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

[The Planner]

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.

You have trains 2 or 3 minutes apart now.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

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.

Are the canopies included in the listing? A lot of what I've seen online has been suggesting it's only the main building which is listed - although that sounds suspect to me; I'd really expect the canopies to be included.

 

[Class 170101]

You have trains 2 or 3 minutes apart now.

But extra platforms and some, although I gather perhaps not all, can be used simultaneously.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I see the proposal has divided opinion between string anti views, and some saying we'll really there isn't many other options, not much in-between.

The status quo isn't acceptable I don't think, and limiting the trains to six cars for eternity is probably one of the main driving forces. Feels like a sticking plaster and will simply transfer any problems elsewhere on the corridor. Another ordsall chord type project, which without the other pieces of the jigsaw will not make as much difference as the cost and disruption would make you hope for!

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.

Ridiculous is a bit strong don't you think?

Have you been to Manchester Oxford Road? It is surrounded on all sides by tall buildings, surrounded by busy Manchester roads and pedestrian routes and they want to keep the lines open.

If you feel strongly enough to use the word ridiculous, you must have an idea of how they would do it instead?

 

[jfollows]

Are the canopies included in the listing? A lot of what I've seen online has been suggesting it's only the main building which is listed - although that sounds suspect to me; I'd really expect the canopies to be included.

Yes, see post 35 above and section 6.5 in the document linked at the start of this thread.

 

[yorksrob]

Clearly limiting the trains to six carriages in perpetuity is unacceptable.

Perhaps a less disruptive (and costly) option could be to extend 4 over Oxford Road, giving an extra carriage length.

Close 1 and slew the west end of the track for 2 onto the former alignment for 1, which would allow the island to be extended westward by a carriage length.

This way on an 8 carriage train, only the back carriage would be off platform.

 

[The Planner]

But extra platforms and some, although I gather perhaps not all, can be used simultaneously.

No, for example 1L07 departs 0839 from P4 and 1Y55 arrives at 0841 in P4.

Clearly limiting the trains to six carriages in perpetuity is unacceptable.

Perhaps a less disruptive (and costly) option could be to extend 4 over Oxford Road, giving an extra carriage length.

Close 1 and slew the west end of the track for 2 onto the former alignment for 1, which would allow the island to be extended westward by a carriage length.

This way on an 8 carriage train, only the back carriage would be off platform.

The platforms will be nigh on 200m, so 8 x 24m will fit.

 

[D365]

This way on an 8 carriage train, only the back carriage would be off platform.

SDO (selective door opening) isn’t possible where carriages foul points or signals. This would happen with the current layout.

 

[Krokodil]

Well we needed platfroms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly as that was the bottleneck

The bottleneck is Oxford Road. All of those short overlaps and the conflicting moves from Platform 5. Piccadilly moves far smoother by comparison.

Who is to say the local platforms won't ever be extended?

Some already have been.

Could P1 be widened by cantilevering out over the road?

That won't make it any longer though. The only way to increase train lengths and have all through platforms would involve widening the viaduct. No chance of getting funding for that.

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,

It doesn't remove half of the capacity. There are currently five platforms at Oxford Road. Platform 1 has no booked trains and is only used in disruption, platform 2 is the main platform for northbound trains, platform 3 has no booked work and is only used in disruption, platform 4 is the main platform for southbound trains and platform 5 is a bay platform which generates conflicting moves. So only three platforms used routinely, one of which ties up both of the other two when trains are leaving it.

Under this scheme, platforms 2 & 4 will continue in their existing use and will be longer which will reduce dwell/reoccupancy times. Platform 3 will become the new bay platform, meaning that there are no conflicts when trains depart. The only loss is that you no longer have somewhere to recess trains during disruption. Contingency plans will have to be altered.

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.

Are you an experienced project manager or civil engineer? I think that I will defer to the experts on the subject of how quickly one can rebuild a major station on a live railway in a city centre.

The only work that's needed is a better footbridge & maybe opening the 2nd bat platform

Reopening platform 6 would make the conflict issue worse, not better.

But extra platforms and some, although I gather perhaps not all, can be used simultaneously.

Platform 5 restricts the throughput through 2 & 4. Using platform 3 instead (with the crossovers flipped) does not. That gains you a path.

 

[yorksrob]

SDO (selective door opening) isn’t possible where carriages foul points or signals. This would happen with the current layout.

Ah thanks - that perhaps explains it.

 

[Halifaxlad]

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

But why do services need to turn back at Oxford Road anyway ?

