Greater Manchester Combined Authority: Latest transport strategy draft publication

[yorksrob]

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.

Perhaps thats an argument for devolving the heavy rail budget for local services to the North, rather than having it controlled by Westminster.

 

[PR1Berske]

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.

And without guards, notably.

 

[johnnychips]

I think Paul S did identify a problem at Marple: there is currently a turnaround possible which is used, but probably not viable for tram train frequencies. There certainly is no room to build another terminating platform.

 

[geoffk]

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]
I would be very wary of replacing a decent electric service to Glossop/Hadfield with a tram-train. The Rose Hill Pacer service would be a good candidate, diverted over the Bredbury line where some stations are poorly used, with only hourly calls off-peak at Belle Vue and Ryder Brow. Also there is space for two extra tracks along the GC line between Ashburys and Fairfield or beyond for a Metrolink service terminating at Guide Bridge, allowing heavy rail services to run non-stop Piccadilly - Guide Bridge and leaving the Glossop and Woodley lines as heavy rail only. The Marple/New Mills/Sheffield trains would then serve one or both Hyde stations and Woodley.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

If New Mills were 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.

Better still if New Mills was in the TfGM area, the line could be extended back through the short but sharp tunnel (the eastern portal is only partially bricked up) and up on the Sett Valley Trail to Hayfield with three new stations - one at Thornsett, one at Birch Vale and one at the entrace to the SVT at Hayfield.

 

[158756]

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.

Trains will only get longer if there is significant growth in demand. That isn't the way things are currently going. Six and eight car trains are always suggested on these threads, but even with massively subsidised fares the demand isn't there. As for additional services, that ship has sailed - it turns out there aren't even enough paths towards Stockport for improvements already promised and funded, never mind any hypothetical future services.

Trams to Marple, Glossop etc will be justified by the improvement in the service quality and finances on those routes much more than any incidental benefit to any other heavy rail lines.

 

[ic31420]

A major issue with Metrolink is unlike most tram networks they refuse to allow bikes.

I take my bike to a few of these proposed routes. Despite Bury or Radcliffe being my nearest station I currently drive to Bromley Cross, Holeintwood Farnworth or Lostock then get the train.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A major issue with Metrolink is unlike most tram networks they refuse to allow bikes.

I am sure there are reasons why that might be seen as logical on a tramway system.

 

[ic31420]

Apparently most tram systems allow bikes.

I know a guy who was dealing with European funding in the civil service when metrolink was getting going and looking for European funding. They wanted to refuse the funding on the basis of the no bikes policy and did so with the approval of the local hierarchy, but were told from way up high to remove this objection.

Metrolink reviewed the bike policy a fee years ago in light of pressure from local cycle groups but again maintained the ban.

Basically they don't want Burt and Ada getting oiled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Paul S did identify a problem at Marple: there is currently a turnaround possible which is used, but probably not viable for tram train frequencies. There certainly is no room to build another terminating platform.

There absolutely is room for another platform facing Manchester because there used to be another platform west of the present northbound one. Have a look at Google Earth, you can clearly see where it was. It might involve rebuilding the footbridge as the existing platform has been widened at that point, but if you're talking about this sort of major works that kind of thing is not prohibitive.

See also this MEN article (not quoted because only the pictures are of interest) - it is quite a curious layout with multiple footbridges that it used to have:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...y/in-pictures-historic-marple-station-9563660

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Basically they don't want Burt and Ada getting oiled.

The use of those stated names in that statement smacks of the vision of all "oop north" being whippet owners and having ferrets down their trouser legs and bloomers...

 

[radamfi]

A major issue with Metrolink is unlike most tram networks they refuse to allow bikes.

Midland Metro, Sheffield Supertram, Nottingham NET and London trams don't allow bikes either. Amsterdam and Rotterdam don't allow bikes on most trams, only the more express tram lines off-peak as they act more like longer distance metros. Arguably most Metrolink lines are similar in character to the lines in Amsterdam and Rotterdam that allow bikes. "Proper" metros in Amsterdam and Rotterdam allow bikes off-peak, as does the London Underground on the shallow lines off-peak.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Midland Metro, Sheffield Supertram, Nottingham NET and London trams don't allow bikes either. Amsterdam and Rotterdam don't allow bikes on most trams, only the more express tram lines off-peak as they act more like longer distance metros. Arguably most Metrolink lines are similar in character to the lines in Amsterdam and Rotterdam that allow bikes. "Proper" metros in Amsterdam and Rotterdam allow bikes off-peak, as does the London Underground on the shallow lines off-peak.

Metrolink is basically the same as Merseyrail (and for that matter the Newcastle Metro) - all three of them are three different ways of doing the same thing, and the sections outside the city are near enough the same - primarily converted ex-BR lines. Really bicycles should be allowed on all three, at least off-peak.

FWIW bicycles are allowed off-peak on LU outside of tunnel sections (deep Tube) and anywhere on the subsurface lines. Though I don't recall ever actually seeing one!

