Ordsall Chord

[po8crg]

I was suggesting the curve to prevent reversing!

Aye, fair point. I suspect that a curve at Wilmslow (letting a train go from the Stockport line to the Styal line without going into Wilmslow station), which would allow Stockport-Manchester Airport services, would both have more uses and be easier to construct. A curve at Ardwick would mean a train would need to cross the mainline to get across to the Styal line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

We don't really have a tram to the airport; we have a tram from Wythenshawe into town and a tram from Wythenshawe to the airport that happen to be connected together.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

An Ardwick flyover would have only been of use to the one tph from Scarborough to Liverpool via Warrington, which might not be long for this world anyway. I suppose the South TPE services (including the EMT) could be routed that way meaning 2tph over the flyover, but that deprives Stockport of a call. I doubt it would have been much cheaper than the Ordsall Curve but would have offered only a fraction of the benefits.

 

[Viscount702]

An Ardwick flyover would have only been of use to the one tph from Scarborough to Liverpool via Warrington, which might not be long for this world anyway. I suppose the South TPE services (including the EMT) could be routed that way meaning 2tph over the flyover, but that deprives Stockport of a call. I doubt it would have been much cheaper than the Ordsall Curve but would have offered only a fraction of the benefits.

It was more expensive and with less benefits than the Chord hence the decision to build the Chord

 

[nidave]

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?

The tram is not there for passengers of the airport, its there for people who work at the Airport - The plan is to have it open overnight as well to allow for early/late shifts, The airport (I believe) reducing staff car parking spaces so this will be needed.

 

[Howardh]

The tram is not there for passengers of the airport, its there for people who work at the Airport - The plan is to have it open overnight as well to allow for early/late shifts, The airport (I believe) reducing staff car parking spaces so this will be needed.

Did the airport contribute substantially to the cost of building the Metrolink?

 

[edwin_m]

The tram is not there for passengers of the airport, its there for people who work at the Airport - The plan is to have it open overnight as well to allow for early/late shifts, The airport (I believe) reducing staff car parking spaces so this will be needed.

Yes, although it may also be useful for air passengers from the southern suburbs it passes through. Having the airport at the outer end allows it to carry commuters in both directions during the peak, whereas if it terminated at Wythenshawe operating costs would be nearly as much but the contra-peak trams would be nearly empty.

 

[yorksrob]

An Ardwick flyover would have only been of use to the one tph from Scarborough to Liverpool via Warrington, which might not be long for this world anyway. I suppose the South TPE services (including the EMT) could be routed that way meaning 2tph over the flyover, but that deprives Stockport of a call. I doubt it would have been much cheaper than the Ordsall Curve but would have offered only a fraction of the benefits.

I would have thought that were it not for pathing issues across Picadilly, the preference would have been to have both the E-W trans Pennine services going via Picadilly, rather than Victoria.

Whatever the benefits, I can't help but feel we're storing up trouble by expecting so many trains to fit through the double track section between Pic and Deansgate.

 

[snowball]

Did the airport contribute substantially to the cost of building the Metrolink?

I have not seen a figure for the airport's contribution to the cost of the airport line but the line would not have been affordable without it.

It was a condition on the planning permission for the second runway that the airport should try to increase the proportion of staff and passengers who use public transport for their ground journeys to/from the airport.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I would have thought that were it not for pathing issues across Picadilly, the preference would have been to have both the E-W trans Pennine services going via Picadilly, rather than Victoria.

Whatever the benefits, I can't help but feel we're storing up trouble by expecting so many trains to fit through the double track section between Pic and Deansgate.

That's why Piccadilly is getting platforms 15 and 16: the plan is that trains will arrive in 15 as one departs from 16, likewise in the other direction with 13 and 14, then vice-versa. A similar system will be in place at Oxford Road which in theory massively increases the possible throughput of this section, especially once moving block signalling technology is in place. Once that's sorted, the limitations of flat junctions might well become apparent...

