Stockport Signalling -what can be done?

[davyp]

Over the years there have been a number of mentions of the signalling issues around Stockport. The 'famous five' signal boxes - Edgeley Junctions 1 & 2, Stockport Edgeley 1 & 2 and Heaton Norris Junction - still function despite attempts some years ago to bring the signalling into the 20th century!

Is there a viable solution, or do we have to wait for ETMS? Anyone have any sensible solutions?

 

[The Planner]

Over the years there have been a number of mentions of the signalling issues around Stockport. The 'famous five' signal boxes - Edgeley Junctions 1 & 2, Stockport Edgeley 1 & 2 and Heaton Norris Junction - still function despite attempts some years ago to bring the signalling into the 20th century!

Is there a viable solution, or do we have to wait for ETMS? Anyone have any sensible solutions?

Its being looked at, but its going to be a decade away at least.

 

[JohnofWessex]

How have they managed to survive so long?

 

[jfollows]

The replacement/upgrade plan went wrong, so in the end it was decided to replace mechanical points with point motors and mechanical ground signals with colour lights, thus extending its life without making other significant changes.
There’s nothing wrong with the system today, except that you can’t easily terminate and reverse services, eg from the south. Any replacement/upgrade would presumably add this flexibility.

 

[The Planner]

How have they managed to survive so long?

Money

 

[edwin_m]

Wasn't Stockport re-signalling also intended to be part of the electrification in the 1960s but cancelled then too?

 

[Harpo]

How have they managed to survive so long?

Old signalling usually survives because it still does what’s needed (capacity, movements etc.) and works reliably.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2026 ==

There’s nothing wrong with the system today, except that you can’t easily terminate and reverse services, eg from the south. Any replacement/upgrade would presumably add this flexibility.

Anything beyond like-for-like adds cost and, at nearly half a million per unit of signalling, needs someone willing to fund the enhancements on top of the basic replacement.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wasn't Stockport re-signalling also intended to be part of the electrification in the 1960s but cancelled then too?

Yes, in the early 60s it was deferred to save money on the electrification project (though 4-spect signalling and new lineside kit were installed - but the boxes remained lever-operated with absolute block working).
The Piccadilly-Styal-Wilmslow-Crewe route had new power boxes.

In the late 90s, the plan was for the new "Manchester South" SCC (at Edgeley) to take over the Stockport area, but the Ansaldo design had big technical problems.
The layout was to be changed radically, with (I think) lines paired by use rather than direction.
The scope of Manchester South was reduced to just Cheadle Hulme-Crewe (excl), with the half-built new layout taken out and the old boxes retained.

I read somewhere that the 90s descoped upgrade was a local project rather than being part of WCRM, but it must have cost huge sums and caused major disruption through Stockport for something like 5 years.
So there are actually 6 boxes covering the Stockport area, with much higher running costs than if they were all under Manchester ROC control.
Meanwhile Italy's Ansaldo signalling operation has become part of Hitachi and is a significant player in the ERTMS field.

 

[jfollows]

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ling-proposals-historical.241695/post-6009613 shows the proposal for the layout change mentioned above. I think it was a well-developed thought experiment which - in my opinion - caused more problems than it solved, at considerable cost and major disruption.

 

[ac6000cw]

Are the Stockport area boxes now the only mechanically-interlocked ones left on the WCML? (ignoring shunt frames and the like which don't control mainline tracks, and traditional signalbox buildings with modern equipment inside)

 

[davidhg]

Many thanks everybody.

 

[LowLevel]

Are the Stockport area boxes now the only mechanically-interlocked ones left on the WCML? (ignoring shunt frames and the like which don't control mainline tracks, and traditional signalbox buildings with modern equipment inside)

Winsford is a hybrid frame and NX panel albeit only with 6 working levers.

Crewe Coal Yard box is still going too.

 

[jfollows]

Ironically Winsford took over Weaver Junction by 2012, the latter having been a new signal box in 1960. Winsford dates from something like 1907.

 

[The Planner]

Meanwhile Italy's Ansaldo signalling operation has become part of Hitachi and is a significant player in the ERTMS field.

