GM Prospectus for Rail

Greybeard33 · 26 Sep 2019

TfGM has published "Our Prospectus for Rail - Greater Manchester’s vision to transform rail travel to support future growth and prosperity for all." The 24 page document can be downloaded from https://news.tfgm.com/resources/gm-prospectus-for-rail.

The prospectus covers the timeframe up to 2035 and is too wide ranging to summarise all the proposals in this post. However, it does incorporate many ideas that have previously been advocated by contributors to this forum. These include:

"GM Rail" - local control of Greater Manchester suburban services and stations, similar to Merseyrail
Move towards eventual 4tph metro frequencies throughout GM, with 8-car trains (platforms extended where necessary; HS2 and NPR releasing capacity)
Simpler, more reliable, service patterns, with good connections at interchanges, instead of low frequency through services from everywhere to everywhere
Standardised GM rolling stock
Integrated ticketing across modes (National Rail, Metrolink and bus)
Castlefield corridor capacity improvement (Piccadilly P15/16, Oxford Road remodelling)
Longer term, a metro tunnel or tunnels under the city centre
Transpennine Route Upgrade to include electrification throughout
Stockport capacity improvement, including widening the cutting between Stockport and Edgeley Jn to reduce conflicts
Tram-train pathfinder projects: Oldham to Heywood via Rochdale, Manchester to Hale via Sale, Airport to Wilmslow
If pathfinders successful, possible further tram-train routes include Wigan via Atherton, Glossop, Marple via Bredbury and via Hyde, Warrington via the CLC, Airport to Stockport and to Timperley via Baguley.

The aim, by 2040, is to double patronage on the National Rail network in GM.

Note: this thread is strictly for discussion of the merits of, and problems with, the TfGM proposals for the GM National Rail lines and services. Anyone who wishes to put forward their own alternative ideas should post them in an existing or new thread in the Speculative Ideas section, e.g. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...duce-losses-in-the-northern-franchise.191880/

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 26 Sep 2019

I've not read it in detail, but those bullet points sound like exactly what is needed - pretty much exactly the S-Bahn-Manchester (and associated joint tariff/Verbundtarif) I've been proposing as necessary for years.

PR1Berske · 27 Sep 2019

The part of the document about new stations, be they heavy rail or not, seems very sparing on how to pay for them. Also I'm very interested in stations on the Wigan-Atherton line being included as new station aspirations.

Edders23 · 28 Sep 2019

It all looks good in principle apart from the tunnels which I think might prove an expensive white elephant BUT as always funding will be the most difficult part unless the good Burgers of ALL the Greater Manchester area and a little beyond are happy with a couple of hundred pounds added to their rates every year for the next 10 to 15 years

Mogster · 28 Sep 2019

This is exactly what’s needed. I’m particularly excited by the proposed Castlefield upgrades, increased frequencies, platform extensions and 8 car services. Dare we dream of Manchester Thameslink...

With this talk of heavy rail improvements I find myself less excited by the prospect of trams all the way to Warrington and on the Atherton line...

Anyway without confirmed funding and with past disappointments still feeling raw this all feels more than a bit crayonista.

hooverboy · 28 Sep 2019

Greybeard33 said:
TfGM has published "Our Prospectus for Rail - Greater Manchester’s vision to transform rail travel to support future growth and prosperity for all." The 24 page document can be downloaded from https://news.tfgm.com/resources/gm-prospectus-for-rail.

The prospectus covers the timeframe up to 2035 and is too wide ranging to summarise all the proposals in this post. However, it does incorporate many ideas that have previously been advocated by contributors to this forum. These include:

"GM Rail" - local control of Greater Manchester suburban services and stations, similar to Merseyrail

Move towards eventual 4tph metro frequencies throughout GM, with 8-car trains (platforms extended where necessary; HS2 and NPR releasing capacity)

Simpler, more reliable, service patterns, with good connections at interchanges, instead of low frequency through services from everywhere to everywhere

Standardised GM rolling stock

Integrated ticketing across modes (National Rail, Metrolink and bus)

Castlefield corridor capacity improvement (Piccadilly P15/16, Oxford Road remodelling)

Longer term, a metro tunnel or tunnels under the city centre

Transpennine Route Upgrade to include electrification throughout

Stockport capacity improvement, including widening the cutting between Stockport and Edgeley Jn to reduce conflicts

Tram-train pathfinder projects: Oldham to Heywood via Rochdale, Manchester to Hale via Sale, Airport to Wilmslow

If pathfinders successful, possible further tram-train routes include Wigan via Atherton, Glossop, Marple via Bredbury and via Hyde, Warrington via the CLC, Airport to Stockport and to Timperley via Baguley.

