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

[Trothy]

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.

Are you talking about overtaking in the Down direction?

This very rarely happens in normal running at Oxford Rd unless there is going to be a known wait for train crew.

The most common overtakes are in the Up direction, usually to bring a late airport express back in front of an all stops airport. You're right in that it usually puts a little extra time into what was an ontime all stops airport but overall delay is definitely reduced.

Piccadilly expect Oxford Rd to do the regulating accordingly for services on the towards the airport as the delays incurred in doing so at Longsight are much more likely to impart delays to other services.

 

[Krokodil]

Are you talking about overtaking in the Down direction?

This very rarely happens in normal running at Oxford Rd unless there is going to be a known wait for train crew.

The most common overtakes are in the Up direction, usually to bring a late airport express back in front of an all stops airport. You're right in that it usually puts a little extra time into what was an ontime all stops airport but overall delay is definitely reduced.

Piccadilly expect Oxford Rd to do the regulating accordingly for services on the towards the airport as the delays incurred in doing so at Longsight are much more likely to impart delays to other services.

The first paragraph was for Up direction moves, I've seen it between two Airport expresses with one intermediate stop each (and the one allowed to go ahead was the one with a longer turnaround). By the time that the overtaking train had arrived at Oxford Road and opened its doors the other could have been through Piccadilly. The late-runner probably wouldn't have seen a yellow.

The Longsight one was on the Down, and was on an occasion where the overtake hadn't been done on the inbound journey and was clearly a last ditch to get them back in order before they ended up on Chat Moss. In hindsight it would almost certainly have been better to hold the stopper at the Airport and let them depart there in booked order so that the express wasn't staggering past yellow signals through the five stops.

 

[Trothy]

The first paragraph was for Up direction moves, I've seen it between two Airport expresses with one intermediate stop each (and the one allowed to go ahead was the one with a longer turnaround). By the time that the overtaking train had arrived at Oxford Road and opened its doors the other could have been through Piccadilly. The late-runner probably wouldn't have seen a yellow.

Depends which intermediate stops, if I have a train stopping at Gatley vs one stopping at East Didsbury I'm always going to endeavour to get the East Didsbury train away first all things being equal. I'm also going to look at potential dwell time at Piccadilly.

I'm also certainly going to try and get any express service in front of an all stops service.

There is usually a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't when you try and regulate.

 

[Class 170101]

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.

Extra Platform about to start construction on the upside at Salford Crescent

This further raises the question: what will happen to the CLC stoppers during the two year closures if they can't terminate anywhere aside from Oxford Road? Has this problem been clarified by the documents and announcements released thus far?

It seems to have been kept very quiet, but unless they keep P5 available on its own until the last minute then there seems little option bar two years of buses, unless they can find a way to path it through to Piccadilly reversing siding just for those two years.

Or maybe divert something else to Victoria to allow the space for the CLC service to run through beyond Manchester Piccadilly?

 

[daodao]

Or maybe divert something else to Victoria to allow the space for the CLC service to run through beyond Manchester Piccadilly?

Deleted.

 

[Class 170101]

One change that should be implemented as soon as possible is to remove all Southport/Wigan services from the Castlefield line and run them all to/through Victoria.

Perhaps yes, but we have been here before with that one and it wasn't popular

 

[sjm77]

Could they use Manchester United FC Halt as a glorified siding?

The reversing siding is a better option to avoid disruption to freight

I don't fancy the chances of the bus maintaining a 3 minute journey time between Flixton and Irlam

Haha, I had to use an emergency rail replacement bus many years ago from Birchwood to Manchester when the line was closed by flooding. It took over 2 hours by the time it had called at atll the stops. I wish I'd shelled out for a taxi tbh

Although of course that ends up with (for example) EMR pulling late running Norwich-Liverpools at Sheffield as there's nowhere further west to turn them

Northern run 6 car 331s on some occasions into the reversing siding near Old Trafford on a Sunday morning so this would be an option. Also if 'only' 50 minutes late then a reversal at Warrington Central is also an option too and is used by TPEx on occasion. As others have already stated Eccles is a possibility too.

