Manchester Oxford Road Station Overhaul: What to Expect

[@Anonymoususer_8823]

Manchester Oxford Road station quite literally needs a massive upgrade and Manchester Piccadilly needs more extra platforms to handle more trains and passengers. As platforms 13 and 14 at Manchester Piccadilly gets so busy pretty much most of the time. And I do think that there should be an extra platform to be built to reduce the congestion at Manchester Piccadilly platforms 13 and 14.

[@DewtbArenatsiz]

Yes but those millions saved by not upgrading manchester can go towards the latest billion pound new line / station upgrade for London where the civil servants live

[@rikufryderyk]

Great collection of varied media to explain this project. I can definitely see how your NetworkNews channel can appeal to broader audiences than the train enthusiast community. Well done once again Michael!

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Thanks Riku, glad you enjoyed!

[@Carlos-im3hn]

Really great detail and use of graphics to show and explain what is being discussed. Thank you (from across the Pond). A short and sweet show. We all need to carry on with the upgrades and improvements without ruining the budgets. More shows just like this one please across the UK networks.

[@simon11235]

Fantastic video - nice and straightforward explanation of the plans - love that you linked to the consultation page too. 🙂

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Thanks, glad you enjoyed!

[@QuantumPulsar]

Great video, very well explained, although I think that new platforms should be added at Manchester Piccadilly as well

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

Current Train planning rules permitted 15tph per direction west of Oxford Road and 13tph East of Oxford Road. As you mentioned in the video, P1 isn't step free, so the Train Planning rules basically say to forget it is there. Which means Oxford Road already acts as if it doesn't have two through platforms each way. Also currently you have a headway of 2-3 minutes on the Castlefield Corridor plus a dwell time of 1 1/2-2 minutes depending on time of day. 2 minute headway is for passenger following passenger, everything else has to use 3 minutes. Dwell time if 1 1/2 off peak and 2 minutes in the peak. The move from the Bay current Bay to Deansgate has a requirement of 3 minutes of margin on top of dwell and headway times in train planning rules. Four tracking at stations makes more sense as you take the dwell time from the headway rather than adding which increase capacity.

[@Andrewjg_89]

I think that Manchester Oxford Road station could be redeveloped. And Manchester Piccadilly also needs a massive upgrade with 2 new through platforms to be built to accommodate extra passengers and trains. I hope that Manchester Oxford Road station does get the approval to be rebuilt.

[@stuart48br]

Excellent video - thanks for preparing, and a very clear explanation of why a three platform solution has been chosen, accepting the financial reality that there will never be extra platforms at Piccadilly nor four tracking from Piccadilly to Deansgate. Time for people to recognise that the only long term solution to increase capacity and connectivity is a tunnel under Manchester

[@Sainsburys_Local]

Good to see getting better

[@derekmeller5873]

I'd still like to see the castlefield curve and link between Vic and picc being used for local cross city services, not just airport trains from the north east.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Well hopefully with the increased capacity from a rebuild Oxford Road this will become a reality!

[@fy7chris]

Oxford Road is the Train crew relieving point for many services passing through the station. Currently if the relieving crew aren’t there due to late running of a previous service etc, trains are routed through another platform past the now stranded train. This will cause no end of problems once the number of platforms is reduced.

[@mdhazeldine]

Manchester really needs an S-Bahn style tunnel or two if it wants to do things properly. This is just a cheap sticking plaster.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Honestly the best approach at this point is to use the existing surface railways for suburban services, whilst sending intercity services onto new lines such as HS2, NPR, or an east-west cross-city tunnel

[@DewtbArenatsiz]

Of course it's a sticking plaster, all the money goes to London obviously

[@Simon402-x9c]

@@DewtbArenatsizIt doesn’t “go” to London as it is already there having been earned by greater economic activity. London has a tax deficit with the rest of the UK.

