Manchester Metrolink (Non speculative discussion)

[507 001]

The original plan for Heywood was for a junction to be installed at Newbold on the ORL, with battery powered Tram Train units then operating to a new bay platform at the Castleton end of Heywood station.

A dual voltage variant of the Tram Train units was also planned for other extensions…

 

[AlastairFraser]

The original plan for Heywood was for a junction to be installed at Newbold on the ORL, with battery powered Tram Train units then operating to a new bay platform at the Castleton end of Heywood station.

A dual voltage variant of the Tram Train units was also planned for other extensions…

Surely the wouldn't have attracted sufficient passenger demand to justify the investment.

I know Heywood desperately needs a connection to a faster form of public transport, but I can't see it ever pulling many cars off the road with the need to change at Rochdale to access central Manchester quickly.

Seems like a fight with the ELR to get it into central Bury (at the very least) is the only practical option.

 

[duffield]

Surely the wouldn't have attracted sufficient passenger demand to justify the investment.

I know Heywood desperately needs a connection to a faster form of public transport, but I can't see it ever pulling many cars off the road with the need to change at Rochdale to access central Manchester quickly.

Seems like a fight with the ELR to get it into central Bury (at the very least) is the only practical option.

But you wouldn't have to change at Rochdale for Manchester if you extended some of the current Rochdale terminators (from Clitheroe and Blackburn) to Heywood with a reversal. You could even use existing DMUs to start with, then bring in BEMU trains or BEMU tram-trains later as required.
I reckon you could get the journey time down to just over 30 minutes Heywood to Victoria with a quick reversal. I don't know if that's good enough, but the 163 bus current takes around 50 minutes from Heywood to Piccadilly, and it looks like going via Bury with a reversal would take 40 minutes.

 

[Renown 3B3RA]

A Metrolink stop between Martinscroft and Benchill might be useful, always seems a very long stretch and not much in the way of direct buses along that part of Hollyhedge Rd

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A Metrolink stop between Martinscroft and Benchill might be useful, always seems a very long stretch and not much in the way of direct buses along that part of Hollyhedge Rd

Surely the on-road section on Hollyhedge Road forms the vast part of that aspiration. What type of tram stop is envisaged and how would that cause disruption to the residents in that area? The area as such does have some existing bus stops along it and there are bus routes serving adjacent local areas.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But you wouldn't have to change at Rochdale for Manchester if you extended some of the current Rochdale terminators (from Clitheroe and Blackburn) to Heywood with a reversal. You could even use existing DMUs to start with, then bring in BEMU trains or BEMU tram-trains later as required.
I reckon you could get the journey time down to just over 30 minutes Heywood to Victoria with a quick reversal. I don't know if that's good enough, but the 163 bus current takes around 50 minutes from Heywood to Piccadilly, and it looks like going via Bury with a reversal would take 40 minutes.

A shuttle was proposed before I believe, but heading the whole way up to Rawtenstall. Extending a Rochdale terminator wouldn't be too awkward with the current infrastructure brought up to code I guess, but operationally I bet it would screw things up.

A happy medium between the 2 ideas could be a battery/DMU shuttle (perhaps a Class 230 when/if TfW replaces theirs, now they have them sorta functioning!) from Castleton to Bury Bolton St via Heywood every 30 mins on one track, with the ELR operating single track Heywood to Bury.

The shuttle could be timetabled to connect into Manchester services from Castleton (and a reasonable connection towards Rochdale and points north, if possible).
I can't see an extension just as far as Heywood being palatable, sadly.

 

[daodao]

Surely the on-road section on Hollyhedge Road forms the vast part of that aspiration. What type of tram stop is envisaged and how would that cause disruption to the residents in that area? The area as such does have some existing bus stops along it and there are bus routes serving adjacent local areas.

