Trains all at a stand in the Manchester area... (Thursday afternoon 06AUG2026)

[The Planner]

You can't. The tracks aren't connected.

That's my point. Look at the layout. How would you do it? You have got about 150m before the lines split off and the viaducts.

It's technically possible to reverse at Cheadle Hulme, but it's so difficult to do it's incredibly rare.

Difficult from which directions? From Wilmslow you go across at Cheadle Hulme South and then can come back south on a main aspect signalled move. From Stockport you can come back north from P2 in the same way. You can do it from the Macclesfield direction if someone was on the ground as there are emergency crossovers south of the station, albeit not signalled.

 

[Starmill]

That's my point. Look at the layout. How would you do it? You have got about 150m before the lines split off and the viaducts.

It's not possible no matter how you look at it, to be honest I'd have thought you would already appreciate that.

Difficult from which directions? From Wilmslow you go across at Cheadle Hulme South and then can come back south on a main aspect signalled move. From Stockport you can come back north from P2 in the same way.

Exactly. You are in the way and you can only reverse on one side. And there is no way to get out of the way. Accordingly all of these moves are extremely rare. They simply aren't useful within the scope of the original resignalling.

The bi di would be of benefit if it had included separating the tracks adequately so that one could be closed for possession while the other remains open. Without that additional step it's just not very useful in this content. Of course it's very rare that you would be able to justify rebuilding Victorian lines in a way that accommodates that. Although apparently they do it on HS1.

Saying it's "rarely used" is very popular. But it's rarely used because it's rarely useful. On the odd occasion when it is, it's always used.

 

[Bantamzen]

Those will be the same passengers complaining about ticket price rises... This redundancy has to be paid for.

Who pays when tens of thousands of journeys have to be repaid and compensations be made because of lack of, or failure of redundancy. And let's not lose sight that many people may well have found themselves stranded on train for hours when the lights all went red / switched off.

This is not something NR can just shrug their shoulders at. It needs attention. If it's going to hit the budget hard, then NT bosses need to be honest and talk to the government about it. There's no excuses to be made any more, this needs sorting.

 

[The Planner]

Exactly. You are in the way and you can only reverse on one side. And there is no way to get out of the way. Accordingly all of these moves are extremely rare. They simply aren't useful within the scope of the original resignalling.

The bi di would be of benefit if it had included separating the tracks adequately so that one could be closed for possession while the other remains open. Without that additional step it's just not very useful in this content. Of course it's very rare that you would be able to justify rebuilding Victorian lines in a way that accommodates that. Although apparently they do it on HS1.

Saying it's "rarely used" is very popular. But it's rarely used because it's rarely useful. On the odd occasion when it is, it's always used.

The whole point of it is to get you out of a hole in pertubation, of course you are going get in the way of something, that applies to all bi-di operations. The bidi system there is capable of doing what you say, It happens in plenty of other places with a normal 6 foot.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Who pays when tens of thousands of journeys have to be repaid and compensations be made because of lack of, or failure of redundancy. And let's not lose sight that many people may well have found themselves stranded on train for hours when the lights all went red / switched off.

This is not something NR can just shrug their shoulders at. It needs attention. If it's going to hit the budget hard, then NT bosses need to be honest and talk to the government about it. There's no excuses to be made any more, this needs sorting.

On a heavily publicly funded and publicly-owned railway system, such as in the UK, the answer is basically “The Taxpayer” one way or another.

 

[sharpener]

On a heavily publicly funded and publicly-owned railway system, such as in the UK, the answer is basically “The Taxpayer” one way or another.

And so if the eventual report identifies upgrades that need to be made urgently at other ROCs the Treasury will decide their relative importance vis-a-vis building more prisons or warships. Don't hold your breath. This might happen again without warning.

 

[Starmill]

The whole point of it is to get you out of a hole in pertubation, of course you are going get in the way of something, that applies to all bi-di operations. The bidi system there is capable of doing what you say, It happens in plenty of other places with a normal 6 foot.

I think you've misunderstood what the person I was quoting was actually saying to be honest. It is very unlikely indeed that it can be used to recover service beyond the example I gave at Wilmslow, which is in fact a relatively common move. Wilmslow has station staff to advise passengers directly of a platform alteration too, if you were Northern you wouldn't agree to the stopper running wrong line at any other station, apart from in exceptional circumstances such as a broken down train.

