• 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.

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,651
Location
Mold, Clwyd
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?

I'm not sure journey times via the chord to the Airport will come down.
It's further, and there will be 2 extra stops to make (Victoria, Oxford Road).
Stalybridge to Victoria is still a crawl (not sure how fast it will be come the rerouting).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
I'm not sure journey times via the chord to the Airport will come down.
It's further, and there will be 2 extra stops to make (Victoria, Oxford Road).
Stalybridge to Victoria is still a crawl (not sure how fast it will be come the rerouting).



Really?

Once you are through Ashton it is 70mph upto Miles Platting junction. Hardly a crawl. Then 25 through the west end of victoria onto the curve.

The real slow part is through oxford road and picc, with a 20mph limit.

Which is much faster than going via Guide Bridge, including the double movement over the throat.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,995
Really?

Once you are through Ashton it is 70mph upto Miles Platting junction. Hardly a crawl. Then 25 through the west end of victoria onto the curve.

The real slow part is through oxford road and picc, with a 20mph limit.

Which is much faster than going via Guide Bridge, including the double movement over the throat.

I have definately read somewhere (probably in a railway magazine) that there is a small journey time saving both to Victoria (in compared with current Piccadilly timings) and to the airport (because of the reversal time). The journey time from Leeds to Piccadilly will increase but the services will spend much less time at Piccadilly.

Rail enthusiasts will always have a preference for upgrading or rebuilding new infrastructure over building brand new infrastructure. Fortunately NR is not controlled by nostalgia.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,266
Location
Greater Manchester
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.

You want to truncate the Middlesbrough and Newcastle to Airport services to Piccadilly on grounds of DMUs under the wires. Yet you are in favour of rerouting the Scarborough to Liverpool DMU via the electrified Chat Moss line. This will require the Northern semi-fast Liverpool to Airport service, currently EMU operated, to swap to the unelectrified CLC line. Effectively this will mean another DMU under the wires all the way from Lime Street to the Airport - a much greater distance than just from Piccadilly. And it will be another "short DMU clogging up line capacity" to the Airport.

Are your arguments not a little inconsistent?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You want to truncate the Middlesbrough and Newcastle to Airport services to Piccadilly on grounds of DMUs under the wires.

Not specifically on those grounds. On the grounds of the reverse causing congestion at Picc, which I don't believe the Ordsall Curve was a value for money way of resolving, but also because removing the Airport extension will free up a DMU.

The Scarborough issue was more of a "this is already happening" than that I would specifically advocate it. You could, if preferred, instead reroute one of the Manchester terminators to Vic.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,441
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.

I seem to recall at some point there was the idea that a 4tph 'turn up and go' frequency was desirable between Leeds and Manchester, which is achieved at both Piccadilly and Victoria with the Chord (albeit with slower journeys from Piccadilly on the stoppers, which I personally think are a stupid idea).It will mean that Victoria is the main station for North TPE services in Manchester, having trains to all destinations except Hull and always being the fastest way to Yorkshire, whereas with just the Liverpool services via Victoria you split the destinations with Piccadilly and have to consult a timetable to decide which station to use and when to turn up, and if you move the Airport trains to terminate at Victoria you lose the benefits of serving Piccadilly, hub for everyone else's services in Manchester.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
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.

If you looked at the Manchester Hub study documents I referred you to earlier you would see the facts and figures behind the choice of the Calder Valley route as a principal corridor for the Hub, while I'm afraid Southport missed out as it is not a hive of economic activity. It was a prime requirement of the Part 1 Hub study that all principal corridors into Manchester served a single station for interchange purposes. Network Rail's Part 2 solution to this requirement was to build the Chord. Having said that why the DfT subsequently chose to run a Cumbria service rather than a Southport service beats me, that was certainly not a Hub requirement.

I don't understand the priority of the airport. I really don't (and I'm a very frequent flyer).