Originally, a stop was proposed for the Airport line along Hollyhedge Road east of the M56, but along with a few other stops (such as one close to the Hardy Lane/Darley Avenue junction) that formed part of the original proposal, it was removed when the plans were finalised. The nature of the large high platform stops required for Metrolink means that they would have been difficult to site along this relatively narrow part of Hollyhedge Road, where housing directly abuts the road itself on both sides. This is one of the drawbacks of retaining high level platforms for Manchester Metrolink where it runs on street, unlike other new generation tramways (and the revamped Blackpool Tramway) that have been developed in the UK and Ireland in recent decades, which have simple low level platforms (as on Langsett Road, Sheffield).

A shuttle was proposed before I believe, but heading the whole way up to Rawtenstall. Extending a Rochdale terminator wouldn't be too awkward with the current infrastructure brought up to code I guess, but operationally I bet it would screw things up.

A happy medium between the 2 ideas could be a battery/DMU shuttle (perhaps a Class 230 when/if TfW replaces theirs, now they have them sorta functioning!) from Castleton to Bury Bolton St via Heywood every 30 mins on one track, with the ELR operating single track Heywood to Bury.

The shuttle could be timetabled to connect into Manchester services from Castleton (and a reasonable connection towards Rochdale and points north, if possible).
I can't see an extension just as far as Heywood being palatable, sadly.

I find it difficult to understand the rationale for developing a new rail/tram service from Heywood that doesn't go directly to Manchester city centre, which is the main destination for public transport from Greater Manchester's satellite towns and suburbs.

Along the Bury-Rochdale axis, there is a frequent bus service (route 471, every 12 minutes Monday to Saturday daytime) from Heywood town centre to both Bury and Rochdale town centres taking about 20 minutes in each direction. Both Rochdale and Heywood railway stations are poorly sited for their respective town centres and it will be difficult to connect the existing railway line from Heywood to the current Bury Metrolink terminus.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Yep and too hilly, I am not sure the hills are an issue as such though but I have known buses to sometimes struggle down there. I always thought Manchester Road in Cheadle would be a good route, then down Stockport Road via Cheadle Health and Edgeley. It would give Cheadle Village a much improved transport boost too but I think that would be far too costly and the journey may be too slow compared to following a path similar to the original Didsbury to Stockport line.

Might be a bit tricky going over Green Pastures in Heaton Mersey though.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The nature of the large high platform stops required for Metrolink means that they would have been difficult to site along this relatively narrow part of Hollyhedge Road, where housing directly abuts the road itself on both sides. This is one of the drawbacks of retaining high level platforms for Manchester Metrolink where it runs on street, unlike other new generation tramways (and the revamped Blackpool Tramway) that have been developed in the UK and Ireland in recent decades, which have simple low level platforms (as on Langsett Road, Sheffield).

Probably a throw back to the early 1990s, when the initial conversion to Metrolink of the old "heavy rail" lines (to/from Bury and Altrincham) was able to be done fairly straightforwardly without demolishing and rebuilding multiple inner/outer suburban station platforms. And didn't some of the early T68 tram units have retractable steps for passengers boarding/exiting at the handful of low level platforms on the Metrolink network. (There was definitely one such partial low level platform at the one-time Mosley Street stop, although that was possibly the only one).

 

[TheSmiths82]

Might be a bit tricky going over Green Pastures in Heaton Mersey though.

Is that the only bit that was built on? I knew some of it had been but I assumed it was further down, I hadn't realised Green Pastures was built on the old railway, it must have been built soon after it closed.

 

[mangad]

Probably a throw back to the early 1990s, when the initial conversion to Metrolink of the old "heavy rail" lines (to/from Bury and Altrincham) was able to be done fairly straightforwardly without demolishing and rebuilding multiple inner/outer suburban station platforms. And didn't some of the early T68 tram units have retractable steps for passengers boarding/exiting at the handful of low level platforms on the Metrolink network. (There was definitely one such partial low level platform at the one-time Mosley Street stop, although that was possibly the only one).

