Ordsall Chord

[dggar]

My wife and I visited the Ordsall Chord first exhibition at MOSI today which was not scheduled to start until 1500, so we took lunch there, but when we descended to the ground floor at 1345, we were informed that the stand was now open, as the press had departed early.

What a disappointment. For forum members with National Rail information already in their possession about this project, nothing was learnt. No details of alternative chord lines that slightly varied from the original drawing (even though it was admitted these existed), "grade separation" was met with a blank look and all that we were given was a card folder with A5 4pp cards on:-
Ordsall Chord
The Northern Hub
Electric Future
Manchester Victoria
Plus a feedback form on all four items above.

I might as well have used the £25.00 travel and lunch costs in our local area on a lunch at one of our local restaurants.

I was told that"flat junctions" would be the order of the day. "Grade separation" had been considerred but ruled out as not cost effective.

The drawing looked like the path had been put on with a felt tip pen.
It seemed to have a very tight curve at one point. I was told that the design of the curve was to allow trains to pass through it at up to 30 mph.

 

[Nym]

Well, every single question I asked was met with I don't know by the guy in the white shirt. (Was there between 1520 and 1400ish).

Victoria Capacity Constraints: Don't know, something in the pipeline
Oxford Road Capacity Constrains: Don't know
Continuing Electrification to Stalybridge: We're seeking funding for futher electrification.

Grade Seperation: Forgot to ask

Any ideas put forward where asked to be (para:"put on the back of a postcard and sent to .....")

Oh, and there where lines missing off their map, I did feel the need to point this out before I left...

Quite important ones too, according to their map it isn't possible to get from Paitcroft to Eccles...

PS: Black trousers, black fleece jacket, black bag, very wet.

All I really learned today is that they want a consultation on the concept, rather than the plans, and that they sent the office pepole, not those that actually knew the project. At no time, even though I asked a very broad range of questions, project whole, infrastructure, rolling stock planning, major station changes. It seemed that there wasn't anyone there that could have answered my questions.

Did speak to someone from the press though, can't remember who for, but if anyone does, please tell me.

 

[WatcherZero]

Your right, these kind of public exhibitions across most Government/Council agencies are done by the office people and middle/low ranking managers. They dont send their engineers to stand around all day answering questions when they have better things to do, for a start its not really cost effective.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It was obviously aimed at the general public with not much real knowledge of the matter in hand. The ground floor situation at MOSI where the first two exhibitions are being held would attract incomers to the museum, as being part of the museum transport general information and three families who were there at the stand, just as we were leaving, were there just as part of their visit to the museum itself.

 

[185]

There's quite a few of those exhibitions due to appear on various dates, I assumed there would be nothing new being given away. At the moment the main reason mentioned for their exhibition is to encourage public opinion on those four areas.

Although most of us on here, including staff, have excellent technical knowledge of the project and plans, we have perhaps slightly less understanding of public's perception of the future of rail in the region.

 

[Whistler40145]

So, does anyone yet have any ideas as to the routing of the Ordsall Curve?

 

[dggar]

So, does anyone yet have any ideas as to the routing of the Ordsall Curve?

From the information available at the MOSI the answer is No.

If everyone who reponded to the questionaire that was given out said they they thought the whole idea was a waste time , money and resources and should be abandoned, would it make any difference to the project?

 

[Nym]

You could of course just cut services and end the obsession with direct services to Manc Airport, and terminate them all at Piccadilly or Victoria (onto Liverpool), but I think that would be less popular.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, does anyone yet have any ideas as to the routing of the Ordsall Curve?

From the MOSI, all I know is that detailed plans will be published next year

 

[tbtc]

You could of course just cut services and end the obsession with direct services to Manc Airport, and terminate them all at Piccadilly or Victoria (onto Liverpool), but I think that would be less popular

I've argued for this in the past - the current muddle of services and obsession with everywhere having *some* Airport link means there's no consistency of Manchester Termini.

I wouldn't be too upset if the direct service from Sheffield to Manchester Airport was cut, the link from Sheffield to Manchester Piccadilly is significantly more important, but nobody has the guts to tackle the "knot" of services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wouldn't be too upset if the direct service from Sheffield to Manchester Airport was cut, the link from Sheffield to Manchester Piccadilly is significantly more important, but nobody has the guts to tackle the "knot" of services.

