• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Metrolink to go regional?

Status
Not open for further replies.

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Logic might be to deliver a 2tph service by operating one Chester-Altrincham service (change there for Stockport and Manchester if Metrolink takes over Stockport-Altrincham), and one Chester-Manchester via the Airport service.

If the western Airport link is built they'll certainly be regional and/or semi-fast services on the line, otherwise the expenditure of building such a line can't be justified.

Obviously electrification will affect such service patterns. One service pattern mooted was Liverpool-Runcorn-Northwich-Manchester Airport-Manchester and beyond, another was Holyhead-Northwich-Manchester Airport-Manchester and beyond. Those services could stop at a couple of stations between Chester and Manchester Airport subject to demand in the same way that Birchwood and Widnes get regional services stopping there. (Knutsford gets higher usage with 1tph in each direction than Widnes gets with 3tph in each direction.)

The stopping services will then have to fit around those regional services.

Changes to the Mid-Cheshire line will need to include eliminating the single track in the Mouldsworth area and raising the line speed in some areas (especially on the Leftwich viaduct which is already proposed for CP5.)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,271
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I think Lindow Moss is further east, on the edge of Wilmslow. That's where it's shown on the OS map.

I took a north-easterly point (that being the description given) from the railway station through the area of Graveyard Farm, past the northern boundary area of that part of Knolls Green which has the southern habitable border of Lindow Moss

Lindow Common is on the A538 road out of Wilmslow, but Lindow Moss is situated further inland from there.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
I took a north-easterly point (that being the description given) from the railway station through the area of Graveyard Farm, past the northern boundary area of that part of Knolls Green which has the southern habitable border of Lindow Moss

Lindow Common is on the A538 road out of Wilmslow, but Lindow Moss is situated further inland from there.

Except that Graveyard Farm is actually south east of Mobberly Station and Lindow Moss is pretty much due east.

Also neither of them is anywhere near any potential route from Mobberly to the airport via the Thorns Green / World Cargo area as described earlier in the thread...
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,973
If the western Airport link is built they'll certainly be regional and/or semi-fast services on the line, otherwise the expenditure of building such a line can't be justified.

Obviously electrification will affect such service patterns. One service pattern mooted was Liverpool-Runcorn-Northwich-Manchester Airport-Manchester and beyond, another was Holyhead-Northwich-Manchester Airport-Manchester and beyond. Those services could stop at a couple of stations between Chester and Manchester Airport subject to demand in the same way that Birchwood and Widnes get regional services stopping there. (Knutsford gets higher usage with 1tph in each direction than Widnes gets with 3tph in each direction.)

The stopping services will then have to fit around those regional services.

Changes to the Mid-Cheshire line will need to include eliminating the single track in the Mouldsworth area and raising the line speed in some areas (especially on the Leftwich viaduct which is already proposed for CP5.)

I am not sure either Liverpool or North Wales are suitable routes. Liverpool would involve crossing the WCML using the freight link with Mid Cheshire line which is a only a dual section of the WCML. Its also going to be too slow for end to end journeys. North Wales would be more viable but unless the North Wales Coast line was electrified it would mean allot of running under the wires. The single section of track is only 5 miles long. It should be able to support 2tph service (i.e. local all stopper and an express service via the airport).
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
If the western Airport link is built they'll certainly be regional and/or semi-fast services on the line, otherwise the expenditure of building such a line can't be justified.

Obviously electrification will affect such service patterns. One service pattern mooted was Liverpool-Runcorn-Northwich-Manchester Airport-Manchester and beyond, another was Holyhead-Northwich-Manchester Airport-Manchester and beyond. Those services could stop at a couple of stations between Chester and Manchester Airport subject to demand in the same way that Birchwood and Widnes get regional services stopping there. (Knutsford gets higher usage with 1tph in each direction than Widnes gets with 3tph in each direction.)
)

Widnes probably suffers because the station is over a mile from the town centre, the car park is not very big, and it has poor bus services from some other parts of Widnes. The long-closed Widnes Central & Widnes South stations were much closer to the town centre, but had poor, infrequent train services.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,271
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Except that Graveyard Farm is actually south east of Mobberly Station and Lindow Moss is pretty much due east.

