Ordsall Chord etc - what was the actual plan?

[Nicholas Lewis]

If you were actually involved in the business you would know the truth, but as you obviously aren't, you don't. I'll leave you to it.

NR not being an informed client is maybe what your eluding to?

Personally, I think that the real problem is much deeper -- simply, too many politicians want "their area" to have through trains to & from Manchester Airport. The next problem was trying to fit 6 TPE trains per hour between Manchester & Leeds. The slightest problem could throw the entire timetable into chaos for miles around Manchester, including the Castlefield area and Ordsall chord.

Which is why we need a fat controller to take an overview of the complete system which derives the best timetable that moves the traffic thats on offer not create a convenient service to appease certain groups ay the detriment to the wider system. Any half decent city railway around the world keeps it service pattern simple but ensures connections are both straightforward and not too detrimental in journey times - we have done the opposite far too long often leading demands for through service to everywhere aided and abetted by the DofT service specifications.

Thameslink is an excellent example of where the industry was bold enough to speak up and say the proposed plan wouldn't work through E.Croydon and the timetable was rebuilt and having spent 30 years travelling along this corridor the 2018 timetable is the best ever for reliability.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's precisely how Thameslink works. There's a plan for how *everything* contributes to robust operation. Castlefield needs to replicate that.

That of course requires a rather different proposal from either A, B or C, i.e. turning it into an "S-Bahn" with identical, all-EMU stock and moving all the long distance stuff to Vic, and not having anywhere near as many routes crossing it.

All basic railway operations stuff, to be honest. I’d add DCO and dispatch arrangements that involve ‘encouraging’ passengers to help reduce dwell times to the list.

All identical rolling stock with wide doors at thirds and standbacks. Door positions marked on the platform. Long trains. No long distance stuff.

It would work, but you'd need to rebuild Vic to be able to send everything else there.

 

[Ianno87]

That of course requires a rather different proposal from either A, B or C, i.e. turning it into an "S-Bahn" with identical, all-EMU stock and moving all the long distance stuff to Vic.

A lot of the same principles still apply.

-Simple infrastructure, optimised for normal operation (not “just in case” provision)
-Clear, consistent focus on right time dispatch
-High performing stock on all services
-Stations designed to cope with passenger flows
-Stations that encourage spreading of passengers along the platform
-All trains running at maximum length
-Optimised signalling
etc. etc.

Castlefield achieves...not very many of these.

You only need to completely “S Bahn” it if you were going for a very high frequency - 20 or 24tph.

 

[py_megapixel]

Thameslink uses a fleet of EMUs built to run that service. They're optimised to be in and out of the station as fast as possible.

That level of service can never be replicated on Castlefield if the fleet remains mosty either outdated, overcrowded DMUs or vestibule/end door stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thameslink uses a fleet of EMUs built to run that service. They're optimised to be in and out of the station as fast as possible.

That level of service can never be replicated on Castlefield if the fleet remains mosty either outdated, overcrowded DMUs or vestibule/end door stock.

To be fair, Class 195 and 331 do come very close- despite the seating being lower density than 700s they do almost achieve the same boarding speed and standing loads. I reckon an S-Bahn-Manchester using only 3 and 6-car formations of those would actually work reasonably well - comparable with Merseyrail, which manages a reasonably good throughput on the Wirral Line.

 

[daodao]

That of course requires a rather different proposal from either A, B or C, i.e. turning it into an "S-Bahn" with identical, all-EMU stock and moving all the long distance stuff to Vic, and not having anywhere near as many routes crossing it.

I agree, in particular regarding removing TPE and TfW services from Castlefield, but options A/B/C of the MRTF consultation are based on the premise of no infrastructure changes, so innovative ways would need to be found to handle terminating services from the west at Victoria.

 

[M1544]

One of the original ideas for the service over the Ordsall Chord which was publicised prior to it opening but seems to have since been quietly forgotten about was that one of the Northern Leeds - Bradford - Manchester Vic services was to have been extended to Manchester Airport, giving the Calder Valley, Halifax and Bradford a through train to the Airport. People in these areas have wanted a through train to the airport for years rather than having to change at Leeds. Initially a few services were extended to Manchester Oxford Road after the Ordsall chord opened, but then were cut back again after only 1 timetable so that only TPX now uses the chord. Since then one of the Calder Valley trains was extended to Chester as part of the improved Northern Connect services but I believe the second service which still terminates at Manchester Vic would, if capacity had been there, have still gone to the Airport via the curve as the through service to the Airport from Bradford/Halifax and the Calder Valley is still wanted. Nobody has gone on record as far as I know to explain whether this Calder Valley Airport train via the curve will ever happen in the future or if it is now totally dead and buried. I've seen no mention of it in consultations for the future.

