Ordsall Chord

[PrinceBishop]

MANCHESTER EVENING NEWS 23rd July 2015

By Charlotte Cox

Ordsall Chord delay: Town hall chief blasts single objector holding up £85m Piccadilly-Victoria rail link

But engineer Mark Whitby denies he's opposing the scheme for 'personal reasons' and insists it's about saving Manchester's industrial heritage

The engineer behind the delay of the £85m Ordsall Chord - which will link Manchester’s Piccadilly and Victoria stations for the first time - has been accused of objecting for personal reasons by the leader of Manchester council.

A legal objection from engineer Mark Whitby means a High Court hearing will take place in September, when the Network Rail scheme was due to begin.

Council leader Sir Richard Leese has now criticised Mr Whitby - a former Network Rail consultant whose own route for the scheme wasn’t chosen

Mr Whitby denied the accusation of acting for personal reasons and maintained the lawsuit filed by his lawyers over transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin’s decision-making process is protecting Manchester’s unique industrial heritage.

Continued at: Manchester Evening News

 

[Philip C]

I'm not sure that I should be standing up for this objector but he clearly has a legal right to do what he is doing. I just hope that the hearing is dealt with quickly and work can proceed expeditiously thereafter.

One of his plans included grade separation of some of the junctions involved. I know that other members of this, and another forum, have commented that his plans were flawed from a railway operating perspective. Nevertheless, I cannot but feel that the creation of a large number of flat junctions in close proximity (Castlefield, Ordsall Lane, Windsor Bridge, Deal Street plus two new ones) might be something we eventually regard as a little short-sighted.

 

[Starmill]

What does this Mark Whitby want? If he's reading (although given his apparent opinion of himself, slim chance of that) what do you want to happen if your appeal is successful? The project will be binned, and return to design stage (with the design he put forward presumably?) and go looking for funding again? Will his option cost more than the one already selected, and if so, will he be paying for it and another 2 years of inflaton? Will the DfT's current contribution still even be on the table 2 years down the line? And then what? Construction begins at the end of 2017? When will it be complete, in his world? How will this affect all of the other Hub Enhancements? And what will it mean for the 2018 timetable?

Unless you get your a*** on here and answer satisfactorily all of those questions, I hope you are hit with a multi-[hundred]million pound bill not just for the court fees and administration costs, but for the delays to the wider project and the marginal costs on Network Rail as a result.

 

[BantamMenace]

I'm not sure that I should be standing up for this objector but he clearly has a legal right to do what he is doing. I just hope that the hearing is dealt with quickly and work can proceed expeditiously thereafter.

One of his plans included grade separation of some of the junctions involved. I know that other members of this, and another forum, have commented that his plans were flawed from a railway operating perspective. Nevertheless, I cannot but feel that the creation of a large number of flat junctions in close proximity (Castlefield, Ordsall Lane, Windsor Bridge, Deal Street plus two new ones) might be something we eventually regard as a little short-sighted.

Grade separation isnt particularly beneficial at low speeds as trains can approach and wait for the junction to clear. At places like Norton Bridge however where the junction is at over 100mph trains have to start slowing down coming the opposite way to a train crossing the mainline around 2 miles away and so a lot of time and energy is lost.

On the ordsall chord the junctions are at low speed and soon before/after stations so yes, it would be an improvement, but not a massive one.

Good timetabling and reliance, which should some with electrification and eventually new stock, will do the job.

(Also, the trains are mainly 3 and 4 car, with some potentially being 6 or 8 car, so it wont take all that long for them to clear the track they're crossing.)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With what we now know are delays of the officially Government sanctioned type to rail projects in the North, the matter of the September High Court discussions on the Ordsall Chord project now seem less dramatic in their implications to "the bigger picture".

 

[Philip C]

Grade separation isnt particularly beneficial at low speeds as trains can approach and wait for the junction to clear. At places like Norton Bridge however where the junction is at over 100mph trains have to start slowing down coming the opposite way to a train crossing the mainline around 2 miles away and so a lot of time and energy is lost.