 

[Robertj21a]

A major issue with Metrolink is unlike most tram networks they refuse to allow bikes.

I take my bike to a few of these proposed routes. Despite Bury or Radcliffe being my nearest station I currently drive to Bromley Cross, Holeintwood Farnworth or Lostock then get the train.

I wouldn't really consider that 'a major issue'. True, it will affect a few cyclists but the travelling public is probably far more interested in general accessibility.

 

[radamfi]

FWIW bicycles are allowed off-peak on LU outside of tunnel sections (deep Tube) and anywhere on the subsurface lines. Though I don't recall ever actually seeing one!

I've never seen a bike on the Tube either, other than when I took it on the Tube myself! The trouble is you have to carry it up and down stairs if there is no lift.

 

[Mogster]

I commute from Wigan to Manchester and people board with bikes daily, on the more scenic lines it must be even more popular. So it’s not an insignificant number of people.

I don’t really see how a Metrolink tram is less able to take a push bike than a 150 or 142.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its a capacity decision, they take up too much room that could be occupied by humans in peak, it was considered to allow them offpeak but the Metrolink sees pretty steady ridership from 8am to 6pm and it was thought it would confuse people if there were restrictive hours. You can carry foldable bikes on board which are the type that would be favoured by commuters.

 

[faltskog36abba]

I commute from Wigan to Manchester and people board with bikes daily, on the more scenic lines it must be even more popular. So it’s not an insignificant number of people.

I don’t really see how a Metrolink tram is less able to take a push bike than a 150 or 142.

I agree about the bikes on trams. What about disability scooters? They aren't allowed on trains or trams- Not the one my mother uses anyway. I was once kicked off a tram on the Eccles line for having my sick kitten on my lap in an animal carrier having visited the vets/ Trams aren't -Disability ,Cycle or Animal friendly.

 

[Chester1]

I agree about the bikes on trams. What about disability scooters? They aren't allowed on trains or trams- Not the one my mother uses anyway. I was once kicked off a tram on the Eccles line for having my sick kitten on my lap in an animal carrier having visited the vets/ Trams aren't -Disability ,Cycle or Animal friendly.

I thought animals are allowed off peak?

 

[317 forever]

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.

I think we might be in the 7th such month: August (middle), September etc through now to February.

 

[geoffk]

I commute from Wigan to Manchester and people board with bikes daily, on the more scenic lines it must be even more popular. So it’s not an insignificant number of people.

I don’t really see how a Metrolink tram is less able to take a push bike than a 150 or 142.

Another issue is the perceived loss of through ticketing to and from the rail network. I know that through Metrolink/rail tickets can be obtained but the offer is I believe confined to trips within Greater Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wigan itself isn't going to lose direct services on heavy rail to Manchester, as I doubt the Southport line would be cut off (I could see Kirkby being a shuttle, though). They would run via Bolton instead.

 

[WatcherZero]

I thought animals are allowed off peak?

Beyond Guide/assistance dogs cats and dogs are only allowed if visiting the PDSA Pet Hospital at Old Trafford.

 

[Eccles1983]

Wigan itself isn't going to lose direct services on heavy rail to Manchester, as I doubt the Southport line would be cut off (I could see Kirkby being a shuttle, though). They would run via Bolton instead.

Can the Bolton line handle the increased traffic? Also cutting the Atherton line means a vital diversion route is lost from the wcml to manchester.

I am at a loss at the tramification calls. It's not an improvement on heavy rail, and a trip from Manchester to Atherton without a toilet is going to result in a smelly tram on a weekend.

 

[PR1Berske]

and a trip from Manchester to Atherton without a toilet is going to result in a smelly tram on a weekend

This, exactly this. Tramming every route in TfGMPTE is just not feasible for this reason, maybe this above all others. It's a push asking people to ride a tram without a toilet from Oldham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This, exactly this. Tramming every route in TfGMPTE is just not feasible for this reason, maybe this above all others. It's a push asking people to ride a tram without a toilet from Oldham.

Is it? Merseyrail trains don't have toilets, nor do London Overground trains. They are doing similar journey lengths.

 

[Mogster]

If Burnham wants to extend Metrolink to the West wouldn’t it be better to serve Leigh, Tyldesley and Atherton with a Metrolink extension from Eccles?

It’s still a long way on a tram though.

 

[furnessvale]

Extending Metrolink gives people a bigger train set to play with.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Burnham wants to extend Metrolink to the West wouldn’t it be better to serve Leigh, Tyldesley and Atherton with a Metrolink extension from Eccles?

It’s still a long way on a tram though.

It would be a lot better than that misguided busway. Trouble with the Eccles branch is that it's so slow, though, being really built to serve Salford Quays but extended to Eccles to gain funding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Extending Metrolink gives people a bigger train set to play with.

It also, to be a bit controversial, allows the cost savings of DOO to be implemented without any strikes about it.

Edit: note: please don't start a DOO debate in this thread - that is not my intention - however this is simple fact that a tram conversion does, in Manchester, mean DOO, as all of them so far have done, which may mean the Government is wanting to encourage this.