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

[YorkshireBear]

Surely they could turn in Piccadilly's terminal platforms, at the expense perhaps of a small amount of additional route knowledge?

I think they have been turned regularly in the terminal platforms before. Infact there was a scheduled evening service that did it certainly in 2016-18 period.

 

[jfollows]

I think they have been turned regularly in the terminal platforms before. Infact there was a scheduled evening service that did it certainly in 2016-18 period.

1R60 16:57 Norwich-Piccadilly 21w34 platform 2
5M60 21:37 Piccadilly-Nottingham (via Reddish & Marple)
for example, May 2017 timetable.

w - Advertised arrival time 2 minutes later

I think we've had the discussion relatively recently on a different thread that no additional "route knowledge" is required, it's all included in the first place. Glad to be corrected if my memory is faulty.

 

[Falcon1200]

I think they have been turned regularly in the terminal platforms before.

I think we've had the discussion relatively recently on a different thread that no additional "route knowledge" is required, it's all included in the first place.

Thanks for the updates.

 

[LowLevel]

All EMR drivers and guards who work to Liverpool can use Manchester Piccadilly main shed and there are trains booked to do so 7 days a week. The problem on occasion is finding a free platform to use, particularly with the 6 car trains and NR have been known to refuse ad hoc access on that basis before.

 

[infobleep]

Everything in the main building, the canopies, the two original benches on platform 2 and 3 and the circular concrete bench outside the waiting room on platform 4 are all listed. From what I was told only the main roof was supposed to go on the listing but the person who turned up to do just added the rest on. They wanted to move the concrete bench to put in the new information screen and this was rejected.
The current canopies are very poorly especially the one on platform 4 which forces everyone towards the edge most the reason why the platform takes longer to get on and off than it should.
The canopy supports on platform 2 and 3 also cause issues accessing the stairs.

Things of note, platform 1 is inaccessible in the down direction if anything longer than 4 cars is in platform 2. 4 car 331 and 195 do not fit behind the mid signal on platform 3. No train longer than 4x 20m will fit behind the mid signal on platform 4. Signals have been controlled from Manchester ROC for number of years now. Generally from as I remember it signaller would always prefer to wait and pull of both the mid and end signals for trains towards Piccadilly I assumed this was preferred practice to avoid spads.

The 4 platform plan was better but that's not something on the table, the current station isn't fit for purpose capacity is just as much about space for passengers as it is for trains, the bridge needs replacing the platforms need to be wider longer and better protected from the elements, the CLC stoppers need scope for longer trains, better a something achievable and imperfect than do nothing and wait for the perfect scheme that's never coming.

Why is the 4 platform plan not on the table? Too expensive?

I think Wimbledon could do with a second footbridge but I've never seen anything tabled. I so at times I have wondered if they are waiting for Crossrail 2. If that was the case, perhaps they would be waiting for the perfect scheme that's never coming.

 

[jfollows]

All EMR drivers and guards who work to Liverpool can use Manchester Piccadilly main shed and there are trains booked to do so 7 days a week. The problem on occasion is finding a free platform to use, particularly with the 6 car trains and NR have been known to refuse ad hoc access on that basis before.

Thanks, I see 1M82 16:56 Norwich-Piccadilly 21:35 platform 3, for example, followed by 1L20 21:41 Piccadilly-Nottingham via Reddish & Marple in the current timetable.

 

[Falcon1200]

The problem on occasion is finding a free platform to use, particularly with the 6 car trains and NR have been known to refuse ad hoc access on that basis before.

Thanks. Once Oxford Road has been remodelled however NR will have no choice but to accommodate short-turning trains at Piccadilly!

 

[rapmastaj]

The other question is which services would be able to make use of the lengthened platforms. I assume the TPE Manchester Airport to Edinburgh/Glasgow would do. How about a rejigged Ordsall Chord service such as Manchester Airport to Newcastle/York? Anything else?

 

[The Planner]

Why is the 4 platform plan not on the table? Too expensive?

I think Wimbledon could do with a second footbridge but I've never seen anything tabled. I so at times I have wondered if they are waiting for Crossrail 2. If that was the case, perhaps they would be waiting for the perfect scheme that's never coming.

You would have problems fitting 4 200m platforms and associated S&C at either end.

 

[Sheridan]

I've just read about this in the paper - reducing the number of platforms to three sounds like two through platforms (like Deansgate) and one terminus - the current P5. If that's the case I'm struggling to see how you would get more trains through and/or quicker, at least with 4 lines, a stopping train can be overtaken by a fast one for example?

I don’t think anyone’s answered this yet - the proposed bay platform isn’t the current platform 5 but will be between the two through platforms.