The problem you have here with the Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes service is that on this forum in the past, there have been members who have stated the position of the need for Sheffield airline passengers to be directly connected to Manchester Airport, plus similar comments about airline passengers from Doncaster and Scunthorpe having the same direct facility without the need for mid-transshipment of luggage from one train to another, once they have boarded this train at their own departure stations.

 

[Nym]

OK then Sheffeild, you can either have a direct service to Manchester airport, or twice as many services to Manchester and Liverpool, what would you rather have?

That sounds extreme but with the stupid pathing requirements (sometimes) in and out of Piccadilly it would make that much difference.

 

[tbtc]

OK then Sheffeild, you can either have a direct service to Manchester airport, or twice as many services to Manchester and Liverpool, what would you rather have?

That sounds extreme but with the stupid pathing requirements (sometimes) in and out of Piccadilly it would make that much difference.

Thats the way that I look at it - I'd rather have a better service to Manchester Pic.

The way to sort out Manchester services is to try to minimise conflicting movements - like the Scarborough - Liverpool service which has to cross every path at Piccadilly (so effectively stopping any other movements for a brief period).

Look at how Blackpool, Southport and St Helens (Junction) each have two trains an hour to/from Manchester, but thats one to Pic and one to Vic... If you are from these towns then which station do you go to if your train is going to depart in the next ten minutes? Rush to one, miss your train and then you need to head over to the other... bit awkward.

Simplify the pattern and you make things easier for the majority of passengers. Because, lets face it, most people make more journeys to/from central Manchester than they do to/from the Airport.

Simplifying the patterns also means that more services can be organised (as there would be fewer conflicting movements).

The Airport would still be accessible to people in most places in Northern England with just one change.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Simplifying the patterns also means that more services can be organised (as there would be fewer conflicting movements). The Airport would still be accessible to people in most places in Northern England with just one change.

I think that both Nym and your good self have missed the point that I tried to make concerning airline passengers boarding at Sheffield, Doncaster and Scunthorpe wanting to be taken by train direct from their own station direct to the station at Manchester Airport, without the need to drag heavy luggage off one train and on to another en route. This is why the First TPE service is so popular with airline passengers travelling to Manchester Airport, especially for those travelling from North-East destinations such as Newcastle, Durham, Middlesbrough, Darlington and York on the First TPE North routes and I am sure the same also applies to those travelling on the First TPE South routes.

I could better understand the situation if the Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport service was the only service to link Sheffield to Manchester Piccadilly, but it is not. It is the other services that link Sheffield to Manchester Piccadilly that should be subject to improvement and I am sure that you are aware of which TOC that I make reference to. The danger lies with the view that train operation is viewed as more important than the needs of the travellers who actually use the train.

 

[tbtc]

I think that both Nym and your good self have missed the point that I tried to make concerning airline passengers boarding at Sheffield, Doncaster and Scunthorpe wanting to be taken by train direct from their own station direct to the station at Manchester Airport, without the need to drag heavy luggage off one train and on to another en route. This is why the First TPE service is so popular with airline passengers travelling to Manchester Airport, especially for those travelling from North-East destinations such as Newcastle, Durham, Middlesbrough, Darlington and York on the First TPE North routes and I am sure the same also applies to those travelling on the First TPE South routes.

I could better understand the situation if the Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport service was the only service to link Sheffield to Manchester Piccadilly, but it is not. It is the other services that link Sheffield to Manchester Piccadilly that should be subject to improvement and I am sure that you are aware of which TOC that I make reference to. The danger lies with the view that train operation is viewed as more important than the needs of the travellers who actually use the train.

Of course passengers from Scunthorpe heading to a flight at Manchester Airport would prefer a direct train journey, I don't think anyone disputes that...

...but how many of them are there, compared to other passengers on that line heading into central Manchester? Given the finite resources that we have I'd rather concentrate stock/paths on the bigger markets.

We can't meet every single demand, so we should be trying to focus on the biggest demands. I understand your point, but I think that you are focussing on the tail and not the dog.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

...but how many of them are there, compared to other passengers on that line heading into central Manchester? Given the finite resources that we have I'd rather concentrate stock/paths on the bigger markets.

I could understand your point if the Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport (via Sheffield) service did not stop at Manchester Piccadilly, but it does. You are not losing any service provision whatsoever on that route. You have the Northern Rail service that provides for both commuter and leisure use in-between Sheffield and Manchester which provides services that are only constrained by the "rationalised" track layout in the "country" area of this route. What plans have you seen that might allow for increased train provision when the "track rationalisation" is reversed to allow double track running in that line section?

