• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Potential fix for Ordsall Chord?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,157
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Crush loads should not be a planned occurrence, thus there will near enough always be some space.

Ordsall is unlikely to ever match the tram frequency. TBH I remain of the view that it was a waste of money.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
2,131
Can't see that working tbh. Shutting Oxford Rd would mean the 2tph CLC services would have to terminate at Piccadilly instead, making P13/P14 busier. Additionally - given guard/driver swaps for Northern services happen at Occy Rd would need to happen at Pic instead, again making P13/14 busier especially if a guard/driver is late and a train gets stuck at Pic (as what happens at Oxford Rd currently). Deansgate is also really popular for commuters - particularly thanks to easy metrolink connections.

I do wish the three stations got a propper rethink and the section needs investment such as desperately needed additional capacity. I just doubt closing the two stations would help as such.

Personally - I don't see why its too much to ask for Manchester to get four tracks on the entirety of the Castlefield corridor. If we were London - the section would be given an additional six tracks by now and Piccadilly would be 30 platforms :lol:
IIRC, trains to/from Cannon Street, Waterloo East and Charing X were mightily constrained for years by Borough Market Junction. Only comparatively recently have expensive changes at London Bridge and its approaches addressed that. I agree that investment in Manchester and other locations is much needed- a programmed pipeline of major infrastructure improvements, including Liverpool- Sheffield- Hull. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to work out a way, and the means will follow if there is political will.
 

Rail Quest

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2023
Messages
755
Location
Warrington
IIRC, trains to/from Cannon Street, Waterloo East and Charing X were mightily constrained for years by Borough Market Junction. Only comparatively recently have expensive changes at London Bridge and its approaches addressed that. I agree that investment in Manchester and other locations is much needed- a programmed pipeline of major infrastructure improvements, including Liverpool- Sheffield- Hull. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to work out a way, and the means will follow if there is political will.
For sure. Sometimes I wish that if the UK was blessed with politicians who were actually pro public transport generally, we actually might see meaningful investment that could include much needed expansions to places like Piccadilly. Can't remember what the ballpark figures were regarding adding the additional platforms to Piccadilly specifically.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,292
In other words, you just want to close Manchester Victoria station and have all traffic via the Castlefield corridor even with a a couple of extra new lines, with net result even more people in area's were it is already heavily congested - it makes no sense what so ever!
Did I mention closing Manchester Victoria?

If the trains are using the Ordsall Chord, why would they not stop at Victoria station?
I no more propose to close it than I propose to close Deansgate, Oxford Road or Salford Central.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,157
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There is a valid argument to close Deansgate and it is/was proposed as part of the Oxford Road remodelling which would see the platforms extended that way.

Closing Oxford Road would be nonsensical, it's a very busy station serving the university quarter.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,292
There is a valid argument to close Deansgate and it is/was proposed as part of the Oxford Road remodelling which would see the platforms extended that way.

Closing Oxford Road would be nonsensical, it's a very busy station serving the university quarter.
Ultimately, if it wasn't for the Grade II listing of the Palace Hotel (or whatever it is called this week - 'the Kimpton Clocktower Hotel'?), I would propose demolishing it and developing Oxford Road into the primary station for Manchester, given its excellent potential for overwhelming bus connectivity.

That would be a Stuttgart 21 scale project though.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,663
There is a valid argument to close Deansgate and it is/was proposed as part of the Oxford Road remodelling which would see the platforms extended that way.

Closing Oxford Road would be nonsensical, it's a very busy station serving the university quarter.
Deansgate isn't proposed to close as part of Oxford Road.
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
2,131
Deansgate isn't proposed to close as part of Oxford Road.
I would expect no 'closures' anyway, just death by how every many timetable reductions toward a 'parliamentary service'. How are services at Reddish South these days?
 

185

On Moderation
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
5,709
I've always been of the view, (with the exception of Piccadilly and mainline out to Ardwick), to rip up most railways in Manchester City Centre, flog the land and use the proceeds to tunnel under with two four track parallel tunnels - one through Vic, one under Picc. The viaduct land footprint in Manchester is a goldmine that could go most of the way to fund the tunnels, resignalling and rebuilds and other projects to raise passenger capacity.

Stuff the 100 year old listed structure nonsense, our city's transport & future comes first.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,663
I would expect no 'closures' anyway, just death by how every many timetable reductions toward a 'parliamentary service'. How are services at Reddish South these days?
Two, which is an increase I think.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,335
Location
Greater Manchester
I dont know, I would have thought that the point of TfGM (if they are still Transport for Greater Manchester) introducing trams is to maximise the modal shift from car to tram around Greater Manchester. By definition, that target means more people coming in from Oldham and Bury through Victoria rather than the tram arriving in Victoria with plenty of space on board. I do not think the aim would be spare capacity running on the majority of the network just to have capacity between Victoria and Piccadilly.

Whether TfGM are achieving their objective on the corridors that serve both Piccadilly and Victoria is an off-topic discussion.

