Ordsall Chord

[Chester1]

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.

So do you think that Oxford Road could be done first with new Piccadilly platforms being delayed to late CP6 or even CP7? What affect would just redeveloping Oxford Road have on capacity - more, less or about the same?

 

[Bevan Price]

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?

So - could the "terminators" be extended to Buxton & Cheater (one each per hour) - or would this cause too many pathing problems every time one was delayed elsewhere ?

 

[Chester1]

So - could the "terminators" be extended to Buxton & Cheater (one each per hour) - or would this cause too many pathing problems every time one was delayed elsewhere ?

No because without 2 more through platforms at Piccadilly its through train limit is 12tph. The rest of the corridor could handle 14tph, so two would have to terminate at Oxford Road. If Piccadilly P13 and P14 can manage 12tph then surely Oxford Road could with 2 + 2 more when they are not being used by terminating trains? The track layout would be much simpler for instance.

 

[Greybeard33]

No because without 2 more through platforms at Piccadilly its through train limit is 12tph. The rest of the corridor could handle 14tph, so two would have to terminate at Oxford Road. If Piccadilly P13 and P14 can manage 12tph then surely Oxford Road could with 2 + 2 more when they are not being used by terminating trains? The track layout would be much simpler for instance.

Even if it could work, there would be little benefit to the railway. The capacity of the corridor would still be constrained by Piccadilly 13/14, and neither TPE nor Northern need longer platforms. So would the property developers fund all the station redevelopment costs?

 

[Chester1]

Even if it could work, there would be little benefit to the railway. The capacity of the corridor would still be constrained by Piccadilly 13/14, and neither TPE nor Northern need longer platforms. So would the property developers fund all the station redevelopment costs?

The property developers are Network Rail and Manchester City Council. Bruntwood would just be their contractor. On its own it wouldn't improve the railway aside from a better station. If Piccadilly P15 and P16 were cancelled it wouldn't be worth it. If they were delayed for 5 years or more after Oxford Roads completion it would be worth it. Manchester has more politicial clout than it has had for a long time and Oxford Road redevelopment is a priority scheme for the council and combined authority. It would be at least partly self funding.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The property developers are Network Rail and Manchester City Council. Bruntwood would just be their contractor. On its own it wouldn't improve the railway aside from a better station. If Piccadilly P15 and P16 were cancelled it wouldn't be worth it. If they were delayed for 5 years or more after Oxford Roads completion it would be worth it. Manchester has more politicial clout than it has had for a long time and Oxford Road redevelopment is a priority scheme for the council and combined authority. It would be at least partly self funding.

Would those five years of delay at Manchester Piccadilly stated above have any detrimental effect upon the project benefits that the Ordsall Chord are said to bring?

 

[edwin_m]

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.

I'm presuming the "odd controls" are referring to Oxford Road and something to do with short overlaps. In which case it probably needs some widening at each end of the station, or widening at one end and moving the platforms towards that end, to sort it out.

 

[snowball]

In which case it probably needs some widening at each end of the station, or widening at one end and moving the platforms towards that end, to sort it out.

Here's a plan of the proposal:

https://consultations.networkrail.c...s/appendix-b---oxford-road-station-layout.pdf

Not sure if this is identical to the final version that went to T&W submission and public inquiry. A lot of documents about it seem to be no longer online. It took a while to find this one.

 

[lejog]

Would those five years of delay at Manchester Piccadilly stated above have any detrimental effect upon the project benefits that the Ordsall Chord are said to bring?

Possibly, the Northern Hub certainly specified 4tph between Victoria and Piccadilly. Northern's proposal to do that by running a Todmorden Curve to Airport service (in addition to the 2 TPE and Bradford services) remains a proposal in the Franchise Agreement, basically subject to Network Rail and industry approval.

On the other hand it may be argued that this is not due to the delay in infrastructure improvements, but the DfT prioritising other routes for the available paths e.g 3tph from Preston to the Airport when the Northern Hub only required 1tph.