Also neither of them is anywhere near any potential route from Mobberly to the airport via the Thorns Green / World Cargo area as described earlier in the thread...

Blessed are those who read maps the right way up and with the correct compass point setting, for they shall receive much geographical knowledge....:oops:

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
It wouldn't really be a reversal from Northenden to Hazel Grove - you would likely make a propelling move as you would be the only thing using the track.
Also I don't think you would have to reverse at Crewe as well (how would you reverse at Hazel Grove and Crewe? The former would surely leave you facing the wrong direction?)
The Northenden waste depot is on the south side of the Altrincham to Stockport line, while the Northenden to Hazel Grove freight line branches off to the north on the opposite side. How could the binliners get from one to the other without conflicting with the tram-trains?

I had assumed your proposed route was Northenden - Hazel Grove - reverse - Stockport - Denton - Miles Platting - Victoria - Chat Moss - Earlestown - Warrington BQ - Crewe Basford Hall - reverse - Winsford - Weaver Jn - Runcorn - Folly Lane branch. The Folly Lane branch connects to the Down Main with a south-facing junction, so I do not think it is possible to enter it from the Ditton direction.

A possible alternative would be to continue through Hazel Grove, Chinley and Edale to reverse at Earles Sidings, then Chinley - Marple - Hyde - Guide Bridge - Denton - Stockport - Wilmslow - Crewe Basford Hall - reverse - Winsford - Weaver Jn - Runcorn - Folly Lane branch. This still requires the same number of reversals - I am not sure which would be worse for pathing conflicts with passenger services!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am not sure either Liverpool or North Wales are suitable routes. Liverpool would involve crossing the WCML using the freight link with Mid Cheshire line which is a only a dual section of the WCML.
No, Hartford Junction to Acton Bridge is quad tracked. It is only the two miles of WCML from Acton Bridge to Weaver Jn that is double track.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
Blessed are those who read maps the right way up and with the correct compass point setting, for they shall receive much geographical knowledge....:oops:

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

No problem Paul. Your point about Lindow Moss is relevant as it shows an eastern route around the airport isn't viable so only a link which tunnels under the western apron of the airport will work. This wouldn't be cheap, although I still think it would be worth it.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
North Wales would be more viable but unless the North Wales Coast line was electrified it would mean allot of running under the wires.

At the moment Chester-Warrington is being looked at for electrification in CP6 but Chester-Holyhead/Llandudno isn't being examined for CP6, so what to due about North Wales services needs to be looked at anyway.

If the Airport link is built it would make sense to electrify the Airport-Chester by the time most of the Airport services will be electric by then.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
The Northenden waste depot is on the south side of the Altrincham to Stockport line, while the Northenden to Hazel Grove freight line branches off to the north on the opposite side. How could the binliners get from one to the other without conflicting with the tram-trains?
AIUI there is nothing that would prohibit a tramway crossing a heavy rail line on the flat using a Newark style diamond crossing - after all such a crossing could simply be treated as a level crossing on the heavy rail line. Could even provide it with barriers over the tramway.
It is not as if it is a heavily used main line with fast moving trains is it?

I had assumed your proposed route was Northenden - Hazel Grove - reverse - Stockport - Denton - Miles Platting - Victoria - Chat Moss - Earlestown - Warrington BQ - Crewe Basford Hall - reverse - Winsford - Weaver Jn - Runcorn - Folly Lane branch. The Folly Lane branch connects to the Down Main with a south-facing junction, so I do not think it is possible to enter it from the Ditton direction.

A possible alternative would be to continue through Hazel Grove, Chinley and Edale to reverse at Earles Sidings, then Chinley - Marple - Hyde - Guide Bridge - Denton - Stockport - Wilmslow - Crewe Basford Hall - reverse - Winsford - Weaver Jn - Runcorn - Folly Lane branch. This still requires the same number of reversals - I am not sure which would be worse for pathing conflicts with passenger services!

