Ordsall Chord etc - what was the actual plan?

[Bletchleyite]

This isn't intended to become an anti-Ordsall rant, I post enough of those elsewhere

But a question - what was the "end game" with 15/16 built and the Oxford Road work done - what services would have used it? It seems odd to have built a hugely expensive new city centre crossing for 2tph in each direction, so surely more must have been the intention?

 

[py_megapixel]

I think the idea was that all TPE services to or from the north east would do the loop through Oxford Road and Victoria, meaning that they could come in from the airport without having to cross the entire Piccadilly station throat. This would have freed up paths into Piccadilly which I think were intended to be used for doubling frequencies on the Stoke and Northwich lines.
Northern also planned a new hourly Airport-Bradford service using 195s, which never happened.

15/16 would also have simply provided more paths for trains to connect on to towards Liverpool and onto the northern West Coast mainline, so it would have made things like the extension of the Alderley Edge shuttle to Southport and the Hazel Grove shuttle to Blackpool, as well as TPE's end-door stock, less of a reliability/punctuality nightmare.

 

[Ianno87]

The original concept comes from the Manchester Hub Rail Study: https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/download/de671dec75ac4bedb7a84e3b397ed5f2

Page 37 gives a good summary. The 'concept' (see "Manchester Loop") was for an every 15 minute service via the Chord; presumably 2tph TPE, 2tph via Rochdale, overlaid on the existing Castlefield corridor frequency.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Overall the schemes combined were supposed to provide for 16tph through Castlefield, with 4 tph over the chord but when we remember Castlefield must take 5 TPH off CLC (2 fast, 2 stopper and 1 freight) that already gives us 9 of the 16 to which trains off the Bolton corridor and Chat Moss have to be added, so there was never any prospect of more than 4tph over the chord.

Putting the 2 TPE Liverpool and 2 TPE Airport through Victoria was supposed to make Victoria the main Manchester station for the Leeds direction AND free up capacity in Picc station throat by avoiding the two Airports and one Liverpool (Scarboro) crossing the whole layout. There was also a supposed improved journey time by using Victoria but in reality pre-chord the times from Picc and Vic to Leeds were identical although Liverpool did get a much improved journey time by using the faster route via Chat Moss.

the Chord was never the right solution, even if the other improvements at Picc and Oxford Road had been delivered.

 

[Ianno87]

The original concept comes from the Manchester Hub Rail Study: https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/download/de671dec75ac4bedb7a84e3b397ed5f2

Page 37 gives a good summary. The 'concept' (see "Manchester Loop") was for an every 15 minute service via the Chord; presumably 2tph TPE, 2tph via Rochdale, overlaid on the existing Castlefield corridor frequency.

Also, there was an early concept of sending the Cleethorpes-Airport service via the chord as part of the 4tph, running [non-stop] via Marple, Ashburys, Miles Platting, Victoria, with some speed improvements via Marple. Presumably the Liverpool-Norwich would've been re-routed via Chat Moss/Victoria to match (with the Manchester-Sheffield locals going via Stockport instead)

 

[Joseph_Locke]

py_megapixel is correct - the original point was to remove crossing conflicts in the Ardwick area by re-routing airport-NE TPE services. Other alternatives were to create a new grade-separated route from Ashburys to the Castlefield corridor (which still required reversals - this required new platforms 17 and 18 as well) or to completely butcher the timetable so that TPE only ran W-E through Vic and didn't go near the airport at all.

In that respect, the Chord has achieved the stated objective. What didn't happen was everything else that was needed to de-conflict this new route - there are now three at-grade junctions to contend with between Vic and Picc (four if you include Picadilly South / London Rd.),plus the ever-giving nightmare (in timetable terms) that is Ordsall Lane Junction. Put simply, the Chord, on its own, was never going to be a complete solution and a complete solution is not cheap (and therefore will never happen, as it is not within 50 miles of Westminster).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

the Chord was never the right solution, even if the other improvements at Picc and Oxford Road had been delivered.

Another example of the now ditched 8 stage GRIP process failing no doubt after millions had spent on consultants feasibility and development reports. The railway has to be operated as a complete system not looked at in isolation.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Another example of the now ditched 8 stage GRIP process failing no doubt after millions had spent on consultants feasibility and development reports. The railway has to be operated as a complete system not looked at in isolation.

Has GRIP been scrapped then?

To me Ordsall Chord seemed like a cheap solution to a problem which caused more problems than it solved (if it solved any at all)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another example of the now ditched 8 stage GRIP process failing no doubt after millions had spent on consultants feasibility and development reports. The railway has to be operated as a complete system not looked at in isolation.

We also need to start considering spare paths as a virtue. 15/16 should have been built but with no extra services added - a pure resilience improvement.

Only now has this view shifted in the right direction, with the consultation now out on reducing Castlefield services. But we end up in a situation then where the Sandgrounders lose out in favour of Yorkshiremen taking their once-a-year bucket and spade, simply because it would be too embarrassing to mothball it, which is still the action I would favour overall.

(I did say I wouldn't moan )

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Has GRIP been scrapped then?