 

[mr_jrt]

Here's a plan of the proposal:

https://consultations.networkrail.c...s/appendix-b---oxford-road-station-layout.pdf

Not sure if this is identical to the final version that went to T&W submission and public inquiry. A lot of documents about it seem to be no longer online. It took a while to find this one.

Thanks for finding that, I've been working of a much smaller version of that from an old article!

A few questions though. What's the point of this aspect of the works? Is it to get 4x12 car platforms at Oxford Road? It's hard to tell from the scales but the current platforms look good for 3x8 car, though platform 1 (the southernmost?) looks only good for 4 cars - suggesting you could get to 4x8 car platforms just by doing some works on the south side of the viaduct, and retaining the bay, if desired. If the intent was for 4x12 car though then the plans seems to make sense, but the scales make it hard to compare the plans and the maps I have. I think it's safe to assume 4x12 car is the plan though?

Is anything planned at Deansgate? With four platforms at Oxford Road and Piccadilly the two at Deansgate would seem to be quite a bottleneck on this stretch?

...and regardless of whether the works at Piccadilly happen or not, surely there would be utility of the works at Oxford Road using the two central roads at Oxford Road as a replacement for the bay (as 2x12-car central terminal platforms, as central terminal roads have the smallest impact on capacity)? Assuming there aren't two many services stopping there, if you made both central roads bidirectional you could terminate on either line from either direction as well as having a through line for non-stop traffic to pass through unhindered?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Current platform lengths at Oxford Road are:
P1 105m (and minimal passenger facilities - narrow, little shelter and no lift)
P2 160m
P3 160m Up (eastbound), 137m Down
P4 162m
P5 105m

I think the plan for Oxford Road development is for 4 8x23m platforms (184m).
The whole route will also be bi-di (limited at the moment) with a constant line speed of 30mph (varies at the moment).
Deansgate station is an obstacle, and so will be the planned new Chord platforms at Salford Central, though only a minority of trains will call at either.

 

[Boysteve]

No because without 2 more through platforms at Piccadilly its through train limit is 12tph. The rest of the corridor could handle 14tph, so two would have to terminate at Oxford Road. If Piccadilly P13 and P14 can manage 12tph then surely Oxford Road could with 2 + 2 more when they are not being used by terminating trains? The track layout would be much simpler for instance.

Just one thought. Platform 13 and also platform 14 are long enough to hold 2 separate 4 car trains each. So we have 13a and 13b and 14a and 14b. If for example 13a filled up (airport end) then another train could fill 13b (Ox Rd end) before 13a become vacant. There are mid-platform signals already. Would this not increase capacity above 12tph? Not to 24 obviously but certainly to 14 or 16?

 

[edwin_m]

Just one thought. Platform 13 and also platform 14 are long enough to hold 2 separate 4 car trains each. So we have 13a and 13b and 14a and 14b. If for example 13a filled up (airport end) then another train could fill 13b (Ox Rd end) before 13a become vacant. There are mid-platform signals already. Would this not increase capacity above 12tph? Not to 24 obviously but certainly to 14 or 16?

This might produce a slight increase in theory, but probably not in practice, as any slight disruption to trains would quickly lead to one landing up at the wrong end of the platform. I've seen this happen at Piccadilly and it involves many minutes of delay as all the people waiting where they are expecting to find the train all stampede down to the other end, running straight into the people alighting the train and heading for the exit.

 

[edwin_m]

Current platform lengths at Oxford Road are:
P1 105m (and minimal passenger facilities - narrow, little shelter and no lift)
P2 160m
P3 160m Up (eastbound), 137m Down
P4 162m
P5 105m

I think the plan for Oxford Road development is for 4 8x23m platforms (184m).
The whole route will also be bi-di (limited at the moment) with a constant line speed of 30mph (varies at the moment).
Deansgate station is an obstacle, and so will be the planned new Chord platforms at Salford Central, though only a minority of trains will call at either.