The aim, by 2040, is to double patronage on the National Rail network in GM.

Note: this thread is strictly for discussion of the merits of, and problems with, the TfGM proposals for the GM National Rail lines and services. Anyone who wishes to put forward their own alternative ideas should post them in an existing or new thread in the Speculative Ideas section, e.g. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...duce-losses-in-the-northern-franchise.191880/

to be honest 2040 as a target is not exactly ambitious.

yes, fully integrated transport system for greater manchester is definitely needed.
it wouldn't necessarily have to be full rail either.
it might be better to opt for a toulouse metro type system, with rubber tyred vehicles,and 4 cars every 5 mins

coverage is key here,and using such rail type/stock reduces some costs for seriously heavy earthworks

PR1Berske · 28 Sep 2019

hooverboy said:
to be honest 2040 as a target is not exactly ambitious

With the UK's record of building infrastructure projects it's positively over ambitious!

Mogster · 28 Sep 2019

I’ve been commuting from Wigan to Manchester Castlefield for 25 years, I’m struggling to think of ways my particular journey has improved... Its slower, more overcrowded, less reliable and less frequent, the stock has just got older over time.

So yes, this sounds seriously ambitious and I’d be very surprised if most of it happens.

Greybeard33 · 28 Sep 2019

The document indeed has little to say about funding. However, in the wider transport context TfGM has addressed future capital funding sources in its Transport Strategy Draft Delivery Plan 2020-2025, which can be downloaded from https://tfgm.com/2040. This says (p.81):

In response to the National Infrastructure Assessment, Greater Manchester is working on establishing a second Greater Manchester Transport Fund (GMTF2), building on GMTF1 described above. If Greater Manchester is to deliver its intended multi-billion pound investment programme over the next 20 years, then a new funding deal will be needed with an agreed national-local funding split, to deliver a programme that aims to be twice the level of investment achieved under GMTF1, sustained for twice as long. As part of this, Greater Manchester is committed to reviewing potential new local sources of revenue funding which could cover areas such as land value capture, as well as creating greater certainty over services delivery and asset management.

Under the current Transport Fund, the new Trafford Park Metrolink line is being funded mainly by borrowing against future revenue, using the Earn Back Model. As explained in the Delivery Plan:

The Greater Manchester Transport Fund 1 allowed Greater Manchester to ‘earn back’ a portion of additional tax revenue from Gross Value Added (GVA) increases resulting from local investment in infrastructure. Earn Back provides an incentive for Greater Manchester to prioritise local government spending to maximise GVA growth.

Expansion of the Metrolink tram fleet is being funded by central government via the Transforming Cities Fund.

I imagine similar funding mechanisms could be used for infrastructure and rolling stock investment in a devolved GM Rail network, if TfGM could make the case that the resultant growth in patronage and farebox revenue would enable a future reduction in the operating subsidy.

Edders23 · 29 Sep 2019

National-local funding split hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............

In other words see how much you can raise locally and central government might put in less than half and claim to be the principal funder

cynicism mode off

Camden · 29 Sep 2019

It's a power grab, and not even hidden in an initiative like "Rail North" anymore. I guess West Yorkshire didn't prove to be quite the placid pushover envisaged!!

"Local control and accountability for
Greater Manchester to be the custodians
of travel-to-work area service"

Trains from Leeds to Liverpool will end up being branded "GM Rail". The Merseyrail City Lines will be taken over, and run to Manchester's tune, even though 90% of stations and passengers are in the Liverpool area.

I'm all for making our urban areas work, but this daft megalomaniac Manchester-or-bust approach needs to come to a screeching halt. The GDP for the North has gone down, not up, because of it. If there is to be a city level devolution of control and accountability for rail services, there needs to be a full on and fair regional settlement for all cities, not just one.

Mogster · 29 Sep 2019

Like it or not Manchester is the hub of rail services in the North. Whatever money is spent on sorting out the very real congestion problems in central Manchester will benefit the whole rail network in the North. Delays in Manchester are radiating outwards causing daily chaos extending into Liverpool and Yorkshire.

Camden · 29 Sep 2019

Irrelevant conflation. 90% of passengers and stations on the Merseyrail City Lines are in the Liverpool region, 80% of journeys they make are within the Liverpool region. Ownership, benefit and focus of these services should rightly belong to the Liverpool region.

Whatever self-inflicted chaos abounds in Manchester city centre is of no impact either way as to who should own, benefit from and be the focus of which services.

