Ordsall Chord

[GRALISTAIR]

My apologies for forgetting the actual name of that project, but such is the strength of my latest increased dosage on two of my six daily post-stroke medication side-effects that I occasionally suffer from bouts of such forgetfulness...

Stay well my friend and look after yourself.

 

[Chrisyd]

The scheme is Middlewood Locks and according to the website they to are looking to press on: http://middlewood-locks.co.uk/index.php

 

[Senex]

I like everyone to know that I'm still cross about when they changed the name of Marathon to Snickers...

Me too -- but then I'm one of those sad figures who still rue the day that British Railways was changed to British Rail (which still always makes me think first of a 60-foot length of bullhead rail ...)

 

[TBirdFrank]

The proposal that should have been considered has already been done to death - but if this forum has never heard of it - here goes.

When leaving Piccadilly towards Ardwick a closed viaduct formation can be seen on the north side leading towards Ashton Old Road. It was known as the Blind Lane Curve and was left with Railtrack on privatisation to facilitate the future extension of Piccadilly. With a bit of a muck shift where the Ancoats branch went through and a single span over Ashton Old Road you have Picc to Vic. You have connected the stadia to the network and the city centre. You have connected the Calder Valley to Piccadilly and you have retained all the flexibility of Victoria as a north and west route station and removed much of the traffic currently running Deansgate to Picc.

Platforms A -D could have been built where the surface car park now is and Mayfield brought back into use and connected to Picc to Oxford Road creating a further six platform faces. Thats 24 platforms at Piccadilly; the capacity for HS2 if we have to have that blot on the landscape to be a through route across Manchester and not a set of stops, and better resilience across the north west network than anything currently proposed. Let's be honest - Woodhead at only four miles longer to London than the WCML and the Midland line would have been far better value and opened up real journey opportunities diversionary capacity and choice than anything HS2 will ever deliver.

Comments about a declining railway in the 80s are frankly an insult to what was achieved then and show the paucity of thought in today's industry towards better and more rigourous thought than has gone into today's planning system. The fact that MOSI were bought off and were prepared to accept being bought off is simply another example of how money talks and not professionalism or public standards.

Having worked with NR and its appalling GRIP processes, both professionally and as an enthusiast the phrase poor broken backed railway was never so apt.

I believe what I am proposing is forward looking, adds to the strategic and resilience needs of the network, satisfies the operating needs, is vastly cheaper overall, but of course - It wasn't invented here.

Manchester will be the poorer for having the Ordsall Curve thrust on it - in time to come the mistake will be realised just as it will with CC2 that should have gone along Deansgate

 

[Joseph_Locke]

<an old idea examined by Railtrack in 2000>

So how does that resolve the crossing conflicts at Ardwick Junction for Leeds / York/Hull/etc. trains going to Manchester Airport?

 

[lejog]

So how does that resolve the crossing conflicts at Ardwick Junction for Leeds / York/Hull/etc. trains going to Manchester Airport?

Let alone introducing another crossing for Calder Valley services to be routed to the Airport.

I'm not normally an apologist for Network Rail, but the requirements that were set for the Manchester Hub by the Northern Way effectively ruled out Network Rail choosing TBirdFrank's option as the solution. Meeting fewer of the requirements would have resulted in a proportional reduction of the budget.

 

[Senex]

Let's be honest - Woodhead at only four miles longer to London than the WCML and the Midland line ...

I thought it was 206 miles Manchester to Marylebone as against 189 to Euston via Crewe and (Central to) St Pancras and 186 to Euston via Stoke -- a bit more than four miles difference. (There were once through expresses from Manchester to King's Cross, of course, but I'm ignoring that route.)

 

[swt_passenger]

The proposal that should have been considered has already been done to death - but if this forum has never heard of it - here goes.

The forum has heard of it, and as you say it has been done to death, but quite a few years ago now. This thread alone has been ongoing since 2011, and it isn't the only one about the hub, chord etc etc.

Doesn't everything about it, and the associated re-opening of Mayfield, just lead to vast increases in flat crossing conflicts on nearly every route? Or were NR making all that up in their various explanations why it wasn't the right solution?