Again if you read Part 1 of the study you may have a better idea, although I'm afraid with with the disappearance of the Northern Way website a lot of the background information has gone (including IIRC case studies comparing Manchester with Zurich and Schipol) . It has much less to do with what you as an individual experiences, or the numbers of tourists travelling to/from the airport, which improve airport finances but are not in themselves any great contributor to the economy, but more to do with the attraction of inward investment into the economy.

If this time of a globalised economy, it is advantageous for the North to have a major airport with good transport links throughout the region in order to better attract inward investment, whether from other areas of the UK or abroad.

If you want to understand the reasons for a £1bn investment, you need to see the bigger picture, not scramble about at the level of detail about saving a few DMUs, the length of a walk etc.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
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.

Where's the like button on this forum?

Tired old arguments against the Chord trotted out again and again, with absolutely no understanding of the requirements it is designed to satisfy, or even the reasons for those requirements.
 
Last edited:

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
If you looked at the Manchester Hub study documents I referred you to earlier you would see the facts and figures behind the choice of the Calder Valley route as a principal corridor for the Hub, while I'm afraid Southport missed out as it is not a hive of economic activity. It was a prime requirement of the Part 1 Hub study that all principal corridors into Manchester served a single station for interchange purposes. Network Rail's Part 2 solution to this requirement was to build the Chord. Having said that why the DfT subsequently chose to run a Cumbria service rather than a Southport service beats me, that was certainly not a Hub requirement.



Again if you read Part 1 of the study you may have a better idea, although I'm afraid with with the disappearance of the Northern Way website a lot of the background information has gone (including IIRC case studies comparing Manchester with Zurich and Schipol) . It has much less to do with what you as an individual experiences, or the numbers of tourists travelling to/from the airport, which improve airport finances but are not in themselves any great contributor to the economy, but more to do with the attraction of inward investment into the economy.

If this time of a globalised economy, it is advantageous for the North to have a major airport with good transport links throughout the region in order to better attract inward investment, whether from other areas of the UK or abroad.

If you want to understand the reasons for a £1bn investment, you need to see the bigger picture, not scramble about at the level of detail about saving a few DMUs, the length of a walk etc.

This thread is attracting some very good posts. Very strong arguments here
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
This thread is attracting some very good posts. Very strong arguments here

Well I did have some involvement in Part 1 of the Hub study (the Northern Way work that set out requirements for connectivity, journey times and capacity), but thank you.

I'm afraid it is very annoying to read years after the event comments along the lines of "it would be interesting to compare the actual catchment of the lines" when this work (and much much more) was done years ago as part of the decision making process. Do people really think decisions on a £1bn investment are made without a sound intellectual basis?

I'll remind forum members that it wasn't the aim of the Hub to magically solve all the problems of rail in the North. It was to provide a cost effective investment in rail which would boost the North's economy.

I'm afraid at least one poster seems determined to trash the North's economy.
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
Well I did have some involvement in Part 1 of the Hub study (the Northern Way work that set out requirements for connectivity, journey times and capacity), but thank you.

I'm afraid it is very annoying to read years after the event comments along the lines of "it would be interesting to compare the actual catchment of the lines" when this work (and much much more) was done years ago as part of the decision making process. Do people really think decisions on a £1bn investment are made without a sound intellectual basis?

I'll remind forum members that it wasn't the aim of the Hub to magically solve all the problems of rail in the North. It was to provide a cost effective investment in rail which would boost the North's economy.

I'm afraid at least one poster seems determined to trash the North's economy.

It does seem a shame that these multi-million pound investments are made on the subjective whim of groups of transport professionals without bothering to carry out the sort of deep and incisive quantitative investigation that our posters obviously specialise in. (Including me of course). :)
 

daikilo

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2010
Messages
1,623
Well I did have some involvement in Part 1 of the Hub study (the Northern Way work that set out requirements for connectivity, journey times and capacity), but thank you.

I'm afraid it is very annoying to read years after the event comments along the lines of "it would be interesting to compare the actual catchment of the lines" when this work (and much much more) was done years ago as part of the decision making process. Do people really think decisions on a £1bn investment are made without a sound intellectual basis?