Noting that even in their own prospectus they acknowledge their local rail services are underused (not surprising, given the way until recently they've chosen to ignore them), if there is a rationale for any one area in the north to take custodianship of railways running through greater Manchester, it's the one authority with experience, and which delivers 100m metropolitan passenger journeys per year.

If anyone baulks at that, then why do they think it's acceptable for a different city to lose control, benefit and focus of its rail services to Manchester (or Leeds, re Rail North).

yorksrob · 29 Sep 2019

So residents of Heywood will be expected to take a long and winding tram-train route through Oldham, rather than just running some heavy rail services through from Victoria.

This seems like a poorly thought out plan just to try and justify the conversion of the Atherton line, rather than what would be best for Heywood and the rail network as a whole.

Bantamzen · 29 Sep 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I've not read it in detail, but those bullet points sound like exactly what is needed - pretty much exactly the S-Bahn-Manchester (and associated joint tariff/Verbundtarif) I've been proposing as necessary for years.

With just a few teeny, tiny problems....

js1000 · 29 Sep 2019

Mogster said:
Like it or not Manchester is the hub of rail services in the North. Whatever money is spent on sorting out the very real congestion problems in central Manchester will benefit the whole rail network in the North. Delays in Manchester are radiating outwards causing daily chaos extending into Liverpool and Yorkshire.

The problem in the North is the parochialism of it all. Makes me laugh how places like Hull, Southport, Cumbria etc. complain about rail links to and from Manchester. When much needed investment to relieve the bottleneck through Manchester (which will benefit areas outside of Greater Manchester the most) is proposed they complain about "Manchester taking all the money."

How many services would actually come under the auspices of GM Rail though? Northern operate about 100 separate services, I suspect only about 10 or so would fall into the 'sphere' of Greater Manchester so to speak where the destination is Piccadilly or Victoria. Those being Manchester to Hazel Grove, Wigan, Hadfield, Buxton, New Mills, Rose Hill Marple, Crewe, Stoke and Alderley Edge-Wigan, Stalybridge-Wigan, Blackburn-Rochdale.

The Northern franchise is going to go at some point in the next year. I suspect it will be re-let as it is although some services exclusively in the GM area may form part of a separate GM Rail franchise as a joint public-private venture judging by what Boris Johnson said a month or so ago.

WatcherZero · 29 Sep 2019

Camden said:
Noting that even in their own prospectus they acknowledge their local rail services are underused (not surprising, given the way until recently they've chosen to ignore them), if there is a rationale for any one area in the north to take custodianship of railways running through greater Manchester, it's the one authority with experience, and which delivers 100m metropolitan passenger journeys per year.

If anyone baulks at that, then why do they think it's acceptable for a different city to lose control, benefit and focus of its rail services to Manchester (or Leeds, re Rail North).

Indeed, the ORR 2017/18 statistics are here:
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/regional-rail-usage/

There are 58.4m (30.6%) local heavy rail journeys within Greater Manchester and 96.3m (50.44%) within Merseyside of 190.9m local journeys within the North West. Merseyside has had rail devolution being given control of its own franchise and a 30 year funding settlement removing it from Dft funding control. There were 42m Metrolink journeys that year for a grand total of 100.4m rail journeys within Greater Manchester which exceed the criteria Camden sets out for the region to take custodianship of its own rail services.

There is a further 5.9m (15%) long distance rail journeys to/from Merseyside and 21.7m (56%) long distance journeys to/from Greater Manchester of 38.95m long distance rail services to/from the North West.

Greybeard33 · 30 Sep 2019

I doubt that further rail devolution to the Northern city regions would cause much conflict between them. Even in the case of Liverpool and Manchester, there is little overlap in the respective travel to work areas. The GM rail maps in the Prospectus extend no further west than Warrington, Newton-le-Willows and Wigan. Whereas the Merseytravel rail network map goes no further east than these same stations. Stopping services on the CLC line might well be split at Warrington Central and I imagine that some form of joint control and branding could be agreed for the through stopper on the Chat Moss line.

It seems to me that the main risk would be to the rump of services left behind in the Northern franchise, serving the branch lines outside the areas covered by the city region metro services. These might become less frequent and/or be truncated to the termini of the metro services, following the Merseyrail precedent of the Preston - Ormskirk, Wrexham - Bidston and Wigan - Kirkby services. GM boundary interchanges might, for example, be at Bolton (for Blackburn/Clitheroe), Wigan Wallgate (for Southport/Kirkby), Hale (for Northwich/Chester), Hazel Grove (for Buxton), Marple (for Chinley and the Hope Valley) and Rochdale (for Burnley/Blackburn).

