Ordsall Chord

[61653 HTAFC]

Well, it seems my angry letter to TfGM about the Metroshuttles not linking the stations during the Victoria closure have been heeded! Apologies I was not aware of this, but it's good to know that the powers that be will listen occasionally! Here endeth this particular off-topic discussion.

 

[Baggypants]

Exactly. This scheme is needed now. We do not have time to design it all over again, the best job possible has been done with the cash available, and I don't see where any additional cash is going to come from, certainly not Whitby.

If the challenge is successful, do we get bugger all? That's certainly the way it looks to me.

We get to keep a unique world changing heritage site. This IS Stonehenge for the industrial revolution. Frankly, while I fully understand the economic needs, I'm surprised by the blasé attitude people have here on this site. In the same vein we should have raized St.Pancreas and built it on two levels, given that people keep complaining about the local platforms. Crushed the Mallard and recycled it for not being electrified, melted down all the Deltics because they've run their service. This clumsy, old, run-down, ramshackle, overlooked site is historically more important than any of them. It amazes me that the demolition of the Euston Arch can cause so much passion but this is being accepted without so much as a whisper.

In 15 years NR will be trumpeting from the roof tops about 200 years of passenger rail, and the world oldest passenger services. there will be posters and adverts and The Rocket replica will be bussed around the country and we'll get treated to a re-run of the Rainhill trials because the one in the 80's was done before the iPlayer and hipster beards. This country will have been short changed of it's own culture and probably not even realise.

As for the people who say we have no time and no money. I hope all the trains in Britain go DOO and every station has automated barriers. Well done, it's the railway we deserve.

 

[Jonfun]

We get to keep a unique world changing heritage site. This IS Stonehenge for the industrial revolution. Frankly, while I fully understand the economic needs, I'm surprised by the blasé attitude people have here on this site. In the same vein we should have raized St.Pancreas and built it on two levels, given that people keep complaining about the local platforms. Crushed the Mallard and recycled it for not being electrified, melted down all the Deltics because they've run their service. This clumsy, old, run-down, ramshackle, overlooked site is historically more important than any of them. It amazes me that the demolition of the Euston Arch can cause so much passion but this is being accepted without so much as a whisper.

What's being demolished that's as significant as the Euston Arch or St Pancras Station? I thought the only impact this had on its surroundings was it takes a bit of land - with no buildings, just a length of track - from the Museum of Science and Industry, who were given a suitable (and one would assume very much appreciated) payout as a result. Okay, they don't have much track as it is before more gets eaten away at, but nevertheless, I don't recall it getting that much use anyhow.

 

[MarkyT]

What's being demolished that's as significant as the Euston Arch or St Pancras Station? I thought the only impact this had on its surroundings was it takes a bit of land - with no buildings, just a length of track - from the Museum of Science and Industry, who were given a suitable (and one would assume very much appreciated) payout as a result. Okay, they don't have much track as it is before more gets eaten away at, but nevertheless, I don't recall it getting that much use anyhow.

I agree with that, and it is surely positive and appropriate that an improved railway will result rather than some road or property development that could easily have had as much or even more impact on the historical fabric of the surroundings. The rail connection to the museum, although nice to have, is not a great loss and was very little used. There are very few movements of rail related exhibits in and out of the museum. Those that occasionally do occur are unlikely to consist of mainline-certified vehicles, even assuming they can actually roll on standard gauge, and such (generally) small shipments are usually more economically and flexibly handled by road. Any passenger rail excursion trains of economic size could not be accommodated easily within the complex due to only a very short platform.

 

[PR1Berske]

The post from baggypants is passionate but not very well argued.

There is no Euston Arch here. There is no beloved landmark.

What you say is a blasé attitude on this forum, I take as a good example of realism and ambition. Ordsall presents Manchester, specifically, and the North generally, with a last chance of growth both in economic and infrastructure terms with hardly any of the significant disruption of, say, the 2CC or the controversy of HS2. Indeed the former involved moving a Cenotaph and the latter..... well, we all know about the latter!

The railway we deserve is the one without investment if we always choose the past over progress. Knocking EVERYTHING down is not acceptable, of course, though neither is wrapping up so-called landmarks in bubblewrap.