There are also the Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich services run by EMT that provide services between Sheffield and Manchester.

 

[tbtc]

I could understand your point if the Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport (via Sheffield) service did not stop at Manchester Piccadilly, but it does. You are not losing any service provision whatsoever on that route. You have the Northern Rail service that provides for both commuter and leisure use in-between Sheffield and Manchester which provides services that are only constrained by the "rationalised" track layout in the "country" area of this route. What plans have you seen that might allow for increased train provision when the "track rationalisation" is reversed to allow double track running in that line section?

There are also the Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich services run by EMT that provide services between Sheffield and Manchester.

At the moment the Cleethorpes services have to reverse at Piccadilly (as do the Newcastle/Middlesbrough services), which complicates movements.

It'd be much simpler to keep services "self contained" at Piccadilly, so that each set of platforms/tracks could work independently (and not have to have the entire throat come to a halt when something has to cross from one side of the approach to the other.

You've expressed your concern for the "airline passengers boarding at Sheffield, Doncaster and Scunthorpe wanting to be taken by train direct from their own station direct to the station at Manchester Airport, without the need to drag heavy luggage off one train and on to another en route"...

...which is nice, but what about the airline passengers boarding at Hull, Bradford and Blackburn wanting to be taken by train direct from their own station direct to the station at Manchester Airport, without the need to drag heavy luggage off one train and on to another en route? I can accept that not everywhere can have (or should have) a direct link to Manchester Airport. And what about Liverpool Airport? Should we all have direct trains to there too?

Keep things simple.

 

[Nym]

Of course, the extra hope valley service per hour and ordstall cord could make it easilly do-able without conflicting movments.

It would just mean the (Somwhere) - Sheffeild - Manchester Airport service being routed the long way round...

ie.

Chinley - New Mills - Ashburys - Philips Park - Victoria - Ordstall Cord - Oxford Road - Piccadilly - Airport.

If we where to have another service through the hope valley, what I'd see as good sense would be either extending the Hull / Bridlington service this way or a new Nottingham - Manchester per hour. This new service would run onto Manchester Airport and would be run by Northern or East Midlands Trains (With some new stock cascaded from Scotrail).

The TPE and EMT services would continue to run via Stockport, but then into Manchester pathed on the slows, both services then onto Platform 14, (or 15/16) and then run the semi-fast services over the CLC.

So everything East of Doncaster looses it's direct airport service, but keeps the faster service to Manchester.

And... The CLC Post Manchester hub when the fast services all go into Victoria across the pennines, keeps 2 semi-fasts per hour, and can have 2 slows per hour aswell (as is currently the case). Would also keep a 'direct' link between Sheffeild / Doncaster and Liverpool Airport's shuttle bus...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At the moment the Cleethorpes services have to reverse at Piccadilly (as do the Newcastle/Middlesbrough services), which complicates movements.

The Ordsall Chord will see both the First TPE North services to Newcastle and to Middlesbrough pass through Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Victoria, then via Miles Platting junction to Stalybridge, which will obviate the need for throat crossing at Manchester Piccadilly.

Some months ago, I wrote to First TPE with your very suggestion of terminating the Cleethorpes train at Manchester Piccadilly, as is the case with their service to Hull. The reply that I received was that this service gives access both to Manchester Piccadilly and to Manchester Airport and that they were happy with the loadings to and from the airport from major stations on its route. They had no intention of amending this existing service pattern. I do not think that matters will now alter for the period of the existing time left on their franchise.

Which brings us to the existing services provided by Northern Rail and East Midlands Trains. Have you ever written to either of these with regard to the present and future service provision between Sheffield and Manchester and if you have, what response did you receive?

 

[ukrob]

It isn't up to TPE (or any TOC) what services they run, or where they start and terminate so it would be a pretty pointless exercise.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It isn't up to TPE (or any TOC) what services they run, or where they start and terminate so it would be a pretty pointless exercise.

Agreed, but it is interesting to see what responses they make to members of the travelling public, who are not as well versed in railway matters as the members on this forum, in order to judge the standard of replies sent.

This is why a debate on whether or not the Cleethorpes train should terminate at Manchester Piccaidilly or at Manchester Airport is somewhat meaningless. I thank you for your considered input into this exchange of opinions.