Bletchleyite · 30 Sep 2019

Greybeard33 said:
It seems to me that the main risk would be to the rump of services left behind in the Northern franchise, serving the branch lines outside the areas covered by the city region metro services. These might become less frequent and/or be truncated to the termini of the metro services, following the Merseyrail precedent of the Preston - Ormskirk, Wrexham - Bidston and Wigan - Kirkby services. GM boundary interchanges might, for example, be at Bolton (for Blackburn/Clitheroe), Wigan Wallgate (for Southport/Kirkby), Hale (for Northwich/Chester), Hazel Grove (for Buxton), Marple (for Chinley and the Hope Valley) and Rochdale (for Burnley/Blackburn).

I can't see that happening, to be honest, any more than it happens (it doesn't) in Verbund areas in Germany. There are plenty of German services which are advertised as "im Verbundtarif bis <station>" (in joint tariff until <station>) and I see no reason why this couldn't happen here too. Hale is the most ridiculous one listed - if you were going to lop the Chester service somewhere you'd do it at Alty. Similarly I'd expect the whole Buxton line to go to TfGM because it's self-contained, same as the Hadfield/Glossop EMUs which go into Derbyshire at the east end but have always been classed as Greater Manchester services for ticketing purposes.

I'd more likely suspect that you'll end up with the Atherton line becoming self-contained and all the through services running via Bolton, but I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

LeeLivery · 1 Oct 2019

I like devolution to an extent but always been skeptical of further fragmentation. With that said, I'd argue for the Rhine-Rhur style integration for rail transport with Gtr. Manchester and Merseyside. One vision for the rail service - may also include West Yorks.

Probably would work better in my head and in reality. But hey ho.

Meerkat · 1 Oct 2019

West of the Pennines Northern could be split into Merseyrail, GM as per their wishes and a Lancashire (old Lancashire including Barrow!) concession based out of Preston and looking after local services and the regionals into Manchester/Liverpool with regulation to ensure their fare structure was based on serving their own people and not stealing commuters from Bolton etc.

Meerkat · 1 Oct 2019

If GM got control of it’s proper trains do they still need this fascination with tram trains?
Is there even capacity on the central tram sections for them all, and what chance of them presenting well when they hit the rail network?
Seems to me tram trains are sub optimal trams and sub optimal metro trains - just concentrate on high capacity fast accelerating metro trains to get to the pretty well situated city stations and a tram/bus system to the distribute the ones that can’t then walk.

Edders23 · 1 Oct 2019

If the politicians are in as much disagreement as the posters on here I wonder if this will even get started

There will always be some winners and losers but as long as there is an overall improvement for the majority of public transport users surely that's what matters most

Meerkat · 1 Oct 2019

Excuse my ignorance but my does the tram need to extend to Stalybridge? Surely anyone round there is going to jump on a train into the city?
And Airport to Wilmslow as a tram train experiment...why?

johnnychips · 1 Oct 2019

Meerkat said:
Excuse my ignorance but my does the tram need to extend to Stalybridge? Surely anyone round there is going to jump on a train into the city?
...

If there was some off-road running between there and Ashton - which I can’t see how - then it will be quicker than the bus to places like Audenshaw and Droylesden. But I am clutching at straws!

Camden · 1 Oct 2019

WatcherZero said:
Indeed, the ORR 2017/18 statistics are here:
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/regional-rail-usage/

There are 58.4m (30.6%) local heavy rail journeys within Greater Manchester and 96.3m (50.44%) within Merseyside of 190.9m local journeys within the North West. Merseyside has had rail devolution being given control of its own franchise and a 30 year funding settlement removing it from Dft funding control. There were 42m Metrolink journeys that year for a grand total of 100.4m rail journeys within Greater Manchester which exceed the criteria Camden sets out for the region to take custodianship of its own rail services.

There is a further 5.9m (15%) long distance rail journeys to/from Merseyside and 21.7m (56%) long distance journeys to/from Greater Manchester of 38.95m long distance rail services to/from the North West.

That seems rather desperate, if you don't mind my remarking. In London, we tend to group tram journeys with bus, rather than rail. Metrolink and Tramlink are not equivalent mode to the DLR or tube let alone proper rail.

Even accepting the thrown in figures, it's not to forget that greater Manchester is serving twice the population than its neighbour. In other words, if Manchester equates to 100 million, it's still a long way behind Liverpool's usage which is double. A long way from success indicators.

Greybeard33 said:
and I imagine that some form of joint control and branding could be agreed for the through stopper on the Chat Moss line.

The issue isn't a trivial one of branding, but of focus, purpose, control, cost and benefit.

