Manchester Oxford Road Station Remodelling Scheme consultation: what do you think should happen?

[CdBrux]

Consultation opened for remodelling of Oxford Road station to relocate terminating bay platform to centre and have just 2 lengthened through platforms:

https://www.networkrailmediacentre....ans-to-improve-manchester-oxford-road-station

The consultation launched today (Monday 20 January), will consider upgrades including longer platforms, track and signalling improvements, as well as construction of a new station footbridge with lifts serving all platforms.

Outline proposals being brought forward by Network Rail include reconfiguring the platform layout, leaving a total of three platforms each capable of accommodating longer trains. The two, longer through-platforms will be able to take eight car trains, while a new turn-back platform will accommodate six car trains; an increase in capacity of two cars per platform.

Proposed track layout and signalling improvements will reduce congestion by removing conflicting train movements. Overhead line equipment will also be upgraded, as well as over 900m of new track being laid.

The remodelling scheme includes improvements to accessibility throughout the station, featuring a new footbridge with increased movement space for passengers and new lifts allowing step free access to all platforms. Wider, resurfaced platforms and improvements to existing lifts are also planned

 

[jfollows]

Network Rail publication shows:

Two long through platforms and a shorter bay platform

Full station closure 4Q2029 for two years

See https://manchesteroxfordroad.consultation.ai/assets/pdf/MORS_Technical_Consultation_Pack.pdf



The railway will remain open

The Scheme’s construction methodology has been driven by the need to
maintain an operational railway while working with the local community and
stakeholders to minimise disruption as much as feasible.
The construction of the Scheme is expected to take up to five years, with the
station closing for just over two years to allow construction to take place.
Trains will continue to run through the station during this period but will not
stop. If the TWAO and other consents are granted, construction work is
expected to begin in 2028.
The main Scheme construction milestones are listed below. These timescales
are indicative and subject to change.
• Q4 2028 – site mobilisation.
• Q2 2029 – enabling works.
• Q4 2029 – main works (station closure during this period).
• Q4 2033 – Scheme completion and entry into service

 

[185]

Just reading about this in the Manchester Evening News, focusing on a 'two year closure but trains will be able to run through'.

Manchester station to shut for two years as plans for major upgrade unveiled

Manchester's Oxford Road will remain closed while major works are underway

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

A new consultation is now under way for the planned upgrades at Oxford Road. Outline proposals, which have been brought forward by Network Rail, include reconfiguring the platform layout, leaving a total of three platforms each capable of accommodating longer trains.

The two, longer through-platforms will be able to take eight car trains, while a new turn-back platform will accommodate six car trains; an increase in capacity of two cars per platform. The proposed track layout and signalling improvements promises to reduce congestion by removing conflicting train movements.

Overhead line equipment will also be upgraded,

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Network Rail article appears not to link to the actual consultation, but the Evening News article does and it is here:

https://manchesteroxfordroad.consultation.ai/

 

[CdBrux]

The Network Rail article appears not to link to the actual consultation, but the Evening News article does and it is here:

https://manchesteroxfordroad.consultation.ai/

Thanks! I have to say I think those consultation documents are well put together.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks! I have to say I think those consultation documents are well put together.

Does seem well done, yes, explains all the points none of which I really disagree with.

I am surprised changes to the concourse are out of scope, though. It is still a bit grim, though the toilets aren't quite as awful as they once were.

 

[jfollows]

On the negative side, it halves the number of through platforms and moves the bay platform to a less convenient place for passengers.
For sure, the parallel use of up platforms 3 and 4 is heavily limited by overlaps today, and platform 1 does not have step-free access.
The new layout also makes platform swapping at the last minute less likely.

I just think that a lot of passengers will see a two year closure for what appears to be not very much.

