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

[Krokodil]

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).

Have a look at the layout of the crossovers at the moment, and compare with the new plans on page 1. Platforms 3, 4 and 5 merge before the crossovers so there can be no parallel moves between any of the three of them. Under the new plans the first crossover will come before they merge.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

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?

Not just you. As nothing more than a user of the station, I would cope best with Deansgate and Piccadilly please

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

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.

Not disregarding the second point in the quote, but for the record - 450s have had ASDO for the past decade or so and can open any number of carriages in formations up to twelve coaches, so the newer 350s should be able to have it fitted without much ado.

 

[brad465]

I would be surprised if the buildings weren't listed.

London Bridge had a Grade II listed shed for the bay platforms that was completely removed (and put in storage?) when the whole station was redeveloped. While difficult, it's not impossible to overhaul a station with listed structures.

 

[Dr Hoo]

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

Quite. As is so often the case we can see that the seeds of today’s problems were sown decades ago by British Rail.

 

[Halifaxlad]

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.

I certainly have nothing against longer wider platforms which always welcome.

How much work and disruption could be avoided if the central turnback wasn't included ?

You could remove the outer lines and widen both platform faces without major alteration to the track or canopies. The island platform could potentially just be used for alighting only, with arrivals made on the outside although I suspect that might not be possible without a change of regulation.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

How much work and disruption could be avoided if the central turnback wasn't included ?

Someone's misunderstanding something here, although it may very well be me. As things stand (and, it would seem, going forward as well) there are services from the west (Liverpool/Warrington Central, Southport) which terminate at Oxford Road. For the moment, these generally use the bay at platform 5. Platform 5, it appears, needs to be removed to extend the platform for services towards Piccadilly (currently 4, I think 1 in the new arrangement). So there's still going to be a need for a platform for the terminating services. Whether this should be a terminal platform (as proposed) or a through one is irrelevant to that point - there's still going to be a need for a third platform for the terminating services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Someone's misunderstanding something here, although it may very well be me. As things stand (and, it would seem, going forward as well) there are services from the west (Liverpool/Warrington Central, Southport) which terminate at Oxford Road. For the moment, these generally use the bay at platform 5. Platform 5, it appears, needs to be removed to extend the platform for services towards Piccadilly (currently 4, I think 1 in the new arrangement). So there's still going to be a need for a platform for the terminating services. Whether this should be a terminal platform (as proposed) or a through one is irrelevant to that point - there's still going to be a need for a third platform for the terminating services.

Indeed. And while Southport could (and indeed might) go back to Victoria, there's no other reasonable option for the CLC local services short of the Piccadilly reversing siding, and terminating trains in Piccadilly P13 is generally not a good thing because the time taken to check everyone has alighted causes added delay, which is one reason it doesn't run there now.

(Time for me to point at my recent speculative thread about why the Ordsall Chord doesn't have a west facing curve again, perhaps? )

 

[Meerkat]

To my untrained eye the end result looks good, the two years looks really bad.
Isnt there any way it can be done with a lot of prefabrication, or is the site so confined that you just can’t get out the way of the passengers, however you do it?

 

[slipdigby]

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!

Well they can.....

<wry_smile>

The definition of the problem has changed entirely from the golden days of Northern Hub. 4tph over the chord and building 15/16 is stone dead. Oxford Road remodelling is the only game in town left that can deliver reasonable benefits against the 2025 baseline. Equally importantly, it will show that *something* is being done to improve the corridor in the eyes of relevant stakeholders.

 

[yorksrob]

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?

Yes, but someone without a detailed knowledge of signalling wouldn't necessarily know that a train leaving 3 westwards would affect a train entering 4 eastwards.

Have a look at the layout of the crossovers at the moment, and compare with the new plans on page 1. Platforms 3, 4 and 5 merge before the crossovers so there can be no parallel moves between any of the three of them. Under the new plans the first crossover will come before they merge.

Yes, that would help.

 

[Halifaxlad]

there's still going to be a need for a third platform for the terminating services.

But you wouldnt if they didnt terminate there which is the point I made earlier.

Ideally if these services ran through Oxford road and through Picadilly too then you wouldnt need a terminating platform in central Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

But you wouldnt if they didnt terminate there which is the point I made earlier.

Ideally if these services ran through Oxford road and through Picadilly too then you wouldnt need a terminating platform in central Manchester.

But with the current structure of the timetable, they can't.

 

[slipdigby]

But you wouldnt if they didnt terminate there which is the point I made earlier.

Ideally if these services ran through Oxford road and through Picadilly too then you wouldnt need a terminating platform in central Manchester.

Which means your choices are:

i) build another platform turnback somewhere. And if its the airport, lose calls at some of the intermediates in order to squeeze the additional 2-3 tph in.
ii) build a non-platform turnback somewhere. But this will also mean pulling trains out of the plan as you can't terminate trains out of service in Piccadilly P13 without increasing dwell
iii) grade separate Slade Lane to allow Castlefield-Stockport services to head south somewhere (probably Buxton or Chester).

