Idea for Buxton line improvements

[Teapot42]

Yesterday I had to attend a seminar in Manchester (from Chesterfield) and rather than drive all the way, I decided to leave the car at New Mills Newtown and use the train and tram from there. In the end it worked out pretty much the same time-wise, but without all the hassle of navigating the M60 and south Manchester. I was surprised at both the changes but also lack of since I moved from Stockport just over a decade ago. Same trains on the Buxton line, but at least they were now 4 coaches. I also can't recall if the service was half-hourly back then, I had a feeling not but I could be wrong. Both times very full however so it seems even more capacity is needed.

However, I got to thinking, so many people still drive in to Manchester and more still seemed to be getting dropped at the station to meet the train. Is there demand for a proper park and ride station? It could work both ways, to get people in to Manchester, but also as a gateway to the Peak District for those coming from the city. Looking at a map, the area around Bridgemont looks like a possibility. I know it's quite close to both Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale, but neither of them have much scope for parking. There is already a large Tesco there so there is precedent for development in the area - indeed, one option would be to convert part of that car park in to a multi story to add extra parking if it proved necessary. It's right off the end of the Chapel bypass as well.

The other thought I'd had to go along with that is whether the line could be electrified, at least as far as this station. From the way the 150s especially were struggling I'd imagine you could knock 5 minutes off the journey, 10 if some of the services didn't stop at Heaton Chapel or Levenshulme. That would very definitely make it appealing compared to driving - providing fares were sensible.

Looking on google satellite, I wonder if a turn-back at Whaley Bridge would be possible, meaning a something like a 15 minute frequency could be run that far, 2x fast and 2x stopper maybe?

Of course ideally you'd also have a network of buses distributing people in to the park from there.

Is this total pie in the sky, or could there be scope for such an improvement?

 

[507020]

The other thought I'd had to go along with that is whether the line could be electrified, at least as far as this station. From the way the 150s especially were struggling I'd imagine you could knock 5 minutes off the journey, 10 if some of the services didn't stop at Heaton Chapel or Levenshulme. That would very definitely make it appealing compared to driving - providing fares were sensible.

Looking on google satellite, I wonder if a turn-back at Whaley Bridge would be possible, meaning a something like a 15 minute frequency could be run that far, 2x fast and 2x stopper maybe?

Of course ideally you'd also have a network of buses distributing people in to the park from there.

Is this total pie in the sky, or could there be scope for such an improvement?

All or part of the Buxton line may warrant 4tph fast, but you seem to be slightly unaware of the issues affecting rail capacity in Manchester which mean it is likely impossible with current infrastructure and there is no scope for any investment in the North of England this side of a general election, let alone after.

Buxton is lucky to receive 2tph via Stockport some hours, with Chester for example only being allowed 1tph from Stockport which are not always 4 cars. With the wires already reaching Hazel Grove, electrification through to Buxton shouldn’t be a challenge, but they are currently unable to run an increased frequency or even an electric service of any kind on this section with current infrastructure.

With electric trains not even reaching Leeds from Manchester (or Birmingham with Voyagers under the wires the whole way) the network is in such a bad state that it becomes impossible to prioritise any local improvements that would be greatly beneficial on lines such as this, even when larger schemes (not naming any names) cannot be progressed anymore either.

 

[Llandudno]

There are two park and ride sites at Hazel Grove, one at the rail station which is quite well used but only of any use if travelling to Manchester and another huge site at the terminus of the 192 bus which probably holds over 150 cars but rarely sees more than a dozen cars parked in it, as despite the bus fare to Manchester being only £2 no one likes to get out of their cars and travel on a turgid stopping bus service that takes an hour to reach Manchester.

Chinley is probably a better railhead for reaching Manchester and Sheffield but the car park is quite small.

 

[northwichcat]

From my experience of the Buxton line off peak demand for stations between Hazel Grove and Buxton is low and the demand that does exist is seasonal. I suppose it's not easy to run extra trains because it's a sunny Bank Holiday or Saturday and people want to make the most of the countryside.

I think the Buxton line only gets 4 carriage trains because of the calls at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme.

 

[Topological]

Some big multi-story car parks near the airport would make some sense, especially now the A6 link road is a thing.

