• 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

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,808
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
With regards freight, many years ago I was informed that freight was allowed down the steep Miles Platting Bank to Manchester Victoria, but not up the said bank.
Special needs and use banking engines or triple head them. It is or will be electrified shortly so could even use a pair of class 86s. All doable. Where this a will there is a way.
 
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
97,554
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Yet Victoria is a better located station if you’re going to Manchester, which for the vast majority is the end destination.

While it is for some of the shopping, it clearly isn't for the whole centre. If it was more convenient, the Sandgrounders wouldn't be shouting so loudly to keep their service to Castlefield.

To be fair I think it is Oxford Road that is the prized destination much more so than Picc itself.

Victoria is a dump, but so is Oxford Road (though the buildings are interesting) and Picc 13-14 probably by far the worst. Really all the Manchester stations other than the Picc main trainshed are grossly inadequate - Salford Central for instance is embarrassing, with low platforms of the kind you would expect on the Far North Line or the Conwy Valley, not a city centre station. And even the slightly fancified booking office has a leaky roof.

Edit: to be fair Salford Cen has parallels, it very much reminds me of the abject dump that is Bruxelles Chapelle.
 
Last edited:

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,973
To achieve this total recast of the layout at Manchester Oxford Road station, what time period would be required to effect the works and how major would the disruption to train services be, especially to the freight services that pass through that station?

I have no idea. Perhaps I misunderstood what @Xavi posted but what I described is the SPEED proposal.
 

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,837
Location
Southport
Victoria is a dump, but so is Oxford Road (though the buildings are interesting) and Picc 13-14 probably by far the worst. Really all the Manchester stations other than the Picc main trainshed are grossly inadequate - Salford Central for instance is embarrassing, with low platforms of the kind you would expect on the Far North Line or the Conwy Valley, not a city centre station. And even the slightly fancified booking office has a leaky roof.
I think you have those the wrong way round. The original building at Victoria is interesting with the map of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, the war memorial and the soldiers gate. I wouldn’t hesitate to blow Oxford Road since the entire station other than it’s location is of zero value and I have petitioned Historic England to have it delisted to ease demolition work.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,844
To achieve this total recast of the layout at Manchester Oxford Road station, what time period would be required to effect the works and how major would the disruption to train services be, especially to the freight services that pass through that station?
Massive, and apart from possibly long blocks between Xmas and New Year you will need access to and from Trafford Park.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
While it is for some of the shopping, it clearly isn't for the whole centre. If it was more convenient, the Sandgrounders wouldn't be shouting so loudly to keep their service to Castlefield.

To be fair I think it is Oxford Road that is the prized destination much more so than Picc itself.

Victoria is a dump, but so is Oxford Road (though the buildings are interesting) and Picc 13-14 probably by far the worst. Really all the Manchester stations other than the Picc main trainshed are grossly inadequate - Salford Central for instance is embarrassing, with low platforms of the kind you would expect on the Far North Line or the Conwy Valley, not a city centre station. And even the slightly fancified booking office has a leaky roof.

Edit: to be fair Salford Cen has parallels, it very much reminds me of the abject dump that is Bruxelles Chapelle.
Vic is better located for not just the shopping area, but also where most jobs are located (as well as better connections to Yorkshire). There needs to be more services that use Salford Central & Victoria like Oxford Rd & Piccadilly.
 

td97

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2017
Messages
1,292
Will P15-16 need to restart the whole TWAO process from the beginning?
Unlikely.

Where can I find a diagram of this SPEED option?
At this stage unlikely to be in the public domain.

Salford Central for instance is embarrassing, with low platforms
Should be fixed in December. A very complicated engineering problem, hence why it has been neglected for so long.

How does this make sense? Surely there would be more usable length on the centre platform without any taken up by buffers?
A through platform has a shorter operational length to allow for inaccurate stopping and signal sighting on both ends whereas a terminal platform only requires this on one end.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
At this stage unlikely to be in the public domain.
Well I hope it becomes so soon, so we can tell NR and the DfT how stupid reducing Oxford Road down to 2 through platforms is. All it'll do is move the issues faced by Piccadilly to Oxford Road once 15 & 16 are built.
 

childwallblues

Established Member
Joined
3 Jul 2014
Messages
2,823
Location
Liverpool, UK
Massive, and apart from possibly long blocks between Xmas and New Year you will need access to and from Trafford Park.
There was a weekend block on Trafford Park sometime around 1998-2000. We had top and tailed container trains running along the CLC to Allerton to reverse for Crewe.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,910
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
What the corridor needs is standardisation.
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).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,554
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
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).