[@DewtbArenatsiz]

@Simon402-x9c money laundering is so lucrative

[@markfaz8689]

Thanks for the interesting video, however I don't really see the benefits of reducing the platforms at oxford road from 5 to 3 regardless of an extra carriage or two 🤔

[@NetworkNewsUK]

The simplified track layout should mean that the number of trains running on the line can be increased so there is more to it than just platform lengthenings. As others have pointed out, this could potentially lead to less reliability as trains can't be easily re-routed to another platform should it become blocked, but in reality this is no different to the situation at the neighbouring stations of Piccadilly or Deansgate so I don't see this being a huge issue.

[@Sainsburys_Local]

beautiful

[@watcherzero5256]

Ive seen people ask why you couldn't just make the new bay platform a through platform meaning three through platforms, which if you go off the platform change diagram looks very doable. However if you look at the more detailed overhead street view you will see that the end of the new platform 3 prevents this as to reach its 8 car length it extends through the central tracks alignment.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

@@watcherzero5256 yep, I've just replied to the comment you were speaking of saying more or less the same thing! It would be technically feasible to have three (or more) through platforms but it would likely require the viaduct to be expanded at enormous extra expense, and clearly the powers that be decided that the extra cost wouldn't be worthwhile!

[@metalgearbill8827]

What is happening to the current platform 5 in these new plans? If it’s no longer being used, it would be nice if they could use that space to provide an extra entrance/exit to the station. The current morning crush to get out of the gates is horrible

[@sigil5772]

During the rebuild, I wonder if Deansgate could take some of the overflow, because not all trains stop there now, IIRC

[@StephyonYoutube]

I’m suprised they’d completely get rid of the bay, like sure it’s not great for crossing over the other lines but for contingency and getting some trains out the way it would still be useful, also I always thought the original canopies and waiting rooms were listed?

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Yeah the canopies are listed but I guess they're going to apply for an exemption to remove them. It's not impossible, just an extra barrier!

[@killernat1234]

Ideally Manchester just needs a massive rail network overhaul

[@EuroDC1990]

Not an ideal solution but probably a realistic one. What this does need though is some joined up thinking. If we're setting a new limit at 8 carriages for Oxford road then we need to make plans to use that capacity and start placing orders for new carriages to extend existing trains now - seeing TPE, Northern and EMR services extended to 8 carriages will be a huge upgrade and boost to capacity. Equally, there's clearly going to be a period in which the whole line has to be closed so that opportunity should be taken to work on Piccadilly too - fencing off the very northern end of platform 13 and southern end of platform 14 to create better waiting areas on the platform, widen stairwells, add more escalators and add lifts between the platforms and platform 13/14 concourse and create bigger landing zones on the platforms to improve passenger flow. If we're ruling out four tracking we need to make sure that the two tracks were have are fit for purpose.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

@@EuroDC1990 apparently other work being done as part of the transpennine route upgrade is also aiming to have stations long enough for 8 car trains, which I very much look forward to seeing in action as the current 5/6 car trains that TPE operate is nowhere near enough. Also agree with you about the need to upgrade platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly, as they're well overdue for some TLC!

[@margaretgilmour2949]

Nil about doing something to improve passenger access to the station. That steep slope gets steeper as you get older! Useful station for access to all the many facilities along Oxford Road itself. Hope it doesn't ever face permanent closure.

[@frankswl]

Trains could terminate at Deansgate station just down the road, and just outside is Deansgate tram stop the trams go straight into Piccadilly station underneath at ground level.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Little to no room to feasibly expand Deansgate, but I'm all for more trains stopping there to provide the interchange with the trams

[@Billybutlin46]

I'd close deansgate altogether

[@nickfennell7]

Manchester Oxford Road is currently used to hold trains on Platforms 1, 3 & 5 during periods of major disruption. The new layout will not allow this. Only the original proposals to provide 2 more tracks from Piccadilly East Jn to Castlefield Jn and two more platforms will make any significant improvements. The meagre benefits of an extra two trains an hour will be negated by the cost and the significant disruption. What happens to local services originating/terminating at MOR? They cannot access Victoria nor be accommodated at Piccadilly.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

I can only assume that the trains currently terminating at Oxford Road will continue to do so, hence why the terminus platform is being moved into the middle to reduce conflicting movements

[@trueriver1950]

Trains reversing at the new centre platform will be able to leave after a much shorter dwell, due to having access to the road towards Deansgate without blocking the other one. Also, by not blocking the other line the knock on effects currently seen of through services towards Piccadilly is eliminated. These two effects together, even during major disruption they will be able to turn round as many trains at Oxford Road as at present, and with less detrimental effect on the national network.

