Should the Ordsall Curve have been built?

[Bletchleyite]

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.

It might or it might not - to use the Southern WLL service as an example, moving to 8-car peak, 5-car off-peak has resulted in a massive lessening of the problem. Long-term I believe the plan is 8-car all day.

 

[PR1Berske]

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.

It's built for 2-3 *at the moment*. It could take more. It might in future timetables. The impact of a Picc-Vic link might not properly be known for years.

I will say this. It's looking likely that the extra platforms at Salford Central station might not be built. This isn't ideal. Both these and Picc 15/16 together with the Curve would do wonders, and improve things without needing to run cobbled together units at unnecessarily long length. I hope to see the extra platforms built eventually. We are where we are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I will say this. It's looking likely that the extra platforms at Salford Central station might not be built. This isn't ideal. Both these and Picc 15/16 together with the Curve would do wonders, and improve things without needing to run cobbled together units at unnecessarily long length. I hope to see the extra platforms built eventually. We are where we are.

P15/16 at Picc and Oxford Road platform extensions would have had far more value than the Curve. Yet we have the Curve and not those other items.

 

[PR1Berske]

P15/16 at Picc and Oxford Road platform extensions would have had far more value than the Curve. Yet we have the Curve and not those other items.

You don't know that the Curve has no value.

I agree that 15/16 should be built. But as I also said, we can only work with the cards we are dealt.

The railways around Manchester are in great need of help, and the Curve does one part of that help in reducing some bottlenecks and enabling some cross-region journeys to be made without changing trains. All have the potential to be useful for Manchester in the long run. Not having the Curve seriously restricts expansion on both sides of Piccadilly. As said by a poster earlier in this thread, future generations would be baffled by our decision not to link the two stations.

 

[snowball]

Trinity Way remained open throughout, with only some reduced width and contraflow systems.

To be pedantic I think there were some total closures at weekends.

 

[Chester1]

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.

It was built with a current limit of 4tph, upgrading the junctions near it would raise its capacity. It cost something like £120m. Ignoring the benefits of linking Piccadilly and Victoria, the price is worth it simply to increase capacity in and out of Piccadilly P1-12.

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.

Yes, it has caused very little disruption and a tiny amount compared with the 2CC.

P15/16 at Picc and Oxford Road platform extensions would have had far more value than the Curve. Yet we have the Curve and not those other items.

P15/16 only make sense if there are enough services to use them. Without the chord you would need to find services for more than the planned 12tph + 2 Oxford Road terminators from 3 rather than 4 routes. If you only plan to use to run 12-14tph through then the £150m would have been soley spent on reliability. If only one scheme out of the 3 planned is built then Ordsall Chord was the correct choice because it adds new services and increases capacity into Piccadilly P1-12 which will be instantly filled.

 

[keith1879]

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.

I would say that they are making those changes because they have to. Break the through service and you will (without any shadow of a doubt whatsoever) reduce patronage on that route. Now that may be the right thing to do because of other opportunities thus created - but that's another argument.

 

[keith1879]

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.

Exactly so. TPE started their franchise by ordering a fleet of 3 coach DMUs ...and increasing frequency and through trains. Passenger growth followed and now we are looking forward to a future of 5 and 6 car trains still at the higher frequency. Longer trains relieve overcrowding but they don't (other than perhaps very marginally) encourage demand. And there I'm going to leave it because these arguments have all been made many times before and probably better than I am doing it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly so. TPE started their franchise by ordering a fleet of 3 coach DMUs ...and increasing frequency and through trains. Passenger growth followed and now we are looking forward to a future of 5 and 6 car trains still at the higher frequency. Longer trains relieve overcrowding but they don't (other than perhaps very marginally) encourage demand. And there I'm going to leave it because these arguments have all been made many times before and probably better than I am doing it.

I think the level of overcrowding on TPE is so much of an issue that there will be substantial latent demand that will come forward that had been going by car due to the uncomfortable travelling conditions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly so. TPE started their franchise by ordering a fleet of 3 coach DMUs ...and increasing frequency and through trains

Actually it was worse than that. They ordered 3-coach trains that had significantly less capacity than their previous 3-coach trains making up a large proportion of their fleet, and barely had more than the 2-coach ones. Then they wondered why they had a problem.

