Ordsall Chord

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Has anyone any news to report from the Public Enquiry that was held at the Mechanics Institute, Portland Street, Manchester last month ?

 

[Bill Stanier]

NR are proposing to construct the Ordsall Chord in Manchester to link Deansgate station with Victoria. The proposed alignment is the cheapest, but it cuts across the end of the site of the Museum of Science & Industry. This has two negative effects on the museum's steam railway; it severs the main line connection, and it truncates the (already quite short run) to an impractical 100m or so.

The Public Enquiry is coming to an end, and MoSI had submitted an objection because of the above, and also because the new line will run within a few metres of the original 1830 buildings. This month, MoSI (part of the Science Museum Group) has accepted an undisclosed cash offer from NR to withdraw its objection. This seriously undermines other objectors, such as English Heritage, and if arguably the most significant railway heritage site in the world (the oldest railway station - original terminus and warehouses of the Liverpool & Manchester of 1830) isn't to be fought for by its custodians, what precedent does that set for other precious sites?

There are alternative if more expensive routes for the chord. If the public enquiry finds in favour of NR for the current proposal it will be a victory of financial expedience over irreplaceable heritage. What are our museums for if not to do all they can to protect the artifacts in their charge?

 

[Rail Ranger]

I understand from a reliable source that the Museum of Science & Industry in Manchester (MOSI) and the Friends of MOSI have withdrawn their objections after agreeing a deal with Network Rail. Other objectors are fighting on.

 

[Darren R]

I understand from a reliable source that the Museum of Science & Industry in Manchester (MOSI) and the Friends of MOSI have withdrawn their objections after agreeing a deal with Network Rail. Other objectors are fighting on.

Interesting; I wonder what the compromise is.

Who are the other objectors and what are their objections?

 

[Rail Ranger]

Mark Whitby, a Consulting Engineer, is a key objector. He is advocating a different alignment for the chord (to the north of Ordsall Lane Junction) so that the MOSI site would not be affected. Michael Crawley, the Chairman of the Friernds of MOSI, is also still objecting in his own right along the same lines as Mark Whitby. Both feel that it is unacceptable to build a new line across what should be a World Heritage site.

 

[The Snap]

Even if the Chord goes ahead on the proposed alignment, all the buildings and infrastructure at MoSI would be protected as listed structures, therefore couldn't be touched, let alone damaged...

 

[YorkshireBear]

The station is not being demolished so i don't see the problem.

 

[Nym]

Need I mention that the MOSI is owned by the Science Museum in London so isn't well, likely to give a damn because it's oop norf?

Heritage doesn't just include buildings by the way...

 

[SteveRainhill]

Even if the Chord goes ahead on the proposed alignment, all the buildings and infrastructure at MoSI would be protected as listed structures, therefore couldn't be touched, let alone damaged...

You can't construct a two-track railway through a contiguous group of listed structures without both 'touching' and 'damaging' them. In fact several structures will suffer 'substantial harm', in NR's own description, including partial or even total demolition (e.g. of the cast iron bridge over Water Street).

Listing does not mean absolute protection from demolition or redevelopment, only that it requires additional justification. This is true even of ordinary planning permission. The question is whether the justification exists in this case.

NR's documentation demonstrates clearly that it does, to my mind. If MOSI has withdrawn its objection, this strikes me as significant. EH is the most weighty of the remaining objectors, and even their objection relies on the 'option 15' variants which collectively suffer from the error of thinking that since Middlewood Locks is vacant land, it doesn't matter what is done with it. NR have done a very thorough, and critical, analysis of option 15. (I also drew attention in an earlier post, #355, to a significant inconsistency in EH's response to the proposals.)

 

[spongsdad]

NR are proposing to construct the Ordsall Chord in Manchester to link Deansgate station with Victoria. The proposed alignment is the cheapest, but it cuts across the end of the site of the Museum of Science & Industry. This has two negative effects on the museum's steam railway; it severs the main line connection, and it truncates the (already quite short run) to an impractical 100m or so.