 

[Bantamzen]

Let alone introducing another crossing for Calder Valley services to be routed to the Airport.

I'm not normally an apologist for Network Rail, but the requirements that were set for the Manchester Hub by the Northern Way effectively ruled out Network Rail choosing TBirdFrank's option as the solution. Meeting fewer of the requirements would have resulted in a proportional reduction of the budget.

And another possible bottleneck east of Miles Platting where a Calder Valley > Man Pic service would be sharing a section with the Stalybridge > Man Vic line as opposed to dealing with the crossing at Victoria itself.

 

[TBirdFrank]

Services from north and east would have a choice of three routes, Calder Valley, Clayton Bridge or Standege, and two approaches - Guide Bridge or Blind Lane.

Using new platform faces on the north side of the train shed swinging north and west takes away one congestion argument, links the stadia and Victoria and all north and west routes without needing to use Oxford Road at all.

Airport services could be diluted by crossing at Slade Lane, but of course there was once a flyover suggested there!

The use of Mayfield would provide up to eight platform faces on a through route.

NR have got this one completely and utterly wrong - but that's nothing new is it?

 

[Moonshot]

Services from north and east would have a choice of three routes, Calder Valley, Clayton Bridge or Standege, and two approaches - Guide Bridge or Blind Lane.

Using new platform faces on the north side of the train shed swinging north and west takes away one congestion argument, links the stadia and Victoria and all north and west routes without needing to use Oxford Road at all.

Airport services could be diluted by crossing at Slade Lane, but of course there was once a flyover suggested there!

The use of Mayfield would provide up to eight platform faces on a through route.

NR have got this one completely and utterly wrong - but that's nothing new is it?

In your opinion they have got this wrong, but of course there are many more stakeholders than just NR. Whether you agree with the scheme or not, the overiding fact is that the Ordsall Chord scheme has already started. It will cerainly make my life a lot easier once its up and running.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

NR have got this one completely and utterly wrong - but that's nothing new is it?

Plenty of people at Network Rail who have tried every possible avenue to keep Mayfield and re-open it, and doing the pathing and risk modelling, it just comes up time and time again as an option which can't realistically be used without a flyover or dive-under, and the flyover would be too steep, whilst the dive under would block several local roads.

 

[Moonshot]

Plenty of people at Network Rail who have tried every possible avenue to keep Mayfield and re-open it, and doing the pathing and risk modelling, it just comes up time and time again as an option which can't realistically be used without a flyover or dive-under, and the flyover would be too steep, whilst the dive under would block several local roads.

Also, Mayfield is likely to be re developed as a mixed office/leisure facility.

 

[lejog]

Services from north and east would have a choice of three routes, Calder Valley, Clayton Bridge or Standege, and two approaches - Guide Bridge or Blind Lane.

Using new platform faces on the north side of the train shed swinging north and west takes away one congestion argument, links the stadia and Victoria and all north and west routes without needing to use Oxford Road at all.

Airport services could be diluted by crossing at Slade Lane, but of course there was once a flyover suggested there!

The use of Mayfield would provide up to eight platform faces on a through route.

NR have got this one completely and utterly wrong - but that's nothing new is it?

I suggest you read p42-67 of the Manchester Hub Rail Study which shows the reasoning for supporting the Ordsall Chord rather than your proposed solution plus a flyover at Ardwick. I think it demonstrates quite clearly why you have got this one wrong.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In your opinion they have got this wrong, but of course there are many more stakeholders than just NR.

Of course, including the Treasury who require rather more than crayonista reasoning to release £800m of taxpayer's money.

 

[The Planner]

In your opinion they have got this wrong, but of course there are many more stakeholders than just NR.

Indeed, as everyone else who were on board and consulted such as DfT, all the TOCs and FOCs, TfGM and so on all got it wrong too.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Also, Mayfield is likely to be re developed as a mixed office/leisure facility.

Unfortunately, there are those who remain firmly committed in their mind that the former railway station of Manchester Mayfield still has a rail future. Others still harbour similar unrealistic aspirations for the rail use of Manchester Central railway station...:roll:

 

[deltic08]

Of course, including the Treasury who require rather more than crayonista reasoning to release £800m of taxpayer's money.