Either way I think its a mess! I think the most realistic option would probably be that the traffic just goes to the road or they find an alternative place to send the waste that doesn't require that horrible mass of reversals.
 

Ash Bridge

Established Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
4,043
Location
Stockport
AIUI there is nothing that would prohibit a tramway crossing a heavy rail line on the flat using a Newark style diamond crossing - after all such a crossing could simply be treated as a level crossing on the heavy rail line. Could even provide it with barriers over the tramway.
It is not as if it is a heavily used main line with fast moving trains is it?



Either way I think its a mess! I think the most realistic option would probably be that the traffic just goes to the road or they find an alternative place to send the waste that doesn't require that horrible mass of reversals.

I live right beside the line between Heaton Norris Junc. and Reddish South Station, coincidently as I type one of these regular 66 hauled container trains is rushing by. First of all it is not waste going to a landfill site, but fuel going to power a new power station at Runcorn. Secondly that one trainload if put on the roads would require at least 30 or more LGVs to replace it, so if multiplied by a about five or six in a twenty four hour period that's an awful lot of additional large truck journeys added to already congested roads.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,271
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Either way I think its a mess! I think the most realistic option would probably be that the traffic just goes to the road or they find an alternative place to send the waste that doesn't require that horrible mass of reversals.

I really must disagree with your view on this matter. If you see how many waste containers are shipped from the waste compaction depots, which are rather large sized items, each of these would require HGV haulage. It is better for all concerned that such large items are kept off the roads and transported by rail as at present.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Either way I think its a mess! I think the most realistic option would probably be that the traffic just goes to the road or they find an alternative place to send the waste that doesn't require that horrible mass of reversals.
Or the Stockport-Altrincham line could be shared by freight and tram-trains, as is proposed even by the Stockport MBC Strategy document that is the subject of this thread:
Metrolink in Stockport has the potential to utilise several existing (but under-utilised) railway lines. Most of
those routes will need to continue in use by heavy-rail trains, either passenger or freight or both. Therefore
Metrolink in Stockport will require tram-train operation which, in the context of Greater Manchester, means
Metrolink services sharing track with heavy-rail trains. It is expected that tram-train services in Greater
Manchester would provide an identical service to the customer to those involving exclusive operation by
Metrolink vehicles. Therefore in this report the term “Metrolink” will be used to include those Metrolink services
involving tram-train operation.
www.stockport.gov.uk/railstrategy

Why insist on converting it to a tramway when there are such clear disadvantages?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I am not sure either Liverpool or North Wales are suitable routes.

What do you think are suitable routes then?

With the existing lines the 4 options beyond Northwich are:
1. Chester/North Wales
2. Liverpool
3. Preston
4. Crewe

The first two would provide a faster link to the Airport than using existing services, the latter two would provide a slower link to the Airport than using existing services. I think those 2 are the most appropriate routes.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Or the Stockport-Altrincham line could be shared by freight and tram-trains, as is proposed even by the Stockport MBC Strategy document that is the subject of this thread:

www.stockport.gov.uk/railstrategy

Why insist on converting it to a tramway when there are such clear disadvantages?

I have no confidence that the tram train would actually be viable once the enormous costs of building these new bespoke trains used nowhere else are accounted for (there are no 25kV tram trains anywhere in the world that I know of). And then there is the problem of Metrolink having more than one vehicle type, just look what happened during the M5000/T68 hybrid era - they rapidly decided to just buy more M5000s.

