Stockport Signalling -what can be done?

[The Planner]

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

It is broke, if you ever want it to be ETCS ready and be able to do more with the layout then it needs something doing with it.

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/

That's going next year.

 

[Manutd1999]

How about building a single-track flyover to de-conflict trains heading towards Stockport from Sheffield from southbound departures? The only conflicts in the throat would then be the Mid-Cheshire services, which are not as frequent.

There is a bit of spare space......

 

[The Planner]

How about building a single-track flyover to de-conflict trains heading towards Stockport from Sheffield from southbound departures? The only conflicts in the throat would then be the Mid-Cheshire services, which are not as frequent.

There is a bit of spare space......
View attachment 205652

Pair by route and you don't need it.

 

[Manutd1999]

Pair by route and you don't need it.

That requires changes towards Manchester though? Station rebuilds etc - not sure which would be cheaper overall

My idea was to keep everything the same from Slade Ln to Stockport and just remove the main conflict after that.

 

[Zomboid]

That requires changes towards Manchester though? Station rebuilds etc - not sure which would be cheaper overall

My idea was to keep everything the same from Slade Ln to Stockport and just remove the main conflict after that.

Pairing by use would eliminate the conflict at Slade Lane as well, and reduce the conflict at all other junctions - not just the one for Hazel Grove. Rebuilding Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel to allow for it would be expensive and disruptive, but the benefits would be greater.

 

[Manutd1999]

Pairing by use would eliminate the conflict at Slade Lane as well, and reduce the conflict at all other junctions - not just the one for Hazel Grove. Rebuilding Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel to allow for it would be expensive and disruptive, but the benefits would be greater.

What is the conflict at Slade Ln? I understood it to essentially be a 2-track railway from the main shed at Piccadilly which then branches into 4-track at Slade Ln, S-F-F-S, with no conflicts?

The conflict with trains from Castlefield wanting to head towards Stockport would occur regardless and is best solved by limiting those moves (max 2ph, as today) and sending everything else to the Airport.

Each line then has it's own platform at Stockport before the 4 tracks merge back to 2 before Cheadle Hulme, but there are various crossing moves required for trains to head to Hazel Grove and the Mid-Cheshire. My proposal would fix the biggest of these (Hazel Grove).

Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[jfollows]

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/line-pairings-on-a-4-track-railway.241547/#post-6003988 shows the layout at Slade Lane Junction.
Up Slow line crosses Down Fast and Up Fast there. 4-track to 4-track but changing from pairing lines by use to pairing lines by direction.

(Piccadilly layout has changed since then with the extension of platforms 13 &14 and the truncation of lines out of 10, 11 & 12, but Slade Lane Junction has not changed.)

Also note (given the title of the thread) that any up service using platform 0 at Stockport must use the Up Slow from Slade Lane Junction, there is no route from the Up Fast into this platform. And up services to Altrincham and Chester can’t use platform 0 at Stockport.

 

[edwin_m]

That requires changes towards Manchester though? Station rebuilds etc - not sure which would be cheaper overall

My idea was to keep everything the same from Slade Ln to Stockport and just remove the main conflict after that.

What is the conflict at Slade Ln? I understood it to essentially be a 2-track railway from the main shed at Piccadilly which then branches into 4-track at Slade Ln, S-F-F-S, with no conflicts?

The conflict with trains from Castlefield wanting to head towards Stockport would occur regardless and is best solved by limiting those moves (max 2ph, as today) and sending everything else to the Airport.

Each line then has it's own platform at Stockport before the 4 tracks merge back to 2 before Cheadle Hulme, but there are various crossing moves required for trains to head to Hazel Grove and the Mid-Cheshire. My proposal would fix the biggest of these (Hazel Grove).

Maybe I'm missing something?

Between Piccadilly and Slade Lane it's already four tracks paired by use (plus others that go to Ashburys and Longsight depot, which aren't relevant here). At Slade Lane there is a double junction to the Styal (airport) line, and south of this the Up Slow and Down Fast swap places at a diamond crossing so the layout is then paired by direction. So any re-modelling of this section to give paired by use throughout would include eliminating that diamond but wouldn't need to do anything between Slade Lane and Piccadilly.

