Manchester Central vs Ordsall Chord

[Philip]

In hindsight of the problems through Manchester caused by the construction and operations of the Ordsall Chord, do you think it would have been better to have spent more money in reopening Manchester Central, refurbishing the disused Castlefield Viaduct, reopening the line through to Heaton Mersey and converting the Altrincham tram line back to heavy rail?
The alternative idea would have been more expensive and meant a lot more work, but in return it'd make a proper job of freeing up capacity through the Manchester corridor, providing quicker links between Liverpool, Manchester & Sheffield and providing Manchester with another city centre stations; thus taking some pressure off the existing stations. All this without creating the chaos which the Ordsall Chord did and still does to an extent. It wouldn't just have made some space through Oxford Road and Castlefield; starting the fast Sheffield and Mid-Cheshire services from Central and heading down to Heaton Mersey/Sale would have eased things a lot across the Piccadilly throat, Slade Lane, Heaton Norris and Edgeley Junctions.

Do you consider the closure of Central and the Heaton Mersey line one of the regrets/mistakes of the 1960s cuts?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In hindsight of the problems through Manchester caused by the construction and operations of the Ordsall Chord, do you think it would have been better to have spent more money in reopening Manchester Central, refurbishing the disused Castlefield Viaduct, reopening the line through to Heaton Mersey and converting the Altrincham tram line back to heavy rail?

In short, no.

What they should have done, and should do before too many buildings are in the way, is 4-track as much of Castlefield as possible, including (bare minimum) Picc 15/16. This should have been done BEFORE Ordsall.

The very similar if a bit longer Hamburger Verbindungsbahn (Altona-Dammtor-Hbf) carries far more traffic than Castlefield but doesn't clog up because it's 4-tracked.

 

[mike57]

Re-opening Manchester Central would also mean we are back to the 'transfer between stations issue' which was one of the thoughts behind the Ordsall chord. As soon as you add an interstation transfer into an onwards journey you add at least 30 mins to it.

Better to sort Castlefield out and possibly have a couple of west facing bays in the triangle between platform 13 and the main station, over the taxi rank. That way some services to the west can terminate without getting in the way. With the HS2 station being close to Piccadilly (if/when it happens) really Pic need to be sorted so that it can become/remain the main station and cope with the volume of traffic generated, with Victoria just going back to being a local service station. I know Londoners have been coping with this issue since the birth of railways, but dont deliberatley design something which adds to journey time.

 

[43096]

The very similar if a bit longer Hamburger Verbindungsbahn (Altona-Dammtor-Hbf) carries far more traffic than Castlefield but doesn't clog up because it's 4-tracked.

It does clog because it is basically two separate two-track railways: two tracks are third rail electrified S-bahn tracks and the other two are DB standard 15kV electrified. Anyone who has used it will tell you it creates delays over a wide area. If it wasn’t an issue why is there a proposal to put the S-bahn into a new tunnel and make it a full four-track mainline corridor?

 

[HSTEd]

My own preferred solution to this dilemma involves using the pending redevelopment of the University of Manchester's soon to be abandoned North Campus to build a new through railway station for MAnchester, with four tracking through to the Deansgate-Salford junction complex. But even I realise that that is pie in the sky!

I think the bulk of the improvements would be four tracking to Castlefield - half the buildings in the way are owned by the University and scheduled for demolition/abandonment anyway, and the route west of Manchester Oxford Road is bordered by a street.

Sure, four tracking Castlefield would be expensive, but doing anything to this corridor would be expensive, and it would allow a revolution in rail services in Manchester and across most of the North of England.

 

[edwin_m]

What they should have done, and should do before too many buildings are in the way, is 4-track as much of Castlefield as possible, including (bare minimum) Picc 15/16. This should have been done BEFORE Ordsall.

Not sure who you mean by "they", but I suspect the NR people would agree with you. It was all part of the same plan, but the government only gave approval for the Ordsall part, and then Grayling happened.

 

[HSTEd]

If we had ATO (Automatic Train Operation), uniform rolling stock and PEDs (Platform Edge Doors), we could probably get very high flow rates through the Castlefield corridor. Platform reoccupation times of 45 seconds or less have been achieved with ETCS equipment.
Even without esoteric things like the Spanish solution, even middle distance rolling stock like the Class 185 could opreate at 14+tph-per-platform fairly reliably.