 

[slipdigby]

Northern run 6 car 331s on some occasions into the reversing siding near Old Trafford on a Sunday morning so this would be an option. Also if 'only' 50 minutes late then a reversal at Warrington Central is also an option too and is used by TPEx on occasion. As others have already stated Eccles is a possibility too.

What happens on Sunday mornings isn't really indicative of what can be relied upon to be delivered Mon-Sat. I suspect the FOCs would get very upset if you were dumping 2x158s.in their glorified headshunt every time an EMR presents 30 odd mis late at Slade Lane

 

[sjm77]

What happens on Sunday mornings isn't really indicative of what can be relied upon to be delivered Mon-Sat. I suspect the FOCs would get very upset if you were dumping 2x158s.in their glorified headshunt every time an EMR presents 30 odd mis late at Slade Lane

What FOCs use the reversing siding on the South side of the railway line? I think you may have mis-understood!

 

[stephen rp]

Having the terminating platform in the middle will probably be very useful, since trains will no longer block both lines when leaving (could this allow for another train per hour to use it?)

I can't see it makes much difference. Up train arrives in platform 4 now, down train leaves platform 5 and is clear of the junction before the up train has finished getting passengers off and on. And without having passengers cross a bridge.

Limited to 4 cars though.

Overall, leaving two through platforms really does not sound like a cure for "perturbed" services.

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?

That takes them across the throat at Piccadilly.

Electrify the CLC and you could (e.g.) combine the Liverpool-Warrington-Oxford Road with the Piccadilly-Airport-Crewe service.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Slightly off topic but would closing Deansgate permanently help or hinder things with the new planned layout? I have often wondered are two stations with in a stones throw of each other really needed?

 

[Topological]

Deansgate - Oxford Road - Piccadilly shares many properties of the Thameslink core. However, the services using the line do not have the neat splits of Thameslink. Arguably there is a three-way split to the west (CLC, Chat Moss, Salford Crescent) and a similar split to the East (Airport, Stockport, Ashburys*). The trains can stay in order through the "core" and so additional platforms are not needed.

The CLC terminators complicate the picture slightly, so the central bay at Oxford Road will help.

Given all the development around Deansgate, I cannot see how closing the station would be beneficial.

There is a longer-term need to ensure all stock operating through the Castlefield corridor has the acceleration necessary to bring operations more in line with the Thameslink core. More services are electrified, but more lines need doing.

 

[Howardh]

Slightly off topic but would closing Deansgate permanently help or hinder things with the new planned layout? I have often wondered are two stations with in a stones throw of each other really needed?

Good point, in December Deansgate is often closed due to congestion, Xmas markets etc, so when Oxford Road closes Deansgate is an obvious alternative yet these closures are proof it can't handle huge crowds?

Therefore both could be closed at some point!

 

[plugwash]

(Airport, Stockport, Ashburys*).

Nowdays most trains from 13/14 go to the airport, with 2TPH via stockport and none (other than a daily ECS) to ashburys. You used to get a bunch of trains from Liverpool to Leeds via Ashburys but nowadays those trains run via victoria instead.

 

[Halish Railway]

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 ?

I’d be inclined to avoid cross city running where possible as the Castlefield Corridor is just one of many performance liabilities in Greater Manchester that could be encountered be such a service. Certainly a solution that would remove freight from Castlefield would be much more beneficial to either through-running or Metrolinking of the CLC stopping services.

Through-running of the Oxford Road to Southport service would be a different story as there is at least the service from Victoria to fall back onto in the event of disruption, as well as that service group not sharing all of its route with limited stop long distance service.

I do think there are plenty of ways to adjust the calling patterns of the CLC routes to improve performance on the Castlefield Corridor, but providing the ability for these services to be worked by 6 carriage trains with SDO and removing a conflict for trains departing Oxford Road as part of this scheme is certainly a step in the right direction.

 

[Topological]

Nowdays most trains from 13/14 go to the airport, with 2TPH via stockport and none (other than a daily ECS) to ashburys. You used to get a bunch of trains from Liverpool to Leeds via Ashburys but nowadays those trains run via victoria instead.

