Ordsall Chord

[notlob.divad]

But if Or-oad redevelopment happens Pic must surely be needed at the same time as you immediately have to find 2 more tph through Piccadilly for the CLC stoppers (and somewhere to send them) because the Oroad terminal platform will be lost.

Also wasn't another requirement an extra freight path. Something I still find crazy that we are trying to send 2 freight trains an hour through one of the busiest rail corridors in the country.

 

[Greybeard33]

Ah thank you, an answer! So it appears that all the services specified can be accommodated with signalling improvements only. Are the following figures for the planned passenger services correct?

Northern from Airport 5 (CLC, Chat Moss, Blackpool, Cumbria and Bradford)+ possibly a 6th to Burnley.
Northern from Stockport to Bolton 2
TPE 3 (2 TPE North and 1 Scotland)
EMT 1
ATW 1

If so perhaps the Oxford Road/Piccadilly upgrades are a gold plated solution and could be cancelled. Spending all that money to provide new platforms etc and have no extra services to run may not look good.

Well, from the TSRs, only 4 Northern from the Airport required until Dec 2019 (i.e. not Bradford or Burnley). And ATW is questionable - ORR only granted the paths to the Airport temporarily, until Dec 2017, overruling Network Rail objections. So a minimum of 11tph through Piccadilly Platforms 13/14, including the 1tph Trafford Park freight.

Following the Oxford Road remodelling, I presume the 2tph CLC stoppers would have to continue through Piccadilly, since OR Platform 5 would disappear, and link to two of the diesel services through Stockport. Also a second hourly freight path was a Northern Hub deliverable. So that implies up to 17tph maximum through Piccadilly Platforms 13/14/15/16, adding in Bradford, Burnley, 2 CLC stoppers, ATW & 1 extra freight. Which is close to the 19tph theoretical maximum capacity of Castlefield Junction - 3 minutes headway for passenger services, 4 minutes for freight according to Joseph_Locke.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Am I right in saying that the new Northern Chester to Leeds service won't use the Chord and will go direct to Victoria from WBQ?

 

[Nym]

Am I right in saying that the new Northern Chester to Leeds service won't use the Chord and will go direct to Victoria from WBQ?

Why would it if it's going to run via WBQ?

 

[SansHache]

Well I missed all the action this morning but I stopped off to take a few night-time shots on the way home from work. Tremendous to see the arch in place at last and congratulations to all who have been involved. The lift was well timed as the wind was definitely getting up this evening.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147280282@N07/albums/72157680620474805

 

[PDG1949]

Well I missed all the action this morning but I stopped off to take a few night-time shots on the way home from work. Tremendous to see the arch in place at last and congratulations to all who have been involved. The lift was well timed as the wind was definitely getting up this evening.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147280282@N07/albums/72157680620474805

Excellent shots, John, as have been so many today from a number of different sources, including time-lapse video from NR twitter - all-in-all a significant North-Western achievement. Weather-wise, they seem to have timed it perfectly for this time of the year. Let's hope the rest of the work continues as successfully and on time.

 

[snowball]

Lots more pictures on SSC.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1345619&page=112 (and earlier pages)

I'm still waiting to see a picture in which the cranes are no longer connected to the arches.

 

[Nean]

The bridge (with cranes) was just visible through the arches under the Metrolink viaduct from Castlefield junction yesterday evening... Made quite a nice addition to an otherwise dull journey!

 

[lejog]

Well, from the TSRs, only 4 Northern from the Airport required until Dec 2019 (i.e. not Bradford or Burnley). And ATW is questionable - ORR only granted the paths to the Airport temporarily, until Dec 2017, overruling Network Rail objections. So a minimum of 11tph through Piccadilly Platforms 13/14, including the 1tph Trafford Park freight.

A couple of minor points here. While you are correct about the ATW Piccadilly to Airport path expiring in December 2017, they surely have the rights to a path through to Piccadilly until at least the franchise end, possibly beyond - although this may be indeed only through to 2018. Also the TSRs represent the contractual minimum service, Northern are free (at least contractually) to run extra services or services earlier than planned. There is certainly no qualification of their intent to run the Bradford to Airport service in their consultation documentation, see the quote in #2029, the service "will" run in May 2018.

Following the Oxford Road remodelling, I presume the 2tph CLC stoppers would have to continue through Piccadilly, since OR Platform 5 would disappear, and link to two of the diesel services through Stockport. Also a second hourly freight path was a Northern Hub deliverable. So that implies up to 17tph maximum through Piccadilly Platforms 13/14/15/16, adding in Bradford, Burnley, 2 CLC stoppers, ATW & 1 extra freight. Which is close to the 19tph theoretical maximum capacity of Castlefield Junction - 3 minutes headway for passenger services, 4 minutes for freight according to Joseph_Locke.