[@radiogeekdaniel]

@@NetworkNewsUK I 'Assume' the original question was more related to what happens to the MOR terminating trains during the years of closure?

[@markc7556]

I just hope that the current platform 4 is straightened out as when you’re working a 6 car 331/195 it’s a pain. To make sure the units are fully accommodated you need to step off to see and even though you ask the passengers to wait while you check and they say ok as soon as you step off every one leaves and tries to board ! This is when you’re trying to get back on and release the other doors but can’t.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Looking at the pictures they've provided it seems that the platforms will be straighter than they are today, but still have a curve in them

[@jayzo]

I think that they should keep Plaftorm 5 as a second bay platform, as when there's disruption a second bay to park a train means you can still terminate trains at MCO. I do think that they should look into quad tracking then entire corridor but I suspect that would be a massive logistical pain to deal with considering how close developments are either side of it. Maybe we should look at completing a rail ring around Manchester with a wye to allow trains to route via Victoria and use the Phillips Park line to pass through the city to get to places like Stockport and the Airport so we can divide traffic between both routes through the city.

[@trueriver1950]

Still reversing trains at the existing platform 5 would them cause further disruption when that train needed to leave. When the incoming train is late it already causes knock on disruption to long distance services when it makes them wait for it to cross: and it's exactly that knock on effect that this plan wants to prevent. So keeping in the option would mean retaining track and signalling without solving the the problem that this tries to address. But you mean, keep it only for contingency? The plan as put forward covers all existing contingencies better than the current mix of platforms 1, 3, and 5 does for terminating trains. It will continue to do so unless the number of trains terminating at MCO hugely increases. That's because placing the bay between the through lines means trains can access and exit the platform without cheerleading the other through line. Or maybe still use existing platform 1? The ad hoc trains at MCO platform 1 during disruption is correctly avoided unless arrangements can be made to disembark any people with reduced mobility (PRM) at Deansgate (DGT) first. And give PRM hoping to join the train at MCO a chance to get to DGT for their train. And get any support people at DGT for PRM having pre arranged support booked for MCO. For all those reasons platform 1 is usually and correctly used only for scheduled services, where PRM can plan ahead for their accessibility requirements. And adding a lift shaft at platform 1 is not possible because of the geography. So that platform is almost redundant already. Detailed plans to quad the entire corridor would have been better for the railway: and have been worked out in great detail. And then rejected on cost grounds by central government (and the current government is no more likely to find the money than the one that vetoed it before).

[@trueriver1950]

Routing trains from Victoria (MCV) via Phillips Park used to be done. The problem for passengers is that there's then no interchange with trains terminating at Piccadilly (MAN). That's why the Ordsall Curve was built, and why the originally planned four tracking of the corridor made sense. It still does to everyone except HM Treasury, which under both Tory and Labour claims we can't afford it.

[@neilcrawford8303]

It certainly needs longer trains on that route. Just go to Clapham Junction and watch platform 11 operate. It's the down platform for SWR suburban services from Waterloo via Wimbledon. A train around every 3 minutes with short station dwell times. The difference is 8-car and 10-car trains which allow far more points of entry and exit to/from the train, plus passengers can be distributed along more of the platform. P13 at Piccadilly and a 3-car or 4-car service comes in, it takes time for the passengers to disembark due to the limited amount of doors. For the same reason passengers are bunched up on a small area of the usable platform, then have to shuffle on to the train. The EMR Norwich services being one of the major culprits. Not helped to by the reduction in through services to stations like Stockport, now that Southport to Alderley Edge terminates at Oxford Road, and the Liverpool to Crewe via Manchester is no more, pushing more passengers onto the regional services from P13. It shows how out of touch government departments are, when £75m+ is spent on the Ordsall Chord, just to render it virtually useless by cutting funding for the next stage of the project along the Castlefield corridor.

