TRANSPORT | Piccadilly To Victoria Direct Rail Link | Ordsall Curve

[Jongeman]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

However I can only conclude that you understand very little about how government works.

****

[Never give up]

Article from March issue of Modern Railways.

[Joseph_Locke]

* cough *

Cor, just found this thread in a cupboard, only gets dusted off every year or so!

I can confirm that the Ordsall Chord* is being developed as a key part of the Northern Hub study by Network Rail, as are more through platforms at Piccadilly and work at Deal Street and Victoria.

Some kind of readout is to be expected in March, I'd say.

*That's NR's name and I rather think we're stuck with it...

[heatonparkincakes]

You do realise that you will hailed as this season's "scoop" and thus be ripped by the "print" media if this is true.

I hope so............................

[Gdogg371]

i cant believe that we are having to barter with central government over 200 yards worth of track.

[Cherguevara]

Deal Street?

[Local Lad]

Working at the forgotten station that is Vic I can only hope the plans come to fruition eventually. Deal Street I think actually ceases to be a street at all Cherguevara but it still shows up on Google Maps. Used to be quite an important junction at one time but not much remains.

I dont think the curve would start all the way up there though.

[Joseph_Locke]

Originally Posted by Local Lad

Working at the forgotten station that is Vic I can only hope the plans come to fruition eventually..

Didn't the Northern Hub press release talk about CP5 implementation ? That's 2014 onwards - blink of an eye in railway project development terms.

I dont think the curve would start all the way up there though.

If you had six platforms at Salford Central it might...

Sorry, for all those googlers: Deal Street Junction is east of Salford Central station between Chapel St and Bury St. bridges. I've never found Deal Street itself, it probably disappeared when the railway was widened in 1844. By all rights it should be Bury St. Junction.

You do realise that you will hailed as this season's "scoop" and thus be ripped by the "print" media if this is true.

I'm not sure it's that much of a secret if I've got to hear to hear about it!

I'll keep straining my ears for more nuggets...

[Vince Noir]

Work is indeed going on in the background, with Network Rail preparing the various schemes which form the 'Northern Hub' as a candidate for CP5 funding.

Unfortunately I can forsee a problem, which for the moment is being ignored, mostly becasue of the fragmented state of our rail system.

Network Rail can design the scheme and prepare a business case, but at the end of the day they don't pay for the day to day operation of the rail network, the Government do.

While the capital cost may only be ~£500m for some very good, very worthwhile schemes (I'm completely in favour by the way!), what gets ignored is the extra subsidy required year on year to operate the '700 extra trains a day' or whatever it is Network Rail claim in their lobbying info.

At the end of the day, as McNulty vfm study is highlighting, rail in the north is heavily subsidised, both Northern and to a slightly lesser extent TPE. I don't think this is a bad thing, far from it, but any scheme which increases the number of rail services in the North will require extra subsidy. Simple as. Even if enhancment of services gets more people on rail and reduces the subsidy per passenger, you're still talking about a hefty net increase in subsidy required.

It is here where the Northern Hub falls over im my opinion. Everything in the industry right now is about reducing cost & subsidy. No transport minister in the foreseable future will endorse the significant increase in subsidy requirements that the full Northern Hub entails. No matter what the overall socio-economic business case says, and no matter how high the BCR. This will be decided on affordability, and not for the initial capital outlay, but the ongoing requirement for subsidy.

I expect we'll see some of the individual schemes go ahead, but there will be a price to pay in either significantly increased fares or cuts elsewhere.

[Joseph_Locke]

My understanding is that you can't have any more trains at all if you don't sort Manchester out. Central Manchester is a rat-bag of afterthought two track chord lines, at-grade crossing moves and missing platforms. If any kind of growth is going to be supported something needs to happen?

Lastly, doesn't the great BCR Engine include subsidy in the C element?

[Vince Noir]

Originally Posted by Joseph_Locke

My understanding is that you can't have any more trains at all if you don't sort Manchester out. Central Manchester is a rat-bag of afterthought two track chord lines, at-grade crossing moves and missing platforms. If any kind of growth is going to be supported something needs to happen?

Lastly, doesn't the great BCR Engine include subsidy in the C element?

But that's the problem. Growth = more subsidy. You can have a fantastic BCR but affordability is key.

How many additional vehicles have Northern got so far under HLOS? It wasn't easy then and it ain't getting easier

[nerd]

Originally Posted by Vince Noir

But that's the problem. Growth = more subsidy. You can have a fantastic BCR but affordability is key.

