Mayfield. http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/nms-gmpte.pdf

October 6th, 2007, 07:25 PM	#23
jrb 10th February 2008 Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Manchester Posts: 26,394 Likes (Received): 273	More updated articles on the proposal below picture. Aerial view of Piccadilly and Mayfield. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=531669

October 6th, 2007, 07:39 PM	#24
andysimo123 wind-up merchant Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,877 Likes (Received): 8	I've just been looking at some maps and I can't see where this fly over is going to go between Piccadilly and Victoria. Anyone want to draw a map?

October 6th, 2007, 11:21 PM	#30
Irwell Registered User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Manchester Posts: 3,708 Likes (Received): 0	This is the preliminary work to prepare the rail network in Manchester so that a Northern Crossrail could be implemented. Would you rather have a couple of tram lines or Northern Crossrail?

October 7th, 2007, 12:12 AM	#31
Cherguevara Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,740 Likes (Received): 75	I think that's a slight exageration. It's a feasibility study looking into doing the necessary works to improve east-west intercity links throughout the north which could in theory be utilised by any as yet hypothetical northern Crossrail scheme. Leeds Number 1, I suppose the logic behind funding this (if that is indeed what happens) is that it's benefits will be felt far beyond Manchester and that (I believe) it was identified as a key priority in the Eddington report. I still don't understand how a few flyovers and a tiny bit of new viaduct is going to cost 2bn pounds.

October 7th, 2007, 12:36 AM	#34
Cherguevara Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,740 Likes (Received): 75	Since a northern Crossrail isn't a concrete proposal it is a bit disengenuous to say that without this it will never happen, since we have little solid reason to think it will happen anyway, and don't know what form it would take if it did. I still think 2bn is an absurb amount of money. Not that I'm complaining if that's what it takes, but if that is what this seemingly humble project requires I'd hate to think what an actual 'Northern Crossrail' would cost.

October 7th, 2007, 01:01 AM	#35
Cherguevara Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,740 Likes (Received): 75	I wish the forum could put responses in the logical sequence. Thameslink TNG (or whatever it's called this decade) is only going to cost 5 bn, and that involves new stations, a good few flyovers and a brand new viaduct slapbang through the middle of sunny and expensive central London. We shall see.

October 8th, 2007, 11:58 AM	#37
DNA858 _______/\/\__________/\/\ Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sheffs Special Posts: 217 Likes (Received): 0	does anyone know if the work on platforms 13/14 will include modernisation work to the actual platforms, or is just work on the track?

October 8th, 2007, 02:57 PM	#40
staticmeltdown Registered User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Manchester Posts: 322 Likes (Received): 0	The report seems to suggest a figure much lower than 2bn, as it seems to suggest recommending only one of the two proposed schemes (Ardwick flyover or Ordsall). I think the viaduct in the city centre could probably handle a lot more traffic if these schemes went ahead, because much of the constraint on platforms 13/14 is down to trains waiting due to congested tracks and congested platforms - both of which would be addressed.