The whole thing is about as hair-brained as the Voyagers were. Replace one already full train with two trains with less than half the capacity of the previous one at a higher frequency, and what do you think is going to happen?

 

[keith1879]

Actually it was worse than that. They ordered 3-coach trains that had significantly less capacity than their previous 3-coach trains making up a large proportion of their fleet, and barely had more than the 2-coach ones. Then they wondered why they had a problem.

The whole thing is about as hair-brained as the Voyagers were. Replace one already full train with two trains with less than half the capacity of the previous one at a higher frequency, and what do you think is going to happen?

Well what actually did happen is that more people travelled :roll:

 

[Dr_Paul]

Was there any idea about reinstating the south to west curve at Ardwick? (See the OS map here.) This, with the new curve at Ordsall, would complete a useful full circle around the centre of Manchester, and thus enable additional routes to Piccadilly and Victoria and additional through routes. The old track-bed seems not to have been built on.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

Whatever Metrolink's merits, it does not provide a satisfactory Picc-Vic link. The service is one single tram every 12 minutes, and the journey time is about 10 minutes, at an average speed of 6mph. Each tram is only 28m long - much smaller than the 2-car DMUs you keep complaining about - and in the peaks they are overcrowded with commuters. There is no capacity in the Metrolink infrastructure either to increase the frequency on this service (Bury to Piccadilly) or to double up the trams.

At Victoria, the connection between the through platforms and Metrolink involves staircases up to and down from the footbridge, a longish walk, and a level crossing over the Metrolink tracks. At Piccadilly, there are two sets of stairs/escalators between the mainline station and the Metrolink platforms in the undercroft. Regardless of fare/ticketing issues, the Metrolink service is not acceptable as the main connection between two mainline railway stations in a large city (there is also a free Metroshuttle bus, but that is even slower and smaller).

The Ordsall Chord will enable 3tph between Victoria and the Airport via Piccadilly, including 1tph direct from the Calder Valley line, which currently has no heavy rail connection to Piccadilly and points south.

 

[PR1Berske]

Whatever Metrolink's merits, it does not provide a satisfactory Picc-Vic link. The service is one single tram every 12 minutes, and the journey time is about 10 minutes, at an average speed of 6mph. Each tram is only 28m long - much smaller than the 2-car DMUs you keep complaining about - and in the peaks they are overcrowded with commuters. There is no capacity in the Metrolink infrastructure either to increase the frequency on this service (Bury to Piccadilly) or to double up the trams.

At Victoria, the connection between the through platforms and Metrolink involves staircases up to and down from the footbridge, a longish walk, and a level crossing over the Metrolink tracks. At Piccadilly, there are two sets of stairs/escalators between the mainline station and the Metrolink platforms in the undercroft. Regardless of fare/ticketing issues, the Metrolink service is not acceptable as the main connection between two mainline railway stations in a large city (there is also a free Metroshuttle bus, but that is even slower and smaller).

The Ordsall Chord will enable 3tph between Victoria and the Airport via Piccadilly, including 1tph direct from the Calder Valley line, which currently has no heavy rail connection to Piccadilly and points south.

You've said everything I wanted to, just better. Great post.

 

[dggar]

Was there any idea about reinstating the south to west curve at Ardwick? (See the OS map here.) This, with the new curve at Ordsall, would complete a useful full circle around the centre of Manchester, and thus enable additional routes to Piccadilly and Victoria and additional through routes. The old track-bed seems not to have been built on.

Lookback to post #22

It's all explained there (for the umpteenth time)

 

[HSTEd]

I'm a little confused as to the purpose of the Chord.

Is it just to allow trains from the east to go through Victoria, Picadilly and then run back out to the east through 13/14 at Picc?

Are there insufficient trains running to the west to consume all the trains they wish to run to the east?

 

[Ianno87]

I'm a little confused as to the purpose of the Chord.

Is it just to allow trains from the east to go through Victoria, Picadilly and then run back out to the east through 13/14 at Picc?

Are there insufficient trains running to the west to consume all the trains they wish to run to the east?

