Discussion of Metrolink to Stockport idea

I have set this up to save the Mods from doing after the posts regarding this in the Piccadilly P15/16 thread here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nt-alternative-development-considered.160478/

LOL The Irony said:

I have set this up to save the Mods from doing after the posts regarding this in the Piccadilly P15/16 thread here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...nt-alternative-development-considered.160478/

Click to expand...

I might be missing something in the (very) small print of any attachments/links on the P15/P16 thread, but I can't find any reference to "Metrolink to Stockport" anywhere. I've heard vague reports about this, but can you be more specific about routing and time frame - and has there been a recent development prompting this thread?

Does page 60 in this help? http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansbl...5/01/Stockport-Rail-Strategy-January-2015.pdf

gazthomas said:

Does page 60 in this help? http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansbl...5/01/Stockport-Rail-Strategy-January-2015.pdf

Click to expand...

I have seen this before, but wondered if anything more had developed. I hadn't noticed the irony of the publication date before, though. January 2015 was when Stagecoach slashed the direct Reddish-Stockport services from (Mon-Sat) 11bph to 6 (or 5.5 at certain times of the day). Conversely, they have since introduced a direct bus (albeit an extension of a long-standing service) from Stockport to the Airport in competition with High Peak. Presumably, these plans remain very much long-term.

I think a Metrolink to Stockport is unlikely in the near future. The obvious route would be to extend the East Didsbury line but it would be a very slow way to get into Manchester, so would only really be useful for 'local' journeys.
Stockport also has a really good rail service, although the station is not particularly well situated for the town.

Altfish said:

would only really be useful for 'local' journeys.
Stockport also has a really good rail service, although the station is not particularly well situated for the town.

Click to expand...

Those are reasons enough though — improve rail-town access and suburbs-town access at the same time! Plus, suburbs-rail access without going via Piccadilly.

rebmcr said:

Those are reasons enough though — improve rail-town access and suburbs-town access at the same time! Plus, suburbs-rail access without going via Piccadilly.

Click to expand...

Depending on which "suburbs" you are thinking of, there are a number of bus services (23, 23A, 42, 370 etc), although many have been reduced in the last couple of years, or are about to be. Still, more logical than diverting off the northern end of the Hope Valley Line, as Didsbury/Heatons is a shorter stretch (quicker to construct and less cost) and serves a higher proportion of people with cars.

Funicular from the station to the bus station, like at Ebbw Vale might be more useful than Metrolink?

adamedwards said:

Funicular from the station to the bus station, like at Ebbw Vale might be more useful than Metrolink?

Click to expand...

Indeed, and that highlights the usual problem of integration

What is needed is a Reddish South to Brinnington Curve that would permit direct Stockport to Marple trains again. Perhaps extend it to Jacksons Brickowrks at Middlewood and make a spiral junction with the Buxton line and you could have a south and east Stockport circular - and not a tram in sight!

Dentonian said:

Indeed, and that highlights the usual problem of integration

Click to expand...

In most countries, the bus station would actually be at the railway station. That does not mean that the town centre is not served. Look at a typical system map in a comparable suburban town in other countries to see how things generally work. Such maps can easily be found online.

Dentonian said:

Depending on which "suburbs" you are thinking of, there are a number of bus services (23, 23A, 42, 370 etc), although many have been reduced in the last couple of years, or are about to be.

Click to expand...

I think it's reasonable for anyone south of Chorlton to access WCML services via Stockport rather than Piccadilly, if the Metrolink line was extended.

radamfi said:

In most countries, the bus station would actually be at the railway station. That does not mean that the town centre is not served. Look at a typical system map in a comparable suburban town in other countries to see how things generally work. Such maps can easily be found online.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Britain is not "most countries". Rail Stations have often been remote from town centres and by implication, bus stations. Any change now would often mean bus stations being just as remote, especially as many LA's restrict buses from town centre roads and thus reduce the options of bus routes serving both town centres and Interchanges.

radamfi said:

In most countries, the bus station would actually be at the railway station. That does not mean that the town centre is not served. Look at a typical system map in a comparable suburban town in other countries to see how things generally work. Such maps can easily be found online.

Click to expand...

That in Stockport would probably result in a bus station that hardly anyone used, a bit like Preston where people tend to ignore it and use the on street stops.

(Preston of course is the worst of both worlds - nowhere near the railway station or the town centre)

rebmcr said:

I think it's reasonable for anyone south of Chorlton to access WCML services via Stockport rather than Piccadilly, if the Metrolink line was extended.

Click to expand...

