Ordsall Chord

[HowardGWR]

In fairness to TBirdFrank, he does have one strong point, which is the Irish joke 'if you want to get there, I wouldn't start from here' criticism. As an outsider, my problem with his Ardwick 'solution' is that it doesn't solve the basic problem of having two stations far apart in a medium size city.

There are two types of traveller on rail in Manchester. One is trying to reach offices and hotels and entertainment in the central area somewhere. The other is passing through. The former needs a good method of leaving the terminus (walk, cycle, tram, bus, taxi) to get to the real destination. The latter doesn't want to stop in Manchester at all. One station is enough of a stop to help him get a more frequent service, due to the payload being much greater, due to the terminating/starting pax quantities.

So a Newcastle upon Tyne solution would have been the best. One station, good metro and a nice circular line that enables trains to leave in any direction. No flyovers there but it could have been done, I suppose.

It seems to me that the Ordsall solution does give the best pragmatic one, but there might have been a case to retain an Ardwick link for flexibilty in calamitous circumstances and the odd stock movement (e.g. if Oxford Rd was totally blocked).

 

[deltic08]

My problem with the Ordsall Chord is that it doesn't go far enough. It does not solve the conflict between Victoria-Earlstown trains and Piccadilly-Bolton trains crossing on the flat. This conflict will only get worse as traffic grows. Why couldn't a chord off the chord be built directly over to the Victoria-Bolton route?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

Ah, now I understand. Thank you. Only partly guilty. What is half a crayonista called then?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

One up a nostril is acceptable. It is one in each nostril that is a sign of madness.

 

[L+Y]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the primary purpose of the O/C to allow trains from east Lancashire, Yorkshire and beyond to reach the airport without clogging up the station throat at Piccadilly?

If so, I'm not sure how the Blind Lane, or any other, solution can be made to work...?

 

[Moonshot]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the primary purpose of the O/C to allow trains from east Lancashire, Yorkshire and beyond to reach the airport without clogging up the station throat at Piccadilly?

If so, I'm not sure how the Blind Lane, or any other, solution can be made to work...?

Indeed it is. Also connects Vic to Pic.

 

[deltic08]

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.

Stop introducing obstacles that don't exist. This section is no more of a bottle neck than sections on the west side of Piccadilly.

Having looked at Google earth, I think that the route connecting Piccadilly and Victoria via the east that is being discussed should be retained for future reinstatement in addition to the Ordsall Chord as who knows what will be needed in the future. Development across this route rendering it unreusable would be crazy.

TBirdFrank does have a point but due to hyena dogma (good pun don't you think) when a poster raises a possibility of railway development it will most likely fail. They cannot see into the future any more than the so called crayonistas. Look how the Beeching legacy left us because he had no vision. Strangulated and needing HS2 costing £100billion plus all the other reinstatements recently. Leaving the system untouched in 1962 would not have cost as much as this in subsidies. As I say, no vision.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

no vision.

A perfect summary

 

[lejog]

Having looked at Google earth, I think that the route connecting Piccadilly and Victoria via the east that is being discussed should be retained for future reinstatement in addition to the Ordsall Chord as who knows what will be needed in the future. Development across this route rendering it unreusable would be crazy.

You will be pleased to note that the one of the points raised in the Manchester Hub Study (link posted a few days ago) was that the Ordsall Chord was actually complimentary to the line east of Manchester.

The Northern Franchise benefits maps shows trains from Sheffield running into both Piccadilly and Victoria (although there is no explanatory text) so its possible that this line will be used for passenger services again in the near future. The east facing bays at Victoria will have no regular services when all trains from the west run through to Stalybridge or Rochdale, so are available if Piccadilly is full to capacity.

What is not planned is any restoration of the chord into Piccadilly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In fairness to TBirdFrank, he does have one strong point, which is the Irish joke 'if you want to get there, I wouldn't start from here' criticism. As an outsider, my problem with his Ardwick 'solution' is that it doesn't solve the basic problem of having two stations far apart in a medium size city.

