Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[nerd]

I suspect there is a bit of "inside knowledge" to back up this. Local Councils in GM used to itemise Transport budgets, and these showed that the largest "fixed" element of TFGM/Cs budget was Metrolink debts. By "fixed" I mean they are legally obliged to pay these off, so it takes priority over other items of Expenditure.

Metrolink debts are mostly classed as 'prudential borrowing', as a specified income stream has been ring-fenced for their repayment; in this case fare revenue from expanded Metrolink ridership levels. The surplus of fare revenue over operating costs is paid into the Greater Manchester Transport Fund - currently something in excess of £10 per year on total fare income of £67m per year. GMTF also has income from local tax. With the latest increase in fare levels, TfGM are expecting the fare surplus to increase; and are hopeful then of extending prudential borrowing to use this increased income to allow them to buy a further bunch of trams.

 

[nerd]

The tram equivalent is probably when it gets too long to fit between the closest spaced road junctions on the network. For Manchester it's not practical to extend beyond 60m although I'm unsure exactly which area(s) dictate this limit. Longer trams operate in other cities, and with any size of tram needing only a driver it's a case of the longer it is the cheaper per seat, until it hits some sort of infrastructure limit.

The key constraint is Moseley Street; if the trams were any longer than 60m, when they were stopped at one set of traffic lights, they would block the preceding lights.

 

[nerd]

But apart from possibly Oxford Road, where do buses currently carry anything like 2000 pax per hour? Trouble is a lot of this is based on statistics and emotionless "Cost Benefit Analysis". It doesn't consider people as human beings, and the level of benefits to some vs. the level of dis-benefits to others.

Currently there are three radial bus routes carrying over 2,000 passengers per hour at peak; Oxford Road, Chapel Street and London Road. About 500 per hour of the peak period passenger flow along Chapel Street are due to the LSM Busway.

 

[nerd]

I assume when you say "Passenger surveys" suggest LSM/Metrolink users are "more educated.......than those on stopping buses", it doesn't literally mean that I'm thick because I don't drive and can't walk long distances? I hope what you actually mean is that they have more academic qualifications and/or more likely to have gone to University. The latter, it could be argued, are because they tend to be younger, so have had more oppurtunity to go to University, as their secondary education was more geared towards continuing in tertiary education. As regards average speeds, it just shows how bad things have got for 20kph to be considered fast, even off-peak. Before, the Ashton-Piccadilly line was devised, the average off-peak 216 down Ashton New Road was 28 minutes, and the erstwhile 236/7 was quicker still!

Quit so; LSM and Metgrolink users are more likely than regular drivers or stopping bus users to have a degree, and less likely to have no qualifications at all. This isn't simply because they are younger - though that is part of the explanation - but they are certainly more likely to prioritise being connected, and more likely to have a current passport.

The issue is not off-peak speeds, but peak period speeds. Peak period stopping buses typically are timetabled at between 8 and 12 kph; and generally always have been. This is indeed much the same speed in services of the old streetcar trams. And thereby hangs a tale, as much of the justification for ripping up the old tramlines was that it would allow urban road traffic to move faster - and it didn't.

There is indeed something of an unresolved issue here TfGM state that Bus Rapid Transit must have significantly higher peak period speeds in service than stopping buses; but how much faster they need to be, remains uncertain. The LSM busway regularly achieves a peak period service at 20 kph, but that is exceptional. Elsewhere Bus Rapid Transit more usually aims for a minimum of around 15 kph. As you can appreciate, upgrading from 15 kph to 20 kph requires a great deal extra dedicated busway infrastructure, and hence capital cost. Birmingham is facing the same issues in relation to its 'Sprint' bus network.

More generally, you seem to be well versed in at least the basic plans, and I wondered if this Forum has the option for me to contact you privately?

Notwithstanding, I think (understandably) we are expanding beyond Bus Reform into longer-term (>2040) Strategy. As such, I think it might be useful to have an idea of the Timeline of these various schemes. Certainly, given the state of both heavy and light rail in/to GM at present, it simply isn't good enough on any measurement to justify removing alternatives.