 

[daodao]

One of the original ideas for the service over the Ordsall Chord which was publicised prior to it opening but seems to have since been quietly forgotten about was that one of the Northern Leeds - Bradford - Manchester Vic services was to have been extended to Manchester Airport, giving the Calder Valley, Halifax and Bradford a through train to the Airport. People in these areas have wanted a through train to the airport for years rather than having to change at Leeds. Initially a few services were extended to Manchester Oxford Road after the Ordsall chord opened, but then were cut back again after only 1 timetable so that only TPX now uses the chord. Since then one of the Calder Valley trains was extended to Chester as part of the improved Northern Connect services but I believe the second service which still terminates at Manchester Vic would, if capacity had been there, have still gone to the Airport via the curve as the through service to the Airport from Bradford/Halifax and the Calder Valley is still wanted. Nobody has gone on record as far as I know to explain whether this Calder Valley Airport train via the curve will ever happen in the future or if it is now totally dead and buried. I've seen no mention of it in consultations for the future.

It would be more useful to extend Calder Valley services via the Ordsall curve and remove TPE services from the Standedge line from it, as they can reach Piccadilly (to terminate there) via Guide Bridge.

 

[Chester1]

Personally, I think that the real problem is much deeper -- simply, too many politicians want "their area" to have through trains to & from Manchester Airport. The next problem was trying to fit 6 TPE trains per hour between Manchester & Leeds. The slightest problem could throw the entire timetable into chaos for miles around Manchester, including the Castlefield area and Ordsall chord.

I never believed that having Platforms 15 & 16 would solve many problems - it would just move the pinch-point to somewhere else. Only 4 tracking to Deansgate, and grade-separated junctions at Castlefield would solve some of the problems, and that was never going to be feasible - or affordable.

I was originally a big supporter of platform 15 and 16 but having seen the last few years management of services I am glad it wasn't built. The maximum number of services would have been scheduled to use it. The new services would have been extensions of services from Stockport that currently terminate in the main shed. It would have decreased reliability of services south of Piccadilly (effecting the services I use)!

I think the current service has been reduced during the pandemic to 10tph + 2tph terminating at Oxford Road. The rebuild of Oxford Road, removing platform 5 to extend 4 platforms and allow platform 1 to be used for regular services should be done. The CLC services could be extended to provide 12tph through the whole corridor. Oxford Road lacks facilities and limits the maximum length of trains to 6 coaches (double 350 TPE services fouled the points). There are other stations that would be difficult to extend but Oxford Road would be the most expensive. 12tph with increased train lengths should be adequate for the rest of this decade.

I don't think the Ordsall Chord was poor value. By comparison with many other projects on the network it was very cheap. The problem with it is that its been the only new piece of heavy rail infrastructure in central Manchester since the 80s.

 

[SuperNova]

People criticise the Ordsall chord for contributing to the problems on the Manchester rail network, but I blame the decision by the government to not complete the Northern Hub and fully electrify the trans pennine line.

Thing is, the electrification was paused because they wanted to look at other things such as journey time and punctuality improvements, grade separation at Heaton Lodge etc. Problem is, we're still waiting to hear what's going on with that and if the Transpennine Route Upgrade will actually electrify the entire line. Still that's completely seperate from Manchester and would've made little to no difference.

It would be more useful to extend Calder Valley services via the Ordsall curve and remove TPE services from the Standedge line from it, as they can reach Piccadilly (to terminate there) via Guide Bridge.

Simply not the capacity available through Guide Bridge, or in Piccadilly trainshed.

I don't think the Ordsall Chord was poor value. By comparison with many other projects on the network it was very cheap. The problem with it is that its been the only new piece of heavy rail infrastructure in central Manchester since the 80s.

This is spot on. Manchester needs to be majorly untangled and currently the only thing on the horizon is 6 HS2 platforms which will take some of the East-West conflicts out of the equation. MRTF is just a sticking plaster until some decisions are actually made.