[@ccityplanner1217]

I would continue the track through the new [2] east to connect with the Up line (as it does currently), rather than end at buffers, to enable [2] to be used to terminate trains from the east if required. Also, I think they could keep the station open. Either slew the track at the west end of [2/3], then put everything through [3-4] while rebuilding [1-2], or extend [2] to meet the track of [1] while having trains call at [1], accessed through a temporary entrance on New Wakefield Street. SDO can be used as fouling the points isn't an issue while [2] is out of use. If closing Oxford Road would make Piccadilly overcrowded, then it makes more sense to build [15/16] then do Oxford Road. I don't see why this project should be done first just because it is the cheaper of the two.

[@DewtbArenatsiz]

Our civil service doesn't do what's best unless it's for london

[@ccityplanner1217]

@@DewtbArenatsiz : There is still only one railway line in Manchester that crosses over another railway line on a bridge. It's the one that only gets 1 train a week.

[@DewtbArenatsiz]

@ccityplanner1217 that would make a great commuter service from stalybridge to Stockport

[@ccityplanner1217]

@@DewtbArenatsiz : It used to be a way that if you were going from the West Midlands to Yorkshire you could go instead to avoid having to cross Manchester from Piccadilly to Victoria.

[@DewtbArenatsiz]

@@ccityplanner1217 very interesting I never knew that

[@L.A.T.E.84]

Its a tough case, Oxford Road. It makes sense for the terminating platform to be in the middle and to lengthen the 2 other existing platforms. In my opinion, there should be no termination platform. By all means use the "new" platform 2 for trains to terminate at Oxford Road, but it could be used as an overflow for the existing 2 platforms if there are cancellations or for the freight trains to go right through the middle whilst two trains on either side could use the existing platforms. The Castlefield corridor is bad and there has been issues plagued on them. If there was a way that freight trains could use another route, that would be amazing like reinstating the Fallowfield line to the south of Manchester, but thats a pipe dream. Who knows...

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Other commenters have also suggested that it would make more sense for platform 2 to be a through platform in the event of disruption. I don't disagree, but the trouble with this is that if you look at the detailed drawing at 2:14 you can see how the extended westbound platform (the new platform 3) would sit right in the way of where the tracks would need to go. It would be very difficult to have both an extended platform 3 and have platform 2 be a through-running platform without needing to widen the viaduct at one or both ends of the station, which clearly the designers deemed to be not worthwhile!

[@L.A.T.E.84]

@NetworkNewsUK I have looked at the detailed drawing and can see the point. All the way back when the initial plan to widen Oxford Road and Piccadilly was rejected, they must have known that space either side of the station was feasible so with such a new bold scheme they have planned, this could have accommodated into this scheme and even further widened this station to accommodate this through platform 2. The problem I notice with these plans is that they look at the here and now issues instead of future proofing. Take platform 5 in Bolton. Its been created and cost a far whack of cash to create it but it's hardly used.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

@@L.A.T.E.84 I think there's less of a focus now on futureproofing the Castlefield corridor for expansion as most within the industry are in agreement that the best solution is a new line to get long-distance trains off the castlefield corridor freeing it up for local services only. This is likely to take the form of Northern Powerhouse Rail, but it could also take the form of a shorter east-west tunnel in Manchester between Piccadilly and somewhere around Salford

[@L.A.T.E.84]

@@NetworkNewsUK The best way to resolve these issues is for more lines in and out of Manchester being electrified, (i.e. Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington Central and Manchester Victoria to Leeds line) thus trains could be electric and have faster acceleration out of the platforms. I doubt Northern will replace the class 156/153/158 anytime soon.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

@L.A.T.E.84 actually Northern have recently issued a tender to replace their Sprinter-based units. I haven't made a video about it because I want to wait until we've got a few more details but I'll definitely be covering it in the future!