 

[jfollows]

I don’t think anyone’s answered this yet - the proposed bay platform isn’t the current platform 5 but will be between the two through platforms.

I think it was answered somewhere - essentially Oxford Road today is two through platforms and a bay platform, with extra platforms that get used occasionally (eg platform 1 yesterday as I happened to notice). However the existing bay platform 5 interferes/conflicts more with other services than changing it to a bay platform in the middle will do, so more trains can theoretically be operated in a given time period with the new layout. Some of this is theoretical, some of it is Network Rail gold-plating, but some of it is doubtless real.

 

[Sheridan]

I think it was answered somewhere - essentially Oxford Road today is two through platforms and a bay platform, with extra platforms that get used occasionally (eg platform 1 yesterday as I happened to notice). However the existing bay platform 5 interferes/conflicts more with other services than changing it to a bay platform in the middle will do, so more trains can theoretically be operated in a given time period with the new layout. Some of this is theoretical, some of it is Network Rail gold-plating, but some of it is doubtless real.

Yes sorry it has definitely been discussed earlier in the thread, I just wanted to point it out to the person I replied to specifically.

 

[jfollows]

I've just read about this in the paper - reducing the number of platforms to three sounds like two through platforms (like Deansgate) and one terminus - the current P5. If that's the case I'm struggling to see how you would get more trains through and/or quicker, at least with 4 lines, a stopping train can be overtaken by a fast one for example?

Overtaking stopping trains is more theory than practice today.

A few years ago I went on a morning down service which used platform 1 and was overtaken as booked by a train using platform 2; my train went on to call at Deansgate which was my destination. But platform 1 is avoided because it’s narrow and has no step-free access.
In the up direction, overlaps restrict the possible overtakes, and although it’s possible there are restrictions such as it’s only possible to overtake a 6-car train with another 6-car train if the overtaking train uses platform 4 when the overtaken train is in platform 3, the other way round is not possible.

The only real use of “overtaking” today is during disruption when trains are held up for whatever reason. It’s this flexibility which most of us have commented on, the new station will allow more trains in normal operation.

EDIT Attached from the 2017 timetable, which shows 2N55 being overtaken at Oxford Road by 1F92 (I used 2N55 myself); since the 2018 timetable pretty much nothing is now "booked" to use platform 1 apart from freight trains I don't think.

 

[mr_jrt]

You would have problems fitting 4 200m platforms and associated S&C at either end.

But NR were proposing it previously? Circa 2013, I believe.

 

[Meerkat]

All this having to be sure the train is empty before moving it to the sidings, maybe with the governments enthusiams for streamlining regulations to aid growth this could be removed. Certainly is not a requirement on the Munich u-bahn (or s-bahn I think) where people are expected to take responsibility for themselves.

How long are the turnarounds? Couldnt there be a maximum, under which it’s fine to make passengers who didn’t get off sit and wait to go back again, or is there a real risk of them letting themselves out?

 

[CdBrux]

How long are the turnarounds? Couldnt there be a maximum, under which it’s fine to make passengers who didn’t get off sit and wait to go back again, or is there a real risk of them letting themselves out?

on the u-bahn I use the most the doors close again at the terminal station less than 1 minute after opening (and several announcements to get off).

 

[The Planner]

But NR were proposing it previously? Circa 2013, I believe.

View attachment 173420

View attachment 173418

View attachment 173419

A lot changes in 12 years.

 

[Verulamius]

If the relocation of the Trafford freight terminal to parkside goes ahead this would remove freight from the line and thus effectively eliminate any requirement for overtaking moves at Oxford Road.

 

[The Planner]

If the relocation of the Trafford freight terminal to parkside goes ahead this would remove freight from the line and thus effectively eliminate any requirement for overtaking moves at Oxford Road.

Is it actually a relocation? I haven't seen anything that says the entirity of Trafford Park is going.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Coincidentally, there is an article in the 'Manchester Ev. News' today, about a 'possible' relocation to allow for a new MUFC Old Trafford stadium. Ratcliffe, of course, wants public money to help do so.

MUFC

Manchester United's plans for a new 100,000 seater stadium will have to overcome a major logistical hurdle. The club aims to use land next to its ageing Old Trafford home.

The site is currently used as a huge rail freight terminal. But the operator, Freightliner, has indicated it would be willing to relocate it from Trafford Park to Parkside East in St Helens.

N.B. this is 'Reach' site for those triggered by them.

 

[jfollows]

How long are the turnarounds? Couldnt there be a maximum, under which it’s fine to make passengers who didn’t get off sit and wait to go back again, or is there a real risk of them letting themselves out?