How many additional vehicles have Northern got so far under HLOS? It wasn't easy then and it ain't getting easier

In immediate terms you are right Vince, but not in the long-term; and the Northern Hub proposals are all about long-term thinking.

It is not always the case that commuter rail can only function with a subsidy, South London being the clear contrary case. Of course London is much bigger, but that shows that there will eventually be some degree of growth which would allow services to operate without subsidy.

Which is not in the real world of Manchester; but it does point to the thinking behind the Northern Hub proposals. The current rail system as it is in Manchester consumes very large annual subsidies. Some of this is simply inevitable; you cannot run suburban heavy rail in a conurbation the size of Manchester and expect to cover operating costs with fares. But much of the subsidy requirement is generated by the inefficiencies forced on the train operators due to the poor configuration of track and stations.

So, the argument goes, the Northern Hub proposals would generate increased services, which would need subsidy; but they would reduce inefficiencies on existing services - so reducing their subsidy as a proportion of their total turnover. Overall, it is claimed, the new system in total will consume proportionally less subsidy than now, while carrying many more people.

For example, the Castlefield curve (plus redevelopment of Victoria) would allow all the airport shuttle to terminate at Victoria. But this would have the additonal virtue of creating a fast, frequent, PiccVic service - which would probably generate considerable cross-city business in its own right.

The key reason why commuter heavy rail requires operating subsidy, while light rail does not, is that rail generates very little business outside of peak commuter flows. At 6.30 p.m on a Friday, the trains into Manchester are nearly empty, but the trams are packed solid. If it is possible to reconfifgure track and stations so as to provide a higher frequency of operation along commuter lines, then it is highly likely that much more off-peak business could be attracted, and that would greatly reduce the need for subsidy.

[Vince Noir]

Originally Posted by nerd

In immediate terms you are right Vince, but not in the long-term; and the Northern Hub proposals are all about long-term thinking.

It is not always the case that commuter rail can only function with a subsidy, South London being the clear contrary case. Of course London is much bigger, but that shows that there will eventually be some degree of growth which would allow services to operate without subsidy.

Which is not in the real world of Manchester; but it does point to the thinking behind the Northern Hub proposals. The current rail system as it is in Manchester consumes very large annual subsidies. Some of this is simply inevitable; you cannot run suburban heavy rail in a conurbation the size of Manchester and expect to cover operating costs with fares. But much of the subsidy requirement is generated by the inefficiencies forced on the train operators due to the poor configuration of track and stations.

So, the argument goes, the Northern Hub proposals would generate increased services, which would need subsidy; but they would reduce inefficiencies on existing services - so reducing their subsidy as a proportion of their total turnover. Overall, it is claimed, the new system in total will consume proportionally less subsidy than now, while carrying many more people.

For example, the Castlefield curve (plus redevelopment of Victoria) would allow all the airport shuttle to terminate at Victoria. But this would have the additonal virtue of creating a fast, frequent, PiccVic service - which would probably generate considerable cross-city business in its own right.

The key reason why commuter heavy rail requires operating subsidy, while light rail does not, is that rail generates very little business outside of peak commuter flows. At 6.30 p.m on a Friday, the trains into Manchester are nearly empty, but the trams are packed solid. If it is possible to reconfifgure track and stations so as to provide a higher frequency of operation along commuter lines, then it is highly likely that much more off-peak business could be attracted, and that would greatly reduce the need for subsidy.

I agree with much of what you say, it will bring efficiencies of operation, but while we still have 10p per mile PTE season tickets, investment in the rail in the north will always entail additional subsidy, regardless of growth.

[WatcherZero]

The subsidy comes about in different ways, true the north has huge fare subsidy to operate services, but then the south has 4x the amount of capital investment provided by the state. Its just subsidy in a different way.

Longer trains, increased capacity leads to an increase in revenue. More passengers along the same lines, greater number of services increases effiecency and will contribute to the reduction in the need of subsidies long term.

[Joseph_Locke]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

The subsidy comes about in different ways, true the north has huge fare subsidy to operate services, but then the south has 4x the amount of capital investment provided by the state. Its just subsidy in a different way.

Manchester (Greater Manchester population 2.2m) - Northern Hub (£500m, maybe), Lancashire Triangle Electrification (£not sure, but probably no more than £100m, and not totally Manchester), a bit of NSIP (£10m at most).

London (Greater London population 8.5m) - Crossrail (£15,900m, current best guess), Thameslink Programme (£5,500m), ELL (£1,000m so far).