I have no insider knowlege; all of this can be got from the TfGM Strategy papers and the associated short-term and medium-term delivery programmes

http://downloads.contentful.com/nv7.../2-17-0078-GM-2040-Full-Strategy-Document.pdf

As I understand it, most of the evidence to go to GMCA and the Mayor regarding Bus Reform, should be complete in the first 4 months or so of this year. The recommended way forward will then go to a 12-week "public consultation" over the Summer, and based on comments made to the Media including a recent interview on Radio Manchester, it seems the idea is to get everything concrete in place (ie. no going back) before the next Mayoral Election in May 2020. It will then be late 2020/early 2021 before we begin to see the benefits. But when are the infrastructure and any fundamental ticketing changes due to happen.

The other question is; what form will the Public Consultation take?
It will be almost exactly a decade after the TIF Referendum, which included consultation events at many locations spread around he county, as well as more detailed pamphlets for given areas. I know this will not be a Referendum, but I trust it will be fully inclusive of the entire county's population, with broad details of at least their local areas available to everyone?

Good questions. The key element that you have glossed over is the statutory requirement of an Independent Audit of any franchising proposals - alongside at least one other non-franchising bus transport scheme. The auditor is prohibited from making recommendations between the options; their job is to assess whether each overall scheme adds up in terms of projected usership and finance. But then the Mayor's decision is quasi-judicial; his choice of proposed scheme or schemes for consultation must be based on the evidence submitted to the auditor - and so he currently has to avoid stating any predisposition in favour, or against, franchising. in principle. So it is possible that the existing operators might seek a legal challenge on this point - which could delay matters.

 

[Dentonian]

Currently there are three radial bus routes carrying over 2,000 passengers per hour at peak; Oxford Road, Chapel Street and London Road. About 500 per hour of the peak period passenger flow along Chapel Street are due to the LSM Busway.

Ah! I would have counted London Road as two seperate corridors, with distinctly different "offerings";
Hyde Road and the A6 (ie. 192 route).

 

[edwin_m]

The surplus of fare revenue over operating costs is paid into the Greater Manchester Transport Fund - currently something in excess of £10 per year on total fare income of £67m per year.

That should be about enough to buy a packet of crisps for each member of the committee.

 

[Dentonian]

Quit so; LSM and Metgrolink users are more likely than regular drivers or stopping bus users to have a degree, and less likely to have no qualifications at all. This isn't simply because they are younger - though that is part of the explanation - but they are certainly more likely to prioritise being connected, and more likely to have a current passport.

The issue is not off-peak speeds, but peak period speeds. Peak period stopping buses typically are timetabled at between 8 and 12 kph; and generally always have been. This is indeed much the same speed in services of the old streetcar trams. And thereby hangs a tale, as much of the justification for ripping up the old tramlines was that it would allow urban road traffic to move faster - and it didn't.

There is indeed something of an unresolved issue here TfGM state that Bus Rapid Transit must have significantly higher peak period speeds in service than stopping buses; but how much faster they need to be, remains uncertain. The LSM busway regularly achieves a peak period service at 20 kph, but that is exceptional. Elsewhere Bus Rapid Transit more usually aims for a minimum of around 15 kph. As you can appreciate, upgrading from 15 kph to 20 kph requires a great deal extra dedicated busway infrastructure, and hence capital cost. Birmingham is facing the same issues in relation to its 'Sprint' bus network.

I have no insider knowlege; all of this can be got from the TfGM Strategy papers and the associated short-term and medium-term delivery programmes

http://downloads.contentful.com/nv7.../2-17-0078-GM-2040-Full-Strategy-Document.pdf



Good questions. The key element that you have glossed over is the statutory requirement of an Independent Audit of any franchising proposals - alongside at least one other non-franchising bus transport scheme. The auditor is prohibited from making recommendations between the options; their job is to assess whether each overall scheme adds up in terms of projected usership and finance. But then the Mayor's decision is quasi-judicial; his choice of proposed scheme or schemes for consultation must be based on the evidence submitted to the auditor - and so he currently has to avoid stating any predisposition in favour, or against, franchising. in principle. So it is possible that the existing operators might seek a legal challenge on this point - which could delay matters.

