Potential fix for Ordsall Chord?

[JonathanH]

Why when a lot of Manchester Airport's traffic comes from the north?

To try and encourage more traffic from the south I guess.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To try and encourage more traffic from the south I guess.

There isn't likely to be a lot from an awfully long way south, because the budget flyers will end up at Luton, Stansted and Birmingham, and the further south you go the wide ranging offer of Heathrow becomes attractive. You might get some from Birmingham at a push as that has a very narrow range of destinations, but certainly not further south.

 

[AndrewE]

Why when a lot of Manchester Airport's traffic comes from the north?

It would be as useful for people from the South as the Birmingham Int stops on the class 9 Avanti Scotland to London via west midlands trains: It opens up another option for easy access to an airport if you spot good-value flights going from there, or flights at a more civilised time.

However, given that it is Manc airport we are talking about, anybody tempted might regret it! We went to Guernsey from there this spring, airport still just as horrible as pre-covid, but it did have a mid-day flight!

 

[Krokodil]

There isn't likely to be a lot from an awfully long way south, because the budget flyers will end up at Luton, Stansted and Birmingham, and the further south you go the wide ranging offer of Heathrow becomes attractive. You might get some from Birmingham at a push as that has a very narrow range of destinations, but certainly not further south.

Even so, the present hourly stopper is poor. Most passengers trying to go south from MIA currently end up going via Piccadilly

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even so, the present hourly stopper is poor. Most passengers trying to go south from MIA currently end up going via Piccadilly

I'm not sure how much of a problem that actually is. Budget travellers will put up with the hourly stopper to connect to LNR, those wanting more premium services will probably find going via Picc a better experience as boarding at a terminus is less faff and it has excellent facilities.

I don't think there's a massive problem TBH.

There is an argument to extend the LNR to Manchester Airport which were at one point being actively considered but seem to have gone on the back burner now, though. I'd say Liverpool made more sense.

 

[AndrewE]

There is an argument to extend the LNR to Manchester Airport which were at one point being actively considered but seem to have gone on the back burner now, though. I'd say Liverpool made more sense.

especially as Jet2 are increasing their activities at John Lennon...

 

[AlastairFraser]

Impracticable with the current layout at Crewe. Only Platform 6 is available for such movements.

Hmm. May require a stronger rethink.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2023 ==

Why when a lot of Manchester Airport's traffic comes from the north?

It's not just an airport, it is a significant transport hub for buses and coaches in the area too. Also you could take pressure off Picc 13/14 a bit by enabling passengers to interchange onto a service originating at the airport (e.g. the Blackpool North service) to board there, splitting the load compared to InterCity passengers from the south interchanging at Picc, as is typical.

 

[daodao]

@AlastairFraser and others

The removal of "surplus" platforms, cross-overs and other railway infrastructure to create a slimmed down railway in the last 30 years or so of British Rail's existence was a sensible approach to keeping costs under control and the "essential" railway alive. However, it has made it more difficult to remodel services and this has to be taken into account for the financially challenging times that the railway network is experiencing once again.

Therefore, it is important to make best use of existing infrastructure, with its limitations at busy junctions such as Cardiff Central, Crewe and inner Manchester. Sadly, use of the Ordsall curve makes matters worse because associated infrastructure to make best use of it, in particular along the Castlefield line, was never built and is now completely unaffordable for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, services need to be planned to take account of the existing facts that:

• there are 4 tracks through Victoria and only 2 along the Castlefield line
• platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly are unsuitable for long-distance trains carrying passengers with lots of luggage
• crossing moves are wasteful of capacity
• trains calling at Victoria AND Castlefield line stations waste platform capacity
• extending Metrolink is the most cost-effective way of increasing rail use within Greater Manchester

IMO, therefore, mothballing the Ordsall curve, except for occasional ecs moves, is the best way forward for it, even if it causes slight inconvenience to some people such as those travelling from Yorkshire/NE England to Manchester Airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think I would mothball it, but a 2tph all stations EMU service from Stalybridge to Manchester Airport is probably the best use for it, not sending TPE round it.

 

[8A Rail]

@AlastairFraser and others

The removal of "surplus" platforms, cross-overs and other railway infrastructure to create a slimmed down railway in the last 30 years or so of British Rail's existence was a sensible approach to keeping costs under control and the "essential" railway alive. However, it has made it more difficult to remodel services and this has to be taken into account for the financially challenging times that the railway network is experiencing once again.

