Should the Hadfield/Glossop line be converted to Metrolink?

[Bletchleyite]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...he-rose-hill-marple-line.208857/#post-4758773

Conversion of the Glossop line would be more difficult unless the quadruple lines from Ashburys to Guide Bridge were reinstated and a flyover created between Guide Bridge and Flowery Field for the trams. It would also shut the door on any possible reinstatement of the Woodhead line.

I'm not sure there's really much benefit in converting Hadfield/Glossop. It's already a 25kV wired "S-Bahn", and there's scope to increase frequency if it got busier (it was 3tph for a bit). OK, that's not much different to Altrincham, but I think that was more picked because (a) it's a bit posh, so higher demand at high Metrolink fares, and (b) you had to pick somewhere to link to Bury, which was going to need something doing to it because the third rail kit was life expired, and (c) it got something off Castlefield.

 

[Ianno87]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...he-rose-hill-marple-line.208857/#post-4758773



I'm not sure there's really much benefit in converting Hadfield/Glossop. It's already a 25kV wired "S-Bahn", and there's scope to increase frequency if it got busier (it was 3tph for a bit). OK, that's not much different to Altrincham, but I think that was more picked because (a) it's a bit posh, so higher demand at high Metrolink fares, and (b) you had to pick somewhere to link to Bury, which was going to need something doing to it because the third rail kit was life expired, and (c) it got something off Castlefield.

I agree - I think it works quite well as a heavy rail 'Metro'. Only improvement might be to up it to 4tph (2tph to each of Glossop/Hadfield) and have Glossop trains skip a few stations.

If Guide Bridge-Stalybridge gets wired possibly add 2tph Stalybridge-Piccadilly serving the 'inner' stations (e.g. Fairfield)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree - I think it works quite well as a heavy rail 'Metro'. Only improvement might be to up it to 4tph (2tph to each of Glossop/Hadfield) and have Glossop trains skip a few stations.

If Guide Bridge-Stalybridge gets wired possibly add 2tph Stalybridge-Piccadilly serving the 'inner' stations (e.g. Fairfield)

I think I'd take the Merseyrail approach and just have everything call at all stations until Dinting, it's nice and simple and increases ridership. If I took anything out of stopping at intermediates it'd be the DMU services to Marple/Rose Hill. That does mean long runs like Southports and Chesters are a bit slow, but nobody actually seems to be particularly bothered by that.

(I know some Chesters miss Capenhurst, but that's just because stopping there would require one more diagram for the Chester line; I reckon with the Class 777s they will stop everything there again just to keep it simple)

 

[Ianno87]

I think I'd take the Merseyrail approach and just have everything call at all stations, it's nice and simple and increases ridership. If I took anything out of stopping at intermediates it'd be the DMU services to Marple/Rose Hill. That does mean long runs like Southports and Chesters are a bit slow, but nobody actually seems to be particularly bothered by that.

(I know some Chesters miss Capenhurst, but that's just because stopping there would require one more diagram for the Chester line; I reckon with the Class 777s they will stop everything there again just to keep it simple)

Glossop-Manchester is a sizeable market, up against the M67 (when it's not congested...), so worth lopping a few minutes off the journey time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Glossop-Manchester is a sizeable market, up against the M67 (when it's not congested...), so worth lopping a few minutes off the journey time.

Yet Merseyrail Chesters load really well despite being quite slow, and Liverpool is probably less nasty to drive in at busy times than Manchester. Frequency is your big selling point - a fast half hourly service is all very well, but if the timings don't suit your journey is effectively extended by longer than a 15 minute frequency.

It's a pity Dinting isn't before the junction, you could run 4tph of double units and split/join there.

 

[Ianno87]

Yet Merseyrail Chesters load really well despite being quite slow, and Liverpool is probably less nasty to drive in at busy times than Manchester. Frequency is your big selling point - a fast half hourly service is all very well, but if the timings don't suit your journey is effectively extended by longer than a 15 minute frequency.

It's a pity Dinting isn't before the junction, you could run 4tph of double units and split/join there.

For simplicity/economy, I'd do 4tph Glossop (the bigger market) with a Dinting-Hadfield shuttle, with suitable signallimg modifications at Dinting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For simplicity/economy, I'd do 4tph Glossop (the bigger market) with a Dinting-Hadfield shuttle, with suitable signallimg modifications at Dinting.