To me Ordsall Chord seemed like a cheap solution to a problem which caused more problems than it solved (if it solved any at all)

Technically its being refreshed under the PACE project and Andrew Haines had this to say about it

“If GRIP is used properly, it works. But it is rarely used properly so it is not fit for purpose. We have cultivated a whole generation of people who apply it mechanically. And that is why it is not fit. It is costing money and time. We are replacing it in 2021.”

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Another example of the now ditched 8 stage GRIP process failing no doubt after millions had spent on consultants feasibility and development reports. The railway has to be operated as a complete system not looked at in isolation.

Reports and studies that were required by the TWA process implemented by the Government; a process that, for the Chord, was extended for no real point by one objector. If NR didn't contract with the people who can support this process then they would have to employ them directly - do you think that is any better value to the tax payer?

And how did the GRIP process "fail"? I'm not aware of this being an outcome from the lessons learned process.

Surely the thing to rage against is that one person from the other end of the country can object to a proposal on very tenuous grounds and their right to be a t**t is enshrined and protected in law?

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Technically its being refreshed under the PACE project and Andrew Haines had this to say about it - “If GRIP is used properly, it works. But it is rarely used properly so it is not fit for purpose. We have cultivated a whole generation of people who apply it mechanically. And that is why it is not fit. It is costing money and time. We are replacing it in 2021.”

For me, with some reasonably recent observation of the process, one of the major failings was that NR had to contract so much of it out to design consultancies who appeared to pretty much have licence to print money - I have no idea what financial controls were in place - and they would produce seventeen (or other number of your choice) possible solutions when realistically there were perhaps only three or four which were practical and actually met the requirements, hence costs were so high. One often heard criticism was 'Network Rail does not manage it's contractors' (or more generously 'Network Rail does not manage it's contractors very well' and I am inclined to believe that was often true (but hopefully not in all cases), and it often seemed that remits were too loose and woolly which just perpetuated the production of multiple designs.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

For me, with some reasonably recent observation of the process, one of the major failings was that NR had to contract so much of it out to design consultancies who appeared to pretty much have licence to print money - I have no idea what financial controls were in place - and they would produce seventeen (or other number of your choice) possible solutions when realistically there were perhaps only three or four which were practical and actually met the requirements, hence costs were so high. One often heard criticism was 'Network Rail does not manage it's contractors' (or more generously 'Network Rail does not manage it's contractors very well' and I am inclined to believe that was often true (but hopefully not in all cases), and it often seemed that remits were too loose and woolly which just perpetuated the production of multiple designs.

If you were actually involved in the business you would know the truth, but as you obviously aren't, you don't. I'll leave you to it.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

If you were actually involved in the business you would know the truth, but as you obviously aren't, you don't. I'll leave you to it.

Happy for you - and others - with more inside knowledge to disagree but working in the industry enables one to form an opinion even if controversial.

 

[Class 170101]

Technically its being refreshed under the PACE project and Andrew Haines had this to say about it

So they failed to get a GRIP and they are now upping the PACE (or slowing it down depending upon your point of view).

For me, with some reasonably recent observation of the process, one of the major failings was that NR had to contract so much of it out to design consultancies who appeared to pretty much have licence to print money - I have no idea what financial controls were in place - and they would produce seventeen (or other number of your choice) possible solutions when realistically there were perhaps only three or four which were practical and actually met the requirements, hence costs were so high. One often heard criticism was 'Network Rail does not manage it's contractors' (or more generously 'Network Rail does not manage it's contractors very well' and I am inclined to believe that was often true (but hopefully not in all cases), and it often seemed that remits were too loose and woolly which just perpetuated the production of multiple designs.

If you were actually involved in the business you would know the truth, but as you obviously aren't, you don't. I'll leave you to it.

There have been instances I've been aware of where NR do a project and advise a TOC / TOCs they need ABC but then the contractors join later and actually they also need XYZ and possessions and plan are changed at short notice. NR admitting they needed to get their contractors on board earlier.

 

[Purple Orange]

People criticise the Ordsall chord for contributing to the problems on the Manchester rail network, but I blame the decision by the government to not complete the Northern Hub and fully electrify the trans pennine line.

 

[py_megapixel]

People criticise the Ordsall chord for contributing to the problems on the Manchester rail network, but I blame the decision by the government to not complete the Northern Hub and fully electrify the trans pennine line.

Electrifying the Transpennine line would have made no difference to the problems through Manchester. What was needed was the four-tracking of Castlefield.

 

[Purple Orange]

Electrifying the Transpennine line would have made no difference to the problems through Manchester. What was needed was the four-tracking of Castlefield.

Four tracking through castlefield will never happen.

I wasn’t saying that electrifying the trans pennine line would solve the problems, but that was part of the indecisiveness of the government around northern hub.

 

[py_megapixel]

Four tracking through castlefield will never happen.

If that was true, then the Ordsall Chord should never have been built.

But the plans to do it were there, they were simply scrapped as a cost saving measure

 

[Purple Orange]

If that was true, then the Ordsall Chord should never have been built.

