Ordsall Chord

[absolutelymilk]

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.

I honestly can't tell which of you are joking here

 

[Joseph_Locke]

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.

Of course! The objection is that the limited view (through the undergrowth) of passing trains on the Castlefield viaduct will be ruined by the passing trains on the Ordsall Chord. How could I have been so slow to realise this?

Or that the construction of an open-sided bridge nearby would hinder the public's appreciation of a rather plain (George was no architect) bridge?

 

[lancastrian]

I honestly can't tell which of you are joking here

I think that you will find that we are both joking.
We both have an 'off the wall' sense of humour.

 

[Altfish]

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.

I shall be having a swift half in memory of it in the Coach and Horses

 

[snowball]

Report on the first day of the judicial review:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ordsall-chord-lawyers-argue-decision-10126965

At London's Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Whitby’s counsel Paul Brown QC argued that the decision-making process behind the route, which runs through heritage buildings which hail from the birth of modern railway, was flawed.

He said due consideration was not given to Option 15 created by his client and engineer Mr Whitby - an alternative route which would bypass the areas of heritage importance while, he argued, bringing the same benefits to public transport.

There had not been a ‘true comparison’ between the available options, he claimed.

He said option 15 was too quickly dismissed by the inspector because it would hold back the regeneration of the Middlewood Locks in Salford, which he argued should not have been a key consideration at that stage of the process.

He also argued that option 15’s benefits of preventing harm to a collection of Grade I and Grade II listed buildings – including the complete demolition of two Grade II listed bridges – were not given due consideration.

He said nor were the benefits option 15 would bring to public transport as a reasonable alternative to option 14 – the preferred choice by Network Rail and the one given the green light by the Secretary of State.

 

[185]

Assume someone's already suggested sticking in diamonds to keep the MOSI's line connected.

 

[WatcherZero]

There will be about a foot difference in height between the old track level and the new track level.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There will be about a foot difference in height between the old track level and the new track level.

Well, this should be a feline-friendly method of allowing access and egress to the station cats,,,

 

[edwin_m]

Assume someone's already suggested sticking in diamonds to keep the MOSI's line connected.

Also diamonds would prevent the new curve being canted, which would reduce its speed. And I expect a pair of non-standard diamonds with one arm curved would be a maintenance nightmare.

 

[Senex]

Also diamonds would prevent the new curve being canted, which would reduce its speed.

And it's going to be slow enough in any case (if it does ever get built).

 

[HowardGWR]

And it's going to be slow enough in any case (if it does ever get built).

How slow is it designed at present?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

How slow is it designed at present?

30mph

(assuming that you aren't querying the efficiency of the designers ...)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

30mph

(assuming that you aren't querying the efficiency of the designers ...)

Which will be quicker than any other method of getting from Piccadilly to Victoria. Whether it ends up being 20, 30 or 40 won't make a huge difference to journey times given how close together the stops will be for any services running from Manchester Airport to the Ashton line via Picadilly, Oxford Road and Victoria.

 

[HowardGWR]

30mph

(assuming that you aren't querying the efficiency of the designers ...)

Why would I do that? Puzzled at that comment.

Edit: thanks for the info.

 

[Camden]

If the court action succeeds and Option 15 has to be reconsidered, what will be the impact on the Middlewood Locks development?

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.../ordsall-chord-route-better-engineer-10108422

I note that a deal appears to have been struck in some form in China this week:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34334479

Where does this leave the whole situation?

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...-news/lawyer-warns-85m-ordsall-chord-10129345

If Option 15 is reviewed and found to be the better option, where would this leave the development? Surely it cannot be the case that the whole of the north of England loses out on enhanced capacity and throughput through Manchester just because it clashes with Greater Manchester's own preferred choice of route?

 

[Senex]

If Option 15 is reviewed and found to be the better option, where would this leave the development?

If that does happen, who is going to meet the extra costs?

 

[chrissawer]

If the court action succeeds and Option 15 has to be reconsidered, what will be the impact on the Middlewood Locks development?

I travel past the Middlewood Locks site every day. It currently has earth moving equipment on it doing some fairly major excavations. It looks like they're levelling the site ready for piling and construction.

