GM Prospectus for Rail

Greybeard33 said:

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

Click to expand...

YES!

Been saying this for a long time - we could use the current infrastructure much more efficiently if we has simpler services.

Look at a regular journey around Manchester (the kind of journey that large numbers of people will want to do on a daily basis, rather than some esoteric link or "nice to have for one journey a year" Airport links), you'll often find at least one of...

services badly bunched so that you get a long gap then three departures in ten minutes, meaning that the first service will get disproportionately overloaded
a messy combination of Pic/Vic departures, so that passengers don't know where to go (made worse in the case of Wigan where generally you have two trains per hour from North Western to Piccadilly, one per hour from North Western to Victoria and three per hour from Wallgate to Victoria... ) - if I were in central Manchester (say the Arndale, for arguments) then I'd rather know that all of my departures were leaving from the one central Manchester station, instead of walking over to Piccadilly, narrowly missing my train and finding that the next one left in fifteen minutes from Victoria... Manchester isn't as big as London, it doesn't need the "some services to the City, some services to the West End" approach that the capital has. This looks like a step in the right direction (although there are bound to be people upset at the lack of through trains)

For example, if all "Chorley/Preston" services ran from Piccadilly and all "Wigan" services ran from Victoria (with the Preston via Wigan services treated like the Preston via Chorley services) then you could create a much simpler network of services, much better spacing between departures, much more reliable when disruption happens and much more attractive to potential passengers.

Greybeard33 said:

• Standardised GM rolling stock

Click to expand...

Sounds good in theory but could be awkward given how many longer distance trains pass through central Manchester - if it's just a case of having one type of train (with pure-EMU and bi-mode versions) on the services running wholly within Greater Manchester (inc Buxton/ Glossop) then fair enough but many services run beyond the border - will the equivalent bodies in Merseyside/ West Yorkshire/ South Yorkshire/ Lancashire/ Cheshire be happy with this?

Greybeard33 said:

• Castlefield corridor capacity improvement (Piccadilly P15/16, Oxford Road remodelling)
• Longer term, a metro tunnel or tunnels under the city centre
• 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

Click to expand...

If the plan is to remove a number of heavy rail departures by converting so many services to using the Metrolink lines through the city centre then that should free up a lot of capacity (on top of the capacity improvements created by simplifying the network mentioned above)... so I'm not convinced about the need for a city centre tunnel, or even 15/16 being built.

(But if the plan is to run tram trains serving the existing heavy rail termini then that's a whole other kettle of fish)

Hale Via Sale Rail sounds nice though.

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.

Click to expand...

in the North West, & it's not the only hub.
Across the entire North, there are obvious hubs at Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Doncaster, Leeds, York & Newcastle

Liverpool isn't a regional hub, it's a far smaller local hub that deals only really with connections to and from Merseyrail services (electric and diesel) and not regional connections. It's tucked away in a corner.

Preston is more of a hub than the Liverpool stations.

Bletchleyite said:

Liverpool isn't a regional hub, it's a far smaller local hub that deals only really with connections to and from Merseyrail services (electric and diesel) and not regional connections. It's tucked away in a corner.

Preston is more of a hub than the Liverpool stations.

Click to expand...

Not true.

It connects the entire western half of the North west to London/Birmingham/North Wales.

It's services alone disprove your statement. It has TfW, Virgin, TPE, Northern and WmT as well as it's local service merseyrail.

Compared to Preston with Northern, TPE and Virgin.

It will extend out to Cardiff and Scotland soon enough. Added with the Cruise Terminal that's being built.

It's every bit a regional hub.

Manchester is clearly the main hub in the North, but to dismiss Liverpool as a local hub is mere folly.

Camden said:

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.

Click to expand...

I doubt that TfGM would have a problem with rolling stock in Merseyrail livery running to Manchester and Manchester Airport, as long as it provided sufficient capacity and frequency at the stations within the TfGM rail boundary. Likewise TfW, West Coast and Cross Country services will presumably continue running into Manchester. I imagine the TPE franchise, or whatever replaces it, will remain under the aegis of TfN, rather than any of the component authorities individually. The GM Rail concept applies to local suburban services, but the Prospectus recognises that the GM network must also provide capacity for inter-urban and freight services.