On the ordsall chord the junctions are at low speed and soon before/after stations so yes, it would be an improvement, but not a massive one.

Good timetabling and reliance, which should some with electrification and eventually new stock, will do the job.

(Also, the trains are mainly 3 and 4 car, with some potentially being 6 or 8 car, so it wont take all that long for them to clear the track they're crossing.)

I've spent too many years travelling on the Central and Eastern Divisions of the Southern Region to have any enthusiasm for flat junctions.

This is a rare opportunity to invest in what seems likely to be a very busy and complex area where trains will converge from many lines. Many of these trains will be coming from far afield (Scotland, North Wales, East Anglia, Newcastle etc.) and consistently good time-keeping can hardly be expected. The infrastructure to be installed is just about the cheapest conceivable option (other than not building it at all). Forgive me for not being impressed. Perhaps a compare and contrast with the arrangements put in place at Shortlands Junction would be instructive?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I've spent too many years travelling on the Central and Eastern Divisions of the Southern Region to have any enthusiasm for flat junctions.

This is a rare opportunity to invest in what seems likely to be a very busy and complex area where trains will converge from many lines. Many of these trains will be coming from far afield (Scotland, North Wales, East Anglia, Newcastle etc.) and consistently good time-keeping can hardly be expected. The infrastructure to be installed is just about the cheapest conceivable option (other than not building it at all). Forgive me for not being impressed. Perhaps a compare and contrast with the arrangements put in place at Shortlands Junction would be instructive?

At Shortlands Junction, is there the same amount of railway heritage "bones of contention" as to be found in the area of the Ordsall chord ?

 

[Senex]

Grade separation isnt particularly beneficial at low speeds as trains can approach and wait for the junction to clear. At places like Norton Bridge however where the junction is at over 100mph trains have to start slowing down coming the opposite way to a train crossing the mainline around 2 miles away and so a lot of time and energy is lost......

Good timetabling and reliance, which should some with electrification and eventually new stock, will do the job.

Surely on inner-urban lines like the proposed Manchester scheme or many places in the inner London area it's not a question of time and energy but of line-capacity and robustness of timetable. Good timetabling certainly helps, as does precise running to timetable, but we have never followed French traditions in this country and it's very difficult in any case to guarantee sustained precise running on an infrastructure being used too close to capacity for comfort.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The infrastructure to be installed is just about the cheapest conceivable option (other than not building it at all). Forgive me for not being impressed.

Just so -- and typically British!

 

[edwin_m]

Surely on inner-urban lines like the proposed Manchester scheme or many places in the inner London area it's not a question of time and energy but of line-capacity and robustness of timetable. Good timetabling certainly helps, as does precise running to timetable, but we have never followed French traditions in this country and it's very difficult in any case to guarantee sustained precise running on an infrastructure being used too close to capacity for comfort.

You can write the timetable around a single grade-separated junction, so for example trains on the same route in opposite directions will pass on the junction itself. Assuming trains are reasonably punctual, the junction then creates little or no capacity penalty. However it becomes much more difficult to do this if there are several flat junctions in close proximity, and I believe the timetablers will have an "interesting" job with the number of flat junctions in the Manchester/Salford area.

 

[Howardh]

What's his "alternative" solution?
All I can see is leaving Salford Central the new line would veer to the right, loop over and rejoin the main line again from the right. That's just looking at an OS map, dunno what buildings are in the way. I wouldn't be surprised if it doubled the cost and time.

 

[ironstone11]

What's his "alternative" solution?

His Statement of Case is Here

 

[Senex]

..... and I believe the timetablers will have an "interesting" job with the number of flat junctions in the Manchester/Salford area.

I agree with that!

I think it's also the number of the flat junctions that's going to end up causing a capacity problem far too soon -- this link is going to be used up to its theoretical capacity pretty quickly, as far as I can see, with little room for additional paths as traffic grows.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I agree with that!