Thanks for this, I would slightly disagree that peak period stopping buses "always have been" timetabled at 8-12kph, but whether they were over ambitious in the past is another matter! Of course, before dereg, there were also plentiful limited stop buses over and above parallel stopping services, but obviously they were undermined by congestion at pinch points - at least on schooldays. As recently as 10 years ago, Denton to Manchester (9km) took 36 mins in the peak, with 11 bph running directly down the A57. There are now only 8 bph with scheduled journey times up to 44 minutes. Nevertheless, it is still fractionally above 12kph. Of course, during school holidays this can be slack, especially between Denton and Belle Vue. Haughton Green is the area that has lost out most (talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg!) with a reduction from 9 bph before de-reg, taking 28-43 minutes on schooldays, to a complicated 2-3 bph service now taking 51-68 minutes. Note also that interchange facilities at Denton, Crown Point would be stereotypically bad, with a long walk between stops (made worse because TMBC moved the Manchester bound stop 100 metres (and a side road) further away from the town centre to allow motorists to legitimately stop on the original site. The shelter is small and badly designed and, just like Undercroft, the narrow pavement increases conflict between waiting bus passengers and speeding pavement cyclists. Outbound, is worse as you might have to cross two TL junctions, so a transfer can easily exceed 5 minutes, and of course service levels aren't compatible after about 1745.

The Strategy is of course, very long, and having already looked at it in the past I don't think it gives a clear timeline, and certainly doesn't go into localised detail. My personal interest (as you will guess from above) would be anything involving Ashton, Denton, Hyde, Stockport (from north and east of the town) and into/across Manchester from these points (well, not Ashton-M'cr).
I know the Mayor is very much sticking to the "all options open", but I can't see what other options are practically or technically available. We don't have QPs in GM, and so I don't know how EQPs would work. On bus competition in GM has always been sporadic and very low quality. Apart from Horwich-Bolton (575); possibly Eccles Old Road-Shudehill; Oxford Road; Middleton Road and of course Walkden/Swinton-M'cr, its difficult to see where QPs could be accepted by the current Operators. Indeed, the last pair seem to be purely wasteful bus wars, borne out by the low patronage and cheap fares on the two corridors.

Finally, one thing that hasn't been raised amongst the seeming prioritising of traditional 9-5 commuters, is outside forces; ie the dispersal of education and health services, meaning longer journeys for school kids, hospital/clinic (and eventually GP, no doubt) outpatients etc. etc.

 

[Dentonian]

That should be about enough to buy a packet of crisps for each member of the committee.

I assume its £10 million, but if its just a tenner it would explain why there is pressure on the only budget areas that can be legally (and politically) cut - specifically bus subsidies, but also I'm told, staff costs.

 

[HSTEd]

Ordsall Chord migth allow for improved rail services (by freeing terminal platforms at Picc) in the Hyde Road corridor, which would relieve it partially without the enormous capital expenditure of a tram line.
Although my preference would be for virtually all trains to run via Oxford Road, I don't think thats really practical.

EDIT:

Another good piece of infrastructure in such a scenario would be a travellator/ramp/escalator structure allowing easy transfers between Stockport Bus Station and Stockport railway station at the top of the hill. 200m but a 20m climb.

 

[Dentonian]

Ordsall Chord migth allow for improved rail services (by freeing terminal platforms at Picc) in the Hyde Road corridor, which would relieve it partially without the enormous capital expenditure of a tram line.
Although my preference would be for virtually all trains to run via Oxford Road, I don't think thats really practical.

I obviously will have my own views as a non-motorist with permanent health problems, but there seem to be two separate schools of thought with "Hyde Road corridor" - especially as there is no Hyde Road corridor "rail". All you have at the moment are two Stations that remotely fall into the category: Reddish North and Belle Vue.

On the one hand is the idea serving these Stations (and presumably all up to Marple) with "train-tram", presumably with additional stops, but with a much increased headway. The direct downside is very uncomfortable seating and slower scheduled journey times. As with the Ashton Metrolink line that would mean running times very similar to the 203 bus off-peak (Traffic Light priorities notwithstanding). The obvious question being, what will happen to the 203 (and its passengers).