There are two types of traveller on rail in Manchester. One is trying to reach offices and hotels and entertainment in the central area somewhere. The other is passing through. The former needs a good method of leaving the terminus (walk, cycle, tram, bus, taxi) to get to the real destination. The latter doesn't want to stop in Manchester at all. One station is enough of a stop to help him get a more frequent service, due to the payload being much greater, due to the terminating/starting pax quantities.

So a Newcastle upon Tyne solution would have been the best. One station, good metro and a nice circular line that enables trains to leave in any direction. No flyovers there but it could have been done, I suppose.

It seems to me that the Ordsall solution does give the best pragmatic one, but there might have been a case to retain an Ardwick link for flexibilty in calamitous circumstances and the odd stock movement (e.g. if Oxford Rd was totally blocked).

One of the prime connectivity requirements for the Manchester Hub was that all major rail corridors should serve one station in Manchester. Since all the major corridors except the Calder Valley line already served Piccadilly, then Network Rail choose Piccadilly to meet that requirement. Choosing the Ordsall Chord over the Ardwick link meant that the requirement for all major corridors to have a through service to Manchester Airport could additionally be met (as well as minimising TPE moves across the throat).

So your through passenger will have to change only at Piccadilly to reach major destinations. I think it likely that only the Atherton and Blackburn lines will be left serving Victoria only, but they weren't classified as major corridors.

 

[HowardGWR]

One of the prime connectivity requirements for the Manchester Hub was that all major rail corridors should serve one station in Manchester. Since all the major corridors except the Calder Valley line already served Piccadilly, then Network Rail choose Piccadilly to meet that requirement. Choosing the Ordsall Chord over the Ardwick link meant that the requirement for all major corridors to have a through service to Manchester Airport could additionally be met (as well as minimising TPE moves across the throat).

So your through passenger will have to change only at Piccadilly to reach major destinations. I think it likely that only the Atherton and Blackburn lines will be left serving Victoria only, but they weren't classified as major corridors.

That's pleasing to hear (from a total outsider). My ignorant suggestion of a retained link on the eastern side was purely for flexibility and we constantly hear from the NR pros that because it has not got a good BCR, then it's out.

I just think that strategically, such a ring line, same as city ring roads, is a good fall back in a large city. In my neck of the woods, we have the Bristol Avoiding Line, now singled, and really only retained for access to the HST and DMU depots, but which I think is an essential provision.

 

[keith1879]

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

I was perhaps guilty of being too dismissive in my previous response.
Your scheme seems to be mainly concerned with increasing the size of Piccadilly station to 24 platforms (including 6 based on the position of Mayfield which will become through platforms).
If I understand your post correctly you intend to retain Victoria as well.
So what is the need for all the extra platforms at Piccadilly?

 

[TBirdFrank]

We agree in some ways but not in others. A 24 platform Picc could accept all offering traffic well into the future including HS2 - see later. In a no HS2 world with sensible rail expansion the capacity for north and east lines to for instance bridge the 300 yards across Bradford and again link to Harrogate and Ripon become factors that could follow. Beeching was of his time - there is much that could still be recovered with the will and with a real expansion of UK journey opportunities in mind.

I have an all line free pass and a bus pass so why do I drive 15k a year? Because the public transport set up we have is so unfit for purpose!

Why does rail use at rail level prevent airspace property development use which railway property people like me have exploited for years and years and years?

With Blind Lane you get Picc Vic but via the Stadia - better than Ordsall Curve that merely gives you Picc Vic with no additional journey choices, and a major headache all the way from Ordsall Lane to the A6! Additionally why can new bays not be built at Vic when necessary - where Deal St used to be and where East Junction once was. The formation is still there - but no-one seems to see it.

With Blind Lane the Calder Valley gets to Piccadilly and with platforms A - D on the north side of the Piccadilly train shed conflicts are minimised. A Picc to Vic service could call at the stadia - Emptyhead as well as the Velodrome so its win win!