 

[tbtc]

Some months ago, I wrote to First TPE with your very suggestion of terminating the Cleethorpes train at Manchester Piccadilly, as is the case with their service to Hull. The reply that I received was that this service gives access both to Manchester Piccadilly and to Manchester Airport and that they were happy with the loadings to and from the airport from major stations on its route. They had no intention of amending this existing service pattern. I do not think that matters will now alter for the period of the existing time left on their franchise.

I'm sure that they are happy enough (and even if they aren't happy with the loadings, they aren't going to admit commercially sensitive data in a letter to a member of the public).

Have you ever written to either of these with regard to the present and future service provision between Sheffield and Manchester and if you have, what response did you receive?

It isn't up to TPE (or any TOC) what services they run, or where they start and terminate so it would be a pretty pointless exercise.

I'm not the kind of person who writes letters to TOCs, mainly for the reason that ukrob gives.

The way I see the problem is this:

1. Capacity is at a premium in many areas, but the throat to Piccadilly and platforms 13/14 especially.

2. Since we can't magically build the extra lines that are needed, we have to try to get the most out of the existing capacity.

3. The best way to do this would be to simplify the service patterns.

4. This also has the benefit of getting away from the messy situation where some places (Blackpool, Southport etc) have one train an hour to Piccadilly and one train an hour to Victoria.

5. Once the TPE North services are diverted through Victoria that means that all Ardwick services (2/ hour to Glossop, 2/ hour to Rose Hill, 2/ hour to New Mills) can be self contained in platforms 1/2/3. Nothing will impact on them, and they won't impact on anything else (apart from the bi-hourly extension beyond New Mills to Sheffield). That then means that there is scope to use those platforms/approaches more intensively (rather than having to fit around the demands of TPE services).

6. With no services from Ardwick/Stockport reversing and crossing back onto the Airport lines you save a few conflicting movements. With no Scarborough service running from Ardwick to 13/14 you save even more.

7. I'd then want 13/14 to contain all Airport services (and almost all 13/14 services to be ones heading to/from the Airport - with maybe the exception of Liverpool - Norwich)

8. Passengers then have one place to go for Airport services, knowing that they won't have to muck about at Piccadily trying to work out whether the next Airport train will be leaving from the main station or from 13/14.

9. Piccadilly can then be run as three self contained stations. One for the Ardwick trains, one for the Stockport trains and one for the Airport trains.

10. There's then a lot more capacity to get additional services into/out of Piccadilly.

But that only works with central planning. Asking First for their opinion is going to cause a bias towards *their* services (in the way that they've said that they want the Manchester - Glasgow trains to go via Bolton and not Wigan - it shouldn't be up to the whims of one TOC, it needs to be long term strategic planning).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'd then want 13/14 to contain all Airport services (and almost all 13/14 services to be ones heading to/from the Airport - with maybe the exception of Liverpool - Norwich)..... Passengers then have one place to go for Airport services

This will teach me not to play "Devils Advocate" on a Sunday morning

Seriously, I agree with everything you say, but whilst we can debate from the comfort of our Chesterfield armchairs, nothing we can do in reality is going to change the situation as members of the travelling public.

I have left your quote at the head of my reply to see what your views are about using platforms 13 and 14 ( and the soon to be new platforms 15 and 16) with passengers with luggage for Manchester Airport connections, based on the current station facilities.

 

[Nym]

They will also be improving access, supposedly.

At the moment I have (in my mind and no point in putting it on paper properly) a small masterplan for Manchester stations, some of the key points being... (This is the one that doesn't involve re-opening Central station)

Ardwick - Slade Ln 6 Track, Ardwick - Piccadilly 8 track, seperate all approaches

Slade Lane Grade Separation

Ardwick - Philips Park re-opened, services pushed via this route from Victoria.

Oxford Road Re-build, Pt 1 and 4 to 8x23m, 2 and 3 to 4x23m, 2 100m long metrolink platforms in the former 5 and 6, possibly another one for good measure.

Tram-Train deployment on the Mid Cheshire Line and East Lancashire Railway.

Tunnel under MIA station and around the border of the airport to connect to Mid Cheshire Line, Tram-Trains running from Alt-ham, 3tph Chester, 2tph Airport all terminating at new MCO platforms. 1 or 2tph heavy to Alty and/or Chester from MIA, possible extention of a TPE service to Chester.