 

[The Planner]

But why do services need to turn back at Oxford Road anyway ?

Where are they going if they don't? You are adding more trains into 13/14 and where do you send them afterwards?

 

[HSTEd]

If a two year full closure is the only way to get platform lengthening, then I think accepting the platform length limit is the better option.

The closing up signals etc could presumably be delivered without a full closure during a regular resignalling.

Also nothing to stop them installing a set of buffer stops at the end of platform 3 now....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where are they going if they don't? You are adding more trains into 13/14 and where do you send them afterwards?

I believe the Piccadilly reversing siding is presently unused? However I believe there are still pathing issues, and unlike terminating in a platform you need to check the train is empty before taking it off there which would waste paths in 13/14.

If a two year full closure is the only way to get platform lengthening, then I think accepting the platform length limit is the better option.

Is it, though? Post electrification TPE will likely run 200m EMUs, including on the excessively busy Scottish services. Are you happy for it to become a station that only handles Northern services, with peak Blackpools which could go to 8.350 in time no longer calling either? It would be cut back to be served only as often as near-useless Deansgate, pretty much.

I'm not clear why a 2 year closure is necessary, though, given that it would effectively be able to be built in halves and connected up given the layout they are going with. Some closures would be necessary, and the Warrington-Manchester stopping service need to be replaced by buses due to the loss of the turnback once 5 was disconnected*, as well as the Southport going to Vic instead (which many support anyway), but a full 2 year closure?

* I do wonder if, if the concourse isn't to be extended, keeping 5 might make sense just as somewhere to dump a failed unit or one you don't have staff for, a bit like 1 is used now.

 

[The Planner]

If a two year full closure is the only way to get platform lengthening, then I think accepting the platform length limit is the better option.

The closing up signals etc could presumably be delivered without a full closure during a regular resignalling.

Also nothing to stop them installing a set of buffer stops at the end of platform 3 now....

There is no resignalling planned. If you put a buffer stop in 3 now, you would lose a significant length of the platform with over run.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Also nothing to stop them installing a set of buffer stops at the end of platform 3 now....

Would this allow a six car train in 3? (n.b. @The Planner may have answered that while I am typing this)

And if so, what extra length could be gained on 4 by closing 5 and extending platform 4 over the turnout for 5?

And given this, where would this leave the length of 2?

I'm assuming that the answers are 'no', 'not enough for eight carriages' and 'still too short for 8 carriages' as otherwise presumably that is what would have been proposed - but it would be nice to hear from someone who actually knows.

 

[HSTEd]

There is no resignalling planned. If you put a buffer stop in 3 now, you would lose a significant length of the platform with over run.

If they aren't resignalling, how will closing up signals be installed? I thought modifications like that to signalling systems were frowned upon because changing things tends to break things.

How old is the signalling regardless?
If we can install closing up signals, can we modify the signalling system to remove the unnecessary overlap?

Is it, though? Post electrification TPE will likely run 200m EMUs, including on the excessively busy Scottish services.

Are they?
It has been reported on another thread that the TPRU project is now involved in the procurement of 130m units to operate on the route.
If that is true, and obviously it might not be, then 200m operation is off the table.

200m fixed formation units seem rather... optimistic in terms of Treasury spending.

Likewise, I am skeptical 8.350 is ever going to become common on the Blackpools..... and in any case, with only two operational through platforms, proper placement of the marker boards would just allow SDO to be used.

 

[Krokodil]

If a two year full closure is the only way to get platform lengthening, then I think accepting the platform length limit is the better option.

The closing up signals etc could presumably be delivered without a full closure during a regular resignalling.

Also nothing to stop them installing a set of buffer stops at the end of platform 3 now....

You're still going to need to swap the crossovers over so that movements out of platform 3 don't conflict with arrivals in platform 4. Unless you do that you gain nothing.

* I do wonder if, if the concourse isn't to be extended, keeping 5 might make sense just as somewhere to dump a failed unit or one you don't have staff for, a bit like 1 is used now.

You can't extend platform 4 without blocking 5. Unless of course you want some sort of drawbridge arrangement...

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can't extend platform 4 without blocking 5. Unless of course you want some sort of drawbridge arrangement...

Ah, so it's a smaller Farringdon situation - fair enough. I do hope the P5/6 area could at some stage be used to develop a better concourse and retail offering, though it is specifically stated as out of scope for these plans (presumably to make getting listed building consent easier as well as cost).

 

[Krokodil]

Likewise, I am skeptical 8.350 is ever going to become common on the Blackpools..... and in any case, with only two operational through platforms, proper placement of the marker boards would just allow SDO to be used.