 

[po8crg]

That's why Piccadilly is getting platforms 15 and 16: the plan is that trains will arrive in 15 as one departs from 16, likewise in the other direction with 13 and 14, then vice-versa. A similar system will be in place at Oxford Road which in theory massively increases the possible throughput of this section, especially once moving block signalling technology is in place. Once that's sorted, the limitations of flat junctions might well become apparent...

Don't even need moving block, just short static blocks. I think they are intending to have 20tph capacity with 18tph scheduled.

Deansgate station is going to be the obvious next bottleneck because it doesn't have that four-platform system, and adding two platforms there would be mega-expensive. Deansgate is going to be pretty close to Oxford Road, though, when all the platform extensions are completed.

I do wonder if the next proposal after the Northern Hub is completed might be to run a footbridge diagonally over the Albion Street / Whitworth Street junction between Deansgate-Castlefield Metrolink and Oxford Road station, create a new entrance to Oxford Road into the First Street area and then close Deansgate heavy rail entirely, or run it down to a parliamentary service.

The second entrance would have to be effectively operated as a second station in terms of ticket office, barriers, etc. - but they could transfer staff over from Deansgate to cover it, so ongoing costs would not dramatically increase.

If they could actually close Deansgate, then there'd be some pretty good development opportunities with that land - NR would love to sell that whole section facing the Locks off as a single block to a developer, I'm sure.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I would have thought that were it not for pathing issues across Picadilly, the preference would have been to have both the E-W trans Pennine services going via Picadilly, rather than Victoria.

Everybody seems very keen to develop the Victoria/Salford Central corridor as a counterbalance to Piccadilly/Oxford Road.
There's a lot of commercial development planned (some in progress) on the basis of improving services via Victoria (eg Leeds-Victoria-Chester/Airport).

 

[misterredmist]

Well I notice Hitchin flyover was completed at a cost of £47m, which goes over the
4 track ECML , so flyover(s) should may be have been in the frame ?

 

[snowball]

The approach slopes can't be fitted in. The junctions are too close.

 

[rebmcr]

Well I notice Hitchin flyover was completed at a cost of £47m, which goes over the
4 track ECML , so flyover(s) should may be have been in the frame ?

That's in the middle of countryside though, not an inner-city viaduct surrounded by roads and rail depots.

 

[yorksrob]

That's why Piccadilly is getting platforms 15 and 16: the plan is that trains will arrive in 15 as one departs from 16, likewise in the other direction with 13 and 14, then vice-versa. A similar system will be in place at Oxford Road which in theory massively increases the possible throughput of this section, especially once moving block signalling technology is in place. Once that's sorted, the limitations of flat junctions might well become apparent...

Sounds as though it will need Japanese style precision, which will be tricky to pull off, even with double island platforms along the bottleneck.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Everybody seems very keen to develop the Victoria/Salford Central corridor as a counterbalance to Piccadilly/Oxford Road.
There's a lot of commercial development planned (some in progress) on the basis of improving services via Victoria (eg Leeds-Victoria-Chester/Airport).

It really depends on each passenger's ultimate destination. For Manchester city centre shops, Victoria is marginally more convenient but if you're interchanging to head South, you'll want Piccadilly. It's not really surprising how many people get on the first Manchester bound service at Huddersfield only to then complain at the guard because they wanted the other station! This will become less of an issue if/when the chord opens, as the Airport services will serve both (albeit with a longer journey time to Piccadilly).

 

[adrock1976]

A thought has come into my mind here. Has anybody ever investigated the possibility of running the New Mills Central via Bredbury services to Victoria and onwards in the generic direction of Wigan Wallgate/Southport via Atherton?

This would diverge from the present route west of Ashburys and would run via Philips Park. Perhaps a station could be built at Philips Park Road/Rowsley Street area as it is close to the City of Manchester Stadium/Etihad/whatever "branding" is used these days?

This would also enable the local Hope Valley service and Sheffield having a service to Victoria, while retaining the 2 limited stop services to Piccadilly via Stockport. The Rose Hill Marple via Hyde Central could still continue to run to Piccadilly as present, with a friendly same platform interchange being at either Romiley or Ashburys.