The only way to avoid a 25kV tram train would be pursuading Network Rail to let Metrolink install 750V OLE electrification on 30+ route km of Network Rail metals - which I doubt they would go for.
Additionally these freight operations that people insist on (since they are now treated as equally important to passenger tarins) would cripple the route by filling it with slow moving enormously heavy diesel hauled trains.
As someone earlier said - you can't get enough capacity to make a tram style (high intensity) service viable. So its just a heavy rail service without heavy rail comforts.
You would need 6+ tram paths an hour in each direction between Altrincham and Nortwich, and even more between Altrincham and Stockport.
 

slipdigby

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2011
Messages
38
I have no confidence that the tram train would actually be viable once the enormous costs of building these new bespoke trains used nowhere else are accounted for (there are no 25kV tram trains anywhere in the world that I know of). And then there is the problem of Metrolink having more than one vehicle type, just look what happened during the M5000/T68 hybrid era - they rapidly decided to just buy more M5000s.

25kV tram-trains:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/sncf-pioneers-the-tram-train-concept.html

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...-tram-train-services-launches-this-month.html


The reason the T68's were binned off were to do with their awful build quality and the amount of remediation required to keep them in service up to 2025-30. It made better sense to replace them now whilst a compatible tram type was rolling off the production lines. Also, three/four* of the seven light rail networks in operation in the UK operate using two (or more) types of tram design, as do myriad others on the Continent and beyond.

Best,
Slip

* Depending on whether you count Midland Metro
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I have no confidence that the tram train would actually be viable once the enormous costs of building these new bespoke trains used nowhere else are accounted for (there are no 25kV tram trains anywhere in the world that I know of).

25kV tram-trains are in use in several places in France and under construction for Sheffield (where the 25kV won't be used initially but probably will if main line electrification extends). Apart from a different (and generally lower-risk) transformer they are just the same as the 15kV versions in use by the dozen in Germany.

The only way to avoid a 25kV tram train would be pursuading Network Rail to let Metrolink install 750V OLE electrification on 30+ route km of Network Rail metals - which I doubt they would go for.

Yes this is unlikely, and would also make any 25kV electrification much more difficult. Hence the preference for a dual-voltage vehicle.

Additionally these freight operations that people insist on (since they are now treated as equally important to passenger tarins) would cripple the route by filling it with slow moving enormously heavy diesel hauled trains.
As someone earlier said - you can't get enough capacity to make a tram style (high intensity) service viable. So its just a heavy rail service without heavy rail comforts.
You would need 6+ tram paths an hour in each direction between Altrincham and Nortwich, and even more between Altrincham and Stockport.

Why? You've already said that there isn't the capacity for this, and there probably isn't the demand either.

The freight trains have a similar average speed to the passenger once the stations are taken into account, so regular intervals of 20 or even 15min would be possible. Passengers would still have to refer to a timetable, but it would be a much better timetable than today's.

A tram-train usually has an area of seating further from the doors which is intended for longer-distance passengers, and in my experience is at least as comfortable as the trains using the Mid-Cheshire today. Toilets are possible but admittedly unlikely given the accessibility regulations - but with the better frequency and suitable ticketing anyone needing the facilities would be able to alight at Altrincham and catch the next service.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
I have no confidence that the tram train would actually be viable once the enormous costs of building these new bespoke trains used nowhere else are accounted for (there are no 25kV tram trains anywhere in the world that I know of).
It's not as if it's brand new technology though is it. There are dual-voltage 750VDC/15kVAC LRVs in Saarbrücken.

