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

[Meerkat]

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

I got the impression that the track alterations were needed to enable the closing up signal, but I’m not sure how??

 

[Halifaxlad]

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

Cant they be extended to Manchester Airport ?

The Calder Valley was supposed to have direct services at one point. If 13/14 at Man pic is the issue then perhaps investment should be poured into resolving that.

It just seems to be an awful lot of work, disruption to incorporate a central turnback!

 

[Bletchleyite]

It just seems to be an awful lot of work, disruption to incorporate a central turnback!

And longer, wider platforms. Which will be necessary when newly electrified TPE goes to 200m trains, unless you want it to just have a sparse service of Northern stoppers only like Deansgate does. If not done it might even mean some peak Blackpools not stopping if they go to 8-car.

 

[CW2]

I seem to be very much in the minority in thinking this is a well thought out and sensible scheme.
Providing longer through platforms and a centre turnback platform produces a much better layout than exists currently, especially in conjunction with wider platforms etc.
The current practice of undertaking crew changes at Oxford Road needs to cease - it is an ongoing performance liability. Hopefully closing the station to passengers for an extended period will force the relevant TOCs to make alternative (better) arrangements.
My only hesitation is the estimated timescale involving a closure for two years. That need to be reviewed.

 

[Energy]

My only hesitation is the estimated timescale involving a closure for two years. That need to be reviewed.

Remember that only the station will be closed for two years. This site is in the middle of a busy city and needs to keep the railway (mostly) open, so two years isn't bad.

 

[The Planner]

I got the impression that the track alterations were needed to enable the closing up signal, but I’m not sure how??

There will be a signal at the entrance to the platform.

 

[amahy]

To me, this scheme seems like trying to polish a turd. The Castlefield corridor has always been a massive bottleneck, and this scheme will not provide the capacity upgrades required to alleviate this. Nor will it enable the Ordsall Chord to be properly utilised. The only thing it might do, is enable operators to run slightly longer trains along the line. However, in my experience, TOCs tend towards running shorter trains more frequently, so this benefit may not be utilised by most operators.

 

[The Planner]

Cant they be extended to Manchester Airport ?

The Calder Valley was supposed to have direct services at one point. If 13/14 at Man pic is the issue then perhaps investment should be poured into resolving that.

It just seems to be an awful lot of work, disruption to incorporate a central turnback!

You have a Southport terminating at xx.15 and a Lime St terminating at xx.33. You need a 2 minute dwell at Oxford Road so the xx.15 would go at xx.17, Picc between xx.19 and xx.21, Slade Lane at xx.24. You just follow the Blackpool down to the Airport and have the TPE right behind you. There is no guarantee it fits at the airport either.
The Lime St would depart at xx.35, Piccadilly xx37 to xx39 with the Liverpool Norwich right behind it. You then have a direct clash with the Buxton service at Slade Lane and you have caught up the Piccadilly Crewe service via the Airport.

To me, this scheme seems like trying to polish a turd. The Castlefield corridor has always been a massive bottleneck, and this scheme will not provide the capacity upgrades required to alleviate this. Nor will it enable the Ordsall Chord to be properly utilised. The only thing it might do, is enable operators to run slightly longer trains along the line. However, in my experience, TOCs tend towards running shorter trains more frequently, so this benefit may not be utilised by most operators.

Its not a scheme to solve that.

 

[Krokodil]

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!

For the full Ordsall Chord service you'd need four full platforms at both stations, not just Piccadilly. That's not affordable. I've worked the route for years and know from experience that most of the delays I've racked up have been queuing to get into Oxford Road from the North.

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

What will that do to dwell times? A colleague directed a few choice words at a signaller when the bobby asked why his train was taking so long to unload - what did he expect when he sent an overlength peak train into Platform 1? Bear in mind that if 350s do end up on Blackpools their selective door system is primitive, AIUI you can only select complete units, so anything less than an eight car platform means only four coaches on. Even with an eight car unit fitted with ASDO, shuffling the contents of the front/back two coaches out of the third will waste time.

I seem to be very much in the minority in thinking this is a well thought out and sensible scheme.

In view of the limitations, yes it is. In an ideal world there would be funding to widen the viaducts and provide four full length platforms at both stations. Until then...

 

[Bald Rick]

I seem to be very much in the minority in thinking this is a well thought out and sensible scheme.
Providing longer through platforms and a centre turnback platform produces a much better layout than exists currently, especially in conjunction with wider platforms etc.
The current practice of undertaking crew changes at Oxford Road needs to cease - it is an ongoing performance liability. Hopefully closing the station to passengers for an extended period will force the relevant TOCs to make alternative (better) arrangements.
My only hesitation is the estimated timescale involving a closure for two years. That need to be reviewed.

+1

I do wonder how many of the people dismissing this proposal have actually worked on the development of multi-disciplinary rail projects, and/or have relevant professional qualifications (or experience equivalent) in signal engineering, permanent way engineering or operational planning.

 

[Geeves]

In regards to Northern crew changes at MCO they are already working on it now, its seemingly quite proactive vs the company having to be forced into it. Bolton as a crew change/PNB point has been mentioned (as one of the places) due to it already having all the facilities in advance.

