Well, it bothered me when I was an Oldham customer.
Twice as long a journey going slower doesn't strike me as a good deal, especially when the Glossop service is very good already.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Issues with reducing line through Guide Bridge to two tracks from four
- Thread starter yorksrob
- Start date
- Status
Well, it bothered me when I was an Oldham customer.
Twice as long a journey going slower doesn't strike me as a good deal, especially when the Glossop service is very good already.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 15,054
Really? Even the Northern stopper between Stoke and Piccadilly is normally timetabled for under an hour.
The Avanti services typically take 40 minutes or so, sometimes slightly less.
It is also only about 38 miles between Stoke and Piccadilly.
geordieblue
Member
I wasn't aware I had suggested that such things were mutually exclusive - in fact, I'm fairly sure I didn't. My point was that the premise of the thread (which I actually personally agree with) is that long-distance rail is not fast enough. There has been minimal discussion of local rail. But when somebody dares suggest the hated trams as a helpful way of reducing congestion, local rail suddenly becomes vital to the corridor. There's ridiculous amounts of anti-tram rhetoric on this forum (this isn't a personal attack by the way @yorksrob - there are plenty of other people who are very vocal about their hatred of Metrolink etc., and I tend to agree with a fair bit of what you say on other topics) - but it annoys me that reasonable suggestions of improving local services by tramification are shouted down because they aren't heavy rail enough. Sorry for the rant!
(And you could basically run Metrolink all the way to Ardwick on existing trackbed - I agree that a bit of street running might be needed but it'll be a tenth or less of the journey to the city centre).
Greybeard33
Established Member
TfGM's aspiration is tram-trains to Glossop, sharing the existing trackbed between Hyde Jn and Ashburys, on street only between Ashburys and Piccadilly.
The use of tram-trains implies sharing the existing tracks, rather than re-quadding and grade separated junctions.
geordieblue
Member
It may also refer to more train-like vehicles that are also capable of street-running (though I agree that track-sharing is likely)
Equally, I'm sick and tired that every time an improvement to the rail network in Manchester is suggested, it seems to get hijacked by the tram brigade. I'm very vocal on this forum on the need for local rail, and I particularly like sleek electric services which move one swiftly and effectively to the city centre, rather than winding slow diversions through city streets. The Glossop line is just such a really good rail service of the type I want to see more of, yet the only thing anyone can think of doing with it is to turn it into a tram.
Similarly the Atherton line is a really good service which would be improved with standard electrification and a fleet of four carriage electric trains, not that you'd get that acknowledged by TfGM.
I just can't see it working. Tram ends up at some random time at Ashburys after a jaunt through the city streets and has to be slotted into what is still a trans-pennine main line.
The proposal for Glossop / Rose Hill / Marple tram-trains seems to be that they would basically use the existing route to somewhere around Ardwick/Ashburys, and then run on street the mile or so from there. On most of the route they'd be as fast as existing trains (except I'd expect we'd see more regular stops at the likes of Fairfield and Ryder Brow).
By the time you consider walking off the existing platform at Piccadilly to the concourse, the overall journey time will be similar (but with tram-trains presumably more frequent).
It's not a "random time"; it is timetabled. e.g. Supertrams to Parkgate follow a timetable throughout their journey.
By the time you consider walking off the existing platform at Piccadilly to the concourse, the overall journey time will be similar (but with tram-trains presumably more frequent).
It's not a "random time"; it is timetabled. e.g. Supertrams to Parkgate follow a timetable throughout their journey.
Timetabled until they come up against an obstruction in the city centre.
The nice thing about the Glossop service is that you can get off of your train at Piccadilly, find the Glossop service (more often than not already waiting in the platform), wander up the several carriages at leisure to (easily) find a seat and settle back for a pleasent swift journey. Rather better than making my way down stairs cnd escallators to the bowells of the station, having to buy an extra ticket, waiting for the tram to turn up, tentatively edging out onto the street, only to have to wait at sime stage later to rejoin the mainline again. No.