But the plans to do it were there, they were simply scrapped as a cost saving measure

Are there any plans in the public domain? I don’t recall ever seeing any. The eventual solution was not reliant upon four-tracking, but rather the Oxford Road station and Piccadilly station work.

 

[py_megapixel]

Are there any plans in the public domain? I don’t recall ever seeing any. The eventual solution was not reliant upon four-tracking, but rather the Oxford Road station and Piccadilly station work.

Ah yes, sorry, that's what I meant. I assumed that the extra platforms at Picc and the Oxford Road upgrade would also include four-tracking. I added two and two to make five there....

 

[Bletchleyite]

People criticise the Ordsall chord for contributing to the problems on the Manchester rail network, but I blame the decision by the government to not complete the Northern Hub and fully electrify the trans pennine line.

Castlefield would still have been unreliable. What was needed was P15/16 and the Oxford Road work without 4 extra TPH through the core. But the UK just isn't willing to build for resilience, we just can't beat the temptation to shove another 2-car DMU through.

Ah yes, sorry, that's what I meant. I assumed that the extra platforms at Picc and the Oxford Road upgrade would also include four-tracking. I added two and two to make five there....

Full four-tracking is the only way it would work.

 

[py_megapixel]

Full four-tracking is the only way it would work.

I agree, and that is why I made the mistake of assuming that was going to happen...

 

[Bald Rick]

Full four-tracking is the only way it would work.

We’ll have to disagree there.

4 platform stations, with appropriate overlaps on the signalling, turnouts of a suitable speed, and a 2 track link between them, are perfectly capable of dealing with 30tph, let alone 16.

 

[edwin_m]

Castlefield would still have been unreliable. What was needed was P15/16 and the Oxford Road work without 4 extra TPH through the core. But the UK just isn't willing to build for resilience, we just can't beat the temptation to shove another 2-car DMU through.

In my experience as a pretty frequent user of the EMT service from 2006 onwards was that Castlefield worked reasonably well - problems with this service normally resulted from delays elsewhere compounded by the inflexibility of the CLC route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We’ll have to disagree there.

4 platform stations, with appropriate overlaps on the signalling, turnouts of a suitable speed, and a 2 track link between them, are perfectly capable of dealing with 30tph, let alone 16.

And no crew changes. And no unreliable rolling stock. And no serious overcrowding. And a plan for how to deal with any other emergency not involving blocking a platform.

You could turn it into Thameslink, of course, but that would be a big change!

 

[Ianno87]

Presuming that one of Options A, B and C is developed, and achieves it's goal for a stable, resilient timetable. Then what is the point of 15/16? It would then only be to add more services again. Debate whether those are necessary or not.

The alternative would be doing re-builds of Piccadilly (as 2, straight, wide platforms to the west) and Oxford Road (as 3 platforms, straightened, with a centre turnback) - i.e. "Thameslinkify" the Castlefield corridor and fix the station issues to boost resilience further.

And no crew changes. And no unreliable rolling stock. And no serious overcrowding. And a plan for how to deal with any other emergency not involving blocking a platform.

You could turn it into Thameslink, of course, but that would be a big change!

That's precisely how Thameslink works. There's a plan for how *everything* contributes to robust operation. Castlefield needs to replicate that.

 

[Bevan Price]

People criticise the Ordsall chord for contributing to the problems on the Manchester rail network, but I blame the decision by the government to not complete the Northern Hub and fully electrify the trans pennine line.

Personally, I think that the real problem is much deeper -- simply, too many politicians want "their area" to have through trains to & from Manchester Airport. The next problem was trying to fit 6 TPE trains per hour between Manchester & Leeds. The slightest problem could throw the entire timetable into chaos for miles around Manchester, including the Castlefield area and Ordsall chord.

I never believed that having Platforms 15 & 16 would solve many problems - it would just move the pinch-point to somewhere else. Only 4 tracking to Deansgate, and grade-separated junctions at Castlefield would solve some of the problems, and that was never going to be feasible - or affordable.

 

[Bald Rick]

And no crew changes. And no unreliable rolling stock. And no serious overcrowding. And a plan for how to deal with any other emergency not involving blocking a platform.

All basic railway operations stuff, to be honest. I’d add DCO and dispatch arrangements that involve ‘encouraging’ passengers to help reduce dwell times to the list.

 

[waverley47]

Castlefield, four tracked with the extra platforms would still only be a sticking plaster.

Castlefield will never work until the service map across Manchester is simplified, there are too many 1tph routes, too much variation in performance and it's too liable to import delays from one part of the network to the other. The airport - Scotland route for example has to cross 6 junctions on the flat, and trains from Oxford road serve over 20 different routes and end points.

The whole system needs ripped up and done again. Failing that, just spending the money and dealing with it as best you can is never going to work. I agree the ordsal chord shouldn't have been built without the corresponding stuff along castlefield, but here we are. In the meantime, the new timetable will go someway to solving the 'trains from everywhere to the airport' problem.

Best thing to do now is stick an extra couple of platforms at Victoria to terminate long distance stuff, and passengers can deal with the cross city change.