It's very rarely used except for in the Wilmslow station area for good reasons which are very unlikely to change. And yes of course it's technically capable of working with possessions on the adjacent line to an open one, but the additional requirements for adjacent line open working are so onerous that it is very rarely undertaken.

 

[ic31420]

Who pays when tens of thousands of journeys have to be repaid and compensations be made because of lack of, or failure of redundancy. And let's not lose sight that many people may well have found themselves stranded on train for hours when the lights all went red / switched off.

This is not something NR can just shrug their shoulders at. It needs attention. If it's going to hit the budget hard, then NT bosses need to be honest and talk to the government about it. There's no excuses to be made any more, this needs sorting.

It's not, but it might be after some consideration that many of the dollars are wooden and the true cost of the extra redundancy isn't worth it and the cost of the disruption is cheaper or at least the extra redundancy isn't worth it.

Railways are to a degree like the NHS, no amount of money will ever be enough, you could always do more.

At some point you have to accept you can't save everyone/everything from ever calamity

 

[Parham Wood]

When Cannon Street signalbox burnt down, the Southern had a temporary replacement up and running very quickly (within a week IIRC). But it only had limited facilities. And the Southern had a standby frame available.

The equipment used in the ROCs is largely off the shelf equipment. It shouldn't take too long to buy replacements, and instal the necessary programs and data. The main problem would probably be arranging the accomodation and telecoms links.

Maybe in an ideal world and if you wanted to save on spare equipment costs but a week not being able to run train services across a large part of the North West is unacceptable and strategically bad. I think if you went out to buy equipment you would find it difficult to source all you needed immediately. Don't forget you also want cooling and as you said a building. Sourcing telecom and power links can and will take months. That is why you need everything pre-planned and in situe already.

 

[Starmill]

It's not, but it might be after some consideration that many of the dollars are wooden and the true cost of the extra redundancy isn't worth it and the cost of the disruption is cheaper or at least the extra redundancy isn't worth it.

Railways are to a degree like the NHS, no amount of money will ever be enough, you could always do more.

At some point you have to accept you can't save everyone/everything from ever calamity

If you're looking at it from the perspective of paying out to those with tickets who claim for delays, and some large taxi / bus costs, and so forth, then yes it's almost always going to be cheaper to pay for the disruption than solving the issue preemptively.

From a wider economic perspective however, that may well shift the balance the other way.

Regardless though I suspect Network Rail wouldn't be arguing for less redundancy of power supply than currently provided. It seems much more likely that they realise something did not go as it should have done with this incident and it therefore won't be repeated in quite the same extreme way again. Or so we all hope.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Maybe in an ideal world and if you wanted to save on spare equipment costs but a week not being able to run train services across a large part of the North West is unacceptable and strategically bad. I think if you went out to buy equipment you would find it difficult to source all you needed immediately. Don't forget you also want cooling and as you said a building. Sourcing telecom and power links can and will take months. That is why you need everything pre-planned and in situe already.

If the ROC was designed without that level of resilience in the first place serious questions need to be asked. Should NR ever deign to tell us what happened we will discover that it was designed this way but the kit didnt perform as it should have.

 

[DerekC]

I can't believe that ROCs were designed with power system arrangements incapable of coping with a brief interruption to mains power. What has happened seems much more likely to involve multiple faults, an cascade failure of some kind or a failure to maintain the systems properly, or a combination of these.

 

[QueensCurve]

The standard-gauge rail network in Switzerland is probably one of the most centralised. Nevertheless, it is also one of the most reliable and resilient. This is not in spite of centralisation, but largely because of it. Improving efficiency is only a small part of the picture. It is much more about ensuring a continuous flow of information, which simplifies the management of both major and minor disruptions. Whilst normal operations are largely automated, staff can focus on dealing with incidents. As an example, operators can set route
macros to automate bypasses when technical disturbances occur. The same applies to passenger information, which also draws on data from the system. Gone are the days when the information displayed at station X was completely different from that at station Y, because each was managed locally. The same applies to ensuring connections (not only) in the event of delays. These are also managed centrally within the system (often automatically by the system) and are forwarded to the peripheral systems (station displays, online services, apps). No more guesswork on the part of staff or customers.

It is impressively reliable and obiously well thought through, designed and built. I hope traction current is in better supply now given the 1997 incident at Kerzers.

 

[Signal Head]

Where a signal box has not been modernised or is not considered important enough, it will not have a standby generator.

