• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Should the Ordsall Curve have been built?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,530
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
From thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3118188&postcount=14

Well the Ordsall Chord will remove the need for TPE services to cross Picadilly's throat when accessing platforms 12/14 and airport trains won't have traverse from east to west

I think I'd take a different view on those.

1. Move the TPEs using 13-14 to Vic, which I think is being done anyway? Spend the money to make Metrolink between Picc and Vic valid on any through ticket which would be valid to cross Manchester.

2. Stop TPE through running to Manchester Airport, terminating those TPEs at Picc, and replacing them with an EMU local stopping service (enhancing the service at Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury and Gatley to a more usable 4tph) from platform 12, and freeing up Class 185s for other purposes.

I'm really not sure that cramming more trains onto the Oxford Rd viaduct is a sensible thing to do, and getting to Picc on these trains will be rather slow.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
From thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3118188&postcount=14

I think I'd take a different view on those.

1. Move the TPEs using 13-14 to Vic, which I think is being done anyway? Spend the money to make Metrolink between Picc and Vic valid on any through ticket which would be valid to cross Manchester.

2. Stop TPE through running to Manchester Airport, terminating those TPEs at Picc, and replacing them with an EMU local stopping service (enhancing the service at Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury and Gatley to a more usable 4tph) from platform 12, and freeing up Class 185s for other purposes.

I'm really not sure that cramming more trains onto the Oxford Rd viaduct is a sensible thing to do, and getting to Picc on these trains will be rather slow.

1. The Liverpool bound services are moving to Victoria (much to my annoyance as I use the Warrington Central service from Leeds quite a bit).

2. From what I've seen the North East / Yorkshire - Manchester Airport is quite a popular service, so I'm not sure removing this from the timetable then asking people to interchange at Piccadilly, or worse detrain & Victoria & cross the city on often busy trams would have been terribly popular. You would more likely have lost TPE revenue with people reverting to using the M62/M60!

Quite how things will work out remains to be seen, and of course not forgetting that it isn't just TPE that will be using the chord. Northern will soon have at least one Calder Valley service heading over it in the near future en route to the airport. But if 2 track sections can work high density operations elsewhere, there's really no reason why it can't work in Manchester. The main issue has always been dwell times as 2/3 car units roll up so as capacity increases hopefully this will be less of an issue. Plus if TPE's move to Vic for the Liverpool services can convince a few passengers to use that instead, then this will ease the pressure further. And of course services won’t be hanging around on P13 to cross the throat anymore. The only possible choke point might be around Deansgate, and it does make you wonder if this station's time is coming to an end?
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
Was having a joke about the guy who campaigned against the chord being built because it`ll ruin english heritage.

At least Whitby didn't dispute the value of the chord:

‘I completely agree with the ambition of the Ordsall Chord and the value it brings to the community. My objection is purely on the position and impact of the proposed route on the engineering heritage,’

Can I suggest Bletchleyite reads the Manchester Hub Part 1 and Part 2 studies to understand the reasoning behind the chord. And perhaps he might see why the Treasury were convinced of the need for the Hub to boost the North's economy by billions of pounds, rather than shrinking it as he appears to want to do.
 
Last edited:

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
946
From thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3118188&postcount=14





2. Stop TPE through running to Manchester Airport, terminating those TPEs at Picc, and replacing them with an EMU local stopping service (enhancing the service at Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury and Gatley to a more usable 4tph) from platform 12, and freeing up Class 185s for other purposes.

.

That would be a terrible idea. These trains are extremely popular with people from Yorkshire as a means of getting directly to Manchester Airport, myself included. If passengers were forced to change at Piccadilly they would almost certainly choose to drive instead, especially as some of the trains run very early in the morning to take into account check in times. The roads at that time are never busy and a change of train would force people straight back into their cars.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,530
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Was having a joke about the guy who campaigned against the chord being built because it'll ruin english heritage.

Ah, I see :)

No, I only wonder if it was really worth the sum it cost, as I'm not clear I see the service changes it brings as a worthwhile benefit.

That would be a terrible idea. These trains are extremely popular with people from Yorkshire as a means of getting directly to Manchester Airport, myself included. If passengers were forced to change at Piccadilly they would almost certainly choose to drive instead, especially as some of the trains run very early in the morning to take into account check in times. The roads at that time are never busy and a change of train would force people straight back into their cars.

The irony of this is that a walk from P1 to P12 is orders of magnitude shorter than from the Airport station to the terminals.