In summary, the chord permits two things directly:

1. TPE trains that currently operate from the North East/Yorkshire to Manchester Airport every half-hour via a reversal at Manchester Piccadilly can instead be rerouted via Manchester Victoria, the chord, Oxford Rd and Piccadilly to the Airport which
a. Reduces the central Manchester-Leeds (and beyond) journey time as the route into Victoria via Ashton will be faster than the current route to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge.
b. Inproves performance and capacity on the southern approaches to Piccadilly be removing two trains per hour each way that basically cross the path of every other service at Piccadilly (and consume terminal platform capacity) but whilst retaining a direct Yorkshire-Piccadilly/Airport link (with as you say, not enough places to send trains to the west)
2. Offering a direct journey opportunity from tbe Calder Valley (which includes Rochdale, Halifax and Bradford) to Oxford Rd, Piccadilly and the Airport that is very difficult to do today, increasing accessibility to employment areas and other transport connections.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And yet at the same time Southport loses its long-established connection to those places, around which people have built up their lives and commuting patterns. As does Wigan Wallgate, meaning more local passengers cramming onto the TPEs.

I am still totally unconvinced this was value for money when compared to spending that money on other things. (I am, FWIW, similarly unconvinced about HS2 past Birmingham, though I do believe building it south of Birmingham is essential).

Edit: If there was unlimited money I'd say build it, build HS2 to Scotland, wire the Conwy Valley, the S&C and the Heart of Wales line[1], build what you like - the more railways the better. But there isn't, and compared with the other options to spend that money it does not seem to me to have been a good choice.

[1] Joke. But in all seriousness, electrifying Marple via Bredbury would, for instance, be much better value and of more benefit to Manchester in growing its S-Bahn, or even convert it to Metrolink.

 

[notlob.divad]

I have a lot of sympathy with Bletchleyite's position on this.

1) Whilst building the chord will stop the crossing move's across the Piccadilly throat which I fully appreciate as a massive benefit, the main driver for this is moving the through services to Victoria, not the chord. People arguing claiming that the chord is needed to stop the crossing moves are putting the cart before the horse. The chord simply allows the trains to continue to serve Piccadilly (+ the airport).

2) How many other destinations West of Manchester could have been served by longer distance services if it wasn't for the insistence on turning trains back through Manchester. Well..
a) 1 tpe service could run via Warrington to Chester, (given Warrington is currently loosing it's TPE services this would surely be seen as a good thing.)
b) 1 tpe could continue to Blackpool via Preston and either Bolton or Wigan

Now personally I see having 5 more cities/large towns with a significant improvement in cross Pennine connectivity as a bigger benefit than serving the airport directly.

Yes you may put off some people who are travelling to the airport with cases who return to their cars, but equally you would gain people from the other major population centers across the North of England.

Remember all this was decided before Arriva came along with Northern Connect.

I would have liked to see a North TPE that had flagship services:
Newcastle <-> Liverpool
Hull <-> Liverpool
Scarborough <-> Blackpool
Middlesborough <-> Chester

If you then really really wanted to run direct services to the Airport, a new link could have been built at the same time and parallel with the SEMMMs road linking the Airport to Stockport.

All water under the bridge now and so we will end up with 'All change' in Manchester still and carriages trundling around the flat junctions and disappearing off to the airport with a handful of people and their luggage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All water under the bridge now and so we will end up with 'All change' in Manchester still and carriages trundling around the flat junctions and disappearing off to the airport with a handful of people and their luggage.

And meanwhile these short DMUs clog up line capacity and prevent a proper regular interval electric S-Bahn service serving Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury, Gatley and Heald Green, and meanwhile passengers are standing on TPEs when one unit could be saved from each of the diagrams by removing it and used to double something else up, and meanwhile there are loads of spare EMUs that could be running instead of these DMUs under the wires.

And all so that some family doesn't have to walk 50 yards on the level across Manchester Piccadilly to get to their annual Ryanair flight to Spain, despite the fact that they will have to walk 200+ yards including stairs/lifts to get anywhere near check-in at the other end (not to mention having walked that distance to board the train at their origin, no doubt again including stairs and lifts that are not included with a change at Picc from 1/2 to 11/12), which means they'll have wheely cases making this all not exactly taxing.

I don't understand the priority of the airport. I really don't (and I'm a very frequent flyer). An effective city and regional transport system for the Manchester City Region and surrounding North West should be a much, much higher priority than a mode of transport we should be using less anyway. But even so the airport would still look like it had a premium service if there was an EMU running (even if it called at all stations on the way) from a dedicated platform with a quality seating layout, excellent luggage space, perhaps pay on board permitted at a premium etc. Manchester's Heathrow Connect, but better. (Here's an idea - not wiring Windermere will free up a couple of brand-new EMUs - use those and call it "Airport Connect" or something).