I could understand slight hesitancy as it would be running services from Midland Railway metals onto Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway metals, as I believe both companies had a less than cordial relationship with each other.

 

[Bevan Price]

Don't even need moving block, just short static blocks. I think they are intending to have 20tph capacity with 18tph scheduled.

Deansgate station is going to be the obvious next bottleneck because it doesn't have that four-platform system, and adding two platforms there would be mega-expensive. Deansgate is going to be pretty close to Oxford Road, though, when all the platform extensions are completed.
.

Castlefield Junction is already something of a bottleneck at times. Additional trains using the Ordsall chord will probably make things a lot worse.

Deansgate, with about 350,000 "Entries + Exits" per year is too busy to consider closing - and it is a better interchange with Metrolink than Oxford Road.

 

[edwin_m]

A thought has come into my mind here. Has anybody ever investigated the possibility of running the New Mills Central via Bredbury services to Victoria and onwards in the generic direction of Wigan Wallgate/Southport via Atherton?

This would diverge from the present route west of Ashburys and would run via Philips Park. Perhaps a station could be built at Philips Park Road/Rowsley Street area as it is close to the City of Manchester Stadium/Etihad/whatever "branding" is used these days?

This would also enable the local Hope Valley service and Sheffield having a service to Victoria, while retaining the 2 limited stop services to Piccadilly via Stockport. The Rose Hill Marple via Hyde Central could still continue to run to Piccadilly as present, with a friendly same platform interchange being at either Romiley or Ashburys.

I could understand slight hesitancy as it would be running services from Midland Railway metals onto Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway metals, as I believe both companies had a less than cordial relationship with each other. Perhaps somebody who has a knowledge of railway history in Manchester could confirm if that is the case or not?

This has been considered at least once as part of the various Marple line tram-train studies. I think the conclusion was that it would take so much longer that even people with destinations near Victoria would be better off going to Piccadilly and walking or getting a bus or tram. The capacity problems would also be greater at Victoria than at Piccadilly, where this group of services has a dedicated pair of tracks from Ardwick into the low-numbered terminating platforms.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The approach slopes can't be fitted in. The junctions are too close.

Plus the viaduct with Metrolink on it going over Deansgate Junction, and listed structures at Salford Central making it difficult or impossible to lift any tracks above their current level. A flyover above the level of the original L&M tracks would surely be far more damaging to the historic sightlines than the current proposal is.

 

[Howardh]

It really depends on each passenger's ultimate destination. For Manchester city centre shops, Victoria is marginally more convenient but if you're interchanging to head South, you'll want Piccadilly. It's not really surprising how many people get on the first Manchester bound service at Huddersfield only to then complain at the guard because they wanted the other station! This will become less of an issue if/when the chord opens, as the Airport services will serve both (albeit with a longer journey time to Piccadilly).

When you get off at Victoria intending for Piccadilly, I accept there are now more trams between the two, works excepting, and free buses, but I can't recall ever doing it in under 15' from stepping off the train, through the barriers, onto the metro station, (maybe I'm unlucky?).

Now, if there was an underground fast train between the two stations....

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Something that crops up from time to time is the possibility of a Stockport to Victoria service to replace the Denton parliamentary service, running via the route you mention. I'd imagine if ever such a service did start, it would be combined with a service on the other side of Manchester (Southport via Atherton perhaps?) to avoid the congested platforms at Victoria, though there are at least some bays in that direction.

As for a station serving Eastlands (as I believe the non-sponsorship name is), there was talk in the run up to Manchester 2002 of the former Park station being reopened to serve the stadium. Of course this never happened, I'm therefore skeptical that it could happen now unless Sheik Mansour is going to pay for it...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Midand and L&Y were indeed on good terms as far as I'm aware - Midland trains northwards from Manchester used L&Y metals all the way to somewhere between Clitheroe and Hellifield. So there would be far less turning in the graves going on at this suggestion than there must have been when the Midland was joined onto its mortal enemy the L&NWR at Hazel Grove.