The only way to avoid a 25kV tram train would be pursuading Network Rail to let Metrolink install 750V OLE electrification on 30+ route km of Network Rail metals - which I doubt they would go for
Why not, if it turned out this was the best solution? They put up 1,500V DC OLE for T&W Metro.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Additionally these freight operations that people insist on (since they are now treated as equally important to passenger tarins) would cripple the route by filling it with slow moving enormously heavy diesel hauled trains.
Slow moving freight trains? Metrolink trams are limited to 50mph and most tram-trains to 60mph. Freight can at least match that. Freight trains on the Mid-Cheshire are only slow moving when they are running on yellows, because they have caught up the stopping passenger service in front.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
First of all it is not waste going to a landfill site, but fuel going to power a new power station at Runcorn.
It's waste going to an incinerator, the steam from which is used to generate electricity.
There is no particular reason for it to be shipped to Runcorn instead of any number of other incinerators - including ones which would be accessed without reversals from Hazel Grove without using the main part of the Mid-Cheshire line.
Secondly that one trainload if put on the roads would require at least 30 or more LGVs to replace it, so if multiplied by a about five or six in a twenty four hour period that's an awful lot of additional large truck journeys added to already congested roads.
Considering there are only five round trips on the Altrincham line that would have to be replaced by road transit (Assuming no attempt was made to divert the depot flows) you would only be having a maximum of ~150 lorries per day extra.
That sounds like a lot but considering that in Manchester they would be spread over several sites with easy motorway access, it is hardly likely to be catastrophic (Northenden is adjacent to the M60/M56, as is Bredbury - don't know about Bindle Heath). Its roughly a lorry every half hour at each site - which given the normal comings and goings at a refuse depot is tiny.
As far as I can tell the waste is shipped to the Viridor plant in Runcorn - which also has dual-carriageway access through the chemical plant to which it is adjacent. Which almost certainly has a large quantity of lorry traffic as it is.
This is not as if we are pumping dozens of 44 tonners through residential streets or something like that.
And if you don't want long distance lorry moves you can always shuttle the containers to the MSC and carry them to the plant via Barge.

I really must disagree with your view on this matter. If you see how many waste containers are shipped from the waste compaction depots, which are rather large sized items, each of these would require HGV haulage. It is better for all concerned that such large items are kept off the roads and transported by rail as at present.
And so any scheme which inconveniences these relatively minor freight flows must be scotched immediately?
Whilst we squander valuable track space moving freight which is only economic for rail transport because of collosal central government subsidies.
Yes this is unlikely, and would also make any 25kV electrification much more difficult. Hence the preference for a dual-voltage vehicle.
At which point the collosal capital cost for the 25kV installation kills the scheme and we get nothing at all.
This is inherently dangerous - it will cause Network Rail to demand that all tram train proposals are 25kV even when it makes no sense for the scheme (is anyone seriously thinking that there would be a large flow suitable to justify electrification using 25kV in our lifetimes - and before someone goes on about how I should support using 25kV because of my pro-electrification stance, a 750V system achieves virtually everything a 25kV one does), this will in turn prevent any schemes from occuring at all.
Why? You've already said that there isn't the capacity for this, and there probably isn't the demand either.
There is not capacity only because of the insistence on retaining a heavy rail capacity for the benefit of a handful of trains per day.
Demand is entirely different - we have no real idea what would happen if there were five services per hour per direction between Altrincham and Northwhich, and another bunch between Stockport and Altrincham or the Centre of Manchester.

And we will never find out because of the freight requirement, meanwhile the Mid Cheshire line does not improve because of pathing restrictions through Stockport and awful end to end journey times because of its silly detour.
The freight trains have a similar average speed to the passenger once the stations are taken into account, so regular intervals of 20 or even 15min would be possible. Passengers would still have to refer to a timetable, but it would be a much better timetable than today's.
Without tramway electrification, which won't happen unless the route is taken off Network Rail, the scheme would never proceed and thus there will be no improvements in the timetable.
Why not, if it turned out this was the best solution? They put up 1,500V DC OLE for T&W Metro.
It would cause them to have to provide non-standard maintenance assets which would cost them money. T&W would never have gotten its equipment put up today - it only did because Railtrack was never going to electrify anything again so standardisation was not an issue.
Indeed it was talking about ripping gear down.
Slow moving freight trains? Metrolink trams are limited to 50mph and most tram-trains to 60mph. Freight can at least match that. Freight trains on the Mid-Cheshire are only slow moving when they are running on yellows, because they have caught up the stopping passenger service in front.
The problem is that they do catch up with the service in front - so have to drastically slow or stop, and then are caught flat footed by the vehicle behind them because they are unable to accelerate rapidly enough after the service in front gets away from them again.
 
