Metrolink to go regional?

[HSTEd]

Is this meant as a serious comment? The railway exists to serve its customers, not the other way round. Would you tell prospective passengers who want to travel from Manchester to Northwich that they should go to Stoke on Trent or Crewe instead?!

Uh.... no?
Why would anything I have proposed cause to happen?
Journey times for Northwich to Manchester would decrease with this proposal - especially when you account for the drastically reduced average weighting time (30 minutes for hourly heavy rail to just 6 with the tramway).

Where is the evidence that 25kV electrification is colossally more expensive than 750V on a line like this? The OHLE structures and clearance requirements are not very different, and 750V OHLE, like third rail, requires frequent substations - expensive on a long rural line. 25kV could probably be end-fed from the WCML.

If you read the electrification standards, even if you assume 750V must have the same clearances as 1500V does, the clearences are clearly very different - you save multiple inches even with 'special reduced' 25kV clearances.
Additionally while there would be several substations on the route they would be predominantly be low power installations as five trams per hour would lead to roughly six light rail formations on the extension at any one time.
That is a very low demand for such a project. The substations would likely be fed from the 11kV and 400V networks.
25kV being single end fed from the Northwich end would require ~3 route miles more electrification (unless you are proposing a simple power line from the WCML and a detached project) and would still require a large amount of substation equipment (since I assume you are going to allow the branch to be isolated seperately from the WCML it is attached to - which will require one or more circuit breakers).
Then there is the fact that Network Rail cannot keep anywhere near its budgets for 25kV installations - which are already far higher than those generated for a relatively low power installation like the one I am proposing.

So how do you make the business case for investment in converting the line to a high frequency tramway, if you have "no real idea" what the demand will be? Northwich is a small town with a population of about 30,000 and lies outside the main Manchester commuter belt. Knutsford is less than half that size. Yet you are proposing the same service frequency as that currently provided on the Metrolink line to Oldham and Rochdale, which each have a population of over 200,000!

Quite simple - my business case is based on the fact that the trams will be deployed in marginal time, extending from Altrincham - operating five trams per hour requires only five additional formations compared to terminating at Altrincham. That is roughly an 4-8% expansion of the projected 2017 Metrolink fleet (depending on double fractions).
If you were operating tram trains half hourly you would require at least six+ additional formations as they would have to operate the entire journey from central Manchester (or even out of the other side). So your tram trains take more new vehicles for 2tph as they the conventional vehicles do for 5.
(And since you would have to buy them from scratch this is comparable).

Have you seen a modern freight train accelerate? 66s are powerful locos. For example, RTT shows that today's laden binliner from Brindle Heath (656M) took only 16 minutes from Edgeley Jn to Altrincham, despite having to accelerate from a stand at the junction and accelerate again after the 15mph PSR around the curve from Skelton Jn. Passenger trains, getting up to 75mph for much of the way, take 14 minutes with one stop at Navigation Road.

Have you ever seen an electric multiple unit accelerate? The Mid Cheshire line will be timed for Pacers, complete with padding.
A tram or modern electric unit will leave them for dead.

 

[mwmbwls]

AIUI there is nothing that would prohibit a tramway crossing a heavy rail line on the flat using a Newark style diamond crossing - after all such a crossing could simply be treated as a level crossing on the heavy rail line. Could even provide it with barriers over the tramway.
It is not as if it is a heavily used main line with fast moving trains is it?

I agree - you can even run a narrow gauge tramway across a heavy railway, however the above example picture above at Porthmadog doesn't use trams or barriers - just interlocked signalling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why not, if it turned out this was the best solution? They put up 1,500V DC OLE for T&W Metro.

The 1,500v DC system used by T&W Metro to Sunderland may have to be replaced as and when 25kV AC electrification includes the Wearside Line from Northallerton to Middlesbrough,Sunderland and Newcastle. Such voltage changes are not unknown - the conversion of the Liverpool Street - Shenfield line and Manchester to Glossop. Although I must concede Manchester to Altrincham went from 1,500v DC to 25kv AC to 750v DC. The new generation of Metro Trains now being considered could well be dual voltage.

 

[snowball]

the above example picture above at Porthmadog doesn't use trams

You could argue that WHR trains are trams, as they run on-street at Porthmadog.