It's going back a bit, but most of the original city centre stops were built as two level. Market Street and the now defunct High Street definitely were (you can just about see High Street in this photo), and Wikipedia says St Peter's Square was. And yes, the T68s had retractable steps.

On platform heights, worth remembering that low floors in trams was still in its infancy. it was only in 1990 that the prototype for the ADtranz low floor tram was made available - this being the first model with a completely low floor. Had Metrolink been built some years later, it may well have done what Croydon Tramlink did and demolish the original stations and start again. But at the time, keeping the high platform heights of the old heavy lines would have not only been a cost saving measure, but a pragmatic one too.

 

[TheSmiths82]

It's going back a bit, but most of the original city centre stops were built as two level. Market Street and the now defunct High Street definitely were (you can just about see High Street in this photo), and Wikipedia says St Peter's Square was. And yes, the T68s had retractable steps.

Was this changed before the M5000's came in, or did some doors have to be locked during these mutli level platforms on the M5000s? I know the T68's had the steps came out to the lower platforms, but the M5000's never had them. I can't remember as it was so long ago, the oldest M5000's are now nearly 16 years old.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

High Street tram stop in the Manchester City Centre only lasted until 1998, and so wouldn't have seen any M5000 units. Presume the M5000 units were only sent out in single (two car) formation, whilst the other low level platforms were still in use elsewhere.

 

[TheSmiths82]

High Street tram stop in the Manchester City Centre only lasted until 1998, and so wouldn't have seen any M5000 units. Presume the M5000 units were only sent out in single (two car) formation, whilst the other low level platforms were still in use elsewhere.

Thinking about it I think Mosley Road stop had also closed by the late 2000's so that wouldn't have seen any M5000s either. I think that stop was closed because they knew the M5000's were coming. I do miss that stop though, it was useful.

 

[jfollows]

Mosley Street

Mosley Street tram stop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Following the 2009 City Centre Track Upgrade Project, all other Metrolink street-level stops in the City Zone were rebuilt to full platform height. This change was carried out to remove the need for retractable steps, which were proving technically problematic (the new fleet of M5000 trams had been built without retractable steps). The new platforms can also accommodate double-length vehicles.

Mosley Street was the only tram stop in Manchester not upgraded. A review of the stop's future was conducted and found that the stop could cause congestion for trams at the Piccadilly delta junction when additional services are implemented. The report also noted that the tight confines around the stop location meant that rebuilding the platform to the new specifications would impact on pedestrian flows and access to adjacent retail establishments.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I find it difficult to understand the rationale for developing a new rail/tram service from Heywood that doesn't go directly to Manchester city centre, which is the main destination for public transport from Greater Manchester's satellite towns and suburbs.

It connects into a direct and relatively frequent link from Castleton into central Manchester, and at the Bury end, it's a 5 min walk from Bury Bolton St to Bury Interchange if wanting destinations other than Victoria and large swathes of north Manchester.

Along the Bury-Rochdale axis, there is a frequent bus service (route 471, every 12 minutes Monday to Saturday daytime) from Heywood town centre to both Bury and Rochdale town centres taking about 20 minutes in each direction. Both Rochdale and Heywood railway stations are poorly sited for their respective town centres and it will be difficult to connect the existing railway line from Heywood to the current Bury Metrolink terminus.

The bus is frequent, but it's not good enough for most people to rely on it, because the A58 road connecting Bolton/Bury/Rochdale is still chronically congested most of the time, and the route for Heywood/Rochdale's western suburbs/Bury's eastern suburbs into Manchester involves that road, then usually the M62/M66 and the congested Simister Island junction (which is a complete and utter disaster under the strain of normal traffic).

It's such a disaster that at least £207 million of our taxes is being spent on National Highways' project to rebuild it to accommodate these traffic volumes, and no doubt further improvements will be needed to deal with congestion in future...