There's that word again, crayonista. What does it mean as it doesn't appear in my Collins English dictionary?

Where is £800m being spent? I thought Ordsall Viaduct/Chord was only £80m.

 

[hwl]

There's that word again, crayonista. What does it mean as it doesn't appear in my Collins English dictionary?

Where is £800m being spent? I thought Ordsall Viaduct was only £80m.

You will find it in the Londonreconnections lexicon, origin about 5 years ago.
It describes someone who does rail planning with just large scale map (with no detail e.g. the tube map) and crayons without reference to practicalities such as passenger demand or engineering.

E.g. joining the waterloo and city to the DLR at Bank

 

[Domh245]

There's that word again, crayonista. What does it mean as it doesn't appear in my Collins English dictionary?

Crayonistas are those who will happily draw things onto maps and think that their proposal is a brilliant idea, often neglecting things like cost and operational constraints/requirements. Crayons specifically as the root of the name because they usually seem to have one lodged up their nose, Homer Simpson style :P

 

[JohnB57]

Crayons specifically as the root of the name because they usually seem to have one lodged up their nose, Homer Simpson style :P

I always thought it was because they couldn't be trusted with anything sharper.

 

[swt_passenger]

Indeed, as everyone else who were on board and consulted such as DfT, all the TOCs and FOCs, TfGM and so on all got it wrong too.

This criticism by TBirdFrank seems to be a repeat of similar denials of the Ordsall Chord and 2CC seen in the wnxx forum back in October. (Assuming the username isn't a coincidence.)

That kite didn't seem to fly very high either...

 

[keith1879]

I would be fascinated to see even approximate costings from TBFrank for his scheme which he feels is so cheap.

It apperas to combine none of the advantages of the Ordsall chord with several new disadvantages.

Otherwise a guaranteed winner.

 

[John R]

So, quoting from Place North West

Whitby then submitted an application to the Court of Appeal to appeal the fact he was not allowed to appeal. The Court of Appeal has now granted him the right to appeal the fact he was not allowed to appeal. - See more at: http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/new...t-legal-fight-continues/#sthash.mdgncQtq.dpuf

So if that's correct, the next step is for the court to decide again whether he can appeal. If they do, then at that point he can appeal, and that would be the logical point at which a request to grant an injunction stopping work could be successful. Let's hope by that point, even if this first (procedural) appeal is granted, enough work will have been done to make it a pointless exercise.

As with the Oxford to Bicester link, it does appear extraordinary that one person can hold up a major infrastructure project for so long.

 

[snowball]

So, quoting from Place North West

Whitby then submitted an application to the Court of Appeal to appeal the fact he was not allowed to appeal. The Court of Appeal has now granted him the right to appeal the fact he was not allowed to appeal. - See more at: http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/new...t-legal-fight-continues/#sthash.mdgncQtq.dpuf

So if that's correct, the next step is for the court to decide again whether he can appeal.

That report is overcomplicating the situation. The recent decision approved his application to appeal. The next step is the hearing of the actual appeal. A few days ago the case tracker was saying this had to be heard by Feb 2017, but this has now changed to 4 March this year.

I don't know whether he's also trying to get a new injunction.

 

[andyb2706]

Can't see the Middlewich Locks being affected at all as it is the other side of the current viaduct, in fact if they gets their skates on and start building Mr Whitby's own Ordsall Chord plans will no longer be able to be implamented as there will be a big tower block where he would have loved for the railway to go.

 

[TBirdFrank]

Why does re-use of Mayfield require flyovers or dive unders? I have never read such utter tosh!

Mayfield is of course at the same datum as Piccadilly and all that is needed is a westwards extension at grade towards the A6.

Equally no flyover at Ardwick has either been mentioned or is in any way necessary.

As for the diverse needs of all the various stakeholders - please read "On and Off the Rails by Peter Rayner, which foretold in graphic detail how the strategic overview of what a railway needs would be lost once each separate company thought its needs were most important and not the common good!

As for the attempt to diminish the value of alternative views by pretending they are juvenile and ill thought through - I'll pit my forty plus years in property and thirty as a railwayman against today's pseudo management anytime.

