Metrolink to go regional?

[Bletchleyite]

The car park for Stockport College is a point upon which I would like to see an answer from the college given to the debate in question as to how the use of its facility could well be compromised.

Depending on who owns the land and under what terms the College use it, it might not get a choice. Even then it might not - compulsory purchase may be an option.

Neil

 

[mwmbwls]

The car park for Stockport College is a point upon which I would like to see an answer from the college given to the debate in question as to how the use of its facility could well be compromised.

You will - during and pursuant to the public enquiry that would have to take place when TfGM and possibly Network Rail apply for a T&WAO - Transport and Works Act Order from the Department of Communities and Local Government. TfGM have published for the Trafford Park extension a handy list of the documents they need to produce - including under consents Compulsory Purchase Orders. Such orders will be served on the landowner rather the College if the latter are merely renting the car park. Only the land necessary for the trackbed would be purchased and it is thereforepossible that some of the land could remain in original ownership.

http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Consu...Line/Pages/Transport-and-Works-Act-Order.aspx

 

[Emyr]

I mentioned this plan to someone I assume isa member of MCRUA after lending him a pen.

Accidentally called them trams, and then compunded my error by imagining the M5000 to be more train than your ordinary tram...

We were onboard a Pacer though, so either type of vehicle would address at least one of the most common complaints.

 

[pemma]

Accidentally called them trams, and then compunded my error by imagining the M5000 to be more train than your ordinary tram...

Or it could just been a Metrolink employee or a TfGM person.

MCRUA think that tram-trains can be a lot better than the M5000s in particular with options for better seating, toilets and bicycle/luggage storage, they've even publicised that some in Europe have on board catering.

The M5000s aren't popular with MCRUA due to them being slower on the Altrincham line than the T68s as well as providing a poorer ride quality.

 

[Emyr]

I've never seen him in any kind of uniform or wearing any name badge...


Sorry, I meant I called them trams, not he.

 

[Chris125]

Useful map courtesy of the local MP

I'd also recommend having a look at the discussion going on at SkyScraperCity

Chris

 

[Bletchleyite]

The M5000s aren't popular with MCRUA due to them being slower on the Altrincham line than the T68s as well as providing a poorer ride quality.

I must admit it did surprise me that Metrolink chose a new tram with a lower top speed than the old ones.

Neil

 

[edwin_m]

I must admit it did surprise me that Metrolink chose a new tram with a lower top speed than the old ones.

They probably didn't have much choice. There are't many high floor tram designs out there and they needed one with a running production line or one that could easily be re-opened. The M5000s are a slightly modified version of a design running in Cologne.

Incidentally according to the Vossloh website the tram-trains for Sheffield will have air suspension. Some Karlsruhe tram-trains have had bistro bars and toilets, though I think they had difficulty making the bars viable and when the bars were shut down the toilets were locked out too.

 

[pemma]

I must admit it did surprise me that Metrolink chose a new tram with a lower top speed than the old ones.

Neil

It's not a lower top speed - the T68s were also 50mph. The problem is the M5000s aren't cleared to run at T68 speeds on parts of the Altrincham and Bury lines so have their own lower speed limits. That caused problems with interworking Bury-Altrincham and Bury/Altrincham-Piccadilly services when a mix of M5000s and T68s were used - they finished up with a M5000 running an Altrincham-Bury service departing Market Street 2-3 minutes ahead of a T68 running a Piccadilly-Bury service instead of 6 minutes ahead.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The number of people with 'Chelsea Tractors' is a small minority of the total population. There's more people living on council estates in Knutsford than who live in houses worth £500,000 or more but some people seem to think that minority is the majority.

I think the poster may have confused Knutsford with the "Cheshire Golden Triangle" where common items as "Chelsea Tractors" are the approved mode of transport for the butlers and the senior housekeepers, whereas the residents tend to use the products that can be obtained from Stratstone, Bentley Manchester and Rolls-Royce Motors..

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Useful map courtesy of the local MP

I'd also recommend having a look at the discussion going on at SkyScraperCity

Chris

Thanks for the map it's very helpful.
It looks like Denton will finally get a decent service. Yay!