I wouldn't remove the through trains from 13/14 to the Airport as it's a convenient reversing point (you'd otherwise have to send them to the bay at Stockport - or here's an idea, connect them to something else going East instead?), but the ones from 1/2 (via the Curve or not) are a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Ianno87]

And yet at the same time Southport loses its long-established connection to those places, around which people have built up their lives and commuting patterns. As does Wigan Wallgate, meaning more local passengers cramming onto the TPEs.

Sandgrounders at least have the option of a same-platform interchange at Salford Crescent to access Oxford Rd/Piccadilly/Airport. Calder Valley passengers currently do not.

Southport loses out in this connectivity (but with an 'easy' alternative), but to the gain of the much more significant combined population of Rochdale, Halifax and Bradford who do not currently have an easy journey at all.

So a small population loses out a little to the benefit of a big population who gain a lot. Thus the net economic effect is significantly positive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Southport loses out in this connectivity (but with an 'easy' alternative), but to the gain of the much more significant combined population of Rochdale, Halifax and Bradford who do not currently have an easy journey at all.

So a small population loses out a little to the benefit of a big population who gain a lot. Thus the net economic effect is significantly positive.

It would be interesting to compare the actual catchment of both lines. Remember for example that Burscough Bridge, despite nominally being rather in the middle of nowhere, is effectively, and has been for years, a kind of "West Lancs Parkway / Kiss and Ride" type station[1]. And Wigan and surrounds are not small, nor is Bolton.

[1] You might think I'm talking from OS maps, but I grew up in West Lancashire and only moved south in 2001 aged 22. So I'm actually more of a Northerner than a Southerner, and spent years knocking about the North West's railways.

 

[Ianno87]

And meanwhile these short DMUs clog up line capacity and prevent a proper regular interval electric S-Bahn service serving Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury, Gatley and Heald Green, and meanwhile passengers are standing on TPEs when one unit could be saved from each of the diagrams by removing it and used to double something else up, and meanwhile there are loads of spare EMUs that could be running instead of these DMUs under the wires.

And all so that some family doesn't have to walk 50 yards on the level across Manchester Piccadilly to get to their annual Ryanair flight to Spain, despite the fact that they will have to walk 200+ yards including stairs/lifts to get anywhere near check-in at the other end (not to mention having walked that distance to board the train at their origin, no doubt again including stairs and lifts that are not included with a change at Picc from 1/2 to 11/12), which means they'll have wheely cases making this all not exactly taxing.

I don't understand the priority of the airport. I really don't (and I'm a very frequent flyer). An effective city and regional transport system for the Manchester City Region and surrounding North West should be a much, much higher priority than a mode of transport we should be using less anyway. But even so the airport would still look like it had a premium service if there was an EMU running (even if it called at all stations on the way) from a dedicated platform with a quality seating layout, excellent luggage space, perhaps pay on board permitted at a premium etc. Manchester's Heathrow Connect, but better.

I wouldn't remove the through trains from 13/14 to the Airport as it's a convenient reversing point (you'd otherwise have to send them to the bay at Stockport - or here's an idea, connect them to something else going East instead?), but the ones from 1/2 (via the Curve or not) are a waste of everyone's time.

But, as I've said, the chord enables a reduction in Manchester-Leeds journey times by diverting TPE via Victoria. How would you address this?

And how do you give an ecomonic boost to the Calder Valley?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But, as I've said, the chord enables a reduction in Manchester-Leeds journey times by diverting TPE via Victoria. How would you address this?

Still divert the services from Liverpool to run via Vic, of which I believe there are going to be 2tph? It's not a massive problem for there to be two fasts and two slows per hour; some might be happy choosing the slows from Picc because they can board at a terminus at their leisure and have a leisurely choice of seat. That's a pretty standard service pattern for "regional" type South East commuter lines, it's basically the (rough) base of the whole south WCML timetable.

And how do you give an ecomonic boost to the Calder Valley?

Extending one train per hour (or two, is it? Certainly no more from the Calder Valley) from Victoria to the Airport will barely breathe on it. If you wanted to give a big economic boost to the Calder Valley, there's much more you could spend that money on such as incentives for employers and business, training schemes, local transport (quality local bus systems to help poorer people get to jobs more effectively) etc.

