Greater Manchester Combined Authority: Latest transport strategy draft publication

[Ianno87]

The V1 times from Leigh bus station to Manchester Albert Square vary considerably. In the morning peak it is 55 mins or 60 mins according to the timetable. The maximum is 62 mins for the 08.20. However if you go at 04.00 you'll be there in 35 mins. These are the timetable figures if it runs to time.
Leigh was my home town until 1972, and from 65 to 72 I travelled to school in Salford every day.
When I tried out the V1 recently at 15.00 one afternoon from John Dalton St it took 60 mins to Leigh bus station. It was also very bumpy on the busway but I was on the upper deck.

I wonder how much a new rail link from the Atherton line west of Walkden, cutting across to the old Tyldesley and Leigh trackbed would have cost in comparison to the £15 m busway. Even a single station seems to cost Network Rail £20 million these days.

You'd need to assume that central Manchester had the rail capacity to accomodate the extra services needed to serve such a spur.

Problem is that the demand isn't just Leigh - its Tyldesley, Boothstown, Astley etc. all on the same corridor.

 

[yorksrob]

You'd need to assume that central Manchester had the rail capacity to accomodate the extra services needed to serve such a spur.

Problem is that the demand isn't just Leigh - its Tyldesley, Boothstown, Astley etc. all on the same corridor.

I'm not convinced it would be that much trouble as the service would use the Victoria side. Even with the TPE trains, there are still places the other side of Manchester for trains to run through to.

The reason for the busway was Englands prevailing "anything but a railway" culture in terms of public transport improvements.

 

[scrapy]

Easy to say but hard to achieve. Many services are at the maximum for platform length. It’s unfortunate but there seems to be a lot of places where a 4 car 156 is the maximum. West of Manchester It’s a big problem, even at Salford Crescent and Oxford Road the platforms are quite short. There are discussions about this in the 319/769 thread

Salford Crescent and Oxford Rd are probably the only places though where platform lengthening is a real challenge (8 cars is the most that would be needed) and even this is not insurmountable. Plans are already on Graylings desk for Oxford Rd and Salford Crescent could be extended to the North with a new junction (preferably grade seperated) north of Broughton Rd to get onto the Atherton line (mothballing the current line through old Pendleton station). Yes it would need money but so would tram train.

I fear Graylings plan for tram train is not to improve things in the north but a plan to downgrade railways in the north and will limit capacity in the future as street running vehicles cannot be extended easily. Can you imagine if tram train was suggested as an alternative to any rail line into London?

 

[Mogster]

The slightest suggestion of tram train between Salford and Wigan will just muddy the current waters and mean any funding for heavy rail improvements will be deferred.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You'd need to assume that central Manchester had the rail capacity to accomodate the extra services needed to serve such a spur.

Problem is that the demand isn't just Leigh - its Tyldesley, Boothstown, Astley etc. all on the same corridor.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I feel that Astley station which was situated on the Chat Moss between Glazebury and Bury Lane station and Patricroft station, when open, was on the line of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, not the Tyldesley loop line.

 

[tbtc]

You'd need to assume that central Manchester had the rail capacity to accomodate the extra services needed to serve such a spur

Agreed - I'm not sure that the lines through Castlefield/ Victoria can cope with the current mixture/frequency of services, without trying to find paths for more.

And even if there were paths, there's no doubt a queue of larger places wanting a frequency increase (before we start building new lines)

The reason for the busway was Englands prevailing "anything but a railway" culture in terms of public transport improvements.

We are spending huge sums on railways - there's been more electrification in the past five years than any time during my life - it might not be your favourite type of improvements (re-opening old routes) but you can't deny that we are spending huge sums of money on heavy rail.

I fear Graylings plan for tram train is not to improve things in the north but a plan to downgrade railways in the north and will limit capacity in the future as street running vehicles cannot be extended easily. Can you imagine if tram train was suggested as an alternative to any rail line into London?

What happened to those suburban rail routes around Croydon/ Wimbledon that were running until the early '90s?