Therefore, it is important to make best use of existing infrastructure, with its limitations at busy junctions such as Cardiff Central, Crewe and inner Manchester. Sadly, use of the Ordsall curve makes matters worse because associated infrastructure to make best use of it, in particular along the Castlefield line, was never built and is now completely unaffordable for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, services need to be planned to take account of the existing facts that:

• there are 4 tracks through Victoria and only 2 along the Castlefield line
• platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly are unsuitable for long-distance trains carrying passengers with lots of luggage
• crossing moves are wasteful of capacity
• trains calling at Victoria AND Castlefield line stations waste platform capacity
• extending Metrolink is the most cost-effective way of increasing rail use within Greater Manchester

IMO, therefore, mothballing the Ordsall curve, except for occasional ecs moves, is the best way forward for it, even if it causes slight inconvenience to some people such as those travelling from Yorkshire/NE England to Manchester Airport.

A sensible post.

The emphasis is surely on getting trains through the Castlefield corridor within its limited capacity which currently means reducing the present frequency of trains going through it especially when you have reasonable alternative options available. If this means the Ordsall Chord becomes a white elephant, so be it but at least passengers will get a more reliable and consistent service which is what they want.

(just like HS2, don't start it unless you are fully committed in completing the 'whole' project otherwise it becomes a waste of money and it achieves nothing).

 

[Manutd1999]

A reminder that there is only 1ph using the Ordsall Chord at the moment anyway - removing it will not magically solve all of Castlefield's problems.

In addition, cutting the TPE Saltburn back to Victoria brings it's own problems as the station is not suited to terminating services.

A solution for Castlefield requires acceptance by everyone that compromise is needed. A "Manchester S-Bahn" type network is not deliverable with current infrastructure. Likewise, an hourly service from the Airport to every city in the north is equally unachievable.

IMO something close to "Option C" would be optimal, maybe with a few extra tweaks and simplifications.

 

[8A Rail]

A reminder that there is only 1ph using the Ordsall Chord at the moment anyway - removing it will not magically solve all of Castlefield's problems.

In addition, cutting the TPE Saltburn back to Victoria brings it's own problems as the station is not suited to terminating services.

I have already (like other members) have suggested various alternative options for reducing the amount of trains through the Castlefield corridor in previous posts which has nothing to do with the Ordsall Chord.

As for TPE Saltburn service, be better it just carried on to another location, such as Liverpool / Bolton / Preston etc, then it will not terminating.

 

[Bantamzen]

Hmm. May require a stronger rethink.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2023 ==


It's not just an airport, it is a significant transport hub for buses and coaches in the area too. Also you could take pressure off Picc 13/14 a bit by enabling passengers to interchange onto a service originating at the airport (e.g. the Blackpool North service) to board there, splitting the load compared to InterCity passengers from the south interchanging at Picc, as is typical.

No it is an international airport with a hub feeding it. Its not a hub with an airport attached. Manchester Airport have ambitions to reach 70 million passengers per annum once all the upgrades have been completed, that kind of throughput needs multiple connectivity modes including rail from the airport's prime markets which are across the North of England.

I don't think I would mothball it, but a 2tph all stations EMU service from Stalybridge to Manchester Airport is probably the best use for it, not sending TPE round it.

The problem being that Stalybridge isn't exactly a huge feeder of the airport. Oh I know the theory, throw punters off TPEs there to get the "shuttle"...

Can you imagine having travelled from Yorkshire or the North East to be dumped onto the island platforms there in the rain coming in sideways? Its just an utter non-starter, just as is dumping airport punters onto already over congested platforms in central Manchester.

Manchester Airport is only going to get a lot busier, so the railways are going to have to find a way to continue with what are becoming increasingly popular services, and not go down the RUK "if its hard its better to give up and stop" mentality. And you have to remember that people using current TPEs will not have started their journeys along the TPE route, many will have already made one or more changes so adding multiple more will only serve to put people back into cars and further clog up Manchester's road network.

In the end a reworking of Oxford Road will at least offer better use of the existing capacity and even allow services to overtake to recover where necessary. And who knows if it does work maybe a sitting government might be convinced to finish the Castlefield job fully, this bringing the great debate to an end.

