Should the Ordsall Curve have been built?

[DarloRich]

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.

Yes we need it if we want to increase the number of TPE services and run longer trains more often.

Part of the success of Manchester Airport ( & TPE) has been the dedicated, speedy, direct, through trains from a large part of the North to the airport. It is easy and quick to get to Manchester. I suggest that success would be lost if you had to change trains onto a slower local train. It seems a bad idea.

Personally I would like to see MORE TPE trains run to the airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes we need it if we want to increase the number of TPE services and run longer trains more often.

Part of the success of Manchester Airport ( & TPE) has been the dedicated, speedy, direct, through trains from a large part of the North to the airport. It is easy and quick to get to Manchester. I suggest that success would be lost if you had to change trains onto a slower local train. It seems a bad idea.

Is Heathrow doing badly? Gatwick? Luton? Liverpool? (And it doesn't even have ANY rail link)

Personally I would like to see MORE TPE trains run to the airport.

Absolutely nuts, unless they are portion worked to keep them as LONG trains not wasting line capacity. Even then it's a waste of half-empty DMUs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes we need it if we want to increase the number of TPE services and run longer trains more often.

Until TPE are running 200m trains at a minimum there is NO need to increase the number of them, all it will do is fill up line capacity with silly little 3-car DMUs. The present (2017) frequency is more than adequate on all TPE routes.

We need to look at Switzerland. Where are they running silly little trains on IC/IR routes? They aren't, they're all at least 180m long, with many well over 200m and some heading towards 400m. Short trains are only found on local stopping services which are primarily intended to connect into the long distance services to serve trunk journeys.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Until TPE are running 200m trains at a minimum there is NO need to increase the number of them, all it will do is fill up line capacity with silly little 3-car DMUs. The present (2017) frequency is more than adequate on all TPE routes.

We need to look at Switzerland. Where are they running silly little trains on IC/IR routes? They aren't, they're all at least 180m long, with many well over 200m and some heading towards 400m. Short trains are only found on local stopping services which are primarily intended to connect into the long distance services to serve trunk journeys.

That is different argument to not needing the chord. Agreed we need longer trains. IE TPE being minimum 5 car.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Is Heathrow doing badly? Gatwick? Luton? Liverpool? (And it doesn't even have ANY rail link)



Absolutely nuts, unless they are portion worked to keep them as LONG trains not wasting line capacity. Even then it's a waste of half-empty DMUs.

Gatwick has direct links to the entire region.

Luton has direct links to London and the EM.

Heathrow fair play. However it has a variety of fast rail links. And london paddington is significantly easier to change at than Manchester Pic with luggage in my experience.

Liverpool. Nowhere near as successful as Manchester, not even comparable.....

I do agree about portion working to the airport though. The airport also has a benefit (especially for trains from Oxford Road) of providing a terminating station for services without having to cross the throat of the station, so some empty trains are acceptable. Just as they would be heading out to stalybridge from Victoria in the morning peak having worked in from Bolton.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Gatwick has direct links to the entire region.

To Southern routes, yes. Manchester Airport would retain some direct links.

Luton has direct links to London and the EM.

And Manchester Airport would have direct links to Manchester. The EM services are so infrequent they barely exist.

Heathrow fair play. However it has a variety of fast rail links. And london paddington is significantly easier to change at than Manchester Pic with luggage in my experience.

Eh? The experience of changing from an HST to HEx would be near identical to changing from a DMU in P1/2 to an EMU in P12.

I do agree about portion working to the airport though. The airport also has a benefit (especially for trains from Oxford Road) of providing a terminating station for services without having to cross the throat of the station, so some empty trains are acceptable. Just as they would be heading out to stalybridge from Victoria in the morning peak having worked in from Bolton.

Yes, there is that. But not where they cause massive operational headaches, and with the Chord they will just move to causing other massive operational headaches by crowding out the viaduct.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is different argument to not needing the chord. Agreed we need longer trains. IE TPE being minimum 5 car.

It's not, because there is only so much money.

To me, it would be sensible to direct ALL rail investment in the North at present other than renewals into the running of longer trains (rolling stock and platform lengthening), and maybe consider reducing some frequencies / portion working[1]. Even on TPE, where I think 5-car will soon be inadequate and 8 is probably a more sensible aim.

A half hourly base is a good place to start in building a reliable service at maximum length.

 

[DarloRich]

It's not, because there is only so much money.

To me, it would be sensible to direct ALL rail investment in the North at present other than renewals into the running of longer trains (rolling stock and platform lengthening), and maybe consider reducing some frequencies / portion working[1]. Even on TPE, where I think 5-car will soon be inadequate and 8 is probably a more sensible aim.

A half hourly base is a good place to start in building a reliable service at maximum length.

I don't agree. Removing direct airport trains would be a serious and costly mistake. I maintain that "normals" will be put off by the change at Piccadilly ( especially from a fast train on to a stopper) and will use the car or coach to reach the airport.

