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

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Interesting and more platforms could be created at Piccadilly. However, further toward Oxford Road and beyond you would be demolishing buildings (assuming a four-track set-up) and other considerations exist. The sort of city he wants to be in is a consideration even though a political consideration (that which is public is political and that which involves an other is public).

Which buildings have you in mind for demolition? On the side near the rear of the older University building, demolishing has taken place and a new structure was erected in its place.

 

[Topological]

Which buildings have you in mind for demolition? On the side near the rear of the older University building, demolishing has taken place and a new structure was erected in its place.

Actual demolition for 4-tracking is not too bad. I think it is just the building on the South side of the railway on Oxford Road near the Palace Hotel and the Charles Street Multistory that would need to go. There is still land to the north of the line between Oxford Road and Princes Street. From Princes Street to Sackville street is where the multistory needs to go. from Sackville Street to Piccadilly there is a service road to the south of the line that could be built above. Oxford Road to Deansgate could be built above Whitworth Street.

Not worth doing, but Piccadilly 15 and 16 do make sense without any 4-tracking.

 

[Killingworth]

Not worth doing, but Piccadilly 15 and 16 do make sense without any 4-tracking.

Are you suggesting 15 and 16 as east facing bay platforms that could be used for an Airport shuttle?

 

[Topological]

Are you suggesting 15 and 16 as east facing bay platforms that could be used for an Airport shuttle?

No

Just that the platforms should start from the 2 tracks at the Western end of the platforms and return to 2 tracks in the South East.

No 4-tracking was referring to anything more than the minimum to form the 4 platforms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you suggesting 15 and 16 as east facing bay platforms that could be used for an Airport shuttle?

There'd be absolutely no point in doing that because 11 and 12 are barely used anyway, particularly 12.

But if you removed the through Airport services, where are you going to send everything from 13? It's a terminus of convenience more than anything else (most trains have significant passenger turnover at Piccadilly).

 

[Topological]

There'd be absolutely no point in doing that because 11 and 12 are barely used anyway, particularly 12.

But if you removed the through Airport services, where are you going to send everything from 13? It's a terminus of convenience more than anything else (most trains have significant passenger turnover at Piccadilly).

To be fair, 11 and 12 are useless because 9 to 12 are all fed from the same single line.

However, as you rightly say, the whole point of 13/14 and later 15/16 is to focus trains towards the airport. It would take an even bigger intervention to enable sufficient termination at Piccadilly from the Castlefield corridor.

I also believe connectivity to the airport is useful for the region. Until there is a HS option, that means that Castlefield performs a very important role.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, 11 and 12 are useless because 9 to 12 are all fed from the same single line.

I have wondered in the past if it would be worth sacrificing 11 and 12 to squash in a replacement shorter 11 on a through line, which you could just about do without building any bridges etc if you took it off 13 half way along. But that's probably superceded itself as an idea now far more long trains serve 13/14 - it only really made sense when most stuff was 2-car DMUs, now hardly anything is, only really the EMR if it's short formed.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

it only really made sense when most stuff was 2-car DMUs, now hardly anything is, only really the EMR if it's short formed.

I was going to say "And TfW", but it looks like they're mostly running 3 cars (and some 5s!) through Castlefield now, I was expecting more 2 cars.

 

[Topological]

I have wondered in the past if it would be worth sacrificing 11 and 12 to squash in a replacement shorter 11 on a through line, which you could just about do without building any bridges etc if you took it off 13 half way along. But that's probably superceded itself as an idea now far more long trains serve 13/14 - it only really made sense when most stuff was 2-car DMUs, now hardly anything is, only really the EMR if it's short formed.

You could run the track parallel with 13 and place the platform for 12 on the bridge without interfering with 13. It would still be constrained by the access through 9, but could work for trains on the Stockport route.

In this vision the platform would be connected to 10 to form a V, but it could be shorter with space to make a bay 11 to the north side of the new island.

Will need some demolition of the wall (and therefore support to the roof) and it goes through the new part they built for that 13/14 lounge.