Good point. I was routing the TPE Cleethorpes that way for some reason. Do all the Hazel Grove trains start in the main shed now? There used to be through workings to Blackpool.

The Castlefield corridor should run much smoother than it used to, which supports the new Oxford Road design.

 

[plugwash]

There is one Nottingham to Liverpool service that stops at Hazel Grove, but other than that all trains from Hazel Grove to Manchester and vice-versa use the main shed.

 

[yorksrob]

I’d be inclined to avoid cross city running where possible as the Castlefield Corridor is just one of many performance liabilities in Greater Manchester that could be encountered be such a service. Certainly a solution that would remove freight from Castlefield would be much more beneficial to either through-running or Metrolinking of the CLC stopping services.

Through-running of the Oxford Road to Southport service would be a different story as there is at least the service from Victoria to fall back onto in the event of disruption, as well as that service group not sharing all of its route with limited stop long distance service.

I do think there are plenty of ways to adjust the calling patterns of the CLC routes to improve performance on the Castlefield Corridor, but providing the ability for these services to be worked by 6 carriage trains with SDO and removing a conflict for trains departing Oxford Road as part of this scheme is certainly a step in the right direction.

I think there are a few more pathing conflicts getting from Southport to Castlefield than from the CLC.

If they could manage it without closing the station for two years it would be better.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

If they could manage it without closing the station for two years it would be better.

I think this is the sticking point for many of us. It seems to me obvious that some closure will be needed - at the very least, tracks are being realigned which would mean closure of the line as well as the station for the days/weeks that will take - but would there be a way to operate with platforms 1, 2 and 3 while 4 and 5 were remodelled into new 1? I then don't see a way to avoid total closure while new 2 and 3 replace current 1, 2, 3 but hopefully that would be shorter.

(Edited to add) It now occurs to me that new 1 might be able to operate for trains to Piccadilly while the rest of Oxford Road station was being rebuilt: with an easement to allow west bound passengers to travel to Piccadilly and then change to their intended train on platforms 13/14 might this work?

 

[mr_jrt]

On the surface going by the diagram, I would imagine you could phase things relatively easily. In essence, the only "big" bits that appear to be happening are that the platform 2 line is being removed and the platform built out to meet the platform 1 line from the other side (and the platform lengthened westwards), and platform 4 being extended over the access to platform 5. Other than that, it's just changes to pointwork (and obvs. the signalling).

So at the start, close platform 2 and have everything heading west use platform 1 for the duration, close platforms 4 and 5, redirecting services to platform 3. That gives you two usable through platforms whilst you build out platform 2 and lengthen platform 4.

Once platform 4 is lengthened, flip services from 3 to it, and make the changes needed to cut the link on the eastern end. Once 2 has been built out, close 1. Then resignal everything.

Really doesn't sound like a two year closure's worth of work...? Unless they just mean weekend closures or some such, which would make a lot more sense.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Unless they just mean weekend closures or some such, which would make a lot more sense.

FWIW, I can see that it would make more sense to do the work continuously rather than having to shut down the station every Friday, get everything in place, do some work and then restore it for Monday morning. Weekend closures would surely mean the work taking even longer than two years.

 

[JJmoogle]

Slightly off topic but would closing Deansgate permanently help or hinder things with the new planned layout? I have often wondered are two stations with in a stones throw of each other really needed?

They're not that far from platform end to platform end but the walk between oxford road and deansgate is almost the same as it is to Piccadily. As well as being the local station for a major area of the city It also serves a pretty important function as the interchange with the tram. Imo that'd make it a hindrance to shut, it needs to be treated like the thameslink core.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Slightly off topic but would closing Deansgate permanently help or hinder things with the new planned layout? I have often wondered are two stations with in a stones throw of each other really needed?

Replied here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/close-deansgate-station.280886/

 

[stephen rp]

Depends which intermediate stops, if I have a train stopping at Gatley vs one stopping at East Didsbury I'm always going to endeavour to get the East Didsbury train away first all things being equal. I'm also going to look at potential dwell time at Piccadilly.

I'm also certainly going to try and get any express service in front of an all stops service.

There is usually a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't when you try and regulate.