If not at the point already, better connectivity between Victoria and Piccadilly for rail passengers will need looking at. The Ordsall Chord was supposed to be a part of that connectivity.
The trams between Victoria and Piccadilly work the Bury to Piccadilly service. A substantial proportion of southbound passengers alight at Victoria, so there is always some capacity for Piccadilly-bound passengers to board in their place. Conversely northbound.

The Mon-Sat headway of this service is nominally 12 minutes all day, as it always has been since Metrolink first opened. I believe TfGM is considering options to add a service from the Oldham line to Piccadilly, thereby increasing the frequency to 10tph. This would greatly improve connectivity between the two mainline stations. The tram journey time is about 10 minutes, plus a couple more minutes to get to/from the platforms, versus about 20 minutes to walk all the way.
 

Topological

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2023
Messages
4,272
Location
Swansea
The trams between Victoria and Piccadilly work the Bury to Piccadilly service. A substantial proportion of southbound passengers alight at Victoria, so there is always some capacity for Piccadilly-bound passengers to board in their place. Conversely northbound.

The Mon-Sat headway of this service is nominally 12 minutes all day, as it always has been since Metrolink first opened. I believe TfGM is considering options to add a service from the Oldham line to Piccadilly, thereby increasing the frequency to 10tph. This would greatly improve connectivity between the two mainline stations. The tram journey time is about 10 minutes, plus a couple more minutes to get to/from the platforms, versus about 20 minutes to walk all the way.
Thank you, I do lose track of where the different routes terminate these days. Presumably, all Ashton line trams are going to Eccles and none go the Victoria way.

One every 12 minutes is not great for the connectivity, but a second route to increase to one every 6 minutes would help matters.

I would still say that the Ordsall Chord could be better used to provide connectivity where passengers do not need to get off their inbound trains in the first place (likewise if there was to be a money tree and a chord in from the Philips Park line so arrivals from the West could come round to the East of Piccadilly)
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,276
Just get on and build Piccadilly 15/16 so its safer and doesn’t slow trains down.
Quadruple as much as possible, going hard against the conservation and university lobbies.

Push for all trains to be electric/bimode for acceleration, and wave magic wand to get moving block signalling installed soon!
 

8A Rail

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2012
Messages
1,351
Location
Mars
Did I mention closing Manchester Victoria?

If the trains are using the Ordsall Chord, why would they not stop at Victoria station?
I no more propose to close it than I propose to close Deansgate, Oxford Road or Salford Central.
No, but it is the way you word your comments which basically 'stuff' Victoria and put everything through Piccadilly. If trains are using the Ordsall Chord from the west to Oxford Road / Piccadilly, how could they call at Victoria then (again, it is the way you have word your reply)?
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
4,159
Terminating the Ordsall Chord/Anglo Scottish TPEs and Cumbrian Northern expresses at Vic instead wouldn't be a terrible idea in the short term.

Give TfGM some cash for some more trams to ensure every Picc-Vic tram is a double and introduce free tram transfers from those services to Picc.

Then ensure every Picc - Manchester Airport train possible is a 4 car minimum - perhaps excluding TfW, but Northern are receiving additional EMUs, so shouldn't be an issue for them.
 

Agent_Squash

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2016
Messages
1,271
Terminating the Ordsall Chord/Anglo Scottish TPEs and Cumbrian Northern expresses at Vic instead wouldn't be a terrible idea in the short term.

Of all the places that should be cut off from Manchester Airport, the Cumbria services (full of tourists) are probably last on the list. They are 6 cars in the peak for a reason.

Southport should go to Victoria, as was the original plan.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
4,159
Of all the places that should be cut off from Manchester Airport, the Cumbria services (full of tourists) are probably last on the list. They are 6 cars in the peak for a reason.

Southport should go to Victoria, as was the original plan.
They are 6 cars partly because Northern fill them with Advance ticket passengers from Preston and Chorley though. Southport could head to Victoria, but removing 1tph isn't going to make a massive difference to Castlefield corridor reliability.
 

Agent_Squash

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2016
Messages
1,271
They are 6 cars partly because Northern fill them with Advance ticket passengers from Preston and Chorley though. Southport could head to Victoria, but removing 1tph isn't going to make a massive difference to Castlefield corridor reliability.

Probably the case with all routes in Castlefield, though - Northern tend to be better at filling trains with advances than most.

Removing the expresses (particularly Cumbria) would just vastly reduce the utility of rail travel. Why on earth should we be cutting direct services from one of our biggest international destinations to the region’s main airport?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,157
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Of all the places that should be cut off from Manchester Airport, the Cumbria services (full of tourists) are probably last on the list. They are 6 cars in the peak for a reason.

Southport should go to Victoria, as was the original plan.

They are often used for connections to London (cheaper fares that way due to much higher capacity) so should go to Picc. If anything you'd be better sending one of the Blackpools back to Vic rather than these.