Or just keep the centre turnback at Oxford Road.

But with the current structure of the timetable, they can't.

Quite

 

[Topological]

Rather than derail this thread I created a new speculative thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fantasy-cornbrook-as-an-alternative-to-oxford-road.280589/

The simplification of Oxford Road seems infinitely sensible. It is a very constrained site and the proposal makes a lot of sense with the land available. However, I hope that there were some wider options explored before addressing what is just one piece of the Castlefield jigsaw.

 

[Rail Quest]

But with the current structure of the timetable, they can't.

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?

 

[BeijingDave]

But you wouldnt if they didnt terminate there which is the point I made earlier.

Ideally if these services ran through Oxford road and through Picadilly too then you wouldnt need a terminating platform in central Manchester.

Yeah, but lack of paths through a congested Piccadilly is the problem.

Also, I expect much of that passenger flow from Irlam, Urmston etc at peak hour is for Manchester offices and retail which Oxford Road is a suitable alighting point for.

Where would you send the train? Stalybridge or Stockport or even the Airport might be a packed train (up to Oxford Road) then carrying mostly air.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

 

[BeijingDave]

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?

There is a set of points between Deansgate and Oxford Road IIRC, couldn't they run to Deansgate and turn back before they reach Oxford Road?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a set of points between Deansgate and Oxford Road IIRC, couldn't they run to Deansgate and turn back before they reach Oxford Road?

That would probably eat more paths than kicking out a 2-car unit at Piccadilly P13 to use the reversing siding.

 

[CdBrux]

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.

 

[slipdigby]

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.

File next to driverless trains and 3rd rail extensions.

Out of interest, checked what the allowance was for terminating trains coming out of service at Paddington Crossrail. Confusingly, RTT seems to suggest -1 minute!

Realtime Trains | 9Y47 1448 Shenfield to London Paddington | 23/01/2025

Real-time train running information for 9Y47 1448 departure from Shenfield to London Paddington on 23/01/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 3Y47 1543 London Paddington to Westbourne Park Cs | 23/01/2025

Real-time train running information for 3Y47 1543 departure from London Paddington to Westbourne Park Cs on 23/01/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Anyone know the real allowance without me having to dig out the TPRs?

 

[CdBrux]

File next to driverless trains and 3rd rail extensions.

Out of interest, checked what the allowance was for terminating trains coming out of service at Paddington Crossrail. Confusingly, RTT seems to suggest -1 minute!

Realtime Trains | 9Y47 1448 Shenfield to London Paddington | 23/01/2025

Real-time train running information for 9Y47 1448 departure from Shenfield to London Paddington on 23/01/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 3Y47 1543 London Paddington to Westbourne Park Cs | 23/01/2025

Real-time train running information for 3Y47 1543 departure from London Paddington to Westbourne Park Cs on 23/01/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Anyone know the real allowance without me having to dig out the TPRs?

What I call the "can't do" mentality

 

[louis97]

Confusingly, RTT seems to suggest -1 minute!

It doesn't if you compare WTT with WTT between the pax and empty train.

Anyone know the real allowance without me having to dig out the TPRs?

1 minute

 

[slipdigby]

What I call the "can't do" mentality

You're not wrong, but planning anything on the basis that this will change any time soon would be unwise.

It doesn't if you compare WTT with WTT between the pax and empty train.

1 minute

D'oh! I apologies, shouldn't try to do numbers when full of pseudoephedrine! Thank you for the correction.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

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?

I'm no expert, but my guess would be something like diverting the Southport to Victoria, ditto for the TPE and EMR fasts from Liverpool, and so giving a bit of capacity for the CLC stoppers - which would therefore be the only trains from Warrington Central and Liverpool South Parkway.

Or maybe insert Irlam etc into the TPE/EMR services (retained on CLC) to give something reasonably fast, and reduce the Warrington stoppers and services at e.g. Humphrey Park to even more of a bare minimum?

 

[Falcon1200]

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

+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.

+ another 1.

I don't doubt for one moment that a huge amount of thought and review has gone into this project, and that the disruption it will cause is fully understood. If there was an easier alternative it would have been adopted.

 

[The Planner]

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?

No idea, that will be worked through in time, but I can't imagine that is something that will tip any TWAO over the edge.

 

[tumbledown]

Looking at usage on RealTimeTrains, it is clear that the Platform 3 and 1 roads are regularly used to get freight and empty-stock workings past passenger workings - and in times of disruption they are used more. As King Lazy above says it seems unwise to lose that facility. As for longer trains, I would rather be standing on a train that is moving than seated on one that is going nowhere.
Of course as long as the final decision is taken by the people who use and pay for the service, it will be the right decision.

 

[Dspatula]

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.

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.