Ordsall Chord

[swt_passenger]

What Network Rail said today, in a summary of major Northern projects:

Ordsall Chord

Preparatory work started in October 2015 on the Ordsall Chord – a new section of railway linking Manchester’s Piccadilly and Victoria stations, which will open up opportunities for new direct rail links, supporting the delivery of faster, more frequent services to towns and cities across the north of England.

Work to build its foundations began in January this year. In the months ahead, the project will involve resignalling and realignment of the existing track, and existing structures will be removed and their heritage preserved before the main viaduct is built.

The benefits of the Ordsall Chord are recognised across the north of England, and this significant investment has the support of civic leaders representing more than one million people across the Greater Manchester area.

We want to deliver this vital and long overdue improvement to the railway to benefit the millions of taxpaying passengers who want, and deserve it.

This is the location of the world’s first inter-city railway, opened in 1830 by George Stephenson. Stephenson was an innovator who brought progress. If he was alive today we firmly believe he would build the Ordsall Chord. The old railway is giving birth to the new.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/2...16-to-boost-railway-capacity-and-performance/

 

[PR1Berske]

Lots of tiny subtle references there to the looming shadow of a potentially damaging court case.....

 

[anorack 1]

What is the worst that can happen if Whitby wins his appeal?

Could the Secretary of State overrule the Courts decision?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What is the worst that can happen if Whitby wins his appeal?

Could the Secretary of State overrule the Courts decision?

Yes, if Whitby wins the appeal, the construction of the Ordsall Chord could be legislated for avoiding the entire planning process and making an appeal redundant as the Ordsall Chord Order would have been superseded by the Ordsall Chord Act. That would be unchallengeable if drawn up properly.

 

[lejog]

What is the worst that can happen if Whitby wins his appeal?

Could the Secretary of State overrule the Courts decision?

The courts can't overturn the planning decision, they can only rule that the correct process was not followed. In the unlikely case of Whitby winning Network Rail/Planning Inspectorate would have the option of trying again following the correct process or giving up.

No the Secretary of State can not overrule the courts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, if Whitby wins the appeal, the construction of the Ordsall Chord could be legislated for avoiding the entire planning process and making an appeal redundant as the Ordsall Chord Order would have been superseded by the Ordsall Chord Act. That would be unchallengeable if drawn up properly.

Possible, but how likely is this? This would be the executive overuling the judiciary..

 

[sng7]

The courts can't overturn the planning decision, they can only rule that the correct process was not followed. In the unlikely case of Whitby winning Network Rail/Planning Inspectorate would have the option of trying again following the correct process or giving up.

No the Secretary of State can not overrule the courts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Possible, but how likely is this? This would be the executive overuling the judiciary..

At my guess (not having a Legal background) if the court blocks the chord based on the process this would be a different process and would be surely be ok, if the block the development rather than the process that is a different matter.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The courts can't overturn the planning decision, they can only rule that the correct process was not followed. In the unlikely case of Whitby winning Network Rail/Planning Inspectorate would have the option of trying again following the correct process or giving up.

No the Secretary of State can not overrule the courts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Possible, but how likely is this? This would be the executive overuling the judiciary..

It was a Conservative manifesto commitment, if the courts allow the appeal, this goes full circle and has the judiciary vetoing a pledge made by the elected governing party, which is a bit dubious.

If the Ordsall Chord doesn't get its own act, they'll change the planning legislation then resubmit the order. This is George Osborne's baby, really, and the whole grand Northern Powerhouse scheme is aimed at killing Labour support in Manchester stone dead in the next couple of decades, it will not be allowed to grind to a shuddering halt.

 

[snowball]

Possible, but how likely is this? This would be the executive overuling the judiciary..

Parliament is the legislature, not the executive, and is the only democratically elected part of central goverment.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps I see matters such as this in terms of a historical perspective, but Whitby would seem to have been ideal as one of the cohorts of Oliver Cromwell prior to the events that culminated in 1649.

There again, in literary terms, he could also be viewed as a character in a book by Cervantes.

 

[krus_aragon]

There is coverage and details of the last day of operation over the track that is to be lost to the chord development on North Wales Coast Rail's Notice Board for this week. It is the sixth news item (Last day at Liverpool Road), found here.