At piccadilly...

3 new platforms on the East for services terminating in from Victoria
4 new platforms over Fairfeild Street, 2: 12*23m long at the outside 17 & 18, and two shorter 8*23m in between the two, used for terminating services from Manchester OR, or, two addtional platfoms over Fairfeild Street with long reversing siding provided between Up Air and Down Air lines.

Mayfeild Possibly new platforms there for services terminating off Airport, but at 2tph this could be exsessive.

Mayfeild and Baring Street Industrial area, cleared for the building of HS2 station, with provision when 6 tracking to have space for 2 HS2 tracks, reversing sidings and 2 Airport bound tracks, HS2 goes into a tunnel at Manchester International Depot (Possibly stabling point for HS2 services)

Victoria would gain similar to what Piccadilly would have, by having reversing sidings placed between the running lines on the approaches to the station, and as many platforms as possible added at Stalybridge and Rochdale to terminate services that would be lacking platforms.

2 addtional metrolink platforms at Victoria.

Re-built interchange at Cornbrook, with 4 platforms for trams and 4 track to Deansgate G-Mex, where the line to Oxford Road would diverge

Re-build Salford Crescent north of it's current locaton, with a large ticket office and waiting area built above track level from the current bridge upto about 50m further north. Providing 2x8x23m platforms for the Atherton Loop, 4x8x23m platforms for the Bolton Line and if space, two platforms for terminating services from Vic.

Two additional Platforms at Salford Central, the old ones back into use, possible inclusion of the Chat Moss lines into additional platforms, but 4 for the Salford lines a higher priority, as 4 track toward Ordstall Lane Jcn will be nessesarry, because....

Grade sperate Ordstall Lane Junction with Ordstall Curve, the Chat Moss - Victoria lines on a flyover over the current junction, and ordstall curve slew out over the wasteland to try and keep the linespeed as high as possible. The flat section of the junction would then only be dealing with 10tph, or 12tph at higher traffic levels.

2tph OR - Chat Moss (1 Manchester - Scotland, 1 Manchester - N Wales)
4tph OR - Windsor Link
4tph Ordstall Curve.

Since there is the potential for anything up to 8 tph between Victoria and Patcroft, even in the world of realism.

2tph Fast Liverpool
2tph Wigan Slow
1tph Chester
2tph Liverpool Slow
1tph Freight

New line aswell between the Chat Moss and CLC lines via Culceath freight access to Trafford Park.

I'd also be looking at numerous park and ride sites on heavy rail around the county.

Namely improvments to, new stations at, or big car parks and interchanges at...

Horwich Parkway
Castleton
Denton
Ashton Moss
Manchester Airport
Culcheath (New line, onto CLC and Chat Moss)

Oh and not to mention laying some rails to Leigh, extra platforms at Chinley and stringing almost the whole suburban network for 25KV AC

EDIT: The grade seperation I discribed for Ordstall Lane also results in it being treated as 1 line diverging into three from Castlefeild Junction, rather than dealing with conflicts in multiple directions.

 

[tbtc]

They will also be improving access, supposedly.

At the moment I have (in my mind and no point in putting it on paper properly) a small masterplan for Manchester stations, some of the key points being... (This is the one that doesn't involve re-opening Central station)

Ardwick - Slade Ln 6 Track, Ardwick - Piccadilly 8 track, seperate all approaches

Slade Lane Grade Separation

Ardwick - Philips Park re-opened, services pushed via this route from Victoria.

Oxford Road Re-build, Pt 1 and 4 to 8x23m, 2 and 3 to 4x23m, 2 100m long metrolink platforms in the former 5 and 6, possibly another one for good measure.

Tram-Train deployment on the Mid Cheshire Line and East Lancashire Railway.

Tunnel under MIA station and around the border of the airport to connect to Mid Cheshire Line, Tram-Trains running from Alt-ham, 3tph Chester, 2tph Airport all terminating at new MCO platforms. 1 or 2tph heavy to Alty and/or Chester from MIA, possible extention of a TPE service to Chester.

At piccadilly...

3 new platforms on the East for services terminating in from Victoria
4 new platforms over Fairfeild Street, 2: 12*23m long at the outside 17 & 18, and two shorter 8*23m in between the two, used for terminating services from Manchester OR, or, two addtional platfoms over Fairfeild Street with long reversing siding provided between Up Air and Down Air lines.