Movements from these platforms to Vic and points north and west, Liverpool, Blackpool Carlisle etc require no conflicting movements. I grant you that west facing connections from Mayfield would open onto the two track Picc to Oxford Road section but so does every other scheme.

Piccadilly would remain principal main line station but connected to all points and to the awful Metrolink which is so much less than it should be - but that's another argument - so what's all this about not serving the public?

Even HS2 would be better served as at present it goes where I suggest platforms A - D - Buffer stops which would mean that any northern HS2 extension would need to knock down half Manchester or take a thirty mile southerly diversion before it turns north.

Show me how the northern hub as presently conceived beats that! Operators may like it but I am speaking for the public and for strategic journey potential

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We agree in some ways but not in others.

Why does rail use at rail level prevent airspace property development use which railway property people like me have exploited for years and years and years?

With Blind Lane you get Picc Vic but via the Stadia - better than Ordsall Curve that merely gives you Picc Vic with no additional journey choices, and a major headache all the way from Ordsall Lane to the A6!

The Calder Valley gets to Piccadilly and with platforms A - D on the north side of the Piccadilly train shed conflicts are minimised.

Movements from these platforms to Vic and points north and west require no conflicting movements. I grant you that west facing connections from Mayfield would open onto the two track Picc to O Road section but so does every other scheme.

Piccadilly would remain principal main line station but connected to all points and to the awful Metrolink which is so much less than it should be - but that's another argument - so what's all this about not serving the public?

Even HS2 would be beter served as at present it goes where I suggest platforms A - D - Buffer stops which would mean that any northern HS2 extension would need to knock down half Manchester or take a thirty mile southerly diversion before it turns north.

Show me how the northern hub as presently conceived beats that!

Forgive me, if I have misconstrued your reasoning, but does the crux of your argument centre more on the use of the twelve terminal platforms at Manchester Piccadilly station (as well as your reasoning for the use of any terminal platforms at Manchester Mayfield station) rather than the projected increase in through services at Manchester Piccadilly station allowed by four through platforms rather than the current two of these?

With regards to the HS2 projected station at Manchester Piccadilly, since that line is rather some way away in terms of time, who is to say that other design models may still come forth.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Forgive me, if I have misconstrued your reasoning, but does the crux of your argument centre more on the use of the twelve terminal platforms at Manchester Piccadilly station (as well as your reasoning for the use of any terminal platforms at Manchester Mayfield station) rather than the projected increase in through services at Manchester Piccadilly station allowed by four through platforms rather than the current two of these?

With regards to the HS2 projected station at Manchester Piccadilly, since that line is rather some way away in terms of time, who is to say that other design models may still come forth.

Manchester's HS2 station could well change depending on what's to be done with an Anglo-Scottish HS2 connection and what modelled service demand is.

 

[Bantamzen]

We agree in some ways but not in others. A 24 platform Picc could accept all offering traffic well into the future including HS2 - see later. In a no HS2 world with sensible rail expansion the capacity for north and east lines to for instance bridge the 300 yards across Bradford and again link to Harrogate and Ripon become factors that could follow. Beeching was of his time - there is much that could still be recovered with the will and with a real expansion of UK journey opportunities in mind.

I have an all line free pass and a bus pass so why do I drive 15k a year? Because the public transport set up we have is so unfit for purpose!

Why does rail use at rail level prevent airspace property development use which railway property people like me have exploited for years and years and years?

With Blind Lane you get Picc Vic but via the Stadia - better than Ordsall Curve that merely gives you Picc Vic with no additional journey choices, and a major headache all the way from Ordsall Lane to the A6! Additionally why can new bays not be built at Vic when necessary - where Deal St used to be and where East Junction once was. The formation is still there - but no-one seems to see it.