 

[NorthernSpirit]

But Glazebrook is open, and is in Warrington not Cheshire East. Anyway it is within the TfGM rail boundary, even though just over the border. Did you mean Glazebury and Bury Lane, closed in 1958? That site is also in Warrington, and is on the Chat Moss line. Which is one of the "handful" of lines which TfGM is not proposing to convert to tram-train. Along with the lines from Manchester to Bolton, Rochdale, Stalybridge, Stockport, Manchester Airport... quite a large handful!

Aye I did mean Glazebury.

I have no particular personal axe to grind over the matter, living as I do exterior to "The land of the TfGM Empire", some two miles away from the nearest bus stop and a railway station and have local area transport issues dealt with by those transport mandarins of Cheshire East council, who are noted for their aversion to matters of public transport and the creators of the "Now you see it, now you don't" scenario that deals with tendered bus services.

Would you say that Cheshire County Council did things better or a lot different to what Cheshire East Council does? If I were you I'd write to both Chester East and TfGM to see if it was possible to include the town / village where you live into the TfGM travel area (similar to Zones 6 & 7 for Skipton and Harrogate or a Chester, Ellesmere Port & Ormskirk Merseyrail style extention).

 

[yorksrob]

We are spending huge sums on railways - there's been more electrification in the past five years than any time during my life - it might not be your favourite type of improvements (re-opening old routes) but you can't deny that we are spending huge sums of money on heavy rail.

You must be too young to remember 1985 - 1990 (ECML, GEML, East Grinstead, Hastings, Weymouth, Portsmouth - Southampton etc).

Anyhow, regardless of what was going on elsewhere. The railway would have given an half hour journey to the centre of Manchester, as opposed to an hours bus ride, adding to the traffic congestion.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would you say that Cheshire County Council did things better or a lot different to what Cheshire East Council does? If I were you I'd write to both Chester East and TfGM to see if it was possible to include the town / village where you live into the TfGM travel area (similar to Zones 6 & 7 for Skipton and Harrogate or a Chester, Ellesmere Port & Ormskirk Merseyrail style extention).

After the station of Bramhall which is the last station where the TfGM boundary ends, there are stations in Cheshire East at Poynton and at Adlington (Cheshire) before our nearest station of Prestbury is reached, so would your suggestion also include those two intermediate stations?

 

[NorthernSpirit]

After the station of Bramhall which is the last station where the TfGM boundary ends, there are stations in Cheshire East at Poynton and at Adlington (Cheshire) before our nearest station of Prestbury is reached, so would your suggestion also include those two intermediate stations?

Yes it would include those two intermediate stations, likewise with Disley - extend the TfGM boundary up to New Mills Newtown and Strines up to New Mills Central despite the Derbyshire county boundary being smack bang at the back of the Sheffield side platform at Strines (taking note of the Derbyshire County Council footpath signage upon exiting the station from the aformentioned platform).

 

[geoffk]

I think GMPTE have always looked at the self-contained and locally-administered Merseyrail system with a certain amount of envy. MPTE had a pro-rail policy right from the beginning, whereas GMPTE concentrated on buses. Look at how quickly each Authority from 1969 ran their areas, GMPTE had a lot of bus consolidation to contend with and they did it well, where MPTE kind of left the buses alone and got on with the business of unifying the rail network.

Exactly, and the words "self-contained" are crucial. Also the fact that central Liverpool and Birkenhead have underground lines and stations. Manchester is not like this; the purely local lines (Bury, Altrincham and Oldham/Rochdale) are already part of Metrolink and on all other lines local trains share tracks with inter-city, regional and freight trains. Perhaps try Rose Hill as a tram-train route for starters, if it's possible to use part of the Ashburys - Philips Park line and link it to the Ashton tram route somewhere near the Velodrome.

 

[Chester1]

Salford Crescent and Oxford Rd are probably the only places though where platform lengthening is a real challenge (8 cars is the most that would be needed) and even this is not insurmountable. Plans are already on Graylings desk for Oxford Rd and Salford Crescent could be extended to the North with a new junction (preferably grade seperated) north of Broughton Rd to get onto the Atherton line (mothballing the current line through old Pendleton station). Yes it would need money but so would tram train.