The other school of thought, and I HAVE heard this broached by someone working "with" the Heavy Rail industry, is that this is totally the wrong way to do things. Their thought is that the Hope Valley Line should be made more attractive for commuters from Bredbury,
Romiley, Marple and beyond, by reducing the number of trains stopping at Reddish North. This would maintain seat comfort (especially if Pacers and Sprinters ever get replaced), reduce overcrowding and speed up the journey. With more space and an even bigger time advantage, this would have the "knock on" advantage of reducing capacity issues (present and future) on the Hyde/Guide Bridge line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another good piece of infrastructure in such a scenario would be a travellator/ramp/escalator structure allowing easy transfers between Stockport Bus Station and Stockport railway station at the top of the hill. 200m but a 20m climb.

True. Though a further advantage of a properly integrated fares structure would be that you could hop on a 192 up the hill for no additional cost over and above your regular multimodal single for your bus+rail journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other school of thought, and I HAVE heard this broached by someone working "with" the Heavy Rail industry, is that this is totally the wrong way to do things. Their thought is that the Hope Valley Line should be made more attractive for commuters from Bredbury,
Romiley, Marple and beyond, by reducing the number of trains stopping at Reddish North. This would maintain seat comfort (especially if Pacers and Sprinters ever get replaced), reduce overcrowding and speed up the journey. With more space and an even bigger time advantage, this would have the "knock on" advantage of reducing capacity issues (present and future) on the Hyde/Guide Bridge line.

There's also the third option of 25kV electrification and the use of modern high-acceleration EMUs to take several minutes off while still running all stops. You don't hear many complaints about Merseyrail, and that's with antiquated EMUs that don't accelerate nearly as quickly as a brand new one geared for 75mph with all wheels powered would - the SBB FLIRTs go like the proverbial off a shovel, and I'd expect the Merseyside ones to be the same.

This kind of Merseyrail-esque "S-Bahn-Manchester" is what I'd really like to see on lines like Marple/Rose Hill (both routes), the Atherton line etc, not trams. Every 10-15 minutes, pure clockface, every train all stations[1]. Much as it's a bit of a local sport to whine about it, people really do like Merseyrail and it is far more heavily used than the Manchester suburbans as a result.

[1] You'd have to do some trickery to get the diesel Hope Valley stopper in - that would be in addition and just stop at the requisite number of stations to avoid it breaking the Takt.

 

[nerd]

I obviously will have my own views as a non-motorist with permanent health problems, but there seem to be two separate schools of thought with "Hyde Road corridor" - especially as there is no Hyde Road corridor "rail". All you have at the moment are two Stations that remotely fall into the category: Reddish North and Belle Vue.

On the one hand is the idea serving these Stations (and presumably all up to Marple) with "train-tram", presumably with additional stops, but with a much increased headway. The direct downside is very uncomfortable seating and slower scheduled journey times. As with the Ashton Metrolink line that would mean running times very similar to the 203 bus off-peak (Traffic Light priorities notwithstanding). The obvious question being, what will happen to the 203 (and its passengers).

The other school of thought, and I HAVE heard this broached by someone working "with" the Heavy Rail industry, is that this is totally the wrong way to do things. Their thought is that the Hope Valley Line should be made more attractive for commuters from Bredbury,
Romiley, Marple and beyond, by reducing the number of trains stopping at Reddish North. This would maintain seat comfort (especially if Pacers and Sprinters ever get replaced), reduce overcrowding and speed up the journey. With more space and an even bigger time advantage, this would have the "knock on" advantage of reducing capacity issues (present and future) on the Hyde/Guide Bridge line.

I have tended to think that - with the Far Lane choke-point removed - Hyde Road would be the ideal corridor for a Bus Rapid transit route. Similar to the way bus lanes were inserted into the East Lancs Road wihout reducing the overall capacity for general traffic. The tricky bit (in my view) would be configuring access into Denton across the M60; in my dreams there would be a guided busway bridge across the motorway. But truth be told, I have seen nothing in the various TfGM papers to suggest even the possibility.