Yes but the CLC extensions, the Burnley service and possibly the ATW service are not commitments. If signalling upgrades can cover the committed services, I can see why doubt is being cast on further upgrades actually taking place.

As the Railway Gazette article on the Chord bridge says

A package of capacity enhancements to complement the chord has been developed by NR. This includes expansion of Oxford Road station and the construction of two extra through platforms at Piccadilly. However, NR says that these additions are still awaiting final approval in light of the Hendy Review of Control Period 5 investment schemes. Industry insiders report that they are unlikely to be taken forward.

Personally I already avoid the through platforms at Piccadilly, I dread to think what they'll be like with the additional services.

 

[fflint]

A big thanks to all the photographers for the pictures. They have helped immensely those not able to be there to keep up to date on the project.

 

[Adlington]

Short video from the BBC

 

[snowball]

Another press release, now describing the bridge as "Britain’s first asymmetrical network arch railway bridge". I think the qualification is new. Have they discovered a symmetrical one somewhere?

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...illustrates-remarkable-feat-at-ordsall-chord/

Britain’s first asymmetrical network arch railway bridge was dramatically installed on Tuesday (21 February) – a major landmark in a Network Rail scheme that, once complete, will bring transformative benefits for train customers across the North of England.

Witnessing the two vast Ordsall Chord arches being lifted into place over the River Irwell in central Manchester by Britain’s largest crawler-cranes was David Brown, chief executive of Transport for the North.

“I’m sure Network Rail are going to use this as one of their really good examples of how when they’re given the support, the time and the money, they really can deliver these pieces of infrastructure, “ he said. “Now we need them to go on and do the rest across the north.”

Today’s historic moment took place fittingly at the birthplace of modern intercity railways, where in 1830 ‘father of railways’ George Stephenson unveiled his Manchester-Liverpool line, the world’s first rail connection of two major cities.

From December this year when trains start running across it, the Ordsall Chord will enable faster, more frequent services to run through Manchester to and from all the major economic centres in the north. It will, for the first time, connect Manchester’s main railway stations – Piccadilly, Oxford Road and Victoria. This will reduce railway congestion across the city, a railway hub, by 25% and will reduce journey times for customers as far afield as Newcastle.

Peter Jenkins, of BDP, the architects, worked with engineers from WSP, Aecom and Mott MacDonald to design the 89-metre single-span ‘network arch’ bridge, the second-longest in the world. Weighing 600 tonnes, it is designed with a low curve in a tennis racket-style lattice. Unlike any other in Britain its design is asymmetrical.

Liam Sumpter, Regional Director for Northern, said: “I am looking forward to seeing the new Northern services carrying our customers across it.”

Paul Staples, Fleet Director for TransPennine Express, added: “This milestone moment brings us one step closer to the completion of this great engineering feat.”

 

[Greybeard33]

A couple of minor points here. While you are correct about the ATW Piccadilly to Airport path expiring in December 2017, they surely have the rights to a path through to Piccadilly until at least the franchise end, possibly beyond - although this may be indeed only through to 2018. Also the TSRs represent the contractual minimum service, Northern are free (at least contractually) to run extra services or services earlier than planned. There is certainly no qualification of their intent to run the Bradford to Airport service in their consultation documentation, see the quote in #2029, the service "will" run in May 2018.

Agreed. I was merely listing the franchise commitments, and even those can be amended by agreement - as indeed they clearly already have been, as result of the delays to electrification and rolling stock cascades.

If the ATW service continues to run to Piccadilly, I cannot see why the paths between Picc and the Airport should be a problem. Northern is only required to run 4tph between Picc and the Airport until 2019, versus 5tph now, while the TPE provision will be unchanged at 4tph. So it ought to be possible to add the Bradford - Airport too, if it can be squeezed through Piccadilly. But that would eventually mean 13tph through Platforms 13/14, versus 9tph now. Less than 5 minutes average headway through a single platform with a high proportion of passengers disembarking/embarking - ambitious!

Yes but the CLC extensions, the Burnley service and possibly the ATW service are not commitments. If signalling upgrades can cover the committed services, I can see why doubt is being cast on further upgrades actually taking place.

I fear the business case for the Oxford Road/Piccadilly package may have been fatally weakened in that neither TPE nor Northern need the Oxford Road platform extensions for their new train fleets. If the Oxford Road Platform 5 bay can be retained, there is less need for the extra Piccadilly platforms.