Unless we do something to 1) start sorting out reliable, clean and modern orbital public transport in Greater Manchester, and 2) also improve links from the smaller towns in north GM/adjacent areas into central Manchester (as this is where the traffic volumes are particularly bad, due to the intersection of 3 motorways, 2 of which carry mostly commuter traffic and 1 that is the only high-quality strategic road link across the Pennines for 50 miles in either direction).

Even the similar proposal that Rossendale Borough Council had to extend the entire way to Rawtenstall and into Victoria was only costed at £80 million (less than half of the minimum cost of the Simister Island improvements). An initial phase linking Bury Bolton St to Castleton via Heywood would cost less than that, and avoid the inconveniently located Rochdale station you mentioned.

As much as I'd like to extend 2tph Metrolink to Rawtenstall from a junction in Bury and tram trains extended from Rochdale to Bury, I can't see the ELR letting that happen anytime soon and this is a practical way of getting a functional rail link for the residents of Heywood and the large western suburbs of Rochdale/eastern suburbs of Bury.

 

[daodao]

It connects into a direct and relatively frequent link from Castleton into central Manchester, and at the Bury end, it's a 5 min walk from Bury Bolton St to Bury Interchange if wanting destinations other than Victoria and large swathes of north Manchester.

The existing rail service from Castleton into central Manchester is relatively infrequent - only 2 tph - and travelling from Heywood to central Manchester via Castleton is indirect.

Using the existing rail line from Heywood to Bury will cause conflict with the preserved East Lancashire Railway and doesn't provide a direct link to Bury Interchange.

In general, Metrolink is too expensive to provide solutions for orbital public transport corridors in Greater Manchester, e.g. from Rochdale to Bury, or for that matter from East Didsbury to Stockport. There does not seem to be an economic or transport justification for this latter recently funded extension, merely a political one.

 

[507 001]

Was this changed before the M5000's came in, or did some doors have to be locked during these mutli level platforms on the M5000s? I know the T68's had the steps came out to the lower platforms, but the M5000's never had them. I can't remember as it was so long ago, the oldest M5000's are now nearly 16 years old.

The only one left by 2009 was Mosley Street. Whilst it was still in existence Bananas mostly operated as singles, and when operating as doubles simply didn’t call At Mosley Street.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The bus is frequent, but it's not good enough for most people to rely on it, because the A58 road connecting Bolton/Bury/Rochdale is still chronically congested most of the time, and the route for Heywood/Rochdale's western suburbs/Bury's eastern suburbs into Manchester involves that road, then usually the M62/M66 and the congested Simister Island junction (which is a complete and utter disaster under the strain of normal traffic).

It's such a disaster that at least £207 million of our taxes is being spent on National Highways' project to rebuild it to accommodate these traffic volumes, and no doubt further improvements will be needed to deal with congestion in future...

Have you ever envisaged the amount of HGV, let alone private motor vehicles, that daily pass through the Simister Island which is a major traffic hub on a cross-Pennine major motorway route.

You cannot make a numerical comparison with Simister Island and a minor rail line.

 

[duffield]

...

As much as I'd like to extend 2tph Metrolink to Rawtenstall from a junction in Bury and tram trains extended from Rochdale to Bury, I can't see the ELR letting that happen anytime soon and this is a practical way of getting a functional rail link for the residents of Heywood and the large western suburbs of Rochdale/eastern suburbs of Bury.

I'm very fond of the ELR, so I'm absolutely not saying I'd like to see this happen, but for a project like this it's not really a case of them "letting it happen" or not. A transport and works order with compulsory purchase powers would override any such opposition if approved by the relevant minister, then it would just be a matter of the amount of compensation (which might be considerable but perhaps not so much in relation to the overall cost of the project).

 

[AlastairFraser]

The existing rail service from Castleton into central Manchester is relatively infrequent - only 2 tph - and travelling from Heywood to central Manchester via Castleton is indirect.

