Could the Atherton line become part of Metrolink, and would that disbenefit passengers?

[pokemonsuper9]

Because it'll be pootling around the streets and stopping everywhere. That's how trams work

Yes, in part road running may occur, however if we look at the Cardiff's future usage of 398s they're mostly running on pre-existing lines.

but over that time I've found it generally reliable.

Everyone will have their own experiences with it, but I can tell you that it's never been reliable for me, nor for one of my friends who uses it to commute.

 

[daodao]

tramification of the Atherton line

An excellent idea. It would make this economic basket case more viable and help to ensure its long-term future, which would not be possible with heavy loss-making rural lines.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, in part road running may occur, however if we look at the Cardiff's future usage of 398s they're mostly running on pre-existing lines.

Everyone will have their own experiences with it, but I can tell you that it's never been reliable for me, nor for one of my friends who uses it to commute.

Well, it's a good job we've got a decent train service in the area then, isn't it.

An excellent idea. It would make this economic basket case more viable and help to ensure its long-term future, which would not be possible with heavy loss-making rural lines.

But you think every railway line's an economic basket case don't you.

 

[tbtc]

It’s a difficult one, there are reasons for and against

Pro Metrolink:
. Realistically, it’s the only way that Atherton line stations will see a frequency increase, in the way that Oldham went up to every six minutes once trams were running (but if it hadn’t been converted then it’d probably be stuck with the same timetable it has always had)
. It’d free up vital paths into Victoria (and over the flat crossing outside Salford Crescent)
. If combined with Marple (as generally assumed) it’d free up multiple paths into Piccadilly too
. It’d allow services to actually penetrate towns rather than dumping passengers half a mile away
. It’d mean services would be able to run into the heart of Manchester rather than dumping passengers at Victoria (any extended journey time for diverting into actual central Atherton needs to be seen in the context of the time saved at the Manchester end when your tram can run direct to Market Street or wherever)
. It’s probably the only way the Atherton line will see electrification/ replacement of those polluting DMUs running into central Manchester (given the slow pace of heavy rail electrification/ backlogs/ routes competing to be wired)
. Terminating everything at Wigan would mean it falls neatly into the Greater Manchester area, so no worries about extending the Mayor’s reach over the borders
. There’s still the “via Bolton” Route for heavy rail, allowing direct services from Kirkby/ Southport to Manchester to continue (or WCML diversions etc)
. Conversion of the Oldham line significantly increased passenger numbers, allowed services to actually penetrate central Oldham/ Rochdale and run into central Manchester, boosted the financial state of the line too

Anti Metrolink:
. It’d be different to how things were in BR days
. It’d mildly inconvenience the much discussed flow of person travelling from Normanton to Atherton (albeit he wouldn’t need to worry about the 582 bus if the tram penetrated Atherton)

So, as I say, some merits for both sides, hard to know which arguments outweigh the others really…

 

[Halwynd]

I'd rather go back to knackered old Pacers (with a toilet) than have Metrolink trams on the Atherton line.

Metrolink trams are fine for short journeys - it's great for Manchester - but Wigan via Atherton is pushing it too far.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd rather go back to knackered old Pacers (with a toilet) than have Metrolink trams on the Atherton line.

Metrolink trams are fine for short journeys - it's great for Manchester - but Wigan via Atherton is pushing it too far.

Does anything say the current (frankly pretty awful) trams have to be used? How about a four car Stadler Citylink? The Welsh ones are planned to have Fainsa Sophias (yeah, not the best, but better than the plastic tram seats) in 2+2 with tables. These could perhaps also go on the long Oldham route, freeing up trams to double up everything on the other routes?

 

[yorksrob]

Does anything say the current (frankly pretty awful) trams have to be used? How about a four car Stadler Citylink? The Welsh ones are planned to have Fainsa Sophias (yeah, not the best, but better than the plastic tram seats) in 2+2 with tables. These could perhaps also go on the long Oldham route, freeing up trams to double up everything on the other routes?

In that case, why not just run trains on it instead !

 

[geordieblue]

That's because on the Atherton route, the bus and the train If you want a fastish journey to the centre of Manchester or the WCML, you get the train.

Or you get the tram, because it will get you to Piccadilly faster.

 

[Arkeeos]

In that case, why not just run trains on it instead !

Because Train driver salaries are inflated so tram driver salaries are cheaper.

