furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,743
I doubt any European HGV is higher than allowed in the UK. We have no height limit.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ordsall Chord
- Thread starter CosherB
- Start date
- Status
I doubt any European HGV is higher than allowed in the UK. We have no height limit.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
I could swear I saw a huge electrical station at Euxton Jct (I assume will not be as big as Staly ) so surely Man - Preston does not need Staly and that is for all the other good stuff such as North TPE etc.
If you look at the Euxton area on OS 1:50000 or 1:25000 mapping (e.g. on streetmap.co.uk) or on Google satellite view, there are no power lines there (not counting the ones along the railway). So I don't think it's a feeder station. It's probably just a sectioning station. That would make sense as there re usually ones at major junctions (in addition to ones elsewhere at intervals of about 15 miles).
Moreover the need for the proposed feeder station at Stalybridge has been discussed previously more than once on here.
I believe there are no actual feeder stations in the Manchester area east of the WCML spine. I'm not sure if there are any between Manchester and Crewe, or between Manchester and Colwich via Stoke.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
So long story short Staly is needed for Manchester to Preston. I assume Blackpool to Preston will be fed from Catteral?
Joseph_Locke
Established Member
Euxton was a Track Sectioning Cabin (TSC) and is now a Mid-point Autotransformer Station (MPATS) associated with the neutral section.
Preston-Blackpool is fed from Preston TSC (at Fylde Junction) so can be switched between Catterall or Willow Park FS.
Manchester - Preston is normally fed from Stalybridge ATFS via Miles Platting SATS and interconnector to Ordsall Lane MPATS, as will Lostock to Wigan. However,
The only grid feeds (FS) are Parkside for Willow Park ATFS and Heyrod (beyond Stalybridge ATFS) which will also feed the route to Leeds, when someone finally gets round to it.
Oxenholme Windermere is likely to be fed from the WCML at Oxenholme
Greybeard33
Established Member
Victoria - Stalybridge Jn (and Manchester - Preston) EIS remains 10 Dec 2017 in the March Hendy update. But the dates are still "Indicative" not a "Regulated Output".
Same document I was referring to. It has March in its name but was published in January.
It also has "draft" in its name. I'm not sure when we'll see a non-draft version.
Greybeard33
Established Member
The document published in January was entitled "Enhancements Delivery Plan Update - January 2016" and had the filename Enhancements Delivery Plan Update.pdf. It has been replaced on the Hendy website by an updated version, entitled "Enhancements Delivery Plan Update - March 2016", with the filename Hendy EDP document March 16 update - published version.pdf. It no longer has the "draft" watermark, and the "Last Updated" date for the North of England Programmes (LNW) section has been changed from January to March. The status of the EIS dates for Electrification Phases 3, 4 & 5, Package C (Oxford Road & Piccadilly), and Hope Valley Capacity, has been downgraded from "Regulated Output" to "Indicative" in each case.
Thanks for that info. I didn't realise the document had undergone further changes or progressed from draft to final.
But I thought that already in January Oxford Road and Piccadilly had no completion date, being marked instead as subject to getting the T&W Order.
Edit: I see there's still a January copy online, and the words "Regulated Output" are present despite the fact that there is no date against them!
But I thought that already in January Oxford Road and Piccadilly had no completion date, being marked instead as subject to getting the T&W Order.
Edit: I see there's still a January copy online, and the words "Regulated Output" are present despite the fact that there is no date against them!
Last edited:
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Amid all this project-management speak, Victoria-Stalybridge was supposed to reach GRIP 3 by 31 March (Regulated Output, ie a commitment to ORR/DfT).
Does anybody know if it did? If not the later dates aren't trustworthy.
While we are at it, Preston-Manchester, Preston-Blackpool and even Guide Bridge-Stalybridge should also now be at GRIP 3 (Regulated Output).
And another oddity: the June 2015 quarterly CP5 Delivery Plan Update is still on the NR web site as the latest statement of project progress, despite being overtaken by all the Hendy reports.
