Manchester South remodelling proposals (historical)

[Signal Head]

I have managed to find the original proposals (from 1998) for the initial Manchester South remodelling/resignalling (see discussion in this thread) which clearly show the provision of 2 additional lines between Adswood Road and Cheadle Hulme, and the provision of a fifth line (bidirectional "Adswood Loop") between Edgeley Junction and Adswood Road where the formation is wide enough because of the former Down Goods line. Extracts of the plans are attached showing these arrangements. Also attached - the full plans in pdf format as they may be of interest to a few people in here as a record of what could have been provided - budget permitting!

Some other features I had forgotton over the years - relocation of Levenshulme station towards Stockport, to make room for the new 'ladder' junction replacing Slade Lane Junction, coupled with provision of a central island platform, removing the need for stopping trains to use the Up Fast. Provision of a similar island platform at Heaton Chapel for the same reason.

 

[jfollows]

Thank you, quite fascinating.

 

[Lost property]

Those plans are very interesting...the bit from Slade Lane in particular because I seem to recall the tracks featured in the proposed development of Mayfield station at one point and I admit my memory could be wrong here....or was this before the plans you've provided ?

 

[Ken H]

Has anyone seen detailed plans for the Slade Lane flyover that was part of Picc-Vic? Would that help today?

 

[Senex]

Thank you so much — that's really fascinating (the proposals for the Edgeley junctions area just as much as the Adswood Road etc arrangements).

 

[507020]

Is there any reason why this can’t be implemented at some point in the future e.g. at the time of belated Stockport resignalling? Deconfliction north of Cheadle Hulme would be incredibly helpful. I have been held at the point where the line needlessly reduces to 2 tracks south of Stockport more than once and I’m not that frequent a user of the line!

 

[Watershed]

It's a shame that most of this never happened. 6 platforms at Stockport is perhaps overkill, but keeping Crewe and Stoke services separate till Piccadilly would have been a no-brainer, rather than the present day nonsense of going from 'paired by use' to 'paired by direction' back to 'paired by use' within the space of 5 miles...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's a shame that most of this never happened. 6 platforms at Stockport is perhaps overkill, but keeping Crewe and Stoke services separate till Piccadilly would have been a no-brainer, rather than the present day nonsense of going from 'paired by use' to 'paired by direction' back to 'paired by use' within the space of 5 miles...

HS2 will change all that, using a separate route for Euston/Birmingham-Manchester trains.
But initially (before Crewe-Manchester opens) it could get worse, threading HS2 trains from Crewe into the current setup (with fewer via Stoke).

 

[Signal Head]

Those plans are very interesting...the bit from Slade Lane in particular because I seem to recall the tracks featured in the proposed development of Mayfield station at one point and I admit my memory could be wrong here....or was this before the plans you've provided ?

I think that's probably after these. This project was never going to affect Piccadilly station area itself.

 

[Greybeard33]

Deconfliction north of Cheadle Hulme would be incredibly helpful. I have been held at the point where the line needlessly reduces to 2 tracks south of Stockport more than once and I’m not that frequent a user of the line!

Hardly a needless reduction to 2 tracks! The LNWR never got around to building a second viaduct across the Micker Brook valley, and none of its successors (LMS, BR, Railtrack and NR) have been able to find funding for it either.

 

[Lost property]

I think that's probably after these. This project was never going to affect Piccadilly station area itself.

Thanks for the reply. I've followed the numerous proposed developments for South Manchester (as a general area) for many years hence another reason for my query.

 

[507020]

Hardly a needless reduction to 2 tracks! The LNWR never got around to building a second viaduct across the Micker Brook valley, and none of its successors (LMS, BR, Railtrack and NR) have been able to find funding for it either.

Well what were BR proposing to do about it in the 1990s? The diagram only gives the track layout. Because it showed 4 tracks throughout I assumed it must have been reduced from 4 tracks to 2 at some point, with structures along the trackbed being wide enough.

Even if there is a reason for it, it’s still a needless bottleneck, if as you say the M&BR, L&NWR and successors have had well over 100 years to sort it out!

 

[Bald Rick]

Well what were BR proposing to do about it in the 1990s? The diagram only gives the track layout.

It wasn’t BR. It was Railtrack, and the West Coast Route Modernisation. This was early feasibility of what might be possible.

 

[zwk500]

Even if there is a reason for it, it’s still a needless bottleneck, if as you say the M&BR, L&NWR and successors have had well over 100 years to sort it out!

It's not needless. It needs to reduce to a bottleneck because there's not the space for additional tracks. I could have been resolved, but there's no need to at this point. It's very similar to Welwyn/Digswell Viaduct in that regard