Last edited:

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,973
At the moment Chester-Warrington is being looked at for electrification in CP6 but Chester-Holyhead/Llandudno isn't being examined for CP6, so what to due about North Wales services needs to be looked at anyway.

If the Airport link is built it would make sense to electrify the Airport-Chester by the time most of the Airport services will be electric by then.

I agree about electrifying to Chester. North Wales electrification will probably depend on whether the WG is prepared to pay for part of the cost.

What do you think are suitable routes then?

With the existing lines the 4 options beyond Northwich are:
1. Chester/North Wales
2. Liverpool
3. Preston
4. Crewe

The first two would provide a faster link to the Airport than using existing services, the latter two would provide a slower link to the Airport than using existing services. I think those 2 are the most appropriate routes.

Apart from an express service to Chester I don't think there are many great options. I think looping back to Piccadilly is the best option if paths can be arranged. Crewe via Middlewich is probably the next best. It would be slower and expensive to increase line speeds and electrify but would provide Middlewich with a train service. Liverpool would have virtually no end to end journeys because it would be far slower tham Chat Moss services. If a study concluded enough people would do part the journey and the paths are available after Hartford then great. One option might be to cut off the Arriva service at Warrington Bank Quay which would force people who use Runcorn East services to Manchester to go via Liverpool-Manchester Airport-Piccadilly services (and people in Warrington to only go via Central). Chester could then justify a second express service via Manchester to make up for the loss of the Arriva service. If Northwich-Middlewich-Crewe was speeded up and electrified then in those circumstances neither Crewe-Chester or Warrington-Chester would need to be electrified. There would be about 15 miles on single track though between Chester and Crewe using that route and would be slower. Using that route with Pendalinos for services terminating in Chester would free up Voyagers though. Unless the North Wales coast was electrified it would lose direct services to Manchester under my idea, which wouldnt be popular.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,271
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
And so any scheme which inconveniences these relatively minor freight flows must be scotched immediately? Whilst we squander valuable track space moving freight which is only economic for rail transport because of colossal central government subsidies.

Your version of "relatively minor freight flows" as your appear to regard the waste compaction trains running from the four waste depots is one that I have today put to a certain body. Their view is that these rail-served depots have been in operation for many years and the container trains have taken countless thousands of heavy lorries off the roads in that period of time.

They were also at pains to point out that these trains run in established freight paths, not in established passenger train paths.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Your version of "relatively minor freight flows" as your appear to regard the waste compaction trains running from the four waste depots is one that I have today put to a certain body. Their view is that these rail-served depots have been in operation for many years and the container trains have taken countless thousands of heavy lorries off the roads in that period of time.

Yes, but over several years a fully operational Stockport-Manchester, Stockport-Altrincham and Altrincham-Northwich tram system would likely have done more net good, at least in my opinion.
They were also at pains to point out that these trains run in established freight paths, not in established passenger train paths.
There are only freight paths in place because the passenger service is a joke at present.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,271
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Yes, but over several years a fully operational Stockport-Manchester, Stockport-Altrincham and Altrincham-Northwich tram system would likely have done more net good, at least in my opinion.

There are only freight paths in place because the passenger service is a joke at present.

Somehow, I feel that there are strategic rail planning decisions taken that determines the number of rail freight train paths and passenger train paths on the rail network.

Your final comment....I am too much of a gentleman to give a detailed response to such a supercilious comment and sincerely hope that you do not really believe what you have committed to print.
 

mwmbwls

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2009
Messages
645
Just looking at the title of the thread about Metrolink going regional, will the funding for this expanded Metrolink also be spread regionally?

