Ordsall Chord Service Changes

[D854_Tiger]

Does anyone know where details can be found of the proposed service changes that will result with the opening of the Ordsall Chord.

 

What services will Piccadilly lose, what services will Victoria gain and what new services will be made possible by the curve.

 

Also how will the new chord impact upon the two existing Liverpool routes.

 

From what I've been able to gather it seems TPE trains are to be concentrated on Victoria, rather than Piccadilly, and across to Liverpool via Chatt Moss, rather than via Warrington, but will those service still serve Piccadilly by a reversal and will any services (such as Manchester Airport -  Blackpool) now reverse at Victoria en-route.

 

How many additional through platforms are to be provided at Piccadilly and will the Ashburys route lose its main line services.

 

[ColinK]

I'm not sure about the services, but to answer the second part of your question, two extra tracks are supposed to be built between Piccadilly and Oxford Road (perhaps as far as the new junction for the Ordsall Curve), plus two extra through platforms at Piccadilly (P15 & 16). But I'm not sure if the extra tracks and platforms will actually be built, without them, the curve is pretty pointless.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I don't know the full details but it was proposed that trains currently running from the Leeds direction to Manchester Airport would run via Victoria and Piccadilly. This would take most TPE through services off the Guide Bridge - Piccadilly section, reducing the number of crossing moves and reversals at Piccadilly. May be that only the Hull terminators would still go that way. An extra train from Newcastle to the Airport via the Calder Valley was proposed but I don't know the progress on that one. Any re-routed or additional services via Oxford Road could cause chaos without the provision of the extra tracks. The current timetable is hardly robust as it is, just try catching any train from platforms 13/14 at Piccadilly and you will see.

[woodenhead]

The curve doesn't take any trains away from Piccadilly, it just routes them more efficiently around Manchester with more services to Victoria and less trains crossing the throat at Piccadilly opening the bottleneck that has existed ever since Trans Pennine services were first moved away from Victoria.

 

To get the full potential of the chord it was believed extra through platforms at Piccadilly would be required but, it looks like now that applying Thameslink technology is being considered to increase capacity without the massive infrastructure changes.  I would have thought they'd still want to extend platforms at Oxford Road and let the MCO-Warrington/Liverpool trains extend to Stockport or beyond so they don't have to turnback in Manchester.

 

In terms of actual tracks there wasn't anything I believe to increase beyond the two tracks, it was the station capacity that was being expanded only with longer platforms at Oxford road to increase flexibility there too, not as much stops at Deansgate these days.  Where there were proposed extensions to viaducts was around Oxford Rd station to allow the platforms to be lengthened in either direction and the aim was to reduce land grab to a minimum, not three or four tracking between Piccadilly and Oxford Rd.

 

This is a useful link: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/17669/item_4_-_northern_hub_-_network_rail_manchester_piccadilly_and_oxford_road_capacity_scheme_%E2%80%93_second_phase_of_consultation

Edited October 30, 2017 by woodenhead

[Reorte]

So not getting new platforms at Picadilly after all? That's a pity (the only new things I ever want are the ones that don't happen!). Even if the train capacity can be managed on 13/14 the passenger capacity around there is pretty close to breaking point.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Reorte

[PenrithBeacon]

So not getting new platforms at Picadilly after all? That's a pity (the only new things I ever want are the ones that don't happen!). Even if the train capacity can be managed on 13/14 the passenger capacity around there is pretty close to breaking point.

The pdf document mentions in its first paragraph the proposal for two new platforms.

[woodenhead]

The pdf document mentions in its first paragraph the proposal for two new platforms.

That was in 2014 - now the Transport Secretary has asked for more options that don't involve more platforms - he believes automated trains are the answer which is nice as he has specced this after TPE and Northern have placed orders for rolling stock which I am guessing didn't allow for retrofit of cab signalling / automation within the contracts signed.

 

So on the one hand he wants to save money by not electrifying tunnels or other difficult stretches of track and then wants to complicate things by putting in exotic signalling on a very short space of track that sees all sorts of services from all over the country including heavy freight from multiple operators.

 

Considering the complexity of cab signalling across several TOCS and freight companies, the fact that most of the land to be used at Piccadilly is open/derelict and there is a plan already they should just be allowed to get on with it and build the platforms

[62613]

I thought the original proposals were for four tracks throughout between Oxford Road and Piccadilly, with 2 extra platforms. There were objections from of the businesses around Piccadilly, in particular from those who didn't want to see the Star and Garter demolished. It seems strange that Manchester City Council are prepared to see this building stay, given the architectural vandalism going on around the City Centre. Surely a solution could have been found resembling that for Thameslink and Borough market in London?

 

As Reorte has said, if there are only two tracks between Oxford Rod and Piccadilly, services are going to be nigh on impossible to run. We have to hope the Port Salford and its associated rail schemes come to fruition.

Edited October 31, 2017 by 62613

[4630]

Does anyone know where details can be found of the proposed service changes that will result with the opening of the Ordsall Chord.

