Ordsall Chord

[40129]

When does the general election campaign officially start?

The cynic in me wouldn't be surprised if the approval of the TWA is held back until then so that the government can start the campaign with some good news

 

[Senex]

If the Ordsall scheme fails then there will have to be a drastic rethink to sort out Manchester and I hope it will not be tram-trains for everything, which IMO would be a disaster.

Drastic indeed, since there has been no word of any Plan B. I agree with you completely that tram-trains for everything (or indeed just more trams) would be a disaster -- Manchester needs a proper solution to its main-line needs.

 

[edwin_m]

Drastic indeed, since there has been no word of any Plan B. I agree with you completely that tram-trains for everything (or indeed just more trams) would be a disaster -- Manchester needs a proper solution to its main-line needs.

There's no question of tram-trains for everything. They are a possibility on the three or four routes identified in the tram-train strategy, but not suitable elsewhere due to capacity restrictions on rail or Metrolink, or the extent of sharing with other train services.

 

[AdamHewitt]

When does the general election campaign officially start?

The cynic in me wouldn't be surprised if the approval of the TWA is held back until then so that the government can start the campaign with some good news

Parliament is dissolved on 30 March, and that's when pre-election 'purdah' begins too.

Though purdah itself could well prevent such a 'good news' announcement being made during the election campaign.

 

[CdBrux]

It does seem that if it is announced in it's current form then it will be swiftly followed by English Heritage creating a stink so it might not be 100% good publicity!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

When does the general election campaign officially start?

The cynic in me wouldn't be surprised if the approval of the TWA is held back until then so that the government can start the campaign with some good news

I would say that is not cynical but "Par for the course"

 

[Greybeard33]

Drastic indeed, since there has been no word of any Plan B. I agree with you completely that tram-trains for everything (or indeed just more trams) would be a disaster -- Manchester needs a proper solution to its main-line needs.

The original Manchester Hub study did have a Plan B, called Option 1. Instead of the Ordsall Chord it featured a flyover at Ardwick, to enable TPE North services to/from Guide Bridge to access the western platforms at Piccadilly without conflicting with Stockport line services. Also Ashburys to Guide Bridge would be re-quadded. This would increase capacity at Piccadilly, avoiding the need to divert services through Victoria. Piccadilly Platforms 15 & 16, and the Oxford Road improvements, were required, as for the Chord option.

Compared to the Chord, the Ardwick flyover was, at that time, assessed to be more expensive, worse value for money, riskier, more disruptive during construction and to deliver fewer economic benefits.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The original Manchester Hub study did have a Plan B, called Option 1. Instead of the Ordsall Chord it featured a flyover at Ardwick, to enable TPE North services to/from Guide Bridge to access the western platforms at Piccadilly without conflicting with Stockport line services. Also Ashburys to Guide Bridge would be re-quadded. This would increase capacity at Piccadilly, avoiding the need to divert services through Victoria. Piccadilly Platforms 15 & 16, and the Oxford Road improvements, were required, as for the Chord option.

Compared to the Chord, the Ardwick flyover was, at that time, assessed to be more expensive, worse value for money, riskier, more disruptive during construction and to deliver fewer economic benefits.

But that option did not allow for the direct connection of Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoria stations which is addressed in the Ordsall Chord project.

 

[Nym]

Is such a connection needed?

 

[daniel3982]

Could they not be connected via the east instead by Eastlands. Trains could run into the low platforms at Piccadilly from Victoria and the West.

 

[edwin_m]

Is such a connection needed?

Until the late 1980s the networks serving Victoria and Piccadilly were almost totally separate. The Windsor Link connected the Bolton and Atherton lines to Piccadilly (by through service or a change at Salford Crescent), Metrolink connected the Bury line and later the Oldham line (with a change of tram, at least under today's service pattern). That just leaves the Calder Valley line with no link to Piccadilly or the Airport.

 

[HowardGWR]

Is it not that Piccadilly is more 'out on a limb' than Victoria? Having written that, Piccadilly will be adjacent to the new HS2 station of course.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could they not be connected via the east instead by Eastlands. Trains could run into the low platforms at Piccadilly from Victoria and the West.

This of course is now the East Manchester Elevated Linear Arterial Forest that has had its connection to the main line near to Ardwick International station so cruelly severed by the removal of the connecting bridge many years ago.