Does anybody know if it did? If not the later dates aren't trustworthy.
While we are at it, Preston-Manchester, Preston-Blackpool and even Guide Bridge-Stalybridge should also now be at GRIP 3 (Regulated Output).
And another oddity: the June 2015 quarterly CP5 Delivery Plan Update is still on the NR web site as the latest statement of project progress, despite being overtaken by all the Hendy reports.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Just to aid someone who is now totally and utterly confused about the state of legal matters concerning the appellant Whitby and his many appeals, can someone say exactly what the current situation is and how many other courts there are where Whitby can still appeal to?
Does his "cap on costs" run on from appeal to appeal or is the cap only for a certain number of appeals to be made?
Does his "cap on costs" run on from appeal to appeal or is the cap only for a certain number of appeals to be made?
duffield
Established Member
Nearly a month has passed since the court of appeal decision and there appears to be no word from Mr Whitby or his legal representatives. I'm pretty sure that means he's given up since I believe he's well out of time to appeal further, and so the case is finally at an end.
(Edit: This is wrong, see below!)
Last edited:
po8crg
Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 559
Judgment was reserved by the Court of Appeal on 21 March, which means that the formal judgment (explaining the reasons for the decision) has still not been made available. No applications for appeal can be made until they have the judgment - any such appeal would be to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (aka SCOTUK).
The Court of Appeal will indicate whether they will grant leave to appeal (they won't) but then Whitby can apply for leave to appeal to SCOTUK directly. Whether that will then be granted is really up to SCOTUK, which comes down to whether it's legally interesting.
Transport and Works Act Orders are legally fairly unusual (planning permission is much more common, and big projects go through as an Act of Parliament which obviously can't be questioned), and this has been the most careful legal examination of one in a long time - possibly ever - so SCOTUK might want to weigh in on the legal question of exactly how much discretion the Inspector and the Secretary of State have. I think Whitby is unlikely to win, but the Justices might want to clarify the law on that question if they think the Court of Appeal hasn't done a thorough enough job (which is probably why it's taking so long; the appellate judges will be wanting to produce a watertight judgment to avoid an appeal).
As for costs, the costs order includes as many appeals within the UK system as necessary. It doesn't include costs if he wants to go to either of the European courts.
duffield
Established Member
Right. I made the invalid assumption that the formal judgement had probably been made available shortly after the decision was announced. So it's still all up in the air...
Last edited:
A very useful and constructive response. The Chord project remains in pencil rather than pen, for the time being....
With hindsight, I wonder if using a Transport and Works Act Order was a flawed strategy, why didn't NR go down the road of obtaining a Development Consent Order via the Infrastructure Planning Commission (like the Ipswich Chord)?
Whatever the outcome of this particular case may be, the whole episode and the way in which one man has been able to pursue a personal crusade (at a very significant public cost) seems to shew a real weakness in the Transport & Works Act Order procedure. There surely now needs to be a thorough review of whether this is the best way to do things for the future.
Viscount702
Member
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 332
Originally as I understand it a DCO was to be obtained but then the Government changes the criteria and the Ordsall Chord no longer became within the scope of these and it was decided to go for a TWAO instead.
Viscount is correct. They didn't have any choice over the authorisation method.
I don't think the problem is unique to any one authorisation route. For example trunk roads in Scotland still use virtually the same system that those in England used to use - Orders under the Highways Act, except it's the Roads (Scotland) Act - yet the Aberdeen Westeren Peripheral Route was subject to a long series of legal challenges.
I don't think the problem is unique to any one authorisation route. For example trunk roads in Scotland still use virtually the same system that those in England used to use - Orders under the Highways Act, except it's the Roads (Scotland) Act - yet the Aberdeen Westeren Peripheral Route was subject to a long series of legal challenges.
Last edited:
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,423
I agree with this sentiment. However, I wonder how feasible it is. I have little legal knowledge, but my understanding is that any planning decision or indeed any decision by local or central government (other than an act of Parliament) can potentially be appealed to the courts and up the chain to the supreme court by anyone with sufficient means at their disposal. Does anyone know if it's possible to enact something saying 'decision X by person Y cannot be appealed' without fundamentally altering our legal appeals process?