The Public Enquiry is coming to an end, and MoSI had submitted an objection because of the above, and also because the new line will run within a few metres of the original 1830 buildings. This month, MoSI (part of the Science Museum Group) has accepted an undisclosed cash offer from NR to withdraw its objection. This seriously undermines other objectors, such as English Heritage, and if arguably the most significant railway heritage site in the world (the oldest railway station - original terminus and warehouses of the Liverpool & Manchester of 1830) isn't to be fought for by its custodians, what precedent does that set for other precious sites?

Welcome to the forums. I'm not sure if Bill Stanier is your moniker or your real name. Either way, it's a testament to one of the greatest Mechanical Engineers of the 20th Century. If you're related to the man who created the ubiquitous Black 5 and the supreme Duchess pacifics, then I congratulate you in having such an illustrious relative. If you chose it as a nom-de-plume, then I admire your good taste.

 

[Bill Stanier]

No relation. I wanted 'Sir William A Stanier FRS' but that's too long. The name was carried by one of my favorite loco types.

There are 3 issues for MoSI if the chord goes ahead as proposed:

1) The steam railway, with its replica 1830 Planet loco running through the original 1830 station will be so truncated as not to be viable to run except a shuttle of 100M or so (and it's unlikely MoSI will attract volunteers to prep a steam loco for 3 hours or so, and dispose at end of day, just to do a brief shuttle).

2) The main line connection will be lost.

3) A very busy main line railway will come within 23M of the 1830 station and 1830 warehouse, completely dominating it and ruining its ancient atmosphere.

 

[The Planner]

How often is the connection used? Wasnt it said earlier on that it has been about twice in 20 years? I presume the museum is paying for the upkeep of the connection?

 

[Bill Stanier]

How often is the connection used? Wasnt it said earlier on that it has been about twice in 20 years? I presume the museum is paying for the upkeep of the connection?

It's not true to say it's only been used twice in 20 years. I know of 4 uses in the very recent past and no doubt there are very many before that. However, the connection is little used compared to what it could be. Last time was a 'special' last year, and before that 47500 which derailed outside the site was stabled inside MoSI for quite a while (so it's a useful refuge off the main line and rail/road trans-shipment site as 47500 left by road), and Oliver Cromwell was stabled there for a week. the Royal Train hauled by Tornado also came into the site a while ago. However, of the 3 effects loss of the main line connection is the least important.

Having said that, there is no doubt that with a more 'rail minded' management in charge of this most important of railway heritage sites, far, far more use could and should be made of the link. MoSI have themselves to blame if the Enquiry conclude the link is little used therefore not a serious consideration.

The Museum pays for (as far as I know) the track its side of the gate to the main line. I seem to remember they also pay NR for the main line link as NR removed the connecting point for a while replacing it with plain track and MoSI insisted that as they were paying for the link(I have that second hand), it should be replaced (it was).

 

[Leylandlad]

Ironic that a museum (or its members or whoever they are) should object to future rail development.

Rail history is important, fascinating and valuable. It must not stand in the way of progress of today's and tomorrow's railway.

Eg...wasn't there a campaign a few years ago to get the GWML declared a world heritage site? Then they realised that would stop it being electrified :roll:

 

[Bill Stanier]

Leylandlad are you missing the point that the Chord can be built in a way that does not impinge on MoSI? MoSI are rightly not anti-rail developments; they just want such a valuable rail heritage site not to be seriously impacted.

Both the Chord and MoSI can co-exist just fine if NR use a different (and entirely viable) solution for the Chord at extra cost. NR have proposed the cheapest solution ignoring MoSI. That's why I'm disgusted with MoSI rolling over and taking NR's bribe to withdraw their objection. We can have both MoSI relatively unaffected, and have the Chord! That's what MoSI should be fighting for! They are abandoning their curatorial responsibilities by throwing in the towel! Even if they lose, they SHOULD fight!

 

[YorkshireBear]

How much cheaper though? If going the more expensive route would stop the project then the cheaper one should be taken.

 

[Leylandlad]

The future is more important than the past.

Get it built.

By the way, as you keep editing your posts Bill, it's hard to follow your argument.

 

[The Snap]

I agree that as much as possible should be done to protect the 1830s buildings etc, but NR clearly believe the best and most sensible route is the one proposed. As some have already said, the future of the railway is more important than the past.