 

[Ianno87]

Manchester Airport serves far, far more than the "Ryanair" market. North American, Middle Eastern and Asian carriers serve Manchester precisely beacuse of how well connected it is by rail and road to the whole of the North of England. That is a very significant part of MAG's sales pitch to these carriers, who would otherwise be considerably less interested in serving Manchester.

 

[YorkshireBear]

We appear to be going round in circles here. Is there anything new to add to the argument on either side?

Southport losing its service is nothing to do with the Chord itself it is simply a service pattern choice by TfGM and Northern and can easily be reversed in the future.

 

[notlob.divad]

Manchester Airport serves far, far more than the "Ryanair" market. North American, Middle Eastern and Asian carriers serve Manchester precisely beacuse of how well connected it is by rail and road to the whole of the North of England. That is a very significant part of MAG's sales pitch to these carriers, who would otherwise be considerably less interested in serving Manchester.

That is very true, but the people likely to use the train are usually the cost sensitive passengers looking at the other end of the market, or tourists arriving in this country. The swathe of business passengers using the train to travel to far flung business destinations just does not happen at Manchester. I regularly used to use Manchester for business and whilst they may have been incredibly cost conscious about the flights, when it came to getting me to the airport for the flight, it would be a chauffeur driven airport service from my house to the check-in terminal, or for those on a higher grade than me, use the company season ticket to park the company car in the car park.

On the other hand I also used Manchester for holiday's away, when I did get the train. Lugging your snowboard-equipment across Piccadilly is a pain in the proverbial, I did it, because the direct train I had planned to get was cancelled. But then again it wasn't as much a pain in the proverbial as major population centers not having the direct long distance services they need to thrive.

I am not saying the Chord should definitely not have been built, but I think a different, more effective long distance service pattern should have been implemented first, after which the BCR analysis of the options may have been significantly different.

 

[daikilo]

We appear to be going round in circles here. Is there anything new to add to the argument on either side?

Southport losing its service is nothing to do with the Chord itself it is simply a service pattern choice by TfGM and Northern and can easily be reversed in the future.

Given that the chord is not far from complete, what now matters is how it will be used, which has been discussed already but will maybe need a refresh when first timetables are produced or, even better, if a draft becomes available. That said, I doubt that anything fundamental has changed from when it was initially justified.

 

[dggar]

I have a lot of sympathy with Bletchleyite's position on this.

..........

2) How many other destinations West of Manchester could have been served by longer distance services if it wasn't for the insistence on turning trains back through Manchester. Well..
a) 1 tpe service could run via Warrington to Chester, (given Warrington is currently loosing it's TPE services this would surely be seen as a good thing.)
b) 1 tpe could continue to Blackpool via Preston and either Bolton or Wigan

Now personally I see having 5 more cities/large towns with a significant improvement in cross Pennine connectivity as a bigger benefit than serving the airport directly.

Yes you may put off some people who are travelling to the airport with cases who return to their cars, but equally you would gain people from the other major population centers across the North of England.

Remember all this was decided before Arriva came along with Northern Connect.

I would have liked to see a North TPE that had flagship services:
Newcastle <-> Liverpool
Hull <-> Liverpool
Scarborough <-> Blackpool
Middlesborough <-> Chester

If you then really really wanted to run direct services to the Airport, a new link could have been built at the same time and parallel with the SEMMMs road linking the Airport to Stockport.

All water under the bridge now and so we will end up with 'All change' in Manchester still and carriages trundling around the flat junctions and disappearing off to the airport with a handful of people and their luggage.

I thought ATW were having a service going via Chester , Warrington Bank Quay ManVic to Leeds.

 

[notlob.divad]

I thought ATW were having a service going via Chester , Warrington Bank Quay ManVic to Leeds.

Nope, nobody really knows what is happening with ATW. it keeps getting extensions that allow it to continue its path to the Airport. But I seriously doubt ATW will ever serve Leeds.

Northern Connect will run a Chester to Leeds via Warrington and Manchester, but it will take the Calder Valley Route to Bradford on the way. However my point was the idea for that came along after the 'Northern Hub' and chord project. Without the need to serve the airport an existing Leeds - Manchester TPE service could have gone via Victoria and Warrington to Chester without the need to build the chord.