Indirect? Not particularly. It would only be 5 mins from Heywood to Castleton and then it's around 17 mins Castleton to Manchester Victoria.
Yes, you'd have to provide a decent connection but the Calder Valley line isn't that busy to make that impossible and keep the Heywood to Victoria journey time below 30 mins.
Heywood to Victoria by car can be as bad as 28 mins in the peak, and then you have to find extortionately expensive parking. The nearest Metrolink park and ride is Whitefield (approx a 15 drive away), and that's busy in the mornings too. Add in the Metrolink journey time into central Manchester and it's not competitive with a Bury via Heywood shuttle, connecting into Victoria bound services at Castleton.

Using the existing rail line from Heywood to Bury will cause conflict with the preserved East Lancashire Railway and doesn't provide a direct link to Bury Interchange.

The ELR will have to compromise at some point, a lot of those north GM towns have some of the worst deprivation issues in the region and reliable public transport based access to well paid jobs in central Manchester is crucial to try and tackle it.
Bury Bolton St is a 5 min walk away from the interchange, it's hardly Timbuktu.

In general, Metrolink is too expensive to provide solutions for orbital public transport corridors in Greater Manchester, e.g. from Rochdale to Bury, or for that matter from East Didsbury to Stockport. There does not seem to be an economic or transport justification for this latter recently funded extension, merely a political one.

I wasn't suggesting Metrolink initially personally, a DMU or battery EMU shuttle would do. If they can get funding/permission for Metrolink, great - it's an area with relatively high population density, a fair few particularly deprived areas and very poor connectivity since some particularly poorly advised closures (especially the line to Accrington via Haslingden - the line today would have easily 75k+ in catchment without a rail service in reasonable proximity now and plenty of commuting into Manchester from large villages in the area like Helmshore and towns like Ramsbottom).

Have you ever envisaged the amount of HGV, let alone private motor vehicles, that daily pass through the Simister Island which is a major traffic hub on a cross-Pennine major motorway route.

You cannot make a numerical comparison with Simister Island and a minor rail line.

I agree there's a lot of strategic traffic. The reason for the constant congestion is the amount of commuter traffic that is forced onto the M60 as the only suitable option for their journeys, because the orbital public transport network is entirely inadequate!

I'm very fond of the ELR, so I'm absolutely not saying I'd like to see this happen, but for a project like this it's not really a case of them "letting it happen" or not. A transport and works order with compulsory purchase powers would override any such opposition if approved by the relevant minister, then it would just be a matter of the amount of compensation (which might be considerable but perhaps not so much in relation to the overall cost of the project).

I agree that compulsory purchase is an option, but it would be silly to incur the cost of applying for such an order, including the inflation in construction costs whilst we wait for the necessary legal work to be done underlying the TWO.

 

[toms]

I know this is completely off topic to the current discussion atm. What exactly happens if say for instance there was a crash on the Ashton line involving a tram or a tram failure whilst they are cut off from the entire rest of the network? (due to the current Piccadilly gardens work)

 

[HSTEd]

Indirect? Not particularly. It would only be 5 mins from Heywood to Castleton and then it's around 17 mins Castleton to Manchester Victoria.
Yes, you'd have to provide a decent connection but the Calder Valley line isn't that busy to make that impossible and keep the Heywood to Victoria journey time below 30 mins.

Five minutes on the train, five minutes minimum for a reliable connection and then seventeen from Castleton to Manchester Victoria. Best case journey time of 27 minutes, however you only have two opportunities to depart each hour, so you have to account for that.

Average (random time at station) journey time of 42 minutes, worst case travel time of 57 minutes.
It's not a particularly attractive solution, in my view.

Manchester is not a particularly large urban area, the journey time penalties from changing and low service frequencies are going to be quite punishing.

Heywood to Victoria by car can be as bad as 28 mins in the peak, and then you have to find extortionately expensive parking. The nearest Metrolink park and ride is Whitefield (approx a 15 drive away), and that's busy in the mornings too. Add in the Metrolink journey time into central Manchester and it's not competitive with a Bury via Heywood shuttle, connecting into Victoria bound services at Castleton.