Option 15 is a major change to the site and the roads in the area - Middlewood Street which it proposes removing/rerouting is a major route which is very busy during rush hour.

If they do start building, even on the western half of the site near Oldfield Road, then Option 15 as presented in the MEN article will be off the agenda.

 

[edwin_m]

Which will be quicker than any other method of getting from Piccadilly to Victoria. Whether it ends up being 20, 30 or 40 won't make a huge difference to journey times given how close together the stops will be for any services running from Manchester Airport to the Ashton line via Picadilly, Oxford Road and Victoria.

It may not affect the journey time much, but a train at a lower speed occupies the junctions for longer and makes the already difficult timetabling in this area just a bit harder.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...-news/lawyer-warns-85m-ordsall-chord-10129345

Presumably this means the hearing has finished and we are in the hands of the judge for an indeterminate period?

The claim came as judgement on a legal challenge against the planned route was deferred at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The judge, Mrs Justice Beverley Lang, was urged to give her decision as soon as possible on the project which should have got underway this month

If the appeal succeeds the whole Northern Hub will be in deep trouble because of the process and time and cost needed to get another route approved.

 

[MarkyT]

It may not affect the journey time much, but a train at a lower speed occupies the junctions for longer and makes the already difficult timetabling in this area just a bit harder.

Yes, likely lower speeds throughout including junctions is what struck me about the 'option 15' idea. Half the speed means twice the time to clear a junction -resulting in lower capacity for certain movement combinations, more dependency and thus complexity in planning, all compounded by reduced resilience and flexibility in the realtime performance arena.

 

[Camden]

If they do start building, even on the western half of the site near Oldfield Road, then Option 15 as presented in the MEN article will be off the agenda.

Should that happen if there is a legal challenge in play? What would be the point in being able to bring a legal challenge if the option you wanted examined didn't exist or had been made more complicated after the case was heard?

Or would the developers be expected to pay to put the site back the way it was pre hearing?

Obviously there are an awful lot of IFs in all this, I would have thought it best not to do anything on anything until the matter is settled?

 

[The Planner]

It may not affect the journey time much, but a train at a lower speed occupies the junctions for longer and makes the already difficult timetabling in this area just a bit harder.

Yes and no, considering the increments we use are in and cannot go lower than ½ minute the speed of which an 8 car train clears a junction at 20mph compared to 30mph is 18 seconds vs 12 seconds plus a bit on top. Chances are the junction margin is going to be the same.

 

[Viscount702]

As far as I understand the position the Middlewood Locks site is not protected as it was not required for railway use. That being the case the developers can develop it as per their planning permission with no come back on them. Lets not forget that if it was potentially required for rail use planning permission wouldn't have been granted for development

If the appeal succeeds the chord is dead and most of what is left of the Hub with it. Option 15 is, if it ever was, no longer an option because NR will not acquire the Locks site as the cost will be huge and the Government will not fund it leaving aside NR's view that technically it was not a viable option anyway. If Mark wins he will have severely damaged transport improvements in the Northwest and further afield

 

[infobleep]

As far as I understand the position the Middlewood Locks site is not protected as it was not required for railway use. That being the case the developers can develop it as per their planning permission with no come back on them. Lets not forget that if it was potentially required for rail use planning permission wouldn't have been granted for development

If the appeal succeeds the chord is dead and most of what is left of the Hub with it. Option 15 is, if it ever was, no longer an option because NR will not acquire the Locks site as the cost will be huge and the Government will not fund it leaving aside NR's view that technically it was not a viable option anyway. If Mark wins he will have severely damaged transport improvements in the Northwest and further afield

I don't know the full facts but surely if Mark wins that's suggests he is legally correct, unless it goes to appeal and they rule the previous judge was wrong.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't know the full facts but surely if Mark wins that's suggests he is legally correct, unless it goes to appeal and they rule the previous judge was wrong.

Very true, but it's typical that the coverage is all about the merits of the different routes, not the quality of the decision.

 

[Darren R]

Oh dear, I've just realised who the judge is.