 

[Greybeard33]

Quite simple - my business case is based on the fact that the trams will be deployed in marginal time, extending from Altrincham - operating five trams per hour requires only five additional formations compared to terminating at Altrincham. That is roughly an 4-8% expansion of the projected 2017 Metrolink fleet (depending on double fractions).
If you were operating tram trains half hourly you would require at least six+ additional formations as they would have to operate the entire journey from central Manchester (or even out of the other side). So your tram trains take more new vehicles for 2tph as they the conventional vehicles do for 5.
(And since you would have to buy them from scratch this is comparable).

Accepting your figures, and assuming only single units would operate south of Altrincham, TfGM would have to procure and operate at least 5 additional tram units to support the extension. So, for the project to viable according to normal TfGM criteria, the extension would have to generate sufficient additional farebox revenue to cover the full (not marginal) on-going operating costs of those 5 trams (including drivers' pay, maintenance, electricity etc.), plus the on-going operating and maintenance costs of the infrastructure from Altrincham to Northwich (permanent way, OHLE, bridges, level crossings, stations, TVMs, CCTV, mesh radio etc.), plus a surplus to invest in the Metrolink renewals fund, sufficient to fund future major infrastructure renewals on the extension when required.

With a 5tph service (~1000 passengers/hour capacity), I do not believe that average load factors south of Altrincham would be anywhere near high enough to break even.

 

[pemma]

Accepting your figures, and assuming only single units would operate south of Altrincham, TfGM would have to procure and operate at least 5 additional tram units to support the extension. So, for the project to viable according to normal TfGM criteria, the extension would have to generate sufficient additional farebox revenue to cover the full (not marginal) on-going operating costs of those 5 trams (including drivers' pay, maintenance, electricity etc.), plus the on-going operating and maintenance costs of the infrastructure from Altrincham to Northwich (permanent way, OHLE, bridges, level crossings, stations, TVMs, CCTV, mesh radio etc.), plus a surplus to invest in the Metrolink renewals fund, sufficient to fund future major infrastructure renewals on the extension when required.

With a 5tph service (~1000 passengers/hour capacity), I do not believe that average load factors south of Altrincham would be anywhere near high enough to break even.

One problem with tram-train to Knutsford and revenue would be Ashley station. If you want services to operate without conductors on board you need to provide multiple ticket machines per stop and send people to collect the revenue taken. It would probably be cheaper to let anyone starting their journey at Ashley to travel for free than to install and service multiple ticket machines there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One problem with tram-train to Knutsford and revenue would be Ashley station. If you want services to operate without conductors on board you need to provide multiple ticket machines per stop and send people to collect the revenue taken. It would probably be cheaper to let anyone starting their journey at Ashley to travel for free than to install and service multiple ticket machines there.

One would do, surely?

Neil

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It would probably be cheaper to let anyone starting their journey at Ashley to travel for free than to install and service multiple ticket machines there.

The published Ashley station figure of 7174 in 2012/3 saw a rather sizable percentage fall to only 5856 in 2013/4 (112 per week) and noting that certain stations with a much higher figure than that only have a single ticket machine, I see no reason why "multiple" ticket machines should be installed on that particular station.

I have a feeling if it were known that those using Ashley station (this being outside the TfGM/Greater Manchester area) were receiving free rail travel as far as the TfGM/Greater Manchester station of Hale as part of their journeys towards Manchester, then similarly situated rail passengers from Poynton, Handforth and Styal will certainly not be favourably impressed by this news by the users of those stations for the parts of their rail journeys to the TfGM/Greater Manchester stations of Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme and Manchester Airport respectively were also not afforded this same "one-free-stop" facility.

 

[edwin_m]

You'd probably need two ticket machines to give a backup if one went out of order. But if they weren't used much they wouldn't need servicing/emptying very often.

 

[pemma]

The published Ashley station figure of 7174 in 2012/3 saw a rather sizable percentage fall to only 5856 in 2013/4 (112 per week) and noting that certain stations with a much higher figure than that only have a single ticket machine, I see no reason why "multiple" ticket machines should be installed on that particular station.

If one ticket machine was provided what would happen if it was out-of-order given Metrolink has no conductors on board and the number of RPIs is very small?

Currently all Metrolink stops have a few ticket machines even though some of the smaller stops rarely have multiple people purchasing tickets at the same time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But if they weren't used much they wouldn't need servicing/emptying very often.