Airport to the centre is already well served and electric trains could go to Wilmslow (via Styal) if an alternative location for a railhead station made more sense. That station could even have trains to Crewe (and hence further). Worth saying Wilmslow fills some of the brief, but a more accessible station near the Airport - A6 road would have merit.

 

[Trainman40083]

I seem to recall that as COVID struck, there was a half hourly service from Buxton to Manchester. It even finished off the hourly TransPeak bus service from Buxton to Manchester. But I think if I was travelling from Chesterfield, I'd have caught the direct train...Others have said the real problem is lack of capacity between Stockport and Manchester stations and that stops additional services on many lines; something that HS2 would have solved for local travellers. So many local lines crying out for more services to so many places.

There are two park and ride sites at Hazel Grove, one at the rail station which is quite well used but only of any use if travelling to Manchester and another huge site at the terminus of the 192 bus which probably holds over 150 cars but rarely sees more than a dozen cars parked in it, as despite the bus fare to Manchester being only £2 no one likes to get out of their cars and travel on a turgid stopping bus service that takes an hour to reach Manchester.

Chinley is probably a better railhead for reaching Manchester and Sheffield but the car park is quite small.

Yes, it is strange that car park is hardly used...But also I've been on packed trains where the bus fare is only £2. I guess people are prepared to pay more.to get somewhere quicker

 

[northwichcat]

Some big multi-story car parks near the airport would make some sense, especially now the A6 link road is a thing.

Manchester Airport certainly won't want to agree to a free park & ride car park for rail users. Drivers are currently charged for dropping off passengers at Manchester Airport railway station.

Airport to the centre is already well served and electric trains could go to Wilmslow (via Styal) if an alternative location for a railhead station made more sense. That station could even have trains to Crewe (and hence further). Worth saying Wilmslow fills some of the brief, but a more accessible station near the Airport - A6 road would have merit.

Styal and Wilmslow wouldn't make sense as locations for a park and ride. "Airport city" would be the most logical site, where there were plans to build a HS2 station!

But also I've been on packed trains where the bus fare is only £2. I guess people are prepared to pay more.to get somewhere quicker

Some people won't be travelling to Stockport or Manchester as their final destination, so train all the way will make more sense than bus plus train.

 

[Topological]

Manchester Airport certainly won't want to agree to a free park & ride car park for rail users. Drivers are currently charged for dropping off passengers at Manchester Airport railway station.



Styal and Wilmslow wouldn't make sense as locations for a park and ride. "Airport city" would be the most logical site, where there were plans to build a HS2 station!



Some people won't be travelling to Stockport or Manchester as their final destination, so train all the way will make more sense than bus plus train.

I must confess I was thinking more of requiring a rail ticket for the car park discount to apply, and building just off airport land. The advantage is that the company operating the car park could charge more for longer-stay airport users too.

It looks like a suitable area exists just south of the delta junction. Yes, it is currently fields, but with the Styal road having a junction on the Airport - A6 road that would be ideal.

I cannot imagine people being tempted to use the train park and ride option as a means to pickup or drop-off at the airport.

Service wise it would be the Crewe/Wilmslow - Airport - Manchester trains calling, but if it was successful you could have additional Wilmslow that did not serve the airport.

 

[thenorthern]

Hasn't the Buxton line got quite low bridges meaning electrification would be difficult?

 

[furnessvale]

Hasn't the Buxton line got quite low bridges meaning electrification would be difficult?

Without detail checking it is hard to form a detailed assessment, but I do know at least two of the bridges have already been rebuilt using standard concrete arch units, plus this is an ex LNWR line which tended to have a slightly more generous loading gauge.

 

[Teapot42]

All or part of the Buxton line may warrant 4tph fast, but you seem to be slightly unaware of the issues affecting rail capacity in Manchester which mean it is likely impossible with current infrastructure and there is no scope for any investment in the North of England this side of a general election, let alone after.

Buxton is lucky to receive 2tph via Stockport some hours, with Chester for example only being allowed 1tph from Stockport which are not always 4 cars.