Geographically, that is true, but its interesting you cite WCML (ie long distance journeys). Such rail journeys are surely less likely to be peak heavy than more local journeys, and the "class" of people who feel the "need" to get to London from 190 miles away at peak times, are not likely to use any form of local public transport, anyway. Point being that with the possible exception of Phase I, the time savings between Metrolink and bus have been exaggerated, especially off-peak, with many people actually taking longer in practise because of the longer walk from home to Metrolink Station. Of course, the difference here, compared to Phase III is that it wouldn't be built and operational until after any decision on Bus Reform has been made, and so its difficult to know what impact, if any, it would have on bus services. Actually, it might not be too bad anyway, as the areas served have relatively high car ownership/access, and a higher population of Students than the population as a whole, are physically able to walk longer distances on a daily basis. It may be that only the 42 will go, and thus the main concern would be access to Christies.

Bletchleyite said:

That in Stockport would probably result in a bus station that hardly anyone used, a bit like Preston where people tend to ignore it and use the on street stops.

(Preston of course is the worst of both worlds - nowhere near the railway station or the town centre)

Click to expand...

And just to rub it in the *** burghers of Preston in deciding to turn half the Bus Station into a "yoof zone", have decided to keep the furthest half as a bus station, this bus passengers have to pass through the "yooves" to get to the market and shops beyond.

You are also right about Stockport, noting that the poorer districts (and therefore best patronised bus services) in the borough are to the north and east, thus would involve buses crossing the town centre - or by-passing it? - to get to the Rail Station up the hill on the south side of town.

Bus stations in mainland Europe are for interchanging between different services or between bus and train, which means that they are usually at the railway station. Britain is unusual in not putting bus stations near railway stations and instead using bus stations for accessing part of a town centre. It is quite normal in mainland Europe for people to get on at the bus stop nearest to where they want to go. There is no need for a bus station for that purpose. The lack of a town centre bus station doesn't seem to cause low patronage.

Where is the evidence that a special town centre bus station improves patronage? I can probably comfortably say without looking at any statistics that Britain spends more than any other country on town centre bus stations. Yet Britain spends almost nothing on the services themselves. The few towns in Britain well known for high bus patronage either have no bus station at all or most of its services don't use it.

radamfi said:

Bus stations in mainland Europe are for interchanging between different services or between bus and train, which means that they are usually at the railway station. Britain is unusual in not putting bus stations near railway stations and instead using bus stations for accessing part of a town centre. It is quite normal in mainland Europe for people to get on at the bus stop nearest to where they want to go. There is no need for a bus station for that purpose. The lack of a town centre bus station doesn't seem to cause low patronage.

Where is the evidence that a special town centre bus station improves patronage? I can probably comfortably say without looking at any statistics that Britain spends more than any other country on town centre bus stations. Yet Britain spends almost nothing on the services themselves. The few towns in Britain well known for high bus patronage either have no bus station at all or most of its services don't use it.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about location of a town centre bus station improving patronage. I merely pointed out that the services likely to be diverted away - due to any "diesel ban" - from the town centre to get to the rail station, would happen to be the ones with the heaviest loadings. However, as you raise the point, surely one positive effect would be that you would not need to walk far to do a quick errand whilst waiting for your connection.
The point in practice is that most large town centres have had bus stations for many decades. To remove them now in favour of on- street stops would be politically unacceptable due to "pollution and congestion" issues - or in the real world, because the motoring lobby don't want buses sat on bus stops for two or three minutes loading/unloading passengers and waiting time, because it prevents them parking on the bus stop whilst they nip into a take-away or a newsagents.

It might also be misleading to directly associate towns with a lack of sheltered interchange with high bus patronage. There are many other factors in bus patronage figures, as well you know. And do we really need to debate "Britain spends nothing on he (bus) services themselves"? The brick wall of my house has almost as many dents in it as my head............

Dentonian said:

I didn't say anything about location of a town centre bus station improving patronage. However, as you raise the point, surely one positive effect would be that you would not need to walk far to do a quick errand whilst waiting for your connection.
The point in practice is that most large town centres have had bus stations for many decades. To remove them now in favour of on- street stops would be politically unacceptable due to "pollution and congestion" issues - or in the real world, because the motoring lobby don't want buses sat on bus stops for two or three minutes loading/unloading passengers and waiting time, because it prevents them parking on the bus stop whilst they nip into a take-away or a newsagents.

It might also be misleading to directly associate towns with a lack of sheltered interchange with high bus patronage. There are many other factors in bus patronage figures, as well you know. And do we really need to debate "Britain spends nothing on he (bus) services themselves"? The brick wall of my house has almost as many dents in it as my head............

Click to expand...