But in that case it should have individual battery backup for critical items such as track circuits, colour-light signals and motor worked points. Along with battery backed supplies for lever locks (mechanical boxes) and control circuits, including blocks/bells.

Another method is to use inverters to provide the (typically) 110v 'mains', which can concentrate all the backup batteries in one place.

 

[Trackman]

I can't believe that ROCs were designed with power system arrangements incapable of coping with a brief interruption to mains power. What has happened seems much more likely to involve multiple faults, an cascade failure of some kind or a failure to maintain the systems properly, or a combination of these.

Correct, from my experience it is usually a sequence of events that cause the main problem, not just one. One was a lightning strike at nwr.

 

[Annetts key]

But in that case it should have individual battery backup for critical items such as track circuits, colour-light signals and motor worked points. Along with battery backed supplies for lever locks (mechanical boxes) and control circuits, including blocks/bells.

Another method is to use inverters to provide the (typically) 110v 'mains', which can concentrate all the backup batteries in one place.

Many traditional signal boxes may have that. But not all. Those that could be switched out for example, may not have been provided with the ability to operate all functions in the event of a loss of the local DNO mains supply.

For context, many did not have continuous track circuiting, the signals near to the box are mechanical, as are the points near the signal box.

The block always has it's own battery as does any token system.

Low voltage DC track circuits typically have a charger and a single 2V lead acid cell (or they use a primary = non-rechargable cell). Colour light signals typically have a 12V DC head, fed via a 12V charger and a 12V lead acid battery.
Local control circuitry may be fed via a 12V to 50V DC/DC converter. Or it may be a 12V/24V DC/DC converter.
Other arrangements also exist.

And typically, motor worked points may have a battery to reduce the instantaneous load on the power distribution network rather than as specifically back up power.

Yes, another possibility is for a 120V DC to 110V AC inverter. At one time, a modernised signal box (lever frame with all levers removed and all functions replaced by a OCS (one control switch) MES (minimum electrical signalling) panel and new REB (Relocatable Equipment Building) for the interlocking (a route relay interlocking) on the area where I worked had such an inverter. The 19 inch rack included a 110V AC to 120V DC battery charger. There were sixty 2V lead acid cells, each the size of a truck battery. When extra signalling was added, the inverter and it's battery bank were removed and a 650V standby generator was provided.

Before people ask why these type of battery supply arrangements are not used elsewhere, it's because if they were used on large signalling schemes, the cost would far exceed using a UPS and standby generator arrangement both in terms of capital cost and the cost of maintenance.

 

[Signal Head]

Many traditional signal boxes may have that. But not all. Those that could be switched out for example, may not have been provided with the ability to operate all functions in the event of a loss of the local DNO mains supply.

I have never known a 'greenfield' box where core functions were not supplied or backed by batteries. We (the region I worked most in) didn't typically backup semaphore electric lighting, and I have come across things like stencils fed from a 110v derived straight off the domestic supply with no backup.

Before people ask why these type of battery supply arrangements are not used elsewhere, it's because if they were used on large signalling schemes, the cost would far exceed using a UPS and standby generator arrangement both in terms of capital cost and the cost of maintenance.

True. Although I am aware of 1950s era PSB schemes where the signals were low voltage and individually battery backed. The idea being just to avoid black aspects in the event of apower
failure. An early form of Red Retaining !

 

[Annetts key]

I have never known a 'greenfield' box where core functions were not supplied or backed by batteries. We (the region I worked most in) didn't typically backup semaphore electric lighting, and I have come across things like stencils fed from a 110v derived straight off the domestic supply with no backup.

The trouble is, there were many variations. As an example, Ashton Junction signal box in Bristol had a 110V AC supply for the signalling equipment only, fed along a lineside cable from the nearby West Depot interlocking (at Parson Street junction) which was on the 650V network fed from Bristol PSB (and hence on the generator backed supply). However, the signaller had no domestic electricity supply at all, the lighting for the signal box was multiple gas lights...

Most of of the signals controlled by Ashton Junction signal box were mechanical, but it did control a couple of colour light signals. It had some track circuits. None of these had any cells or batteries (because of the generator at Bristol PSB).

I can't remember what supplied the arm position proving contacts and the indicators in the box for the semaphore signals though. They may have used primary cells.