 

[GingerSte]

Just so I can confirm my understanding of the issue, I take it that the proposed Ordsall chord sails over the existing heritage lines, but not by anywhere near enough to allow use of the heritage lines. Is this correct? (I don't have time for reading through 43 pages of argument to confirm exactly!) Do we know (even approximately) what this distance is?

I also assume that it is impossible to have this crossing at grade (ie a diamond crossing) or at full height due to max gradients and other bridges away from this. Is this so?

If this is the case, has anybody looked at solutions that could allow the proposed alignment while keeping the existing? For example, some sort of moveable bridge, or even a diamond crossing that can be raised or lowered to suit traffic on either the proposed or heritage line?

I realise that you couldn't have traffic on both the heritage and proposed lines using this system, but that's what interlocking is for. Plus, as people have said above, not many trains use the heritage lines, so the default position would be for the proposed line.

Such a bridge would be a landmark in it's own right, and could possibly increase tourism on the heritage line (assuming there is already some).

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Just so I can confirm my understanding of the issue, I take it that the proposed Ordsall chord sails over the existing heritage lines, but not by anywhere near enough to allow use of the heritage lines. Is this correct? (I don't have time for reading through 43 pages of argument to confirm exactly!) Do we know (even approximately) what this distance is?

I also assume that it is impossible to have this crossing at grade (ie a diamond crossing) or at full height due to max gradients and other bridges away from this. Is this so?

If this is the case, has anybody looked at solutions that could allow the proposed alignment while keeping the existing? For example, some sort of moveable bridge, or even a diamond crossing that can be raised or lowered to suit traffic on either the proposed or heritage line?

I realise that you couldn't have traffic on both the heritage and proposed lines using this system, but that's what interlocking is for. Plus, as people have said above, not many trains use the heritage lines, so the default position would be for the proposed line.

Such a bridge would be a landmark in it's own right, and could possibly increase tourism on the heritage line (assuming there is already some).

Its all irrelevant - the alternative being put forward severs MOSI anyway, that's not his argument.

 

[GingerSte]

Its all irrelevant - the alternative being put forward severs MOSI anyway, that's not his argument.

Does it? I thought that the alternative alignment had MOSI either being connected to the new chord or crossing it at grade (ie diamond crossing).

Just to confirm what exactly is his argument in that case?

Edit: I was going on the report mentioned below, which suggests that severing the railway to MOSI and leaving Stephenson's bridge stranded (on one side) was Whitby's main concern.

There is a judicial review ongoing see http://www.building.co.uk/top-engin...ew-challenge-to-ordsall-chord/5076558.article

"A high-profile engineer has launched a last ditch legal challenge against his former client to stop an £85m infrastructure project he says would damage “the Industrial Revolution’s Stonehenge”.

Mark Whitby has hired lawyers to take Network Rail to court, claiming errors were made in the decision-making process over the route of the Ordsall Chord project in Manchester.

(...)

Whitby said he objected not just to the loss of historic fabric but to the damage that would be done to the setting.

“It will completely truncate the world’s first passenger railway, turning bridges into functionless artefacts,” he said.

“It’s very unusual to have three grade I and eight grade II listed buildings together. People don’t understand how special this place is. It’s the place that triggered the modern world.

“It stands alongside Runnymede in terms of history. [Former HE chairman] Neil Cossons likened it to the Stonehenge of the Industrial Revolution. This is the place where it happened and this is the evidence of the courage and skill of the engineers who made it happen. It’s still here, albeit unloved, but this would kill it.”

He added: “I have no problem with the necessity of the railway line but there’s an alternative route that they’ve unfortunately missed. It would be huge folly to do this when it’s not necessary.”

(...)

On its website it points out that following previous objections it changed the route which originally cut through Stephenson’s Bridge."

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Just so I can confirm my understanding of the issue, I take it that the proposed Ordsall chord sails over the existing heritage lines, but not by anywhere near enough to allow use of the heritage lines. Is this correct? (I don't have time for reading through 43 pages of argument to confirm exactly!) Do we know (even approximately) what this distance is?