Southport conflicts less than you would think. The way to standardise would be everything short to medium distance (less chance of accumulated delay) and operated by 3 or 6 car 195 or 331 formations to create a Northern Thameslink, which makes the Norwich the worst fit, alongside the Cleethorpes and Glasgow/Edinburgh. Southport could quite feasibly be operated by those units. The TfW is a bit borderline as it will at least be operated by CAFs.

One of the main issues with that service concept is a lack of east side destinations that don't involve crossing the formation.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
I still can’t get my head around why the CLC wasn’t wired between Manchester and Liverpool South Parkway while the Chat Moss was being done. It really made no sense whatsoever.

I’d liken it to having your whole house redecorated top to bottom but not doing one of the bedrooms. Totally bizarre and shows the contempt for the north in my opinion.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,910
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
The way to standardise would be everything short to medium distance (less chance of accumulated delay) and operated by 3 or 6 car 195 or 331 formations to create a Northern Thameslink,
I agree, although removing Sheffield services from the Castlefield corridor means that they would have to terminate at Piccadilly and reduces connectivity from Liverpool. I shall not comment further as this is not a "speculative" thread.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,844
There was a weekend block on Trafford Park sometime around 1998-2000. We had top and tailed container trains running along the CLC to Allerton to reverse for Crewe.
Not going to get a lot of length if Oxford Road is out, how many 600m + W10 trains were knocking about?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,554
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There does seem to be a huge difference between what TL and Castlefield can manage through double track with several stations.

Do Thameslink do crew changes in the core? I bet they don't. As the eastern destination is almost always Manchester Airport, the mind boggles as to why they don't just get all North West depots to sign that.

That aside the main issue is dwell times. The 700s are venerable people eaters, and 195/331s are almost as good - it is the wide doors and standbacks that do it. Having all services through Castlefield operated by these units with e.g. door positions marked on the platforms would be a huge improvement.
 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,019
Ex
However the theory behind the old proposal that remains on Shapps's desk is that two tracks are enough to feed four platforms each at Oxford Road and Piccadilly, because trains spend more time in the platforms.
Exactly. Especially with the mixed traffic on this route, lots of people with luggage etc.

Thameslink generally works with 2 platforms because there are two completely separate platforms at each station, not 1 island platform, trains are identical, flows are largely one direction in each peak, there is very little interchanging, passengers tend to be pretty familiar with what is going on and there are very long platforms and trains to soak up the crowds.

None of that is true at Castlefield and so it is essential that the extra platforms are built to provide the wriggle room that will allow the whole thing to work better.
 

Sonik

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2022
Messages
326
Location
WCML South
Thameslink generally works with 2 platforms because there are two completely separate platforms at each station, not 1 island platform, trains are identical, flows are largely one direction in each peak, there is very little interchanging, passengers tend to be pretty familiar with what is going on and there are very long platforms and trains to soak up the crowds.
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 elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,954
Location
UK
Multiple platforms just introduce additional pointwork, which increases headways and reduces throughput.
I have no idea where you get that from. The presence or absence of pointwork has no impact on headways. The issue with parallel platforms is that you need a swinging overlap to allow simultaneous arrivals and departures. Unfortunately Oxford Road's current site simply doesn't allow enough space for a sensible length of platform (for modern train lengths) with the requisite overlap.

The cheap and dirty option that is apparently being taken is to simply remove two through platforms to allow the bay to be resited more optimally, and for all platforms to be lengthened. That solves one set of problems but creates a whole lot more in the process.

Without expanding the site, all you can really do is rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic.
 

a_c_skinner

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
1,576
Do Thameslink do crew changes in the core? I bet they don't. snip ... snip

That aside the main issue is dwell times. snip... snip through Castlefield operated by these units with e.g. door positions marked on the platforms would be a huge improvement.
So actually Castlefield is able to be improved appreciably without demolishing half of the surrounding area? Better rostering and changes of units - perhaps simply more doors with more space behind them (as in same stock but longer trains) which would be better for passengers too. I do know there isn't a load of rolling stock doing nothing but any solution isn't zero cost.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,554
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
So actually Castlefield is able to be improved appreciably without demolishing half of the surrounding area? Better rostering and changes of units - perhaps simply more doors with more space behind them (as in same stock but longer trains) which would be better for passengers too. I do know there isn't a load of rolling stock doing nothing but any solution isn't zero cost.