The vast majority of the route and stops are in Liverpool's area, as is the huge proportion of the passengers and passenger flows (80% of the passengers on the line travel entirely within the Liverpool area, across it's 90% of the stops).

There is no rightful reason why Liverpool should have to share any aspect of control.

Greybeard33 · 2 Oct 2019

Meerkat said:
Excuse my ignorance but my does the tram need to extend to Stalybridge? Surely anyone round there is going to jump on a train into the city?
And Airport to Wilmslow as a tram train experiment...why?

Metrolink to Stalybridge would not be primarily for end to end journeys, any more than the existing lines to Rochdale and Manchester Airport. People from Stalybridge need to travel to places other than Victoria and Piccadilly.

The Airport to Wilmslow tram-train pathfinder would use the Metrolink platforms at Manchester Airport, rather than the congested heavy rail platforms. It would demonstrate the feasibility of transition from 25kV AC to 750V DC OLE, which has not been done before in Britain.

Camden said:
The issue isn't a trivial one of branding, but of focus, purpose, control, cost and benefit.

The vast majority of the route and stops are in Liverpool's area, as is the huge proportion of the passengers and passenger flows (80% of the passengers on the line travel entirely within the Liverpool area, across it's 90% of the stops).

There is no rightful reason why Liverpool should have to share any aspect of control.

There are currently 13 intermediate stops between Lime Street and Victoria/Deansgate via the Chat Moss, of which 11 (85%) are in the Liverpool City Region. The Prospectus proposes new GM stations at Kenyon, Glazebury and Western Gateway on the eastern Chat Moss, which would reduce the proportion to 69%.

Is there published data that shows the proportions of passengers from Newton-le-Willows, Earlestown, St Helens Jn and Lea Green who travel east rather than west? The peak stoppers to/from Manchester are well loaded and I am sure many of the passengers travel west of Patricroft.

On devolution, the GM Rail Prospectus says:

There are a number of examples across the North which demonstrate what can be achieved when local rail networks are run by or on behalf of locally elected politicians including Merseyrail, Nexus and Greater Manchester’s own Metrolink network. Government has now set out plans for city-regions to take more control over rail services and stations and Greater Manchester looks forward to working with Government and industry partners to grasp this opportunity.

Nothing in the document suggests to me that TfGM wants to stage a takeover bid for sole control of services that extend into the Liverpool City Region. Merseytravel and TfGM have a shared interest in cooperation rather than squabbling over boundaries. Have Merseytravel or Steve Rotheram suggested they would want sole control over services into central Manchester?

Camden · 2 Oct 2019

Yes. Merseytravel agreed to co-operate with Rail North when it was first invented on the understanding that the City Lines would rightly transfer to them. This went as far as a certain rolling stock provider developing refurbishment proposals in Merseyrail livery. The City Lines are and always have been integral to the system as intended once complete via the connector tunnel.

Now it seems that pan-north co-operation isn't good enough for GM. The rail north control they invented and lobbied for and got Leeds to play junior partner in, and got Liverpool and Newcastle to cautiously agree to not object to with conditions, no longer enough.

Who knows what GM wants, and frankly who cares. The only issue is who pays for what they want, and it shouldn't be their neighbours via either money, displacement of economic activity or assets.

Meerkat · 2 Oct 2019

Greybeard33 said:
Metrolink to Stalybridge would not be primarily for end to end journeys, any more than the existing lines to Rochdale and Manchester Airport. People from Stalybridge need to travel to places other than Victoria and Piccadilly.

I am sure they do but it ain’t a big place and a tram seems excessive, unless Stalybridge gives people access to TPE services (is it actually going to the station?)

PR1Berske · 2 Oct 2019

There is a map on page 13 of the Prospectus which shows potential new stations across Greater Manchester. I thought it might be useful to put that map into text form in this thread for reference. Headings are as per the map

New HS2/NPR station
Wigan*
Piccadilly
Airport
Stockport*

*There are plans to link Wigan and Stockport stations into the HS2 network using 'classic compatible' trains

Potential new Metrolink stop
Elton Reservoir
Sandhills
Cop Road

Potential new station
Goldborne
Glazebury
Kenyon
Western Gateway
Cornbrook
Stanley Green
High Lane
Slattocks
Dewsnap
Gamesley

Potential new station (Metro/tram-train)
Timperley East
Gatley North
Adswood
Pendlebury
White City

Potential new station (rail or Metro/tram-train)
Dobb Brow
Little Hulton
Baguley
Cheadle

Potential station replacement (rail or Metro/tram-train)
Lostock Parkway
Denton
Reddish South

GM Prospectus for Rail

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member