Now I have time to answer - less than a metre. And it really isn't a heritage line - that would imply a regular service operates - it's a museum exhibit.

I also assume that it is impossible to have this crossing at grade (ie a diamond crossing) or at full height due to max gradients and other bridges away from this. Is this so?

The crossing is barely 100m from the Castlefield viaduct which is at the same level, so since that would be 1 in 15 or so, no. As to diamonds, the radius of the chord (and the even tighter radius of the much-touted alternative) means that NR would be gifted two (or four) heavily curved, nearly square, fixed diamonds; these would limit the speeds on the chord (in order to keep the cant deficiency on the obtuse crossings within limits, as they would have to be laid with no cant). Not an attractive proposition.

If this is the case, has anybody looked at solutions that could allow the proposed alignment while keeping the existing? For example, some sort of moveable bridge, or even a diamond crossing that can be raised or lowered to suit traffic on either the proposed or heritage line?

I realise that you couldn't have traffic on both the heritage and proposed lines using this system, but that's what interlocking is for. Plus, as people have said above, not many trains use the heritage lines, so the default position would be for the proposed line.

Given that MOSI have withdrawn their objection it's a bit moot, but the alternatives you suggest would be costly, little used and require significant novel engineering: remember you have to meet ORR's safety requirements for passenger lines for any such arrangement.

Such a bridge would be a landmark in it's own right, and could possibly increase tourism on the heritage line (assuming there is already some).

What bridge? it would have to be a fairly utilitarian (because thin) bascule-style affair, founded on the very listed structure that you are trying to protect. It would also introduce a hump in the MOSI connection of well over a metre (as you would have to clear the chord tracks) but still fit under the new OLE, which has a maximum height (which in turn is ultimately constrained by passing under the Metrolink bridge at Castlefield Junction.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Does it? I thought that the alternative alignment had MOSI either being connected to the new chord or crossing it at grade (ie diamond crossing).

Just to confirm what exactly is his argument in that case?

Edit: I was going on the report mentioned below, which suggests that severing the railway to MOSI and leaving Stephenson's bridge stranded (on one side) was Whitby's main concern.

I'm afraid the cynic in me suggests that Whitby's main concern is sour grapes because his design was rejected. I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one of this opinion...

 

[bitmadmax]

We get to keep a unique world changing heritage site. This IS Stonehenge for the industrial revolution. Frankly, while I fully understand the economic needs, I'm surprised by the blasé attitude people have here on this site. In the same vein we should have raized St.Pancreas and built it on two levels, given that people keep complaining about the local platforms. Crushed the Mallard and recycled it for not being electrified, melted down all the Deltics because they've run their service. This clumsy, old, run-down, ramshackle, overlooked site is historically more important than any of them. It amazes me that the demolition of the Euston Arch can cause so much passion but this is being accepted without so much as a whisper.

In 15 years NR will be trumpeting from the roof tops about 200 years of passenger rail, and the world oldest passenger services. there will be posters and adverts and The Rocket replica will be bussed around the country and we'll get treated to a re-run of the Rainhill trials because the one in the 80's was done before the iPlayer and hipster beards. This country will have been short changed of it's own culture and probably not even realise.

As for the people who say we have no time and no money. I hope all the trains in Britain go DOO and every station has automated barriers. Well done, it's the railway we deserve.

At last.. a sensible reply. So much hypocrisy and bullsh*t on this forum.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I hope..... every station has automated barriers.

Can you give a cost estimate for both the equipment purchase and installation and also for the annual maintenance contracts to enable this particular aspiration to take place.

 

[Bantamzen]

We get to keep a unique world changing heritage site. This IS Stonehenge for the industrial revolution. Frankly, while I fully understand the economic needs, I'm surprised by the blasé attitude people have here on this site. In the same vein we should have raized St.Pancreas and built it on two levels, given that people keep complaining about the local platforms. Crushed the Mallard and recycled it for not being electrified, melted down all the Deltics because they've run their service. This clumsy, old, run-down, ramshackle, overlooked site is historically more important than any of them. It amazes me that the demolition of the Euston Arch can cause so much passion but this is being accepted without so much as a whisper.