Then there was Bradford Junction signal box (that's the GWR box between Chippingham, Bath and Trowbridge). It ended up being surrounded on three sides by Bristol PSB, Swindon PSB and Westbury PSB. It had a right mix of equipment. Including one motor point operated by the signaller winding the handle on a generator or it may have been an alternator, mounted in the signal box. I never had the chance to look into it's power arrangements as I only got to set foot in the place once before it was decommissioned.

Here's a link to Facebook with a photo taken 1988.

And Bradford Junction has been discussed on here before, see here.

 

[Foxcover]

It's not possible no matter how you look at it, to be honest I'd have thought you would already appreciate that.

Exactly. You are in the way and you can only reverse on one side. And there is no way to get out of the way. Accordingly all of these moves are extremely rare. They simply aren't useful within the scope of the original resignalling.

The bi di would be of benefit if it had included separating the tracks adequately so that one could be closed for possession while the other remains open. Without that additional step it's just not very useful in this content. Of course it's very rare that you would be able to justify rebuilding Victorian lines in a way that accommodates that. Although apparently they do it on HS1.

Saying it's "rarely used" is very popular. But it's rarely used because it's rarely useful. On the odd occasion when it is, it's always used.

I do remember Cheadle Hulme being used as a terminus for timetabled cross-Manchester passenger services (to the north) in the late 80s for a short time after the Windsor link opened, but it didn’t last for long from memory.

 

[jfollows]

I do remember Cheadle Hulme being used as a terminus for timetabled cross-Manchester passenger services (to the north) in the late 80s for a short time after the Windsor link opened, but it didn’t last for long from memory.

I'd forgotten that, and I was living abroad at the time anyway, but yes, for example in 1989 2H88 08:00 Kirkby-Cheadle Hulme 09:25, then to the no longer existent Handforth Loop as 5F81 to reverse (19 minutes allowed) and back to form 2F81 09:53 Cheadle Hulme-Kirkby. Half hourly until 16:53.

But bi-di wasn't available or used then, the Ansaldo system came in 2004 and got rid of the reversing siding when implemented anyway.

Attached from British Rail Track Diagrams, 4 London Midland Region, Quail Map Company October 1990

By 1992 the services were Wigan-Chester and Southport-Buxton. Chester wasn't an option in 1989 (without reversing at Manchester Oxford Road anyway).

 

[Starmill]

I'd forgotten that, and I was living abroad at the time anyway, but yes, for example in 1989 2H88 08:00 Kirkby-Cheadle Hulme 09:25, then to the no longer existent Handforth Loop as 5F81 to reverse (19 minutes allowed) and back to form 2F81 09:53 Cheadle Hulme-Kirkby. Half hourly until 16:53.

But bi-di wasn't available or used then, the Ansaldo system came in 2004 and got rid of the reversing siding when implemented anyway.

Attached from British Rail Track Diagrams, 4 London Midland Region, Quail Map Company October 1990

By 1992 the services were Wigan-Chester and Southport-Buxton. Chester wasn't an option in 1989 (without reversing at Manchester Oxford Road anyway).

Did 2004 bring a new up passenger loop somewhere else after the Handforth one was abolished? Was it Chelford that only had one the other way before that, I'm struggling to remember!

 

[jfollows]

Did 2004 bring a new up passenger loop somewhere else after the Handforth one was abolished? Was it Chelford that only had one the other way before that, I'm struggling to remember!

The Quail map I posted and the 1990 working timetable only show a down loop at Chelford, although my memory is that the up loop pre-dates the Ansaldo signalling. My memory is of a pre-2004 up express booked to pass a stopping train in Chelford loop in the morning, but my memory is not always reliable on things like this! I will see if I can find something else.

Yes, the 1996 working timetable shows 2K24 07:04 Piccadilly-Crewe being overtaken at Chelford Loop by 1P17 07:10 Piccadilly-Euston. So the up loop wasn't always there, but pre-dates the 2004 Ansaldo installation. 2K24 missed out Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel so was still 5 minutes ahead of 1P17 by Alderley Edge.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The up loop at Chelford was put out of action by a derailment in the run up to privatisation and the entrance plain-lined - no money to fix it. It It was subsequently restored by Railtrack as freightliner traffic increased.

 

[jfollows]

The up loop at Chelford was put out of action by a derailment in the run up to privatisation and the entrance plain-lined - no money to fix it. It It was subsequently restored by Railtrack as freightliner traffic increased.

Thank you - that also accords with my unreliable memory that it was "always" there, but my regular travel past it didn't really start until 1996.