If Stockport's vision of tram-train to Audenshaw were to come to fruition; that would imply a tram service through Denton and Reddish south, then down the hill to Stockport interchange (and on to the airport). Stockport's aspiration is that trams from the town centre northwards along this line could also branch onto the tram-train route towards Bredbury and Marple; or otherwise through Reddish North and Belle Vue into Piccadilly. My guess is that services from Audenshaw would not have the equivalent functionality; but would have to change at Reddish South, if they wanted to get on to central Manchester.

Another tricky issue arises though; TfGM reckon they will need 10 tph on the service from Marple into Piccadilly (and then on to Bury and Altrincham). Southwards some of those services might extend beyond Rose Hill towards High Lane. That rather precludes any increased frequency of heavy rail services on the Hope Valley line through New Mills into Manchester - the mainline services would have to go via Hazel Grove. So the heavy rail route from New Mills would share with the tram-train route only in the mile of so either side of Romiley, before branching northwards through Hyde Central to Guide Bridge, and so to Piccadilly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

10tph...really? I'd say 6tph (10 minute frequency) of 8-car EMUs (or my preference of 2 x 5-segment FLIRTs) would be as future-proofed as you'd need to get any time soon.

Or are they just thinking their silly 2-"car" trams again? They should at least buy single trams the same length as two of the present ones.

I assume they are proposing Marple being a terminus and closing Strines (which is surprisingly well used for the middle of nowhere)? Or would it be an Ormskirk-like scenario of the Hope Valley stopper starting there? Or tram-train?

 

[nerd]

There's also the third option of 25kV electrification and the use of modern high-acceleration EMUs to take several minutes off while still running all stops. You don't hear many complaints about Merseyrail, and that's with antiquated EMUs that don't accelerate nearly as quickly as a brand new one geared for 75mph with all wheels powered would - the SBB FLIRTs go like the proverbial off a shovel, and I'd expect the Merseyside ones to be the same.

This kind of Merseyrail-esque "S-Bahn-Manchester" is what I'd really like to see on lines like Marple/Rose Hill (both routes), the Atherton line etc, not trams. Every 10-15 minutes, pure clockface, every train all stations[1]. Much as it's a bit of a local sport to whine about it, people really do like Merseyrail and it is far more heavily used than the Manchester suburbans as a result.

But Merseyrail (and the Tyne & Wear Metro) are much less heavily used than Metrolink. So far as possible, rapid transit routes should run on the surface; a tunnelled route will alway be (literally) a down-grade. Comparing Merseyrail with Metrolink (and Metro with Metrolink) the difference is that the 'S' bahn type systems attract a higher proportion of their potential ridership as regular users; but regular users tend to ride much less frequently. So overall, Metrolink ridership is higher along similar residential territory - and in economic terms, much less 'peaky'. After 6:30 p.m. Merseyrail is pretty empty; but the Metrolink trams run full all through the evening.

So Marple-Romiley-Bredbury-Reddish looks like an ideal tram route. But TfGM do reckon that, if traffic continues to grow, they will need extra capacity through the city centre (at which point both Moseley Street and Cross Street will be full). Hence the possibility of a tunnel running from South East to North West - with 'metro-style' rapid transit along it - replacing most of the current heavy rail commuter services. The idea
being that these will use the same 60m units as the Marple tram-train service - but perhaps coupled into 120m configurations; and then run through the city centre tunnel - most likley Glossop/Hadfield to Wigan, and Hazel Grove to Bolton and beyond. Outside the city centre, they would hope to look and feel much like trams; running at similar speeds and with similar stop spacing. This is the lesson TfGM have drawn from the conversion of the Oldham loop line from heavy rail to tram; slow it down, increase the number of stops, and penetrate into and through town centres; and ridership numbers tripled.

 

[nerd]

10tph...really? I'd say 6tph (10 minute frequency) of 8-car EMUs (or my preference of 2 x 5-segment FLIRTs) would be as future-proofed as you'd need to get any time soon.

Or are they just thinking their silly 2-"car" trams again? They should at least buy single trams the same length as two of the present ones.

I assume they are proposing Marple being a terminus and closing Strines (which is surprisingly well used for the middle of nowhere)? Or would it be an Ormskirk-like scenario of the Hope Valley stopper starting there? Or tram-train?

