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

[The exile]

Deansgate currently gets closed at weekends on the run-up to Christmas because it gets “too busy” so on that logic it’d also be closed when Oxford Road is closed for two years. I wouldn’t put it past them.

But how much of that is because not everything stops there?

 

[The Planner]

People are jumping to conclusions on how all of this will pan out. Its not got a TWAO yet and once all the operators and TfGM get involved then proposals may alter when it comes to the station closure etc..

 

[daodao]

Not exactly local, so could be completely wrong, but do they really need the bay platform? If they were to add 15 and 16 at Piccadilly, surely they could easily extend those services to somewhere in or just outside of suburban Manchester like Stalybridge or Hadfield?

There is a need to provide somewhere to terminate some trains (such as the CLC stopping services) entering the Castlefield line from the west, before this line joins the main station throat at Piccadilly. There is no obvious place or capacity to terminate additional services south or east of Piccadilly. Adding platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly would be more complicated and expensive than redesigning Manchester Oxford Road on its existing footprint. The proposed Manchester Oxford Road station remodelling seems reasonable, but is no more than a proposal at this stage.

 

[jfollows]

People are jumping to conclusions on how all of this will pan out. Its not got a TWAO yet and once all the operators and TfGM get involved then proposals may alter when it comes to the station closure etc..

Actually, I don’t think people are jumping to conclusions, they’re commenting on what’s been published so far and - in some cases - hope their comments make it to the ears of the people responsible for an over-the-top gold-plated solution which won’t improve things much for passengers in the hope that some proposals get changed before being finalised.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The core idea seems to be that platform 1 is useless and there's no scope to improve it so they may as well demolish it, slew the tracks over and widen the remaining platforms.

Together with the accessibility improvements- the existing subway truly is grim- I'd say their thinking is about right on that.

The only misgiving I'd have is making platform 3 a bay platform. With the tracks being slewed and everything being resignalled anyway, surely they'd be able to sort out the overlaps to allow it to be bi-directional (as it is now). Even if in normal service you intend to use it as a west-facing bay, I'd say that if at all possible they should try and keep the flexibility.

That would be sensible, along with free travel for rail ticket holders on the tram between Deansgate and Manchester city centre.

Walk-up tickets* from Greater Manchester stations already include the tram. Extending it to all tickets will require funding from the rail operators.

(*excepting the TOC-specific tickets from Manchester Airport- don't get me started)

 

[Northerngirl]

This has got to be the most laughably poor proposition to fix the corridor that been proposed so far. Removing half the capacity just to fit trains that don't exist, and closing the entire thing for years (they say 2, but that's network rail, so it will be atleast 4), it stinks of incompetence and there's clearly no thought gone in to any of it. The only work that's needed is a better footbridge & maybe opening the 2nd bat platform

 

[jfollows]

This has got to be the most laughably poor proposition to fix the corridor that been proposed so far. Removing half the capacity just to fit trains that don't exist, and closing the entire thing for years (they say 2, but that's network rail, so it will be atleast 4), it stinks of incompetence and there's clearly no thought gone in to any of it. The only work that's needed is a better footbridge & maybe opening the 2nd bat platform

The indicative timetable is for four years from starting work to completion, with two years of station closure.
Yes, having thought about it and read all the comments here since yesterday I agree with you. A new footbridge with a lift, some work on platform 1 (which won't be simple, granted), and all would be good. But the operators get fixated on things like the reduction in number of paths because platform 5 is to one side of the station. Along with the 2018 timetable and the Ordsall Chord it's a bad idea which won't deliver much for a lot of disruption for many years.

It was my station for going home from school 1973-1980 and then my local station 1996-2008, so I'm glad it's no longer either!

 

[sjm77]

Could P1 be widened by cantilevering out over the road? It only needs to support passengers, not trains

Yes, in theory. However expect planning objections from the the owners of property on New Wakefield Street who would feel completely hemmed in with loss of daylight.

