How could devolution of Greater Manchester rail services be carried out?

[yorkie]

Given the news in thefollowing thread:

Greater Manchester has "ambitions" for devolution of some local rail services from 2025

This was buried in a TfGM press release about bus franchising today. Greater Manchester’s vision for a truly integrated public transport network includes all modes of transport, with ambitions for [rail] services on six key routes to be integrated into the Bee Network once buses are brought...

www.railforums.co.uk

This thread is to enable members to post their own suggestions, predictions or anything else of a speculative nature regarding the above proposals.

 

[Bantamzen]

Metrolink's zonal fare system could be a starting point for integrated fares within Greater Manchester

Metrolink fare zones

Metrolink has 4 fare zones. Purchase a ticket for all the zones you will travel through.

tfgm.com

Having a unified tariff for all transport modes would be a major step forward

The Metrolink tap in - tap out system & zonal fares would indeed be the natural starting point. However with Northern also starting to roll out tap in - tap out systems, would their readers be used for the GM network or would GM only versions have to be installed. Could start to get very confusing, which is why it might make sense for Northern to continue to run the services, but GM regulate the fares on those chosen routes.

 

[rapmastaj]

Since the buses are also being devolved, there's great opportunities for integrated ticketing, timetabling and routing between the buses, rail and metrolink. Plus integration with cycle hire and the cycle network too, and a shared 'Bee network' identity in terms of branding and mapping.

 

[heathrowrail]

The only service is can see merging in is maybe Manchester to Manchester Airport as some kind of Manchester Airport Express? Nothing else would make sense to merge in as it serves other destinations, which in reality even the Man airport trains do.

 

[D841 Roebuck]

The usual showboating nonsense from Tfgm.

Since Metrolink is intrinsically incapable of running to a timetable, how is it going to integrate with anything without messing up both the heavy rail and bus services (which both at least know what time they're supposed to be running, even if they don't always manage it)?

 

[LeeLivery]

Ideally, S-Bahn the GM & Mersey networks, akin to S Bahn Rhine-Ruhr + have a totally compatible ticketing system across both city-region transport networks (add Warrington, Wigan, etc. too). Plough money into it (including Deansgate - which is the best interchange for Metrolink routes)

In reality - split off the suburban/commuter belt services branding. Have them operated by Northern, but with heavy TfGM influence. Like London Overground, but Arriva Rail London being Northern.

The Metrolink tap in - tap out system & zonal fares would indeed be the natural starting point. However with Northern also starting to roll out tap in - tap out systems, would their readers be used for the GM network or would GM only versions have to be installed. Could start to get very confusing, which is why it might make sense for Northern to continue to run the services, but GM regulate the fares on those chosen routes.

Smartcards really ought to be seen as a national system, branded similarly to Railcards.

 

[javelin]

The Metrolink tap in - tap out system & zonal fares would indeed be the natural starting point. However with Northern also starting to roll out tap in - tap out systems, would their readers be used for the GM network or would GM only versions have to be installed. Could start to get very confusing, which is why it might make sense for Northern to continue to run the services, but GM regulate the fares on those chosen routes.

I think the contactless readers they both use are the same, aren't they? And they are all ITSO compatible so none of the issues with London's bespoke system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The usual showboating nonsense from Tfgm.

Since Metrolink is intrinsically incapable of running to a timetable, how is it going to integrate with anything without messing up both the heavy rail and bus services (which both at least know what time they're supposed to be running, even if they don't always manage it)?

Metrolink does run to a timetable. They stupidly just don't publish it.

But even I wouldn't say you massively need to coordinate connections when you are running 10tph.

 

[Greybeard33]

If integrated ticketing and tap in/out applies only to the devolved Bee Network routes, it could be confusing for users. For example, Cheadle Hulme has 3tph from Piccadilly, but only the Alderley Edge service will be Bee Network, with the Crewe and Stoke services remaining National Rail. There will be a similar issue at Stockport, Romiley, Bolton and Wigan.

On the other hand, if integrated ticketing also applies to National Rail services within the GM area, it will be challenging to integrate the Metrolink/Bee Network zonal fares system with the National Rail ticketing system within three years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If integrated ticketing and tap in/out applies only to the devolved Bee Network routes, it could be confusing for users. For example, Cheadle Hulme has 3tph from Piccadilly, but only the Alderley Edge service will be Bee Network, with the Crewe and Stoke services remaining National Rail. There will be a similar issue at Stockport, Romiley, Bolton and Wigan.