I think it's also the number of the flat junctions that's going to end up causing a capacity problem far too soon -- this link is going to be used up to its theoretical capacity pretty quickly, as far as I can see, with little room for additional paths as traffic grows.

Surely that fact would have been known to those charged with the design of the project.

 

[Viscount702]

The point once again is cost. The Government agreed to fund to the tune of 85M if I remember correctly. That doesn't get you much in this day and age and accordingly the cheapest option had to be the way forward. If this had been in the southeast more money would have been available and a more comprehensive design and better design would have been the way forward.

What you may get is the cheap version which was all the Government would fund but it is for the time being better than nothing.

Personally I think Marks proposal was a far better one. The reality however is that it would be the current proposal or nothing and if by any chance Mark is successful with his challenge then you will get nothing and rail in the Northwest will remain much as it is albeit with a few more electric trains.

 

[MarkyT]

His Statement of Case is Here

The grade separations in these options make little sense as far as I can see. I think the most useful arrangement would be to have a pair between Victoria and Eccles crossing a pair between Piccadilly and Salford Crescent conflict free. Such a junction could be added later, regardless of which scheme is built for the simple Ordsall chord itself. At Salford Central the new platform arrangement provides a dedicated 'right turn lane' for traffic from Victoria heading towards Eccles so those trains can wait in a platform for traffic coming from Piccadilly to cross in front without holding up following traffic heading for Piccadilly. Irrespective of heritage concerns the current scheme is good in keeping curve radii generous whilst also preserving space and hence keeping future options open for reconfiguration in the Ordsall Lane Junction area. One thing that is definitely not possible without far more widespread destruction is further grade separation at the junction between the new chord and the line towards Piccadilly. Non of the Mark Whitby options propose this.

 

[Senex]

The point once again is cost. The Government agreed to fund to the tune of 85M if I remember correctly. That doesn't get you much in this day and age and accordingly the cheapest option had to be the way forward. If this had been in the southeast more money would have been available and a more comprehensive design and better design would have been the way forward.

What you may get is the cheap version which was all the Government would fund but it is for the time being better than nothing.

Personally I think Marks proposal was a far better one. The reality however is that it would be the current proposal or nothing and if by any chance Mark is successful with his challenge then you will get nothing and rail in the Northwest will remain much as it is albeit with a few more electric trains.

Indeed. I think the whole report on the options considered rather shewed that they went for the best value for money in the short term rather than a good and future-proof solution.

I like Mark's proposal, but the Network Rail evidence against it did seem pretty convincing. And I'm absolutely sure that you're right to say that it's the authorised scheme or nothing, particularly after the NR fiasco. (And yes, if it had been in the south-east, I'm certain a much better job would have been done -- look at Reading or the Crossrail layouts.)

 

[Starmill]

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.

 

[Howardh]

If trains were needed direct to the airport from the NE but avoiding Picc (and Victoria) was there an option of a curve just before Ardwick which would only be a few hundred metres; would miss Piccadilly and anyone wanting to go Picc could change at Stalybridge?

 

[rebmcr]

If trains were needed direct to the airport from the NE but avoiding Picc (and Victoria) was there an option of a curve just before Ardwick which would only be a few hundred metres; would miss Piccadilly and anyone wanting to go Picc could change at Stalybridge?

There are a lot of depots and sidings in the way of that. Even so, it's not just Ardwick-Piccadilly-Airport that's a problem, it's also Ardwick-Piccadilly1314-Deansagate that conflict.

 

[edwin_m]

If trains were needed direct to the airport from the NE but avoiding Picc (and Victoria) was there an option of a curve just before Ardwick which would only be a few hundred metres; would miss Piccadilly and anyone wanting to go Picc could change at Stalybridge?

Judging by reports on here, trains between Piccadilly and the Airport are relatively empty so it wouldn't be justifiable to run trains to the Airport that don't serve Piccadilly.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There are a lot of depots and sidings in the way of that. Even so, it's not just Ardwick-Piccadilly-Airport that's a problem, it's also Ardwick-Piccadilly1314-Deansagate that conflict.