Differences in livery can be helpful for passengers at busy stations.

yorksrob said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, if residents of Heywood wanted to go to Victoria, they could change at Rochdale (cross platform change) from the tram-train to the fast and frequent heavy rail service. They could stay on the tram-train if they actually wanted to go to Oldham.

Greybeard33 said:

No, if residents of Heywood wanted to go to Victoria, they could change at Rochdale (cross platform change) from the tram-train to the fast and frequent heavy rail service. They could stay on the tram-train if they actually wanted to go to Oldham.

Click to expand...

Why would they want to fanny around in Rochdale, rather than getting a fast direct train to Manchester ?

Meerkat said:

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?)

Click to expand...

AFAIK the route alignment for the proposed Metrolink extension from Ashton to Stalybridge has not yet been published - it is currently at the "develop options" stage. The Delivery Plan linked in Post #9 gives the rationale as:

To provide communities east of Ashton with an alternative rapid transit option into the Regional Centre, thereby reducing pressure on the A635 and other roads.

Click to expand...

Metrolink extensions are really OT for this thread, which is about the proposals that affect the National Rail lines.

yorksrob said:

Why would they want to fanny around in Rochdale, rather than getting a fast direct train to Manchester ?

Click to expand...

If a path could be found at all, a direct service from Heywood to Victoria could be no more frequent than hourly. The tram-train service to Rochdale and Oldham could be "turn up and go", because it would only share the main line tracks for the two miles between Castleton and Rochdale East Jn.

Is there a break down of figures available to show where passengers from the Chat Moss line actually travel to? The Manchester to liverpool stopping/express services are consistently busy all day, and on a personal level I sell a hell of a lot of Newton Le Willows, Earlestown, St Helens Jc, Lea Green, Rainhill and Huyton season tickets while covering Manchester Vic booking office. Very little traffic goes west from Eccles but I cannot say for others down the line.

Greybeard33 said:

If a path could be found at all, a direct service from Heywood to Victoria could be no more frequent than hourly. The tram-train service to Rochdale and Oldham could be "turn up and go", because it would only share the main line tracks for the two miles between Castleton and Rochdale East Jn.

Click to expand...

Do you have anything to back up that claim, given there are still services that terminate from the West at Victoria that could potentially be exxtended.

I have an hourly train to Leeds. It's still quicker and less hassle than the more frequent bus.

If I were a regular user of Manchester to Warrington Central or to Wigan via Atherton, I would not welcome their conversion to tram-trains. The GM idea of tram seems to favour minimum seating, and crush-level standing capacity - just about tolerable for very short trips, but not what you want for 15-20 mile journeys.

Chat Moss route - I doubt there is capacity for much more than 2 stopping trains per hour, in additional to the current service levels. With the additional "fast" services introduced in recent years, it only takes one minor delay to disrupt punctual running at current service levels. Trying to add many more services would just create more "Castlefield-Style" congestion spots at places like Parkside Jn, and Earlestown. But Eccles & Patricroft could certainly benefit from better services to Manchester.

I fear the main probably will be raising enough money - beware of believing any promises about funding made by the likes of Batty B or Loser Corbyn, etc.. these are likely to be quietly forgotten after the post-Brexit financial problems....

Geeves said:

Is there a break down of figures available to show where passengers from the Chat Moss line actually travel to? The Manchester to liverpool stopping/express services are consistently busy all day, and on a personal level I sell a hell of a lot of Newton Le Willows, Earlestown, St Helens Jc, Lea Green, Rainhill and Huyton season tickets while covering Manchester Vic booking office. Very little traffic goes west from Eccles but I cannot say for others down the line.

Click to expand...