 

[Zomboid]

It's an interesting alternative idea though that Pic to Slade Lane could be considered 2 track towards Stockport. Everything from Castlefield would have to go down the Styal line and everything from Stockport would terminate. Could possibly have a couple of south facing platforms for the Styal lines.

It'd need a rebuild of Slade Lane, and not sure how many trains you could squeeze onto the existing fast lines. The throat at Pic may well need to be changed to accommodate that, but at least there aren't any stations in the way.

 

[daodao]

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.

Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel stations only have side platforms serving the outer slow lines, and reconstructing these stations would be difficult and expensive. The current paired directional arrangement of the island platforms 1/2 and 3/4 at Stockport station is also preferable for passengers.

Therefore, resignalling at Stockport to replace the current mechanical boxes should ideally retain the current arrangements of fast and slow lines between Edgeley Junction and Slade Lane Junction.

 

[Manutd1999]

Thanks for the info folks

It's an interesting alternative idea though that Pic to Slade Lane could be considered 2 track towards Stockport.

Yes that's what I would propose. Paired by destination (Castlefield-Airport + Piccadilly-Stockport) to Slade Ln, with crossing moves kept to a minimum. 2 tracks from the main shed would still support up to 15-20ph towards Stockport.

Then rebuild Slade Ln as required so the 2x Stockport lines branch into 4 (S-F-F-S as today) and keep everything the same to Stockport, no station rebuilds required.

Then consider a flyover south of Stockport to reduce crossing moves to Hazel Grove.

 

[zwk500]

Then consider a flyover south of Stockport to reduce crossing moves to Hazel Grove.

Have a quick check of the space available to provide 5m vertical separation between rail levels, including vertical curves for the beginning and end of both ramps.

5m in less than 200m is a gradient steeper than 1:40. After space from the bridge and vertical curves are taken into account you're likely looking at steeper than 1:30.

 

[AndrewE]

Have a quick check of the space available to provide 5m vertical separation between rail levels, including vertical curves for the beginning and end of both ramps.

5m in less than 200m is a gradient steeper than 1:40. After space from the bridge and vertical curves are taken into account you're likely looking at steeper than 1:30.

a) the flyover is only for the "downhill" direction anyway and b) you could ease the gradient by running it further to the extreme W edge of the lines there...

 

[zwk500]

a) the flyover is only for the "downhill" direction anyway and

The line is 1:182 downhill for the first c.130m after Adswood Lane Overbridge (name from 5 Mile Diagrams, shown as Adswood Road on Google) then level for the c.120m to the diamond. (distances from the 5 Mile Diagrams on nominal centreline). So it's "downhill" for a vertical drop of 0.7m

b) you could ease the gradient by running it further to the extreme W edge of the lines there...

Not appreciably, and you then have a massive skew span or need a big covered way (as at Bletchley)

 

[AndrewE]

The line is 1:182 downhill for the first c.130m after Adswood Lane Overbridge (name from 5 Mile Diagrams, shown as Adswood Road on Google) then level for the c.120m to the diamond. (distances from the 5 Mile Diagrams on nominal centreline). So it's "downhill" for a vertical drop of 0.7m

Not appreciably, and you then have a massive skew span or need a big covered way (as at Bletchley)
View attachment 205692View attachment 205693

I meant to take the descending flyover right across to beside the building marked "Network Rail Edgeley 9B" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.398136/-2.165239 You could lower the Altrincham line to help reduce the height at that end...
The "massive skew span" is only for a single track and something similar was done at Hitchin (was it there?)

 

[The Planner]

Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel stations only have side platforms serving the outer slow lines, and reconstructing these stations would be difficult and expensive. The current paired directional arrangement of the island platforms 1/2 and 3/4 at Stockport station is also preferable for passengers.

Therefore, resignalling at Stockport to replace the current mechanical boxes should ideally retain the current arrangements of fast and slow lines between Edgeley Junction and Slade Lane Junction.