I fear Graylings plan for tram train is not to improve things in the north but a plan to downgrade railways in the north and will limit capacity in the future as street running vehicles cannot be extended easily. Can you imagine if tram train was suggested as an alternative to any rail line into London?

I think it's more about an opportunity to finance rather than pay for new infrastructure. TfGM would borrow most of the cost of a tram train scheme and it would free up capacity at Piccadilly. The Bury and Altrincham services terminate at Piccadilly and need double units. It would be an obvious step to introduce 60m tram trains on both services and extend them to Rose Hill. TfGMs intended service would be 10tph, which would be a huge increase in capacity on Rose Hill services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's more about an opportunity to finance rather than pay for new infrastructure. TfGM would borrow most of the cost of a tram train scheme and it would free up capacity at Piccadilly. The Bury and Altrincham services terminate at Piccadilly and need double units. It would be an obvious step to introduce 60m tram trains on both services and extend them to Rose Hill. TfGMs intended service would be 10tph, which would be a huge increase in capacity on Rose Hill services.

And while Northern is a target of hate and ridicule and showing no sign of being anything else any time soon, I can't see anyone being unhappy with such a move other than enthusiasts on here who like heavy rail, or of course guards when they find the trams are DOO, which they would be.

 

[yorksrob]

But all this new capacity freed up at Piccadilly is in the bay platforms which don't need it. It will do nothing to alleviate capacity on the through platforms where it is needed.

 

[Chester1]

And while Northern is a target of hate and ridicule and showing no sign of being anything else any time soon, I can't see anyone being unhappy with such a move other than enthusiasts on here who like heavy rail, or of course guards when they find the trams are DOO, which they would be.

Staff won't care because they would be transferred to other Northern routes. Heavily rail purists will of course be angry!

But all this new capacity freed up at Piccadilly is in the bay platforms which don't need it. It will do nothing to alleviate capacity on the through platforms where it is needed.

Pressure will grow on 1-12 as trains get longer and more services run. More terminal capacity also allows for diversion of services. The low numbered platforms are heavily used already.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pressure will grow on 1-12 as trains get longer and more services run.

It is true that to move to proper-length trains in the North West the ability to stack them up in the Piccadilly bays and at Manchester Airport will reduce. You might be able to stack three 2-car DMUs on platform 1, but if the peak-time train is 160m long as it should be to provide a seat for everyone and enough capacity to convert more car drivers you'll only get one in.

 

[geoffk]

I think it's more about an opportunity to finance rather than pay for new infrastructure. TfGM would borrow most of the cost of a tram train scheme and it would free up capacity at Piccadilly. The Bury and Altrincham services terminate at Piccadilly and need double units. It would be an obvious step to introduce 60m tram trains on both services and extend them to Rose Hill. TfGMs intended service would be 10tph, which would be a huge increase in capacity on Rose Hill services.

Two tracks could be reinstated through Gorton and Fairfield for tram-trains but getting through Guide Bridge would be a challenge with 10tph on top of Hadfield and TPE services and extra tracks/platforms aren't possible with the current layout.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two tracks could be reinstated through Gorton and Fairfield for tram-trains but getting through Guide Bridge would be a challenge with 10tph on top of Hadfield and TPE services and extra tracks/platforms aren't possible with the current layout.

Won't they go via Brinnington (and possibly be the only trains on that route once tram-ised) with Guide Bridge being heavy rail only? I always had the impression that it was busier that way on the Marples given that the Guide Bridge line itself has the Hadfields and hourly was adequate for Hyde North and Woodley until quite recently?

Of course Romiley will be a bit busy...and looking at the map there is no sensible bypass or street running nor really room for 4 tracks.

 

[geoffk]

Won't they go via Brinnington (and possibly be the only trains on that route once tram-ised) with Guide Bridge being heavy rail only? I always had the impression that it was busier that way on the Marples given that the Guide Bridge line itself has the Hadfields and hourly was adequate for Hyde North and Woodley until quite recently?