True, both Slade Lane and Ardwick really need the flyovers that have been discussed for as long as I can remember and probably longer. From memory Chester was always 1tph and would need more stations opening around Cheadle to justify a lot more. Hazel Grove did have 4tph at one point, although I do note it's finally got a direct link to Sheffield which was previously only provided by the odd Cleethorpes service calling during the peaks. There does seem to be little use of the wires in that section however.

It goes without saying that something like this will need more attention paying overall to the network.

There are two park and ride sites at Hazel Grove, one at the rail station which is quite well used but only of any use if travelling to Manchester and another huge site at the terminus of the 192 bus which probably holds over 150 cars but rarely sees more than a dozen cars parked in it, as despite the bus fare to Manchester being only £2 no one likes to get out of their cars and travel on a turgid stopping bus service that takes an hour to reach Manchester.

Chinley is probably a better railhead for reaching Manchester and Sheffield but the car park is quite small.

By the time you've driven to Hazel Grove you might as well carry on the rest of the way. The traffic through Newtown, Disley and High Lane can be brutal, especially at peak times. My idea is also meant to be bidirectional - not just for commuters in to Manchester, but as a way to get people in to the Peak District without needing cars. A well located station with a proper interchange as part of it would be a great start.

I did wonder about a location on the Hope Valley line, but I'm not sure capacity or the service pattern would suit as well. There seems little benefit in having the 'fast' trains calling as they tend to be quite full anyway. Adding extra capacity via Stockport has the same issues as with Buxton and via Marple is a much slower route. I would comment though that Bridgemont is actually pretty close to the Hope Valley line (I reckon about 500m based on google maps) so serving both wouldn't be impossible, although building two stations is quite another issue.

Some big multi-story car parks near the airport would make some sense, especially now the A6 link road is a thing.

Airport to the centre is already well served and electric trains could go to Wilmslow (via Styal) if an alternative location for a railhead station made more sense. That station could even have trains to Crewe (and hence further). Worth saying Wilmslow fills some of the brief, but a more accessible station near the Airport - A6 road would have merit.

Not from this direction - by the time you've driven to the airport you could be most of the way in to the centre. It would possibly make sense for people coming from the south of Manchester, but the bottleneck through Disley and High Lane is the main reason I'm suggesting having the station before you get there.

In some ways this does raise another point though - such provision on all main arteries in to Manchester before you start getting in to denser areas and traffic blackspots would be beneficial.

But I think if I was travelling from Chesterfield, I'd have caught the direct train...

I did check that as an option, I'd have had to leave the house before 6am to arrive in time, as it was I left just before 7. It's also only hourly so if there had been a problem with the train I'd have been very late, while the next one from Newtown would have just about worked. While this was business so I can claim the cost back, there is also the fact that from Chesterfield it's £42.30 for the return (plus parking at the station), while New Mills was £12.60 plus around £5 of diesel.

 

[furnessvale]

True, both Slade Lane and Ardwick really need the flyovers that have been discussed for as long as I can remember and probably longer.

The difference between the UK and countries like Germany and Switzerland is stark. Rather than spending the bare minimum on rail, they have spent that little bit more on things like flyovers.

Build 2 flyovers a year for 70 years and you can transform a network. We have a lot of catching up to do.

 

[northwichcat]

From memory Chester was always 1tph and would need more stations opening around Cheadle to justify a lot more.

Chester was 2tph to Manchester at peak times until London services were uplifted to 3 trains per hour. A second hourly service to was supposed to be introduced as far as Northwich/Greenbank (based on high demand) in 2018 but that was postponed due to delays in rolling stock cascades, postponed again, and then cancelled after Network Rail decided Northern couldn't run as many services as they had previously said.

 

[Teapot42]

Chester was 2tph to Manchester at peak times until London services were uplifted to 3 trains per hour. A second hourly service to was supposed to be introduced as far as Northwich/Greenbank (based on high demand) in 2018 but that was postponed due to delays in rolling stock cascades, postponed again, and then cancelled after Network Rail decided Northern couldn't run as many services as they had previously said.

Thanks for the correction, I only recall 1tph when I lived in Stockport but as it's over a decade ago (and I didn't use that line often) I wasn't totally sure.