And a dedicated, branded, frequent service would have real benefits. It could perhaps free up some DMUs by using the new Connect EMUs that are now not going to Windermere, which I'm sure will have the kind of high acceleration needed.
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,551
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Can I suggest Bletchleyite reads the Manchester Hub Part 1 and Part 2 studies to understand the reasoning behind the chord. And perhaps he might see why the Treasury were convinced of the need for the Hub to boost the North's economy by billions of pounds, rather than shrinking it as he appears to want to do.

That's all very well, but the likely deletion of the related station upgrades (Picc/Oxford Road platforms) does introduce a sour taste to the supposed business case for the Hub.
We also can't quite see what the practical capacity through the new links will be, until the new timetable comes in.
And there's Salford Central platforms to come (probably).
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
Ah, I see :)

No, I only wonder if it was really worth the sum it cost, as I'm not clear I see the service changes it brings as a worthwhile benefit..

As I said, please read the reports, you might then understand why improved connectivity provides worthwhile economic benefits.

And a dedicated, branded, frequent service would have real benefits. It could perhaps free up some DMUs by using the new Connect EMUs that are now not going to Windermere, which I'm sure will have the kind of high acceleration needed.

You really do wish to impair connectivity and make the North's economy worse, in order to free up a few DMUs :roll:
 
Last edited:

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,970
That's all very well, but the likely deletion of the related station upgrades (Picc/Oxford Road platforms) does introduce a sour taste to the supposed business case for the Hub.
We also can't quite see what the practical capacity through the new links will be, until the new timetable comes in.
And there's Salford Central platforms to come (probably).

The business case for the hub was 14tph through Piccadilly but the signalling upgrade will allow 12tph + 2 terminating at Oxford Road without P15/16 or a rebuild of Oxford Road. While the capacity probably wont be enough after a while it is still extremely close to the level that the Northern Hub business case was based on.

If rail travel in the north west continues to grow the future of the Piccadilly-Castlefield corridor will be as a sort of Manchester Thameslink. The Ordsall Chord is not a pancea but is good value and adds another route + frees up capacity for Piccadilly P1-12 services. I think it should be followed up by grade seperation at Ordsall Lane Junction, realignment of Castlefield Junction to allow speeds faster than 25mph, rebuilding of Oxford Road station and building of Piccadilly P15/16. Whether any of this will be funded is a different topic but the Ordsall Chord is a good start.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,530
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You really do wish to make connectivity worse and make the North's economy worse, in order to free up a few DMUs:roll:

The Dutch and the Swiss, the experts on these things, will state, and I will agree with them, that connectivity requires quality connections, not just through services.

More through services through Oxford Road are madness.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
The irony of this is that a walk from P1 to P12 is orders of magnitude shorter than from the Airport station to the terminals.

Yes - done it many times. And those moving walkways (not sure of the English English name for these are) are often not working. It is quite a trek even to T2 which is where I nearly always depart from. :(
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
The Dutch and the Swiss, the experts on these things, will state, and I will agree with them, that connectivity requires quality connections, not just through services.

More through services through Oxford Road are madness.

Well I don't, nor did any of the economists working on the Part1 Study, neither did HM Treasury.

And as for using silly emotional words like madness :roll: Yes Network Rail are mad, the timetable planners working on a joint TPE/Northern timetable are mad, while some bloke on the internet obviously knows better.

A fan of Michael Gove perhaps?
 

Chrisyd

Member
Joined
16 May 2015
Messages
204
Also with the rate apartment blocks are shooting up alongside the Irwell, surely it was getting towards a case of now or never for the chord. I think it would have been one of those things future generations would have looked at with disbelief if the opportunity had been missed. (Sure we could all list other examples of things on the railway we now look at with disbelief that did or didn't happen).
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
The Dutch and the Swiss, the experts on these things, will state, and I will agree with them, that connectivity requires quality connections, not just through services.

More through services through Oxford Road are madness.

And both the Swiss and Dutch are renowned for having decent direct services from their regions directly to their main international airports (Geneva, Zurich, Schipol). As Manchester Airport is unequivocally the main international hub airport for the north of England, direct services between there and Yorkshire do a lot of business.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
It would appear the OP has not accounted for how he would provide paths for additional services to Greenbank / Chester, Macclesfield and Hazel Grove without rerouting via the Ordsall Chord. Phase 2 of the Hub plans allowed a significant number of extra trains between Manchester and Glossop too which would not be possible without the Hub.