[@MannyAntipov]

It would be ideal for the middle platform to be a through one for flexibility in case of disruption. Can still let trains terminate there for operational purposes.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

The trouble with this is that the extended westbound platform blocks the space that the tracks would have to go for platform 2 to be through-running (see diagram at 2:14) so you couldn't have both without widening the viaduct!

[@gammaphonic]

Oxford road has always been an odd little station. Its layout is quite confusing unless you’re accustomed to it. This should help with that at least.

[@naz2468]

no through platform when the new P1 and P3 are in use will make it a nightmare when freight arrives as it will have to sit blocking Piccadilly for longer than it already does

[@NetworkNewsUK]

It seems that with the redevelopment of Old Trafford, freight might end up being removed from the castlefield corridor, meaning this is less of a concern

[@naz2468]

@ eventually it will when parkside is finished but that could potentially be another 5 - 10 years away at least, we’re not exactly the fastest to get projects finished on the freight side

[@BassandoForte]

The only way to increase capacity is Quad track from Piccadilly to where the line to Salford branches off...

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Never gonna happen and even if it did it would be ludicrously expensive and disruptive. Best hope at this stage is for a new east-west cross-city tunnel to take express trains off the existing lines

[@nickfennell7]

My comment regarding local services from the west was in relation to the temporary closure of the station. Where will these services originate/terminate?

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Ah I see, not too sure about that one! Perhaps Victoria? You'd have to ask NR I imagine

[@trueriver1950]

​@@NetworkNewsUK my guess is that they'll tell those passengers to use the tram between Picc and Vic. If long distance passengers are very lucky their train tickets might even be accepted in the trams as some local tickets already do.

[@fndjfgsdk]

Is there no room to make the central track a through route for added resilience?

[@NetworkNewsUK]

@@fndjfgsdk if you look at the diagram of the proposed changes at 2:14 you can see how the extended platform 3 obstructs the area where the tracks would have to go should platform 2 be made into a through line. Having them both be through lines is probably technically feasible, but would likely require the viaduct to be widened to avoid this issue. Alternatively, the platform could remain the same length it is today but this would fail to deliver one of the key objectives of the rebuild.

[@Wriggs74]

Platform 13 and 14 at Manchester Piccadilly is already at bursting point. God knows what it's going to be like when passengers from Oxford Road start using these platforms. I can just see the M.E.N news headlines.

[@trueriver1950]

There will not be any extra trains from Oxford Road towards Piccadilly, for the reason you correctly state. The idea is to accommodate all trains that currently terminate at Oxford Road in one central platform, not crossing opposing tracks as current platforms 5 and 1 do. I'm not sure where in the video you got the idea from that there will be extra trains, or extra passengers on the existing trains, at Piccadilly?

[@NetworkNewsUK]

I think they were referring to the extra passengers using Piccadilly whilst Oxford Road is closed for the reconstruction works

[@Laticity]

If a train breaks down on Platforms 1 or 3, you will only have ONE through line, or am I missing something?

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Yep that seems to be the case, but in reality it's no different to if a train broke down anywhere else on the corridor such as Piccadilly or Deansgate

[@erwallace1]

They should have direct Manchester Oxford Road- London services. There are plans to run Virgin services through this station on an open access basis, perhaps they could called here.😊

[@NetworkNewsUK]

The castlefield corridor is already strained for capacity. London-bound services are best off sticking to their current route, or maybe running into Victoria as proposed by Lumo

[@jimihendrix991]

Virgin Trains stopped operating in 2019, so what are you babbling on about?

[@erwallace1]

I heard that trains will run from Stockport then on to Victoria. I’d assume that means passing through Oxford Road

[@buffalobarry]

Will it really be worth it though?