Northern decided it wouldn't be viable to install TVMs taking cash at stations not staffed for the majority of the day as they would be a high risk to thieves and it would cost too much to send someone around all the stations to empty them regularly.

Of course Metrolink TVMs don't sell the high value tickets which National Rail TVMs sell so I'm not sure if a risk assessment would reach a different conclusion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If one ticket machine was provided what would happen if it was out-of-order given Metrolink has no conductors on board and the number of RPIs is very small?

AIUI the rule with Metrolink is that if all ticket issuing facilities at your station are out of order, you have to use the help point (or a phone) to call customer services, report the matter and get a reference number which acts as a Permit to Travel (and effectively gives you a free journey 99% of the time).

Neil

 

[pemma]

AIUI the rule with Metrolink is that if all ticket issuing facilities at your station are out of order, you have to use the help point (or a phone) to call customer services, report the matter and get a reference number which acts as a Permit to Travel (and effectively gives you a free journey 99% of the time).

Which means the cost of adding help points has to be considered.

Also with regards to Ashley and Mobberley there is no alternative bus service which Metrolink could tell you to use during disruption so they would have to actually run a replacement bus service. (While the 88 bus does serve Mobberley the nearest bus stop is 2 miles from the station. Ashley has no bus service at all.)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

While the 88 bus does serve Mobberley, the nearest bus stop is 2 miles from the station.

I have just realised that this part of your posting does in fact answer that question about Mobberley village that I posed in a recent posting about this very matter, which never received an answer.

 

[pemma]

I have just realised that this part of your posting does in fact answer that question about Mobberley village that I posed in a recent posting about this very matter, which never received an answer.

I had already answered the question before you asked it - post 108 gives the answer to the question you asked in post 113.

 

[edwin_m]

Northern decided it wouldn't be viable to install TVMs taking cash at stations not staffed for the majority of the day as they would be a high risk to thieves and it would cost too much to send someone around all the stations to empty them regularly.

Of course Metrolink TVMs don't sell the high value tickets which National Rail TVMs sell so I'm not sure if a risk assessment would reach a different conclusion.

Also someone unable to get a ticket at a Northern station will probably be able to get one from the conductor or the barrier at somewhere like Piccadilly. Metrolink has neither of these options and if there was a legitimate route to board without a ticket their revenue protection would collapse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which means the cost of adding help points has to be considered.

It would have to be even if there were ten ticket machines, as on Metrolink it is an absolute rule with no exceptions - you do not, unlike on the "big railway", have an implicit authority to travel if all the ticket facilities are unavailable, you have to explicitly request that authority.

If there were not, a station with faulty ticket machines would effectively be closed until fixed.

There is a fairly big advantage of this scheme, which is that failures get reported within minutes of occurring, which means they can be fixed more quickly.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also someone unable to get a ticket at a Northern station will probably be able to get one from the conductor or the barrier at somewhere like Piccadilly. Metrolink has neither of these options and if there was a legitimate route to board without a ticket their revenue protection would collapse.

I suppose if maintaining TVMs were not financially viable, they could employ a few conductors to cover that section only, making it effectively a "Paytrain" section (this is how Merseyrail used to deal with Little Sutton, Overpool, Capenhurst and Bache prior to the TVMs being installed there, though I think it was the guard who did it). If there was a concern about people claiming to have travelled from those stations, much simpler cash-only no-change PERTIS machines could be installed with the coin box dug into the ground - these are far less susceptible to theft and in any case in practice only contain a mass of 5p coins.

Actually, if a TVM at Capenhurst is viable, I'd imagine so is one at Ashley.

Neil

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I had already answered the question before you asked it - post 108 gives the answer to the question you asked in post 113.

I may have been making reference, not to a posting of yours, but to a posting when the Mobberley area came into discussions that were being raised by Altnabreac

 

[Greybeard33]

Which means the cost of adding help points has to be considered.

Also with regards to Ashley and Mobberley there is no alternative bus service which Metrolink could tell you to use during disruption so they would have to actually run a replacement bus service. (While the 88 bus does serve Mobberley the nearest bus stop is 2 miles from the station. Ashley has no bus service at all.)