 

[HSTEd]

I have wondered in the past if it would be worth sacrificing 11 and 12 to squash in a replacement shorter 11 on a through line, which you could just about do without building any bridges etc if you took it off 13 half way along. But that's probably superceded itself as an idea now far more long trains serve 13/14 - it only really made sense when most stuff was 2-car DMUs, now hardly anything is, only really the EMR if it's short formed.

I wonder if it might be possible to sacrifice 11 and 12 and swap 13's platform to the opposite side.

That would allow you to put up fencing on the existing island and reserve it entirely for platform 14 traffic.

But I don't think you can get it long enough without ripping half the station to pieces.

I've spent many years using and staring at this corridor on Google Earth - I've come to the conclusion that PIccadilly needs a total reconstruction, almost more than Oxford Road does!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder if it might be possible to sacrifice 11 and 12 and swap 13's platform to the opposite side.

That would allow you to put up fencing on the existing island and reserve it entirely for platform 14 traffic.

But I don't think you can get it long enough without ripping half the station to pieces.

I've spent many years using and staring at this corridor on Google Earth - I've come to the conclusion that PIccadilly needs a total reconstruction, almost more than Oxford Road does!

As noted above I think cantilevering a replacement 14 off the viaduct, designed as a more open structure with fewer obstructions (and a proper windbreak at the back!) would be a more effective way of delivering that. It would probably provide most of the benefits of 15/16 without the huge cost - not the train movement benefit, but certainly the passenger flow one, and that's the main problem. A bit like Liverpool Central, where rather than the huge cost of another island I'd just change it to side platforms, requiring far less digging (and using a lot of the space in the existing box that is wasted, particularly the corners at the Hunts Cross end). After all St Pancras Low Level works just fine with its wide side platforms.

 

[Krokodil]

I was going to say "And TfW", but it looks like they're mostly running 3 cars (and some 5s!) through Castlefield now, I was expecting more 2 cars.

It's a relatively quiet time of year. Wait until it's high summer with all the holiday traffic, then the 2 car sets will be back.

 

[HSTEd]

Which buildings have you in mind for demolition? On the side near the rear of the older University building, demolishing has taken place and a new structure was erected in its place.

I used to live in the now demolished university building on the north side of the track! Many many years ago.

But I think on that section, as noted above, you would run on the south side of the existing viaduct.
You would demolish the multi story car park and continue lke that until you get much further west, I think.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you built Platforms 14-15 at Piccadilly, there would be no point 4-tracking between there and Deansgate. Everything along that route travels at the same speed, fairly slowly because the stations are so close together, and in that situation a decently signalled 2-track railway can easily cope with more than the kind of frequencies you'd want to run on that corridor. The issue is at Piccadilly station because of dwell times. And maybe a question mark over Oxford Road, where we'd hope that with the planned platform lengthening, 2 platforms would be sufficient for the non-terminating trains. Deansgate does have variable speeds because not all trains stop there, but you could solve that by just stopping everything at Deansgate.

 

[mr_jrt]

I was having a gander at the area on the NLS site the other day and spotted what appears to show a old platform 13 bypass line, presumably removed to widen the platform at some point, and the eastern end then redirected into the main shed to form the 10/11/12 access.

..and going back to grab a sample, I now have a different view, showing it once apparently had 4 tracks over 3 platforms:

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interestingly that is pretty much what I was suggesting upthread when talking about the days of 2-car DMUs when it might be more useful!

 

[jfollows]

I was having a gander at the area on the NLS site the other day and spotted what appears to show a old platform 13 bypass line, presumably removed to widen the platform at some point, and the eastern end then redirected into the main shed to form the 10/11/12 access.

..and going back to grab a sample, I now have a different view, showing it once apparently had 4 tracks over 3 platforms:
View attachment 174010

Pre-1960 layout is at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/line-pairings-on-a-4-track-railway.241547/#post-6003988

 

[YorksLad12]

I have wondered in the past if it would be worth sacrificing 11 and 12 to squash in a replacement shorter 11 on a through line, which you could just about do without building any bridges etc if you took it off 13 half way along. But that's probably superceded itself as an idea now far more long trains serve 13/14 - it only really made sense when most stuff was 2-car DMUs, now hardly anything is, only really the EMR if it's short formed.