 

[muz379]

I seem to be very much in the minority in thinking this is a well thought out and sensible scheme.
Providing longer through platforms and a centre turnback platform produces a much better layout than exists currently, especially in conjunction with wider platforms etc.
The current practice of undertaking crew changes at Oxford Road needs to cease - it is an ongoing performance liability. Hopefully closing the station to passengers for an extended period will force the relevant TOCs to make alternative (better) arrangements.
My only hesitation is the estimated timescale involving a closure for two years. That need to be reviewed.

+1

Regarding crew changes . I can see how Bolton or Salford Crescent (when its extra platform opens) could be used for traffic coming from that direction ,Stockport for things coming through there and thinking about future service patterns stalybridge .

Not sure about stuff coming off CLC or Chat moss though unless through stuff to the airport sees crews change there and turnback services at Oxford road are only allowed where the same crew works them in/out .

Alternatively of course moving traincrew depots in Manchester to oxford road or very close by would also see crew changes become more reliable . That being said there are crew depots at Picadilly already and changing crew there isn't permitted .

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

+1

I do wonder how many of the people dismissing this proposal have actually worked on the development of multi-disciplinary rail projects, and/or have relevant professional qualifications (or experience equivalent) in signal engineering, permanent way engineering or operational planning.

The Ordsall Chord fiasco is not exactly a good recommendation for Network Rail's expertise though is it?

 

[Geeves]

+1

Regarding crew changes . I can see how Bolton or Salford Crescent (when its extra platform opens) could be used for traffic coming from that direction ,Stockport for things coming through there and thinking about future service patterns stalybridge .

Not sure about stuff coming off CLC or Chat moss though unless through stuff to the airport sees crews change there and turnback services at Oxford road are only allowed where the same crew works them in/out .

Alternatively of course moving traincrew depots in Manchester to oxford road or very close by would also see crew changes become more reliable . That being said there are crew depots at Picadilly already and changing crew there isn't permitted .

Its only P13 and P14 where they are not allowed, of course the regular platforms are free to change seeing as they terminate there anyway, with the Liverpool stoppers you would just have rosters organise jobs to having breaks at the Liverpool end.

In regards to the chord, it was never meant to be a standalone project so I think its little unfair to say it was a fiasco. That can put at the feet of the bean counters in the government

 

[BeijingDave]

To me, this scheme seems like trying to polish a turd. The Castlefield corridor has always been a massive bottleneck, and this scheme will not provide the capacity upgrades required to alleviate this. Nor will it enable the Ordsall Chord to be properly utilised. The only thing it might do, is enable operators to run slightly longer trains along the line. However, in my experience, TOCs tend towards running shorter trains more frequently, so this benefit may not be utilised by most operators.

The shortsighted destruction of most of Victoria and concentration of trains through Oxford Road and Piccadilly didn't help at all.

 

[josh-j]

The Ordsall Chord fiasco is not exactly a good recommendation for Network Rail's expertise though is it?

In fairness to Network Rail, the chord only became a fiasco because the government of the time ripped out all the other parts of the plan that made it workable - after construction on the chord had already started.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Ordsall Chord fiasco is not exactly a good recommendation for Network Rail's expertise though is it?

Well….

In fairness to Network Rail, the chord only became a fiasco because the government of the time ripped out all the other parts of the plan that made it workable - after construction on the chord had already started.

… this.

And perhaps some lessons have been learned?

 

[YorksLad12]

And longer, wider platforms. Which will be necessary when newly electrified TPE goes to 200m trains, unless you want it to just have a sparse service of Northern stoppers only like Deansgate does. If not done it might even mean some peak Blackpools not stopping if they go to 8-car.

Two thoughts: I haven't seen it written that TPE will get 200m-long sets after TRU. Wouldn't other stations have a similar platform length issue?

And: the document (unless I've missed it) only says "six" and "eight" carriages, without specifying if these are 195s, 802s or something else.

(Apart from the two-year closure, I'm in favour btw.)

 

[HSTEd]

In fairness to Network Rail, the chord only became a fiasco because the government of the time ripped out all the other parts of the plan that made it workable - after construction on the chord had already started.

Which then raises questions about why Network Rail prioritised a section of the scheme that was essentially worthless alone.

 

[Meerkat]

There will be a signal at the entrance to the platform.

Sure , but can it only go there after the track changes?

 

[td97]

Two thoughts: I haven't seen it written that TPE will get 200m-long sets after TRU. Wouldn't other stations have a similar platform length issue?

And: the document (unless I've missed it) only says "six" and "eight" carriages, without specifying if these are 195s, 802s or something else.

(Apart from the two-year closure, I'm in favour btw.)

TRU are working towards 7x26m for TPE (182m)

 

[The Planner]

Sure , but can it only go there after the track changes?

Yes

 

[King Lazy]

I haven’t read this thread or the proposal in detail so what I’m about to say may have been covered.