 

[pemma]

I think the poster may have confused Knutsford with the "Cheshire Golden Triangle" where common items as "Chelsea Tractors" are the approved mode of transport for the butlers and the senior housekeepers, whereas the residents tend to use the products that can be obtained from Stratstone, Bentley Manchester and Rolls-Royce Motors..

He may be shocked to see the people who work at Bentley in Knutsford turn up for work on foot, by bus and in cars which would have values of under £2,000 e.g. a 51 reg Fiat Panda.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It looks like Denton will finally get a decent service. Yay!

That only shows aspirations of one council in Greater Manchester. There isn't even a tram-train design for the Manchester area yet, never mind looking at tram-train operation on routes not on the original plan. Cheshire councils have had an aspiration for a western Airport link since 1994 and the last we heard is Network Rail will look at it as a potential CP6 scheme, so it could be 2035 or later before Denton sees tram-trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This is the full report: http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansbl...5/01/Stockport-Rail-Strategy-January-2015.pdf

One thing to note is tram-train is seen as a long term aspiration. A shorter-term aspiration is an enhanced heavy rail service with new stations between Altrincham and Stockport.

Key Priorities
 Work with TfGM to appraise potential new stations, as outlined in the A6 Corridor Study, at:
(1) High Lane.
(2) Simpsons Corner
 In the short term work with Manchester, Trafford and TfGM to develop and promote the strongest
case for a new station at Baguley to promote the link to Manchester Airport, with an increased
service frequency on the existing Chester – Stockport service and the new station at Cheadle.
 Work with Manchester, Trafford and TfGM to develop the case for the Stockport West Metrolink,
and the opportunity for new stations at Adswood, Cheadle and Cheadle Heath.
 Continue to work with TfGM, supporting the case for the Metrolink proposals along the Reddish
South line.
 Work with Cheshire East to investigate the feasibility of a new station between Handforth and
Cheadle Hulme to support the proposed new village development at Handforth East.

 

[Chester1]

If a western airport link was built what would the capacity of a loop back to Piccadilly be? I.E. Piccadilly-Airport-Altrincham-Stockport-Piccadilly and vice versa (presuming electrification and resignalling). The single section alongside the metro is about a mile and a half (I think!). If the capacity is large then it would be far better to use it to increase airport station capacity than for Metrolink. It would require some services to be redirected away from Stockport and past the airport to Crewe.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If a western airport link was built what would the capacity of a loop back to Piccadilly be? I.E. Piccadilly-Airport-Altrincham-Stockport-Piccadilly and vice versa (presuming electrification and resignalling). The single section alongside the metro is about a mile and a half (I think!). If the capacity is large then it would be far better to use it to increase airport station capacity than for Metrolink. It would require some services to be redirected away from Stockport and past the airport to Crewe.

Please bear in mind that besides the normal train services that use the Styal line, plus those that you also refer to in the part of your posting that I have emboldened above, there are paths that are also used by the existing container freight trains that use the Styal line to save them having to pass through Stockport station. Can someone say what the daily service pattern are for these and the time period when such container trains will continue to be scheduled alongst this line?

 

[edwin_m]

Please bear in mind that besides the normal train services that use the Styal line, plus those that you also refer to in the part of your posting that I have emboldened above, there are paths that are also used by the existing container freight trains that use the Styal line to save them having to pass through Stockport station. Can someone say what the daily service pattern are for these and the time period when such container trains will continue to be scheduled alongst this line?

I think there's a path for containers each hour in each direction over the Styal line except in the peaks - normally passes through Piccadilly about half past the hour. I can't see this changing unless the Trafford Park terminals close, as going via Stockport would introduce a lot more conflict with other services between Slade Lane and Piccadilly.

I would guess if the link from the Airport to the mid-Cheshire line went ahead that trains that would otherwise terminate at the Airport would be extended westwards. Electrification of the mid-Cheshire line would probably be necessary, including the difficult tunnel at Knutsford.

 

[Chester1]

I think there's a path for containers each hour in each direction over the Styal line except in the peaks - normally passes through Piccadilly about half past the hour. I can't see this changing unless the Trafford Park terminals close, as going via Stockport would introduce a lot more conflict with other services between Slade Lane and Piccadilly.