I was having a gander at the area on the NLS site the other day and spotted what appears to show a old platform 13 bypass line, presumably removed to widen the platform at some point, and the eastern end then redirected into the main shed to form the 10/11/12 access.

..and going back to grab a sample, I now have a different view, showing it once apparently had 4 tracks over 3 platforms:
View attachment 174010

Pre-1960 layout is at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/line-pairings-on-a-4-track-railway.241547/#post-6003988

You could potentially cantilever out P13 to widen it, but having 15 & 16 might be the better option; you'd need them to replace 13 & 14 while they were reconstructed.

Wasn't the plan sitting on Grayling's desk at one point, waiting for his stamp of approval? I remember the viaduct extending south as far as the pub. Ah, what might have been... the land will probably be released for development, if it hasn't been already.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I remember the viaduct extending south as far as the pub. Ah, what might have been... the land will probably be released for development, if it hasn't been already.

Can someone remind me what is the now-approved land use of the large land area (that I have emboldened above) on which the former Mayfield railway station is just a small part thereof.

 

[Bevan Price]

As noted above I think cantilevering a replacement 14 off the viaduct, designed as a more open structure with fewer obstructions (and a proper windbreak at the back!) would be a more effective way of delivering that. It would probably provide most of the benefits of 15/16 without the huge cost - not the train movement benefit, but certainly the passenger flow one, and that's the main problem. A bit like Liverpool Central, where rather than the huge cost of another island I'd just change it to side platforms, requiring far less digging (and using a lot of the space in the existing box that is wasted, particularly the corners at the Hunts Cross end). After all St Pancras Low Level works just fine with its wide side platforms.

The advantage of Piccadilly Platforms 13/14, and Liverpool Central Platforms 1/2 being islands is that when trains need to be replatformed, passengers just cross from one side to the other. (And replatforming does happen when there is late running) Side platforms at either would cause chaos when replatforming occurred - and such platforms at Liverpool Central would be dangerously narrow, even if they were feasible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The advantage of Piccadilly Platforms 13/14, and Liverpool Central Platforms 1/2 being islands is that when trains need to be replatformed, passengers just cross from one side to the other. (And replatforming does happen when there is late running) Side platforms at either would cause chaos when replatforming occurred - and such platforms at Liverpool Central would be dangerously narrow, even if they were feasible.

Piccadilly 13/14 being flipped is VERY rare, and it would pretty much never be without any warning (i.e. you'd have a train stuck with something like a medical emergency or a failure a fair while before you had to do it). I think I've seen it once, and it resulted in wrong side running most of the way to Oxford Road for a good half hour before they had enough of a gap to flip it back so must have played hell with the timetable.

Liverpool Central might more easily end up like that but you do have the reversing siding to play with too so it can probably be avoided.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Piccadilly 13/14 being flipped is VERY rare, and it would pretty much never be without any warning (i.e. you'd have a train stuck with something like a medical emergency or a failure a fair while before you had to do it).

Well yes it's very rare NOW at Piccadilly because flipping means a train has to go into a platform that's intended for the opposite direction, and it's going to be pretty rare that that is a sensible move/wouldn't cause more problems than it solves.

But if platforms 15/16 were built so that you had two islands, one for each direction, than it would very likely become commonplace that Eastbound trains swap at short notice between 13/14 and Westbound trains between 15/16, since there would be few or no bad operational consequences of doing so, but it would help get trains back on time when one train is delayed in the platform. So I think it is very important to avoid disruption to passengers when platforms change that if the two new platforms are built, Piccadilly has the two-islands arrangement. And likewise with Liverpool Central if (as I hope) new platforms are eventually built there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well yes it's very rare NOW at Piccadilly because flipping means a train has to go into a platform that's intended for the opposite direction, and it's going to be pretty rare that that is a sensible move/wouldn't cause more problems than it solves.