Surely every aspect of how we design services should be with the intention of making patronage as high as possible?

It would be wrong to say that people boarding bus services at places other than rail stations in mainland Europe aren't sheltered. Bus stop infrastructure in places like the Netherlands and Switzerland is high quality. Good infrastructure is provided both in the town centre and elsewhere. It is possible to find a more elaborate bus stop at busy town centre stops (for example in Germany you might have a "Bushof") but nothing like a British bus station, and even if you have that you will still have a bus station at the rail station.

Bus stations have been closed in many parts of Britain, or dramatically reduced in size, largely where they were owned by private bus companies, meaning that buses have to be relocated on street. The ex-PTE areas are the main exceptions because the bus stations are owned by public authorities.

If indeed town centre bus stations are a good idea, then surely the idea would have caught on outside Britain? Mainland European countries spend vast sums on their buses so they could easily afford to have British style bus stations in the town centre.

radamfi said:

Surely every aspect of how we design services should be with the intention of making patronage as high as possible?

It would be wrong to say that people boarding bus services at places other than rail stations in mainland Europe aren't sheltered. Bus stop infrastructure in places like the Netherlands and Switzerland is high quality. Good infrastructure is provided both in the town centre and elsewhere. It is possible to find a more elaborate bus stop at busy town centre stops (for example in Germany you might have a "Bushof") but nothing like a British bus station, and even if you have that you will still have a bus station at the rail station.

Bus stations have been closed in many parts of Britain, or dramatically reduced in size, largely where they were owned by private bus companies, meaning that buses have to be relocated on street. The ex-PTE areas are the main exceptions because the bus stations are owned by public authorities.

If indeed town centre bus stations are a good idea, then surely the idea would have caught on outside Britain? Mainland European countries spend vast sums on their buses so they could easily afford to have British style bus stations in the town centre.

Click to expand...

TBF, many bus stations in PTE areas have reduced in size in line with reduced services/movements. Stockport is the relevant example here. For many years it has 25 stops, but recently two have closed. The new Bus Station/Interchange (from memory) will have 17. Between 2014/5 & 2016/7, TFGM bus stations saw a reduction in 10% of movements, with the only bus station unaffected being Shudehill. However, even that has seen more recent reductions.

But again, we can't keep comparing Britain with Europe - especially as we have now voted by a massive 51.6% to 48.4% - to have nothing to do with them. We are different politically and culturally, and (in Summer at least) climatically. Busy bus stops in mainland Europe may well be sheltered - doesn't mean to say that the voters and Council Taxpayers in Britain would be happy for the same to happen here.

Dentonian said:

But again, we can't keep comparing Britain with Europe - especially as we have now voted by a massive 51.6% to 48.4% - to have nothing to do with them. We are different politically and culturally, and (in Summer at least) climatically. Busy bus stops in mainland Europe may well be sheltered - doesn't mean to say that the voters and Council Taxpayers in Britain would be happy for the same to happen here.

Click to expand...

The only reason why comparison with mainland Europe is relevant is because whilst cars are still the dominant mode of transport, they have shown that it is possible to achieve reasonable mode shift away from cars in urban areas and in some cases on interurban corridors. It is therefore logical to see whether the methods used can be copied. The Netherlands is often used as a comparison because there are a lot of similarities, for example high population density, oceanic climate and Anglophile culture.

radamfi said:

The only reason why comparison with mainland Europe is relevant is because whilst cars are still the dominant mode of transport, they have shown that it is possible to achieve reasonable mode shift away from cars in urban areas and in some cases on interurban corridors. It is therefore logical to see whether the methods used can be copied. The Netherlands is often used as a comparison because there are a lot of similarities, for example high population density, oceanic climate and Anglophile culture.

Click to expand...

But how do bus fares (and to a lesser extent tram/local rail fares) compare with diesel/petrol costs (and if relevant parking costs) in the Netherlands. And, whilst we might share an Oceanic climate - which I assume is more relevant to temperature than precipitation, the Netherlands is famously flat, so I doubt it rains as frequently as it does on the windward side of our hills and mountains.

Dentonian said:

But how do bus fares (and to a lesser extent tram/local rail fares) compare with diesel/petrol costs (and if relevant parking costs) in the Netherlands. And, whilst we might share an Oceanic climate - which I assume is more relevant to temperature than precipitation, the Netherlands is famously flat, so I doubt it rains as frequently as it does on the windward side of our hills and mountains.

Click to expand...