Nope; definitely 10 per hour. 5 tph from Rose Hill to Alrincham, 5 tph to Bury (extending the current services that turn at Piccadilly and Etihad Campus). Frequency wins over speed. TfGM are evaluating the next generation tram model, at the moment; and my guess is that they will plump for something very like the new units being specified for the Tyne & Wear Metro - 60m long, high floor, dual voltage capable, max speed around 100 kph. This would be both a tram-train unit, and (coupled) a metro unit.

 

[HSTEd]

We can implement an S-bahn service on the lines without electrification or anything like that though.

A handful of diesel units could give you 4tph+ whilst we work out what the actual solution is.
Is there even capacity through the city centre, without an enormously expensive tram tunnel for trams on these routes?

The Oldham Loop example isn't really fair - after alll it only had effectively half hour service to the stations thanks to the skip-stop timetable, which have been shown elsewhere to be inferiori n ridership terms to all stations timetables.

 

[edwin_m]

10tph...really? I'd say 6tph (10 minute frequency) of 8-car EMUs (or my preference of 2 x 5-segment FLIRTs) would be as future-proofed as you'd need to get any time soon.

Or are they just thinking their silly 2-"car" trams again? They should at least buy single trams the same length as two of the present ones.

I assume they are proposing Marple being a terminus and closing Strines (which is surprisingly well used for the middle of nowhere)? Or would it be an Ormskirk-like scenario of the Hope Valley stopper starting there? Or tram-train?

Where would you terminate (or through route) all those in the city centre, without the ability to double-stack them at Piccadilly?

No intention to close the route beyond Marple - all the various plans I've seen have New Mills and Hope Valley locals continuing to run through, possibly on the Hyde route so that via Bredbury can be converted to tramway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nope; definitely 10 per hour. 5 tph from Rose Hill to Alrincham, 5 tph to Bury (extending the current services that turn at Piccadilly and Etihad Campus). Frequency wins over speed. TfGM are evaluating the next generation tram model, at the moment; and my guess is that they will plump for something very like the new units being specified for the Tyne & Wear Metro - 60m long, high floor, dual voltage capable, max speed around 100 kph. This would be both a tram-train unit, and (coupled) a metro unit.

This does sound better, perhaps something a little more like a narrower, street-running Merseyrail FLIRT (or a Swiss narrow gauge EMU).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where would you terminate (or through route) all those in the city centre, without the ability to double-stack them at Piccadilly?

Why the need to double stack? You could move most of the layover to the outer end.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is the lesson TfGM have drawn from the conversion of the Oldham loop line from heavy rail to tram; slow it down, increase the number of stops, and penetrate into and through town centres; and ridership numbers tripled.

If they've drawn that conclusion they probably should re-examine, or look at something where you would be *only* changing those things e.g. if you Metrolinked the Hadfield line. The Oldham Loop was terrible - run down stations, Pacers, low frequencies etc. It should be no surprise that making it nice would up ridership via the sparks effect, regardless of what you actually did to the service itself.

They can probably derive that they can *get away* with those things, but not necessarily that those things are what made it popular.

 

[nerd]

We can implement an S-bahn service on the lines without electrification or anything like that though.

A handful of diesel units could give you 4tph+ whilst we work out what the actual solution is.
Is there even capacity through the city centre, without an enormously expensive tram tunnel for trams on these routes?

The Oldham Loop example isn't really fair - after alll it only had effectively half hour service to the stations thanks to the skip-stop timetable, which have been shown elsewhere to be inferiori n ridership terms to all stations timetables.

You could consider the current hourly Hazel Grove to Preston service as an 'S' bahn in waiting. You only need to find another three paths through Oxford Road and the east-west viaduct; no tunnel needed. Indeed I once hoped this might be achieved with the Ordsall Chord, Oxford Road reconstruction and platforms 15/16. Problem is that both the latter two schemes are still in suspenders. Moreover as I recall, even with these works, Network Rail only reckon to have capacity for 16 paths per hour over the viaduct - of which two are promised as freight to the Trafford Park container depots. In an ideal world all the container handling would cross the Ship Canal into the vicinity of Port Salford (thence able to get onto the WCML along the Chat Moss line); but negotiations have stalled, with Peel insisting that the spur line should remain their private property.