The reason they are 6 car is that they are now part of the core "via Chorley" service and so were becoming overcrowded.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,335
Location
Greater Manchester
Give TfGM some cash for some more trams to ensure every Picc-Vic tram is a double and introduce free tram transfers from those services to Picc.
From 2nd January TfGM is changing the Metrolink timetables such that all Picc-Vic trams become doubles all day Mon - Sat, with the majority also doubles on Sundays. This should help heavy rail passengers transferring between the stations.
Between Monday and Saturday double trams will operate from the start of service on the Bury-Piccadilly and Altrincham-Piccadilly lines, with doubles introduced on Altrincham-Etihad Campus services after 6.30pm.

On Sundays there will be a mixture of single and double trams, with the majority being doubles, between Altrincham-Etihad Campus and Bury-Piccadilly.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
4,159
From 2nd January TfGM is changing the Metrolink timetables such that all Picc-Vic trams become doubles all day Mon - Sat, with the majority also doubles on Sundays. This should help heavy rail passengers transferring between the stations.
Ah OK, so one part of my proposal is already in place.
Free tram transfers for specific services would be relatively cheap to fund and implement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Probably the case with all routes in Castlefield, though - Northern tend to be better at filling trains with advances than most.

Removing the expresses (particularly Cumbria) would just vastly reduce the utility of rail travel. Why on earth should we be cutting direct services from one of our biggest international destinations to the region’s main airport?
It wouldn't vastly reduce the utility of rail travel - a same platform change would be available at Chorley/Bolton on to a direct airport service.

But if you rejected the idea of sending the Cumbrias out of hand, you could swap them for the TfW using Castlefield.
So reroute the North Wales services Chester - Crewe - Man Airport (reverse) - main Picc train shed.
Use the path from Chester for a new Northern service through Warrington BQ to Manchester Vic, join it to a Calder Valley service if required.
 
Last edited:

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,325
But if you rejected the idea of sending the Cumbrias out of hand, you could swap them for the TfW using Castlefield.
So reroute the North Wales services Chester - Crewe - Man Airport (reverse) - main Picc train shed.
Use the path from Chester for a new Northern service through Warrington BQ to Manchester Vic, join it to a Calder Valley service if required.
You mean another Northern service - to complement the current hourly... Chester to Leeds via Vic and the Calder valley!
 

Topological

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2023
Messages
4,272
Location
Swansea
Ah OK, so one part of my proposal is already in place.
Free tram transfers for specific services would be relatively cheap to fund and implement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


It wouldn't vastly reduce the utility of rail travel - a same platform change would be available at Chorley/Bolton on to a direct airport service.

But if you rejected the idea of sending the Cumbrias out of hand, you could swap them for the TfW using Castlefield.
So reroute the North Wales services Chester - Crewe - Man Airport (reverse) - main Picc train shed.
Use the path from Chester for a new Northern service through Warrington BQ to Manchester Vic, join it to a Calder Valley service if required.
Seems sensible enough

Would add capacity to the Chester shuttles too (if they tried to replace the Chester - Crewe shuttle then that may become a capacity issue).

An extra, faster, train from Crewe to Manchester Airport is no bad thing either.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
4,159
Seems sensible enough

Would add capacity to the Chester shuttles too (if they tried to replace the Chester - Crewe shuttle then that may become a capacity issue).

An extra, faster, train from Crewe to Manchester Airport is no bad thing either.
Agreed - Manchester Airport would also be a good place to send an InterCity service from the southern direction too.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
8,322
Ah OK, so one part of my proposal is already in place.
Free tram transfers for specific services would be relatively cheap to fund and implement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


It wouldn't vastly reduce the utility of rail travel - a same platform change would be available at Chorley/Bolton on to a direct airport service.

But if you rejected the idea of sending the Cumbrias out of hand, you could swap them for the TfW using Castlefield.
So reroute the North Wales services Chester - Crewe - Man Airport (reverse) - main Picc train shed.
Use the path from Chester for a new Northern service through Warrington BQ to Manchester Vic, join it to a Calder Valley service if required.
Impracticable with the current layout at Crewe. Only Platform 6 is available for such movements.
 

Manutd1999

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2021
Messages
547
Location
UK
An alternative is for the TfW service to run to Piccadilly via the Mid Cheshire line and Stockport. North Wales would lose its direct link to the airport, but the current route is so slow/circuitous it makes very little sense to keep it IMO....

You mean another Northern service - to complement the current hourly... Chester to Leeds via Vic and the Calder valley!
This would be welcome and was part of the original 'Option C' for Greater Manchester. Bradford and Halifax could and should have 2ph "fast" to Manchester.
 

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
6,537
Location
Wales
Would add capacity to the Chester shuttles too
If Avanti actually ran hourly like Virgin used to there would be no capacity issues on the shuttles.

Agreed - Manchester Airport would also be a good place to send an InterCity service from the southern direction too.
If only we had a brand new line between London and Manchester Airport. Oh wait, the government cut it.

An alternative is for the TfW service to run to Piccadilly via the Mid Cheshire line and Stockport.
Got to solve the issue of the farm crossings first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top