 

[mtbox]

Could they not be connected via the east instead by Eastlands. Trains could run into the low platforms at Piccadilly from Victoria and the West.

Even if that link was restored , it would not provide a solution that the Ordsall chord would, which is allowing MIA to the East (and return) services to run in a loop through both Manchester stations via the chord without having to reverse.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Surely the so-called "Option 15" suggested at the Puiblic Inquiry is the Plan B? This would have the Ordsall Chord running north-westwards from the north side of Ordsall Lane Junction and curving to the north east to join the line from Salford Crescent to Salford Central. This alignment does not impinge on the Grade 1-listed site of Liverpool Road station and was advocated by the engineer Mark Whitby and by English Heritage at the Public Inquiry. I'm told by someine who was involved with the previous, similar "Castlefield Curve" proposal in the 1970s that it was heritage concerns which scuppered that (Manchester City Council objected on that occasion).

 

[TrickyHex]

With my armchair planners hat on and spending more cash (indulgent in Northern Hub) terms but cheap and chatty in Crossrail magnitude, how about...

- abandoning the Castlefield curve
- having the flyover / dive under which would separate the conflicting east west movements from Victoria and North west to south east movemnets from salford crescent to deansgate and beyond
- having a station on both lines in the Ordsall Lane / Oldfield Road area which would include scope for services from Victoria to Piccadilly calling and reversing there

The advantages are...
1 no conservation issues regarding the curve
2 much better connectivity between services - all north south and east west services could connect
3 reduced conflicting movements
4 a new station would solve theplatform length problems of Salford cresent
5 it would serve much the same catchment as Salford crescent but is also nearer to the Quays and Media City area

The down sides are...
1 Route Geography may be difficult
2 its currently in bandit country however such a facility may spur a regeneration effect - if it can work at Stratford or Old Oak Common why not Salford?

For such a facility to be successful, it would need to be a proper job with good facilities and feel safe. Im now going to get in the bunker awaiting responces...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With my armchair planners hat on and spending more cash (indulgent in Northern Hub) terms but cheap and chatty in Crossrail magnitude, how about having a station on both lines in the Ordsall Lane / Oldfield Road area which would include scope for services from Victoria to Piccadilly calling and reversing there.

For such a facility to be successful, it would need to be a proper job with good facilities and feel safe. Im now going to get in the bunker awaiting responces...

One great advantage of the Ordsall Chord project is the removal of reversals in the terminal platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, yet you propose reversals in the Ordsall Lane/Oldfield Road area in your posting above.

 

[TrickyHex]

One great advantage of the Ordsall Chord project is the removal of reversals in the terminal platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, yet you propose reversals in the Ordsall Lane/Oldfield Road area in your posting above.

I do... The precident is already there at Piccadilly so its no worse than whats there now. Totally agree that such practice should be avoided in an ideal world but as listed, there appear to be a lot more advantages (and connectivity) doing it this way.

Incidentally, I seem to recall a post sometime back from someone within the industry questioning the wisdom of the curve generally in terms of the extended travel time circumnavigating the city centre via victoria and oxford road compared to reversing at piccadilly... Admittedly, this wouldnt help the manouvers in the throat area of picc.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Incidentally, I seem to recall a post sometime back from someone within the industry questioning the wisdom of the curve generally in terms of the extended travel time circumnavigating the city centre via victoria and oxford road compared to reversing at piccadilly... Admittedly, this wouldnt help the manouvers in the throat area of picc.

The "someone in the industry" must surely be aware of the problems that currently affect the throat of Manchester Piccadilly station whereas you most certainly are aware of that matter.

 

[QueensCurve]

I do... The precident is already there at Piccadilly so its no worse than whats there now. Totally agree that such practice should be avoided in an ideal world but as listed, there appear to be a lot more advantages (and connectivity) doing it this way.

Incidentally, I seem to recall a post sometime back from someone within the industry questioning the wisdom of the curve generally in terms of the extended travel time circumnavigating the city centre via victoria and oxford road compared to reversing at piccadilly... Admittedly, this wouldnt help the manouvers in the throat area of picc.

I can't in all honesty foresee any new scheme being introduced that required reversal (stand-fast Manchester Airport).

It does however seem reasonable to suggest an alternative route with gentler curvature and keeping away from the Grade 1 Lists.

Any thoughts?

 

[Nym]

I can't in all honesty foresee any new scheme being introduced that required reversal (stand-fast Manchester Airport).