I came across them several times until my retirement and I am afraid that their performance did not impress and their inability to conduct themselves with any level of authority compared with their predecessors was simply appalling. On one occasion we had to adjourn a meeting because we did not have the sponsor's authority to convene. Two weeks later we found out that the guy who made this bold decision was the scheme sponsor! You could not write it!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why does re-use of Mayfield require flyovers or dive unders? I have never read such utter tosh!

Like you, I too am getting on in years. The difference between us appears to be that I tend towards the non-rail use of the Manchester Mayfield site for a new part of the general betterment of the land area in which it is so situated.

On a similar matter, I have crossed "posting swords" with Nym for some years on this website, as he remains convinced of a heavy rail usage of the former Manchester Central Railway station, despite all exhortations to ask him to understand the reality of that edifice that so exists these days.

 

[snowball]

Can't see the Middlewich Locks being affected at all as it is the other side of the current viaduct,

There's a lock at Middlewich but it's 25 miles away. Perhaps you mean Middlewood?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Why does re-use of Mayfield require flyovers or dive unders? I have never read such utter tosh!

Mayfield is of course at the same datum as Piccadilly and all that is needed is a westwards extension at grade towards the A6.

Equally no flyover at Ardwick has either been mentioned or is in any way necessary.

As for the diverse needs of all the various stakeholders - please read "On and Off the Rails by Peter Rayner, which foretold in graphic detail how the strategic overview of what a railway needs would be lost once each separate company thought its needs were most important and not the common good!

As for the attempt to diminish the value of alternative views by pretending they are juvenile and ill thought through - I'll pit my forty plus years in property and thirty as a railwayman against today's pseudo management anytime.

I came across them several times until my retirement and I am afraid that their performance did not impress and their inability to conduct themselves with any level of authority compared with their predecessors was simply appalling. On one occasion we had to adjourn a meeting because we did not have the sponsor's authority to convene. Two weeks later we found out that the guy who made this bold decision was the scheme sponsor! You could not write it!

That's 70 years ...

Despite resorting to unlimbering the 2B and a VT napkin, I still don't see how extending Mayfield westwards, even over the A6, is any alternative to the Chord. I was involved in developing options for the Ardwick Flyover (and six, tracking to Slade Lane, reopening Blind Lane Curve, platforms A&B, platforms 17 & 18 and grade separating Ordsall Lane Jn.) back in 2000 (ah, the sSRA) and, put simply, the Chord is the better answer in the short term. It also the best answer in the medium and long term, provided the London Road Junction to Castlefield Junction section is "sorted out" (e.g. four-tracked and the conflicts therein removed).

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Like you, I too am getting on in years. The difference between us appears to be that I tend towards the non-rail use of the Manchester Mayfield site for a new part of the general betterment of the land area in which it is so situated.

This will put cat amongst t'pigeons, but...

...if Mayfield could be made to work, the station could be integrated into a mixed use leisure/business development. There's nothing developers love more now than for city centre sites to be on or near a major rail terminus, so walking off the concourse at Mayfield, onto escalators and into Mayfield Shopping Centre would be a wet dream for many a pen pusher at the likes of Lend Lease, Westfield Corp or smaller players like Helical Bar.

It still doesn't solve the problem of how much capacity you lose on the line through Platforms 13 and 14 (and how you would ever put Platforms 15 and 16 in) if you have terminating traffic crossing the through lines at the throat to Mayfield. That's why you need a dive under or fly over, to get Mayfield traffic clear of the through lines. Tosh, of course. At grade crossings are fine and don't hoover up capacity, no sireee Bob.

The other way I can think of is viaduct extensions and using an Ardwick flyover to do all the necessary traffic separation well before the combined station throat being proposed, but that's going to be expensive, and it still doesn't provide the sort of Pic-Vic link people in Manchester have needed for decades.

Re-opening Mayfield is, to my mind, symbolic of the 'we'll just dump you here where it's most convenient for the railway' way of thinking we've tried to get rid of, Ordsall Chord is more 'we'll get you as close as we can to your destination with more through services'.