Of course Romiley will be a bit busy...and looking at the map there is no sensible bypass or street running nor really room for 4 tracks.

Yes I suppose so, as freight goes via Woodley now and the New Mills/Hope Valley service could run that way. Both Romiley and Ashburys could be difficult.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes I suppose so, as freight goes via Woodley now and the New Mills/Hope Valley service could run that way. Both Romiley and Ashburys could be difficult.

Wasn't there talk upthread of them proposing to avoid the Ashburys issue by street running as far as the right turn, thus completely removing the junction? Could help with regeneration in Beswick, too, which has to be the biggest rathole in the city.

With a tram down the Ashton Old Road, Ardwick could go, too, ideally before someone falls through the footbridge deck.

 

[geoffk]

Wasn't there talk upthread of them proposing to avoid the Ashburys issue by street running as far as the right turn, thus completely removing the junction? Could help with regeneration in Beswick, too, which has to be the biggest rathole in the city.

I got the train to Ashburys today and walked back along Alan Turing Way to Velopark tram stop. This is a busy dual carriageway and quite congested even at off-peak times. Not sure it would be suitable for on-street trams and central reservation not wide enough for tracks. You would have to get under the railway somewhere near Ashburys then join the Bredbury line before Belle Vue. I read somewhere that 4,000 houses are to be built at High Lane along the route of the Rose Hill to Macclesfield line so they could help to make the case for the tram-train (developer contribution etc.)

 

[furnessvale]

I got the train to Ashburys today and walked back along Alan Turing Way to Velopark tram stop. This is a busy dual carriageway and quite congested even at off-peak times. Not sure it would be suitable for on-street trams and central reservation not wide enough for tracks. You would have to get under the railway somewhere near Ashburys then join the Bredbury line before Belle Vue. I read somewhere that 4,000 houses are to be built at High Lane along the route of the Rose Hill to Macclesfield line so they could help to make the case for the tram-train (developer contribution etc.)

Now reduced to 500. At the previous figure of 4000 I believe it would have been worthwhile extending the single line from its terminus at Rose Hill to a new halt closer to High Lane in the middle of the development. Now I am not so sure.

 

[Chester1]

Two tracks could be reinstated through Gorton and Fairfield for tram-trains but getting through Guide Bridge would be a challenge with 10tph on top of Hadfield and TPE services and extra tracks/platforms aren't possible with the current layout.

Won't they go via Brinnington (and possibly be the only trains on that route once tram-ised) with Guide Bridge being heavy rail only? I always had the impression that it was busier that way on the Marples given that the Guide Bridge line itself has the Hadfields and hourly was adequate for Hyde North and Woodley until quite recently?

Of course Romiley will be a bit busy...and looking at the map there is no sensible bypass or street running nor really room for 4 tracks.

Marple would be via Brinnington. The Glossop line is TfGMs second preference. There are no plans for tram trains between Hyde North and Romiley.

Yes I suppose so, as freight goes via Woodley now and the New Mills/Hope Valley service could run that way. Both Romiley and Ashburys could be difficult.

The heavy rail at Ashburys would need to be entirely bypassed. I think the line to outside Romiley would be separated from the heavy rail network to limit the mixed section. I would be tempted to do something like splitting the station in two so that normal trams could terminate on one platform, trains on the other and tram trains using either. The single section would be much shorter than Navigation Road. 3tph would be a reasonable heavy rail capacity. Alternatively 5tph could terminate at Bredbury and 5tph at Rose Hill.

Wasn't there talk upthread of them proposing to avoid the Ashburys issue by street running as far as the right turn, thus completely removing the junction? Could help with regeneration in Beswick, too, which has to be the biggest rathole in the city.

With a tram down the Ashton Old Road, Ardwick could go, too, ideally before someone falls through the footbridge deck.

There are multiple options, but no official preference yet.

Now reduced to 500. At the previous figure of 4000 I believe it would have been worthwhile extending the single line from its terminus at Rose Hill to a new halt closer to High Lane in the middle of the development. Now I am not so sure.