I would guess if the link from the Airport to the mid-Cheshire line went ahead that trains that would otherwise terminate at the Airport would be extended westwards. Electrification of the mid-Cheshire line would probably be necessary, including the difficult tunnel at Knutsford.

As much as id love to see the Mid Cheshire line wired and connected with a very frequent service to Manchester Airport and the Middlewich freightline reopening for regular traffic, I still think a loop is a much better option. Its a huge waste of rolling stock to have more than one each terminating at Chester or Crewe via Middlewich per hour and I think there are 8 or 9 trains per hour from Piccadilly to the Airport. Some could terminate at the two terminating platforms. It would be better for most to loop back to Piccadilly if its possible to do. The problem would be Stockport services not local services through Styal.

 

[HSTEd]

I thought TfGM was committed to extension of the East Didsbury line to Stockport?

I am not sure what this proposal has that is advantageous over that, you only need a few kilometres of tram track to complete the route to the vicinity of Stockport and there is open ground (and a railway alignment?) near the River Mersey that reduces land acquisition cost.

Doing that route also makes it more feasible to have a Stockport-Airport connection with the minimum of new trakc in the future to support HS2.

EDIT: As to extending on the Mid Cheshire line - wouldn't the simplest solution be to outright convert the entire route as far as Northwich completely to Metrolink, complete with 750V overhead electrification?
There appears to be more than two tracks between Northwich and the ICI Lostock connection so you could reserve one line to get freight trains past Northwich station where they would rejoin the heavy rail line.
You could provide heavy rail platforms at the Chester end of the station as Merseyrail does.

The journey time on the route is so long (28 minutes Altrincham to Northwich) is so long that I don't think trams would be any slower, even at 50mph maximum. Indeed its only 20km and the average speed comes out at 43km/h.
Combine that with the possibility of running far more trains on that section of the route and I don't think it looks too bad. (Five trams per hour instead of 18 trains per day)
I looked it up and the maximum line speed between Altrincham and Northwich is only sixty - and you might be able to find a new tram that can do that if 50mph is too slow to keep times down.

That eliminates the apparent bottleneck between Navigation Road and Altrincham by removing the need for heavy rail trains to be on that section at all. (As I understand it the limestone trains have now stopped?)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As to extending on the Mid Cheshire line - wouldn't the simplest solution be to outright convert the entire route as far as Northwich completely to Metrolink, complete with 750V overhead electrification?

There appears to be more than two tracks between Northwich and the ICI Lostock connection so you could reserve one line to get freight trains past Northwich station where they would rejoin the heavy rail line. You could provide heavy rail platforms at the Chester end of the station as Merseyrail does.

When you say Metrolink, please remember not to blur the name in its connotation as, if expected, tram-trains will eventually come into their remit in addition to the existing trams. Whilst it does appear that tram-trains can share the tracks with normal heavy-rail traffic, the trams most certainly cannot, which leads to the problem through the former Dean Lane station now known as Newton Heath and Moston, where because of the rail-served waste compaction depot and its associated trains to and from there, the Metrolink stop is only a single platform with the other track being dedicated to the use of the heavy rail services to and from the waste compaction depot.

Perhaps those better versed than I in the Lostock Gralam and Northwich railway area could make comment on your proposal for the dedicated freight line proposals in that particular area that you state above. Come what may, there are still regular freight services using the line between Altrincham and Northwich that will still have to traverse the section in your proposal from Altrincham.

 

[edwin_m]

When you say Metrolink, please remember not to blur the name in its connotation as, if expected, tram-trains will eventually come into their remit in addition to the existing trams.

TfGM and the Stockport report both refer to tram-trains as Metrolink. Effectively it is being used as a marketing term not a technical concept.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought TfGM was committed to extension of the East Didsbury line to Stockport?

I am not sure what this proposal has that is advantageous over that, you only need a few kilometres of tram track to complete the route to the vicinity of Stockport and there is open ground (and a railway alignment?) near the River Mersey that reduces land acquisition cost.

There are big problems with East Didsbury to Stockport which aren't obvious from just looking at it on a map. Much of the former rail alignment no longer exists.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

TfGM and the Stockport report both refer to tram-trains as Metrolink. Effectively it is being used as a marketing term not a technical concept.