 

[sjm77]

Personally I think it is totally stupid to have Platform 2 as a bay platform. Planning to use it as a bay platform during normal operation is one thing, but not to have some flexibility during periods of disruption is just crazy. Platform 2 should also be connected to the Eastbound and Westbound lines at the Piccadilly end of the station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I think it is totally stupid to have Platform 2 as a bay platform. Planning to use it as a bay platform during normal operation is one thing, but not to have some flexibility during periods of disruption is just crazy. Platform 2 should also be connected to the Eastbound and Westbound lines at the Piccadilly end of the station.

I seem to recall in earlier discussion this would cause issues with signalling overlaps which would prevent the through platforms being as long as they are.

 

[HSTEd]

Two year closure is an awful lot for this, isn't it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two year closure is an awful lot for this, isn't it?

Presumably it'll also mean bustitution of Warrington-Manchester stopping services for that period, and Southports to Victoria only? Nowhere else to turn either back.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

Why reduce the number of through platforms? Surely having four allows for alternating platforms in each direction when there’s disruption?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why reduce the number of through platforms? Surely having four allows for alternating platforms in each direction when there’s disruption?

Because there's not room to extend their length otherwise? Also the platforms will be wider, the narrowness of in particular 1 and 4 can be an issue.

 

[HSTEd]

Presumably it'll also mean bustitution of Warrington-Manchester stopping services for that period, and Southports to Victoria only? Nowhere else to turn either back.

It's going to make a real mess, and not just because it wrecks my personal travel habits!

I can't think of many other examples of a five million entry/exit station being outright closed for years for reconstruction though.

I get that it is probably easiest from a project management perspective, but it's going to be a real mess beyond the railway.

 

[sjm77]

Two year closure is an awful lot for this, isn't it?

Well we needed platfroms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly as that was the bottleneck (as well as the numerous flat junctions). This two year scheme is amazing because it reduces the capacity at Oxford Road so that it matches what we have at Piccadilly. Bingo! What a result.

I seem to recall in earlier discussion this would cause issues with signalling overlaps which would prevent the through platforms being as long as they are

This my be right. However who is going to run these theoretical 8 car trains the will be able to use the new longer platforms? TPEx cannot double up their 5 car trains because they would not fit at the airport. Northern are limited to 4 cars at most local stations that stopping trains use, I could go on.....
I predict we will have disruption that could benefit from an Eastbound connection from platform 2 more often that an 8 car train turns up.

 

[The Planner]

This my be right. However who is going to run these theoretical 8 car trains the will be able to use the new longer platforms? TPEx cannot double up their 5 car trains because they would not fit at the airport. Northern are limited to 4 cars at most local stations that stopping trains use, I could go on.....
I predict we will have disruption that could benefit from an Eastbound connection from platform 2 more often that an 8 car train turns up.

Airport platforms are being extended. Who is to say the local platforms won't ever be extended?

 

[bengley]

This looks like a terrible idea to me. Sure, the platforms will probably be bi-directional, but in the event of a train awaiting late running crew, it can currently sit out of the way and be worked around. This layout reduces the feasibility of that quite a bit. More platforms required, not fewer.

 

[driver9000]

The plans look very similar, if not identical, to what was proposed for Oxford Road when it was part of the Ordsall Chord scheme. The station essentially operates as a 2 through platform station now with most services using the current platforms 2 and 4 thanks to the restrictive signalling arrangements at the Piccadilly end of the station.

 

[bengley]

The plans look very similar, if not identical, to what was proposed for Oxford Road when it was part of the Ordsall Chord scheme. The station essentially operates as a 2 through platform station now with most services using the current platforms 2 and 4 thanks to the restrictive signalling arrangements at the Piccadilly end of the station.

I suppose that is true now that most trains are too long to fit in behind the first gantry.

 

[jfollows]

This looks like a terrible idea to me. Sure, the platforms will probably be bi-directional, but in the event of a train awaiting late running crew, it can currently sit out of the way and be worked around. This layout reduces the feasibility of that quite a bit. More platforms required, not fewer.

The platforms are all bi-directional today.

It's the conflicting overlaps for MP414 & MP418 which are the problem for parallel running in the up direction today. In the 1970s platform 3 was used as a "bay" platform for the CLC stoppers, because platform 5 was used for the Chester service. I think if trains can stop behind MP436/MP438 there's no conflict, but this only applies to short enough trains.