The flatness means the climate is quite similar throughout the country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam#Climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utrecht#Climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam#Climate

shows that Amsterdam, Utrecht and Rotterdam all have roughly 800-900 mm of rain per year on average, with roughly 130 precipitation days per year. This is a fair bit higher than towns in eastern England, such as Cambridge and London, but similar to Manchester.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge#Climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester#Climate

Petrol/diesel is generally similarly priced throughout UK and Europe, although Luxembourg and Switzerland are usually a fair bit cheaper. Parking in the Netherlands is broadly similarly priced to the UK. Out of town shopping exists but not as much as in the UK. However, suburban precincts with small supermarkets and ample free parking are common.

Local transport fares are priced by each operator in euros per km. On top of that, you pay a 0.90 euros "boarding fee" on each bus/tram/metro, unless you have alighted from the previous vehicle less than 35 minutes ago. The boarding fee is the same nationwide.

For example, in Amsterdam it is 0.155 euros per km, so a 5 km trip would cost 0.90+5 x 0.155 = 1.675 (£1.49). In Utrecht it is 0.143 euros per km and in Rotterdam it is 0.139 euros per km.

radamfi said:

The flatness means the climate is quite similar throughout the country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam#Climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utrecht#Climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam#Climate

shows that Amsterdam, Utrecht and Rotterdam all have roughly 800-900 mm of rain per year on average, with roughly 130 precipitation days per year. This is a fair bit higher than towns in eastern England, such as Cambridge and London, but similar to Manchester.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge#Climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester#Climate

Petrol/diesel is generally similarly priced throughout UK and Europe, although Luxembourg and Switzerland are usually a fair bit cheaper. Parking in the Netherlands is broadly similarly priced to the UK. Out of town shopping exists but not as much as in the UK. However, suburban precincts with small supermarkets and ample free parking are common.

Local transport fares are priced by each operator in euros per km. On top of that, you pay a 0.90 euros "boarding fee" on each bus/tram/metro, unless you have alighted from the previous vehicle less than 35 minutes ago. The boarding fee is the same nationwide.

For example, in Amsterdam it is 0.155 euros per km, so a 5 km trip would cost 0.90+5 x 0.155 = 1.675 (£1.49). In Utrecht it is 0.143 euros per km and in Rotterdam it is 0.139 euros per km.

Click to expand...

Back to basics then. Its the fares that are the real problem. If I were to get the bus to my nearest half decent Supermarket (1.2m/1.9km according to the AA), it would cost about 3 euros (£2.70) return in Amsterdam, or 2.10e (£1.90) if I can get out and back and boarded on the return bus within 35 minutes. Here, its £4.50.
The other differences are more subtle and (under the free market) more selective. Living to the east of the city of Manchester, we have more precipitation than even the centre; we also tend to have the lowest car ownership, lowest income; lowest connectivity and no examples of lower fares. Or to put it another way, you could compare Swinton to a Dutch suburb, but you certainly couldn't compare Denton or Reddish!

Rather new here, so I hope my thoughts on this don't piss people off, but I find this a really interesting discussion. I'm all for an extension to Stockport and here's why:

Not all rail transport needs to be from suburbs to the city centre in a spoke pattern. Sure, a large number of commuters use this, but crosstown routes are also viable and Stockport is a hugely important centre in Greater Manchester. Stockport is in itself a destination, just smaller than central Manchester and if rail infrastructure to Stockport was improved, it would increase this area as both an attractive place to live and to work/visit.

Yes, there is a fast rail route from Piccadilly to Stockport, so a tram continuing from East Didsbury it is unlikely to attract a huge number of people from Stockport to travel to central Manchester, but it would be the logical choice to connect crosstown to the ever growing Media City and Trafford Centre (While you could do that via Piccadilly, the rail+Metrolink fares are just too expensive to be viable for many people). It would also make a good link to very popular suburban areas like Didsbury and Chorlton which have great nightlife and restaurant options.

Then there is the advantage of creating a transport hub or two. First of all, not all people travelling to Manchester from London want to go to the city centre. How many people here actually live in the city centre zone of Manchester? Maybe a few, but I suspect most live in the suburbs. People coming from London who live in South Manchester have to pass their suburb and go all the way into town and then out again. I live in Didsbury and travel a lot for work to London (Quite a few people who live in Didsbury need to travel to London for work it seems). It is such a hassle. I'd rather just hop on a tram to Stockport and board my train there. Currently when I get back, I am so tired of travelling all the way into the city, I get off at Stockport and catch a cab home. It is expensive, but buses are not an option for two reasons, one; they are too slow (it takes 30 minutes by bus from Stockport to Didsbury) and two; the bus station is nowhere near the train station and Manchester isn't exactly Barcelona when it comes to weather. (Also, has anyone ever walked that unlit path between the station and bus depot down the hill?)