The Metrolink service model requires that, in any case, help points and CCTV are provided at all stops without exceptions. This another reason why a Metrolink-type operation (whether provided by trams or tram-trains) is not suited to rural village stations like Ashley and Mobberley. The revenue would not be sufficient to cover the operating and maintenance costs. Equally it would not cover the salaries of on-board conductors on a high-frequency, lightly used service, as an alternative to TVMs. Metrolink is designed for intensive inner-city and suburban operations, where the "turn up and go" service can attract high passenger volumes to cover the relatively high operating costs.

I suspect that a taxi, rather than a replacement bus, would have sufficient capacity to rescue any passengers stranded at Ashley or Mobberley!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Metrolink service model requires that, in any case, help points and CCTV are provided at all stops without exceptions. This another reason why a Metrolink-type operation (whether provided by trams or tram-trains) is not suited to rural village stations like Ashley and Mobberley. The revenue would not be sufficient to cover the operating and maintenance costs. Equally it would not cover the salaries of on-board conductors on a high-frequency, lightly used service, as an alternative to TVMs. Metrolink is designed for intensive inner-city and suburban operations, where the "turn up and go" service can attract high passenger volumes to cover the relatively high operating costs.

It is interesting to note that there are German semi-rural operations that operate as a bit of an U-Bahn-lite with exactly those sort of features. The AKN line north of Hamburg is one such example.

Neil

 

[pemma]

I suspect that a taxi, rather than a replacement bus, would have sufficient capacity to rescue any passengers stranded at Ashley or Mobberley!

Depends on the time of day. If the service was suspended at the time Knutsford Academy are finishing then you'd need multiple taxis for both Mobberley or Ashley opposed to one for both - an Optare Solo would be better suited. If it was suspended at 11:00 on a weekday you might get away with no taxis at all.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Depends on the time of day. If the service was suspended at the time Knutsford Academy are finishing then you'd need multiple taxis for both Mobberley or Ashley opposed to one for both - an Optare Solo would be better suited. If it was suspended at 11:00 on a weekday you might get away with no taxis at all.

I wonder if such in-depth discussions that have been recently aired upon this thread in recently discussed posting matters were similarly held by those at TfGM as part of their preliminary discussions on the part of the mid-Cheshire line when it was considered for Tram-Train operation?

 

[Greybeard33]

It is interesting to note that there are German semi-rural operations that operate as a bit of an U-Bahn-lite with exactly those sort of features. The AKN line north of Hamburg is one such example.

Neil

I have no personal experience of the AKN, but from Googling it appears to be a segregated (not tram-train) system using diesel Uerdingen railbuses even smaller than Pacers. The outlying parts of the system are single track with a service frequency as low as 1tph off-peak. This appears more akin to the current Northern Rail service on the Mid-Cheshire than to Metrolink. I wonder if AKN is subsidised? Neumuenster, at the northern end of the line, has 77,000 population, similar to Chester, and is further from Hamburg than Chester is from Manchester.

The Stockport/TfGM tram-train concept seems to be to provide a Metrolink-like turn up and go service over shared infrastructure - rather different from the typical German tram-train model.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have no personal experience of the AKN, but from Googling it appears to be a segregated (not tram-train) system using diesel Uerdingen railbuses even smaller than Pacers.

It mostly uses newer DMUs, which are essentially articulated bogied Pacers without the bogs and with sliding doors, or to look at it differently they are basically wider, diesel versions of the DT2/DT3 Hamburg U-Bahn vehicles. I think it also has some very new low-floor DMUs, though most of the system is high-platform. The Uerdingers ("Ferkeltaxen" - pig taxis, literally) aren't used in normal service and haven't been for years.

The outlying parts of the system are single track with a service frequency as low as 1tph off-peak. This appears more akin to the current Northern Rail service on the Mid-Cheshire than to Metrolink. I wonder if AKN is subsidised?

With Germany's usual take on public transport, I'm certain it is.

The Stockport/TfGM tram-train concept seems to be to provide a Metrolink-like turn up and go service over shared infrastructure - rather different from the typical German tram-train model.

I'll give you that, though my point was that it is a viable "U-Bahn-lite" concept operated in a similar way (DOO, electronic PIS, ticket machines, random revenue checks with PFs by plain clothes operators, help points) to an urban U-Bahn, just that it uses diesel vehicles and runs lowish frequencies. So in terms of station infrastructure at say Ashley, it's really not dissimilar.