TBH I think in that case I'd do it as it is now, i.e. go Manchester-Glossop-Hadfield-Glossop-Manchester. People value through services more than a few minutes, generally, and that also provides a useful Hadfield <-> Glossop service, and I don't think that would require any more units than what you propose, certainly if not every train did that.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Glossop / Hadfield is already at capacity due to the single line sections. Direct replacement by trams would not solve this problem. Redoubling for trams would be slightly easier than for trains as you can have shorter loops with sharper turnouts. Croydon Tramlink successfully operates at high frequency on single track sections.

When the 20 minute frequency operated, in order to reduce the reversal times at Glossop, a different driver stepped into the rear cab to take the train forwards, leaving the first driver in the now rear cab to do the second reversal at Hadfield.

An increase in train frequency and/or an an increase in train length would be my first step to provide greater passenger capacity.

Conversion to tram-style operation would be less attractive if that involved on-road sections. The Ashton-under-Lyme service feels painfully slow compared to what you know could be achieved with a fully segregated alignment. Salford Quays feels slow and has too many sharp corners. I guess the Trafford Centre line has the same pitfalls despite being built with all the previous experience.

 

[Ianno87]

Glossop / Hadfield is already at capacity due to the single line sections. Direct replacement by trams would not solve this problem.

With the current running times, you can do Dinting-Glossop-Dinting 4 times per hour with about a 5 minute turnround time at Glossop and a 3 minute re-occupation of the single line at Dinting.

Or you split the 4tph as half-and-half with a unit heading down to Glossop and back whilst a unit is 'shut in' at Hadfield, and vice-versa.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Glossop / Hadfield is already at capacity due to the single line sections.

It's not. You can run 3tph and this has been done in the past but it didn't increase ridership enough to keep it.

 

[Starmill]

There was still 3tph at peak times, it simply brings the third side of the triangle into use.

 

[FQTV]

Speaking as a Glossop line user, the one thing that I have often thought would make quite a difference would be TPE calling with at least some services at Guide Bridge.

That would enable use of that as an interchange point rather than trekking all the way into Piccadilly and back out again for anyone travelling to and from the likes of Huddersfield, Leeds, and points East and North. Timewise, it would save about twenty minutes each way assuming comparable connections, plus sightly increasing the effective capacity of services between Guide Bridge and Piccadilly.

The current (even STP) timetables wouldn't support it, I don't think, but future recasts might, I suppose.

Whatever, I wouldn't like to see it as a Metrolink route.

 

[Ianno87]

Speaking as a Glossop line user, the one thing that I have often thought would make quite a difference would be TPE calling with at least some services at Guide Bridge.

That would enable use of that as an interchange point rather than trekking all the way into Piccadilly and back out again for anyone travelling to and from the likes of Huddersfield, Leeds, and points East and North. Timewise, it would save about twenty minutes each way assuming comparable connections, plus sightly increasing the effective capacity of services between Guide Bridge and Piccadilly.

The current (even STP) timetables wouldn't support it, I don't think, but future recasts might, I suppose.

Whatever, I wouldn't like to see it as a Metrolink route.

Should TransPennine get fully wired, a Piccadilly-Guide Bridge-Stalybridge-Huddersfield-whereever semi-fast service operated by EMUs wouldn't be a bad shout.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

As I'm sure most would agree, making Hadfield and Glossop trams is terrible. In theory, it's better as heavy rail and can be made better. If you bothered to improve signalling headways, infrastructure at Dinting, and two platforms at Hadfield and Glossop you could run half-hourly both "clockwise" and "anti-clockwise" with a half-hourly service being "all stops" and half-hourly cutting out smaller stops to improve journey times.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I think that would be a shame as it would undermine the case for a brand new line between Sheffield & Manchester with most of it in a tunnel.

The easiest way would be to use the line to Stocksbridge steel works before heading off somewhere Westwards since the nearest rail connection is at either Hadfield or Glossop it would be sensible to use the existing line for the remainder of the journey into central Manchester.

Obviously you wouldn't be able to do that if it was converted into a tram line!

 

[D365]

Obviously you wouldn't be able to do that if it was converted into a tram line!

If you're going to be spending big money anyway, a tram train would be the way to do it.

Though personally I wouldn't want to be mixing trams with Manchester <> Sheffield trains - whether that's at Glossop, Marple or otherwise!