 

[anorack 1]

Perhaps I see matters such as this in terms of a historical perspective, but Whitby would seem to have been ideal as one of the cohorts of Oliver Cromwell prior to the events that culminated in 1649.

There again, in literary terms, he could also be viewed as a character in a book by Cervantes.

More Ned Ludd

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder when this thread was first opened if anyone thought the 1,000 posting mark would eventually have been passed?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

More Ned Ludd

I'm not so sure about that, if indeed Ned Ludd actually existed one assumes he was motivated by more than just vanity and sour grapes, unlike Whitby.

 

[Amberley54]

Perhaps I see matters such as this in terms of a historical perspective, but Whitby would seem to have been ideal as one of the cohorts of Oliver Cromwell prior to the events that culminated in 1649.

There again, in literary terms, he could also be viewed as a character in a book by Cervantes.

Gosh Paul.

Had to cogitate awhile over that post!

 

[TBirdFrank]

The sour grapes are, I am afraid, all too obvious in the team siding with Gideon and his depredations of the real strategic vision for Manchester rather than his own personal vanities and ambition.

Luddites are reputed to be anti progress - people like Whitby and myself are anti second best - which will - in time - undoubtedly prove to be the case.

I regret the number of times in my life I have had to return to topics to make this point as each is a waste, a waste of resources, a waste of potential and an ongoing waste of our city's and regions fortunes - but we are where we are - just now!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Luddites are reputed to be anti progress - people like Whitby and myself are anti second best - which will - in time - undoubtedly prove to be the case.

Hang on, you were saying that the whole Chord concept was wrong, now you're suggesting that Whitby has a point - but his suggestion is still a chord on the west side of Manchester, not some fanciful notion of returning Mayfield to the glory days of steam (I paraphrase ...).

Whitby's layout for the chord is a "second best" anyway - on cost, programme and timetable grounds it is not as good as the current design.

 

[lejog]

Parliament is the legislature, not the executive, and is the only democratically elected part of central goverment.

Yes I know, but I wasn't referring to Parliament, I was referring to the cabinet/government. The actions of the legislature in the UK are effectively decided by the PM/Cabinet i.e. the executive. The UK does not have a true tripartite separation of powers.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Luddites are reputed to be anti progress - people like Whitby and myself are anti second best - which will - in time - undoubtedly prove to be the case.

I suppose that the fact that the timescale of the Ordsall Chord, with two new franchises soon to be in operation with new rolling stock to order to give rail travellers and the accruing new routes with connectional benefits, has had to be set back in time means very little to you. I was at the opening day of the public inquiry at the Mechanics Institute in Manchester when Whitby was there and I was neither impressed by his general demeanour, nor of the tone of his presentation of case.

Let us also address the matter of the large building development programme of works connected with the £700 million Middlewood Locks development that included 550 new homes that has certain "alternative" plans seeing a swathe of devastation ruining a well-planned site, that would to use the phrase you show above, be most certainly "second best" compared with the original well laid out plan.

Are you a fully paid-up life member of the Order of Procrastination?

 

[lejog]

At my guess (not having a Legal background) if the court blocks the chord based on the process this would be a different process and would be surely be ok, if the block the development rather than the process that is a different matter.

The courts only have the power to rule that the due process was not followed, not to rule on the decision itself.

If the courts did indeed decide the process was flawed, it would in my view be an extreme abuse of power to introduce specific legislation or changing planning law in order to overcome a botched process as Philip Phlopp suggests. As the Chord is manifestly the best solution, all that would be necessary would be to go back through the process again, this time in a correct manner.

However all this argument is totally academic, the process wasn't flawed and the Appeals Court are not going to take a different view of the planning inspector's report than the DfT and a High Court judge.

 

[Altfish]

The sour grapes are, I am afraid, all too obvious in the team siding with Gideon and his depredations of the real strategic vision for Manchester rather than his own personal vanities and ambition.

Luddites are reputed to be anti progress - people like Whitby and myself are anti second best - which will - in time - undoubtedly prove to be the case.