I don't think your suggestions captures the realities of passenger demand.

 

[shredder1]

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.

Thats interesting, thanks

 

[shredder1]

No it really wouldn't (a subject also previously discussed to death)

send me the link

 

[rebmcr]

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

That is how human nature works, though. Fighting against human nature is just signing up to lose, every time.

 

[markindurham]

I don't agree. Removing direct airport trains would be a serious and costly mistake. I maintain that "normals" will be put off by the change at Piccadilly ( especially from a fast train on to a stopper) and will use the car or coach to reach the airport.

I don't think your suggestions captures the realities of passenger demand.

I agree - direct trains are a massive 'selling point' for the TPE service to MAN from the North East

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is how human nature works, though. Fighting against human nature is just signing up to lose, every time.

It is human nature because the UK has no idea of how to do connections properly.

 

[PR1Berske]

It is human nature because the UK has no idea of how to do connections properly.

It's human nature because irregular, every-so-often, once-a-few-months passenger expects direct trains, and sees changing trains/connections as an inconvenience.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's human nature because irregular, every-so-often, once-a-few-months passenger expects direct trains, and sees changing trains/connections as an inconvenience.

So why isn't that view prevailing in Switzerland, the Netherlands etc? Or when using the Tube?

Is it perhaps because those services are set up for quality connections?

And frankly, holidaymakers going to the airport once a year in half empty DMUs are not a priority. The Airport is a useful terminus for trains coming into 13/14 but I simply can see no valid case for the TPEs coming from the North East running through, and lots of cases against it.

 

[lejog]

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..

I was pointing out by continued usage of silly terms like madness frankly does nothing to support your arguments. If you actually read the reports I suggested, you might realise that while a major concern of the Hub was capacity, it was rather more ambitious in scope additionally addressing connectivity and journey times.

As has been pointed out The Hub results in considerably improved infrastructure capacity at the lower numbered platforms at Piccadilly, and and also at Victoria by turning into a through station (not littering it with TPE terminators).

Do you have any evidence for your claim that a doubling of capacity is required or is it just made up? Its not a figure I recognize, but if you have any reputable source for this I'd be interested. IIRC Northern are to increase peak hour capacity into major cities by 40% by 2019, TPE I think a little more. This will be via a combination of longer trains and more services.

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.

The Castlefield corridor is not currently full, that's why there are to be more services next year. The current capacity was stated by NR as a train every 4 mins, if the improvements are carried out this would reduce to 3minutes.

As has been discussed, the average train lengths though the corridor will be increasing, but do you have any evidence whatsoever for your contention that trains should be (100/160m) (delete as appropriate) long? Since you seem to be unaware of the capacity, this would appear to be more made-up nonsense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A train every 3 minutes will simply not operate reliably through Castlefield. There are too many variables. It would work if it was like Thameslink with few origins/destinations, but as it is it will only get worse.

Re Vic, who is wanting to terminate there? If you abandon the Airport services, you just terminate them in Picc bays.

 

[lejog]

A train every 3 minutes will simply not operate reliably through Castlefield. There are too many variables. It would work if it was like Thameslink with few origins/destinations, but as it is it will only get worse.

Re Vic, who is wanting to terminate there? If you abandon the Airport services, you just terminate them in Picc bays.

Please answer the questions I asked. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the North needs a doubling f capacity? Do you have any evidence that the Castlefield corridor requires a minimum of 100/160m trains.

Or is it just made up wibble?

 

[PR1Berske]

So why isn't that view prevailing in Switzerland, the Netherlands etc? Or when using the Tube?

Is it perhaps because those services are set up for quality connections?

And frankly, holidaymakers going to the airport once a year in half empty DMUs are not a priority. The Airport is a useful terminus for trains coming into 13/14 but I simply can see no valid case for the TPEs coming from the North East running through, and lots of cases against it.

In short, the UK network is not, and never has been, comparable to the Swiss or Dutch systems. And the Tube is not used for the same reasons as the mainline network, of course behaviour there is different.

If we are to connect different parts of northern England together, we can do better than getting trains into 13/14 and then running empty units around and back again. The Airport is as good a place to terminate as any, and has been said above, it's far better to have passengers intending to use the Airport getting there directly than requiring them to take heavy baggage off at 13 to wait for a connection.

I have plenty of contrary opinions on this forum, none of which need to be regurgitated here, but on the Ordsall Curve and many connectivity issues, I am in full agreement. The Curve is exactly the kind of targeted investment we need up here, and expanding services door-to-door is a better use of rolling stock.

 

[DarloRich]

without getting all Kipperish the Swiss and Germans are a different people to us with a different railway network.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

In short, the UK network is not, and never has been, comparable to the Swiss or Dutch systems. And the Tube is not used for the same reasons as the mainline network, of course behaviour there is different.

If we are to connect different parts of northern England together, we can do better than getting trains into 13/14 and then running empty units around and back again. The Airport is as good a place to terminate as any, and has been said above, it's far better to have passengers intending to use the Airport getting there directly than requiring them to take heavy baggage off at 13 to wait for a connection.