I'll remind forum members that it wasn't the aim of the Hub to magically solve all the problems of rail in the North. It was to provide a cost effective investment in rail which would boost the North's economy.

I'm afraid at least one poster seems determined to trash the North's economy.

And those travelling in the early 1970s will remember that "fast" transpenines north of Wath went via Victoria whilst Wath and Hope valley went to/from Piccadilly with occasional extensions.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,995
I seem to recall at some point there was the idea that a 4tph 'turn up and go' frequency was desirable between Leeds and Manchester, which is achieved at both Piccadilly and Victoria with the Chord (albeit with slower journeys from Piccadilly on the stoppers, which I personally think are a stupid idea).It will mean that Victoria is the main station for North TPE services in Manchester, having trains to all destinations except Hull and always being the fastest way to Yorkshire, whereas with just the Liverpool services via Victoria you split the destinations with Piccadilly and have to consult a timetable to decide which station to use and when to turn up, and if you move the Airport trains to terminate at Victoria you lose the benefits of serving Piccadilly, hub for everyone else's services in Manchester.

Running all the express services through Victoria will definitely make things easier when using an open ticket. The current mix of stations and journey times (particularly Manchester to Liverpool) is a bit of a mess and caused by moving some to Victoria. Piccadilly doesn't have the capacity to the main TPE station in Manchester so I think concentrating services at Victoria was the correct decision. If / when TP electrification is done more capacity could be freed up at Piccadilly by replacing the skip stop TPE service starting in December with a semi fast Liverpool-Victoria-Leeds EMU. Instead of changing at Piccadilly for airport services people would need to change at Victoria which is easier.
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,848
Location
t'North
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.
Would these Wigan services be the new longer trains you are wishing for? But I'm not really sure what your argument is here. Airport connections are not built around commuters. I travel from Wigan into Manchester for work. It takes me 10 minutes to walk from Salford Central and 15 from Oxford Road, so I catch whichever service is convenient, be it Wallgate or NW at one end or Salford and Oxford Road at the other. I have to change my patterns at timetable changes, which sometimes means using different stations. Doesn't take long to get used to it.
 
Last edited:

daikilo

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2010
Messages
1,623
Running all the express services through Victoria will definitely make things easier when using an open ticket. The current mix of stations and journey times (particularly Manchester to Liverpool) is a bit of a mess and caused by moving some to Victoria. Piccadilly doesn't have the capacity to the main TPE station in Manchester so I think concentrating services at Victoria was the correct decision.....

Brilliant, just go back say 50 years, and I agree with the logic. Now, let's get on with finally electrifying the right bits.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
Perhaps not the optimum thread for this post, but perhaps as "Son of Ordsall Curve":

Some clarity for a change, with a clear indication of the state of progress and near-term expectations:

High-speed synergies for the north
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-Industry-Focus-/high-speed-synergies-for-the-north
- 2017-09-11

...
The case for NPR, sometimes erroneously known as HS3, has been growing ever since Sir David Higgins’ report on ‘Rebalancing Britain’ in 2014.

But what is NPR? And how will it align with HS2 phase 2b? NPR will be a high-capacity rail network, not high-speed in the sense of HS2, but sufficiently fast to drastically shrink travel times between the major cities and economic centres of the north and, in doing so, create an ‘agglomeration’ effect that will enable the north to perform as never before.

Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Hull and Newcastle will all be key nodal points on the network. NPR is being developed as a multi-nodal network rather than as just a fast linear route between east and west. It will be the backbone of the north’s first Strategic Transport Plan.

For TfN, and the 19 local authorities and 11 local enterprise partnerships that sit on its board, NPR is all about ‘outputs’ – conditional outputs that will guarantee train frequencies and journey times. These will be the drivers that shape the new network as it evolves over the next three decades.

Aligning NPR with HS2 will ensure that the full potential of both programmes can be realised, and that the north’s connections with the south get the boost they need at a time when capacity on the east and west coast main lines will reach the ‘critical’ point.

TfN has been working closely on examining the HS2/NPR touchpoints that need to be developed in advance of the HS2 phase 2b hybrid bill ‘design-freeze’ due to be locked in by the end of this year.