I definitely agree that more than 1tph is easily justified, but then there has been talk of anything up to 4-5 new stations on the way to Altrincham but no real sign of progress.

I guess the obvious questions are whether there is justification to relocate Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme (and indeed anywhere suitable) to put them in loops and free up more capacity, or to run some services via Denton South. The other option of course is to build one or more new platforms as Stockport and use it as a terminating station for some trains from the south with change on to longer through services. Not ideal again, as changes are never going to encourage passengers, but maybe the simplest of the options.

One thing I did notice is just how many apartments are being built in the area, but transport spending isn't keeping up it seems. The bee network is positive, but much more needs to be spent.

 

[HSTEd]

Fundamentally we have a problem in that we have two (and at one end three!) parallel railway lines, both of which have to offer stopping services with deleterious capacity and service frequency impacts.

Two parallel railways that are in large part only a few hundred metres apart is far from ideal.

 

[Teapot42]

The difference between the UK and countries like Germany and Switzerland is stark. Rather than spending the bare minimum on rail, they have spent that little bit more on things like flyovers.

Build 2 flyovers a year for 70 years and you can transform a network. We have a lot of catching up to do.

This seems to be the case in so many areas, and I can't see how we can catch up without a complete change in mindset amongst the voting public. We probably aren't too much different in age of rolling stock compared to many countries, but theirs was much better built in the first place, and they also invested in electrification much more.

While I realise a lot of it is bluster, this is one gaping hole in the various net zero plans - without a sensible alternative it's going to be almost impossible to get drivers out of cars. Changing modes of transport would have as much of an impact as electrifying every car out there and would also help with sheer quality of life. EVs don't get rid of traffic jams or reduce road deaths...

Fundamentally we have a problem in that we have two (and at one end three!) parallel railway lines, both of which have to offer stopping services with deleterious capacity and service frequency impacts.

Two parallel railways that are in large part only a few hundred metres apart is far from ideal.

Add in the Stalybridge line... Although I gather it's less used than it was when I used to live in the area. Of course the next question is whether Picc has the capacity to handle more trains anyway. The various ideas such as quadrupling the through lines or using London Road as a satellite terminal for the airport all got nowhere...

 

[northwichcat]

I definitely agree that more than 1tph is easily justified, but then there has been talk of anything up to 4-5 new stations on the way to Altrincham but no real sign of progress.

I think the only viable proposals have been Baguley and Cheadle. Middlewich and Gadbrook Park have been mooted too if the Middlewich branch reopens.

TfGM have looked at Altrincham to Stockport tram-trains under Metrolink. They may desire more than 2 stops between Navigation Road and Stockport, but would that be practical given it's a well used freight route as well?

 

[Teapot42]

I think the only viable proposals have been Baguley and Cheadle. Middlewich and Gadbrook Park have been mooted too if the Middlewich branch reopens.

TfGM have looked at Altrincham to Stockport tram-trains under Metrolink. They may desire more than 2 stops between Navigation Road and Stockport, but would that be practical given it's a well used freight route as well?

Does most of the freight still run from the Hope Valley line and up behind Morrisons at Cheadle? If so, it would seem to only be the section between Navigation Road and Sharston that would have much dual use.

Timperley seems an obvious place for another station, and Cheadle Heath. If it becomes Metrolink they could conceivably put a stop in for Edgeley Park, although I don't suppose the crowds are massive these days and it's not much of a walk from the main station. Sharston would seem another obvious place for workers at the industrial estate, but again only if a tram.

Are there still plans to link this line to the airport?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Yesterday I had to attend a seminar in Manchester (from Chesterfield) and rather than drive all the way, I decided to leave the car at New Mills Newtown and use the train and tram from there. In the end it worked out pretty much the same time-wise, but without all the hassle of navigating the M60 and south Manchester. I was surprised at both the changes but also lack of since I moved from Stockport just over a decade ago. Same trains on the Buxton line, but at least they were now 4 coaches. I also can't recall if the service was half-hourly back then, I had a feeling not but I could be wrong. Both times very full however so it seems even more capacity is needed.