As I suggested further back, it's not simply a matter of platform lengths. Looking at the linked plan, it provides an "overlap" at the departure end of each pair of platforms before the two tracks converge. Signalling standards require this if a train is to be signalled into one of the pair at the same time as a train is leaving the other, to guard against the risk of the arriving train failing to stop at the platform signal. Without this ability to signal a train in as another one is leaving, the benefit of the extra platforms is quite small (as seen by the relative rarity of their use today).

The result is that the widening goes quite a way beyond the extended platforms, though there might be a saving by aligning the platform lengths to the actual train lengths planned by Northern and TPE.

 

[Greybeard33]

As I suggested further back, it's not simply a matter of platform lengths. Looking at the linked plan, it provides an "overlap" at the departure end of each pair of platforms before the two tracks converge. Signalling standards require this if a train is to be signalled into one of the pair at the same time as a train is leaving the other, to guard against the risk of the arriving train failing to stop at the platform signal. Without this ability to signal a train in as another one is leaving, the benefit of the extra platforms is quite small (as seen by the relative rarity of their use today).

The result is that the widening goes quite a way beyond the extended platforms, though there might be a saving by aligning the platform lengths to the actual train lengths planned by Northern and TPE.

Suppose, for the existing Oxford Road Platforms 2, 3 & 4, the starter signals were moved inwards to increase the overlaps by 20m. Would that be sufficient to enable a train to be signalled in as another is leaving?

The usable length of the platforms, up to the signal, would thereby be reduced to 140m, which is long enough for a 6-car 185 or 331, or for a 5-car Mk 5A set plus loco.

 

[Class 170101]

Would it not be better for the local path between Manchester Piccadilly and the Airport to be sacrificed if there is a capacity issue over this section?

 

[Greybeard33]

Would it not be better for the local path between Manchester Piccadilly and the Airport to be sacrificed if there is a capacity issue over this section?

It appears that it will be anyway. As I posted in the Northern December 2017 Timetable Stakeholder consultation thread:

I think that is going to happen anyway. The Northern franchise agreement requires only 4tph between the Airport and Piccadilly from Dec 2017 - the four will be to:

1. Blackpool North via Bolton (regional express)
2. Barrow or Windermere or Lancaster via Wigan (regional express)
3. Liverpool via Warrington Central (semi-fast)
4. Liverpool via Newton-le-Willows (all stations)

So no more Airport to Piccadilly shuttle, unless Northern chooses to exceed the franchise specification. And the Crewe to Piccadilly via Airport will be linked to the Liverpool stopper as notlob-divad said.

 

[Altfish]

The property developers are Network Rail and Manchester City Council. Bruntwood would just be their contractor. On its own it wouldn't improve the railway aside from a better station. If Piccadilly P15 and P16 were cancelled it wouldn't be worth it. If they were delayed for 5 years or more after Oxford Roads completion it would be worth it. Manchester has more politicial clout than it has had for a long time and Oxford Road redevelopment is a priority scheme for the council and combined authority. It would be at least partly self funding.

Bruntwood are not a contractor, they are a developer/property owner.

 

[edwin_m]

Suppose, for the existing Oxford Road Platforms 2, 3 & 4, the starter signals were moved inwards to increase the overlaps by 20m. Would that be sufficient to enable a train to be signalled in as another is leaving?

The usable length of the platforms, up to the signal, would thereby be reduced to 140m, which is long enough for a 6-car 185 or 331, or for a 5-car Mk 5A set plus loco.

I doubt 20m would make much difference, as the consultation plan shows a much longer overlap.

 

[Greybeard33]

The property developers are Network Rail and Manchester City Council. Bruntwood would just be their contractor. On its own it wouldn't improve the railway aside from a better station. If Piccadilly P15 and P16 were cancelled it wouldn't be worth it. If they were delayed for 5 years or more after Oxford Roads completion it would be worth it. Manchester has more politicial clout than it has had for a long time and Oxford Road redevelopment is a priority scheme for the council and combined authority. It would be at least partly self funding.