High Court judge: what are sixes and fours in cricket?
Mrs Justice Beverley Lang ruled in favour of the club in a planning dispute despite being unfamiliar with cricket rules

A High Court judge hearing plans to develop an old village forge next to a cricket pitch asked: 'what are sixes and fours?'

The proposed development was blocked by the judge who decided that occupants and visitors would be ''at risk of injury'' from flying balls during matches.

The decision was made by Mrs Justice Beverley Lang, sitting in London, who had queried the meaning of sixes and fours during a two-day hearing last week.

Her ruling was a victory for East Meon Forge and Cricket Ground Protection Association (EMFCPA,) which challenged East Hampshire District Council's decision to grant planning permission for an extension with a residential first-floor flat over the single-storey former blacksmith's workshop.

Robert Fookes, appearing for the association, told the judge that one of the grounds of objection to the development was that the forge was very close to the square on which cricket is played.

Mr Fookes informed the judge that ''sixes and fours are frequently hit by batsmen on to forge land, including the roof of the building itself''.

The judge was caught on the back foot and said: ''I don't play cricket - what does that mean?''

Mr Fookes explained that sixes were scored in cricket when the ball was hit over the boundary without touching the ground, while fours ''bounced along the ground'' before crossing the boundary line.

Counsel added that six runs or four runs were scored automatically without the batsman having to run them.

Mrs Justice Lang made no further comment on England's summer game and the court turned to consider the dimensions of the controversial development in East Meon, which is in the South Downs National Park.

Handing down her judgment, the judge said anyone using the flat and the decking outside would be vulnerable, and the cricket club would be liable for damage to the windows.

The only access to the proposed flat was via external steps and across decking and ''the occupants and visitors to the flat will be at risk of injury when entering or leaving the premises during matches''.

She said Sports England had declared measures put forward to mitigate the problem ''unenforcable''.

The judge added: ''In consequence, the proposed development creates unacceptable risks for its future occupants and for the cricket club.''

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11202109/High-Court-judge-what-are-sixes-and-fours-in-cricket.html)

It doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in either the prospects for the Ordsall Chord being built, or in the Judiciary!

 

[MarkyT]

For those wishing to revisit the 3d visualisation NR had produced for the consultation, see the wayback machine here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20140227142238/http://www.ordsallchord.co.uk/ordsall-chord.asp

 

[edwin_m]

Yes and no, considering the increments we use are in and cannot go lower than ½ minute the speed of which an 8 car train clears a junction at 20mph compared to 30mph is 18 seconds vs 12 seconds plus a bit on top. Chances are the junction margin is going to be the same.

OK, so doesn't change the timetable, but if the trains take longer to pass over the junctions in reality the operation is going to be less robust.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, likely lower speeds throughout including junctions is what struck me about the 'option 15' idea. Half the speed means twice the time to clear a junction -resulting in lower capacity for certain movement combinations, more dependency and thus complexity in planning, all compounded by reduced resilience and flexibility in the realtime performance arena.

Couldn't have put it better myself - only isn't the "realtime performance arena" what they built on top of Victoria?

 

[MarkyT]

. . . isn't the "realtime performance arena" what they built on top of Victoria?

Very Good!

 

[Viscount702]

Very true, but it's typical that the coverage is all about the merits of the different routes, not the quality of the decision.

My understanding of Judicial Review is that it is generally about procedure rather than the merits of the decision. That being the case I was surprised that this even went to JR (although I believe that NR may not initially have done everything it should have done). The law lays down the procedures that have to be gone through including an enquiry. During that process the arguments by all sides are heard as are the objections. At the end the inspector makes his report. It is then up to the Secretary of State to decide to grant the order or not or to grant with modification. He doesn't have go along with the inspectors views. If he decides to grant the merits of the order can't be questioned what can be questioned is whether or not the correct procedures were followed and whether or not the Secretary of State had the legal power to grant the order or elements within it. If not the judge on review could quash the order. However it is possible to go back and go through the whole procedure again this time doing everything properly and then the Secretary of State grant exactly the same order.

So far everything I have so far read suggests that the Marks arguments are about the merit of the Decision rather than procedure.