In 15 years NR will be trumpeting from the roof tops about 200 years of passenger rail, and the world oldest passenger services. there will be posters and adverts and The Rocket replica will be bussed around the country and we'll get treated to a re-run of the Rainhill trials because the one in the 80's was done before the iPlayer and hipster beards. This country will have been short changed of it's own culture and probably not even realise.

As for the people who say we have no time and no money. I hope all the trains in Britain go DOO and every station has automated barriers. Well done, it's the railway we deserve.

It is perhaps not without irony that the Victorians would have thought nothing of going ahead with the engineering that is needed to built the Chord. They certainly would not have been all this hand-wringing in their day, the link would have ploughed ahead as planned.

As for it being the Stonehenge of the Industrial Revolution, well I'd argue against that. What we are talking about is the link from MOSI to the existing network that is rarely used. The museum itself will continue, albeit without the short rides it currently offers. Sorry but in my view the benefits of the Chord far, far outweigh the need to run very occasional services out of MOSI onto the network.

 

[edwin_m]

It is perhaps not without irony that the Victorians would have thought nothing of going ahead with the engineering that is needed to built the Chord. They certainly would not have been all this hand-wringing in their day, the link would have ploughed ahead as planned.

Not just the Victorians. The dual carriageway of Trinity Way goes within a few yards of the site as well.

 

[furnessvale]

Not just the Victorians. The dual carriageway of Trinity Way goes within a few yards of the site as well.

But Trinity Way is a road where totally different values seem to apply.

 

[misterredmist]

The irony of the servant coming back to bite his former master.....

Whilst I am disappointed about a delay in a very important project, I can understand
a reluctance to destroy a lot of important historical heritage -

surely this was given due consideration prior to this stage though ?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It is perhaps not without irony that the Victorians would have thought nothing of going ahead with the engineering that is needed to built the Chord. They certainly would not have been all this hand-wringing in their day, the link would have ploughed ahead as planned.

As for it being the Stonehenge of the Industrial Revolution, well I'd argue against that. What we are talking about is the link from MOSI to the existing network that is rarely used. The museum itself will continue, albeit without the short rides it currently offers. Sorry but in my view the benefits of the Chord far, far outweigh the need to run very occasional services out of MOSI onto the network.

Of course when the Victorians were building the new-fangled railway, it was completely new technology, and I'd imagine little thought was given to preserving whatever went before. In any case, the railways didn't prompt the industrial revolution but were a reaction to it, so to suggest that this particular site is of such historic importance is disingenuous. I've commented before on this thread about how the connection between the MOSI and the national network is of little practical use due to the difficulties of actually using it. If the problem is that the reduction in length of the museum running line, perhaps something such as a dive-under for the captive line could be worked into the existing plan for the chord. Preserving the site in aspic is of limited value in the real world, I'm afraid.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As I understand it, it's not the occasional steam working on to the main line that is the issue, it's the destruction of the prospect ("view") of the 1830s technology and architecture.
It's a bit like putting the pyramid in front of the Louvre, or Prince Charles' "carbuncle" on the National Gallery.
Maybe we should also reinstate the foul and fetid state of the 1830s River Irwell to complete the authenticity of the setting, plus the adjacent slums.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As I understand it, it's not the occasional steam working on to the main line that is the issue, it's the destruction of the prospect ("view") of the 1830s technology and architecture.
It's a bit like putting the pyramid in front of the Louvre, or Prince Charles' "carbuncle" on the National Gallery.
Maybe we should also reinstate the foul and fetid state of the 1830s River Irwell to complete the authenticity of the setting, plus the adjacent slums.

As I'm guessing was your point, "old" does not always equal "good". It seems that this has been lost on some people...

 

[snail]

I haven't got the inclination to go back and read the Inspector's report again but I recall that one of the main objectors to Whitby's scheme is Salford Council because it would isolate sections of the Middlewood Locks development, threatening the regeneration of the area. Would a revised route need planning permission from Salford? What happens if they turn it down?

As for the Stonehenge of the North comment, I didn't realise they were demolishing the entire Liverpool Road complex. I thought they were making Stephenson's Bridge more visible (hands up all those people that can recognise it?) but losing relatively small sections of the adjoining Grade 1 structures as a consequence.