How would the final part of the HS2 route into Manchester Piccadilly station, after emerging from the tunnel in the Longsight area, affect any surface lines that diverge from the main line at Ancoats?

 

[rebmcr]

How would the final part of the HS2 route into Manchester Piccadilly station, after emerging from the tunnel in the Longsight area, affect any surface lines that diverge from the main line at Ancoats?

That's planned to surface north of Ardwick's junction, it won't overlap with anything except Network Rail offices & car parks.

 

[Starmill]

Judging by reports on here, trains between Piccadilly and the Airport are relatively empty so it wouldn't be justifiable to run trains to the Airport that don't serve Piccadilly.

It would be a million times better for the train to go to Piccadilly and not the airport. The other way around would be total nonsense. (Sorry.)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It would be a million times better for the train to go to Piccadilly and not the airport. The other way around would be total nonsense. (Sorry.)

As I have often said in previous postings, Manchester Airport only views rail as one transportation mode of ensuring that prospective airline passengers reach the airport and view matters in the cold light of reality as such.

Interesting to note the latest published increased annual airline passenger usage of Manchester Airport.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's planned to surface north of Ardwick's junction, it won't overlap with anything except Network Rail offices & car parks.

Thank you for this clarification as I thought the tunnel exit was nearer to the train depot at Longsight. If it does surface where you state, the line will virtually be in tunnel until very close proximity to the ends of the 400 metre-length platforms of the proposed HS2 railway station.

 

[yorksrob]

Personally I think that this curve is the wrong solution to the problem. We have two already crowded routes across Manchester, and we're planning to not only waste capacity by having one service use both of them, but we're going to further complicate things by having flat junction
junctions at either end of the curve.

The sensible option would have been to build the Ardwick flyover, allowing Trans Pennine services to get to platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly without fouling the main line from Stockport.

If they wanted to run a Calder Valley service to the Airport, they could just as easily reinstate the curve between Manchester Piccadilly to the line which runs in the East of the City, past the Man City stadium to Victoria.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Personally I think that this curve is the wrong solution to the problem. We have two already crowded routes across Manchester, and we're planning to not only waste capacity by having one service use both of them, but we're going to further complicate things by having flat junction, junctions at either end of the curve. The sensible option would have been to build the Ardwick flyover, allowing Trans Pennine services to get to platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly without fouling the main line from Stockport.

If they wanted to run a Calder Valley service to the Airport, they could just as easily reinstate the curve between Manchester Piccadilly to the line which runs in the East of the City, past the Man City stadium to Victoria.

Was not the idea of having a direct rail link between Manchester Victoria station to Manchester Piccadilly station via Salford Central station one of the stated advantages of the Ordsall Chord project?

 

[po8crg]

If trains were needed direct to the airport from the NE but avoiding Picc (and Victoria) was there an option of a curve just before Ardwick which would only be a few hundred metres; would miss Piccadilly and anyone wanting to go Picc could change at Stalybridge?

That train has never been required, but they could just use the Stalybridge-Stockport line and reverse at Wilmslow.

 

[Howardh]

That train has never been required, but they could just use the Stalybridge-Stockport line and reverse at Wilmslow.

I was suggesting the curve to prevent reversing!

 

[yorksrob]

Was not the idea of having a direct rail link between Manchester Victoria station to Manchester Piccadilly station via Salford Central station one of the stated advantages of the Ordsall Chord project?

Given the tram links between the two already, I'm not convinced of the benefits, particularly as it'll be soaking up a lot of valuable capacity.

 

[Howardh]

Given the tram links between the two already, I'm not convinced of the benefits, particularly as it'll be soaking up a lot of valuable capacity.

Another thread entirely, but I'm not sure why we need a tram to the airport when there are already good rail links. Sure from Wythenshawe into town, but apart from those using the tram to get to places between the airport and, say, the Old Trafford area, the train is faster and I dare say possibly cheaper?