 

[A0]

I think that would be a shame as it would undermine the case for a brand new line between Sheffield & Manchester with most of it in a tunnel.

The easiest way would be to use the line to Stocksbridge steel works before heading off somewhere Westwards since the nearest rail connection is at either Hadfield or Glossop it would be sensible to use the existing line for the remainder of the journey into central Manchester.

Obviously you wouldn't be able to do that if it was converted into a tram line!

It's unlikely the Woodhead line (or a new alignment through the Peak District National Park) is ever going to move forward.

I thought NR already had proposals to increase capacity on the Hope Valley line which would more than cover any additional demand for travel between Sheffield and Manchester.

Had BR followed Beeching's proposal they'd have culled the Hope Valley and retained Matlock - Chinley and Woodhead (neither of which were ear-marked for closure by Beeching). Instead BR kept the route that had been proposed for closure and closed the two the good Doctor suggested retaining. Amazingly he gets blamed for those closures.....

I think the biggest issues with Woodhead are -reopening doesn't reconnect anywhere significant to the rail network, it's through a national park so any new alignments etc will be difficult to justify, it brings you into Sheffield the "wrong way" to gain access to Sheffield station.

So Hadfield / Glossop are probably destined to remain the terminus of a commuter line from Manchester - probably a bit far out to convert to Metrolink (yes, I know Rochdale's the same distance, but Rochdale still has a heavy rail line into Manchester so it has the best of both worlds).

 

[Bletchleyite]

So Hadfield / Glossop are probably destined to remain the terminus of a commuter line from Manchester - probably a bit far out to convert to Metrolink (yes, I know Rochdale's the same distance, but Rochdale still has a heavy rail line into Manchester so it has the best of both worlds).

While people no doubt do use Metrolink all the way to Rochdale, that's not really what it's for - it's quicker by heavy rail. It's more about local journeys in the area once you get past Oldham itself, really.

 

[A0]

While people no doubt do use Metrolink all the way to Rochdale, that's not really what it's for - it's quicker by heavy rail. It's more about local journeys in the area once you get past Oldham itself, really.

You really have to not care about the journey time to take ML over the train - from Victoria to Rochdale is 13 mins by the quickest train and 20 mins for a stopper. It's 45 minutes on Metrolink.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You really have to not care about the journey time to take ML over the train - from Victoria to Rochdale is 13 mins by the quickest train and 20 mins for a stopper. It's 45 minutes on Metrolink.

Possibly even quicker by bus than tram (like Eccles)?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I think the biggest issues with Woodhead are -reopening doesn't reconnect anywhere significant to the rail network, it's through a national park so any new alignments etc will be difficult to justify, it brings you into Sheffield the "wrong way" to gain access to Sheffield station.

Not to mention the 400kv electric cables now running through the 1950s tunnel.

 

[Ianno87]

Possibly even quicker by bus than tram (like Eccles)?

Fastest bus to Rochdale is/was the 17 in about an hour or so.

 

[tbtc]

Something needs to be done.

Taking around forty minutes for Manchester - Glossop (a distance of under fifteen miles) - enthusiasts bang on about the amazing acceleration skills of the 90mph 323s (e.g. when compared to 319s) but the Glossop line doesn't seem a great advert for them. Maybe four/hour with some skip stopping would speed things up a bit but there's not many stations to skip, so it'd only be a minute or two, and would mean complications for pathing around the triangle. Maybe half hourly to Hadfield and half hourly to Glossop and turn the north-eastern side of the triangle into a token parliamentary service?

For me, I think a "solution" would be to treat Glossop the same as New Mills and Rose Hill (Marple) - same traction - whether "tram"/ "tram-train"/ "EMU".

If it's EMU then that means something that can utilise the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly fairly well, in the way that 333s interwork at Leeds to avoid hogging platforms. If it's tram-based then you've got various services to run through in central Manchester.

Forget about grand designs of Woodhead, focus on something that will be of practical use to everyday passengers.

 

[Ianno87]

enthusiasts bang on about the amazing acceleration skills of the 90mph 323s (e.g. when compared to 319s) but the Glossop line doesn't seem a great advert for them.

Though on Glossop's case, the acceleration for the number of stops probably cancels out the speedy dwell times that used to be achieved with slam door stock.

 

[yorksrob]

Something needs to be done.

