Issues with reducing line through Guide Bridge to two tracks from four

[Mcr Warrior]

Do the intermediate stations between Guide Bridge and Manchester Piccadilly generate all that much passenger traffic in normal times?

 

[zwk500]

Do the intermediate stations between Guide Bridge and Manchester Piccadilly generate all that much passenger traffic in normal times?

Annual passengers for 2019-20 (financial year would have finished the last week of March 2020 so you could argue these numbers are only 51/52nds):
Ardwick: 1,520 (4 passengers/day)
Ashburys: 129,000 (353 pass/day)
Gorton: 126,000 (345 pass/day)
Fairfields: 43,316 (118 pass/day)

So no, not really. Of course raw numbers don't tell the story of when they are travelling, where the actual final destination was. And most importantly, those who don't travel but would if they had more frequent trains, more predictable patterns and greater connectivity.

 

[geordieblue]

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.

I agree on the worse bit - if tram-trains are to be effective over a fairly long distance like this then they need a degree of segregation if a high frequency is desired (and I don't think TfGM would bother taking over the line, electrifying it for trams, and running it at a paltry 3tph or similar).

 

[cle]

5tph is the Metrolink special. How that would work with the Glossop/Hadfield set-up, I'm not sure. But if two lines were sent on from Piccadilly (aka a 10tph core) then I would expect the inner ridership to be much higher, and encourage developments - but also that a few different terminus patterns might be workable. I can't see 5tph to Marple working on the twin line. Maybe Guide Bridge turns a lot of them. No doubt some infill stations too.

Ardwick is another Ancoats in some regards, a good tram service amongst all the development would see much better usage. As for Gorton and so on, maybe. But it's pretty bleak. Price differential on the bus would be the factor.

 

[Ianno87]

5tph is the Metrolink special. How that would work with the Glossop/Hadfield set-up, I'm not sure. But if two lines were sent on from Piccadilly (aka a 10tph core) then I would expect the inner ridership to be much higher, and encourage developments - but also that a few different terminus patterns might be workable. I can't see 5tph to Marple working on the twin line. Maybe Guide Bridge turns a lot of them. No doubt some infill stations too.

Ardwick is another Ancoats in some regards, a good tram service amongst all the development would see much better usage. As for Gorton and so on, maybe. But it's pretty bleak. Price differential on the bus would be the factor.

On line of sight signalling, there is no reason, in theory, why every line has to operate a multiple of 5 trams per hour; 4 or 6 trams per hour would be more 'natural' in serving Glossop/Hadfield, if half the service went to each one.

 

[cle]

On line of sight signalling, there is no reason, in theory, why every line has to operate a multiple of 5 trams per hour; 4 or 6 trams per hour would be more 'natural' in serving Glossop/Hadfield, if half the service went to each one.

None at all. it's just their cycle. It's over for some, and under provision on others. But the lines terminating at Picc which would push through to this will be 5tph (linked to another branch) so we must assume it will begin that way.

2tph to Hadfield and 3tph to Glossop isn't much more than today, and likely a bit slower. Would be uneven on the clock too. Frequency (and end to end possibility/last mile beyond Picc etc) is what sells it.

Perhaps it is one way: Manchester > Glossop > Hadfield > Manchester. A bit of a pain in the evenings. Not sure about layover/recovery either.

 

[zwk500]

None at all. it's just their cycle. It's over for some, and under provision on others. But the lines terminating at Picc which would push through to this will be 5tph (linked to another branch) so we must assume it will begin that way.

2tph to Hadfield and 3tph to Glossop isn't much more than today, and likely a bit slower. Would be uneven on the clock too. Frequency (and end to end possibility/last mile beyond Picc etc) is what sells it.

Perhaps it is one way: Manchester > Glossop > Hadfield > Manchester. A bit of a pain in the evenings. Not sure about layover/recovery either.

Or turn one tram early at Newton? 5tph is a tram every 12 mins, so you'd have xx.00 & xx.36 Hadfield, xx.12 & xx.48 Glossop, with an additional xx.24 to Newton. 24/36 minute split is better than a lot of 2tph services manage. But we're drifting from the topic.

 

[edwin_m]

Five trams per hour, each about 60m long, is probably less capacity than the Glossop/Hadfield line runs now. My personal view is it should stay with EMUs.

 

[zwk500]

Five trams per hour, each about 60m long, is probably less capacity than the Glossop/Hadfield line runs now. My personal view is it should stay with EMUs.

2tph with a 3-Car 323 at 23m length cars in pre-Covid times, I think.

 

[Greybeard33]

2tph with a 3-Car 323 at 23m length cars in pre-Covid times, I think.

3tph in the peaks. And I believe that the platforms on the line have been lengthened to 4-car. Arriva originally planned to use 4-car 331s on this line, but I do not know if this still features in Northern's long term plans. The 4-car units are all east of the Pennines currently, although that was supposed to be a temporary arrangement. I understand the 323s were often crush loaded pre-pandemic.