However, I got to thinking, so many people still drive in to Manchester and more still seemed to be getting dropped at the station to meet the train. Is there demand for a proper park and ride station? It could work both ways, to get people in to Manchester, but also as a gateway to the Peak District for those coming from the city. Looking at a map, the area around Bridgemont looks like a possibility. I know it's quite close to both Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale, but neither of them have much scope for parking. There is already a large Tesco there so there is precedent for development in the area - indeed, one option would be to convert part of that car park in to a multi story to add extra parking if it proved necessary. It's right off the end of the Chapel bypass as well.

The other thought I'd had to go along with that is whether the line could be electrified, at least as far as this station. From the way the 150s especially were struggling I'd imagine you could knock 5 minutes off the journey, 10 if some of the services didn't stop at Heaton Chapel or Levenshulme. That would very definitely make it appealing compared to driving - providing fares were sensible.

Looking on google satellite, I wonder if a turn-back at Whaley Bridge would be possible, meaning a something like a 15 minute frequency could be run that far, 2x fast and 2x stopper maybe?

Of course ideally you'd also have a network of buses distributing people in to the park from there.

Is this total pie in the sky, or could there be scope for such an improvement?

Electrification is the only viable improvement out of what you've mentioned really.
The Bridgemont station would be good location-wise for PDNP visitors (it would be difficult to build and access though), but the schedule on the line is tight as it is and prone to delays, so you'd need to extend electrification/cut stops/improve line speed to speed it up enough.

This is where bi modes could come into play though and enable partial electrification- avoiding the hardest bits between Chapel and Dove Holes.
From the end of current electrification at Hazel Grove, there is a section all the way to Chapel-en-le-Frith station which has little obstacles in the way of electrification, there's only a 160 metre tunnel just east of Disley station and then it is above ground until after Chapel.
You could potentially save a significant amount of time on the way to Buxton by electrifying to Chapel and then diesel/battery for the remainder, and then look into a station somewhere near Bridgemont.

I think the only viable proposals have been Baguley and Cheadle. Middlewich and Gadbrook Park have been mooted too if the Middlewich branch reopens.

You could potentially locate a south GM Park and Ride in Sharston Industrial Estare (on the Chester via Alty/ Knutsford services) if that's what you wanted.
Land is cheapish, further connections are pretty good from the line it on, and it's close to the M60/M56/Princess Parkway.

 

[northwichcat]

Does most of the freight still run from the Hope Valley line and up behind Morrisons at Cheadle? If so, it would seem to only be the section between Navigation Road and Sharston that would have much dual use.

Well these are the booked movements for today through Navigation Road

Realtime Trains | Departures from Navigation Road between 0200 and 0159 on 19/04/2024

Train information at Navigation Road between 0200 and 0159 on 19/04/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

I don't think the freight companies run a service every day they have a path booked, but if they have the path then it's not available for a passenger train.

Some observations:
1. The locomotive movement from Knottingley to Northwich did go through Cheadle, as does the later Runcorn to Bredbury freight train.
2. The freight between Northenden and Runcorn needs to do a reversal at Northenden. I don't know whether or not that would prevent a passenger train passing while it happened.
3. There's a Manchester bound passenger train at 22:00, followed by a Northwich bound freight train at 22:05, followed by a Stockport bound freight train at 22:08. Remembering this is a single line section, it won't exactly support a Metrolink style frequency in both directions as well. (Unless ordinary trams are banned from the Altrincham route and both lines become shared).

Are there still plans to link this line to the airport?

Given it's not part of the "Northern Powerhouse Rail" plans I think we can say it's nothing more than a wishful aspiration at present.

 

[duffield]

So it's only about a 50 mile round trip from Piccadilly to Buxton and back, one third currently under the wires, (with a 20 minute+ dwell time at Buxton for the use of a short top-up section if it was even needed). Isn't this well within the capabilities of a battery/overhead hybrid? I'm a great believer in overhead electrification for all main and many secondary routes, but for a branch like this, BEMUs seem like a really obvious candidate. Or am I missing something? And would something like an overhead/battery variation of the Merseyrail 777s be feasible, to avoid a new design?