Exactly so. But it needs clarification made in postings where the difference in operational use where the tram-train type of unit is also proposed to share the tracks with existing heavy-rail traffic which is something that the trams themselves cannot do.

 

[pemma]

As to extending on the Mid Cheshire line - wouldn't the simplest solution be to outright convert the entire route as far as Northwich completely to Metrolink, complete with 750V overhead electrification

There appears to be more than two tracks between Northwich and the ICI Lostock connection so you could reserve one line to get freight trains past Northwich station where they would rejoin the heavy rail line.

So where would the extra WCML paths come from for the freight trains to get to Northwich via Sandbach instead of Northwich via Altrincham?

There's more freight than just the 'ICI' freight. Here's today's booked freight paths through Altrincham: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...1/26/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=freight&order=wtt

The journey time on the route is so long (28 minutes Altrincham to Northwich) is so long that I don't think trams would be any slower, even at 50mph maximum. Indeed its only 20km and the average speed comes out at 43km/h.

The journey time was recently slowed down by around 3 minutes. The reason being loadings at Northwich, Knutsford, Hale and Altrincham are generally very high for a service which is just hourly using vehicles which only has 3 or 4 passenger doors to board/alight through. As there isn't the stock available to run longer trains or more trains the journey times had to be extended instead.

If there were multiple services some would miss out the smaller stations. When the tram-train case for the Mid-Cheshire line was being examined they came up with following assumptions:

A class 170 operating Altrincham-Greenbank would take 27 minutes stopping at all stations or 23 minutes if 2 stations were missed out.

A new 50mph tram-train operating Altrincham-Greenbank would take 25 minutes stopping at all stations or 23 minutes if 2 stations were missed out. Of course, if you try to fit 5 tram-trains an hour around the freight some services won't run at the fastest possible journey time.

 

[stockport1]

So where would the extra WCML paths come from for the freight trains to get to Northwich via Sandbach instead of Northwich via Altrincham?

There's more freight than just the 'ICI' freight. Here's today's booked freight paths through Altrincham: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...1/26/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=freight&order=wtt



The journey time was recently slowed down by around 3 minutes. The reason being loadings at Northwich, Knutsford, Hale and Altrincham are generally very high for a service which is just hourly using vehicles which only has 3 or 4 passenger doors to board/alight through. As there isn't the stock available to run longer trains or more trains the journey times had to be extended instead.

If there were multiple services some would miss out the smaller stations. When the tram-train case for the Mid-Cheshire line was being examined they came up with following assumptions:

A class 170 operating Altrincham-Greenbank would take 27 minutes stopping at all stations or 23 minutes if 2 stations were missed out.

A new 50mph tram-train operating Altrincham-Greenbank would take 25 minutes stopping at all stations or 23 minutes if 2 stations were missed out. Of course, if you try to fit 5 tram-trains an hour around the freight some services won't run at the fastest possible journey time.

This line needs stoppers and semi fasts calling Chester/Northwich/knutsford/Stockport/MCR.

A packed stoping pacer service only hourly vs a packed a556 m56 corridor is a bleak choice.

Turd sandwich vs tramp puke baguette

 

[Emyr]

In the morning, an additional Stockport-Altrincham-Knutsford service (Arriving 8:30?) would provide some useful capacity.

Using RTT's WTT for 0717 MAN-CTR...

SPT-NVR 13.5 mins
NVR-ALT 1.5 mins
Dwell 1 minute at ALT
ALT-HAL 2 mins
HAL-ASY 2.5 mins
ASY-MOB 2.5 mins
MOB-KNF 4 mins

Total 27 mins SPT-KNF including 1 stop at ALT, vs 29.5 mins timetabled for all stops.

Given the extended dwell evident at present and the recovery time allowed for in the WTT, plus the removal of 3 decelerations and accelerations (NVR sits between two level crossings and has the curves to the north, so little time would be gained by not stopping)...

Doable in 25 mins?

Alternatively, make the Picadilly service the semi-fast and the Stockport service the all-shacks so that a better headline time can be advertised between MAN-ALT and MAN-CTR where Northern competes with Metrolink and ATW respectively.