It does however seem reasonable to suggest an alternative route with gentler curvature and keeping away from the Grade 1 Lists.

Any thoughts?

Could one perhaps include some manner of grade separation for the Windsor Link?

 

[TrickyHex]

Could one perhaps include some manner of grade separation for the Windsor Link?

Overall, the revised curve looks a possibility but may blight the area around the canal basins at East Ordsal Lane. Grade separation near the Windsor link will surely be required at some stage as this will be a busy pinch point, almost as bad as the crossing movements at Piccadilly throat.

The trouble with adopting a new alignment for the curve is that it would mean back to the drawing board re design and approval and I suspect some red faces that it was never previously considered.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Were not alternative routes for the Ordsall Chord taken into consideration during the period of the Public Enquiry?

 

[Nym]

No, they where not.

 

[Ships]

No, they where not.

Yes they were considered (although possibly not at the public enquiry phase) there where several design option (five or six) including most of what seems to have been posted here. There was also an option completely abandoning the alignment from past Salford central to where the Windsor link meets the line from Victoria, this was fully grade separated and whilst pretty nifty on paper was discounted afaik on cost grounds.

 

[Nym]

OK then, so I can't be further taken out of context.

At the public consultation, only one route was offered to the public as part of this consultation for the Ordsall Chord.

I know because I was there...

Others that may or may not have been looked into during the feasability stage where not shown to the public, and it would indeed be interesting to see what they came up with.

 

[swt_passenger]

Grip stage 2 discussed well over a dozen alignment options during 2010, it's discussed around page 94 onwards in this fairly massive document presented to the TWA enquiry, unfortunately I can't find a set of drawings so the written descriptions will have to do:

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT VOLUME 2: MAIN STATEMENT

http://www.ordsallchord.co.uk/image... Order - 4.2 ES Volume 2 - Main Statement.pdf

The suggestion by TrickyHex above that alternative solutions might not have been considered is distinctly odd, given that proving that all options have been considered is a normal part of the TWA procedure. There's masses of info available online, the entire TWA enquiry documentation will be available online somewhere or other.

By the way I was just re-reading an overall Northern Hub options report that was basically comparing the Ordsall Chord (Option 2) with the Ardwick flyover etc (Option 1), and the 2011 costs were £260 million different in favour of the Chord...

 

[ironstone11]

Grip stage 2 discussed well over a dozen alignment options during 2010, it's discussed around page 94 onwards in this fairly massive document presented to the TWA enquiry, unfortunately I can't find a set of drawings so the written descriptions will have to do:

The NR website has a list of papers relating to the public enquiry. Among them is a Statement of Case from Mark Whitby, in which he presents an alternative plan with 6 variants. Basically the same as the plan proposed by QueensCurve in Post #470.

The link is :- http://www.networkrail.co.uk/north/ordsall-chord/statement-of-case-mark-whitby.pdf

It is surprising, to say the least, that this information was not presented in public. Indeed, I would have thought English Heritage would have brought the enquiry's attention to its existence, as they were among those with the strongest objections.

 

[snail]

This was all covered and discounted a long time ago if you go back a couple of years...

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1269899&postcount=187

 

[SteveRainhill]

The NR website has a list of papers relating to the public enquiry. Among them is a Statement of Case from Mark Whitby, in which he presents an alternative plan with 6 variants. Basically the same as the plan proposed by QueensCurve in Post #470.

The link is :- http://www.networkrail.co.uk/north/ordsall-chord/statement-of-case-mark-whitby.pdf

It is surprising, to say the least, that this information was not presented in public. Indeed, I would have thought English Heritage would have brought the enquiry's attention to its existence, as they were among those with the strongest objections.

It was presented in public. The Inquiry website (still open) shows that Mark Whitby and other objectors presented their various alternative schemes. You are perhaps misled by Nym's remark about the public consultations, which were earlier (three of them). Network Rail presented at these only the options it considered viable, not the various ideas of other parties. They also did a pretty good job at the Inquiry (judging by the documents) of showing why these alternatives would be unacceptable, largely on cost grounds.

On the Inquiry result, while it's a shame it's taking so long, I doubt the conspiracy theories have much purchase. The Secretary of State, after all, can overrule whatever the Inspector says without further ado. The political investment in the Northern Hub makes it likely he would do so if the Inspector recommended refusal, IMO.