The only thing like that I've ever seen was this study from 2013: (Chat Moss pages 161 and 175)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0peWnoQwe5PNpBbqpGUWAB

I don't know where they got the numbers from though, and suspect Merseytravel's zonal tickets might affect things, but it suggests Newton-le-Willows, Earlestown and St Helens Junction had more traffic to Manchester than Liverpool.

yorksrob said:

Do you have anything to back up that claim, given there are still services that terminate from the West at Victoria that could potentially be exxtended.

I have an hourly train to Leeds. It's still quicker and less hassle than the more frequent bus.

Click to expand...

There is currently one diesel service per hour from the west that terminates at Victoria, namely the Atherton line service from Wigan Wallgate/Kirkby. It has a 10-ish minute turnaround in one of the through platforms. I do not know if there would definitely be a path for it to be extended to Castleton South Jn. The other terminating service is the EMU from Preston, which definitely could not be extended along the unelectrified line!

There is a direct bus every 10 minutes from Heywood to Manchester, with a journey time of about an hour off peak. Whether or not an hourly direct train would be quicker and/or less hassle would depend on how close to the stations your start point and destination were, and what time you needed to arrive.

Greybeard33 said:

There is currently one diesel service per hour from the west that terminates at Victoria, namely the Atherton line service from Wigan Wallgate/Kirkby. It has a 10-ish minute turnaround in one of the through platforms. I do not know if there would definitely be a path for it to be extended to Castleton South Jn. The other terminating service is the EMU from Preston, which definitely could not be extended along the unelectrified line!

There is a direct bus every 10 minutes from Heywood to Manchester, with a journey time of about an hour off peak. Whether or not an hourly direct train would be quicker and/or less hassle would depend on how close to the stations your start point and destination were, and what time you needed to arrive.

Click to expand...

Well, that's two services at least that could potentially be extended (assuming the Preston service is swapped for one of these flex/bi-mode's). Then aren't there plans for an extra Atherton line service, which would presumably have nowhere to go.

An hour on the bus for Heywood to Manchester off-peak ? That's frankly rubbish, considering its 15-20 mins Vic - Rochdale on the train.

yorksrob said:

An hour on the bus for Heywood to Manchester off-peak ? That's frankly rubbish, considering its 15-20 mins Vic - Rochdale on the train.

Click to expand...

So a short tram ride to Rochdale plus the 15-20 minute train would be a vast improvement, no? I understand your general opposition to heavy rail conversion to Metrolink, but there's currently no (non-heritage) rail in Heywood, so the tram would be a big and welcome improvement.

What would happen to Rochdale Railway Station Metrolink stop if Heywood gets onto the Metrolink map? Would trams run through the actual railway station? I can't quite get the route in my head looking at Maps.

sprunt said:

So a short tram ride to Rochdale plus the 15-20 minute train would be a vast improvement, no? I understand your general opposition to heavy rail conversion to Metrolink, but there's currently no (non-heritage) rail in Heywood, so the tram would be a big and welcome improvement.

Click to expand...

Yes, but clearly not as good as a direct train taking people straight to Manchester where the majority would want to go. This is clearly the optimum solution for this corridor, becase a fast, direct link to Manchester is what is currently missing.

sprunt said:

So a short tram ride to Rochdale plus the 15-20 minute train would be a vast improvement, no? I understand your general opposition to heavy rail conversion to Metrolink, but there's currently no (non-heritage) rail in Heywood, so the tram would be a big and welcome improvement.

Click to expand...

yorksrob said:

Yes, but clearly not as good as a direct train taking people straight to Manchester where the majority would want to go. This is clearly the optimum solution for this corridor, becase a fast, direct link to Manchester is what is currently missing.

Click to expand...

A direct train would be the fastest way to get from Heywood to Manchester. But it wouldn't be very frequent, and an hourly or half hourly service would struggle to compete with the bus or the alternative options of taking the car/bus to Bury for the tram or just driving. A train carrying only passengers for Heywood would be at the very back of the queue for scarce paths in Manchester as well.