I regret the number of times in my life I have had to return to topics to make this point as each is a waste, a waste of resources, a waste of potential and an ongoing waste of our city's and regions fortunes - but we are where we are - just now!

Whilst I agree it is the second best option. The best option was ridiculously expensive, severed a prime development site and would never have got built.
So there was a choice, compromise and get it built or dig ones heels in and not get it built.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The courts only have the power to rule that the due process was not followed, not to rule on the decision itself.

If the courts did indeed decide the process was flawed, it would in my view be an extreme abuse of power to introduce specific legislation or changing planning law in order to overcome a botched process as Philip Phlopp suggests. As the Chord is manifestly the best solution, all that would be necessary would be to go back through the process again, this time in a correct manner.

However all this argument is totally academic, the process wasn't flawed and the Appeals Court are not going to take a different view of the planning inspector's report than the DfT and a High Court judge.

I disagree that it would be an extreme abuse of power to introduce specific legislation or to change the planning legislation.

The planning legislation, listed building status and scheduled ancient monument status are all legislated for by Parliament, it was within their gift to grant protection for old buildings, it's equally within their gift to remove such protection. I hate to sound all political, but the Northern Hub scheme was a manifesto commitment from a democratically elected government.

I don't want it to get that far, but I do want to see, sooner rather than later, a streamlined system which cannot be interrupted by a protester like Mark Whitby for years, he has been allowed to have his say several times, but eventually there comes a point when the time, effort and cost becomes too great, and a formal mechanism to shut up a person like Whitby needs to exist.

It is quite clear that the planning process and listed building status legislation is not working effectively and efficiently in the case of the Ordsall Chord, I don't particularly want to see legislation being relaxed and creating a free for all, but that's ultimately something Whitby risks encouraging with his behaviour.

 

[lejog]

I disagree that it would be an extreme abuse of power to introduce specific legislation or to change the planning legislation.

The planning legislation, listed building status and scheduled ancient monument status are all legislated for by Parliament, it was within their gift to grant protection for old buildings, it's equally within their gift to remove such protection. I hate to sound all political, but the Northern Hub scheme was a manifesto commitment from a democratically elected government.

I don't want it to get that far, but I do want to see, sooner rather than later, a streamlined system which cannot be interrupted by a protester like Mark Whitby for years, he has been allowed to have his say several times, but eventually there comes a point when the time, effort and cost becomes too great, and a formal mechanism to shut up a person like Whitby needs to exist.

It is quite clear that the planning process and listed building status legislation is not working effectively and efficiently in the case of the Ordsall Chord, I don't particularly want to see legislation being relaxed and creating a free for all, but that's ultimately something Whitby risks encouraging with his behaviour.

There was a manifesto commitment to build the Northern Hub, not to support any particular solution for it.

I have to disagree with you totally. If the courts were to find fault in process, then incompetence should be covered up and corrected by blockerbustering legislation through Parliament? That to me is typical of too much of the railway industry's outdated thinking.

But as I said, this is an academic argument. Both Network Rail and the Planning Inspectorate did a fine job in this instance.

There are changes in the law mooted to stop people like Whitby, but thats a different issue.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If the courts were to find fault in process, then incompetence should be covered up and corrected by blockerbustering legislation through Parliament?

You're jumping to the conclusion that finding fault in the process would somehow prove incompetence on the part of Network Rail, DfT and/or the Secretary of State.

There were subjective decisions made balancing preservation of heritage with requirements for forward transport planning, there was a balanced decision made, one which the court could potentially disagree with and refer back for further consideration.

If that was the case, it wouldn't show any incompetence on any part, just that the intersection of essentially two different areas of legislation - transport works authorisation and listed building protection has created a problem which needs to be resolved. The listed building legislation in particular is phenomenally complicated and falling foul of one part of that, when there's subjective decisions to be made, really wouldn't be incompetence.

 

[deltic08]

Whilst I agree it is the second best option. The best option was ridiculously expensive, severed a prime development site and would never have got built.
So there was a choice, compromise and get it built or dig ones heels in and not get it built.

OR, go for the cheapest even if it is not the best option long term. Too much of this is happening in this country now and we will live to regret it in years to come.