All up buses are not a fast way to travel, they are slow, uncomfortable, get stuck in traffic and just not comparable to the tram or trains.

East Didsbury railway station should either also be moved to be closer to the tram station, or East Didsbury tram station moved to be closer to the railway line (one possible route to Stockport is via Cheadle) and then there would be fast connections to the airport as well, without having to go all the way into town - this would be a huge advantage for people from both directions, those living in Didsbury, surrounding area and Stockport)

I know there will be a lot of people saying that we don't need hubs or buses do a perfect job etc. But I often need to get to Stockport and despite Stockport being so close and have plenty of buses, they just don't do the job. The buses are so terrible that I only use them if I absolutely have to.

EODMAN said:

Rather new here, so I hope my thoughts on this don't **** people off

Click to expand...

Well a joke about the 130 bus triggered Dentonian but apart from that we'll all probably agree with you

EODMAN said:

Rather new here, so I hope my thoughts on this don't **** people off, but I find this a really interesting discussion. I'm all for an extension to Stockport and here's why:

Then there is the advantage of creating a transport hub or two. First of all, not all people travelling to Manchester from London want to go to the city centre. How many people here actually live in the city centre zone of Manchester? Maybe a few, but I suspect most live in the suburbs. People coming from London who live in South Manchester have to pass their suburb and go all the way into town and then out again. I live in Didsbury and travel a lot for work to London (Quite a few people who live in Didsbury need to travel to London for work it seems). It is such a hassle. I'd rather just hop on a tram to Stockport and board my train there. Currently when I get back, I am so tired of travelling all the way into the city, I get off at Stockport and catch a cab home. It is expensive, but buses are not an option for two reasons, one; they are too slow (it takes 30 minutes by bus from Stockport to Didsbury) and two; the bus station is nowhere near the train station and Manchester isn't exactly Barcelona when it comes to weather. (Also, has anyone ever walked that unlit path between the station and bus depot down the hill?)

All up buses are not a fast way to travel, they are slow, uncomfortable, get stuck in traffic and just not comparable to the tram or trains.


I know there will be a lot of people saying that we don't need hubs or buses do a perfect job etc. But I often need to get to Stockport and despite Stockport being so close and have plenty of buses, they just don't do the job. The buses are so terrible that I only use them if I absolutely have to.

Click to expand...

Despite LOL jumping in before I've even had chance to read your comments, its not a matter of **** ing people off, per se, its a matter of recognising people's different circumstances and the fact that the general policy - whether through commercial abstraction or through some people's idea of "integration" is that the Rail and especially Light Rail is there to replace buses, not to compliment them. All I would say, is that an extension from East Didsbury to Stockport, which I think has been mooted for some time, would be nowhere near as socially/economically divisive as say, a train-tram from North Reddish via South Reddish.

First, I would ask exactly where in Didsbury you live where buses take 30 minutes from Stockport? I ask this, accepting that I don't know what time of day you are travelling to/from Stockport Station, but I am presuming its M-F peak times. Taking the 42 service - which is the route most likely to succumb to Metrolink abstraction first; Daytime running time from Didsbury Village to Stockport is barely 20 minutes. Another note of caution; the Metrolink from Ashton to Manchester is timed to take exactly the same length of time as the 216 bus did before work started on the line.

In terms of individual circumstances, you say that you "have to travel to London for work" and seemingly a lot of other people in your area do the same. This seems to highlight that south Manchester is a completely alien world to the rest of GM. OTOH, if it is more widespread than I think, it shows just how much of a city state we are!

I'm also intrigued as to how you judge "comfort". I occasionally use Metrolink across the city centre only, and always stand up irrespective of how busy the carriage is. With the exception of a number of ancient double deckers at First's Oldham and Bolton depots (rejects from Yorkshire, iirc), the modern yellow trams with their moulded plastic bum perches are easily the most uncomfortable public transport vehicles in Greater Manchester.

Your comments about the proximity of Stockport's bus and rail stations are interesting in two ways - and btw, I have walked down that path many times, but not in the dark.
Firstly, which is nearest to Stockport town centre; the bus station or the rail station?
Secondly, yes, Manchester's climate - especially to the east of the city - is not Barcelona, which makes it even more interesting that you seem to complain about having to walk some distance. You may well live close to a Metrolink stop, but statistically, even where lines already exist, its a much longer walk to a Metrolink stop than to a (regularly served) bus stop. I am, of course, assuming you don't drive - or maybe I've got that wrong............

Stockport getting Metrolink would more likely be about construction of a line linking it to the Airport in the post HS2 era.