Liverpool Road and the Ordsall Curve.

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

One thing is sure - it has lasted since 1830 but if the attitude of some on this "preservation" forum is as cavalier as Orion's we might as well all give up and go home!

The MOSI volunteers have their hands tied behind their backs by the professional "cough" managers at MOSI but their feelings are crystal clear - Don't let them down now!

The curve - if we have to have it visited on us - could be redrawn to still permit a diamond crossover into MOSI. British Railways was careful to ensure specific provision for the connection when Liverpool Road was sold as a museum prospect in 1980.

Don't let the consultants and Network Rail undo all those years of goodwill and stop a third century of rail traffic over Water Street bridge!

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

It's a shame that MOSI will be cut off from the rail network but i really don't see how removing a mainline connection that's barely been used is a 'preservation' issue, the important thing is that the structures remain and are protected. Compared to the loss of London Bridge's trainshed for Thameslink this is a pretty minor price to pay for a major improvement to local and regional rail services which quite rightly should take precedent.

Chris

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

North Rode is a previously banned user, under a new pseudonym. His account is suspended.

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

I was involved with the delivery of 70013 Oliver Cromwell to MOSI on 24th March this year. She had worked a railtour from Edinburgh to Manchester after which she went on display there. I think she stayed a week or two.

Peter James

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

Quelle surprise!

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

You fail to mention one other important factor. The main line connection is less important to the majority of MOSI railway volunteers and visitors than retention of a decent length of running line, indeed the mainline connection is at this moment actually severed by removal of the points and has been for some months- I can verify this as I actually drove over Ordsall Lane Junction in a professional capacity today. Without the line over Water to the current junction or a new curve alongside the new alignment it will be confined to a meaningless short back and forth trundle. How many visitors will queue for a train ride that lasts half as long as the waiting time to get aboard? Not to mention the volunteers getting bored with a shorter run when they had more, simply regular railway operations on the MOSI site will no longer become viable. And with that will end a rare city centre steam operation and regular steam running through the world's oldest railway station. If that is not a heritage railway cause worth fighting for I don't know what is.

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

Of course it would be a shame to see the running line shortened and if i was a volunteer i'd be pretty unhappy too, but the benefits of the Ordsall Chord on local and regional services will always outweigh the loss of a virtually unused mainline connection and a truncated running line.

Chris

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

Those of us who regulalrly work over thre existing line nelieve it won't improve things much, have you ever been at Deansgate, Oxford Road or Picc when somethings gone wrong? The Castlefield Jct - Picc is the most intensively used double track section in Britain already the last thing needed is more trains. After a clear run over Chat Moss in 40 mins from Liverpool it can then take another 15 to get to Picc, no distance at all, as you plod signal to signal behind other traffic. Throw one of the many lengthy freightliner trains winding their way to/from Trafford Park through Picc delaying passenger services usually as they plod by and you have totally chaos! Unless there is a major change in service patterns or widening of this section and not just the proposed 2 new platforms at Picc, I struggle to see how adding more traffic to a bottleneck will bring so many so called improvements to the region! A lot of PR rubbish and brainwashing has been applied to this project!

Besides the chord could be built futher along over the old Lower Bailey Yard area, which is empty, derelict wasteland only occupied by the occasional group of travellers, and join into the Man Vic- Salford Crescent Line.

Also MOSI volunteers have consigned themselves to the fact it will happen but want to try and fight for an alternative running line if possible as part of the works. But are most stunned by the lack of negotiation from NMSI management to reach a deal slightly in our favour. Whilst realising that objecting to new rail developments would be unwise and tactless, provision in the scheme for them should have been taken into account. No doubt compensation will be arranged but that can't put back what will be lost! Enjoy steam in Central Manchester while you can!!!

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

I doubt most visitors to MOSI care about the length of the ride, if they did they would probably be at a preserved line instead.
to me if the station and sidings are intact and historical integrity maintained, the loss of a barely used connection isn't a great one, but maybe the museum should use the angle to get some compensation to improve its exhibition..is there a wish list ?

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

To clarify the running length platform buffer stop to water street gates is 300 yards. It would also render the current remaining track layout unviable as access past water street bridge is required to use the running loop and siding on the 1830s warehouse.

Assuming the chord runs through the Jesse James Bridge (see paragraph below) there is also a lot of archaeology beneath it that would be impacted by the works. A large part of the operations was housed next to the bridges and this included areas such as the stables and no doubt operational facilities. This is particularly relevant as I'm unaware that this area has been explored to date. The main reason for this is it is third party owned.