With Blind Lane the Calder Valley gets to Piccadilly and with platforms A - D on the north side of the Piccadilly train shed conflicts are minimised. A Picc to Vic service could call at the stadia - Emptyhead as well as the Velodrome so its win win!

Movements from these platforms to Vic and points north and west, Liverpool, Blackpool Carlisle etc require no conflicting movements. I grant you that west facing connections from Mayfield would open onto the two track Picc to Oxford Road section but so does every other scheme.

Piccadilly would remain principal main line station but connected to all points and to the awful Metrolink which is so much less than it should be - but that's another argument - so what's all this about not serving the public?

Even HS2 would be better served as at present it goes where I suggest platforms A - D - Buffer stops which would mean that any northern HS2 extension would need to knock down half Manchester or take a thirty mile southerly diversion before it turns north.

Show me how the northern hub as presently conceived beats that! Operators may like it but I am speaking for the public and for strategic journey potential

A couple of points if I may? Firstly, the Calder Valley already has services into Manchester. What would be the logic in spending money on building 4 additional platforms to simply divert the Calder Valley services from Victoria to Piccadilly? With the exception of slightly easier connectivity, there is little gain for a lot of expenditure. Part of the reasoning behind the Ordsall Chord is to allow said services to extend towards the airport without having to reverse out and cross the throat at Picc.

Secondly you mentioned a Picc <> Vic service. What market do you perceive for such a service, given that the Metrolink offers a high capacity and regular service between the two?

There's nothing wrong with the idea of re-opening the eastern chord, it could prove useful as suggested by other posters. But on it's own it doesn't solve one of the primary issue at Picc, trains crossing it's throat.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Tthe Calder Valley already has services into Manchester. What would be the logic in spending money on building 4 additional platforms to simply divert the Calder Valley services from Victoria to Piccadilly? With the exception of slightly easier connectivity, there is little gain for a lot of expenditure. Part of the reasoning behind the Ordsall Chord is to allow said services to extend towards the airport without having to reverse out and cross the throat at Picc.

With regard to your comment about any Calder Valley services using the proposed four through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly station (rather than the two that currently perform that function), there are many other routes that the extra two through platforms will prove to be a benefit to. These will allow many more through services to pass through there and the twelve existing terminal platforms at Manchester Piccadilly are surely enough to cater for any terminal services, especially releasing platform usage on those services that will no longer need to call into these in order to then reverse to continue their journeys as occurs at present.

 

[keith1879]

We agree in some ways but not in others.

Sorry but we don't agree at all. I hope that I can keep this objective.

You have failed to explain what requirement your design is supposed to meet.

The proposed future service pattern in the area includes three trains every hour in each direction between Yorkshire and Manchester Airport.

The Ordsall Chord solution enables these to travel without reversal calling at all the main Manchester stations and conflicting with the exits from just 4 of the 16 platforms at an expanded Piccadilly station.

Your design would require them all to reverse in Piccadilly and miss out both Oxford Road and Victoria (or add a time consuming reversing movement) while conflicting with the exits from 20 platforms out of your 24.

Not only that but you have proposed 8 through platforms at Piccadilly which will ultimately feed into a double track flat junction near Deansgate. This will not work unless you propose four tracking past Deansgate which would hugely increase the cost. While discussing cost let's consider what will happen at the north end of Mayfield where 6 tracks must be carried across London Road to connect with the Oxford Road line ....this alone will potentially cost as much as the whole of the Ordsall chord.

In summary I do not see that your plan solves any of the problems addressed by the Ordsall chord and it appears to include some hugely unnecesary expenditure.

 

[rebmcr]

This will not work unless you propose four tracking past Deansgate which would hugely increase the cost.

It would also have the same impact on MoSI as the Ordsall Chord!

 

[TBirdFrank]

Sorry but we don't agree at all. I hope that I can keep this objective.

You have failed to explain what requirement your design is supposed to meet.