Playing Devil's Advocate on this forum I know, but the fact that both the High Court and the Appeals Court thought that there was a valid case to be heard shows that the procedure worked perfectly - it is there precisely for members of the public to challenge the decisions of government if they have a reasonable case (not necessarily a winning case). That's democracy for you.
The Transport and Works Act does not allow Network Rail to railroad (sorry!) works through without public scrutiny or the review of the courts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
While it is true that primary legislation passed by Parliament can't be challenged in the courts, the Transport And Works Act (along with subsequent acts relating to Development Consent Orders) was enacted to ensure that Parliament was largely freed of passing Public Bills relating to transport projects that were too onerous for MPs (Wiki's word!) and the burden passed back to the planning system. Private Act procedures are AFAIK now only to be used for transport projects for very large national projects like HS2.
AFAIK any orders made by a Secretary Of State (TWAOs or DCOs) are secondary legislation and may be challenged through the courts.
Of course passage of Private Acts in Parliament, like any Acts, may be subject to opposition/delay/rejection by MPs supporting objections.
Last edited:
PDG1949
Member
Latest set of Chord site photos by LDECRexile (taken Tues 19th April)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/sets/72157661069863633
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/sets/72157661069863633
Last edited:
But these courts are made up of lawyers, and prolonging a case means that there's more money to be made by (other) lawyers .... And we do seem to be seeing an awful lot more of the challenges of process.
More seriously. The old parliamentary procedure gave full opportunity for objectors' cases to be heard in committee, but once the Act was passed the railway in question could get on with the work. The new system seems to allow for a small number of people (just one in this case) to impose considerable delays on the progress of infrastructure deemed necessary for the greater public good. The Ordsall Chord is only one of those infrastructgure issues where the greater good seems to give way to individual protest.
Do you not mean Private Bills? As far as I am aware almost all railways were built under the powers of a Private Act, either establishing the original company or giving further powers to an existing company. This continued through most of British Railways' time and pretty well every year the British Transport Commission or the British Railways Board had a Private Bill in parliament seeking additional powers. The Bill for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was a Hybrid Bill if I remember aright, but doing major railway projects by Public Bill/Act is surely a first with "HS2".
po8crg
Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 559
I think that this one is getting advanced as far as it has because it's seen as a bit of a test case. If this establishes that the discretion of the SoS/Inspector is as wide as everyone thought it was before Whitby's lawyers got started, then I expect that future attempts at judicial review will end up being declined at the first stage.
HS2 is also a Hybrid Bill, hence having two committee stages (one political on the "Public Bill" aspect and one hearing petitions on the "Private Bill" aspect). And Crossrail was done the same way, as well as CTRL.
As I've pointed out, one High Court judge and three Appeal Court judge had to be convinced there was a sound legal basis for the challenges, so it can hardly be called an unjustifiable protest whatever members of this board feel.
Sorry yes, I had a senior moment so I've edited my post. However much you wish to return to the good old days of Private Acts for transport works, Parliament decided in 1992 that it didn't want to deal with such matters any longer. And Parliament is supreme in this country.
It also decided (to a big hurrah from me) that the rail industry should be subject to to the same checks and balances as other industries (e.g.the energy network industries).
Last edited:
Greybeard33
Established Member
Ordsall Lane Junction is blockaded for work on the Chord. No trains on the Windsor Link either.
So, despite all the legal shenanigans, NR are plowing on with the chord work regardless?
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,109
None of the work being undertaken is specifically related to the area that is under challenge i believe. They are doing everything but that.
Mordac
Established Member
I think there is a way to preserve the right of the public to challenge schemes, preserving due process, while going some way to deal with nuisance appeals like this: create an expedited process for public works issues with a special court which can bypass the queue for other lawsuits; this could be tied to reducing the levels of appeal available to a challenger: i.e., only allowing them one appeal.
- Status