HS2 target dwell time (as an example) is 2 minutes, for 165 second technical cycle time for ~22 paths per hour, loading to 75% takes you to like 17.

At which point any platform improvements on the corridor gives you the equivalent of god knows how terminus platforms at Picadilly and Victoria. Could probably rationalise a lot of the track layout at that point, if the focus of the Manchester railway system was the corridor.
Sure buying uniform rolling stock would cost a significant sum, but nothing compared to the cost of infrastructural changes that such standardisation could help avoid.

 

[tbtc]

The “solution” to problems in Manchester always seems to involve spending hundreds of millions of pounds (rather than, maybe, reducing the complicated number of cross-city links… as if it’s essential that Stockport has regular trains to Bolton etc…)

But, in a city with free minibuses connecting the major nodes, and high frequency light rail (twenty trams per hour from Victoria to Deansgate), how many more expensive projects do we need to tackle the supposed “problem”?

For example, two of the benefits of the Chord were that we didn’t need the Scarborough-Liverpool crossing the entire Piccadilly throat in each direction and that we didn’t need multiple services from the Guide Bridge line to the Styall line (given the apparent importance of through trains from Newcastle etc to Manchester Airport). These conflicting moves stopped a lot of capacity for other services. Look at how much more efficient stations like Clapham Junction are where various high frequency lines connect but (crucially) don’t get in each other’s way - they are operationally independent.

Reopening Manchester Central would mean what for the TPE services? Still reversing in the main shed at Piccadilly to get to the Airport (and therefore needing to cross over other lines on the flat)? Moving just the Scarborough services to Victoria, leaving a lopsided timetable at Piccadilly? Or still running TPE via Castlefield and Warrington Central to get to Liverpool? So what would the electric service be over Chart Moss? Just a local train, since there’s nowhere west of Victoria for EMUs to go (if all TPE services are from Piccadilly)?

Sorry, but this feels like Solution In Need Off A Problem territory; either be prepared to have a few awkward conversations with certain “user groups” (who feel entitled to various direct links on the far side of Manchester) or just accept that you’re stuck with imperfect timetables because nobody has the guts to say “no” any proposal (which is why HM Government awarded the Northern franchise to Arriva and their plan for direct hourly Bradford to Manchester Airport trains via 13/14!)

 

[PTR 444]

how many more expensive projects do we need to tackle the supposed “problem”?

We already have NPR in the pipeline so could probably leave it at that. There should be a more concerted effort to move as many long-distance trains as possible from Castlefield to the new Marsden - Warrington Line, with additional chords to allow Scotland and North Wales trains to use it too.

 

[Purple Orange]

We already have NPR in the pipeline so could probably leave it at that. There should be a more concerted effort to move as many long-distance trains as possible from Castlefield to the new Marsden - Warrington Line, with additional chords to allow Scotland and North Wales trains to use it too.

This. It’s the only possible solution that can give Castlefield respite. It should take away the TPE services from Victoria that could mean the Cumbria, Scotland and North Wales services head there rather than Victoria. In an ideal world there would also be a connection to enable the Scotland service to loop around via Warrington & Sheffield via a connection to NPR, even if there is no time benefit, but I doubt that will happen. I would also question whether there should be a hard decision taken on splitting Sheffield-Liverpool services at Piccadilly too.

 

[Chester1]

The Ordsall Chord cost less than £200m (I can't remember the exact figure). What the OP proposes would have cost much more than that. Manchester and Salford City centres have more stations than necessary and adding a fifth would make things even more complex.

Oxford Road needs rebuilding and even the cheap 3 platform option that informed members of the forum have mentioned in previous threads would be an improvement. Any grade seperation would be great and Salford Central needs more work than next year's upgrade. Anything bigger than those sorts of projects needs to be part of a national infrastructure scheme like HS2 or NPR.

 

[Philip]

Specifically focusing on a reopened Manchester Central and South District line (remember it has been partly restored as a Metrolink route), how much capacity would it save between Ordsall Lane Jn and Edgeley Jn if, for example, all Sheffield fast services went this way; all Liverpool via Warrington and Mid-Cheshire services started from Central, freight from Trafford Park via a new chord onto the South District line (thus avoiding Oxford Road)?

 

[The Planner]

Where is the freight traffic from Trafford Park going if it goes that way?