 

What services will Piccadilly lose, what services will Victoria gain and what new services will be made possible by the curve.

 

Also how will the new chord impact upon the two existing Liverpool routes.

 

From what I've been able to gather it seems TPE trains are to be concentrated on Victoria, rather than Piccadilly, and across to Liverpool via Chatt Moss, rather than via Warrington, but will those service still serve Piccadilly by a reversal and will any services (such as Manchester Airport -  Blackpool) now reverse at Victoria en-route.

 

How many additional through platforms are to be provided at Piccadilly and will the Ashburys route lose its main line services.

 

 

 

As I understand the position there will only be limited use of the Ordsall Chord from the timetable change on 10th December 2017.

 

Some Northern services, principally the Leeds to Manchester services via Bradford Interchange, which currently terminate at Manchester Victoria will be extended to use the Ordsall Chord to terminate at Oxford Road.  The following timetable gives details.

 

https://be803fe5c416e39d38ae-aa21086260d3bd4e072d597fe09c2e80.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/images/timetables/2017-10/winter-timetables/Northern-36-Leeds-to-Manchester-1017.pdf

 

As far as TransPennine Express services are concerned, I can't lay my hands on the timetable consultations at the moment, but IIRC the hourly Middlesborough/Manchester Airport services were to be re-routed via Manchester Victoria and the Ordsall Chord.  This was due to take effect from a later timetable change though.  I can't recall if it was the May 18 or December 18 change though.

 

HTH

[woodenhead]

I thought the original proposals were for four tracks throughout between Oxford Road and Piccadilly, with 2 extra platforms. There were objections from of the businesses around Piccadilly, in particular from those who didn't want to see the Star and Garter demolished. It seems strange that Manchester City Council are prepared to see this building stay, given the architectural vandalism going on around the City Centre. Surely a solution could have been found resembling that for Thameslink and Borough market in London?

 

As Reorte has said, if there are only two tracks between Oxford Rod and Piccadilly, services are going to be nigh on impossible to run. We have to hope the Port Salford and its associated rail schemes come to fruition.

Star and Garter is east of Manchester Piccadilly in the triangle between Mayfield and the through lines, it's the extra viaduct space for platforms that impacts that property though they feel it will survive albeit with different surroundings.  I think the original wording of the proposal sounded like four tracking but none of the plans have ever shown more than two tracks between Piccadilly and Oxford rd, all the plans show changes to viaducts around the station areas only - even with four tracking there would still be a bottleneck from Oxford road to Deansgate and there is nothing in the proposals about demolishing and rebuilding Deansgate with new junctions.  Four good sized platforms at each station will increase capacity as one train can dwell whilst another departs which in the current set up means queuing trains in Piccadilly which is not ideal and Oxford Road generally uses two platforms.

[D854_Tiger]

That was in 2014 - now the Transport Secretary has asked for more options that don't involve more platforms - he believes automated trains are the answer which is nice as he has specced this after TPE and Northern have placed orders for rolling stock which I am guessing didn't allow for retrofit of cab signalling / automation within the contracts signed.

 

 

That's just a classic political trick in aid of prevarication.

 

The Blair government did similar for a long time over HS2, claiming a MAGLEV solution needed to be evaluated knowing full well that was going to be both impracticable and unaffordable.

[TheSignalEngineer]

That was in 2014 - now the Transport Secretary has asked for more options that don't involve more platforms - he believes automated trains are the answer which is nice as he has specced this after TPE and Northern have placed orders for rolling stock which I am guessing didn't allow for retrofit of cab signalling / automation within the contracts signed.

 

Not holding my breath on this Digital Railway malarkey. After all, DafT promised Beardy that we would have Moving Block and Cab Signalling with 140mph running on WCML by 2005 and no major possessions for 10 years.

[4630]

Not holding my breath on this Digital Railway malarkey. After all, DafT promised Beardy that we would have Moving Block and Cab Signalling with 140mph running on WCML by 2005 and no major possessions for 10 years.

 

 

Whilst not seeking to defend DaFT in any way, I seem to recall that the signalling debacle on the WCML as part of the route modernisation in the late 90s early 2000s was largely down to Railtrack's mismanagement rather than the DaFT's involvement.

 

I'm not doubting that DaFT had a hand in it, but at the time, my recollection is that there was far less micro-(mis)management from Government.  It really was Railtrack's home brewed crock of sh1t.

[woodenhead]

Lets not also forget that just down the road from Manchester in Stockport the signalling was meant to be modernised years ago and the boxes abolished, those boxes as far as I am aware are still in use

[TheSignalEngineer]

Whilst not seeking to defend DaFT in any way, I seem to recall that the signalling debacle on the WCML as part of the route modernisation in the late 90s early 2000s was largely down to Railtrack's mismanagement rather than the DaFT's involvement.