Yes, I think this would be an issue, so I don't think it would happen.

On the other hand, if integrated ticketing also applies to National Rail services within the GM area, it will be challenging to integrate the Metrolink/Bee Network zonal fares system with the National Rail ticketing system within three years.

Initially I don't see that you'd need to integrate it per-se (much as fully integrated German style "one ticket, all modes" approach is in my view the way to go long term). Oyster/contactless on National Rail has always just been a bit laid on top.

 

[JonathanH]

Oyster/contactless on National Rail has always just been a bit laid on top.

Not for journeys wholly within London where Oyster / Contactless is primary, even on National Rail, and we don't yet know what will happen in 2024 outside London. Personally I think it entirely possible that the existing structure will be swept away in the extended area with Contactless becoming primary.

There is no reason for that not to happen for journeys wholly within Greater Manchester. Indeed, it would be a step towards your favoured integration principles as the fare charged would be determined by 'back office' calculations.

 

[Chester1]

The Metrolink tap in - tap out system & zonal fares would indeed be the natural starting point. However with Northern also starting to roll out tap in - tap out systems, would their readers be used for the GM network or would GM only versions have to be installed. Could start to get very confusing, which is why it might make sense for Northern to continue to run the services, but GM regulate the fares on those chosen routes.

I think that is the best option. Manchester doesn't need a London overground equivalent to have an intergrated bus/tram/train ticketing.

If they want to go down the route of a seperate ToC then they should start with the example of GTR. Create a seperate brand but keep Northern running it for forseeable future. Some routes could be altered to limit running outside of Greater Manchester. Glossop and New Mills Central etc could be part of system like Watford is part ot London's system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they want to go down the route of a seperate ToC then they should start with the example of GTR. Create a seperate brand but keep Northern running it for forseeable future. Some routes could be altered to limit running outside of Greater Manchester. Glossop and New Mills Central etc could be part of system like Watford is part ot London's system.

And like Merseyrail runs to Ormskirk and Chester. So running a bit past your boundary isn't an issue.

Most of Manchester's service is more like the Merseyrail "City Line" services operated by Northern, though. There's very little that makes sense to bring "in house" that doesn't also make sense to convert to trams, with the possible exception of a Merseyrail like Manchester Airport local service.

But this isn't a great issue. You can use Oyster/contactless on all manner of South East TOCs, only some of which TfL run.

 

[Chester1]

And like Merseyrail runs to Ormskirk and Chester. So running a bit past your boundary isn't an issue.

Most of Manchester's service is more like the Merseyrail "City Line" services operated by Northern, though. There's very little that makes sense to bring "in house" that doesn't also make sense to convert to trams, with the possible exception of a Merseyrail like Manchester Airport local service.

But this isn't a great issue. You can use Oyster/contactless on all manner of South East TOCs, only some of which TfL run.

If services were remapped then some lines could be carved out. Alderley Edge, Buxton, Rose Hill, New Mills Central, Glossop, Stalybridge, Rochdale, Wigan and Manchester stations are the obvious terminals. Ticketing not ToCs and branding trains should be the priority.

If TfGM are determined to run services then tram trains from Glossop and Rose Hill are a better than a mini heavy rail ToC.

 

[507020]

If services were remapped then some lines could be carved out. Alderley Edge, Buxton, Rose Hill, New Mills Central, Glossop, Stalybridge, Rochdale, Wigan and Manchester stations are the obvious terminals. Ticketing not ToCs and branding trains should be the priority.

If TfGM are determined to run services then tram trains from Glossop and Rose Hill are a better than a mini heavy rail ToC.

The chosen examples of Wigan - Golborne - Victoria, Southport - Stalybridge, Piccadilly - Guide Bridge - Hadfield/Glossop and Rose Hill Marple and Piccadilly - Stockport - Buxton and Alderley Edge are not infrastructural “routes” at all, but services in the December 2022 timetable. Presumably they were chosen before this including the vital Bolton - Stockport connection provided by Southport - Alderley Edge and Blackpool North - Hazel Grove and were hastily amended.