Mayfeild Possibly new platforms there for services terminating off Airport, but at 2tph this could be exsessive.

Mayfeild and Baring Street Industrial area, cleared for the building of HS2 station, with provision when 6 tracking to have space for 2 HS2 tracks, reversing sidings and 2 Airport bound tracks, HS2 goes into a tunnel at Manchester International Depot (Possibly stabling point for HS2 services)

Victoria would gain similar to what Piccadilly would have, by having reversing sidings placed between the running lines on the approaches to the station, and as many platforms as possible added at Stalybridge and Rochdale to terminate services that would be lacking platforms.

2 addtional metrolink platforms at Victoria.

Re-built interchange at Cornbrook, with 4 platforms for trams and 4 track to Deansgate G-Mex, where the line to Oxford Road would diverge

Re-build Salford Crescent north of it's current locaton, with a large ticket office and waiting area built above track level from the current bridge upto about 50m further north. Providing 2x8x23m platforms for the Atherton Loop, 4x8x23m platforms for the Bolton Line and if space, two platforms for terminating services from Vic.

Two additional Platforms at Salford Central, the old ones back into use, possible inclusion of the Chat Moss lines into additional platforms, but 4 for the Salford lines a higher priority, as 4 track toward Ordstall Lane Jcn will be nessesarry, because....

Grade sperate Ordstall Lane Junction with Ordstall Curve, the Chat Moss - Victoria lines on a flyover over the current junction, and ordstall curve slew out over the wasteland to try and keep the linespeed as high as possible. The flat section of the junction would then only be dealing with 10tph, or 12tph at higher traffic levels.

2tph OR - Chat Moss (1 Manchester - Scotland, 1 Manchester - N Wales)
4tph OR - Windsor Link
4tph Ordstall Curve.

Since there is the potential for anything up to 8 tph between Victoria and Patcroft, even in the world of realism.

2tph Fast Liverpool
2tph Wigan Slow
1tph Chester
2tph Liverpool Slow
1tph Freight

New line aswell between the Chat Moss and CLC lines via Culceath freight access to Trafford Park.

I'd also be looking at numerous park and ride sites on heavy rail around the county.

Namely improvments to, new stations at, or big car parks and interchanges at...

Horwich Parkway
Castleton
Denton
Ashton Moss
Manchester Airport
Culcheath (New line, onto CLC and Chat Moss)

Oh and not to mention laying some rails to Leigh, extra platforms at Chinley and stringing almost the whole suburban network for 25KV AC

EDIT: The grade seperation I discribed for Ordstall Lane also results in it being treated as 1 line diverging into three from Castlefeild Junction, rather than dealing with conflicts in multiple directions.

Some good points there; I'm trying to work within the capacity constraints that we have whilst you are doing a bit more "blue sky thinking" - I'd love to share your optimism about things getting done

 

[bluenoxid]

I have an idea for Liverpool - Norwich. We all know of this intention to run Derby to Man Airport. Any benefit of running Liverpool - Picc - Air - Crewe - Derby - Nott and beyond?

Just a thought to keep the connections up. We can then throw more services down the Hope Valley.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I have an idea for Liverpool - Norwich. We all know of this intention to run Derby to Man Airport. Any benefit of running Liverpool - Picc - Air - Crewe - Derby - Nott and beyond?

Just a thought to keep the connections up. We can then throw more services down the Hope Valley.

Maybe alongside a new Piccadilly-Sheffield-Nottingham service, yes, I think that could work, but I think via Macclesfield would be better, otherwise that is significantly longer than the current route (yes, I know that would miss out MIA and connections at Crewe).

It is important to retain Piccadilly-Sheffield-Nottingham, as otherwise there'd just be 1tph between Manchester and Sheffield (plus a stopper via Brinnington every two hours, hardly ideal), and 1tph between Sheffield and Nottingham!

 

[Batman]

They will also be improving access, supposedly.

At the moment I have (in my mind and no point in putting it on paper properly) a small masterplan for Manchester stations, some of the key points being... (This is the one that doesn't involve re-opening Central station)

Ardwick - Slade Ln 6 Track, Ardwick - Piccadilly 8 track, seperate all approaches

Slade Lane Grade Separation

Ardwick - Philips Park re-opened, services pushed via this route from Victoria.