A tram to Rochdale at first glance seems a bit pointless - it would probably incur most of the costs of bringing the Heywood line up to scratch, but without the direct link to the city centre. I don't what the available paths would allow, but potentially what the tram could offer is frequency - if a tram could be three times as frequent as a direct train, and a connecting journey via Rochdale perhaps only 10 minutes slower, would that be a better arrangement?

Whilst Heywood probably needs better public transport, I am not convinced a tram (Metrolink) extension from Rochdale is the best solution.
1. Heywood (heritage, and old heavy rail) station is somewhat on the fringe of the town centre.
2. On Metrolink, it already takes about 45 minutes from Manchester Victoria to Rochdale
(See https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/metrolink_working_timetable_vali_6,
and scroll down page until you see "downloads")
Rochdale to Heywood by tram would probably add another 10-15 minutes to the journey time from Manchester - so barely competitive with direct bus journey times. In fact Heywood to Bury by bus, then Metrolink to Manchester would be quicker.

(I could suggest better, but more expensive Metrolink suggestions for that area, but they would be OT in this thread.)

yorksrob said:

Yes, but clearly not as good as a direct train taking people straight to Manchester where the majority would want to go. This is clearly the optimum solution for this corridor, becase a fast, direct link to Manchester is what is currently missing.

Click to expand...

Outside peak hours, I suspect that Bury, followed by Rochdale, maybe Middleton, then Manchester are the most popular destinations for those using current bus services in Heywood, and that is a rough guide to the numbers likely to use any "new" rail or Metrolink services..

PR1Berske said:

What would happen to Rochdale Railway Station Metrolink stop if Heywood gets onto the Metrolink map? Would trams run through the actual railway station? I can't quite get the route in my head looking at Maps.

Click to expand...

The logical solution would be to re-connect the former Oldham line which forms a turnback siding north of Rochdale station, and lay a crossover between the Down line and the adjacent Metrolink track, so the existing bridge becomes a flying junction. The tram service from Manchester via Oldham to Rochdale town centre would continue. A new tram-train service might start in Oldham but would stop at Rochdale heavy rail station and continue on the railway to Castleton before diverging towards Heywood and Bury. Heywood-Manchester passengers could either change to a train at Castleton or to Metrolink at Bury.

PR1Berske said:

What would happen to Rochdale Railway Station Metrolink stop if Heywood gets onto the Metrolink map? Would trams run through the actual railway station? I can't quite get the route in my head looking at Maps.

Click to expand...

As I understand the proposal, the tram-trains from Heywood would run through the main line platforms at Rochdale, then from Rochdale East Junction take the chord (former Oldham Loop Line alignment) to join the Metrolink line towards Newbold. The chord is currently disconnected and would require reinstatement of the junction with the Metrolink line.

Changing between the tram-train and the main line service to/from Victoria would require either crossing the footbridge at Castleton, or, for a more frequent service, simply involve walking across the island platform at Rochdale.

The existing 5tph tram service from E Didsbury to Rochdale Town Centre would continue to use the flyover and the Rochdale Railway Station Metrolink stop. The tram-trains would provide increased frequency between Rochdale and Oldham.

TfGM has a longer term aspiration to extend the tram-train over the East Lancs Railway from Heywood to Bury, providing a direct route between Bury and Rochdale.

Edit: @edwin_m beat me to it!

Thanks both

158756 said:

A direct train would be the fastest way to get from Heywood to Manchester. But it wouldn't be very frequent, and an hourly or half hourly service would struggle to compete with the bus or the alternative options of taking the car/bus to Bury for the tram or just driving. A train carrying only passengers for Heywood would be at the very back of the queue for scarce paths in Manchester as well.

A tram to Rochdale at first glance seems a bit pointless - it would probably incur most of the costs of bringing the Heywood line up to scratch, but without the direct link to the city centre. I don't what the available paths would allow, but potentially what the tram could offer is frequency - if a tram could be three times as frequent as a direct train, and a connecting journey via Rochdale perhaps only 10 minutes slower, would that be a better arrangement?

Click to expand...