Yes, of course it could. Thameslink and Merseyrail provide examples of how a simple, high capacity service operated using doors at thirds units and no crew changes in the core section, plus simple diagrams for easier recovery from issues, can operate a very intensive service reasonably well on a two track railway. There is still the overcrowding at Picc, though, which might in and of itself necessitate 15-16 or at least a switch to side platforms (which would also work at Liverpool Central as there is a load of unused space in the station box), though building 15-16 may be less disruptive than doing that in Castlefield's case.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,954
Location
UK
So actually Castlefield is able to be improved appreciably without demolishing half of the surrounding area? Better rostering and changes of units - perhaps simply more doors with more space behind them (as in same stock but longer trains) which would be better for passengers too. I do know there isn't a load of rolling stock doing nothing but any solution isn't zero cost.
Those changes would certainly help, but they'd come at a cost (both capital and ongoing). That has to be put against the cost of expanding Oxford Road, which in the long run is surely inevitable.
 

urbophile

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
2,059
Location
Liverpool
I wouldn’t hesitate to blow Oxford Road since the entire station other than it’s location is of zero value and I have petitioned Historic England to have it delisted to ease demolition work.
Sez you. Architecturally it's one of the best station buildings in the country. Why would demolition be an advantage? it's the south side of the station that needs expanding. The weird bay platform - no 5?- and its redundant partner could be incorporated into an extended concourse.
 

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,837
Location
Southport
Sez you. Architecturally it's one of the best station buildings in the country. Why would demolition be an advantage? it's the south side of the station that needs expanding. The weird bay platform - no 5?- and its redundant partner could be incorporated into an extended concourse.
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.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,554
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Sez you. Architecturally it's one of the best station buildings in the country. Why would demolition be an advantage? it's the south side of the station that needs expanding. The weird bay platform - no 5?- and its redundant partner could be incorporated into an extended concourse.

The building is great, but it could stand, as you say, substantial improvements in the quality of the concourse and toilets, and could do with a new wider bridge with lifts and possibly even escalators. This could I'm sure be done sympathetically to the building itself, e.g. clad it all in the dark wood used for the buildings - the present bridge is hardly pretty nor in keeping, for instance, it's just a 1960s concrete and glass monstrosity.

I'd agree that if 3 is converted to a turnback, rendering 5 redundant, it would make sense to extend the concourse out over the bays with an extension to the roof and bring in e.g. a 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.
 

Grimsby town

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2011
Messages
387
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 elsewhere.

I noticed issues with passenger flow on platform 14 a couple of weeks ago. The platform was essentially full so people were struggling to get off trains which was then causing delays to services. It doesn't help that the steps are located pretty close to the Oxford Road end of platform 13 / 14. Everybody gets sandwiched into the area the steps lead out to because the platform is narrowed by the steps further towards the Ardwick end.

I was there to catch a diverted TPE 802 service from the airport to Liverpool. I slipped around the back of the steps got on the rear vehicle and had it to myself. At Liverpool, the front two carriages looked pretty full. Looking at increasing and moving platform entrances would definitely help the platforms to cope better with demand. I imagine that would be a difficult job in itself though.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,554
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I noticed issues with passenger flow on platform 14 a couple of weeks ago. The platform was essentially full so people were struggling to get off trains which was then causing delays to services. It doesn't help that the steps are located pretty close to the Oxford Road end of platform 13 / 14. Everybody gets sandwiched into the area the steps lead out to because the platform is narrowed by the steps further towards the Ardwick end.

I did suggest upthread that it could actually make sense to swap the stopping positions on 13 and 14 over, so the present 14 would be 13 (but on the other side) and the present 13 become 14 (but again on the other side). That would allow 14 more waiting space. 13 needs far less as almost all trains go to Manchester Airport so people don't wait around, they just board the next one. There is a lot more room between the platform end and the stairs at the 13 end.

Is there any technical reason that could not be done using the mid-platform signals? (Obviously long trains would use almost the full length anyway, e.g. the 6-car Blackpools)
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,954
Location
UK
I did suggest upthread that it could actually make sense to swap the stopping positions on 13 and 14 over, so the present 14 would be 13 (but on the other side) and the present 13 become 14 (but again on the other side). That would allow 14 more waiting space. 13 needs far less as almost all trains go to Manchester Airport so people don't wait around, they just board the next one. There is a lot more room between the platform end and the stairs at the 13 end.

Is there any technical reason that could not be done using the mid-platform signals? (Obviously long trains would use almost the full length anyway, e.g. the 6-car Blackpools)
It could be done, but you would have to increase the reoccupation value for the platforms. Which would require a recast (or at best, significant changes) to the timetable in all likelihood.

The reoccupation values are hopelessly optimistic given the signal siting and modern Professional Driving Policies, so really they ought to be reviewed anyway. But nobody wants to touch it with a bargepole because of the consequences.
 

Top