Here's a typical AKN station and one of the 1980s/1990s DMUs:

http://www.larsbrueggemann.de/fotos3/529ewd-bahnhof-vossloch.jpg

Another interesting thing about these DMUs is that they are actually bi-mode and can be used on the Hamburg S-Bahn third rail. A very small number of through services run to/from Hamburg Hbf in the morning peak only.

Neil

 

[Greybeard33]

I'll give you that, though my point was that it is a viable "U-Bahn-lite" concept operated in a similar way (DOO, electronic PIS, ticket machines, random revenue checks with PFs by plain clothes operators, help points) to an urban U-Bahn, just that it uses diesel vehicles and runs lowish frequencies. So in terms of station infrastructure at say Ashley, it's really not dissimilar.

Interesting, thanks. I agree that this sort of station infrastructure is the way to go for the rural stations in the Northern network (although I will refrain from advocating DOO on here!) The big advantage of universal pre-boarding ticket vending facilities is that they enable a much more robust and consistent revenue protection policy to be applied, similar to that of Metrolink, so providing an effective deterrent to ticketless travel. This might reduce the overall subsidy required by the Northern franchise, even if the lesser-used stations do not raise enough revenue to cover their own maintenance costs.

However, this approach does not require the Mid-Cheshire to be converted to a tramway or to tram-train operation, with services at 12 minute intervals.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting, thanks. I agree that this sort of station infrastructure is the way to go for the rural stations in the Northern network (although I will refrain from advocating DOO on here!) The big advantage of universal pre-boarding ticket vending facilities is that they enable a much more robust and consistent revenue protection policy to be applied, similar to that of Metrolink, so providing an effective deterrent to ticketless travel.

That much is true - it's also used by SBB whose entire system is now a Penalty Fares area (PF is around CHF120 = about 80 to 100 quid as the rate varies a bit, plus the fare for the journey on top) regardless of how urban or rural the service is. Every station has a TVM, however small - even the 12-seat automatic funicular things. The inspectors take no prisoners - no valid ticket = PF, no exceptions, no discretion[1]. While this is a bit harsh in some ways, you know exactly where you stand.

[1] On InterCity and InterRegio services I believe a small amount of discretion remains in that you can upgrade to First Class and do route excesses on board, I believe they are also told to be careful of clueless tourists near the airports. On Regio, RegioExpress and S-Bahn, it's absolute.

However, this approach does not require the Mid-Cheshire to be converted to a tramway or to tram-train operation, with services at 12 minute intervals.

Indeed not. My main point was that if it was, there's no reason Ashley shouldn't have a TVM (one would do) and a help point, and the standard Metrolink policies be applied to it.

Neil

 

[Navigation Roa]

Could they not deploy a class 139 parry people mover running up and down between Northwich and Alty on a regular basis?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could they not deploy a class 139 parry people mover running up and down between Northwich and Alty on a regular basis?

Or a Pacer or D78, more likely?

Neil

 

[Chester1]

What would the aproximate cost of electrification and upgrading the line to 75-90mph be? Also the same for the Northwich-Sandbach branch? Id estimate that routing Pendalinos via Middlewich would save 3-4 Voyagers and terminating Arriva services at Warrington and running EMUs along the Mid Cheshire line would save 6 DMUs. Combined, that isnt inconsiderable with the current shortage of DMUs. Id run 1 express per hour Chester-Manchester and 1tph all stations from Chester to Stockport and Crewe (via Middlewich) to Stockport. This solves the lack of capacity and the increase in services would negate the loss of direct trains to small stations. Running EMUs would probably save enough time for allot of passangers to negate the time needed to change at Altrincham or Stockport. The weekly route knowledge Arriva train non stop down the Mid Cheshire line matches the normal Arriva service. Therefore, stops at Northwich, Knutsford, Hale, Altrincham and Stockport should be possible with miminal line speed upgrades and using EMUs. Probably cheaper than converting half the line to Metrolink, frees up DMUs and removes the need to electrify Crewe-Chester and Warrington-Chester.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Whilst this thread asks the question of "Metrolink going regional", I am sure that this means not just the mid-Cheshire line, though one would be hard pressed not to think that this was the only such "regional" line under discussion on this thread.

 

[pemma]

Could they not deploy a class 139 parry people mover running up and down between Northwich and Alty on a regular basis?