Not to mention the Midland/L&Y end-on connection at Colne which was useful to both companies, and of course at Normanton into Leeds.
Generally the Midland got on with the LNWR and they nearly merged at one point before being lumped into the LMS together.
The main enemy to the LNWR was the MS&L/GC.

 

[Greybeard33]

This has been considered at least once as part of the various Marple line tram-train studies. I think the conclusion was that it would take so much longer that even people with destinations near Victoria would be better off going to Piccadilly and walking or getting a bus or tram. The capacity problems would also be greater at Victoria than at Piccadilly, where this group of services has a dedicated pair of tracks from Ardwick into the low-numbered terminating platforms.

Only limited details of the tram-train studies are in the public domain - http://www.transportforgreatermanch...loads/id/4702/item_08_tram-train_strategy.pdf. It appears the Marple proposal was for tram-trains to run from Marple Rose Hill via Bredbury, with a new street level alignment between Ashburys and Piccadilly Metrolink. There they would join the existing Metrolink network and continue to Altrincham and/or Bury. Piccadilly to New Mills Central/Sheffield heavy rail services would be diverted via Guide Bridge and Hyde in place of the current Rose Hill service.

Atherton-Wigan tram-trains would need to run on-street from west of Salford Crescent to Manchester city centre, but it is unclear what route was proposed.

 

[edwin_m]

Only limited details of the tram-train studies are in the public domain - http://www.transportforgreatermanchestercommittee.gov.uk/tfgmc/download/downloads/id/4702/item_08_tram-train_strategy.pdf. It appears the Marple proposal was for tram-trains to run from Marple Rose Hill via Bredbury, with a new street level alignment between Ashburys and Piccadilly Metrolink. There they would join the existing Metrolink network and continue to Altrincham and/or Bury. Piccadilly to New Mills Central/Sheffield heavy rail services would be diverted via Guide Bridge and Hyde in place of the current Rose Hill service.

This is a more recent wave of studies. Marple was first looked at in detail in about 2004 and the option of going to Victoria was discarded fairly soon after that.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

When you get off at Victoria intending for Piccadilly, I accept there are now more trams between the two, works excepting, and free buses, but I can't recall ever doing it in under 15' from stepping off the train, through the barriers, onto the metro station, (maybe I'm unlucky?).

Now, if there was an underground fast train between the two stations....

The various free buses in central Manchester (3?) are notable for the fact that no single route serves both Piccadilly and Victoria. Presumably this is to avoid abstraction from Metrolink. I had expected this to change temporarily while Victoria Met was closed, but alas no... :roll:

 

[snail]

The various free buses in central Manchester (3?) are notable for the fact that no single route serves both Piccadilly and Victoria.

Eh? The 1 and 2 both go from Piccadilly to Victoria since the route changes to accommodate the St Peter's Square closure.
http://www.tfgm.com/buses/Pages/metroshuttle.aspx

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The various free buses in central Manchester (3?) are notable for the fact that no single route serves both Piccadilly and Victoria. Presumably this is to avoid abstraction from Metrolink. I had expected this to change temporarily while Victoria Met was closed, but alas no... :roll:

Have you availed yourself of the latest information on the Metroshuttle services, as I travelled direct from Manchester Victoria to Manchester Piccadilly on the service number 1 in the last few days.

 

[muddythefish]

Have you availed yourself of the latest information on the Metroshuttle services, as I travelled direct from Manchester Victoria to Manchester Piccadilly on the service number 1 in the last few days.

"Availed yourself?" Your Victorian language suggests you must be at least 120 years old.

 

[yorkie]

I've moved some posts (some had to be split - very time consuming!) that were on an a different subject to a new thread. If anyone wishes to go off on a tangent, or expand significantly on a new tangent posted by someone else, that's absolutely fine but please press the 'New thread' button in the appropriate forum. Thanks!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

"Availed yourself?" Your Victorian language suggests you must be at least 120 years old.

Well, 70 is well on the way to 120...