Oxford Road Re-build, Pt 1 and 4 to 8x23m, 2 and 3 to 4x23m, 2 100m long metrolink platforms in the former 5 and 6, possibly another one for good measure.

Tram-Train deployment on the Mid Cheshire Line and East Lancashire Railway.

Tunnel under MIA station and around the border of the airport to connect to Mid Cheshire Line, Tram-Trains running from Alt-ham, 3tph Chester, 2tph Airport all terminating at new MCO platforms. 1 or 2tph heavy to Alty and/or Chester from MIA, possible extention of a TPE service to Chester.

At piccadilly...

3 new platforms on the East for services terminating in from Victoria
4 new platforms over Fairfeild Street, 2: 12*23m long at the outside 17 & 18, and two shorter 8*23m in between the two, used for terminating services from Manchester OR, or, two addtional platfoms over Fairfeild Street with long reversing siding provided between Up Air and Down Air lines.

Mayfeild Possibly new platforms there for services terminating off Airport, but at 2tph this could be exsessive.

Mayfeild and Baring Street Industrial area, cleared for the building of HS2 station, with provision when 6 tracking to have space for 2 HS2 tracks, reversing sidings and 2 Airport bound tracks, HS2 goes into a tunnel at Manchester International Depot (Possibly stabling point for HS2 services)

Victoria would gain similar to what Piccadilly would have, by having reversing sidings placed between the running lines on the approaches to the station, and as many platforms as possible added at Stalybridge and Rochdale to terminate services that would be lacking platforms.

2 addtional metrolink platforms at Victoria.

Re-built interchange at Cornbrook, with 4 platforms for trams and 4 track to Deansgate G-Mex, where the line to Oxford Road would diverge

Re-build Salford Crescent north of it's current locaton, with a large ticket office and waiting area built above track level from the current bridge upto about 50m further north. Providing 2x8x23m platforms for the Atherton Loop, 4x8x23m platforms for the Bolton Line and if space, two platforms for terminating services from Vic.

Two additional Platforms at Salford Central, the old ones back into use, possible inclusion of the Chat Moss lines into additional platforms, but 4 for the Salford lines a higher priority, as 4 track toward Ordstall Lane Jcn will be nessesarry, because....

Grade sperate Ordstall Lane Junction with Ordstall Curve, the Chat Moss - Victoria lines on a flyover over the current junction, and ordstall curve slew out over the wasteland to try and keep the linespeed as high as possible. The flat section of the junction would then only be dealing with 10tph, or 12tph at higher traffic levels.

2tph OR - Chat Moss (1 Manchester - Scotland, 1 Manchester - N Wales)
4tph OR - Windsor Link
4tph Ordstall Curve.

Since there is the potential for anything up to 8 tph between Victoria and Patcroft, even in the world of realism.

2tph Fast Liverpool
2tph Wigan Slow
1tph Chester
2tph Liverpool Slow
1tph Freight

New line aswell between the Chat Moss and CLC lines via Culceath freight access to Trafford Park.

I'd also be looking at numerous park and ride sites on heavy rail around the county.

Namely improvments to, new stations at, or big car parks and interchanges at...

Horwich Parkway
Castleton
Denton
Ashton Moss
Manchester Airport
Culcheath (New line, onto CLC and Chat Moss)

Oh and not to mention laying some rails to Leigh, extra platforms at Chinley and stringing almost the whole suburban network for 25KV AC

EDIT: The grade seperation I discribed for Ordstall Lane also results in it being treated as 1 line diverging into three from Castlefeild Junction, rather than dealing with conflicts in multiple directions.

I've been trying to do some blue sky thinking like this for the Birmingham area. Have you found that some of your ideas tend to have origionated from the RUS anyway?

 

[Nym]

I tend to think independantly of the RUS, except for gaps in my service or geographical knowlage, but the additional Fairfeild St Platforms are in the RUS.

EDIT & PS: I left Business School a long time ago, and Don't like to have anything to do with businessey phrases like blue sky thinking

 

[Batman]

OK, cus the only radical things I can think of for Birmingham (my local area) are local platforms at the new HS2 station at Curzon Street for Sutton Park line and Tamworth local trains.

 

[tbtc]

I left Business School a long time ago, and Don't like to have anything to do with businessey phrases like blue sky thinking

I'm not a fan myself, hence the inverted commas