Saying that, I'm not suggesting we go knocking down important parts of our history just for the crack...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The future is more important than the past.

Get it built.

Well said sir!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The future is more important than the past......Get it built.

Something similar once was said in County Meath when the M3 motorway line was seen to pass through the iconic site of the Hill of Tara.

 

[deltic08]

The future is more important than the past.

Get it built.

By the way, as you keep editing your posts Bill, it's hard to follow your argument.

That was Beeching's philosophy and we all regret it. You can look back at the past with hindsight but cannot predict the future by foresight.

 

[The Planner]

If the more expensive route is chosen (do we have any ideas of the difference in cost?) Who is going to pay for it? The Northern hub project will only have a finite amount of money to deliver and if you alter the chord then something else will just get value managed out.

 

[Bill Stanier]

NR have not proposed the 'best' route, they have proposed the cheapest route. Whether you think the extra money to build it avoiding MoSI is worth it depends on what price you put on what is arguably the most precious heritage railway site in the world.

MoSI's objection was not against the chord per se, but against the chord as presently proposed. That's a stand they, as custodians of the site, should rightly take. That they have reneged on that reflects badly on them.

The inspector, not NR, will decide on the 'best' solution. That's how it should be, but if the major objector simply rolls over the rest have their cases seriously weakened and dangerous precedents are set for any future (not just rail) heritage sites in danger from development.

 

[snowball]

No relation. I wanted 'Sir William A Stanier FRS' but that's too long. The name was carried by one of my favorite loco types.

Have you met Joseph Locke on the forum?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The inspector, not NR, will decide on the 'best' solution.

Inspectors at public inquiries have been known to make remarks to the effect that the inquiry is not a beauty contest between different options but an attempt to see whether the official proposal is good enough. They often recommend minor changes but are reluctant to recommend a complete redesign, which could cause huge delays and a further inquiry. And they don't make the final decision, the minister does.

 

[HowardGWR]

How often is the connection used? Wasnt it said earlier on that it has been about twice in 20 years? I presume the museum is paying for the upkeep of the connection?

I am sure it is the juxtaposition that is the main issue and not so much, if at all, the others. This is called 'the setting' by EH people. I must say i was shocked when i saw the plans and had thought there was a viaduct until someone put me right on that.

If the other poster who wrote 'get it built' would like to go along to the Inquiry and produce that as his evidence, I think he will find he gets rough treatment from the EH barrister!

 

[Baggypants]

The press have woken up to it a bit late
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...-news/mosi-ordsall-chord-steam-trains-7131494

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Has there been any recent comment from English Heritage since MOSI made its decision ?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Have you met Joseph Locke on the forum?

I doubt we could have ever met </wikipedia>

 

[snowball]

It has been claimed on Skyscrapercity that the director of the Museum of Science and Industry has told Museum volunteers that the ministerial decision on the T&W Act Order for the Chord (which I think NR was expecting in November) has been postponed until at least February.

Strange that this should emerge on the same day as the latest reports about delays to the electrification programme (see this thread).

 

[Senex]

It has been claimed on Skyscrapercity that the director of the Museum of Science and Industry has told Museum volunteers that the ministerial decision on the T&W Act Order for the Chord (which I think NR was expecting in November) has been postponed until at least February.

Strange that this should emerge on the same day as the latest reports about delays to the electrification programme (see this thread).

Mark Carne of Network Rail writing to Louise Ellmann at the end of June said:

"1.2 The Ordsall Chord remains on programme for completion by December 2016 and the public inquiry for the Transport and Works Act Order concluded last month. We are now awaiting the inspector's report and recommendation to be issued to the Secretary of State for his determination. Assuming a positive decision made by the end of the year, we can still achieve our planned timescales."

The implication of any delay in announcing the grant of an Order seems to be that the Chord itself cannot be completed on time. What does that do to plans for franchises, timetable-changes, etc?

But why is it that we are now so slow with any major civil engineering projects? We've just heard on Look North that dual carriageway for just 13 miles of the A1 in relatively open country is to take no less than 7 years to construct. And even going back 30 years, it took longer to electrify the London to Bedford railway in the C20 than it took to build it in the C19.