I have plenty of contrary opinions on this forum, none of which need to be regurgitated here, but on the Ordsall Curve and many connectivity issues, I am in full agreement. The Curve is exactly the kind of targeted investment we need up here, and expanding services door-to-door is a better use of rolling stock.

Hear hear

 

[Bletchleyite]

without getting all Kipperish the Swiss and Germans are a different people to us with a different railway network.

The North's network is VERY comparable to the Swiss/Dutch networks.

And I get fed up of "not invented here syndrome" when other European countries in many ways run far more successful transport systems than us - and not one of them - not a single one - bases it on long-distance services run using 2-car DMUs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we are to connect different parts of northern England together, we can do better than getting trains into 13/14 and then running empty units around and back again. The Airport is as good a place to terminate as any, and has been said above, it's far better to have passengers intending to use the Airport getting there directly than requiring them to take heavy baggage off at 13 to wait for a connection.

Where did I say I'd stop running the 13-14 services through to the Airport?

It's the TPE reversers that are the waste.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please answer the questions I asked. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the North needs a doubling f capacity?

The evidence is found in the overcrowding found throughout the North, particularly on TPE services at all times of day, and of the huge amount of car traffic which with a genuinely good service could be attracted to grow rail and make it much more viable.

Do you have any evidence that the Castlefield corridor requires a minimum of 100/160m trains.

The evidence is in the appalling reliability and punctuality, which would be best addressed, if partial quadrupling and P15/16 are not affordable, by not wasting capacity with short DMUs and not cramming the trains in, perhaps allowing reduction to a more sensible headway like an evenly spaced 12tph (5 minute headway). If demand for a particular route is so low that a 2-car DMU is adequate, it needs to be portion-worked through Manchester so as not to waste capacity.

Reducing to a 3 minute headway will be unpunctual and unreliable unless a Thameslink approach was used - very long trains, metro style door and seating arrangements for very quick boarding and alighting, limited destinations. That approach will not fit Castlefield.

 

[lejog]

The evidence is found in the overcrowding found throughout the North, particularly on TPE services at all times of day, and of the huge amount of car traffic which with a genuinely good service could be attracted to grow rail and make it much more viable.

So you have no quantitative evidence whatsoever that a 100% increase in capacity in the North is required. I asked for a reputable source. Rail North, the DfT and the TOCs with access to actual passenger and estimates of future growth specify 40%, while an argumentative bloke on the internet with no figures whatsover insists on 100%. I know which of the two I find more reliable.

The evidence is in the appalling reliability and punctuality, which would be best addressed, if partial quadrupling and P15/16 are not affordable, by not wasting capacity with short DMUs and not cramming the trains in, perhaps allowing reduction to a more sensible headway like an evenly spaced 12tph (5 minute headway). If demand for a particular route is so low that a 2-car DMU is adequate, it needs to be portion-worked through Manchester so as not to waste capacity.

Reducing to a 3 minute headway will be unpunctual and unreliable unless a Thameslink approach was used - very long trains, metro style door and seating arrangements for very quick boarding and alighting, limited destinations. That approach will not fit Castlefield.

Again no quantitative information to support your claim that trains through the Castlefield corridor "should all be at least 160m long". The Hub didn't get down to the prescriptive detailed level of train lengths, but the TOCs have to meet their contractual obligations with regard to both passenger numbers and reliability. They obviously believe that they are going to satisfy these, else they are going to pay and take a hit to their profits.

But I'm glad to see that you think that a reduction to a "more sensible headway like an evenly spaced 12tph (5 minute headway)" would be a good idea, because in fact the current 9/10tph through the corridor is being increased to 12tph from May 18, with no further services due under the current franchises.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, back to the original point.

The Chord was built for only 2-3tph? With all that cost and disruption of city centre construction?

Astonishing.

 

[InOban]

There is only one reason for operating 2-coach trains at any frequency: because you believe that by doing so you will create the demand that will justify running longer ones. It is only when you are running 6-8 coaches that the train is making a worthwhile contribution to the transport mix. The prevalence of 2-coach trains is the reason why Northern requires such a huge subsidy.

But you have to start with the frequency.

 

[rebmcr]

So, back to the original point.

The Chord was built for only 2-3tph? With all that cost and disruption of city centre construction?

Astonishing.

I believe up to 6tph could run over the chord itself. Plus, the disruption was not very high. Trinity Way remained open throughout, with only some reduced width and contraflow systems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is only one reason for operating 2-coach trains at any frequency: because you believe that by doing so you will create the demand that will justify running longer ones.

Or, as is common, because you don't have enough DMUs to run them longer even though there is the demand, and because a rolling programme of electrification to solve that problem by allowing a small fleet of new DMUs to be built and a much larger combination of new and used EMUs is basically dead.

 

[InOban]

I should have said that. I suspect that if every two coach train was replaced by a four coach one, it would be filled with the unmet demand.