I strongly object to the entirely unnecessary destruction of 180 years of railway history and the betrayal of a legal undertaking given in 1980 by the BRB to MOSI. I also equally strongly disagree with long distance trains to Manchester being randomly diverted to two locations a mile apart when there is one location that has been the main terminus for the last thirty years and should continue to be so.

The proposed future service pattern in the area includes three trains every hour in each direction between Yorkshire and Manchester Airport.

The Ordsall Chord solution enables these to travel without reversal calling at all the main Manchester stations and conflicting with the exits from just 4 of the 16 platforms at an expanded Piccadilly station.

The solution suggested removes the crossovers from the station throat and makes it possible to accommodate them further south towards Longsight / Slade Lane. All other movements by being confined to the east side and Blind Lane present no conflict whatsoever. Are three movements an hour really beyond the capacity of 21st Century train regulation? Why does the airport need an all city stations service anyway? - Blind Lane permits direct and connecting services from them all so there is a benefit, not a loss. The loss of route options is where please? I do not understand your reference to passenger congestion as with a rebuilt Mayfield and platforms A-D considerably more passenger circulation would be designed in. That is a complete red herring

Your design would require them all to reverse in Piccadilly and miss out both Oxford Road and Victoria (or add a time consuming reversing movement) while conflicting with the exits from 20 platforms out of your 24.

Current N/E Airport reversals take place at platforms 3 & 4 - A pattern with this occurring at A - D would similarly be self contained. There are many other terminating or reversing services anyway. You are creating demons that do not and will not exist.

Not only that but you have proposed 8 through platforms at Piccadilly which will ultimately feed into a double track flat junction near Deansgate. This will not work unless you propose four tracking past Deansgate which would hugely increase the cost. While discussing cost let's consider what will happen at the north end of Mayfield where 6 tracks must be carried across London Road to connect with the Oxford Road line ....this alone will potentially cost as much as the whole of the Ordsall chord.

So what happens at the North end at Leeds for example, or Preston where the main line becomes two roads? There are many places in the UK where the alignment is restricted and in Manchester it will still be all the way from Salford Central to Fairfield St which, except for Oxford Road, is a two track formation throughout and which will be completely overwhelmed by the amount of traffic NR propose to shove through it from both directions. At least I offer a relief valve.

Your narrative smacks of the "all journeys start end in Manchester" viewpoint which is far from the case, and I believe west to east and north east services could be better served by Blind Lane. Events could be better served by a stadium station. Running orbital trains round the city but not creating any new journey choices and simultaneously confusing passengers who will no longer be certain of whch station takes precedence is operator arrogance and customer unfriendly - but that - unfortunately - is today's railway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why does the airport need an all city stations service anyway? - Blind Lane permits direct and connecting services from them all so there is a benefit, not a loss. The loss of route options is where please? I do not understand your reference to passenger congestion as with a rebuilt Mayfield and platforms A-D considerably more passenger circulation would be designed in. That is a complete red herring

You appear to have a very poor understanding of size and importance of Manchester Airport and its perceived needs for prospective passengers to use this by means of differing modes of transport.

You still seem to suffer from what I call "ostrich syndrome" by keeping a totally unrealistic view about the former Manchester Mayfield station. Any return to rail services there is just not going to happen and I am not the first contributor to this thread who has told you that.

If you want another example of how aspirational re-use of a former large Manchester city centre railway station, discussed some years ago in depth on this website, was finally thwarted, I invite you to research on what has now happened to the former Manchester Exchange station.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I strongly object to the entirely unnecessary destruction of 180 years of railway history and the betrayal of a legal undertaking given in 1980 by the BRB to MOSI. I also equally strongly disagree with long distance trains to Manchester being randomly diverted to two locations a mile apart when there is one location that has been the main terminus for the last thirty years and should continue to be so.

1. The Chord still allows the services to and From Yorkshire and Hull etc. to call at Victoria and Piccadilly, and generally in less time than it currently takes them to reverse in Picc. alone;
2. reopening Mayfield only produces an open Mayfield, which isn't a solution to anything else;
3. why the fixation with terminating trains at Picc?