TfGM prioritising Southport services for devolution is lovely, but such through services are unlikely to survive Westhoughton and Stalybridge electrification and there remains a desire for Southport - Piccadilly - Manchester Airport services. The Alderley Edge terminator forms only part of the service pattern, interleaved with through Crewe services (New Mills Central has the same problem with Sheffields but was not mentioned and what about a Hazel Grove electric service in addition to the Buxtons) and the peak only Wigan - Victoria electric shuttle has no business terminating at either end solely for the purpose of serving a Golborne station which doesn’t even exist yet and is dependent on HS2 after carrying around fresh air because no one knows it exists.

I’m also surprised Rochdale and Manchester Airport services weren’t mentioned. The issue is that the services of any PTE area can’t be carved out of the rail network because they always bleed into each other at both ends. In this respect, Liverpool - Manchester should be operated as a joint service of TfGM and Merseytravel or Manchester - Leeds as a joint service of TfGM and WY Metro.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TfGM prioritising Southport services for devolution is lovely, but such through services are unlikely to survive Westhoughton and Stalybridge electrification and there remains a desire for Southport - Piccadilly - Manchester Airport services.

I don't think Southport itself is that significant - but what is is the Atherton line, which is as close to Merseyrail as anything TfGM has. That absolutely should be under TfGM's remit, and post Westhoughton electrification it's fairly likely at least one of the two Southports will go that way - most likely the Victoria one as Atherton services traditionally have gone to Vic. Though it is worth noting that TfGM's area does go all the way to Appley Bridge. Continuing it to Stalyvegas may be more debatable but could still happen even as a DMU if Vic is getting a bit crowded.

Truncating Southport to Wigan is not going to happen regardless of Westhoughton wires. It's too valuable a through service.

OTOH Kirkby possibly isn't mentioned because there's a fair chance it will be Merseyrail by then?

 

[30907]

There seems some logic in hiving off the Hadfield/Rose Hill/New Mills group as they are self-contained (but why not convert them to tram?). Don't know what you do about NMC-Chinley though.

Wigan-Hindley-Victoria(-Rochdale/Stalybridge) would also make some sense, certainly better than Golborne.

I suppose you could invent a Bolton-Piccadilly-Alderley Edge stopper, but is that the best use of Castlefield paths? Or Rochdale-Alderley Edge?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There seems some logic in hiving off the Hadfield/Rose Hill/New Mills group as they are self-contained (but why not convert them to tram?). Don't know what you do about NMC-Chinley though.

The logic is probably to run Manchester-Brinnington/Bredbury-Romiley-Rose Hill as a high frequency tram-train service (Rose Hill is after all more central to Marple) and to keep heavy rail via Guide Bridge to New Mills and Chinley operated by Northern twice an hour (alongside calls by the Hadfields, be they tram-train or EMU), remembering that TPE etc uses it as well so you can't do the high frequency service as you would for the tram. I know there has been a proposal to reroute the Hope Valley local via Stockport, but I'm a bit less convinced by that as it breaks established connections, and trams to New Mills seems a bit far out.

 

[507020]

I don't think Southport itself is that significant - but what is is the Atherton line, which is as close to Merseyrail as anything TfGM has. That absolutely should be under TfGM's remit, and post Westhoughton electrification it's fairly likely at least one of the two Southports will go that way - most likely the Victoria one as Atherton services traditionally have gone to Vic. Though it is worth noting that TfGM's area does go all the way to Appley Bridge. Continuing it to Stalyvegas may be more debatable but could still happen even as a DMU if Vic is getting a bit crowded.

Truncating Southport to Wigan is not going to happen regardless of Westhoughton wires. It's too valuable a through service.

OTOH Kirkby possibly isn't mentioned because there's a fair chance it will be Merseyrail by then?

TfGM mentioning Southport is significant, as is Southport - Manchester Piccadilly connectivity and the fact that Greater Manchester destinations Gathurst and Appley Bridge are on the Southport line. Atherton doesn’t work since all that has survived is an all stops Sprinter which by design was only ever tertiary to both expresses and freight. It needs to be 4 tracks throughout with a very frequent all stops service but Wigan/Southport/Kirkby services running non-stop and not conflicting. The line speed also needs to be much higher than 50mph.