Taking around forty minutes for Manchester - Glossop (a distance of under fifteen miles) - enthusiasts bang on about the amazing acceleration skills of the 90mph 323s (e.g. when compared to 319s) but the Glossop line doesn't seem a great advert for them. Maybe four/hour with some skip stopping would speed things up a bit but there's not many stations to skip, so it'd only be a minute or two, and would mean complications for pathing around the triangle. Maybe half hourly to Hadfield and half hourly to Glossop and turn the north-eastern side of the triangle into a token parliamentary service?

For me, I think a "solution" would be to treat Glossop the same as New Mills and Rose Hill (Marple) - same traction - whether "tram"/ "tram-train"/ "EMU".

If it's EMU then that means something that can utilise the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly fairly well, in the way that 333s interwork at Leeds to avoid hogging platforms. If it's tram-based then you've got various services to run through in central Manchester.

It's a perfectly good suburban services in most respects.

The biggest issue is the slow crawl between Guide Bridge and Piccadilly, which of course is an issue for all heavy rail services reaching Piccadilly from the East. They could do with looking at that.

Anything else is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[A0]

Something needs to be done.

Taking around forty minutes for Manchester - Glossop (a distance of under fifteen miles) - enthusiasts bang on about the amazing acceleration skills of the 90mph 323s (e.g. when compared to 319s) but the Glossop line doesn't seem a great advert for them.

Not sure where you get 40 mins from? NR journey planner says 31/32 mins with 8 intermediate stops.

By comparison Hatfield - Finsbury Park, also 15 miles, using brand new Desiros and 10 intermediate stops also takes 30 mins, though I suspect the linespeed on the ECML, even on the slow lines, is higher than the Glossop line.

 

[tbtc]

It's a perfectly good suburban services in most respects.

The biggest issue is the slow crawl between Guide Bridge and Piccadilly, which of course is an issue for all heavy rail services reaching Piccadilly from the East. They could do with looking at that.

Anything else is a solution looking for a problem.

You might be able to trim a minute or two off the Piccadilly end of the route, but it's still going to keep Glossop/ Hadfield the same duration for Manchester commuters as Dewsbury/ Stoke/ Preston, despite being around thirteen miles as the crow flies from central Manchester - not very attractive for passengers - no wonder the M67 is so busy!

But, if you like keeping things the way they were under British Rail then fair enough.

Not sure where you get 40 mins from? NR journey planner says 31/32 mins with 8 intermediate stops.

By comparison Hatfield - Finsbury Park, also 15 miles, using brand new Desiros and 10 intermediate stops also takes 30 mins, though I suspect the linespeed on the ECML, even on the slow lines, is higher than the Glossop line.

Looking at how long it takes to travel via Hadfield - it was around thirty seven minutes when I checked earlier (though maybe that was a bad time of the week for comparisons, I don't know)

 

[yorksrob]

You might be able to trim a minute or two off the Piccadilly end of the route, but it's still going to keep Glossop/ Hadfield the same duration for Manchester commuters as Dewsbury/ Stoke/ Preston, despite being around thirteen miles as the crow flies from central Manchester - not very attractive for passengers - no wonder the M67 is so busy!

But, if you like keeping things the way they were under British Rail then fair enough.

Given that the alternatives would be the same or slower, why not.

 

[A0]

You might be able to trim a minute or two off the Piccadilly end of the route, but it's still going to keep Glossop/ Hadfield the same duration for Manchester commuters as Dewsbury/ Stoke/ Preston, despite being around thirteen miles as the crow flies from central Manchester - not very attractive for passengers - no wonder the M67 is so busy!

On the occasions I've used the M67 I don't think "busy" is even vaguely close. Compared to say the M1 between MK and Luton it's positively deserted.

And comparing Stoke journey times to Glossop isn't an appropriate comparison. The only way you can do that journey in 30 mins is on a limited stop long distance service. The Stoke stoppers take almost an hour.

Compare the stoppers from Macclesfield - similar distance from Piccadilly to Glosdop - and you're looking at a shade over 30 mins, so effectively the same.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

On the occasions I've used the M67 I don't think "busy" is even vaguely close. Compared to say the M1 between MK and Luton it's positively deserted.

Might not be quite as busy as the M1 but often at certain times of the day there can be biggish traffic queues at the Western end of the M67 (junction with M60 motorway) and, when travelling in the other direction, at the Eastern end (Mottram roundabout). Can also be a pain negotiating Mottram hill / Mottram crossroads on the way out of / into Glossop and Hadfield.