Problem with that is even if you have 10 services per hour the demand wouldn't be split evenly between the different services and at times you'd have people having to wait for 2 or 3 services to depart before they can actually board one.

At least with the M5000s they're capable of carrying a large number of passengers even if a number have to stand.

Also the 139s are very slow, so journey times would be extended and it probably prevent freight movements and ATW diverting along the line.

A 139 would be more suitable for providing a shuttle between Northwich or Sandbach station and the respective town centres or alternatively a service between Northwich and Hartford station (assuming they can be cleared for road running.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What would the aproximate cost of electrification and upgrading the line to 75-90mph be?

The actual figure would be academic as it would be the benefit:cost ratio that would determine whether or not it could be done. The more services provided the more favourable the benefit:cost ratio will be.

The weekly route knowledge Arriva train non stop down the Mid Cheshire line matches the normal Arriva service. Therefore, stops at Northwich, Knutsford, Hale, Altrincham and Stockport should be possible with miminal line speed upgrades and using EMUs. Probably cheaper than converting half the line to Metrolink, frees up DMUs and removes the need to electrify Crewe-Chester and Warrington-Chester.

It runs daily at the moment. Remember that's an overnight service when there's less likely to be pathing conflicts.

 

[Greybeard33]

My main point was that if it was [converted to Metrolink], there's no reason Ashley shouldn't have a TVM (one would do) and a help point, and the standard Metrolink policies be applied to it.

Neil

Yes I agree; indeed the existing Metrolink Pomona stop had footfall of only 18 in a day at the last count! My original point was ill-considered. Little used stations do not help the economic performance of a line whatever the service model.

What would the aproximate cost of electrification and upgrading the line to 75-90mph be? Also the same for the Northwich-Sandbach branch? Id estimate that routing Pendalinos via Middlewich would save 3-4 Voyagers and terminating Arriva services at Warrington and running EMUs along the Mid Cheshire line would save 6 DMUs. Combined, that isnt inconsiderable with the current shortage of DMUs. Id run 1 express per hour Chester-Manchester and 1tph all stations from Chester to Stockport and Crewe (via Middlewich) to Stockport. This solves the lack of capacity and the increase in services would negate the loss of direct trains to small stations. Running EMUs would probably save enough time for allot of passangers to negate the time needed to change at Altrincham or Stockport. The weekly route knowledge Arriva train non stop down the Mid Cheshire line matches the normal Arriva service. Therefore, stops at Northwich, Knutsford, Hale, Altrincham and Stockport should be possible with miminal line speed upgrades and using EMUs. Probably cheaper than converting half the line to Metrolink, frees up DMUs and removes the need to electrify Crewe-Chester and Warrington-Chester.

If Virgin wants to replace Voyagers by EMUs, it could start with the Scottish services that are entirely under the wires.

The Middlewich line is single track and subject to subsidence. Crewe to Chester via Middlewich and Mickle Trafford is much longer than the direct line, so would probably be slower even if redoubled, upgraded and electrified. Network Rail's Electrification RUS considered that the the Chester-Crewe and Chester-Warrington lines both have a better business case than this route.

The track layout at Stockport unfortunately makes it difficult to find paths for trains from the south to reverse. That is why the Stockport Strategy document suggests tram-trains to Altrincham, which would run on a new alignment through the town to avoid the WCML.

Whilst this thread asks the question of "Metrolink going regional", I am sure that this means not just the mid-Cheshire line, though one would be hard pressed not to think that this was the only such "regional" line under discussion on this thread.

The Stockport Strategy also suggested that:

A further possibility utilising the proposed section of Metrolink route between Stockport and Reddish would
be a direct link from Stockport to Tameside, possibly terminating in Ashton Town Centre.

http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/do...20Strategy.pdf

This would presumably mean running tram-trains via Denton and Guide Bridge, with a new link to the existing Metrolink East Manchester Line. Not sure if this would count as a "regional" service?

Also the 139s are very slow, so journey times would be extended and it probably prevent freight movements and ATW diverting along the line.

A 139 would be more suitable for providing a shuttle between Northwich or Sandbach station and the respective town centres or alternatively a service between Northwich and Hartford station (assuming they can be cleared for road running.)

Class 139 PPMs do not comply with National Rail crashworthiness requirements, and so, like M5000 trams, could not share the line with any other trains such as freight.