 

I'm not doubting that DaFT had a hand in it, but at the time, my recollection is that there was far less micro-(mis)management from Government. It really was Railtrack's home brewed crock of sh1t.

Who let the franchise and agreed the service plan? Certainly wasn't down to Railtrack, although I agree that they made a first class mess of trying to manage the job. Still, what do you expect when they employed people with no knowledge of the industry to manage things like interdisciplinary interfaces within the programme. (Rant over)

[4630]

Who let the franchise and agreed the service plan? Certainly wasn't down to Railtrack, although I agree that they made a first class mess of trying to manage the job. Still, what do you expect when they employed people with no knowledge of the industry to manage things like interdisciplinary interfaces within the programme. (Rant over)

 

At the time rail franchises weren't let by DaFT.  They were let by OPRAF (Office of Passenger Rail Franchising) under the direction of the Franchise Director.  

 

I agree with your rant though, 100%.

 

This two part piece provides an interesting commentary of the events from all those years ago;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/01/transport.politics

 

and

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/01/transport.politics1

[TheSignalEngineer]

At the time rail franchises weren't let by DaFT.  They were let by OPRAF (Office of Passenger Rail Franchising) under the direction of the Franchise Director.  

 

 

Agreed, but under the 1993 Act the Franchising Director was required to exercise his statutory functions so as to fulfil the objectives given to him by the Secretary of State for Transport. It was a Government Department but had a paid Director rather than its own Minister so the Politicos had a 'Person to Blame' if it all went pear-shaped.

[phil-b259]

I thought the original proposals were for four tracks throughout between Oxford Road and Piccadilly, with 2 extra platforms. There were objections from of the businesses around Piccadilly, in particular from those who didn't want to see the Star and Garter demolished. It seems strange that Manchester City Council are prepared to see this building stay, given the architectural vandalism going on around the City Centre. Surely a solution could have been found resembling that for Thameslink and Borough market in London?

 

As Reorte has said, if there are only two tracks between Oxford Rod and Piccadilly, services are going to be nigh on impossible to run. We have to hope the Port Salford and its associated rail schemes come to fruition.

 

The limitation is actually NOT the 2 tracks along the corridor itself - its the number of platforms at the stations. This is demonstrated by the London bridge rebuild - there may well be 4 platforms for Charing Cross trains at London Bridge and 4 at Waterloo East but the track linking them is only double! (Had Thameslink not existed then the original Brough Market viaduct would have been perfectly adequate).

 

By increasing the number of platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Road, one train can be undertaking station duties while another arrives / departs from the adjacent platform with no need to increase the number of intermediate tracks.

 

Of course that is no good for freight - but long term I would have thought the goal should be to get rid of it from such central Manchester anyway.

[PenrithBeacon]

The limitation is actually NOT the 2 tracks along the corridor itself - its the number of platforms at the stations. This is demonstrated by the London bridge rebuild - there may well be 4 platforms for Charing Cross trains at London Bridge and 4 at Waterloo East but the track linking them is only double! (Had Thameslink not existed then the original Brough Market viaduct would have been perfectly adequate).

 

By increasing the number of platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Road, one train can be undertaking station duties while another arrives / departs from the adjacent platform with no need to increase the number of intermediate tracks.

 

Of course that is no good for freight - but long term I would have thought the goal should be to get rid of it from such central Manchester anyway.

Fully agree with this post. But, having said that, it is true that both the LNW and LYR promoted and built Manchester avoiding lines in the 1860s which did little more than limit the expansion of freight services through the city centre.

 

 

I believe there are plans afoot to re-route the Trafford Park Freightliners away from the MSJ&A. I don't know whether there is any freight through Victoria.

 

Regards

[4630]

 I don't know whether there is any freight through Victoria.

 

 

 

 

Biomass, stone and bin liners (and the corresponding empty movements) are all regulars at the moment, although the majority is overnight.

Edited November 1, 2017 by 4630

[woodenhead]

Fully agree with this post. But, having said that, it is true that both the LNW and LYR promoted and built Manchester avoiding lines in the 1860s which did little more than limit the expansion of freight services through the city centre.

 

 

I believe there are plans afoot to re-route the Trafford Park Freightliners away from the MSJ&A. I don't know whether there is any freight through Victoria.

 

Regards

The current route out of Trafford Park can only be through the corridor - Holyhead and trains to the East used to use the Fallowfield loop but that is neither available nor required any longer as all traffic goes out to Crewe. 

 

What is changing is probably the location of the Freighliner and intermodal terminals themselves - Peel who own great swathes of land around the Ship Canal are building a new rail linked container terminal and inland port by the Ship Canal just next to the Barton High Level bridge.  Currently it is Warehousing that is going up whilst the road infrastructure is completed (new dual carriageway and lifting bridge over the canal), the rail route will link in a triangle to the Chat Moss route offering an electrified route to all points and crucially for the MCO-Picc corridor with the WCML North and South at Earlestown.  

Edited November 1, 2017 by woodenhead