So at the moment, it looks as though there will be capacity over the viaduct for the current reversing intercity services from the Airport at Piccadilly to go via Victoria eastbound., plus even one or two such extra ; but little or no increased capacity for commuter heavy rail services across the city centre. Hence the need for a tunnel.

I suppose though, that if the NPR scheme (due to be reported in a week) proposes that HS3-type services could run into a low-level Piccadilly platform box, and then through a tunnel under Victoria and nortwards towards Bradford - then this may free-up some of the paths over the viaduct - so we might get an 'S' bahn after all. But if so, this is likely a long way off - 2040 would be the earliest.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Talking of a diesel S-Bahn, it would be interesting to see how popular it would have been to simply replace all the 1980s DMUs with Class 172s with a capacity uplift (3 for 2) as was done in the West Midlands, coupled with some frequency improvements and regularisation of timetables?

 

[nerd]

If they've drawn that conclusion they probably should re-examine, or look at something where you would be *only* changing those things e.g. if you Metrolinked the Hadfield line. The Oldham Loop was terrible - run down stations, Pacers, low frequencies etc. It should be no surprise that making it nice would up ridership via the sparks effect, regardless of what you actually did to the service itself.

They can probably derive that they can *get away* with those things, but not necessarily that those things are what made it popular.

Its not just the ridership though; it is also the financing. Currently the heavy rail network in total carries around double the number of peak period travellers into the city centre as the tram network. But the trains only function with a massive annual operating subsidy; while the trams make sufficient surplus to fund much of the ongoing expansion programme. The Oldham lopp was not only run down; it was also a subsidy-hog. Hence the core principal of the TfGM strategy is to convert heavily subsidised rail services into a surplus-generating configuration. Then the saving on the subsidy can be used to repay the loan finance for the conversion works. The sparks effect won't achieve this on its own - Merseyrail is popular, but still heavily subsidised. But TfGM know that trams operate at a surplus (as riders are paying full-fare to travel standing up). Which applies to those lines that can be taken over as tramways, But TfGM are looking for an equivalent model of conversion for those rail lines where some shared heavy rail use is unavoidable - hence tram-train and metro-style. There would also be some local commuter services on the regional rail network - but overall, TfGM aim to eliminate operating subsidy from the public transport system.

 

[HSTEd]

Tramways are not going to be able to achieve their major operating cost gains - achieved by removal of expensive heavy rail safety gear - if they are sharing tracks with heavy rail though.

A diesel S-Bahn solution on these routes will allow the line to take some load off the buses without the huge capital costs of electrification or tramway conversion.

Fitting diesel units with S-Stock interiors would negate the tram's passenger density advantage after all. And we have no capacity on the tram routes across the city centre to absorb them - so wed likely be terminating at Piccadilly anyway

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's no particular need to fit standee interiors to heavy rail DMUs for Manchester suburbans, they just need to be long enough. 4x23m would be more than adequate for most routes, you could even go 3x23m and occasionally double up as per Birmingham.

 

[nerd]

Tramways are not going to be able to achieve their major operating cost gains - achieved by removal of expensive heavy rail safety gear - if they are sharing tracks with heavy rail though.

A diesel S-Bahn solution on these routes will allow the line to take some load off the buses without the huge capital costs of electrification or tramway conversion.

Fitting diesel units with S-Stock interiors would negate the tram's passenger density advantage after all. And we have no capacity on the tram routes across the city centre to absorb them - so wed likely be terminating at Piccadilly anyway

Very much an open question HSTEd.

The specification for the new light rail units on the Tyne & Wear Metro specifies collision resistance of 800kN frontal impact; which is much less than the Heavy Rail standard of 2000kN, but is normal for tram-train units in Europe. One of the key issues that the Sheffield pilot was intended to resolve was that 800kN should be accepted by Network Rail the tram-train standard; and that units with this degree of collision resistance can share Network Rail tracks. It is not at all clear that this has been achieved; but the Metro order is going ahead anyway. Metrolink LRVs are also built to 800kN standard; so it follows that the TgfGM proposals for a common tram-train and metro-style LRV unit likely assume the same.