I doubt that the additional freight path alone could justify such a large investment. Even if the capacity were already available, the path would only be granted if Freightliner, GBRf and DB Cargo could jointly make the case that there is sufficient repressed demand from their actual and potential Trafford Park customers.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I doubt that the additional freight path alone could justify such a large investment. Even if the capacity were already available, the path would only be granted if Freightliner, GBRf and DB Cargo could jointly make the case that there is sufficient repressed demand from their actual and potential Trafford Park customers.

There was a notion that the Port Salford terminal would take some container traffic away from Trafford Park (running via Parkside rather than Castlefield).
However, there is still no sign of a start being made on the new branch to the Chat Moss line.
And freight access to Trafford Park from the west is still hampered by the poor connections on the CLC line at Allerton and Trafford Park itself, and the W9 gauge.

 

[ajdunlop]

Platforms 13 and 14 are going to be really dire when the North Transpennine to Airport trains all go though there. They could really do with moving the waiting rooms to widen platforms. Here's hoping more people catching those at Oxford Road and Victoria spreads out the boarding and alighting enough to mitigate but may take a while for people to change their behaviour. I assume after those service go around the chord there will be no more splitting of services as currently (e.g. The 18:18 service from York that the front unit of continues to the airport and the back half terminates then forms the 18:26 back to York)?

 

[Chester1]

I fear the business case for the Oxford Road/Piccadilly package may have been fatally weakened in that neither TPE nor Northern need the Oxford Road platform extensions for their new train fleets. If the Oxford Road Platform 5 bay can be retained, there is less need for the extra Piccadilly platforms.

The Oxford Road platform lengthening is part of a much wider retail and office development in a in demand area so I suspect its BCR is very good. Some of the flashier bits such as a roof over all the platforms could be removed. Two platforms could be used for through trains and the other two as terminating platforms to make up for the loss of platform 5.

Platforms 13 and 14 are going to be really dire when the North Transpennine to Airport trains all go though there. They could really do with moving the waiting rooms to widen platforms. Here's hoping more people catching those at Oxford Road and Victoria spreads out the boarding and alighting enough to mitigate but may take a while for people to change their behaviour. I assume after those service go around the chord there will be no more splitting of services as currently (e.g. The 18:18 service from York that the front unit of continues to the airport and the back half terminates then forms the 18:26 back to York)?

Hopefully your right about greater use of Victoria and Oxford Road and removing the waiting room etc. Two through platforms can be made to work if every unnecessary thing is removed to maximise standing space. Waiting space could be expanded upstairs if the costa and toilets were removed or if the area was expanded over platforms 11 and 12.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Oxford Road platform lengthening is part of a much wider retail and office development in a in demand area so I suspect its BCR is very good. Some of the flashier bits such as a roof over all the platforms could be removed. Two platforms could be used for through trains and the other two as terminating platforms to make up for the loss of platform 5.

So have the property developers actually offered to fund the Network Rail Oxford Road station remodelling project? I thought they were just designing around it, in which case the wider development is irrelevant to the BCR of the NR project itself.

 

[Chrisyd]

Just to confirm that this morning both cranes have been detached.

 

[TimboM]

Just to confirm that this morning both cranes have been detached.

Also to confirm when I drove past this lunchtime (and again this afternoon) at the height of Storm Doris the bridge was still there

 

[Chester1]

So have the property developers actually offered to fund the Network Rail Oxford Road station remodelling project? I thought they were just designing around it, in which case the wider development is irrelevant to the BCR of the NR project itself.

I think (although I could be wrong), that it uses some railway land therefore slightly reducing the footprint of the station and some of the retail space will be within the station. Both would generate significant funds.

Also, the redevelopment of the neighbouring buildings is part of the Network Rail led redevelopment. Bruntwood has been appointed preferred contractor by NR and Manchester City Council.

 

[WatcherZero]

The Development has available to it the arches and the viaduct space previously occupied by the bay platform for commercial use.

 

[QueensCurve]

When this is finished, will any trains to the south - notably Euston, Birmingham etc begin from Victoria (and maybe not even call at Piccadilly on their way past!)?

Can't see why they should but for pax coming from N. Manchester, E Lancs it could save a trek across town - admitting that the areas concerned are well served by the Metro which can take them to Picc without changing (if they're lucky...)?

The main purpose of the chord is to allow trains from East of the Penines to reach The airport without blocking the throat of Piccadilly.