 

[pemma]

In the morning, an additional Stockport-Altrincham-Knutsford service (Arriving 8:30?) would provide some useful capacity.

Using RTT's WTT for 0717 MAN-CTR...

SPT-NVR 13.5 mins
NVR-ALT 1.5 mins
Dwell 1 minute at ALT
ALT-HAL 2 mins
HAL-ASY 2.5 mins
ASY-MOB 2.5 mins
MOB-KNF 4 mins

Total 27 mins SPT-KNF including 1 stop at ALT, vs 29.5 mins timetabled for all stops.

Given the extended dwell evident at present and the recovery time allowed for in the WTT, plus the removal of 3 decelerations and accelerations (NVR sits between two level crossings and has the curves to the north, so little time would be gained by not stopping)...

Doable in 25 mins?

Alternatively, make the Picadilly service the semi-fast and the Stockport service the all-shacks so that a better headline time can be advertised between MAN-ALT and MAN-CTR where Northern competes with Metrolink and ATW respectively.

Pre-December 2008 the Manchester departures for the Mid-Cheshire line were:
06:39 Chester
07:39 Chester
08:22 Greenbank only (semi-fast)
09:24 Chester
And then hourly until
16:52 Chester
17:24 Chester
17:52 Chester
18:24 Chester
And then hourly until
22:24 Chester
23:09 Chester

The semi-fast to Greenbank (which missed out Navigation Rd, Ashley, Mobberley, Plumley and Lostock Gralam) arrived in Knutsford at 08:58 so did Manchester-Knutsford in 36 minutes. At the time Manchester-Knutsford all stops was timetabled to take 40 minutes so 2 minutes was saved for each station omitted. This overnight ATW services shows how quickly a train can get from Chester to Manchester via Altrincham without any station calls: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C30218/2015/01/26/advanced

The key downsides to the current timetable over the pre-December 08 ones are:
1. The loss of the two extra trains from Manchester in the evening peak.
2. The remaining Manchester departure between 16:30 and 18:15 being poorly timed at 17:09.
3. Poorer arrival times in Knutsford and Northwich in the morning peak, which affects over 200 commuters and school/college pupils.
4. There's no longer a 4 car train in the morning peak.

The improvements are:
1. The big gap between Chester trains in the morning has gone.
2. Slightly earlier first train and slightly later last train.

 

[Emyr]

This overnight ATW services shows how quickly a train can get from Chester to Manchester via Altrincham without any station calls: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C30218/2015/01/26/advanced

KNF-ALT 9.5 mins
ALT-SPT 14 mins
SPT-MAN 9 mins

Total 32.5 mins plus stops

Yes please

 

[pemma]

KNF-ALT 9.5 mins
ALT-SPT 14 mins
SPT-MAN 9 mins

Total 32.5 mins plus stops

Yes please

Of course the ATW service being booked as a 175 opposed to a 142/150/156 helps as well.

 

[Altnabreac]

I'm of the view it is wasteful, and tram train is too complex and expensive to combine with heavy rail. My solution involves a new 2.5 mile link from the Chester line along the M56, under the main runway and direct through the Airport rail station.

Metrolink could be extended to Knutsford, and the Nav Road-Stockport be converted to Metrolink proper.

Seems to me that a new heavy rail link from Knutsford - Manchester Airport is a very sensible long term plan.

The Metrolink section though I wonder if a different proposal might perform better and address the future connectivity requirements referred to in the TfGM report better?

Stockport -Altrincham

In view of its poor performance as a stand-alone scheme, but its potential
as a component of a rapid-transit network serving the rapidly-expanding
Manchester Airport area, it is recommended that this route be considered
as part of a possible future separate study of transport to the Manchester
Airport area, which would take into account (among other things) the
transport requirements of the Airport City Enterprise Zone and the
proposed Manchester Airport HS2 Station. An interchange at Baguley
could be a key element in such a network, together with the Western
Loop section of the Metrolink Airport Extension not included in the current
Phase 3 Programme.

With HS2 in mind why not extend the Manchester Airport Metrolink southwards via Terminal 2, the HS2 station and Airport City Enterprise Zone, it can then share the new heavy rail alignment in a 4 track viaduct over the River Bollin.