Which is true of any railway, anywhere, ever. The beauty of tram-trains is that they can divert to Piccadilly main shed should the city centre become blocked.
They have about a 5 minute turnround time on a half hourly service; so are only in the platform 16.7% of the time. Which is "more not than often". Tram trains could be more frequent.
It's almost as if you're using emotive language to make it sound worse than it is.
How about a Broadbottom resident who can now "carefully choose one's preferred seat on the arrival of the tram, and then glide effortlessly in that same seat right to the heart of Manchester city centre as the suburbs roll by, availing use of the tram wi-fi throughout, without a single mere concern for exerting effort to move oneself on arrival at the congested concourse at Piccadilly"?
I guess I must just be lucky with the turnaround.
I don't see why I shouldn't be emotive about a consistently good service I've enjoyed. It's almost as though some people think I should defer to the metrolink expansionist viewpoint regardless of whether I find the trains service very good.
Because emotions don't pay the bills.
It's not an 'expansionist viewpoint', it's a recognition that heavy rail sometimes isn't the best answer. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's a suitable compromise once you've considered everything else. And, then again, sometimes the best compromise is a different option.
It always seems to be "never" on these forums.
I think there are more flaws with trying to merge a tram network with a main line than your example of issues with four tracking and a freight yard at Guide Bridge.
Take a trip to Karlsruhe (post-Covid, obvs), and see how it works.
Take a trip to London Bridge. It's a lot nearer and we're allowed to actually visit there.
It's not never - heavy rail is best suited to very large volumes over longer distances and higher speeds (or very heavy weights). E.g. HS2 & EWR. There's also a big difference between heavy rail being the wrong option, and heavy rail being the right option but unfeasible, e.g. Lewes-Uckfield.
There will be issues, but trams are a lot more flexible than trains so resolving the issues tends not to be such a problem. It also depends on frequencies, stopping patterns and recovery plans. But a 2-track railway can be optimised for an extremely efficient use of capacity even with trains coming from multiple (and very busy) origins. See Thameslink.
But London Bridge doesn't have tram-trains?
It's my understanding that the two track core of Thameslink will be an all stopping pattern.
London Bridge has Slow and fast lines - see the rail network has examples as well !
It's full. That's why things like the Bakerloo line extension are proposed in order to relieve it. Plus, in the last 10 years, the East London line extension.
Quadruple Guide Bridge to Ashburys won't be. Plus the East London line is not a street running tram.
London Bridge has slow and fast line because there is oddles of capacity in Central London to deal with the level of trains (6 platforms at London Bridge, 14tph through Thameslink, plus the East London Line).
The equivalent at Guide Bridge would be 4 tracks of capability being hamstrung by only 3 platforms at Piccadilly.
To make best use of 4 tracks means providing the suitable level of central Manchester capacity to match; which dropping off onto the tram infrastructure would achieve.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It won't be; but the Piccadilly platforms it feeds into will be, which means you cannot use their additional capability at all
But it is a relatively slow, all stations service "at risk of waiting for a path onto the main line".
I've lready talked about the capacity of Piccadilly. The way trains stack on eachother in the three platforms, you've effectively got six platforms anyway, which is similar to Charing Cross, which is four track all the way to Metropolitan Junction now.
The East London line is a separated timetabled stopping service, feeding into four track railways that are already separated by speed. The contrast between this and trying to shove a tram down a two track, mixed speed main line couldn't be more pronounced.
Really, really, really no. 3 platforms with top train working is not "effectively six platforms".
Also worth noting that the approaches to Charing Cross remain two tracks between London Bridge and Metropolitan Jn, and between Tanners Hill Jn and Bermondsey. Four tracking these sections (for Charing Cross services) is effectively useless without the platform capacity at Charing Cross to match. Same applies to Guide Bridge.