 

[yorksrob]

Or you get the tram, because it will get you to Piccadilly faster.

That's not a foregone conclusion (especially if you take into account the inevitable dash to the loo at the end of the journey).

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not a foregone conclusion (especially if you take into account the inevitable dash to the loo at the end of the journey).

If you have Crohn's or similar I sympathise (I have a friend who does too and it's a pain), but if it's just the typical need for a quick standing visit at the end of a train journey (which I almost always do go for, as I like to drink coffee during train rides and it tends to be the perfect length of time for it to, er, work its way through) then that's going to take what, two minutes?

Merseyrail already do 45 minute runs in toiletless trains and you don't hear much complaint. There have for instance been plenty of criticisms of the Class 777, but the theme has generally been hard seats, not toilets.

 

[geordieblue]

That's not a foregone conclusion (especially if you take into account the inevitable dash to the loo at the end of the journey).

It is a foregone conclusion though.
As other posters have said acceleration on the trams is far superior to the diesel trains the line has currently and the chance of electrification is minimal, so trams would likely be faster. However to be generous I will use the existing timings from Daisy Hill.
Daisy Hill->Salford Crescent 26 minutes
Salford Crescent->Man Vic 9 minutes
Man Vic->Man Picc 19 minutes walk (could do faster if you get the public transport connection right).
So Daisy Hill to Piccadilly adds up to 54 minutes.
On the tram we'll assume the same timings (although realistically it'd save time) and then coming off in the Salford area?
So Daisy Hill-Salford Crescent 26 minutes
Salford Crescent->Deansgate is an unknown but we can assume whatever alignment is chosen it'd take less than 19 minutes - it's a distance of about a mile and a half.
Deansgate-Man Picc 9 mins
So if the tram takes 18 minutes or less - ignoring the acceleration capabilities - it's faster than the train. And it will be faster. Langworthy to Pomona is a pretty similar distance, very slow, mostly on street and it takes 15 minutes.

And of course this creates an important direct journey - or is a direct journey to Piccadilly less important for Atherton residents than a direct journey to Leeds?
It's maybe also worth bearing in mind that despite a relatively frequent service the stations are very underused - the line clearly isn't serving its local communities well. Something needs to change for that.
Finally, I think there are toilets at Piccadilly

 

[yorksrob]

If you have Crohn's or similar I sympathise (I have a friend who does too and it's a pain), but if it's just the typical need for a quick standing visit at the end of a train journey (which I almost always do go for, as I like to drink coffee during train rides and it tends to be the perfect length of time for it to, er, work its way through) then that's going to take what, two minutes?

Merseyrail already do 45 minute runs in toiletless trains and you don't hear much complaint. There have for instance been plenty of criticisms of the Class 777, but the theme has generally been hard seats, not toilets.

I often visit the pub before catching the train.

It is a foregone conclusion though.
As other posters have said acceleration on the trams is far superior to the diesel trains the line has currently and the chance of electrification is minimal, so trams would likely be faster. However to be generous I will use the existing timings from Daisy Hill.
Daisy Hill->Salford Crescent 26 minutes
Salford Crescent->Man Vic 9 minutes
Man Vic->Man Picc 19 minutes walk (could do faster if you get the public transport connection right).
So Daisy Hill to Piccadilly adds up to 54 minutes.
On the tram we'll assume the same timings (although realistically it'd save time) and then coming off in the Salford area?
So Daisy Hill-Salford Crescent 26 minutes
Salford Crescent->Deansgate is an unknown but we can assume whatever alignment is chosen it'd take less than 19 minutes - it's a distance of about a mile and a half.
Deansgate-Man Picc 9 mins
So if the tram takes 18 minutes or less - ignoring the acceleration capabilities - it's faster than the train.

And of course this creates an important direct journey - or is a direct journey to Piccadilly less important for Atherton residents than a direct journey to Leeds?
It's maybe also worth bearing in mind that despite a relatively frequent service the stations are very underused - the line clearly isn't serving its local communities well. Something needs to change for that.
Finally, I think there are toilets at Piccadilly

The tram will most likely stop more often, take a more circuitous route, have to slow down through the city streets. I would say its nigh on inevitable that the tram will be slower.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Salford Crescent->Man Vic 9 minutes
Man Vic->Man Picc 19 minutes walk (could do faster if you get the public transport connection right).