I don't think a half hourly train would be uncompetitive at all. The bus service might be every ten minutes, but an hour off peak into Manchester for such a distance is terribly uncompetitive.

Plus, this tram might have three times the frequency of the train, but its still relying on people to get off the tram and onto a train, which will be at train frequency anyway for the 'not quite as fast' option.

Given the layout of transport services already in the area, the best option is clearly a short heavy rail stub from the main line, acting as a turn back for services from West of Manchester.

Bevan Price said:

Outside peak hours, I suspect that Bury, followed by Rochdale, maybe Middleton, then Manchester are the most popular destinations for those using current bus services in Heywood, and that is a rough guide to the numbers likely to use any "new" rail or Metrolink services..

Click to expand...

But is it though. With a good connection, you would expect a large proportion of people to to travel to Manchester, as is the case with all similar rail connected towns around Manchester. I suspect that Heywood residents are currently trapped by their own transport geography.

Greybeard33 said:

As I understand the proposal, the tram-trains from Heywood would run through the main line platforms at Rochdale, then from Rochdale East Junction take the chord (former Oldham Loop Line alignment) to join the Metrolink line towards Newbold. The chord is currently disconnected and would require reinstatement of the junction with the Metrolink line.

Changing between the tram-train and the main line service to/from Victoria would require either crossing the footbridge at Castleton, or, for a more frequent service, simply involve walking across the island platform at Rochdale.

The existing 5tph tram service from E Didsbury to Rochdale Town Centre would continue to use the flyover and the Rochdale Railway Station Metrolink stop. The tram-trains would provide increased frequency between Rochdale and Oldham.

TfGM has a longer term aspiration to extend the tram-train over the East Lancs Railway from Heywood to Bury, providing a direct route between Bury and Rochdale.

Edit: @edwin_m beat me to it!

Click to expand...

Oh even better, so not only does this proposal not give Heywood residents a direct fast link to Manchester, it needlessly chews up a few paths on the main line, before pootling off towards Oldham.

Thinking about this more logically.

If there is a path for a tram through Rochdale from Castleton, it follows that there must also be a path along the main line following up to it.

The line to Heywood was opened as a double track line with a triangular junction at the East end. Why not reopen it as two parallel single lines, the Northmost one curving North into Rochdale and on to Oldham as a single track tram extension, the South one as a single track extension curving South to take main line services direct from Manchester.

Economies could doubtless be made by building the lot at the same time and Heywood gets both trams to Rochdale and Oldham as well as fast direct trains to Manchester. The short single track section should be fine for a half hourly service to Manchester.

yorksrob said:

Oh even better, so not only does this proposal not give Heywood residents a direct fast link to Manchester, it needlessly chews up a few paths on the main line, before pootling off towards Oldham.

Thinking about this more logically.

If there is a path for a tram through Rochdale from Castleton, it follows that there must also be a path along the main line following up to it.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. This line carries a mixture of fast and slow services so there will be a gap behind the slow train leaving Manchester or Rochdale in each direction but on reaching the other end the gap will be behind the fast. So there may be capacity to run an extra service over part of the section but not all of it.

edwin_m said:

No it doesn't. This line carries a mixture of fast and slow services so there will be a gap behind the slow train leaving Manchester or Rochdale in each direction but on reaching the other end the gap will be behind the fast. So there may be capacity to run an extra service over part of the section but not all of it.

Click to expand...

Even so, you're never going to have a situation where all of the spare capacity is around Rochdale, with none elsewhere on the route. And if you've got a tram like frequency, you're going block a lot more paths than two trains an hour.

There is another angle to this, which will only be apparent to people who know Heywood (I used to work there) - what is the demand for services to Manchester? The place is a little bit parochial, to the extent that going to Rochdale was often seen as a big adventure, and going to Manchester is unimaginable for some. The looks I got when I said I was going on holiday to Japan would have been no more amazed if I said I was going to Mars. My sister worked there for a time too, and reported similar attitudes. Yes, it's only anecdotal but...