You're twisting words now. I'm saying to make best use of a 4 track railway would require diverging trams/tram-trains onto a city centre alignment.
By your logic, why not double track all the way to Charing Cross in that case. You could sell off the land for half of Waterloo East.
I'm just suggesting that your example of the East London line isn't massively relevant.
If you want an example of fast/slow lines permitting TPE to overtake then I'd suggest Huyton would be a better example. London Bridge and CX are not 4-track fast/slow by any definition, and the whole inner South London network effectively functions as a series of separated out 2-tracks (and 1 3-track for the North Kent Line), regardless of the physical proximity of the lines to each other.
Because having the extended throat allows for trains calling at Waterloo East to avoid blocking trains not calling, allows a simpler layout on the inaccessible bridge over the Thames, and allows the junction margin at Ewer Street to be reduced to 1.5 minutes for certain pairs of moves.
Just as four tracks from Guide Bridge would allow TPE expresses to pass stoppers to Ashburys, speeding up TPE services.
Indeed - but important to note the upgrade took place as part of electrification, overall linespeed enhancements and a major rebuild of Lime Street Station (and approaches) to permit more services to run. The 4-track also only has 1 junction to deal with, and the crossing movement over the junction is able to be optimised to create a robust timetable for the TPEs which have to be built upon the constraints of Manchester and Leeds. Also, the number and spacing of stations between Liverpool Lime St and Huyton means the time saving is considerable.
All of these add up to a business case, as there were significant new economic opportunities for Liverpool as a commuting destination, new frequent electric services to the surrounding towns for more patronage and appreciable time savings on the TPEs to encourage more passengers. Your proposal, unfortunately, will not encourage a huge boost in numbers using these services nor unlock vast new economic growth, so the only way to fund it would be contributions from housing development along the line to artificially stimulate usage or higher fares. Neither of which are, at this time, going to see a very good return.
But not as much as Huyton. Huyton gives an overtaking opportunity on the otherwise very long section from Edge Hill to Ordsall Lane, which saves at least 10 minutes compared to crawling behind the stopper, there being no way of constructing the timetable to avoid this.
The two tracks between Guide Bridge and Ardwick would save nothing, as the speed differential can usually be pretty much "timetabled out".
geordieblue
Member
You also began this discussion @yorksrob by stating that the Guide Bridge line was unreliable and led to delays. But, again, when trams are added into the equation, they become the cause of unreliability on what is now apparently a perfectly acceptable railway.
I also don't know why you seem to think that tramification would take place on the line as is - I think it's pretty much inevitable that tram stations would be on loops, with various bits of four-tracking, instead of simply, as you put it, putting tram-trains (just as fast, by the way, as the current stoppers) on a two-track main line.
I also don't know why you seem to think that tramification would take place on the line as is - I think it's pretty much inevitable that tram stations would be on loops, with various bits of four-tracking, instead of simply, as you put it, putting tram-trains (just as fast, by the way, as the current stoppers) on a two-track main line.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
How many trains per hour use any given pair of tracks at London Bridge, and how does this compare with Ashburys to Guide Bridge?
Also worth noting that those trains are around three times as long - so three times as many passengers to benefit from the infrastructure.
Double stacking doesn't double the capacity, because the trains are first-in-last-out so the one nearer the stops has to have a longer turnaround time. As it happens this probably works quite well today as the TPEs need more time than the suburbans, but if the trains get longer to meet increasing demand then at some point they are too long to double-stack.
To be fair, the impression of trams on a shared two-track was heavily implied by other posters who initially flagged the proposal.
I think someone mentioned that this was Greater Manchester's actual proposal, which to my mind would be somewhat worse than laying two tram tracks alongside the existing line.
I still prefer electrifying and quadrupling the main line though.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Obviously double stacking isn't as flexible as having a platform each, but it helps Piccadilly to get a quart out of a pint pot.
I suppose an issue might be what can fit on top of TPE's 6 carriage units !
- Status