 

[Philip]

Where is the freight traffic from Trafford Park going if it goes that way?

Hypothetically speaking, if there was a new chord from Trafford Park to the South District line and the Altrincham line, traffic bound for the Peak District/Yorkshire could take the line through Heaton Mersey and onto New Mills to reach the Hope Valley line, whilst traffic for the south could go via Sale/Altrincham etc and then the usual route to the WCML.

 

[The Planner]

Hypothetically speaking, if there was a new chord from Trafford Park to the South District line and the Altrincham line, traffic bound for the Peak District/Yorkshire could take the line through Heaton Mersey and onto New Mills to reach the Hope Valley line, whilst traffic for the south could go via Sale/Altrincham etc and then the usual route to the WCML.

How is the traffic getting on to the WCML via Altrincham? Middlewich? You are now building shed loads of new infrastructure and upgrading other bits to justify saying the much shorter and cheaper Ordsall chord was wrong.

 

[Philip]

How is the traffic getting on to the WCML via Altrincham? Middlewich? You are now building shed loads of new infrastructure and upgrading other bits to justify saying the much shorter and cheaper Ordsall chord was wrong.

What would be wrong with putting more freight through Middlewich?

Ordsall Chord has been built so we have to live with it, but I wonder whether it would have been better to focus on the reopenings I've mentioned in this thread rather than build the chord. I can't see how it would be practical to make the line between Castlefield and Piccadilly a 4-track line, considering the buildings and roads in the way and the fact that it is one long viaduct.

 

[The Planner]

What would be wrong with putting more freight through Middlewich?

Ordsall Chord has been built so we have to live with it, but I wonder whether it would have been better to focus on the reopenings I've mentioned in this thread rather than build the chord. I can't see how it would be practical to make the line between Castlefield and Piccadilly a 4-track line, considering the buildings and roads in the way and the fact that it is one long viaduct.

How much more money were you thinking of spending then, as you have come up with Manchester Central and all the ancillary infrastructure needed, and now a total rebuild of the Middlewich branch?

 

[Philip]

How much more money were you thinking of spending then, as you have come up with Manchester Central and all the ancillary infrastructure needed, and now a total rebuild of the Middlewich branch?

But why would the Middlewich Branch need a total rebuild to enable an hourly freight to run over it? It's a slow route but it still takes occasional heavy freight.

 

[The Planner]

But why would the Middlewich Branch need a total rebuild to enable an hourly freight to run over it? It's a slow route but it still takes occasional heavy freight.

Why is it only an hourly freight? Does that cover future growth, how does it impact the journey time, etc etc It isn't black and white. Northwich to Sandbach takes 30 minutes, by the time you have got over the branch from Sandbach you would be pretty much at Slade Lane.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Have a look at the 'NPR will it ever happen?' thread in particular post 94 for someones suggestion of addressing Manchester.

NPR will it ever happen?

I wasnt aware of the implications for the canal tunnel, I can see that sorting both bores out would add to the cost of bringing the better one back into use. What are the problems with the poorer of the two? could a solution be to line with 'tube tunnel' sized segments resulting in a smaller...

www.railforums.co.uk

Im not in favour of an underground line with 3 stations on it, but if you did construct an underground line I would have oriented it in such a way to run directly underneath Manchester Central.

It would be a shame to spoilt that space at Manchester central, but it would make a great station concourse! Even if it remains to be an events centre, its a large wide open space where you could build a new concourse directly below it then return it back to an events centre afterwards!

 

[adamedwards]

Had platforms 15/16 at Piccadilly not be stopped by Grayling, there would have been 4 tracks almost to Oxford Road, the buildings immediately east of Oxford St preventing the linking up to the Oxford Road throat. These tracks plus the 4 platforms would have enabled mangement of delayed trains much more effectively by looping and overtaking. Lookign at streetview a third track west of Oxford Road from near Deansgate would also be possible over the road to the north of the viaduct, but I suspect less useful than 15/16.

The other much needed untangling of Manchester's railways would be a flyover at Longsight to get the trains from platforms 14-16 over the fast lines and on to the down slow to Stockport. As this would be used by modern multiple unit trains, one would like to think it could be steep and therefore cheaper, freight being banned and sent via Styal.