Deansgate currently gets closed at weekends on the run-up to Christmas because it gets “too busy” so on that logic it’d also be closed when Oxford Road is closed for two years. I wouldn’t put it past them.

Agreed but the alternative is that everyone from Oxford Road uses P13/14 at Piccadilly which is also a bad scenario! It would be better if all stopped using the railways.

 

[yorksrob]

Platform 1 could probably be quietly forgotten about, however losing one through and one bay for a lot of disruption seems like poor value.

 

[The Planner]

This has got to be the most laughably poor proposition to fix the corridor that been proposed so far. Removing half the capacity just to fit trains that don't exist, and closing the entire thing for years (they say 2, but that's network rail, so it will be atleast 4), it stinks of incompetence and there's clearly no thought gone in to any of it. The only work that's needed is a better footbridge & maybe opening the 2nd bat platform

Its not to fix the corridor, its about redeveloping the station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its not to fix the corridor, its about redeveloping the station.

Well, it sort of is - the central reversing platform means a terminating service doesn't cause as much disruption as it doesn't need to cross both lines to get there/back. But to do that on its own you could just use P3, so it's probably *more* about longer platforms for the forthcoming 200m TPEs.

 

[Rail Quest]

So would this mean the majority of Oxford Road users would have to use Manchester Pic P13/14 during the two years? Those platforms already suffer with what feels like chronic overcrowding at the worst of times, let along with tens of millions more users.

I don't understand why the money that will be spent on this is not best spent on two new through platforms at Piccadilly. Even if the latter scheme would be (potentially far) more costly, might it offer superior value for money?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

So would this mean the majority of Oxford Road users would have to use Manchester Pic P13/14 during the two years? Those platforms already suffer with what feels like chronic overcrowding at the worst of times, let along with tens of millions more users.

Hopefully more trains can stop at Deansgate, that'd provide some more capacity (and better tram connections).

 

[Meerkat]

Well, it sort of is - the central reversing platform means a terminating service doesn't cause as much disruption as it doesn't need to cross both lines to get there/back. But to do that on its own you could just use P3, so it's probably *more* about longer platforms for the forthcoming 200m TPEs.

How I read it is that they can’t put in the closing up signal without making these changes - that signal will presumably make quite a difference, especially if it means a following train stopping at Deansgate can get in and be loading/unloading during its wait rather than waiting outside the station and then holding things up stopping in the station.

 

[BeijingDave]

Well, it sort of is - the central reversing platform means a terminating service doesn't cause as much disruption as it doesn't need to cross both lines to get there/back. But to do that on its own you could just use P3, so it's probably *more* about longer platforms for the forthcoming 200m TPEs.

Yes, having a turnback positioned so is much better as totally removes such conflicts.

 

[Verulamius]

Why is the turn back platform only 6 carriages long but the other platforms 8? Is it lack of space?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why is the turn back platform only 6 carriages long but the other platforms 8? Is it lack of space?

Yes. The site is rather constrained and signal overlaps can be an issue.

 

[The exile]

So would this mean the majority of Oxford Road users would have to use Manchester Pic P13/14 during the two years? Those platforms already suffer with what feels like chronic overcrowding at the worst of times, let along with tens of millions more users.

I don't understand why the money that will be spent on this is not best spent on two new through platforms at Piccadilly. Even if the latter scheme would be (potentially far) more costly, might it offer superior value for money?

A little optimistic voice in the back of my head is saying “maybe that’s what this proposal is intended to make people realise”. Some hope, though!

 

[Ethano92]

If in regular running, only 3 out of 5 platforms are actually used, it would make sense to reduce the number of platforms to maximise the stations limited footprint whilst reducing conflicting moves when accessing the bay. Realistically, crew changes shouldn’t be happening here if it proves to stunt reliability and an alternative arrangement devised. A shame to see the proposals aren’t more ambitious in improving access to the station from the South. The station forecourt could also be vastly improved with wider pavements and bring the gate line outside to extend it like at Lewisham Station in London.