In the process of stopping an overlength train you'd cut off access to the bay platform.

 

[The exile]

Is it, though? Post electrification TPE will likely run 200m EMUs, including on the excessively busy Scottish services. Are you happy for it to become a station that only handles Northern services, with peak Blackpools which could go to 8.350 in time no longer calling either? It would be cut back to be served only as often as near-useless Deansgate, pretty much.

As Deansgate has been mentioned - would there be any mileage in extending its platforms to take the full length trains and moving their stops there. There’s Tram interchange at Deansgate, not at Oxford Road and those connecting to other rail services can do so at Piccadilly. Just need to ensure any terminators at Oxford Rd from the west also stop at Deansgate.

 

[AL1]

I think the consultation presentation and the accompanying technical report provide a very clear explanation as to the thinking and rationale for the proposed scheme. I can well imagine that the development has gone through many iterations in line with discussions with various TOCs, FOCs, TfGM and TfN et al. So hopefully, as an industry the proposals have broad and good support.

I am assuming that at the very least, these proposals as well as improving reliability through the Castlefield corridor would allow reinstatement of the second Warrington Central stopper, and an additional TPE service from the airport via the Ordsall Chord to Victoria and eastwards?

 

[Krokodil]

And while I remember, the other issue with doing as little as possible is that the island platform doesn't get widened. It doesn't take much for the staff to have to close off access due to crowding when disruption happens. At least the island at Piccadilly has the length to allow passengers from 14 to spill over onto 13B without impinging upon the passengers standing on 13 proper.

 

[The Planner]

If they aren't resignalling, how will closing up signals be installed? I thought modifications like that to signalling systems were frowned upon because changing things tends to break things.

How old is the signalling regardless?
If we can install closing up signals, can we modify the signalling system to remove the unnecessary overlap?

Manchester Piccadilly box opened in 1988. The interlocking is clearly is a reasonable state to allow it to be altered. The alterations required are just in the station area itself. Its also about redeveloping the station itself, not just the train aspects.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yes, see post 35 above and section 6.5 in the document linked at the start of this thread.

Thank you. Somehow missed that...

 

[Grimsby town]

And while I remember, the other issue with doing as little as possible is that the island platform doesn't get widened. It doesn't take much for the staff to have to close off access due to crowding when disruption happens. At least the island at Piccadilly has the length to allow passengers from 14 to spill over onto 13B without impinging upon the passengers standing on 13 proper.

Exactly. I've had to fight my way through crowds a few times at Oxford Road. That means longer boarding/alighting times which impacts reliability. Its also not about service specification and passenger use today, its about passenger usage and train lengths in 10 years and beyond. Given the amount of development occuring near the station, the platforms are going to have to cope with higher peak demand in the future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As Deansgate has been mentioned - would there be any mileage in extending its platforms to take the full length trains and moving their stops there. There’s Tram interchange at Deansgate, not at Oxford Road and those connecting to other rail services can do so at Piccadilly. Just need to ensure any terminators at Oxford Rd from the west also stop at Deansgate.

Oxford Road is extremely well used because of the Universities - I think downgrading it (despite the poor tram connection) would be a seriously retrograde step and unlikely to be considered aside from temporarily during this work.

 

[sjm77]

The bottleneck is Oxford Road. All of those short overlaps and the conflicting moves from Platform 5. Piccadilly moves far smoother by comparison.

Well at the time of the Ordasll Chord debacle it was stated or widely acknowledged that to run 4 tph over the chord platforms 15 and 16 were needed at Piccadilly. Now it is Oxford Road that is the main problem. There was either incompetence then or incompetence now, both scenarios cannot be true!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well at the time of the Ordasll Chord debacle it was stated or widely acknowledged that to run 4 tph over the chord platforms 15 and 16 were needed at Piccadilly. Now it is Oxford Road that is the main problem. There was either incompetence then or incompetence now, both scenarios cannot be true!

To make the best use of Ordsall you need all of it - Ordsall itself, Oxford Road *and* Picc 15/16, with crew changes and the likes moving to the latter (if they can't be removed from the corridor entirely to places like Bolton, Stockport etc and Airport services run by the same crews throughout). Anything else is a half-job, though at least the Oxford Road works are useful on their own, whereas without the other elements Ordsall was actively negative, hence why it's now close to mothballed with just one service an hour each way.

 

[HSTEd]

In the process of stopping an overlength train you'd cut off access to the bay platform.

Well not if the stop boards were positioned to put the overhang at the east end of the platform.