Southport - Wigan shuttles are not possible, either politically or with the current track layout, but since they didn’t hesitate to scrap Southport - Piccadilly, what may go is Southport - Bolton though, with 2tph EMUs doing Wigan - Stalybridge and the Southport going via Atherton, possibly to Leeds again, rather than DMUs under the wires. If they aren’t energised until 2025, the 769s could be gone by then and they could always run Southport - Rochdale.

I am conflicted as I do not support all Southport services running to Victoria and not Piccadilly, or running DMUs under the wires, but I can’t wait to be rid of the Southport train which is already full and standing past Bolton stopping at Moses Gate, Farnworth or Kearsley.

There seems some logic in hiving off the Hadfield/Rose Hill/New Mills group as they are self-contained (but why not convert them to tram?). Don't know what you do about NMC-Chinley though.

Wigan-Hindley-Victoria(-Rochdale/Stalybridge) would also make some sense, certainly better than Golborne.

I suppose you could invent a Bolton-Piccadilly-Alderley Edge stopper, but is that the best use of Castlefield paths? Or Rochdale-Alderley Edge?

The GCR lines are not self contained with TPE to Stalybridge or New Mills Central - Sheffield. Do Cleethorpes services divert this way? You could requadruple to Guide Bridge but what about freight crossing the formation there? Reopening the L&NWR Guide Bridge avoiding line anyone?

There seems to be no good use of Castlefield at this point, but a local stopping service for the Ordsall Chord would be much more useful than the Saltburn.

 

[Chester1]

There seems some logic in hiving off the Hadfield/Rose Hill/New Mills group as they are self-contained (but why not convert them to tram?). Don't know what you do about NMC-Chinley though.

Wigan-Hindley-Victoria(-Rochdale/Stalybridge) would also make some sense, certainly better than Golborne.

I suppose you could invent a Bolton-Piccadilly-Alderley Edge stopper, but is that the best use of Castlefield paths? Or Rochdale-Alderley Edge?

Ashburys to Romiley and the little Rose Hill branch can be converted to Metrolink but the bit in between will still be wanted by Network Rail. The TfGM proposals have all been Tram Train due to this stretch. Metrolink could cope with one track each but it would cause timetable and reliability issues on Hope Valley services. Metrolink only has capacity for 10tph to be extended from Piccadilly to Glossop or Rose Hill if pre pandemic services patterns are restored. The curves on Metrolink limit tram or tram train lengh to 60m (3 metres longer than a double unit with no space wasted for 2 redundant cabs and coupling).

 

[BurtonM]

What's the remaining lifespan of 150s? Could devolved power for GM give them any say in the spec of a potential replacement?

 

[slipdigby]

What's the remaining lifespan of 150s? Could devolved power for GM give them any say in the spec of a potential replacement?

There's a fleet replacement programme being worked up by Northern which includes the replacement of 150s. However it is unlikely that GM would be able to get the statutory or funding structures in place prior to decisions being made on this front. More likely given the complexity of unravelling diagramming, rostering, servicing, etc., is an initial period where TfGM Rail wet lease in 323s, 15x's from Northern whilst a decision is made on appropriate rolling stock solutions (super tram-train anyone?).

 

[Greybeard33]

Ashburys to Romiley and the little Rose Hill branch can be converted to Metrolink but the bit in between will still be wanted by Network Rail. The TfGM proposals have all been Tram Train due to this stretch. Metrolink could cope with one track each but it would cause timetable and reliability issues on Hope Valley services. Metrolink only has capacity for 10tph to be extended from Piccadilly to Glossop or Rose Hill if pre pandemic services patterns are restored. The curves on Metrolink limit tram or tram train lengh to 60m (3 metres longer than a double unit with no space wasted for 2 redundant cabs and coupling).

With TfGM gaining devolved control of heavy rail, but investment funding tight, I think costly tram-train conversions of the Atherton, Glossop and Rose Hill lines may well go on the back burner for now.

Assuming NPR goes ahead per the IRP, fast trains from Leeds will go into the Piccadilly HS2 station, and the semi-fasts/stoppers via Stalybridge likely go to Victoria. This will reduce platform occupancy in the Piccadilly main shed, enabling frequency/capacity improvements on the SE Manchester lines without the need for tram-trains.

 

[Chester1]

With TfGM gaining devolved control of heavy rail, but investment funding tight, I think costly tram-train conversions of the Atherton, Glossop and Rose Hill lines may well go on the back burner for now.