Just look what has happened to trans Pennine electrification. The cheapest option of electrification was taken until someone spoke up that route modernisation and upgrade was not being included to reap the best results for the money being spent.

Even now the best speed between Manchester and Leeds (100mph) will not be achieved because a bit of rock blasting is needed to ease bends. This is not an obstacle to HS3 so why here.

No easing of the 20mph curve at Miles Platting when there is room to do it, retention of island platform at Ashton with its 50mph reverse curves and 60mph reverse curve around Mirfields island platform, unnecessary doglegs at Diggle around infrastructure that is no longer there, retention of 40mph reverse curves at Marsden and Morley when a bit of new tunnelling, not much longer than Farnworth tunnel in each case, would increase this to 80mph+ in both instances.

 

[quantinghome]

Even now the best speed between Manchester and Leeds (100mph) will not be achieved because a bit of rock blasting is needed to ease bends. This is not an obstacle to HS3 so why here.

No easing of the 20mph curve at Miles Platting when there is room to do it, retention of island platform at Ashton with its 50mph reverse curves and 60mph reverse curve around Mirfields island platform, unnecessary doglegs at Diggle around infrastructure that is no longer there, retention of 40mph reverse curves at Marsden and Morley when a bit of new tunnelling, not much longer than Farnworth tunnel in each case, would increase this to 80mph+ in both instances.

Sounds like you've seen some plans for the route modernisation. Are they publicly available?

 

[deltic08]

Sounds like you've seen some plans for the route modernisation. Are they publicly available?

Not seen any plans. Just know what I have been told by others on the inside that these sites are not planned for speed upgrades when I have enquired. Joseph Locke or Philip Phlopp may know more.

£20m was spent at Stalybridge yet speed was only increased from 40mph to 50mph when I am told 60mph could have been achieved here for very little extra.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I hate to sound all political, but the Northern Hub scheme was a manifesto commitment from a democratically elected government.

exactly

I do want to see a streamlined system which cannot be interrupted by a protester like Mark Whitby for years. He has been allowed to have his say several times, but eventually there comes a point when the time, effort and cost becomes too great, and a formal mechanism to shut up a person like Whitby needs to exist.

I totally agree.

 

[quantinghome]

I agree the continued appeals by Mark Whitby are frustrating. However, I'm not sure how simple it would be to legislate to stop such action. Wouldn't it fundamentally change the appeals system, running up to the supreme court?

 

[po8crg]

There was an opportunity for the Court of Appeals to decline leave to appeal, or for the High Court to decline to hear the judicial review.

Neither have been done, which suggests that is case is arguable in each case - which may be frustrating, but means that it's not an abuse of process.

If you want to tighten up the ability of the HC and COA to chuck cases out because they're not going to win, then that's plausible (though I'm not sure how you'd adjust the criteria), but that procedure does already exist.

 

[Altfish]

OR, go for the cheapest even if it is not the best option long term. Too much of this is happening in this country now and we will live to regret it in years to come.

Just look what has happened to trans Pennine electrification. The cheapest option of electrification was taken until someone spoke up that route modernisation and upgrade was not being included to reap the best results for the money being spent.

Even now the best speed between Manchester and Leeds (100mph) will not be achieved because a bit of rock blasting is needed to ease bends. This is not an obstacle to HS3 so why here.

No easing of the 20mph curve at Miles Platting when there is room to do it, retention of island platform at Ashton with its 50mph reverse curves and 60mph reverse curve around Mirfields island platform, unnecessary doglegs at Diggle around infrastructure that is no longer there, retention of 40mph reverse curves at Marsden and Morley when a bit of new tunnelling, not much longer than Farnworth tunnel in each case, would increase this to 80mph+ in both instances.

Firstly, I don't think it is the cheapest option. Yes, it is cheaper than Whitby's proposals (his wasn't the only one rejected) but it is also realistic. The bit of viaduct that is going will not be missed, there is plenty of it in the area. The biggest loss is the shuttle trains in MOSI, I'm sure they will be able to rearrange them some how.
Whitby's proposal , from a train operating point of view, offers no benefits over this scheme. So the comparison with the trans-Pennine route is irrelevant.