 

[AlastairFraser]

@AlastairFraser and others

The removal of "surplus" platforms, cross-overs and other railway infrastructure to create a slimmed down railway in the last 30 years or so of British Rail's existence was a sensible approach to keeping costs under control and the "essential" railway alive. However, it has made it more difficult to remodel services and this has to be taken into account for the financially challenging times that the railway network is experiencing once again.

Therefore, it is important to make best use of existing infrastructure, with its limitations at busy junctions such as Cardiff Central, Crewe and inner Manchester. Sadly, use of the Ordsall curve makes matters worse because associated infrastructure to make best use of it, in particular along the Castlefield line, was never built and is now completely unaffordable for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, services need to be planned to take account of the existing facts that:

• there are 4 tracks through Victoria and only 2 along the Castlefield line
• platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly are unsuitable for long-distance trains carrying passengers with lots of luggage
• crossing moves are wasteful of capacity
• trains calling at Victoria AND Castlefield line stations waste platform capacity
• extending Metrolink is the most cost-effective way of increasing rail use within Greater Manchester

IMO, therefore, mothballing the Ordsall curve, except for occasional ecs moves, is the best way forward for it, even if it causes slight inconvenience to some people such as those travelling from Yorkshire/NE England to Manchester Airport.

In the long term, I'd disagree that it is unaffordable, because there are many different ways to relieve Castlefield of local and shorter regional services.
But in the short term, I'm in agreement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2023 ==

No it is an international airport with a hub feeding it. Its not a hub with an airport attached. Manchester Airport have ambitions to reach 70 million passengers per annum once all the upgrades have been completed, that kind of throughput needs multiple connectivity modes including rail from the airport's prime markets which are across the North of England.

Well, if MAG think their glorified shed at Ringway is worthy of a multitude of direct connections, they should strongly consider contributing to a rail project to strengthen those rail connections.
Heathrow Airport contributed significantly to Crossrail, a smaller scale contribution in comparison wouldn't be unfair.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2023 ==

especially as Jet2 are increasing their activities at John Lennon...

LNWR already serve Liverpool South Parkway, the nearest station... LNR to Man Airport would make perfect sense

 

[Pigeon]

It seems to me that a lot of the problem is the insistence on using Piccadilly for functions for which it is very badly shaped. Only two platforms, and in the most awkward position, to handle all "through" services, and most of the capacity in the terminus part which is arguably in the wrong place anyway.

Perhaps if They could fettle up the Philips Park line, and stomach building a 500m or so flyover from the south end of it to the main line from Piccadilly, some at least of the "through" services from the north-west could run via Victoria instead of Piccadilly, and still call at Mcr Airport etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems to me that a lot of the problem is the insistence on using Piccadilly for functions for which it is very badly shaped. Only two platforms, and in the most awkward position, to handle all "through" services, and most of the capacity in the terminus part which is arguably in the wrong place anyway.

Perhaps if They could fettle up the Philips Park line, and stomach building a 500m or so flyover from the south end of it to the main line from Piccadilly, some at least of the "through" services from the north-west could run via Victoria instead of Piccadilly, and still call at Mcr Airport etc.

I can't help but think Philips Park would have been more useful than Ordsall, because it would have allowed North West/North Wales services to run via and call at Victoria but then run round and terminate in the Piccadilly low numbered platforms. Would have meant a loss of Airport through services (as crossing the formation wouldn't work), but this could be replaced with a shuttle from platform 11 which is a very short walk on the flat. It would have removed several trains per hour from Castlefield allowing other services like the CLC to be improved.

 

[The Planner]

I can't help but think Philips Park would have been more useful than Ordsall, because it would have allowed North West/North Wales services to run via and call at Victoria but then run round and terminate in the Piccadilly low numbered platforms. Would have meant a loss of Airport through services (as crossing the formation wouldn't work), but this could be replaced with a shuttle from platform 11 which is a very short walk on the flat. It would have removed several trains per hour from Castlefield allowing other services like the CLC to be improved.

Wouldnt have worked with TPU, unless a load more infrastructure was built.

 

[Greybeard33]

Deleted.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2024 ==

The emphasis is surely on getting trains through the Castlefield corridor within its limited capacity which currently means reducing the present frequency of trains going through it especially when you have reasonable alternative options available. If this means the Ordsall Chord becomes a white elephant, so be it but at least passengers will get a more reliable and consistent service which is what they want.