Coming from the Atherton line, it's usually easier to change at Salford Crescent for a Blackpool North -> Manchester Airport train, which are a very good connection.

 

[geordieblue]

Coming from the Atherton line, it's usually easier to change at Salford Crescent for a Blackpool North -> Manchester Airport train, which are a very good connection.

This is true... But a minute ago changing trains was considered a terrible obstacle!

The tram will most likely stop more often, take a more circuitous route, have to slow down through the city streets. I would say its nigh on inevitable that the tram will be slower.

Slower than what? Take 19 minutes to do a mile and a half? There's not a single place on the Metrolink network that's that slow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is true... But a minute ago changing trains was considered a terrible obstacle!

The ideal for Salford Crescent, speaking Germanically, would be two islands and a couple of flyovers which would mean a Victoria via Atherton and a Piccadilly via Bolton service would arrive at the same time in both directions and allow (and wait for, within reason) cross platform bidirectional interchange. This would end the "Southport argument" because there would be no journey time penalty to change from a Southport-Vic to a Blackpool-Picc service. I suppose if you tramified Atherton and it did still run past Salford Crescent the frequency of that would ease interchange the other way, though.

 

[CBlue]

This thread does have a odd argument about it. It isn't unreasonable to operate a journey of up to an hour without a toilet on board and indeed this already happens on many rail routes in the country as is:

It's worth pointing out there are no shortage of longer distance commuter lines in the London area which run without toilets e.g.

Stevenage - Moorgate - 30 miles, 1h 06 mins
Welwyn GC - Moorgate - 20 miles, 50 mins

As far as replacing heavy rail with something else goes....I thought the Busway at Cambridge was a very good example. At its peak pre-covid it was operating with ~100 seat 'deckers on a very frequent timetable. The rail line, if it had reopened would likely have been an hourly 156 and not seen an increase on that since without an enormous additional set of infrastructure costs (never mind yet more capacity improvements at Cambridge "Hauptbahnhof" which is rapidly running out of room to expand). But of course they aren't trains.....not that all the additional passengers the busway attracted seemed to mind.

A similar argument could be applied to this speculative tram route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As far as replacing heavy rail with something else goes....I thought the Busway at Cambridge was a very good example. At its peak pre-covid it was operating with ~100 seat 'deckers on a very frequent timetable. The rail line, if it had reopened would likely have been an hourly 156 and not seen an increase on that since without an enormous additional set of infrastructure costs (never mind yet more capacity improvements at Cambridge "Hauptbahnhof" which is rapidly running out of room to expand). But of course they aren't trains.....not that all the additional passengers the busway attracted seemed to mind.

That Busway was justified due to its uniqueness in a number of ways. That Cambridge "Hbf" is in an eastern suburb (Old Oak Common, anyone?) is one thing, that the routes originally fanned out at the outer end to serve different villages was another (this has now ended), the ease of expansion a third, and a fourth the ability to fit a cycleway in on a normal double track formation without considerable extra land take.

Leigh was, all in all, an awful idea and should have been Metrolink from day one. It doesn't really have any of those outstanding features that Cambridge had (and post COVID even that is becoming questionable, and it should certainly be looked at for tram conversion as part of any wider Cambridge tramway).

Atherton...I'm open to Metrolink, I think it would have a number of benefits, like Oldham, but I think like Oldham a different, longer style of tram should be used, with more seating recognising the longer journeys. The Stadler Citylink designs used by TfW or Sheffield (high floor variant) would seem good options. And this route should be prioritised for putting into a city centre cut and cover tunnel by the 2040s at the latest, creating a Tyne and Wear style metro system.

 

[CBlue]

That Busway was justified due to its uniqueness in a number of ways. That Cambridge "Hbf" is in an eastern suburb (Old Oak Common, anyone?) is one thing, that the routes originally fanned out at the outer end to serve different villages was another (this has now ended), the ease of expansion a third, and a fourth the ability to fit a cycleway in on a normal double track formation without considerable extra land take.

Leigh was, all in all, an awful idea and should have been Metrolink from day one. It doesn't really have any of those outstanding features that Cambridge had (and post COVID even that is becoming questionable, and it should certainly be looked at for tram conversion as part of any wider Cambridge tramway).