 

[M1544]

I cant understand why you need so many Transpennine trains via Huddersfield to Manchester/Airport when at least one could be a Bradford and Calder Valley train. Not everyone in West Yorkshire lives in Leeds and Huddersfield, it would widen the catchment and also include places like Todmorden and Rochdale across Manchester. And the Calder Valley Manchester service already operates as far as Man Vic and is well established and now uses 3 car 195s so it wouldnt put any more pressure on the Leeds Calder Valley end, its just if it can be fitted in at the Manchester end. If all Tpx via Hud are made sure they arnt just single 185 3 car sets and are run as long trains to preserve capacity demand can be shared between then routes.
The argument for less but longer trains to increase capacity and reliability of the network should come into play for all the north.

 

[daodao]

Simply not the capacity available through Guide Bridge, or in Piccadilly trainshed.

To resolve capacity issues, the Stalybridge terminators from the Victoria direction could be extended to form the stopping services to Huddersfield, with 2 tph TPE routed via Guide Bridge to Piccadilly. However, the main issue with the Ordsall chord scheme is that it was completed in isolation, and other changes required to make it useful rather than cause problems have effectively been shelved.

..currently the only thing on the horizon is 6 HS2 platforms which will take some of the East-West conflicts out of the equation.

The DISTANT horizon at best, but more likely to fall off it. The MRTF proposals if/when implemented are going to have to last for many years to come, with at best some minor infrastructure improvements.

 

[SuperNova]

I cant understand why you need so many Transpennine trains via Huddersfield to Manchester/Airport when at least one could be a Bradford and Calder Valley train. Not everyone in West Yorkshire lives in Leeds and Huddersfield, it would widen the catchment and also include places like Todmorden and Rochdale across Manchester. And the Calder Valley Manchester service already operates as far as Man Vic and is well established and now uses 3 car 195s so it wouldnt put any more pressure on the Leeds Calder Valley end, its just if it can be fitted in at the Manchester end. If all Tpx via Hud are made sure they arnt just single 185 3 car sets and are run as long trains to preserve capacity demand can be shared between then routes.
The argument for less but longer trains to increase capacity and reliability of the network should come into play for all the north.

Because it's not just about Huddersfield. It's about connectivity between the North East/Yorkshire and Manchester/Liverpool and the Standedge route is the quickest and will get quicker once TRU happens. As for the Airport, those on the Calder valley can change at Vic onto a TPE - in fact many do just to get the train around the chord to Oxford Road and Pic.

The Stalybridge terminators from the Victoria direction can be extended to form the stopping services to Huddersfield, with 2 tph TPE routed via Guide Bridge to Piccadilly.

How will that work? Because I can't see it realistically.

The DISTANT horizon at best, but more likely to fall off it. The MRTF proposals if/when implemented are going to have to last for many years to come, with at best some minor infrastructure improvements.

That's my point. There need to be some action not just relying on MRTF for the next 10-15 years. Otherwise the problem just keeps passing from one area to another.

 

[nimbus21]

There is inadequate connectivity between the major conurbations in the north because current TP services completely avoid the Bradford district and the Calder Valley and instead all run through Huddersfield. NPR is intended to address this but it is many years away and changes are needed much sooner.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Noting that Manchester Oxford Road station is mentioned a number of times on this thread, what exactly is the problem in installing a lift that serves platform 1 there?

 

[Ianno87]

Noting that Manchester Oxford Road station is mentioned a number of times on this thread, what exactly is the problem in installing a lift that serves platform 1 there?

Even if a lift was installed (with the subway extended to reach it), the platform is short and very narrow, with not much shelter on it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Even if a lift was installed (with the subway extended to reach it), the platform is short and very narrow, with not much shelter on it.

That being the case, what type of services were envisaged to use that platform when it came into being?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Called it from day one. Useless piece of track, should have put the money into a bit of capacity / infrastructure including better stations at Deansgate, Oxford Road and Piccadilly. More trains stopping at Deansgate would have meant lots of lovely connections on the second city crossing to Victoria; and Victoria folk could have gone on the tram over to Piccadilly for the Airport...

 

[Watershed]

But the UK just isn't willing to build for resilience, we just can't beat the temptation to shove another 2-car DMU through.