Finally if you also want to remove the freight trains, the Railway Development Society has an excellent plan, see https://railfuture.org.uk/article1855, for a new connection heading west from Trafford Park accross the ship canal to Carrington and then Adswood to join the WCML at Cheadle Hulme, where there is capacity on the line south to Crewe.

 

[PTR 444]

This. It’s the only possible solution that can give Castlefield respite. It should take away the TPE services from Victoria that could mean the Cumbria, Scotland and North Wales services head there rather than Victoria. In an ideal world there would also be a connection to enable the Scotland service to loop around via Warrington & Sheffield via a connection to NPR, even if there is no time benefit, but I doubt that will happen. I would also question whether there should be a hard decision taken on splitting Sheffield-Liverpool services at Piccadilly too.

Exactly this. In an ideal world, a new-build Warrington - Marsden line would have the following services:

• 2tph Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds - Hull/Scarborough
• 2tph Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield - Nottingham/Cleethorpes
• 2tph North Wales/Chester - Manchester - Bradford - Leeds
• 1tph Windermere - Wigan - Manchester
• 1tph Scotland - Wigan - Manchester
• 2tph HS2 Birmingham - Manchester - Leeds - Newcastle
• 2tph HS2 London - Manchester

 

[BrianW]

No shortage of 'solutions' on the Forum and 'out there'.
Shortages of cash and decision-making and 'making it so' ...

 

[Purple Orange]

Exactly this. In an ideal world, a new-build Warrington - Marsden line would have the following services:

• 2tph Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds - Hull/Scarborough
• 2tph Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield - Nottingham/Cleethorpes
• 2tph North Wales/Chester - Manchester - Bradford - Leeds
• 1tph Windermere - Wigan - Manchester
• 1tph Scotland - Wigan - Manchester
• 2tph HS2 Birmingham - Manchester - Leeds - Newcastle
• 2tph HS2 London - Manchester

That would be too light on the London services, which should grow to 4 tph. Windermere and North Wales should go in to Victoria. Agree with the Liverpools and Birminghams.

 

[Arkeeos]

Possibly the easiest and most cost effective and future proofed way to sort this out would be quad tracking castlefield, your could have Piccadilly platforms 15/16, continue the track forward on a new built viaduct, then have it dive under into a bored tunnel just before princess street. I'm not sure where the most ideal place to put the other portal would be, probably somewhere in that jumble of tracks in Salford.

 

[zwk500]

Possibly the easiest and most cost effective and future proofed way to sort this out would be quad tracking castlefield, your could have Piccadilly platforms 15/16, continue the track forward on a new built viaduct, then have it dive under into a bored tunnel just before princess street. I'm not sure where the most ideal place to put the other portal would be, probably somewhere in that jumble of tracks in Salford.

Do we have vertically-capable trains now? 'Dive' is certainly an appropriate description of the gradient that would be required from Piccadilly to get a tunnel less than 500m from the platform end.

 

[Philip]

Why is it only an hourly freight? Does that cover future growth, how does it impact the journey time, etc etc It isn't black and white. Northwich to Sandbach takes 30 minutes, by the time you have got over the branch from Sandbach you would be pretty much at Slade Lane.

There is an hourly freight through Oxford Road and Piccadilly, it's this one I'm suggesting could have used the Middlewich line in the scenario of Central station reopening, hence an hourly freight most hours of the day. Not suggesting anything else diverting down the Middlewich line.

 

[PTR 444]

That would be too light on the London services, which should grow to 4 tph. Windermere and North Wales should go in to Victoria. Agree with the Liverpools and Birminghams.

Will there be enough capacity at Manchester Victoria to terminate west-facing services there?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Will there be enough capacity at Manchester Victoria to terminate west-facing services there?

There is, it seems, a project to add at least one west-facing bay where the old viaduct buts up against the Arena (this will be a bit "Picc P13/14" to get to) plus a reversing siding to the east of the station.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Nov 2022 ==

That would be too light on the London services, which should grow to 4 tph. Windermere and North Wales should go in to Victoria. Agree with the Liverpools and Birminghams.

London will be 4tph post HS2 - 3 HS2 and a classic line service. There aren't WCML paths for that prior to HS2.

 

[Purple Orange]

London will be 4tph post HS2 - 3 HS2 and a classic line service. There aren't WCML paths for that prior to HS2.

I was referring to a post HS2 world, with Manchester HS2 services growing to 4 tph.