Ansaldo stuff gets replaced back end of next year.

Winsford is a hybrid frame and NX panel albeit only with 6 working levers.

Crewe Coal Yard box is still going too.

Not for long. They go in 2028.

 

[ac6000cw]

Winsford is a hybrid frame and NX panel albeit only with 6 working levers.

Crewe Coal Yard box is still going too.

Thanks.

Not for long. They go in 2028.

So the end is near - over 60 years since electrification (and outlasting some 1960s WCML boxes)!

 

[Bald Rick]

I was in the meeting back in about 1997 when it was decided by the local team to go for the all singing all dancing bells and whistles proposal for Cheadle Hulme - Longsight. I made myself rather unpopular in that meeting counselling against that option on the basis that it would later prove to be too extravagant and thus too expensive, and that in later stages of development it would break the budget and thus be cancelled. I took no pleasure from being proved right.

Hsd the decision been taken to proceed with a more simple option, as was done for much else in the early stages of the West Coast modernisation, then I have no doubt those ‘boxes would have gone 25 years ago.

 

[Zomboid]

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ling-proposals-historical.241695/post-6009613 shows the proposal for the layout change mentioned above. I think it was a well-developed thought experiment which - in my opinion - caused more problems than it solved, at considerable cost and major disruption.

It'd obviously be expensive & disruptive to implement, but how does it create more problems than it solves? Pairing by use rather than direction seems to me like an eminently sensible approach for the area.

 

[jfollows]

It'd obviously be expensive & disruptive to implement, but how does it create more problems than it solves? Pairing by use rather than direction seems to me like an eminently sensible approach for the area.

It ruins the cross-platform interchanges at Stockport, which are something I use a lot. It’s a solution which might make the operators happy but is not passenger-friendly.

I also note - and this is just unreliable personal experience - that the delays at Slade Lane Junction today are way less than they used to be when I travelled regularly in the 1970s.

 

[The Planner]

It ruins the cross-platform interchanges at Stockport, which are something I use a lot. It’s a solution which might make the operators happy but is not passenger-friendly.

I also note - and this is just unreliable personal experience - that the delays at Slade Lane Junction today are way less than they used to be when I travelled regularly in the 1970s.

Between which services? Capacity and performance will always trump a cross platform interchange.

 

[jfollows]

Between which services? Capacity and performance will always trump a cross platform interchange.

Levenshulme to Stockport to Poynton, I used to do this on the 16:10 from Levenshulme to Buxton, changing at Stockport.

More importantly, if you want to go to Manchester, you can use platforms 3/4 and get the first train. If you want to go to Wilmslow you can use platforms 1/2 and get the first train.

From a passenger perspective, you don’t want to have to use the subway at the last minute.

And don’t get me started on the ridiculous platform 0!

 

[Zomboid]

Cross platform is obviously a nice thing to have, but if 4 tracking to Cheadle Hulme and pairing by use means you'd can get 4 more tph (for example, I don't know what it would actually do) though there will be far more winners from that than losers who now have to use the subway.

 

[edwin_m]

When considering an effective extension of paired by use southwards from Slade Lane beyond Stockport we can ignore the Ashburys (Piccadilly low numbered platforms) and Styal routes, as these diverge north of Slade Lane. Most of the remaining trains at Piccadilly high-numbered platforms are via Hazel Grove and most of those at the mid-numbered platforms are via Cheadle Hulme, so these flows must cross each other somewhere between the Piccadilly throat and Stockport.

The benefit of pairing by use is that this conflict can be optimised to happen in two stages in the timetable, or in real time by the signallers if the timetable is disrupted. Most significantly with the current layout a train from Hazel Grove conflicts with any train towards Cheadle Hulme at Edgeley No1, so there has to be a gap (or a train towards Hazel Grove) on both Up lines simultaneously or at least one train will be slowed by signals. With pairing by use this train would still have to cross one track towards Cheadle Hulme at Edgeley No1, but could make its second crossing move at any of whatever left-handed crossovers were provided between there and Piccadilly throat. The less frequent mid-Cheshire trains can avoid any conflict with trains between the mid-numbered platforms and Cheadle Hulme.