[@NetworkNewsUK]

I guess only time will tell but I'm personally quite optimistic

[@buffalobarry]

@@NetworkNewsUK Why not just have 4 through platforms? Surely that would be the best option?

[@jonathancunliffe]

You did make me laugh when you said that they were extending the platforms, if the platforms now can take 6 carriages, but they send trains with 3 every day for my train, don't think making the platforms longer so they can accommodate 8 carriages will make any difference

[@crusher465]

Given the amount of trains that need to use a 3rd through platform to allow for delayed staff change overs and the like. The removal of a 3rd through platform will likely help cause even more delays.

[@tomheadington4762]

Glad this is happening, but hopefully Piccadilly will get those desperately needed 2 more platforms

[@philh1462]

This needs to go alongside work at Piccadilly. Platform 13-14 is downright dangerous at times. It's akin to the Euston crush/stampede. But it's not in London so nothing will change. A problem that spans governments of all colour unfortunately. Then we continue to wonder why the state's tax take is so dependent on the South East.

[@DewtbArenatsiz]

Correct. London gets another underground line whereas Manchester asks for two measly platforms and it's cancelled

[@petitkruger2175]

will building this mean we can no longer add a second pair on the bottleneck?

[@NetworkNewsUK]

It certainly seems that way, but a second pair being added is looking increasingly unlikely with network rail officially withdrawing plans for a second set of platforms at Piccadilly and with how many tall buildings have been built next to the railway - right where the additional tracks would have to go. Clearly the powers that be have decided that it's best to accept the castlefield corridor's role a two-track railway and to make the best out of it. Longer-term the hope is that capacity will be increased by taking long-distance trains off the castlefield corridor altogether and putting them on either a new line such as NPR or a new east-west tunnel through Manchester, bypassing the pinchpoint.

[@petitkruger2175]

@@NetworkNewsUK The powers that be gave up on more tracks and couldn't be asked to actually invest in Manchester. They couldn't even safeguard the route from new buildings? English incompetence in delivering infrastructure is always infuriating.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

@petitkruger2175 to be fair I'm not sure there was ever a plan for extra tracks. Extra platforms, yes, but extra tracks? Probably not. Best hope for increased track capacity now is for a new Liverpool - Manchester high speed line or for a tunnel for express trains from Piccadilly to Salford, bypassing the bottlenecks

[@trueriver1950]

​​@@NetworkNewsUK I seem to remember seeing plans (plans as in detailed maps) of a widened four track viaduct at one point. Not sure how long ago, there have been endless ideas since I arrived in Manchester in 1974, and earlier on there had been ideas for a tunnel from Picc to Vic (since superseded by the trams). This was dropped/vetoed h central government on money grounds, and Manchester City Council subsequently gave permission for new buildings that would make it even more expensive. Our council just loves developers who want to put up tall buildings, and seem working to nod through anything the developer asks... 😢 Likewise, the type of the Ordsall Curve could have been put further out, allowing the oldest station platform in the world to remain connected to the network at the Museum of Science and Industry. The train that route was vetoed by Salford Council was that it took up prime development land in Salford, and Salford wanted the resulting business rates. Did anyone ever doubt that that was the reason Manchester moved so quickly to grant permission to build tall buildings where the wider viaduct could at one time have gone?

[@86wellacre]

This isn’t going to solve the problems long term. The extra platforms are needed at Piccadilly as well as other improvements.

[@NetworkNewsUK]

The only right solution in the long term is for a new rail corridor to divert long-distance services away from Castlefield altogether such as a new NPR line or an east-west cross-city tunnel from Piccadilly to somewhere around Salford!

[@susans5688]

I thought it was closing 2029 for 2 years. ?

[@NetworkNewsUK]

I think it's closing for two years in 2026 and then reopening in 2029

[@BCrossing]

Just make it 4 track and stop terminating trains at Oxford Road

[@NetworkNewsUK]

Without the extra platforms at Piccadilly there's not much use. Plus it would be tricky to lengthen the platforms at Oxford Road without widening the viaduct which poses a pretty significant challenge.