Why does the service frequency through the Castlefield corridor need to be further reduced?

Comparing the December 2019 and December 2023 timetables, the frequency through Castlefield Junction has been reduced by 2tph, from 14tph in the standard hour + 1tph peak extra to 12 + 1tph. The frequency through Piccadilly P13/14 has also been reduced by 2tph (3tph in the peaks), from 12 + 1tph to 10tph all day.

The TPE Airport to Newcastle has been removed all day, reducing imported delays from the TPE core. The TfW peak extras Chester to Piccadilly have been removed, avoiding extended dwells at Piccadilly and crossing moves to the Mayfield Loop. The Northern Liverpool to Oxford Road via the CLC has been reduced from 2tph to 1tph off peak. The Northern Southport to Alderley Edge has been cut back to terminate at Oxford Road, avoiding crossing moves at Slade Lane and crew changes at Oxford Road.

Additionally the following route changes have reduced the risk of imported delays. The Northern Liverpool to Crewe via the Chat Moss line has been cut back to the Airport, reducing the need for crew changes. The Northern Blackpool to Hazel Grove has been diverted to the Airport, avoiding crossing moves at Slade Lane. The TPE Cleethorpes to Airport has been diverted to Liverpool via the CLC, replacing the Northern Airport to Liverpool and so reducing congestion between Piccadilly and Slade Lane.

Admittedly these Manchester Task Force timetable changes are a messy compromise between operational simplification and stakeholders' desire for frequent, direct services from everywhere to Oxford Road, Piccadilly and the Airport, but is there evidence that punctuality performance through the corridor is still unacceptably poor, apart from disruption caused by incidents elsewhere on the network?

 

[richard_S]

One solution which would benefit the Airport and Piccadilly station would be. Build a new line from just north of Mobberley station and run underground under the airport and create a new underground station linked to the existing one then run out and link with the existing line and onward to Manchester Piccadilly. This would provide more platforms at the airport and trains would not have to use the Castlefield corridor.

 

[Foxcover]

One solution which would benefit the Airport and Piccadilly station would be. Build a new line from just north of Mobberley station and run underground under the airport and create a new underground station linked to the existing one then run out and link with the existing line and onward to Manchester Piccadilly. This would provide more platforms at the airport and trains would not have to use the Castlefield corridor.

That would certainly solve a few different problems wouldn’t it! Has it ever been mooted?

 

[The Planner]

One solution which would benefit the Airport and Piccadilly station would be. Build a new line from just north of Mobberley station and run underground under the airport and create a new underground station linked to the existing one then run out and link with the existing line and onward to Manchester Piccadilly. This would provide more platforms at the airport and trains would not have to use the Castlefield corridor.

How does that solve anything? Mobberley trains end up at Edgeley/Stockport so avoid Castlefield anyway? Sending them via the Airport just sends them via the Styals and compounds the issues at Slade Lane. I don't get it.

 

[richard_S]

Trains from Blackpool, Lakes etc would be able to go to the airport via Hartford junction. Therefore not going through Manchester.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Trains from Blackpool, Lakes etc would be able to go to the airport via Hartford junction. Therefore not going through Manchester.

1) WCML capacity south of Preston is very limited - no way they could send the BPNs through Warrington.
2) The main destination of most passengers on those service is Manchester Picc/ Manchester Oxford Rd/Bolton/Chorley.
So you'd needlessly extend journey times for the majority.
3) The Mid Cheshire is mostly unelectrified and the Blackpool services are operated by EMUs.

 

[biggerisbetter]

How does that solve anything? Mobberley trains end up at Edgeley/Stockport so avoid Castlefield anyway? Sending them via the Airport just sends them via the Styals and compounds the issues at Slade Lane. I don't get it.

Reduces platform pressure at the airport allowing longer trains assisting with dwell time through Castlefield.

Would allow Chester and North Wales services currently travelling via Warrington Bank Quay to travel via Northwich linking to a northern or TPE service maintaining connectivity to the airport and Manchester City Centre but removing a path from Castlefield.