Whitefield to Manchester Victoria is twenty minutes.
Fifteen minute drive to Whitefield, worst case connection time of ~six minutes (ie. you arrive just as a tram leaves), twenty minute journey time on the tram. That makes 41 minutes, worst case, leaving for the first leg whenever you want. The average (assuming the driving time is fixed, obviously) is 38 minutes.

 

[507 001]

I know this is completely off topic to the current discussion atm. What exactly happens if say for instance there was a crash on the Ashton line involving a tram or a tram failure whilst they are cut off from the entire rest of the network? (due to the current Piccadilly gardens work)

Failed vehicles are being repaired away from the depot where possible. We’ve already had one failure this week which I believe is now back up and running.

All of the LRVs down there have plenty of mileage left on them before they’re due an exam.

Anything that can’t be repaired away from the depot will be put onto the inbound platform at Piccadilly.

During the blockade there will be the opportunity to swap out LRVs on two occasions by using single line working to get them through the possession.

 

[edwin_m]

I believe the idea for the Bury-Oldham tram-train is to put in a tight radius curve (not suitable for trains) so they can run into Bury Interchange for easy connections between Heywood and Manchester. I don't know what's planned at Rochdale, but perhaps they will re-connect the reversing siding that was the stub-end of the Oldham line to become the connection for tram-trains.

 

[507 001]

I believe the idea for the Bury-Oldham tram-train is to put in a tight radius curve (not suitable for trains) so they can run into Bury Interchange for easy connections between Heywood and Manchester. I don't know what's planned at Rochdale, but perhaps they will re-connect the reversing siding that was the stub-end of the Oldham line to become the connection for tram-trains.

That was the plan for Newbold, yes.

 

[Winthorpe]

The temporary speed restriction on the approach to Cornbrook (approaching from the south, in the tunnel under the Altrincham line) is a real pain.

Does anyone know how long it will take to fix the fault?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do Metrolink have a dedicated graffiti removal team in the central area. Cornbrook to Trafford Bar and the bridges between Cornbrook and Deansgate-Castlefield are notorious for graffiti.

 

[Starmill]

The temporary speed restriction on the approach to Cornbrook (approaching from the south, in the tunnel under the Altrincham line) is a real pain.

Does anyone know how long it will take to fix the fault?

Unfortunately that crack underneath the A56 bridge in the inbound has been there for quite a while now. It's quite rough to ride over it even at a 5 mile/hour restriction.

It must take its toll on drivers having to navigate that and then the posted 4 mile/hour which is even longer standing at Deansgate-Castlefield, along with a number of others depending on which way they're going after that.

By contrast the re-railing in the city centre has managed to remove some of the repaired but weakened sections so they're nice and smooth now, and eliminate other restrictions, as well as the obvious benefits of removing the tripping hazard from all of the ruts, loose stones and pot holes in the road surface. Works that began this week have made rapid progress and torn out most of the worn out rail already. I hope they are able to give Piccadilly Gardens a deep clean just before it returns to passenger service.

 

[Winthorpe]

Unfortunately that crack underneath the A56 bridge in the inbound has been there for quite a while now. It's quite rough to ride over it even at a 5 mile/hour restriction.

It must take its toll on drivers having to navigate that and then the posted 4 mile/hour which is even longer standing at Deansgate-Castlefield, along with a number of others depending on which way they're going after that.

By contrast the re-railing in the city centre has managed to remove some of the repaired but weakened sections so they're nice and smooth now, and eliminate other restrictions, as well as the obvious benefits of removing the tripping hazard from all of the ruts, loose stones and pot holes in the road surface. Works that began this week have made rapid progress and torn out most of the worn out rail already. I hope they are able to give Piccadilly Gardens a deep clean just before it returns to passenger service.

The one I’m referring to appeared about three weeks ago.

The network is grindingly slow even without these temporary speed restrictions! It might be a good idea to find extra maintenance resources before expansion.