Atherton...I'm open to Metrolink, I think it would have a number of benefits, like Oldham, but I think like Oldham a different, longer style of tram should be used, with more seating recognising the longer journeys. The Stadler Citylink designs used by TfW or Sheffield (high floor variant) would seem good options. And this route should be prioritised for putting into a city centre cut and cover tunnel by the 2040s at the latest, creating a Tyne and Wear style metro system.

At risk of going o/t the possibility of trams in Cambridge has reared its head for almost a century - although good luck getting any of the infrastructure requirements past the university! The Busway was a compromise, but still offers far more benefits and flexibility than a simple rail line reopening would have done.

 

[yorksrob]

This is true... But a minute ago changing trains was considered a terrible obstacle!


Slower than what? Take 19 minutes to do a mile and a half? There's not a single place on the Metrolink network that's that slow.

Slower than the half hour train journey into central Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Slower than the half hour train journey into central Manchester.

But because of the wider choice of city centre destinations can easily take at least half of that off by removing walking time, plus waiting time when you consider it'd likely be 5tph rather than 2tph.

 

[yorksrob]

But because of the wider choice of city centre destinations can easily take at least half of that off by removing walking time, plus waiting time when you consider it'd likely be 5tph rather than 2tph.

I think that the experience will ultimately be worse than the swift train service into the centre of Manchester with full toilet facilities etc, onward travel to Leeds etc.

 

[Arkeeos]

Leigh was, all in all, an awful idea and should have been Metrolink from day one.

If central Manchester had capacity for more trains, it really should have been heavy rail, if Portishead and Leven warrant heavy rail reopening's, Leigh should easily clear that.

 

[biggerisbetter]

As a Wigan resident it would be a huge benefit for the line to be converted to Metrolink. In my view, the increased frequency, higher reliability, better penetration of the city centre and consistency of stops/stations used in Manchester would more than outweigh a few more stops and lack of a toilet, particularly when there are toilets at the stations at both ends of the line. I would imagine that a fair proportion of people who can’t last c. 45 minutes without having access to a toilet would not be able to risk getting the train at present due to the potential that the toilet is out of order.

 

[geordieblue]

Slower than the half hour train journey into central Manchester.

I've shown you it's not half an hour though. I don't know why you have this perception that trams are slower even when it has been shown to you that they are not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that the experience will ultimately be worse than the swift train service into the centre of Manchester with full toilet facilities etc, onward travel to Leeds etc.

Victoria is on the edge of Manchester city centre, though. Metrolink would offer a choice of options.

If central Manchester had capacity for more trains, it really should have been heavy rail, if Portishead and Leven warrant heavy rail reopening's, Leigh should easily clear that.

I don't know where Leven is. Portishead justifies heavy rail because Bristol doesn't have a tram network, if they later get one it will be ripe for early conversion, as will be Severn Beach.

 

[yorksrob]

I've shown you it's not half an hour though. I don't know why you have this perception that trams are slower even when it has been shown to you that they are not.

Not really. How do you know how many stops the tram would make, where it would deviate from the existing route and where it would do on-street running ?

All we can do is make an assumption that it will do a selection of these things because that's what trams tend to do.

Victoria is on the edge of Manchester city centre, though. Metrolink would offer a choice of options.



I don't know where Leven is. Portishead justifies heavy rail because Bristol doesn't have a tram network, if they later get one it will be ripe for early conversion, as will be Severn Beach.

Actually, the train service offers a range of options. I've changed at Salford Crescent for the Southern stations on several occasions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And the Castlefield stations are on the southern edge of the city centre.

None are in the middle.

What do you think of Merseyrail? Should have left it terminating just out of town at Exchange I assume?

 

[yorksrob]

And the Castlefield stations are on the southern edge of the city centre.

None are in the middle.

What do you think of Merseyrail? Should have left it terminating just out of town at Exchange I assume?

I think it's handy in many ways. The dead end buffer stops in the middle of routes are a problem though.

The thing about Merseyrail is that it's stations are where the old terminal stations were, but there aren't stations in the middle of them. Probably because like in Manchester, they were well sited for the centre anyway.

True, they aren't terminal stations any more, but neither are Piccadilly or Victoria, strictly speaking. They both offer good through services.

 

[snowball]

I don't know where Leven is.

It's in Fife. Its branch is being reopened and electrified and has its own thread in the infrastructure forum. As somebody once explained there, Levenmouth=Leven+Buckhaven+Methil.