Also allows Northern services terminating at the airport to be extended potentially allowing reopening of Middlewich branch and improving services to Northwich. Would need additional investment in addition to the airport western link itself but would deliver a wide range of benefits.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Reduces platform pressure at the airport allowing longer trains assisting with dwell time through Castlefield.

Would allow Chester and North Wales services currently travelling via Warrington Bank Quay to travel via Northwich linking to a northern or TPE service maintaining connectivity to the airport and Manchester City Centre but removing a path from Castlefield.

Also allows Northern services terminating at the airport to be extended potentially allowing reopening of Middlewich branch and improving services to Northwich. Would need additional investment in addition to the airport western link itself but would deliver a wide range of benefits.

See, this is a good plan for the future, but the situation in central Manchester is more urgent and both situations will cost a lot of money to sort out.

 

[Krokodil]

Reduces platform pressure at the airport allowing longer trains assisting with dwell time through Castlefield.

Which trains would become longer through this? Platform sharing doesn't routinely happen these days, if unit formations are too short for the passenger loadings it isn't the fault of the station at the airport.

 

[richard_S]

If an underground station was built it should be made to allow longer trains to stop there.

 

[Krokodil]

If an underground station was built it should be made to allow longer trains to stop there.

The existing station has four platforms, each of them eight carriages long. There are a handful of six carriage trains, that is all. Platform sharing seldom happens and even when it does it's usually a two car train sharing with another two car train. You could extend the airport platforms to 400m and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to congestion through Castlefield Jcn.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2024 ==

The only reason for building extra capacity at the Airport would be the combined HS2/NPR station. That one would be genuinely useful because it would feed into a new alignment into central Manchester. It clears the London and Birmingham trains out of Stockport and would (as part of NPR) divert the 2tph Liverpool-Sheffield-Nottingham/Cleethorpes services which currently operate through Warrington Central away from Castlefield.

Build the Golborne spur and you can send some or all of the MIA to Scotland/Blackpool/Cumbria that way. It's a bit of a funny way around but higher speeds and reduced congestion make up for the circuitous route.

Connect to the Mid Cheshire and the North Wales services could go that way too. Eventually you'll be left with only the local services running through Castlefield which means that more stations within Greater Manchester can have a decent metro frequency into the city, without the risk of delays being imported by trains arriving from all over the country.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Reduces platform pressure at the airport allowing longer trains assisting with dwell time through Castlefield.

Would allow Chester and North Wales services currently travelling via Warrington Bank Quay to travel via Northwich linking to a northern or TPE service maintaining connectivity to the airport and Manchester City Centre but removing a path from Castlefield.

Also allows Northern services terminating at the airport to be extended potentially allowing reopening of Middlewich branch and improving services to Northwich. Would need additional investment in addition to the airport western link itself but would deliver a wide range of benefits.

Which Chester services currently via Warrington BQ end up in Manchester??

 

[biggerisbetter]

Which trains would become longer through this? Platform sharing doesn't routinely happen these days, if unit formations are too short for the passenger loadings it isn't the fault of the station at the airport.

Presumably though, turnaround times are not as generous as would be ideal to clear the platforms to allow the next train to arrive. With only 4 terminating platforms you can’t have long trains and long turnaround times for the frequency of services at the airport. A quick check tomorrow of one of the Edinburgh trains sees a 20-minute turnaround for a three and a half hour journey.

I am not suggesting that the cost would definitely be worth the benefits or that it would be a short term solution, but there would be some benefits delivered through the western approach to Castlefield corridor congestion.

My proposal for a shorter term solution would be:

1. Transfer of the Southport to Oxford Road services to Victoria

2. Stopping all services that pass through at Salford Crescent (or as many as possible with additional platform brought forward over the medium term)

3. Allowing travel between Manchester and Bolton on TPE Scotland services (potentially just for stations from Westhoughton to Southport if enforceable) to partially offset loss of link from Southport to Piccadilly

4. splitting the Norwich to Liverpool service and handing the Liverpool to Nottingham section to TPE and running with 6-car 185s

5. Securing commitment from / agreement with / requirement for something like the following with operators:
- all services through the corridor to have a minimum of 3 cars with peak services having a minimum of 4 cars with penalties for short forming
- all services except those exceeding 125m in length to have doors at 1/3 / 2/3rds.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2024 ==

Which Chester services currently via Warrington BQ end up in Manchester??

The trains that also serve North Wales as identified.