I doubt it would be any more expensive than the other options of putting flyovers in elsewhere.

 

[zwk500]

I meant to take the descending flyover right across to beside the building marked "Network Rail Edgeley 9B" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.398136/-2.165239 You could lower the Altrincham line to help reduce the height at that end...

The issue is getting the Down Hope Valley from under Adswood Road/Lane overbridge to over the WCML. By the time you get to the 'Edgeley 9B' building you'd have cleared the major problem.
The railway needs to climb 4.5-5m in 175-225m or so, on the eastern side. Steep gradients are certainly possible to get derogations from the standards for (especially if the line is almost exclusively for passenger traffic and there is no risk of being held on the uphill side) but it is certainly not preferred - the steepest gradient on the Hitchin flyover is 1:86 (within the 1:80 for primarily passenger railways).

The "massive skew span" is only for a single track and something similar was done at Hitchin (was it there?)

Hitchin is indeed a massive skew span (Plenty of other examples about). It came with a price tag though.

 

[AndrewE]

I doubt it would be any more expensive than the other options of putting flyovers in elsewhere.

maybe, maybe not. Those stations (Levenshulme - platforms on stilts on the embankment - and Heaton Chapel in a deep cutting) means that moving the tracks out to allow even one central platform would be a really big job.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2026 ==

The issue is getting the Down Hope Valley from under Adswood Road/Lane overbridge to over the WCML. By the time you get to the 'Edgeley 9B' building you'd have cleared the major problem.
The railway needs to climb 4.5-5m in 175-225m or so, on the eastern side. Steep gradients are certainly possible to get derogations from the standards for (especially if the line is almost exclusively for passenger traffic and there is no risk of being held on the uphill side) but it is certainly not preferred - the steepest gradient on the Hitchin flyover is 1:86 (within the 1:80 for primarily passenger railways).

I hadn't really appreciated that the problem might be getting up from Adswood Road bridge high enough to clear the WCML.

Hitchin is indeed a massive skew span (Plenty of other examples about). It came with a price tag though.

and if that was good enough for London to Cambridge, why shouldn't it be worth doing for Sheffield to Manchester?

 

[Zomboid]

and if that was good enough for London to Cambridge, why shouldn't it be worth doing for Sheffield to Manchester

The Hitchin flyover wasn't in a built up urban area, and as a result the flyover line has a long deviation. That's just not possible here.

 

[HSTEd]

Why would you need to rebuild Levenshulme or Heaton Chapel if you switched to pair by use?

The stations still end up with one up and one down platform.

I admit it would be a bit odd that the northbound trains don't come from the same place the southbound trains go, but the two top destinations from Levenshulme are Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport.... and no other destination is even above 5000 per year.

EDIT: Heaton Chapel has ~71% of its traffic being from Manchester Piccadilly or Stockport and 63% for Levenshulme.

The remaining passengers would have to change once on a round trip, but after a rebuild half of them would have to change twice on a round trip, so I don't think improves anything.


To summarise, I suggest a change to paired by use/destination and assigning northbound/southbound calls at the intermediate stations to whichever train is available on the relevant track.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The aborted 'Picc-Vic' scheme of the '70s included flyovers at Slade Lane and Edgeley No. 2 - and here we are 50 years later facing the same issues. The Edgeley scheme would have partially used the former 'Khyber Pass' line (the direct route from the Buxton to Altrincham lines), but a later housing estate on the west side of the Crewe line would now have to be partially demolished if this was to be realised today.

 

[The Planner]

The issue is getting the Down Hope Valley from under Adswood Road/Lane overbridge to over the WCML. By the time you get to the 'Edgeley 9B' building you'd have cleared the major problem.
The railway needs to climb 4.5-5m in 175-225m or so, on the eastern side. Steep gradients are certainly possible to get derogations from the standards for (especially if the line is almost exclusively for passenger traffic and there is no risk of being held on the uphill side) but it is certainly not preferred - the steepest gradient on the Hitchin flyover is 1:86 (within the 1:80 for primarily passenger railways).