Is there any consideration of which TOC has caused delay, and which TOCs will pay / get compensation for delays - or is it just managed on the projected best outcome for timekeeping overall? (I'm thinking back to early days of privatisation when TOCs running class 2 trains started asking why their on-time train should have to be delayed for another TOC's late running class 1.)

Nowdays most trains from 13/14 go to the airport, with 2TPH via stockport and none (other than a daily ECS) to ashburys. You used to get a bunch of trains from Liverpool to Leeds via Ashburys but nowadays those trains run via victoria instead.

Only 1 tph Liverpool-Piccadilly-Leeds-Scarborough surely?

 

[sjm77]

Slightly off topic but would closing Deansgate permanently help or hinder things with the new planned layout? I have often wondered are two stations with in a stones throw of each other really needed?

I don't think it hinders at all. In the direction towards Oxford Road a good % of the services NOT scheduled to call do actually stop in the patform because the signal is at red! Trains that are scheduled to stop sometimes linger longer than they need for passemgers to get on and off for the very same reason.

Good point, in December Deansgate is often closed due to congestion, Xmas markets etc, so when Oxford Road closes Deansgate is an obvious alternative yet these closures are proof it can't handle huge crowds?

Therefore both could be closed at some point!

I do wonder if the reasons for this are fully understood. Deansgate is NOT convenient for the main Xmas markets so I am not sure why people would head there. However if a service in the down direction fills up to be overcrowded at Oxford Road then there would not be any room for people to join the service at Deansgate.

 

[xotGD]

They're not that far from platform end to platform end but the walk between oxford road and deansgate is almost the same as it is to Piccadily. As well as being the local station for a major area of the city It also serves a pretty important function as the interchange with the tram. Imo that'd make it a hindrance to shut, it needs to be treated like the thameslink core.

This is why an exit from Oxford Rd in the direction of Deansgate would be a good idea. After 5 mins walking you end up underneath the point where you got off the train.

 

[Howardh]

This is why an exit from Oxford Rd in the direction of Deansgate would be a good idea. After 5 mins walking you end up underneath the point where you got off the train.

An exit on the other side down to Gloucester St (with a short walk towards Deansgate)? After all if the platforms are widened there should be room for a gate and more where P1 currently is? Looking at Streetview (captured in picture below) it shows there is/was some kind of walkway or entrance already by the main road there so "just" needs steps to the platforms. Can double up as an emergency exit, I don't think there's any evacuation route on that side? Also a map showing the road layout and such an exit would bring you almost on to Whitworth St.

 

[Gostav]

Essentially, it seems that is the most possible solution without any major reconstruction of the viaduct structure, not the best one. Any work to expand the station would involve rebuilding the viaduct structure and there are would be have many environmental legal issues problems if rebuilt the tracks closer to the apartments on both sides.

 

[Halish Railway]

Essentially, it seems that is the most possible solution without any major reconstruction of the viaduct structure, not the best one. Any work to expand the station would involve rebuilding the viaduct structure and there are would be have many environmental legal issues problems if rebuilt the tracks closer to the apartments on both sides.

The other thing I’d say is that if you were to go through the exhaustive process of building more viaducts through Manchester you would want to do it at Piccadilly for platforms 15 and 16. If they were to be built anything more than the current proposals for Oxford Road would be redundant.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The two year closure for these works doesn't seem to give that much increase in capacity for trains - up from 12 tph to 14tph if I've read the proposal summary correctly - so a fairly paltry 17% increase in numbers of trains. The increase in platform length to cope with 8-carriage trains will combine with that to add more passenger-carrying capacity. But set against that, there must today be a fair bit of suppressed demand because of overcrowding. I would suspect that it wouldn't be more than 5-10 years before that corridor ends up massively over capacity again and requiring further interventions.

Two questions come to mind:
1. Once the works have been done, will it be Oxford Road station itself that prevents more than 14tph, or would it be the case that the rebuilt station could cope with more, but there's something else along the corridor preventing more than 14tph (and which could therefore be fixed with some work somewhere else)?
2. How many of the current 12tph could reasonably be lengthened to 8 carriages, without first requiring substantial (and not yet planned) work at other stations along their routes?