 

[HowardGWR]

As I understand it, it's not the occasional steam working on to the main line that is the issue, it's the destruction of the prospect ("view") of the 1830s technology and architecture.
It's a bit like putting the pyramid in front of the Louvre, or Prince Charles' "carbuncle" on the National Gallery.
Maybe we should also reinstate the foul and fetid state of the 1830s River Irwell to complete the authenticity of the setting, plus the adjacent slums.

Just a nitpick. Charles thinks the National Library is a carbuncle; not that there is one on it. In this case I agree with the future monarch. It seems to me that the OC does damage the setting of the Manchester Liverpool Road monument.

 

[snail]

Just a nitpick. Charles thinks the National Library is a carbuncle; not that there is one on it.

Wrong place. He called the Sainsbury Wing of the National Gallery a "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend" when it opened in 1991. Keeping it on topic the Ordsall Chord has potential to be the same for Liverpool Road but the developments at the other end of the MOSI site are hardly in keeping with the original warehouses.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The irony of the servant coming back to bite his former master.....

Whilst I am disappointed about a delay in a very important project, I can understand a reluctance to destroy a lot of important historical heritage -
surely this was given due consideration prior to this stage though ?

Exactly what is the "lot of important historical heritage" that you feel will be destroyed?

 

[snowball]

Of course when the Victorians were building the new-fangled railway, it was completely new technology, and I'd imagine little thought was given to preserving whatever went before.

Castlefield Junction, a few hundred yards from the site of the Chord, takes its name from the fact that it goes through the remains of the Roman fort of Mamucium.

In any case, the railways didn't prompt the industrial revolution but were a reaction to it, so to suggest that this particular site is of such historic importance is disingenuous.

The industrial revolution wasn't an incident, it was a process spread over a long period, and the railways plaid a huge part in it, so "disingenuous" is unfair.

If the problem is that the reduction in length of the museum running line, perhaps something such as a dive-under for the captive line could be worked into the existing plan for the chord.

There's nowhere near enough space for that. You'd need to install train lifts. The museum line is incredibly short anyway. It will just have to be a bit shorter.

 

[HowardGWR]

Wrong place. He called the Sainsbury Wing of the National Gallery a "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend" when it opened in 1991. Keeping it on topic the Ordsall Chord has potential to be the same for Liverpool Road but the developments at the other end of the MOSI site are hardly in keeping with the original warehouses.

You are right of course. I also agree with your comment. There is a difference of course between conserving something on grounds of beauty and on grounds of historical importance. I had a neighbour nearby who wanted to install a traditional wooden window in a thatched cottage, in order to match the others, instead of the nasty metal 1930s replacement window, but could not, because that was how it was when the building was listed. So the carbuncle eyesore remains.

 

[bitmadmax]

According to realtimetrains, there was a freight service from Crewe terminating at Ordsall Lane junction last night. Was this work related to the Chord I wonder? Wonder where it got stabled..

 

[The Planner]

Probably sat within the possession. Just because it was shown to Ordsall Lane does not mean it went there, when it comes to work sites we can only plan to the nearest convenient timing point. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the return working here

 

[bitmadmax]

Today marks the 185th year of the opening of the L&M. Somehow there seems nothing to celebrate this year.

There is a piece in todays Manchester evening news about Mr. Whitby's campaign.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ter-news/ordsall-chord-im-not-trying-10055297

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Today marks the 185th year of the opening of the L&M. Somehow there seems nothing to celebrate this year.

Not to worry, it is not only the solitary transportation anniversary without much recent publicity. This month sees the 352nd anniversary of the first Turnpike Act in 1663 in the early years of the Restoration of the Monarchy and I have seen precious little about that event.

 

[lancastrian]

Not to worry, it is not only the solitary transportation anniversary without much recent publicity. This month sees the 352nd anniversary of the first Turnpike Act in 1663 in the early years of the Restoration of the Monarchy and I have seen precious little about that event.

OH dear, what a pity and I was so looking forward to celebrating the Anniversary of the Turnpike Act. So often we miss these major events.