Before Mobberly the heavy rail alignment will head SW to Knutsford while the Metrolink will curve to the NW and pick up the former heavy rail calls at Ashley and Hale.

Metrolink services can run then directly from the current Altrincham branch to both the HS2 station and Manchester Airport.

Stockport - Altrincham can also be converted to Metrolink operation with additional stops, especially at Baguley to connect to the other Airport branch.

Knutsford / Northwich - Altrincham passengers would have to change at Manchester Airport but this would be offset by the new journey opportunities created. If enough demand existed on this axis you could extend the Stockport - Altrincham Metrolink via Hale to Knutsford.

Seems to me a routing like this would maximise access to the Airport and HS2 from all areas of south Manchester / Cheshire. This option would not prevent the Airport Western Loop Metrolink being progressed as well but I think it would perform better.

 

[HSTEd]

So where would the extra WCML paths come from for the freight trains to get to Northwich via Sandbach instead of Northwich via Altrincham?
There's more freight than just the 'ICI' freight. Here's today's booked freight paths through Altrincham: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...1/26/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=freight&order=wtt

I'm having trouble working out what those trains are, but there are only 26 trains - 7 are listed as cancelled and another seven are 'unactivated'.
So 12 trains, I have to assume this is a typical working day.
Several of the others are not actually required to route over the WCML if they take alternate routes - for instance one appears to be going from Guide Bridge to Runcorn, could that not be routed via Manchester Victoria for example? Although that would require several reversals its not as if freight is massively time concious.
So it seems like you would only have to cancel a handful of freight trains a day to be able to turn the entire route over to Metrolink operation and drastically reduce its operating costs.

As it connects to nothing else if you just accept this you can also close the Stockport-Altrincham section and convert that to an orbital Metrolink section if you want.

I think it is one of those things about the 'modern' railway that we have become so obsesed with the idea that we should have freight running on all lines that it strangles any attempt to improve what the railway does best - moving large numbers of passengers cheaply.

If there were multiple services some would miss out the smaller stations. When the tram-train case for the Mid-Cheshire line was being examined they came up with following assumptions:

Doing that does start to weaken the very important feature of Light Rail that makes it so attractive - high frequencies.
I think this is a problem inherent to a tram train - you attempt to have Light Rail without the thing that makes Light Rail work.

A new 50mph tram-train operating Altrincham-Greenbank would take 25 minutes stopping at all stations or 23 minutes if 2 stations were missed out.

That seems like an awfully small saving considering the operational and passenger-confusion issues with running a non uniform service.

 

[pemma]

Doing that does start to weaken the very important feature of Light Rail that makes it so attractive - high frequencies.

If you look at frequency alone you finish up with a situation like the Munich S-Bahn between Munich Airport and the city centre - there's a lot of services but they are very slow stopping at all stations and a lot of people want to travel between the Airport and the city centre. Then, as the German's are doing, you need to build a new express line for end to end travel because the high frequency all-stops service isn't an adequate solution.

I'm having trouble working out what those trains are, but there are only 26 trains - 7 are listed as cancelled and another seven are 'unactivated'.
...
- for instance one appears to be going from Guide Bridge to Runcorn, could that not be routed via Manchester Victoria for example?

The freight can vary between days but the freight paths are booked every weekday. Fiddlers Ferry P Stn Flhh to Guide Bridge doesn't run every day. Notice there's a Fiddlers Ferry P Stn Flhh to Tunstead Sdgs service timetabled to go through Altrincham at the same time, meaning it would be impossible for them both to run so it's one or the other. That also explains why it can't go via Victoria unless you want to increase the allocation of freight paths.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Knutsford / Northwich - Altrincham passengers would have to change at Manchester Airport

I can't see that happening. You can take a journey on the 07:17 Manchester-Chester on a weekday if you want to see how well used Altrincham-Northwich is as a commuter train.

 

[Roose]

Just followed the link from the Manchester Evening News to the Stockport Metropolitan Council, Stockport Rail Strategy, Dated January 2015. Only quickly perused through the first few pages and guess what? It recommends in the short to medium term that the class 101 trains need replacing with some urgency??

THAT'S where they all went!