[@-Osiris-]

Very poor, very short sighted decisions, and all because we have no money to do it properly. Critics will say 'isn't it better than doing nothing?', and as long as everyone keeps accepting that as an excuse the longer it will take to get us to where we need to be.

[@sIightIybored]

If that track cannot be quadrupled, frankly it and Deansgate should be closed.

[@topmandog1]

get rid of the 1970s canopies, why were they even grade 2 listed

[@NetworkNewsUK]

I think we should try to preserve them as much as possible as they (along with the station building) are quite architecturally significant, but at the same time we shouldn't let them be an obstacle to improving the station. I think the designers have come up with quite a good compromise here, though it won't be everyone's cup of tea!

[@stuart48br]

I think the canopies are from the 1960 rebuild, and match the architectural style of the station, hence the listing as part of the complete station

[@mallaka8]

8 whole carriages? 😂

[@philipbolton2811]

Absolutely barmy. Reducing through tracks from 4 to 2 is going to improve things, what planet are these planners living on?

[@trueriver1950]

Did you watch the video? The current station does have four through tracks, but there are only two through tracks each side of the station. So no reduction in tracks through the entire corridor. What there has been is a separate decision not to widen the entire corridor from 2 to 4. Given that directive, how to best make use of the ONLY TWO through lines through the corridor? The planners are on a planet where it is good not to have terminating traffic blocking both through lines when it leaves again. How much congestion would be saved on a country road by having a four lane section that's only 200yds long? With a small side road with traffic lights closing the entire width of all the lanes whenever a vehicle leaves that side road? Because that's about the effect of the current four track layout between the two track sections each side of MCO, with the crossovers from platform 5 situated on the two track section. Anyone who knows this station ("MCO") will have seen this in action when the delayed termination train is late leaving, and blocks services while it crosses in front of them. I do agree that the four through track solution would have been even better, but that having been foolishly ruled out, putting the turn back been the tracks is the sensible thing to do. ALSO with platform 1 not being accessible to people with reduced mobility (PRM), that issue needs addressing too, as mentioned briefly in the video. Where exactly did you think the planners were going to put the extra lift shaft? There is a reason why no lift was put in to platform 1. (Perhaps the video should have explained that, but if you know the station and the road under platform 1 it's pretty obvious). So with the directive on making the railway accessible to PRM platform 1 has to go anyway. Quite often it's used for terminating trains, precisely to avoid using platform 5 because of the problems reasons can cause exiting 5. But that is unfair to PRM, and quite rightly our society is trying to correct the issues created from the way that needs of PRM were ignored in the past. So sometimes platform 3 is used for a terminating train because 5 would cause problems when the train exits, and 1 is unfair to PRM. The new centre platform will take all the terminating trains that currently use platforms 1, 3, and 5; and with less effect on through services. The only thing that is being lost is the ability to hold a through train on 2 while another train overtakes through 3. That can be useful to correct the situation where a slow train arrives before the delayed fast train (and occasionally a goods train currently does this too). So yeah, as the first few words of the video explain, it SEEMS counter intuitive, but only if your intuition does not take into account all the other constraints caused by the history and geography of this station.

[@stuart48br]

The video explains why - worth watching. The current platform 1 does not have step free access and is shorter than the others so is not used for the train plan. Moving the bay to the middle removes conflicting moves, and allows change of train across platform westbound. Extending the through platforms to 8 coaches prevents the bay platform from being a through platform, the restriction being the two track bridge at east end of station.

[@Jomo-x6n]

Grade-Two listed an ugly platform. This can only happen in the UK.

[@peterdowden7694]

Pretty obvious... stop terminating trains there.

[@trueriver1950]

Then they'd have to run on into Piccadilly, which is already at capacity on its through platforms; or Liverpool would lose it's stopping service into Manchester to the detriment of all the people who love on the smaller stations not served by the through trains

[@peterdowden7694]

@trueriver1950 the two tracks between Oxford Rd and Deansgate cannot have more capacity than the two tracks through Piccadilly