Metrolink M5000 trams have a capacity of about 200 including standees, so a 5tph service of double units can convey about 2000 passengers/hour.

Note that the Dinting - Glossop and Dinting - Hadfield branches are both single track. Redoubling would be needed for a 5tph service.

 

[tbtc]

OK, so if Guide Bridge-Ardwick was 4 tracked, what extra trains could run without any other capacity intervention elsewhere?

I don't think that anyone has answered this - which is odd, because if I was insisting that we throw money at this then I'd have come up with some quantifiable benefits (other than just generally talking about "improved reliability")

Is there space through Greenfield that is just ready for more trains (if only there were additional paths at the Piccadilly end)?

Looks to me like the TPE service through Guide Bridge has gone down from the long established four per hour to just two per hour, yet we need four tracks for two TPE trains per hour when two tracks used to accommodate four TPE trains per hour... it's confusing!

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 difference is that trams run into the heart of the city, whereas heavy rail dumps you at Piccadilly/ Victoria, some distance away from the Arndale etc - the reason that trams "divert" through streets tends to be to actually serve places properly - e.g. compare the way that light rail is flexible enough to penetrate central Oldham, rather than heavy rail which used to expect passengers to use a station on the other side of a busy dual carriage way - I don't know why you have a problem with public transport that actually serves the places people want to use, rather than just following the routes the Victorians used?

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

Agreed - horses for courses - sometimes the best way for public transport to serve a market is a two hundred metre train, sometimes its a minibus - but the attitude on here often seems to be that heavy rail is the only answer

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

Yeah, it's a bit confusing - the trains are so unreliable that we must spend lots of money on capacity improvements but when you suggest an alternative, the trains suddenly become a gold standard for reliability that no tram could hope to match

But then there are complaints on here about how slow the Glossop trains are on this bit of line(getting in the way) yet when fast accelerating 50mph trams are suggested then they are rejected because nothing will beat the zippy 323s (you know, the ones that are so slow that they get in the way of TPE services?)...

5tph is the Metrolink special. How that would work with the Glossop/Hadfield set-up, I'm not sure

I'm not sure - is the general pattern that five trams per hour replace two trains per hour (e.g. four trains per hour from Manchester to Oldham/ Shaw, two of which continued to Rochdale, compared to ten trams per hour to Oldham/ Shaw, five of which continue to Rochdale)?

Maybe five trams per hour from Manchester rot Glossop and also five trams per hour from Manchester to Hadfield? (but nothing from Glossop to Hadfield)

There are five Bury and five Altrincham services that terminate at Piccadilly each hour, so that would match up - but more needed if you are doing the Rose Hill service too (which makes sense, since the costs would be shared as far as Hyde - maybe you'd have to wait on the conversion of the Atherton line?)

 

[yorksrob]

Yeah, it's a bit confusing - the trains are so unreliable that we must spend lots of money on capacity improvements but when you suggest an alternative, the trains suddenly become a gold standard for reliability that no tram could hope to match

But then there are complaints on here about how slow the Glossop trains are on this bit of line(getting in the way) yet when fast accelerating 50mph trams are suggested then they are rejected because nothing will beat the zippy 323s (you know, the ones that are so slow that they get in the way of TPE services?)...

Well, a stopping service on a railway line tends to be faster than anything trundling through city streets.

In turn, an express train service should be faster than a local stopper but will be more so if it can overtake the stopper.

It's not a massively complicated concept to grasp for a fairly technical forum.

 

[Greybeard33]

There are five Bury and five Altrincham services that terminate at Piccadilly each hour, so that would match up - but more needed if you are doing the Rose Hill service too (which makes sense, since the costs would be shared as far as Hyde - maybe you'd have to wait on the conversion of the Atherton line?)

TfGM's plan is to convert the Ashburys to Romiley via Bredbury line to tram-train for the Rose Hill services and divert the Sheffield and New Mills heavy rail services via Hyde and Woodley. But, as you say, there would not be enough capacity through Piccadilly for both Rose Hill and Glossop/Hadfield tram-trains unless another cross-city link (metro tunnel?) was constructed.

 

[edwin_m]

Well, a stopping service on a railway line tends to be faster than anything trundling through city streets.

In turn, an express train service should be faster than a local stopper but will be more so if it can overtake the stopper.

It's not a massively complicated concept to grasp for a fairly technical forum.

It's a question of costs and benefits. Most of us on here are suggesting that if there's a seven- or eight-figure sum available for your proposal, there are plenty of other places on the railway where it could be spent to better effect. It's not exactly as if DfT is awash with funds to dole out...

 

[cle]

I'm not sure - is the general pattern that five trams per hour replace two trains per hour (e.g. four trains per hour from Manchester to Oldham/ Shaw, two of which continued to Rochdale, compared to ten trams per hour to Oldham/ Shaw, five of which continue to Rochdale)?