So what happens at the North end at Leeds for example, or Preston where the main line becomes two roads?

It isn't two roads north of Preston (which only has 6 operational through platforms); close examination of the layout on site will reveal another two lines going to Blackpool, making four.

 

[MarkyT]

I strongly object to the entirely unnecessary destruction of 180 years of railway history and the betrayal of a legal undertaking given in 1980 by the BRB to MOSI.

NR have come to a mutually agreeable settlement with MOSI. I see the importance of the main line connection as symbolic only. The facilities of the old station were incompatible with regular operation of modern excursion traffic, and whilst creation of such facilities (a long platform and runround loop) might have been possible, that in itself would be very space consuming and probably destructive to the historic fabric of the site. There have thus been only a very few excursions into the site to commemorate special occasions. The connection is next to useless for transferring rail exhibits in and out of the museum because:

1. The rail vehicle collection is fairly small and unchanging.
2. Non of the collection is main line certified.
3. Two of the four locomotive exhibits are not even standard gauge.

Yet the complete original station and it's later goods facility additions have survived, and will continue to survive after the Ordsall Chord, and there are railway tracks remaining in the yard on which exhibits can be displayed and on which demonstration runs can still be arranged. That those tracks no longer have a physical connection to the national railway network is (frankly) a symbolic red herring as far as heritage is concerned (in my humble opinion).

I also equally strongly disagree with long distance trains to Manchester being randomly diverted to two locations a mile apart when there is one location that has been the main terminus for the last thirty years and should continue to be so.

I don't see a problem with serving more than one major station within the city. Importantly the Transpennine trains re-routed via the Ordsall Chord to the airport will be able to serve that main terminus at Piccadilly AS WELL AS Victoria and some of the other stations in between, all without a reversal. That will make them even more useful than if they served only one city centre location. That aim is also one of the the key ideas of the London cross-city projects, particularly Thameslink, where included in the traffic mix are longer distance fast outer suburban services serving all the central core stations, each with their respective local catchment areas and interchange possibilities.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I strongly object to the entirely unnecessary destruction of 180 years of railway history and the betrayal of a legal undertaking given in 1980 by the BRB to MOSI.

I strongly object to the BRB dictating 35 years later what today's railway can and cannot do, they didn't have the faintest idea what we would need today.

The heritage argument is another bird that doesn't fly - the people who built that station would be thrilled to see, 180 years later, bits of their original work still in use, with modern electric trains and many of the principles and lessons learned still being used day in, day out.

They took the station out of passenger use 14 years after it opened, progress wasn't hindered my romanticism and nostalgia.

And I still think it's appropriate and fitting the setting of the station site is being changed by the very thing Liverpool Road station introduced the world to - passenger railways. If it was a six lane motorway, I would be more upset, but I cannot, no matter how much I try, raise so much as the tiniest regret that Liverpool Road is being changed by the railway itself.

 

[Phil from Mon]

I strongly object to the BRB dictating 35 years later what today's railway can and cannot do, they didn't have the faintest idea what we would need today.

The heritage argument is another bird that doesn't fly - the people who built that station would be thrilled to see, 180 years later, bits of their original work still in use, with modern electric trains and many of the principles and lessons learned still being used day in, day out.

They took the station out of passenger use 14 years after it opened, progress wasn't hindered my romanticism and nostalgia.

And I still think it's appropriate and fitting the setting of the station site is being changed by the very thing Liverpool Road station introduced the world to - passenger railways. If it was a six lane motorway, I would be more upset, but I cannot, no matter how much I try, raise so much as the tiniest regret that Liverpool Road is being changed by the railway itself.