Bruntwood are not a contractor, they are a developer/property owner.

Indeed, Manchester City Council, in partnership with Network Rail, last year selected Bruntwood as the preferred developer for redevelopment of the area around Oxford Road station, subject to finalisation of a development agreement in which Bruntwood would be a strategic partner. See http://www.manchester.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/21268/14_redevelopment_of_the_area_surrounding_oxford_road_station

However, this project, which would be commercially financed, is distinct from, though related to, the Network Rail project to remodel the station itself, as part of Package C of the Northern Hub. Bruntwood is not involved in the station remodelling project, and neither MCC nor GMCA are providing any funding. Network Rail proposes to sell or lease to Bruntwood the triangle of land currently occupied by Platform 5, but I doubt that will make much of a dent in the total capital cost of the station remodelling.

As a nationalised company, Network Rail's capital spending is prescribed by the Treasury, so, now that the CP5 budget has been blown, I fear that Oxford Road will have to join the queue of postponed projects competing for CP6 funding.

 

[Chester1]

Indeed, Manchester City Council, in partnership with Network Rail, last year selected Bruntwood as the preferred developer for redevelopment of the area around Oxford Road station, subject to finalisation of a development agreement in which Bruntwood would be a strategic partner. See http://www.manchester.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/21268/14_redevelopment_of_the_area_surrounding_oxford_road_station

However, this project, which would be commercially financed, is distinct from, though related to, the Network Rail project to remodel the station itself, as part of Package C of the Northern Hub. Bruntwood is not involved in the station remodelling project, and neither MCC nor GMCA are providing any funding. Network Rail proposes to sell or lease to Bruntwood the triangle of land currently occupied by Platform 5, but I doubt that will make much of a dent in the total capital cost of the station remodelling.

As a nationalised company, Network Rail's capital spending is prescribed by the Treasury, so, now that the CP5 budget has been blown, I fear that Oxford Road will have to join the queue of postponed projects competing for CP6 funding.

Looks like your right. While its a shame that the Oxford Road remodelling and Piccadilly P15 and P16 may not happen at least the chord and associated works will increase capacity from 8/10 to 12/14. Unfortunately Metrolink is has reduced Victoria-Piccadilly trams from 10 to 5tph.

 

[PR1Berske]

Looks like your right. While its a shame that the Oxford Road remodelling and Piccadilly P15 and P16 may not happen at least the chord and associated works will increase capacity from 8/10 to 12/14. Unfortunately Metrolink is has reduced Victoria-Piccadilly trams from 10 to 5tph.

Maybe a(nother) reprieve for the Star & Garter pub now that p15/16 could be mothballed....!

 

[Scouseinmanc]

There is nothing stating the remodelling of OR, or the additional platforms at Picc won't go ahead.

It would be complete madness after Network Rail fighting tooth & nail with Mark Whitby for these subsequent schemes to then be cancelled.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

There is nothing stating the remodelling of OR, or the additional platforms at Picc won't go ahead.

It would be complete madness after Network Rail fighting tooth & nail with Mark Whitby for these subsequent schemes to then be cancelled.

I think the right member Mr Whitby had very little to say about Package B - he was more concerned to thwarting NRs attempts to improve the views of Geo. Stephenson's bridge ....

 

[Greybeard33]

Looks like your right. While its a shame that the Oxford Road remodelling and Piccadilly P15 and P16 may not happen at least the chord and associated works will increase capacity from 8/10 to 12/14. Unfortunately Metrolink is has reduced Victoria-Piccadilly trams from 10 to 5tph.

IIRC Metrolink has never provided 10tph between Victoria and Piccadilly, except when the line through St Peter's Square was temporarily closed for engineering works? The Metrolink network has a maximum capacity of 20tph into Piccadilly, so if the service from Victoria were increased to 10tph, the service from Deansgate-Castlefield to Piccadilly would have to be reduced from 15tph to 10tph. This would inconvenience more passengers than would benefit. Also the ultimate total capacity between Deansgate-Castlefield and the city centre (Piccadilly+Victoria) would be reduced from 45tph to 35tph, partly negating the benefit of the new 2CC line.