Economically rational but politically irrational.;)

However you raise a generally good point. Take for example the orphan spurs such Hazel Grove to Buxton,Wigan to Southport and Kirkby - if these routes are not electrified than either passengers will eventually have to change at the end of the wires or there will be continued running of slower accelerating diesels under the wires pulling down the inherent efficiency of the whole system. The recent TfGM/SMBC Stockport Strategy Document addresses the electrification of the Buxton spur so why not others? Orphan stubs off the Metrolink should be regard in the same light - Glossop by virtue of its historic electrification already is - and will one day have a Tram Train. Perhaps RN should be renamed Rail/Tram North. I think that a composite solution of Tram Trains to Knutsford (journey length to Manchester does not require toilets etc.) and the building of the WATMA link (Big trains for big bags and toilets). If only the political classes, they used to say "On Sunday night at the London Palladium" could rearrange the following into a well known phrase or saying - "Up, thinking, joined."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Widnes probably suffers because the station is over a mile from the town centre, the car park is not very big, and it has poor bus services from some other parts of Widnes. The long-closed Widnes Central & Widnes South stations were much closer to the town centre, but had poor, infrequent train services.

Please just delete "probably", Widnes station really should be renamed "Ersatz Widnes" being built on the cut off line built by the CLC to avoid Widnes - which was served as you rightly point out by stations on a loop through the town centre.
 

Ash Bridge

Established Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
4,043
Location
Stockport
It's waste going to an incinerator, the steam from which is used to generate electricity.
There is no particular reason for it to be shipped to Runcorn instead of any number of other incinerators - including ones which would be accessed without reversals from Hazel Grove without using the main part of the Mid-Cheshire line.

Considering there are only five round trips on the Altrincham line that would have to be replaced by road transit (Assuming no attempt was made to divert the depot flows) you would only be having a maximum of ~150 lorries per day extra.
That sounds like a lot but considering that in Manchester they would be spread over several sites with easy motorway access, it is hardly likely to be catastrophic (Northenden is adjacent to the M60/M56, as is Bredbury - don't know about Bindle Heath). Its roughly a lorry every half hour at each site - which given the normal comings and goings at a refuse depot is tiny.
As far as I can tell the waste is shipped to the Viridor plant in Runcorn - which also has dual-carriageway access through the chemical plant to which it is adjacent. Which almost certainly has a large quantity of lorry traffic as it is.
This is not as if we are pumping dozens of 44 tonners through residential streets or something like that.
And if you don't want long distance lorry moves you can always shuttle the containers to the MSC and carry them to the plant via Barge.


.

Whilst observing one of the said compacted waste container trains this afternoon, a head count revealed it was conveying 53 containers. So if this one train is multiplied by five then your estimate of a maximum of 150 LGVs a day is perhaps just a wee bit short of the reality.


Secondly, I don't know if you are from this part of the world, if you are then you are somewhat lacking in your knowledge of traffic conditions on the local motorways you mention. Let's start with the M56 as its one of the routes required for your trucks en route to Runcorn, this morning for example on local traffic reports it was completely at a standstill, job stopped! Next up Bredbury, just off the M60 you say, agreed! Can't argue with that except it seems like it's every other day that the M60 grinds to a standstill (Especially around Stockport)any time of day, believe me, I've just retired as an LGV driver with Royal Mail after four decades. Trust me, the last place for that "Relatively Minor Railfreight Flow" is on our overcrowded roads, btw. it's Brindle Heath;)
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Apart from an express service to Chester I don't think there are many great options. I think looping back to Piccadilly is the best option if paths can be arranged. Crewe via Middlewich is probably the next best. It would be slower and expensive to increase line speeds and electrify but would provide Middlewich with a train service. Liverpool would have virtually no end to end journeys because it would be far slower tham Chat Moss services. If a study concluded enough people would do part the journey and the paths are available after Hartford then great.
The distance Lime Street to Airport via Runcorn and Hartford Jn would be about the same as via the Chat Moss and Piccadilly, so why would it be far slower? The Manchester South Junction is hardly a high speed line! The clockwise service would be quicker for Manchester-bound passengers, leaving more space for Airport-bound passengers and their luggage on the anti-clockwise.

A loop back to Piccadilly would be impractical because of the lack of paths through Stockport and the lack of platform capacity at Piccadilly. AFAIK the western link proposal has never included a northern chord towards Hale.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,973
The distance Lime Street to Airport via Runcorn and Hartford Jn would be about the same as via the Chat Moss and Piccadilly, so why would it be far slower? The Manchester South Junction is hardly a high speed line! The clockwise service would be quicker for Manchester-bound passengers, leaving more space for Airport-bound passengers and their luggage on the anti-clockwise.