Hitchin is indeed a massive skew span (Plenty of other examples about). It came with a price tag though.

Curvature would be an issue too, might remove a conflict, but its probably not going to be any quicker.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2026 ==

maybe, maybe not. Those stations (Levenshulme - platforms on stilts on the embankment - and Heaton Chapel in a deep cutting) means that moving the tracks out to allow even one central platform would be a really big job.

Not as though big jobs can't be done, Greek St closed Stockport for 3 weeks, Piccadilly was shut for 9 days a few months back. Not insurmountable at all.

 

[Manutd1999]

If we did pair by destination, what would be done at Slade Ln? We'd have 6x tracks from 3x destinations (Hazel Grove, Cheadle Hulme, Airport) merging into 4?

 

[cle]

and if that was good enough for London to Cambridge, why shouldn't it be worth doing for Sheffield to Manchester?

It's maybe 6-8x the volume in rail passengers, and the ECML factor amplifies it more so.

I ultimately think we will get to a point where lengths have to be maximized before big interventioned for capacity are made, and we're at a point where a lot of stock is expired / big orders are coming, in the network overall. Each of the local routes through Stockport should be at 4-6 cars minimum to get a slot over the viaduct and into Piccadilly. If not, then I think re-building more bays (or using platform 0) to provide additional shuttles/frequency - as has happened w Mid Cheshire is the way.

Yes people don't want to change at Stockport - this isn't about taking away through trains, it's about incremental ones - and - not everyone is going to Piccadilly, and there are many connections at Stockport which avoid going in/out of Manchester - plus Stockport has some local demand of its own. I think this is how we add service. The western side could be developed over the car park, and support extra services towards Crewe and Chester.

 

[zwk500]

If we did pair by destination, what would be done at Slade Ln? We'd have 6x tracks from 3x destinations (Hazel Grove, Cheadle Hulme, Airport) merging into 4?

The Airport/Styal lines and Slow lines from Stockport would share the same tracks towards Oxford Road.

 

[HSTEd]

The Airport/Styal lines and Slow lines from Stockport would share the same tracks towards Oxford Road.

Would they really be the "Slow" lines any more? Sure they wouldn't have (most) of the Pendolinos on them, but they'd more be the "Crewe/Altrincham" lines than the "Slow" lines, surely?

 

[zwk500]

Would they really be the "Slow" lines any more? Sure they wouldn't have (most) of the Pendolinos on them, but they'd more be the "Crewe/Altrincham" lines than the "Slow" lines, surely?

It really depends how the timetable worked out. The balance of more crossing moves to get trains onto the "correct" pair of tracks against mixing fast expresses and slow stoppers.

 

[Zomboid]

Would they really be the "Slow" lines any more? Sure they wouldn't have (most) of the Pendolinos on them, but they'd more be the "Crewe/Altrincham" lines than the "Slow" lines, surely?

What you call them isn't really important. Call the slows the U/D Crewe and the fasts the U/D Stoke. Stoke lines would have most of the fast trains, at least south of Slade Lane (2x London, 2x XC).

 

[Manutd1999]

The Airport/Styal lines and Slow lines from Stockport would share the same tracks towards Oxford Road.

They would be quite congested with 8ph to the Airport + 4ph to Chester/Crewe + conflicts at the flat junction with the Styal Line + 2ph Liverpool-Sheffield services. Is there a risk of easing some constraints but just moving the pinch-point somewhere else?

My idea would be slightly more balanced:
- 8ph to the Airport + 2ph Liverpool-Sheffield on one pair of tracks

- 10ph to Stoke/Crewe/Chester + 2ph to Hazel Grove on the other pair but with no conflicts except with the 2x Liverpool-Sheffield, and branching onto 4x tracks after Slade Ln

 

[The Planner]

Would they really be the "Slow" lines any more? Sure they wouldn't have (most) of the Pendolinos on them, but they'd more be the "Crewe/Altrincham" lines than the "Slow" lines, surely?

This. They would be geographic lines.