The free Metroshuttle buses now operate directly between Victoria and Piccadilly, with 12bph Mon-Sat daytimes. http://www.tfgm.com/buses/Pages/metroshuttle.aspx

 

[Chester1]

IIRC Metrolink has never provided 10tph between Victoria and Piccadilly, except when the line through St Peter's Square was temporarily closed for engineering works? The Metrolink network has a maximum capacity of 20tph into Piccadilly, so if the service from Victoria were increased to 10tph, the service from Deansgate-Castlefield to Piccadilly would have to be reduced from 15tph to 10tph. This would inconvenience more passengers than would benefit. Also the ultimate total capacity between Deansgate-Castlefield and the city centre (Piccadilly+Victoria) would be reduced from 45tph to 35tph, partly negating the benefit of the new 2CC line.

The free Metroshuttle buses now operate directly between Victoria and Piccadilly, with 12bph Mon-Sat daytimes. http://www.tfgm.com/buses/Pages/metroshuttle.aspx

I lived briefly in North Manchester last summer, much of the time was during the closure which is what confused me. I am surprised the limit into Piccadilly is only 20tph. I am assuming from your numbers that the limit for Victoria is 20tph rising to 25tph once Trafford Park Line opens? I am guessing that raising the limit would require 3 or 4 tracking and extra platforms at Piccadilly and Piccadilly Gardens?

I have used the Metrobues and they are barely faster than walking for much of the day. Once Ordsall chord is upto full capacity I expect it become the main method of transfer between Piccadilly and Victoria, partly for ticketing reasons.

 

[snowball]

We're getting away from the subject of the thread, but I would guess that the limit on Metrolink capacity at Piccadilly comes from the limit on capacity for reversing at Sheffield Street, in conjunction with the fact that there aren't enough destinations to justify more trams continuing through Picc to the east.

 

[Chester1]

We're getting away from the subject of the thread, but I would guess that the limit on Metrolink capacity at Piccadilly comes from the limit on capacity for reversing at Sheffield Street, in conjunction with the fact that there aren't enough destinations to justify more trams continuing through Picc to the east.

Its a bit of a tangent but its hard to discuss use of the Ordsall Chord without talking about the rest of the city centre rail and tram infrastructure, they are all very interlinked. Its obvious that the Ordsall Chord is only the next stage of cross manchester transport links. The 4tph limit is really low.

 

[Greybeard33]

Its a bit of a tangent but its hard to discuss use of the Ordsall Chord without talking about the rest of the city centre rail and tram infrastructure, they are all very interlinked. Its obvious that the Ordsall Chord is only the next stage of cross manchester transport links. The 4tph limit is really low.

From #2053 and previous, unlikely to be more than 3tph round the Chord (2tph TPE, 1tph Northern) unless/until the Oxford Road/Piccadilly package proceeds.

Metrolink's 20tph capacity into Piccadilly comprises 10tph reversing at Sheffield Street, 5tph to Ashton and 5tph to Etihad Campus (could later be extended to Ashton).

Victoria has three Metrolink platforms to Piccadilly's two and will eventually have a capacity of 35tph, 10tph terminating, 10tph to Bury, 5tph to Crumpsall, 5tph to Shaw and 5tph to Rochdale.

The 1CC and 2CC routes through St Peter's Square from Deansgate-Castlefield have a combined capacity of 45tph, 15tph to Piccadilly and 30tph to Victoria, leaving 5tph between Piccadilly and Victoria - still more frequent than the Chord.

 

[Norb]

Once Ordsall chord is upto full capacity I expect it become the main method of transfer between Piccadilly and Victoria, partly for ticketing reasons.

Wouldn't a lot of journeys that people would make into Piccadilly and out of Victoria (or vice versa) where the origin or destination is to the west of Manchester be prohibited from using the chord on the basis of it would involve doubling back?