A loop back to Piccadilly would be impractical because of the lack of paths through Stockport and the lack of platform capacity at Piccadilly. AFAIK the western link proposal has never included a northern chord towards Hale.

Liverpool-Runcorn with one stop (Liverpool South Parkway) is 18 minutes and Manchester Airport to Piccadilly is 15-18 mins so 33-36 mins + however long it takes to get between Runcorn and Manchester Airport (id guess another 15-20 mins even with line upgrades). Electrified Liverpool to Piccadilly will be 34 minutes therefore much more appealing for end to end journeys.
 
Last edited:

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
It's waste going to an incinerator, the steam from which is used to generate electricity.
There is no particular reason for it to be shipped to Runcorn instead of any number of other incinerators - including ones which would be accessed without reversals from Hazel Grove without using the main part of the Mid-Cheshire line.
Is this meant as a serious comment? The railway exists to serve its customers, not the other way round. Would you tell prospective passengers who want to travel from Manchester to Northwich that they should go to Stoke on Trent or Crewe instead?!
At which point the collosal capital cost for the 25kV installation kills the scheme and we get nothing at all.
This is inherently dangerous - it will cause Network Rail to demand that all tram train proposals are 25kV even when it makes no sense for the scheme (is anyone seriously thinking that there would be a large flow suitable to justify electrification using 25kV in our lifetimes - and before someone goes on about how I should support using 25kV because of my pro-electrification stance, a 750V system achieves virtually everything a 25kV one does), this will in turn prevent any schemes from occuring at all.
Where is the evidence that 25kV electrification is colossally more expensive than 750V on a line like this? The OHLE structures and clearance requirements are not very different, and 750V OHLE, like third rail, requires frequent substations - expensive on a long rural line. 25kV could probably be end-fed from the WCML.
There is not capacity only because of the insistence on retaining a heavy rail capacity for the benefit of a handful of trains per day.
Demand is entirely different - we have no real idea what would happen if there were five services per hour per direction between Altrincham and Northwhich, and another bunch between Stockport and Altrincham or the Centre of Manchester.
So how do you make the business case for investment in converting the line to a high frequency tramway, if you have "no real idea" what the demand will be? Northwich is a small town with a population of about 30,000 and lies outside the main Manchester commuter belt. Knutsford is less than half that size. Yet you are proposing the same service frequency as that currently provided on the Metrolink line to Oldham and Rochdale, which each have a population of over 200,000!
The problem is that they do catch up with the service in front - so have to drastically slow or stop, and then are caught flat footed by the vehicle behind them because they are unable to accelerate rapidly enough after the service in front gets away from them again.
Have you seen a modern freight train accelerate? 66s are powerful locos. For example, RTT shows that today's laden binliner from Brindle Heath (656M) took only 16 minutes from Edgeley Jn to Altrincham, despite having to accelerate from a stand at the junction and accelerate again after the 15mph PSR around the curve from Skelton Jn. Passenger trains, getting up to 75mph for much of the way, take 14 minutes with one stop at Navigation Road.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Liverpool-Runcorn with one stop (Liverpool South Parkway) is 18 minutes and Manchester Airport to Piccadilly is 15-18 mins so 33-36 mins + however long it takes to get between Runcorn and Manchester Airport (id guess another 15-20 mins even with line upgrades). Electrified Liverpool to Piccadilly will be 34 minutes therefore much more appealing for end to end journeys.
Agreed the Chat Moss would be quicker for an end to end journey from Lime Street to Piccadilly, but on your own figures an end to end journey from Lime Street to Manchester Airport would be 33-38 minutes via Runcorn, so much more appealing than 49-52 minutes on a more crowded train via Piccadilly. After all, trains go to the airport because people want to get on and off there!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top