Assuming NPR goes ahead per the IRP, fast trains from Leeds will go into the Piccadilly HS2 station, and the semi-fasts/stoppers via Stalybridge likely go to Victoria. This will reduce platform occupancy in the Piccadilly main shed, enabling frequency/capacity improvements on the SE Manchester lines without the need for tram-trains.

Tram trains for Glossop would need to be street running from Piccadilly to Ashburys but the wires from there to Glossop and Hadfield would be fine for tram trains (South Wales Metro tram trains will use AC power). Ashburys to Marple Rose Hill would cost more. I agree its not a good time but neither is a good idea to butcher Northern services for TfGM to have their own train set.

 

[Greybeard33]

Tram trains for Glossop would need to be street running from Piccadilly to Ashburys but the wires from there to Glossop and Hadfield would be fine for tram trains (South Wales Metro tram trains will use AC power). Ashburys to Marple Rose Hill would cost more. I agree its not a good time but neither is a good idea to butcher Northern services for TfGM to have their own train set.

Tram-trains need a higher frequency than EMUs to provide the same capacity. Re-quadding and resignalling Gorton to Guide Bridge, to provide segregated tram-train tracks, would be very costly, and very disruptive during construction.

On the other hand, if the Ashburys to Romiley line were converted to be tram-train only, track and signalling costs would be much less, and electrification could be to cheaper light rail standards. However, this would rule out use of the line for heavy rail diversions, and conflicts with TfN's aspiration for future fast Sheffield services to use the line to access Piccadilly HS2 station and continue to the Airport.

 

[Howardh]

At the moment I'd be happy to walk to my local bus, tap in, then use the train/trams as I feel fit and then tap out, get charged the correct daily fare as I can in London. I think that's on the cards but is there a specific date it might start?

 

[Pete_uk]

Since the buses are also being devolved, there's great opportunities for integrated ticketing, timetabling and routing between the buses, rail and metrolink. Plus integration with cycle hire and the cycle network too, and a shared 'Bee network' identity in terms of branding and mapping.

So, you're saying running three separate transport systems with the aim of facilitating reasonably easy end to end multi model journeys?

That's a bit radical.

 

[BurtonM]

TfGM to have their own train set

They have that already, in the form of slapping Metrolink tracks anywhere the residents won't NIMBY it out of existence: ie low income, predominantly industrial, or new build areas. We have the 2008 congestion charge referendum to thank for that, instead of a C-charge, TfGM got a load of money to spend on public transport infrastructure, and blew it all on updating Metrolink, to questionable gain.
When they were building the Ashton line, the 216 bus whose route it completely follows, became massively unreliable and infrequent, with huge queues forming at Ashton - a once 10 minute service bus where there was always a bus waiting at the terminus, and filling well, was suddenly and inexplicably showing up once every 20-30 mins. The roadworks were partly to blame for this, but when they cleared up, the buses were as bad, if not worse... When questioned, Stagecoach employees told me they'd been forced to reduce frequency by TfGM to allow tram competition... Stagecoach understandably weren't happy with TfGM basically coming to them and saying 'sod your income, we're having some', especially as in the early days of the Met line, revenue enforcement was lacking and vandalism of TVMs was rife, so a lot of people got free rides. Stagecoach drivers would often deliberately obstruct trams while at bus stops etc. I recall being on a bus in Droylsden where the driver was extremely deliberately hindering a tram for no real reason and the tram driver was extremely peeved and leaning on the airhorn - I can only assume it was out of spite for the seemingly endless roadworks the trams caused.

 

[Greybeard33]

At the moment I'd be happy to walk to my local bus, tap in, then use the train/trams as I feel fit and then tap out, get charged the correct daily fare as I can in London. I think that's on the cards but is there a specific date it might start?

According to Andy Burnham's tweets, tap in/out for bus and tram will be complete by 5 January 2025. The plan is then to progressively integrate the local rail lines between 2025 and 2030.

 

[Howardh]

According to Andy Burnham's tweets, tap in/out for bus and tram will be complete by 5 January 2025. The plan is then to progressively integrate the local rail lines between 2025 and 2030.

Thanks! Speed of lightening then?

Depressing how we can't get our infrastructure moving more quickly, be it rail/tram lines or a seemingly simple ticketing restructure. Annoyingly even now you can't buy day Rover/Ranger tickets online or via an app.