A number of months ago I had an up Alderley Edge service arrive from Southport in platform 1 during disruption, it was a bit unusual but perfectly possible.

EDIT https://www.simsig.co.uk/Wiki/Show?page=simulations:manchesterpiccadilly says:

The overlap at MP414 will not time out. This is because a train standing at this signal is foul of the line past signal MP418. Photo

So currently anything stopped in platform 4 cleared to MP414 prevents anything beyond MP438 in platform 3.
The opposite won’t be true: the overlap at MP418 will time out as normal.

 

[bengley]

The platforms are all bi-directional today.
View attachment 173133
It's the conflicting overlaps for MP414 & MP418 which are the problem for parallel running in the up direction today. In the 1970s platform 3 was used as a "bay" platform for the CLC stoppers, because platform 5 was used for the Chester service. I think if trains can stop behind MP436/MP438 there's no conflict, but this only applies to short enough trains.

A number of months ago I had an up Alderley Edge service arrive from Southport in platform 1 during disruption, it was a bit unusual but perfectly possible.

I know they're bi-di, I sign it
I just think with fewer platforms, even if they're bi-di, it's not going to be quite as flexible as it is today, albeit with the benefit of removing the conflict of the Liverpool stopper going into the bay.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably the layout change would also allow for ASDO to be used for 10-car 397 formations to call?

8 is still handy, though, particularly if Northern take the 350/2s.

 

[bunnahabhain]

The plans look very similar, if not identical, to what was proposed for Oxford Road when it was part of the Ordsall Chord scheme. The station essentially operates as a 2 through platform station now with most services using the current platforms 2 and 4 thanks to the restrictive signalling arrangements at the Piccadilly end of the station.

It does but its also very useful for when services are disrupted to hide things away in P1 or P3 as appropriate, for example the Liverpool to Sheffield services if the Hope Valley is disrupted usually get stacked in P1/P3 as well as at Stockport and in other cases Hazel Grove. Likewise services coming from the East, if there are issues going West it isn't always possible to put them into Piccadilly so services tend to be dropped into P1 with passengers advised to alight at Piccadilly.

 

[thealexweb]

Reducing the through platforms from four to two really really reduces your flexibility no? Not really acceptable.

If we’re reviving previously planned works what about Platforms 3-5 at Salford Central…

 

[yorksrob]

It does seem a lot of effort for not very much.

Surely having selective door opening would achieve the 8 carriage trains without the cost and disruption ?

 

[GordonT]

A bean counter with no particular knowledge of the station might be tempted to wonder how necessary the station is if it is dispensable for fully two years.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Having the terminating platform in the middle will probably be very useful, since trains will no longer block both lines when leaving (could this allow for another train per hour to use it?)

 

[Grimsby town]

I think the idea is fine. It reduces conflicts and allows more services on Castlefield. Even if the station was rebuilt with three or more through platforms, one would have to be used to accommodate terminating services anyway. Piccadilly 15/16 isn't going to happen and the longe term plan should be to divert most longer distance services away from the Castlefield. This is a sensible layout for the future as a local and regional station. It also allows for the TRU plan to operate 7 car class 802s or similar.

 

[td97]

but in the event of a train awaiting late running crew, it can currently sit out of the way and be worked around.

Exactly my thought. Northern's late running traincrew specials would basically halt services across the NW.

e.g.

will be delayed at Manchester Oxford Road and is expected to be 7 minutes late.
This is due to train crew being delayed by service disruption.

Clearly Northern don't construct diagrams based on (e.g.) 5% services experiencing a delay at MCO due to late running traincrew, but the reality is that is the case.
This will require a complete operational rethink wrt Northern crew changes on the Castlefield corridor.

 

[LowLevel]

In principle it's OK but it removes any ability to ditch or work around a problematic train in the area without messing about shunting at Piccadilly.

I think it will remove a lot of flexibility given how often trains are abandoned there at present.