Firstly, it’s only anecdotal but I’ve been driving trains through Oxford Rd for many years. I find that most days I spend longer waiting at Deansgate in the Up direction for the service ahead to depart platform 4 towards Piccadilly than I ever do for the supposedly problematic conflicting moves from platform 5. They generally depart and clear quite quickly and I can’t off the top of my head remember arriving late at my destination and blaming it on that. It’s usually other issues.

In the down direction the conflicting move doesn’t generally cause much of an issue unless it is held at Deansgate for the long freights to cross Castlefield ahead of it or when Deansgate is unusually busy.

Secondly. At present we are told not to depart Oxford Rd to Piccadilly on the up with a fault that could cause a delay on Piccadilly P13/14. Similarly faults on the down should be taken through to Oxford Rd if possible for fitters attendance.

It seems that will no longer be an option with this proposal. Bolton, Huyton or Wigan may be the nearest places where looping a train with an issue is possible without delaying following trains.

Having not examined the detail I can see any delay having more of an impact in future as a two track railway has been made far longer.

At present short trains like single 197s can be easily overtaken at Oxford Rd. This proposal would make sense if every operator was running a 6 or 8 car but at first glance it seems to remove options.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

+1

I do wonder how many of the people dismissing this proposal have actually worked on the development of multi-disciplinary rail projects, and/or have relevant professional qualifications (or experience equivalent) in signal engineering, permanent way engineering or operational planning.

I've absolutely no experience in any of those things, however I do have not insignificant experience of watching people build hospitals, schools, offices, nuclear waste handling facilities, leisure centres and large infrastructure projects which all seem to run into entirely unpredicted issues which seem fairly obvious to everyone except those managing the project.

I've seen project managers outright lie to clients, promising completion times that they know aren't achievable - in one project I was on, a PM told the client that we'd have 4000 laptops deployed within the clients agreed timescales, despite us being 5 months into the agreed project, and not yet having even received said laptops from the manufacturer... And that's before you start thinking about scope creep, delivery delays, staff shortages and a million and one other things that can go wrong!

I've no idea if this is a good plan or not - intuitively it doesn't make sense that removing platforms allows more trains through, but having read some of the comments, I can see how it makes sense to do so, but as you said, I'm not qualified to make that judgement. But I'm very sceptical that the works can be delivered in the times promised. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I guess we'll have to wait and see!

And perhaps some lessons have been learned?

In government? Unlikely, I'd expect.

 

[Krokodil]

I find that most days I spend longer waiting at Deansgate in the Up direction for the service ahead to depart platform 4 towards Piccadilly than I ever do for the supposedly problematic conflicting moves from platform 5

I find myself waiting in both directions. Usually a southbound TPE (punctual as they are) goes into P4, causing the stopper in P5 to have to wait for the sixth coach to clear the points before it has a path out. If/when the Norwich-Liverpool it follows is a few minutes late then that really throws a spanner in the works. The signaller really needs trains in both directions to be punctual in order to path the stopper out of the bay without fuss. That doesn't happen as often as it should.

The other aspect is that without the conflicting move you gain a path, which would allow the Warrington Central stoppers to go back to half-hourly.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Which then raises questions about why Network Rail prioritised a section of the scheme that was essentially worthless alone.

Not convinced it was Network Rail who prioritised it. They are in no way blameless at all and should have pushed back, but it was the funding providers who prioritised it as far as I am aware.

 

[yorksrob]

I find myself waiting in both directions. Usually a southbound TPE (punctual as they are) goes into P4, causing the stopper in P5 to have to wait for the sixth coach to clear the points before it has a path out. If/when the Norwich-Liverpool it follows is a few minutes late then that really throws a spanner in the works. The signaller really needs trains in both directions to be punctual in order to path the stopper out of the bay without fuss. That doesn't happen as often as it should.

The other aspect is that without the conflicting move you gain a path, which would allow the Warrington Central stoppers to go back to half-hourly.

Is there a reason why the stopper doesn't use 3 more routinely ?

 

[Krokodil]

Is there a reason why the stopper doesn't use 3 more routinely ?

Presumably the overlaps. After arriving in 3 you have to wait for them to time out before the route for the following train can be set into 4. No such issue in platform 5. If 3 gets turned into a bay platform then it likewise will cease to be an issue. With the current track layout, 3 has the same conflicts at the north end as 5 does.

 

[yorksrob]

Presumably the overlaps. After arriving in 3 you have to wait for them to time out before the route for the following train can be set into 4. No such issue in platform 5. If 3 gets turned into a bay platform then it likewise will cease to be an issue. With the current track layout, 3 has the same conflicts at the north end as 5 does.

Thanks, that is interesting. I had no idea that a train leaving 3 Northwards would still impede trains entering 4 (If I'm understanding you correctly).

 

[jfollows]

Thanks, that is interesting. I had no idea that a train leaving 3 Northwards would still impede trains entering 4 (If I'm understanding you correctly).

I posted a diagram of the current layout in post 20 above.

Can people refer to “up” or “towards Piccadilly” direction rather than “north“ or “south” because I think of the station as being on an east-west axis? “down” or “towards Deansgate” similarly. Or maybe it’s just me?