The artistic impression doing the rounds also appears to show the track running East of Jesse James Bridge (First railway carrying skew arch bridge and Grade 1. Referred to as Stephensons Bridge) This implies the chord cutting through the station masters section of the station building. Whilst some have highlighted that the station building has had slight modifications the station masters section has barely changed both externally and configuration inside. Now I know that and hope that this is not what is being proposed but I do feel that I need to go to the consultation to clarify exactly what is being proposed.

Duncan

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

Isn't the chord being built so TPE services from the north east to the airport can run via Man Vic, instead of reversing at Man Picc? I know when they arrive from the Guide Bridge direction they have to cross half the throat at Picc, then cross over to the other sde on departure to access the airport line. Wouldn't a flyover from the eastern side of Picc to the western side, south of the station, be an easier and less controversial option? Trains could still run into Picc and reverse, but depart towards the airport without conflicting with other traffic.

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

just a small point;

LORD FAULKNER OF WORCESTER;
He is president of the Heritage Railway Association,
also he is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the National Museum of Science and Industry, which now owns/runs MOSI in Manchester.
i wounder what his view of this is????
does he have a conflict of interest???? after all grade1 listed preserved railway being destroyed, a operating steam railway destroyed, the hard work of volunteers since the 1970s destroyed !!!

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

As you'd expect a flyover east of Piccadilly was the main alternative to the chord - there's some interesting info in the Manchester Hub Rail Study, page 25 onwards where 'Option 1' (flyover) and 'Option 2' (Ordsall Chord) are examined.

It concludes that the second option is cheaper to implement, better value for money, provides greater economic benefits, the use of Victoria is an improvement over the current situation, provides opportunities to phase the work for reasons of affordability/disruption, an analysis of the latter also reinforcing the case for the second option, and finally "..in terms of wider economic benefits to the North of England and meeting the conditional outputs, Option 2 outperforms Option 1. The issues of network performance and connectivity for the Calder Valley corridor are particular distinguishing differences".

The maximum capacity of the Castlefield Corridor is mentioned, apparently being derived from the through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly where the "two minutes reoccupation and two minutes dwell" limits trains to being four minutes apart between there and Castlefield Jn, an issue which the two extra platforms helps address.

Chris

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

"Artist's impressions", which these days are more likely to be computer-generated images, can only be made if there already is a conventional engineering / architectural drawing to feasibility standard, so the question to be asked is why the base material isn't published. The answer is usually because the promoters wish to avoid too much specificacy which could be challenged easily.

The rail link to MOSI is but one question; another is what will be the impact on the grade I listed bridge over the Irwell because the choices seem to be between removal and drastic intervention which would surely take away its provenance and question the continuation of listing. I suspect that EH will worry more about that than the question of rolling stock access to the Museum.

I think that we can all appreciate the desire of NR to avoid retention of the current access track alignment as this would entail the insertion of two diamond crossings on a tight curve, creating continuous maintenance problems and making superelevation impossible. The loss of the ability to run straight in from Liverpool doesn't necessarily mean that access elsewhere would not be possible. A third track could run concentric to the two main lines to join them towards Salford Central. I wonder what the cost would be?

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

On the subject of artist's impression, there are two of of the different bridge designs being considered for the bridge in this MEN article which NR are seeking people's views on - personally i prefer the second, much simpler design.

Chris

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

Both of which illustrate my point, that the public are offered unexceptional alternative designs for a new bridge without any clear indication of the impact on the grade I listed structure which, from the very woolly plans showing the project corridor, must be crossed at around 30 degrees. It seems that the Princes Bridge is to be wiped out but, whilst unfortunate, this would not be an insufferable loss. If the exhibitions feature conventional engineering drawings to at least 1:500 we will all see what are the implications.

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

I've just seen a new impression that shews the link flying over the site of the join from the MOSI so i don't know what all the fuss is about. Have I misunderstood what I see?

< Faster train travel in the Northwest | Granada - ITV News>

Any comments?

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

Yes, very much so. Have another look. There is no viaduct across the MOSI site. The new track goes right through it. Do you know the area?

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

That isn't a flyover you see, it's a wipe-out. A little thought or study of the large scale OS map, will show that grade separation is impossible.

 

Re: Liverpool Road and the Budget

Just to pick you up on this, I suspect you mean it is the first skewed RAILWAY bridge in the world, as there is definitely an older skewed canal bridge in Rochdale which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.