Current expectations - but seems not to have been updated with progress recently:
http://www.transportforthenorth.com/strategic-transport-plan/

See:
- Page 10 for the corridors they are look at,
- Page 14 for outline time-scales:
http://www.transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/TfN-Position-Statement22617.pdf
 
Last edited:

LeylandLen

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2013
Messages
779
Location
Leyland Lancs
Saw a report on local BBC tv news (North West Today) that the chord is now complete, and passenger trains will use it from December 10th
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
Yes, good news.
BUT we now need Piccadilly Platforms 15/16 and the Oxford Road improvements to get the full benefit of the chord.
Meanwhile Crossrail 2 is more likely to happen
 

47802

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2013
Messages
3,455
Yes, good news.
BUT we now need Piccadilly Platforms 15/16 and the Oxford Road improvements to get the full benefit of the chord.
Meanwhile Crossrail 2 is more likely to happen

Indeed and as far as Manchester Airport is concerned I think the thread starter needs to be reminded that Manchester Airport is the main Airport for the North of England it is used by many in Lancashire obviously but also substancially from Yorkshire and further afield for both business and Leisure trips because it offers flights to destinations which are not available from many of the Regional Airports, and TPE service has made getting to Manchester Airport from Yorkshire and the North East much easier.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
Yes, good news.
BUT we now need Piccadilly Platforms 15/16 and the Oxford Road improvements to get the full benefit of the chord.
Meanwhile Crossrail 2 is more likely to happen

Much discussed elsewhere on this forum, with wildly varying conclusions!
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
Much discussed elsewhere on this forum, with wildly varying conclusions!
I don't think there is much doubt that the full benefit of the chord will not be gained without the additional Platforms at Piccadilly and the longer platforms at Oxford Road.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I don't think there is much doubt that the full benefit of the chord will not be gained without the additional Platforms at Piccadilly and the longer platforms at Oxford Road.

I'd probably retain my view that without Picc 15/16 the effect may well be negative on punctuality and reliability. Arguably if it was one or the other Picc P15/16 would have been of more benefit than the Chord.
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
I'd probably retain my view that without Picc 15/16 the effect may well be negative on punctuality and reliability. Arguably if it was one or the other Picc P15/16 would have been of more benefit than the Chord.
You forgot capacity, more platforms mean more trains.
 

Kryten2340

Member
Joined
3 Apr 2011
Messages
334
Location
Gateshead
Indeed and as far as Manchester Airport is concerned I think the thread starter needs to be reminded that Manchester Airport is the main Airport for the North of England it is used by many in Lancashire obviously but also substancially from Yorkshire and further afield for both business and Leisure trips because it offers flights to destinations which are not available from many of the Regional Airports, and TPE service has made getting to Manchester Airport from Yorkshire and the North East much easier.

To add to that part of the North East (Newcastle and Durham) doesn't have much of a direct service to the airport as it is and requires a change at York. A 2nd change would put people off using the train even further.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,337
Saw a report on local BBC tv news (North West Today) that the chord is now complete, and passenger trains will use it from December 10th
According to RTT, some Calder Valley services extended from Victoria to Oxford Road. Mostly hourly, but nothing in the early morning or evening.
 

Old Yard Dog

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2011
Messages
1,480
I don't think there is much doubt that the full benefit of the chord will not be gained without the additional Platforms at Piccadilly and the longer platforms at Oxford Road.

The main benefits will accrue from shifting the main East - West hub from back from Piccadilly to Victoria. Once you've enjoyed a 32-minute Liverpool to Victoria run instead of faffing around south Liverpool and the western approaches to Piccadilly, you will agree. Its just a pity the Lime Street - Newcastle TPEs then hang about for 7 mins at Victoria.

People in Rochdale, Halifax and Bradford will also enjoy the benefits of being able to get to Manchester Airport, Crewe, Chester, North Wales, etc without having to cross Manchester and pay for the inconvenience.

If there was a mistake, it was building the Windsor link not the Orsdall chord. But both have their place in the new railway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top