Trafford Park Reversing Line: 155 metres (170 yards)
per https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional Appendix full PDFs December 24/London North Western (North) Sectional Appendix December 2024.pdf

Longest platform at Oxford Road (platform 4) is 162m/177y.

 

[Krokodil]

Trafford Park Reversing Line: 155 metres (170 yards)
per https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional Appendix full PDFs December 24/London North Western (North) Sectional Appendix December 2024.pdf

Longest platform at Oxford Road (platform 4) is 162m/177y.

Generous enough for a six car 170 then, which seems to be the largest formation which would want a turnback in that direction.

 

[Trothy]

As a signaller who has worked Oxford Rd for a long time, this seems like an awful lot of work for some very questionable benefits.

As has been discussed, the removal of overtaking possibilities at Oxford Rd, and creation of a much longer two track railway seems like a retrograde step. Though with the advent of longer trains (in particular the 4 car 331 services which won't fit to the mid platform signals at Oxford Rd) the overtaking opportunities are now a lot less frequent anyway

During times of disruption (especially towards Manchester Airport) the use of Platforms 1 and 3 at Oxford Road to essentially create two additional Deansgate facing bay platforms allows some semblance of a service to be maintained without too much terminating short miles away from Manchester. Obviously the contingency plans for all different types of disruption will need to be revisited and rewritten to account for the lack of flexibility this new layout will have.

It feels like money has been allocated to this project but not enough to do the kind of upgrade that would be truly beneficial and only provide a genuine improvement (the original Northern Hub plan including obviously 15/16 at Piccadilly) so we have been left with this "hopefully it'll make things better" solution.

 

[slipdigby]

Surely they could turn in Piccadilly's terminal platforms, at the expense perhaps of a small amount of additional route knowledge?

All EMR drivers and guards who work to Liverpool can use Manchester Piccadilly main shed and there are trains booked to do so 7 days a week. The problem on occasion is finding a free platform to use, particularly with the 6 car trains and NR have been known to refuse ad hoc access on that basis before.

This. Basically the issue is finding a platform in the shed on an ad hoc basis that doesn't muck everything else up. Hence spin back south/east at Sheffield.

Is it actually a relocation? I haven't seen anything that says the entirity of Trafford Park is going.

You're correct, the "plan" is just for Freightliner to bail on Trafford Park. Not seen anything about Maritime or the Euro terminal going, which rather undermines some of the more excited political prolix about released capacity on Castlefield.

 

[cle]

It does feel like three through platforms (with the middle used as a bay in normal operation - but maybe for disruption, freight, turning the other way…) would give a little more flexibility - but still enable the longer and wider needed platforms.

Equally, getting the CLC stoppers out of terminating at Oxford Road (my vote is full Met / Mersey conversation!) would solve that problem, and free up some other paths on the faster services. Chat Moss could be an option for keeping the Liverpool connections.

 

[yorksrob]

It does feel like three through platforms (with the middle used as a bay in normal operation - but maybe for disruption, freight, turning the other way…) would give a little more flexibility - but still enable the longer and wider needed platforms.

Equally, getting the CLC stoppers out of terminating at Oxford Road (my vote is full Met / Mersey conversation!) would solve that problem, and free up some other paths on the faster services. Chat Moss could be an option for keeping the Liverpool connections.

We're putting a lot of pressure on Chat Moss as the one Manc - Lpool route.

Could the CLC stoppers not just be formed into a cross-Piccadilly route ?

 

[Starmill]

The key change I'd make is that toilets need to be provided at Deansgate before Oxford Road closes. I think the current one is single occupancy and key scheme only. Most people don't have a key. It's common to see men using the platform on Saturday nights. I don't condone such behaviour but I'd be interested to know what the train operators and Network Rail expect people to do, just wet themselves?

The access to toilets might have been mentioned in the document but I can't spot it now if it was.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, its shocking that train companies feel that its acceptable to provide key toilets and not non-key toilets.

 

[Krokodil]

the removal of overtaking possibilities at Oxford Rd

As a guard who has been both the overtaking train and the overtaken one, these exercises (other than where a train was stopped waiting crew or had a fault) always seemed to create more disruption than they solved. Overtaking for regulating purposes in Oxford Road usually ended up with two late trains instead of one.

On one occasion they used the stretch past Longsight to regulate. I (the late train) was crossed over to the fast at Slade Lane to overtake and regain my booked path before crossing back to platform 14. Flaw in the plan was that the process of crossing over twice lost a few more minutes. Should have put the on-time train over and let the late one overtake it on the slows.

 

[30907]

on the u-bahn I use the most the doors close again at the terminal station less than 1 minute after opening (and several announcements to get off).

Is that before going empty to depot, or before returning in traffic?