 

[TimboM]

The main purpose of the chord is to allow trains from East of the Penines to reach The airport without blocking the throat of Piccadilly.

Thanks - in one sentence I've finally really grasped the main reason for this and why it will make the big differences NR keep quoting.

 

[snowball]

In the new (March) Modern Railways, at the bottom of page 10, there's an item about one of the lines between Deansgate and Oxford Road not being bi-directional, which gives the impression that NR are taking it for granted that the alterations at Oxford Road will go ahead.

This could mean either of two things:

1) The threat that some or all of the works might not go ahead is not currently seen as severe;

2) The threat only ever applied to the extra platforms at Piccadilly, not to the works at Oxford Road. (This point has been in doubt - see the last sentence of #2024).

 

[xotGD]

I think I must have gone round the Ordsall Chord last night - dosed off at Piccadilly and woke up at Victoria...

Actually, reversed at Salford Crescent on the 23:20 Airport - York. Several passengers very confused at where we were going!

 

[Altfish]

The main purpose of the chord is to allow trains from East of the Penines to reach The airport without blocking the throat of Piccadilly.

It also allows places such as Blackburn, Burnley, Rochdale, Halifax, Bradford to runs trains direct to the Airport.

 

[Greybeard33]

In the new (March) Modern Railways, at the bottom of page 10, there's an item about one of the lines between Deansgate and Oxford Road not being bi-directional, which gives the impression that NR are taking it for granted that the alterations at Oxford Road will go ahead.

This could mean either of two things:

1) The threat that some or all of the works might not go ahead is not currently seen as severe;

2) The threat only ever applied to the extra platforms at Piccadilly, not to the works at Oxford Road. (This point has been in doubt - see the last sentence of #2024).

Regarding (2), Post #2049 seemed to confirm that the threat is to the Oxford Road remodelling as well as the Piccadilly platforms:

As the Railway Gazette article on the Chord bridge says

A package of capacity enhancements to complement the chord has been developed by NR. This includes expansion of Oxford Road station and the construction of two extra through platforms at Piccadilly. However, NR says that these additions are still awaiting final approval in light of the Hendy Review of Control Period 5 investment schemes. Industry insiders report that they are unlikely to be taken forward.

The Northern Hub Work Package C has always included both Oxford Road and Piccadilly and the schemes are interdependent. I do not believe that the remodelled Oxford Road, with only four platforms, could continue to reverse the 2tph CLC stoppers with adequate resilience to delays. The additional platforms at Piccadilly are needed concurrently, to enable those CLC trains to run through to the Stockport line.

 

[Chester1]

Regarding (2), Post #2049 seemed to confirm that the threat is to the Oxford Road remodelling as well as the Piccadilly platforms:

The Northern Hub Work Package C has always included both Oxford Road and Piccadilly and the schemes are interdependent. I do not believe that the remodelled Oxford Road, with only four platforms, could continue to reverse the 2tph CLC stoppers with adequate resilience to delays. The additional platforms at Piccadilly are needed concurrently, to enable those CLC trains to run through to the Stockport line.

Are you sure? Two of the Oxford Road through platforms are not used much and there is little need for them to be while Piccadilly only has two through platforms. Some resilance would be lost through using them as terminating platforms but two platforms would still be free vast majority of the time. The city council and combined authority will push hard for the Oxford Road rebuild regardless of Piccadilly, its part of the regeneration of the area and once done it makes the case for extra Piccadilly platforms better.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Are you sure? Two of the Oxford Road through platforms are not used much and there is little need for them to be while Piccadilly only has two through platforms. Some resilance would be lost through using them as terminating platforms but two platforms would still be free vast majority of the time. The city council and combined authority will push hard for the Oxford Road rebuild regardless of Piccadilly, its part of the regeneration of the area and once done it makes the case for extra Piccadilly platforms better.

The point is that 13 and 14 are relatively long and (in signalling terms) uncomplicated platforms, whereas 1-4 have some decidedly odd controls that impose capacity issues on longer trains. You'd solve Oxford Road first, of the two.

 

[Greybeard33]

The point is that 13 and 14 are relatively long and (in signalling terms) uncomplicated platforms, whereas 1-4 have some decidedly odd controls that impose capacity issues on longer trains. You'd solve Oxford Road first, of the two.

But without Picc 15/16, and no Oxford Road Platform 5 bay, the terminating CLC stoppers would be occupying one of the Oxford Road through platforms for nearly half of every hour. Would this really improve capacity relative to the current arrangement? Could the "decidedly odd" Oxford Road signalling not be improved somewhat without closing Platform 5 and extending the others?