Maybe five trams per hour from Manchester rot Glossop and also five trams per hour from Manchester to Hadfield? (but nothing from Glossop to Hadfield)

There are five Bury and five Altrincham services that terminate at Piccadilly each hour, so that would match up - but more needed if you are doing the Rose Hill service too (which makes sense, since the costs would be shared as far as Hyde - maybe you'd have to wait on the conversion of the Atherton line?)

I think Oldham had just 2tph - one to Shaw, one through to Rochdale. When I used it anyway. Bleak AF. That service and usage was appalling, and the Met is far better, including the trundle.

Yes assuming there are 10tph to play with and you vaguely want clock-face regularity. I'd think you could mix those 10 up to try adjust. Maybe 2tph Hadfield, 4tph Glossop (nothing between them) and 4tph elsewhere - if you could even it out.

It would still feel like rail until Piccadilly - the 'trundle' would be taking people further into town. The option to get off at Piccadilly/Victoria and walk still remains for Metrolink users!

 

[HSTEd]

I've come around to the opinion that every train that operates at 100km/h or less for the vast majority of its route should probably be converted to tram train unless a specific reason exists not to.

Especially with the rise of "off the shelf" compact tramways which could be built in more places.

Supposedly in Germany work is ongoing on a 120km/h tram train as well, which dramatically increases the range of lines we could operate them on without issue.

 

[cle]

I've come around to the opinion that every train that operates at 100km/h or less for the vast majority of its route should probably be converted to tram train unless a specific reason exists not to.

Especially with the rise of "off the shelf" compact tramways which could be built in more places.

Supposedly in Germany work is ongoing on a 120km/h tram train as well, which dramatically increases the range of lines we could operate them on without issue.

Even calling them trams feels archaic and diminutive. They might be that in the city, but as Alty and Bury users know, they are as nippy as London Overground and other electric metros with similar station spacing. And really don't need to top 50mph very often.

Glossop is a tougher sell, being wired and frequent: one of the only decent Manchester commuter lines. The diesels out that way, no contest.

 

[Ianno87]

Even calling them trams feels archaic and diminutive. They might be that in the city, but as Alty and Bury users know, they are as nippy as London Overground and other electric metros with similar station spacing. And really don't need to top 50mph very often.

That's the reason why the 1990s systems tried to brand them "Metrolink", "Supertam" etc, but "tram" has just stuck as the lingo.

 

[faltskog36abba]

I think Oldham had just 2tph - one to Shaw, one through to Rochdale. When I used it anyway. Bleak AF. That service and usage was appalling, and the Met is far better, including the trundle.

Yes assuming there are 10tph to play with and you vaguely want clock-face regularity. I'd think you could mix those 10 up to try adjust. Maybe 2tph Hadfield, 4tph Glossop (nothing between them) and 4tph elsewhere - if you could even it out.

It would still feel like rail until Piccadilly - the 'trundle' would be taking people further into town. The option to get off at Piccadilly/Victoria and walk still remains for Metrolink users!

In the last 15 years of the Oldham Loop line it had an excellent service of 6 trains per hour. Two via Rochdale stopping/ Two to Shaw stopping/ Two to Oldham none stop then stopping to Rochdale.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Apr 2021 ==

That's the reason why the 1990s systems tried to brand them "Metrolink", "Supertam" etc, but "tram" has just stuck as the lingo.

In Bury -Whitefield-Radcliffe, Its often called the Met.

 

[cle]

In the last 15 years of the Oldham Loop line it had an excellent service of 6 trains per hour. Two via Rochdale stopping/ Two to Shaw stopping/ Two to Oldham none stop then stopping to Rochdale.

Are you counting the loop trains twice? You'd not travel to Oldham via Rochdale... maybe it works for Shaw though.

And yes when I used it was a shade over 15 years ago

 

[Ianno87]

In the last 15 years of the Oldham Loop line it had an excellent service of 6 trains per hour. Two via Rochdale stopping/ Two to Shaw stopping/ Two to Oldham none stop then stopping to Rochdale.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Apr 2021 ==


In Bury -Whitefield-Radcliffe, Its often called the Met.

Are you counting the loop trains twice? You'd not travel to Oldham via Rochdale... maybe it works for Shaw though.

And yes when I used it was a shade over 15 years ago

Best it got was 4tph - 2tph to Rochdale, 2tph to Shaw.

Leaf fall it reduced to 2tph only due to Werneth Bank. Funny how everybody forgets that, and that Metrolink doesn't need a leaf fall timetable...

 

[faltskog36abba]

Of Course you would catch the direct train to Mumps, But as it was a Circular Service and You missed the Train You then had the choice to go via Rochdale. There was also a Summer only service from Blackpool to Mumps which left Victoria at 20.38?- Which went via Rochdale.