However, I do wonder if moving to new timetables to use the Chord without fulfilling the other enhancements like the extra platforms at Piccadilly could result in worse services than we have now, or things remaining broadly the same. Cases in point include the apparent failure to fit in the contracted 4th tph to Hazel Grove and the axing of the Airport shuttle.
 
Last edited:

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
That would be a terrible idea. These trains are extremely popular with people from Yorkshire as a means of getting directly to Manchester Airport, myself included. If passengers were forced to change at Piccadilly they would almost certainly choose to drive instead, especially as some of the trains run very early in the morning to take into account check in times. The roads at that time are never busy and a change of train would force people straight back into their cars.

The only person who thinks that changing trains at Piccadilly with holiday baggage is an acceptable alternative to catching a through train is someone who doesn't have to do it themselves. In fact I'll go further - it's someone who doesn't watch other people doing it on a regular basis.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I always thought reinstating the Ardwick loop would have been better

Ardwick Loop would only give access to the low-numbered platforms at Piccadilly, which are more easily accessed via Guide bridge (and it would be hopelessly slow to reverse in these platforms and use the Loop to/from Liverpool. The alternative of building a flyover across the Piccadilly throat from Ardwick to P13/14 was examined in the Hub study and found to be inferior to the Ordsall Curve option.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,530
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The only person who thinks that changing trains at Piccadilly with holiday baggage is an acceptable alternative to catching a through train is someone who doesn't have to do it themselves. In fact I'll go further - it's someone who doesn't watch other people doing it on a regular basis.

Nonsense. Or are all those passengers using HEx from connections, or the Luton airport shuttle bus, mirages? Seriously, P1 to P12 at Picc is about a third of the distance from Manchester Airport station to the terminals and unlike that it's completely on the level too.

Everyone would like a direct train to everywhere, but that's not how a railway system works.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,530
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I knew it wouldnt take long before the swiss were mentioned.

Like clockwork.

Because the North has a lot in common with Switzerland both in terms of travel demand and in terms of topography. The Swiss hills of course are rather bigger, but the height they top out at is of little concern to the railway.

Ardwick Loop would only give access to the low-numbered platforms at Piccadilly, which are more easily accessed via Guide bridge (and it would be hopelessly slow to reverse in these platforms and use the Loop to/from Liverpool. The alternative of building a flyover across the Piccadilly throat from Ardwick to P13/14 was examined in the Hub study and found to be inferior to the Ordsall Curve option.

I'm really not sure what the Chord has to do with Liverpool - you'd need a double reverse to serve it.

It would appear the OP has not accounted for how he would provide paths for additional services to Greenbank / Chester, Macclesfield and Hazel Grove without rerouting via the Ordsall Chord. Phase 2 of the Hub plans allowed a significant number of extra trains between Manchester and Glossop too which would not be possible without the Hub.

Again, what has the Chord itself to do with those services that moving stuff to Vic (as has been done anyway) and removing the airport double-back wouldn't also solve?

Increasing the Glossop service (which has been done before and was reduced again because demand was insufficient) just involves running from P1/2 at Picc to Ardwick and beyond. There is no need whatsoever for through running from anywhere else.

It all seems like expensive madness to me compared with the best way to spend money to benefit the North, namely a very large bi-mode MU order to allow Pacer scrapping and the total abolition of 2-car running and make best use of the wires.
 
Last edited:

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
It all seems like expensive madness to me compared with the best way to spend money to benefit the North, namely a very large bi-mode MU order to allow Pacer scrapping and the total abolition of 2-car running and make best use of the wires.

Madness again :roll:
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,530
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Madness again :roll:

You like overcrowding and overstretching of the DMU fleet?

Northern Hub was a vanity project and will do almost nothing to solve the actual problem, which is a need for a LOT of cheap capacity. Doubling the fleet with a plan for further growth is what is needed, and it was needed 5 years ago.

This isn't HS2. Other than the Deansgate-Picc section the lines aren't totally full (and all the Ordsall Curve seems to serve to do is add yet more). The trains are, but they are too short. They should all be at least 160m long (portion working if branch line ends have low demand[1]) before additional lines are even considered, other than Picc P15/16 which was again needed years ago far more than the Curve and has been dropped.

[1] A rule of "no train under 100m long on the Deansgate-Picc section" would be a good start to stop wasting space on it. Think, as someone mentioned above and Govia used to use as a slogan, Thameslink.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top