 

[AlastairFraser]

So it's only about a 50 mile round trip from Piccadilly to Buxton and back, one third currently under the wires, (with a 20 minute+ dwell time at Buxton for the use of a short top-up section if it was even needed). Isn't this well within the capabilities of a battery/overhead hybrid? I'm a great believer in overhead electrification for all main and many secondary routes, but for a branch like this, BEMUs seem like a really obvious candidate. Or am I missing something? And would something like an overhead/battery variation of the Merseyrail 777s be feasible, to avoid a new design?

The gradient of the route is too steep to allow reasonable times on battery all the way from Hazel Grove, that's why I suggested wiring to Chapel station and battery/diesel from there onwards.
You could also look at electrifying to Whaley Bridge only, with a longer layover at Buxton to ensure batteries charge more before returning (timings would be significantly better for OHLE as far as Whaley, so you would probably be able to use the existing paths on the congested Picc to Stockport section at least).

 

[Teapot42]

So it's only about a 50 mile round trip from Piccadilly to Buxton and back, one third currently under the wires, (with a 20 minute+ dwell time at Buxton for the use of a short top-up section if it was even needed). Isn't this well within the capabilities of a battery/overhead hybrid? I'm a great believer in overhead electrification for all main and many secondary routes, but for a branch like this, BEMUs seem like a really obvious candidate. Or am I missing something? And would something like an overhead/battery variation of the Merseyrail 777s be feasible, to avoid a new design?

I travelled on the Greater Anglia FLIRTs recently, they seem like a good option for this sort of service, being able to take advantage of the OHLE where available then moving over to diesel. I'd imagine a battery version would be easy to produce as well in the longer term. They'd also be suitable for the Hope Valley services.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I travelled on the Greater Anglia FLIRTs recently, they seem like a good option for this sort of service, being able to take advantage of the OHLE where available then moving over to diesel. I'd imagine a battery version would be easy to produce as well in the longer term. They'd also be suitable for the Hope Valley services.

Only issue is the FLIRTS are too expensive for the TOC concerned (Northern).

 

[Teapot42]

Only issue is the FLIRTS are too expensive for the TOC concerned (Northern).

I wonder if there might be funding available as part of the Bee network? Granted they will be working on routes that go outside the area, but it's hard to ignore that the peak flows will be in to Manchester.

The FLIRT is a much more suitable product than the 777, that's more for short trip, urban networks.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I wonder if there might be funding available as part of the Bee network? Granted they will be working on routes that go outside the area, but it's hard to ignore that the peak flows will be in to Manchester.

The FLIRT is a much more suitable product than the 777, that's more for short trip, urban networks.

I doubt the funding from TfGM will stretch to separate sets of new units (if you aren't already aware Northern are starting the process of a bi-mode order to replace all but the newest 195/331 units - so you may not get your FLIRTs but a form of bi mode unit in any case), I think you could well see some funding for infrastructure/timetabling improvements on the lines though - maybe they could cooperate with Cheshire East and extend electrification as far as New Mills Newtown initially (the station is just in Derbyshire, but only 80m away from the Cheshire border.)

 

[JonathanH]

Only issue is the FLIRTS are too expensive for the TOC concerned (Northern).

Plus the issue they aren't built in Derby, Newport, Newton Aycliffe or Goole.

 

[northwichcat]

Only issue is the FLIRTS are too expensive for the TOC concerned (Northern).

I think the government needs to stop this kind of attitude for train franchises. If TfW Rail can get new trains for almost every route, when the MD stated only the Manchester services are profitable, then it's illogical to claim Northern must make do with the cheap option (regardless of the route) because the overall collection of routes included in the franchise don't return a profit.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Plus the issue they aren't built in Derby, Newport, Newton Aycliffe or Goole.

I don't think that'll be an issue if there's a significantly better offer for the tender by one of the cheaper manufacturers.

I think the government needs to stop this kind of attitude for train franchises. If TfW Rail can get new trains for almost every route, when the MD stated only the Manchester services are profitable, then it's illogical to claim Northern must make do with the cheap option (regardless of the route) because the overall collection of routes included in the franchise don't return a profit.

That's a question you need to ask of the Westminster govt - the Welsh government made that choice to significantly subsidise purchase of the new units and they will reap the benefits. Unfortunately the Northern franchise isn't devolved.