But if platforms 15/16 were built so that you had two islands, one for each direction, than it would very likely become commonplace that Eastbound trains swap at short notice between 13/14 and Westbound trains between 15/16, since there would be few or no bad operational consequences of doing so, but it would help get trains back on time when one train is delayed in the platform. So I think it is very important to avoid disruption to passengers when platforms change that if the two new platforms are built, Piccadilly has the two-islands arrangement. And likewise with Liverpool Central if (as I hope) new platforms are eventually built there.

Yes, if you did build 15/16 it would probably make sense to operate it like Schiphol in that you'd show trains on the board as Island A and Island B and only put the actual platform up once you knew for definite (i.e. once the previous train had been signalled into the other one).

 

[td97]

As to be expected, the Southport line user group are horrified by this scheme, on the unfounded belief that their precious Oxford Rd service may cease to exist in the future.

the Ormskirk, Preston and Southport Travellers' Association (OPSTA), which represents West Lancashire's railway users, warns that the scheme might lead to the permanent cancellation of direct services from Southport to Manchester Piccadilly

Town could become 'a desert' due to major city centre train station plans

The Ormskirk, Preston and Southport Travellers' Association say area has been "overlooked and disregarded"

www.lancs.live

 

[pokemonsuper9]

As to be expected, the Southport line user group are horrified by this scheme, on the unfounded belief that their precious Oxford Rd service may cease to exist in the future.

Town could become 'a desert' due to major city centre train station plans

The Ormskirk, Preston and Southport Travellers' Association say area has been "overlooked and disregarded"

www.lancs.live

warns that the scheme might lead to the permanent cancellation of direct services from Southport to Manchester Piccadilly

They haven't had direct services for years!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They haven't had direct services for years!

I was under the impression that currently there were services from Southport to both Stalybridge and to Manchester Oxford Road....or does my memory play me false?

 

[plugwash]

Indeed, southport currently seems to have a roughly hourly service to oxford road from 06:05 to 21:05

Realtime Trains | Departures from Southport all day on 17/02/2025

Train information at Southport all day on 17/02/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[DynamicSpirit]

They haven't had direct services for years!

It's obviously really badly worded (OPSTA's whole statement about the Southport-Manchester services is here. And it very clearly needs some proper proof reading and fact checking). But looking beyond that, I think their fundamental concern is that they want the Southport-Oxford Road service to be restored to running through Piccadilly - but the Oxford Road plans seem to cement in the idea that trains from the West will be able to easily terminate at Oxford Road, and they are worried that means terminating the Southport service there will be become permanent. And I somewhat agree with them: I can see the rationale for NR's plans, but at the same time, I think the proposed middle terminating platform is a bit of a fudge to compensate for that there is no money to add P15/16 at Piccadilly, when really what we should be aiming for is for nothing to terminate at Oxford Road from the West - because everything should be running through at least to Piccadilly (But that requires P15/16).

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I was under the impression that currently there were services from Southport to both Stalybridge and to Manchester Oxford Road....or does my memory play me false?

That quote specifically says Manchester Piccadilly, which is after Oxford Road.
Their trains used to run beyond Oxford Road to the Airport (and sometimes to other places like Alderly Edge I think)

 

[MarkyT]

The gargantuan skew bridge over Fairfield St must have been renewed in the 1960s rebuild. From the old maps the rail alignment over the modern concrete structure looks significantly narrower overall than the original metal spans. Any additional tracks or platforms crossing Fairfield St would need a new structure alongside, as previously proposed for the extra island scheme.

Here's a 1949 aerial photo of the old station and bridges, courtesy of Britain from Above: https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EAW022001

The through platforms are around 270m in length today, much longer than any train normally using them. I suggest taking the rear part of each face out of use at opposite ends and walling off the decommissioned sections. This would effectively make both into 'side' platforms albeit still sited in the middle; crowds would be able to more safely distribute themselves across the width and seats and other facilities might be placed against the wall. The signals part way along the platforms could be used for closing up more readily without the danger of passengers attempting to leave or board the train while it waits to pull forward.

Here's a schematic. Out of use portions of platforms shown dashed.