Try justifying some infrastructure work to the Treasury on the basis that it improves resilience. Just not happening!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That being the case, what type of services were envisaged to use that platform when it came into being?

It was for many years used for the Irlam/Warrington local.

Not entirely dissimilar to Bletchley P6 - no lift and quite narrow, used by the Marston Vale for which there is limited demand.

 

[Ianno87]

It was for many years used for the Irlam/Warrington local.

Not entirely dissimilar to Bletchley P6 - no lift and quite narrow, used by the Marston Vale for which there is limited demand.

Forgot the old 101s to Irlam used to frequent it!

I think you might have an issue with the Equality Act today if you tried to make it the regularly used platform for any particular service group, without addressing the access issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Forgot the old 101s to Irlam used to frequent it!

I think you might have an issue with the Equality Act today if you tried to make it the regularly used platform for any particular service group, without addressing the access issue.

Yes, probably true (and quite rightly so). Though maybe it could be worked around until the rebuild by offering a free taxi on demand where necessary? That said, TPE failed to make that stick with LHCS on the Scarboroughs...

 

[Watershed]

Forgot the old 101s to Irlam used to frequent it!

I think you might have an issue with the Equality Act today if you tried to make it the regularly used platform for any particular service group, without addressing the access issue.

I think the fear of breaking the Equality Act significantly exceeds the likelihood of actually being in breach.

The "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" defence is quite broad.

 

[Ianno87]

I think the fear of breaking the Equality Act significantly exceeds the likelihood of actually being in breach.

The "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" defence is quite broad.

"Put the train in another platform" could, by some, be deemed to be a "reasonable adjustment".

 

[Watershed]

"Put the train in another platform" could, by some, be deemed to be a "reasonable adjustment".

If the other platform is vacant, sure. If only using accessible platforms breaks the timetable...

 

[Ianno87]

If the other platform is vacant, sure. If only using accessible platforms breaks the timetable...

You'd have to have pretty watertight proof that you'd considered all alternatives as to why using the platform is necessary.

 

[Jack Hay]

That being the case, what type of services were envisaged to use that platform when it came into being?

Platform 1 was opened in 1969 when Manchester Central closed and was intended to provide extra capacity for the Irlam, Warrington or Chester locals which terminated at Oxford Road from then on. However, old platform 5 (which faced current platform 5) was closed at the same time so in fact platform 1 provided nothing. It was previously a freight avoiding line at the back of the station. The old platform 5 had step-free access and a full canopy in the curved timber style of the rest of the station. That was all demolished and replaced by the poor access, bus-shelter only new platform 1. Platform 1 was unnecessary because it replaced a bay platform and a freight line with a through platform, when what was needed was bay platform capacity anyway! A bad mistake at the time and complete waste of money. It can scarcely be used now owing to the lack of step-free access.

 

[nr758123]

I think you might have an issue with the Equality Act today if you tried to make it the regularly used platform for any particular service group, without addressing the access issue.

It's been done elsewhere, specifically at Marsden where since May 2018 westbound trains have used platform 2 (access by a steep flight of steps) in place of platform 3 (level access). Apparently this was permissible because it happened as a result of a timetable change rather than an infrastructure change.

 

[Ianno87]

It's been done elsewhere, specifically at Marsden where since May 2018 westbound trains have used platform 2 (access by a steep flight of steps) in place of platform 3 (level access). Apparently this was permissible because it happened as a result of a timetable change rather than an infrastructure change.

I suppose you could argue that a timetable is the evidenced formal "best" outcome for accommodating all services.

Although the "impact" at Oxford Road could be argued to be greater than Marsden due to the greater number of passengers affected.

 

[nr758123]

I suppose you could argue that a timetable is the evidenced formal "best" outcome for accommodating all services.

Although the "impact" at Oxford Road could be argued to be greater than Marsden due to the greater number of passengers affected.

The impact at Marsden is not as great, not because it affects fewer passengers - it affects all passengers making a return journey to or from there - but because the other half of a return journey uses the equally inaccessible platform 1. For a return journey, 50% accessibility is arguably no better than 0% accessibility. The impact at Oxford Road would depend on how many services are shifted to platform 1.

The dilemma is the same in both places - is it better to concentrate services on accessible platforms if that means that it's not possible to accommodate the same level of services?