The Tyne & Wear spec does state that units should be capable of being fitted with diesel power (though this order won't include such functionality). But Nexus have stated that they aspire to have all commuter rail services around Tyneside using common units; specifically that the unelectrified Hexham line might run through across the river into the West End and then on towards Northumberland.

What is precluded, of course, is running diesel units through sub-surface metro stops. Same likely the case in Manchester.

 

[Dentonian]

T
This kind of Merseyrail-esque "S-Bahn-Manchester" is what I'd really like to see on lines like Marple/Rose Hill (both routes), the Atherton line etc, not trams. Every 10-15 minutes, pure clockface, every train all stations[1]. Much as it's a bit of a local sport to whine about it, people really do like Merseyrail and it is far more heavily used than the Manchester suburbans as a result.

I don't want to get into another row, and I accept that the discussion is very much about "Strategy", even if it was originally supposed to be about Bus Franchising, but when you say "I'd really like to see...." what personal impact would such a decision have on you?

Perhaps I can turn it round and say what *I* would really like to see. And that is a Strategy where NOBODY has to lose. The difference being that *I* pay my Council tax in GM and have done for many years, and any kind of Strategy where rail REPLACES bus would mean my having to give up my job, and severely curtail the other aspects of my life. This is because, apart from not being able to drive. the two main symptoms of a chronic and slowly worsening illness mean that I can't walk very far and have an increasingly vulnerable spine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps I can turn it round and say what *I* would really like to see. And that is a Strategy where NOBODY has to lose. The difference being that *I* pay my Council tax in GM and have done for many years, and any kind of Strategy where rail REPLACES bus would mean my having to give up my job, and severely curtail the other aspects of my life. This is because, apart from not being able to drive. the two main symptoms of a chronic and slowly worsening illness mean that I can't walk very far and have an increasingly vulnerable spine.

There is in essence no change which it is possible to make in any context that doesn't disadvantage someone.

But I'm not clear why a rail S-Bahn with unified fares would disadvantage you, provided the stopping bus service option remained? It might not be quite as frequent as a through service, but even if you assume a good many of the passengers on the 192 would migrate to rail if they lived anywhere near the stations (say), you'd still need something approximating to the 192 (if a little less frequent and with better set-up interchanges) for people who didn't live near them.

A question though - would I be right in assuming that you live immediately next to a bus stop and work immediately next to one? If not, you've got a walk at both ends anyway? Or am I misunderstanding your situation?

 

[Dentonian]

There is in essence no change which it is possible to make in any context that doesn't disadvantage someone.

But I'm not clear why a rail S-Bahn with unified fares would disadvantage you, provided the stopping bus service option remained? It might not be quite as frequent as a through service, but even if you assume a good many of the passengers on the 192 would migrate to rail if they lived anywhere near the stations (say), you'd still need something approximating to the 192 (if a little less frequent and with better set-up interchanges) for people who didn't live near them.

A question though - would I be right in assuming that you live immediately next to a bus stop and work immediately next to one? If not, you've got a walk at both ends anyway? Or am I misunderstanding your situation?

If the stopping bus service remained at something approaching its current level (roughly every 10 minutes - reduced from every 8 post-TIF), with any reduction in headway being compensated by improvement in punctuality, then it wouldn't affect me whatever happened to the Marple/Rose Hill line. However, the implication is the bus would be drastically reduced or even withdrawn at the Manchester end if the 2 tph Pacer/Sprinters were replaced by 10tph tram-trains.

I don't live directly next to a bus stop, but its only about 350 metres walk (slightly less returning after a tiring day's work). It is also gradient free. The Rail Station is exactly a kilometre away and the return leg includes climbing a gradient - the relevant symptom being anaemia. Also, this thread (and other sources) suggest tram-train is just a Metrolink Tram on heavy rail lines, and having sat (very briefly!) on Metrolink plastic bum perches, I know my spine simply wouldn't survive 15-20 minutes x 300 or 400 journeys a year on them.