Definitely not enough to justify an extension. A High Lane station has been proposed in the spatial plan (presumably replacing Middlewood). 3000 houses have been swapped for 3000 flats to extend Stockport town centre (between King Street West and the viaduct, replacing the industrial units and Stagecoach bus depot).

 

[Greybeard33]

Marple would be via Brinnington. The Glossop line is TfGMs second preference. There are no plans for tram trains between Hyde North and Romiley.

No, the draft Delivery Plan proposes converting both lines to Romiley to tram-train, via Hyde North as well as via Brinnington, with a terminus at Marple in addition to that at Rose Hill. See the yellow lines (with red dashes) on Map 3. The Glossop/Hadfield line would be converted too. It does not specify which line would be shared with heavy rail passenger trains to New Mills Central and beyond, although clearly freight would have to continue using the Hyde North route to Guide Bridge.[/QUOTE]

 

[splashoutradio]

I can't see anyone being unhappy with such a move other than enthusiasts on here who like heavy rail, or of course guards when they find the trams are DOO, which they would be.

To me, it's not the transfer from light to heavy rail that is an issue, but the lack of accountability light rail has to it's passengers when delays occur - no delay repay and if you miss your advance purchase heavy rail connection, you'd better be ready to stump up for the walk-up fare because Metrolink won't contribute.*
*source - personal experience from a grumpy Met user

 

[Bletchleyite]

To me, it's not the transfer from light to heavy rail that is an issue, but the lack of accountability light rail has to it's passengers when delays occur - no delay repay and if you miss your advance purchase heavy rail connection, you'd better be ready to stump up for the walk-up fare because Metrolink won't contribute.*
*source - personal experience from a grumpy Met user

TBH I'd be happy for Delay Repay to go if it was replaced by a customer services department that actually engaged with people properly. Not that Metrolink's necessarily does.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We are now in the fourth month where on Saturdays, the Manchester Metrolink system has provided regular light rail services for intending travellers to places such as Altrincham, Bury, Oldham and Rochdale on the former heavy rail lines in comparison to those heavy rail-served towns that have had their Saturday services affected by the RMT strike pattern.

 

[Chester1]

No, the draft Delivery Plan proposes converting both lines to Romiley to tram-train, via Hyde North as well as via Brinnington, with a terminus at Marple in addition to that at Rose Hill. See the yellow lines (with red dashes) on Map 3. The Glossop/Hadfield line would be converted too. It does not specify which line would be shared with heavy rail passenger trains to New Mills Central and beyond, although clearly freight would have to continue using the Hyde North route to Guide Bridge.

Thats new! I am surprised they are even considering converting that section. Rose Hill-Piccadilly via Brinnington should still have the best business case and therefore be done first. Its one thing to have a one and a half mile shared section but another to share for several miles. If New Mills where in Greater Manchester then it might be possible to extend to an interchange station on the mainline and only run freight and tram trains. That would cost a lot more and no one would pay for it.

Id guess there would be two terminating platforms at Marple for tram trains which might work if both Marple tram train services ran via Brinnington. Ashburys-Hyde Junction could have two segregated tram and two segregated heavy rail tracks (presumably removing Fairfield and Gorton from the heavy rail network). Tram Trains for Hyde Junction-Romiley just sounds mad. I think Rose Hill to Manchester via Brinnington would suit tram trains and it would provide much better links to Manchester City centre as a whole. However I am not convinced its the solution for that whole section of railway! What next? Run tram trains from Stalybridge to Piccadilly?!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'd guess there would be two terminating platforms at Marple for tram trains which might work if both Marple tram train services ran via Brinnington.

Assuming that there would still be through services onwards from Marple, looking at the actual situation of the station in comparison to its surrounding land area environs, would there be any logistical and infrastructural ground area problems if these proposed terminating platforms were constructed either to the left land areas or the right land areas of the existing railway station?

 

[edwin_m]

A couple of times a day a freight train runs round at Woodley to go into or out of the terminal at Brinnington. Not sure how that will work if the half-hourly passenger service becomes a tram-train every few minutes.