So population x4, investment x37.

Longer trains, increased capacity leads to an increase in revenue. More passengers along the same lines, greater number of services increases effiecency and will contribute to the reduction in the need of subsidies long term.

Fancy starting a political party? You have my vote.

[madferret]

Originally Posted by Joseph_Locke

I'm not sure it's that much of a secret if I've got to hear to hear about it!

I'll keep straining my ears for more nuggets...

It's mentioned in the DfT's InterCity West Coast consultation document published last week.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2011-01/

Network Rail’s preferred scheme involves making more intensive use of existing infrastructure and the creation of a new section of railway west of Manchester city centre (this is known as the Ordsall Curve). This would allow trains to travel between Manchester Victoria and Manchester Piccadilly stations and beyond to Manchester Airport, thereby relieving significant congestion pinch points. New through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly would be built allowing more trains to cross Manchester. This would ease the congestion at the two existing through platforms (13 and 14).

Note the name. Logical, I suppose as Castlefield Curve is the name of the existing railway chord.

[Owd Lanky]

Originally Posted by Joseph_Locke

My understanding is that you can't have any more trains at all if you don't sort Manchester out. Central Manchester is a rat-bag of afterthought two track chord lines, at-grade crossing moves and missing platforms. If any kind of growth is going to be supported something needs to happen?

So is the Northern Hub going to sort out the two track chords and at grade crossings or will it add just another 2 track chord with at grade junctions?

What hope 6 platform salford central, quad tracks salford central to Ordsall, Salford Central to Eccles 2 tracks lifted up and over Deansgate to Salford Crescent route?

[Gdogg371]

Originally Posted by Owd Lanky

So is the Northern Hub going to sort out the two track chords and at grade crossings or will it add just another 2 track chord with at grade junctions?

What hope 6 platform salford central, quad tracks salford central to Ordsall, Salford Central to Eccles 2 tracks lifted up and over Deansgate to Salford Crescent route?

the ultimate scenario would be grade seperated crossings at ardwick and deansgate junction, two extra platforms at piccadilly, the track being 4 tracked down to salford central (via the ordsall curve) with all of its original platforms reopened, then 4 tracked to victoria (all electrified of course).

i think from what i have read, we will get two extra platforms at piccadilly, two tracks remaining in place, the ordsall curve and services being rerouted to victoria.

someone else on here might be able to correct me on this, but i wasnt aware that the reopening of extra platforms at salford central was part of the northern hub.

[Joseph_Locke]

Originally Posted by Gdogg371

the ultimate scenario would be grade seperated crossings at ardwick and deansgate junction, two extra platforms at piccadilly, the track being 4 tracked down to salford central (via the ordsall curve) with all of its original platforms reopened, then 4 tracked to victoria (all electrified of course).

i think from what i have read, we will get two extra platforms at piccadilly, two tracks remaining in place, the ordsall curve and services being rerouted to victoria.

someone else on here might be able to correct me on this, but i wasnt aware that the reopening of extra platforms at salford central was part of the northern hub.

It isn't an NR scheme, but it is on Salford URC's menu and has been looked at in similar terms ,coz if you sort the chord, Ordsall La. Jn and Vic., then Salford Central changes anyway.

As to the rest i couldn't comment (yet).

[nerd]

Originally Posted by Gdogg371

the ultimate scenario would be grade seperated crossings at ardwick and deansgate junction, two extra platforms at piccadilly, the track being 4 tracked down to salford central (via the ordsall curve) with all of its original platforms reopened, then 4 tracked to victoria (all electrified of course).

i think from what i have read, we will get two extra platforms at piccadilly, two tracks remaining in place, the ordsall curve and services being rerouted to victoria.

someone else on here might be able to correct me on this, but i wasnt aware that the reopening of extra platforms at salford central was part of the northern hub.

Indeed, but my understanding is that the biggest gain in Northern Hub proposals comes from building the orsall/castlefield curve, even without the other elements. The key is to reroute the east-west through trains (Liverpool - Leeds and beyond) via Victoria rather than Piccadilly, thus reducing the inter-city traffic along the Oxford Road viaduct. This would then imply that both the airport shuttle, and airport-bound services from the North East, would be routed via Victoria along the new curve, and hence would need the construction of two extra platforms (15/16) at Piccadilly. Which would end the current problems produced when airport-bound trains from Leeds reverse at Piccadilly, and have to cross the station throat to get onto the airport line.