Without p15+16 at Piccadilly, frequencies can’t be improved much. It absolutely makes sense to ensure platforms can cope with longer trains which we will see in the near future as passengers grow. If this improves reliability, it will only further attract passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other thing it offers is wider platforms. At the moment they are a bit narrow for the numbers using the station.

 

[0161]

the existing subway truly is grim

Been using MCO for years and didn’t realise there was a subway.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Been using MCO for years and didn’t realise there was a subway.

Served by the lifts at the Piccadilly end of the station.

I have to say that I clearly have different standards of 'truly (...) grim' from @Tetchytyke: the subway is by no means lovely, but it's clean, well-lit, neatly painted and graffiti free, basically dry and not particularly smelly - it doesn't double as a urinal.

 

[0161]

Served by the lifts at the Piccadilly end of the station.

Every day is a school day, thanks!

Does it reach the pariah P1? I have more memories of catching the Liverpool stopper from P1 than the bay P5.

 

[jfollows]

Every day is a school day, thanks!

Does it reach the pariah P1? I have more memories of catching the Liverpool stopper from P1 than the bay P5.

No

 

[Class 170101]

The problem with the layout as I see it is whether or not people can be stood safely on the platforms waiting for trains and secondly removed from platforms having disembarked from trains.

I think it will also require very close signals (or ETCS) such that headways of less than 60 to 90 seconds between departure of one train and the arrival of the next, simply due to the throughput required but also due to the variety of door configurations between different train types that call at Manchester Oxford Road Station.

 

[The Planner]

The problem with the layout as I see it is whether or not people can be stood safely on the platforms waiting for trains and secondly removed from platforms having disembarked from trains.

I think it will also require very close signals (or ETCS) such that headways of less than 60 to 90 seconds between departure of one train and the arrival of the next, simply due to the throughput required but also due to the variety of door configurations between different train types that call at Manchester Oxford Road Station.

No ETCS planned down there. You can get the platform reoccupation down with the closing up signals to around 2 minutes.

 

[Dspatula]

It's a shame that removing the canopy on 2 and 3 is means English heritage are going to kill this plan because it actually looks pretty, certainly the best you're going to get with the constraints of the current site.
The bridge and canopies would be a huge improvement to passenger flow and distribution.
New platform one arrangement looks long enough that an freight stopped at signal outside Piccadilly won't sat over the grid blocking access to the new bay.
If the bi directional signalling to Trafford mentioned happens that would be an absolute god send.
Crew changes need to move anyway all the taxiing from vic is daft to begin with once the new platform is in at Salford Crescent that seems the far more logical place to do it.
Having 3 though platforms would be nice but you A drop the length of the new platform 3 under the needed 195m and B the signalling overlap would be so small that any train entering the new P2 in the up direction would effectively block down access to P3.

The place was already falling to bits when I stopped working there and a doubt it's improved since then.

From the consultation page;
Personally I quite like the new roof even if the lift being the wrong way around doesn't fill me with confidence

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

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

Its ridiculous other stations have been massively rebuilt in far less time. The industry really needs to get a grip of low long these projects takes as duration is key driver of costs not just scope.

 

[Halish Railway]

It’s ridiculous other stations have been massively rebuilt in far less time. The industry really needs to get a grip of low long these projects takes as duration is key driver of costs not just scope.

Surely working in such a densely urbanised environment and around a fully operational railway is a bit of a logistical nightmare compared to something like the mainly greenfield and brownfield Transpennine Route upgrade, where there exists the space to have huge works compounds that are easily accessible for 40 tonne delivery trucks.

The most comparable project would be the London Bridge rebuilding which whilst being much larger in scale achieved similar goals and took a similar amount of time - although there it was still possible to have half of the through platforms open and the other half closed.

 

[Class 170101]

No ETCS planned down there. You can get the platform reoccupation down with the closing up signals to around 2 minutes.

I don't think that will be enough in capacity terms effectively including a 1 minute dwell is a train every three minutes maximum in theory and probably actually worse in practise.