 

[Zomboid]

Piccadilly high-numbered platforms are via Hazel Grove and most of those at the mid-numbered platforms are via Cheadle Hulme,

Is that set in stone? Unless the platform lengths are incompatible couldn't the normal use be adjusted so that Stoke/ Hazel Grove trains go from the lower numbered side whist Crewe trains go from the higher numbered side?

 

[jfollows]

Is that set in stone? Unless the platform lengths are incompatible couldn't the normal use be adjusted so that Stoke/ Hazel Grove trains go from the lower numbered side whist Crewe trains go from the higher numbered side?

Not at all, but the main constraint at Piccadilly will be that platforms 9-12 share a single track, so the timetable will dictate what services can use the platforms and when.

 

[edwin_m]

The mid-numbered platforms include the longest ones, used by the Pendolinos which normally go via Cheadle Hulme. The most important high-numbered platforms are 13 and 14, the through platforms whose services go via the Styal Line, Mid Cheshire or Hazel Grove. There's no credible way of swapping them over without entirely recasting the service pattern and probably rebuilding Piccadilly too.

One odd feature of the proposed re-modelling was that Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel would have kept their side platforms, but the tracks serving them would have been the Up Slow and the Down Fast rather than Slows in both directions as they are now.

 

[High Dyke]

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

 

[davidhg]

A subjective view, but is seems to me that there are more problems with signalling etc. at. Cheadle Hulme and Helad Green than anywhere else around Manchester.

 

[LowLevel]

Personally I think the signallers at Man Picc are amongst the best in the country at weaving trains through Slade Lane, being in the cab of a train watching or using a signalling map is really impressive stuff, and you don't get many delays at Stockport either though Edgeley Jn can be a little painful. Doing the down slow to down slow move at Slade Lane in the back cab and watching the signals on the up slow pinging to green for the Styal branch before the passing train has knocked much speed off is a given.

I absolutely dread the day Network Rail "improve" it by taking away the NX panel and installing the diabolical automatic route setting.

 

[jfollows]

A subjective view, but is seems to me that there are more problems with signalling etc. at. Cheadle Hulme and Helad Green than anywhere else around Manchester.

That’s probably due to the unique Ansaldo installation which is going to be replaced “back end of next year“; it completely failed for a number of days in 2020 - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/crewe-delays-16-sep.209188/

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2026 ==

Personally I think the signallers at Man Picc are amongst the best in the country at weaving trains through Slade Lane, being in the cab of a train watching or using a signalling map is really impressive stuff, and you don't get many delays at Stockport either though Edgeley Jn can be a little painful.

I absolutely dread the day Network Rail "improve" it by taking away the NX panel and installing the diabolical automatic route setting.

It’s simply an order of magnitude better today than it used to be with London Road signal box when I commuted between 1973 and 1980.

 

[Zomboid]

The mid-numbered platforms include the longest ones, used by the Pendolinos which normally go via Cheadle Hulme. The most important high-numbered platforms are 13 and 14, the through platforms whose services go via the Styal Line, Mid Cheshire or Hazel Grove. There's no credible way of swapping them over without entirely recasting the service pattern and probably rebuilding Piccadilly too.

It probably would need a recast of the service - Indeed there would be little point to all the infrastructure upgrades if nothing changed about the services.

In broad terms, anything from Castlefield would need to stay on the Styal/ Crewe lines, and anything to/from Stoke/ Hazel Grove would need to use the main shed. Pairing by use at Stockport would make it easier to get trains round the Denton line to/from Victoria, so the Liverpool - Norwich could go that way via Chat Moss. The CLC loses it's fast train, admittedly, but that could possibly be replaced by something like a Lime St to Manchester Airport limited stop service that would probably cover most of the journeys that passengers from the area actually want to make.

It might well need some money spent on the Piccadilly station throat, but this is a big hypothetical/ fantasy upgrade so I don't see why that should be off the table. And since I'm spending imaginary money, we could always build the HS2 platforms and connect them into the Stoke lines.