Couldn't agree more with you Philip, as usual. You cannot preserve the past in aspic just because it is old, and as you say the station itself is still there, which is the important thing. By that argument we should reconnect Curzon Street in Birmingham to the current west coast main line, and ensure it is used "as is" when the site becomes the terminus of HS2.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I strongly object to the BRB dictating 35 years later what today's railway can and cannot do, they didn't have the faintest idea what we would need today.

Couldn't agree more with you Philip, as usual.

Ab-so-lute-ly

 

[keith1879]

I do not understand your reference to passenger congestion

I didn't mention passenger congestion. For this and several other reasons I see no point at all in prolonging this discussion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I strongly object to the BRB dictating 35 years later what today's railway can and cannot do, they didn't have the faintest idea what we would need today.

The heritage argument is another bird that doesn't fly - the people who built that station would be thrilled to see, 180 years later, bits of their original work still in use, with modern electric trains and many of the principles and lessons learned still being used day in, day out.

They took the station out of passenger use 14 years after it opened, progress wasn't hindered my romanticism and nostalgia.

And I still think it's appropriate and fitting the setting of the station site is being changed by the very thing Liverpool Road station introduced the world to - passenger railways. If it was a six lane motorway, I would be more upset, but I cannot, no matter how much I try, raise so much as the tiniest regret that Liverpool Road is being changed by the railway itself.

Totally agree - especially as there isn't one single artefact of the original Liverpool and Manchester Railway that is being destryoyed as far as I can see.

 

[SodTheDrummer]

I didn't mention passenger congestion. For this and several other reasons I see no point at all in prolonging this discussion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Totally agree - especially as there isn't one single artefact of the original Liverpool and Manchester Railway that is being destryoyed as far as I can see.

Precisely, the building itself remains, the bridge remains, the significant locos that used the station are preserved in museums. The only real change is the removal of the link to the main line which, was seldom used and probably ought to have been done some time ago...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Precisely, the building itself remains, the bridge remains, the significant locos that used the station are preserved in museums. The only real change is the removal of the link to the main line which, was seldom used and probably ought to have been done some time ago...

Indeed, it's surprising it lasted as long as it did, with Network Rail seemingly wanting to plain-line everywhere they can, even severing the Fleetwood branch which will make it far harder to reopen.

 

[The Planner]

That is understandable, unused S&C is a maintenance liability and has to be inspected and that has a cost to it. The Route Asset Managers only have a finite budget to spend and can only look at it over a 5 year control period, so if you look at it from their side they will want to save as much money as possible whether it is necessarily the right thing to do over a 20-30 year period.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That is understandable, unused S&C is a maintenance liability and has to be inspected and that has a cost to it. The Route Asset Managers only have a finite budget to spend and can only look at it over a 5 year control period, so if you look at it from their side they will want to save as much money as possible whether it is necessarily the right thing to do over a 20-30 year period.

I get why it gets done, but it seems like the short-term thinking of the late BR era, where lines were singled to save on maintenance only to find that within 10 years or so it needed redoubling at a far greater cost than the savings made by singling in the first place.

 

[The Planner]

But unless we move away from the 5 year funding periods what else can they do?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

But unless we move away from the 5 year funding periods what else can they do?

It's not just funding, it's ORR won't sign off on anything that's contrary to government policy or stated objectives.

In some ways, it's a great pity, as it ties our hands 5 or 10 years later, but in other ways, we could be limited in our approach because sub-optimal infrastructure was kept serviceable.

Just because BR did something one way doesn't mean we want to keep it that way, diverging routes would have their own platforms at stations originally, but under Beeching and BR, the diverging route platforms would be closed and a diverging route would share platforms with the through route - that's something we might want to resolve, reinstating the original platform(s) again so conflicting movements are reduced and capacity is kept at sensible levels.

TPWS and ETCS Level 2 need bigger signal overlaps than were considered in the past too, so sometimes switches and signals need to be moved, no point in just keeping them serviceable purely for the sake of it.

Oh to have a crystal ball sometimes. It really would be splendid to know what traffic and rule book demands are going to mean for the railway 20 years from now.