Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[B&I]

There are not many of those "...holes gouged through greater Manchester for un-built motorways which would be ideal for street-level tramways,...", the only one that comes to mind that is left is the M60 /Hazel Grove by-pass. I doubt Hazel Grove will be impressed if that became a tramway rather than a badly needed road.
I'm sure you'll correct me with the ones I've forgotten.

As a regular user of Metrolink, although it is not perfect it is far superior to the heavy rail that preceded it.

I had in mind the corridors of empty and underused land surrounding a number of main roads through inner city Manchester eg Regent, Rochdale, Oldham, Hyde, Princes, Stockport and Chester Roads.

It was not a binary choice between an endlessly run down heavy rail operation and light rail. Manchester could and should have had a proper heavy rail suburban network. As an irregular user of Metrolink, I'd prefer something faster, more comfortable and more capacious

 

[B&I]

Not strictly true. Manchester had at least a hand in its own downfall with its fascination with a monorail. By the time sense had prevailed and they finally listened to people who knew what they were talking about, all the available money had been allocated to the likes of Newcastle and Liverpool, so Picc-Vic was off the table and trams were the only answer.

GMPTE may not have helped matters by insisting on an excessively long tunnel with a whole clatter of city centre stations. A straight Piccadilly-Victoria link with a station in the central area halfway along the tunnel would have provided a railway station within 10 minutes' walk of the whole central area

 

[Chester1]

Liverpool is the only suitable alternative to divert TPE services to. There is insufficient demand to extend 5 coach services to Chester. The Northern Connect service is much needed but a 2/3 car 195 will suffice for a while and amounts to approximately a 66-100℅ capacity increase on faster services to Manchester. Extending TPE services to Blackpool would push problems away from Piccadilly to Victoria and elsewhere because it would be swamped with commuters using intercity end door stock. There is sufficient demand for a third TPE service to Liverpool which would be a good choice for Middlesbrough and could be replaced by a Northern service e.g. Burnley.

 

[furnessvale]

IIRC, the monorail was a very short-lived alternative to the Pic-Vic scheme and I don't recall it ever being taken seriously.

At the time, I was working as a civil engineer for BR. A friend of mine was promoted onto the team working on Picc-Vic. Whilst I cannot be certain about the timescales involved, my distinct recollection is that the flirtation with monorails, however short, came at a critical time and scuppered Picc-Vic.

George

 

[snowball]

GMPTE may not have helped matters by insisting on an excessively long tunnel with a whole clatter of city centre stations. A straight Piccadilly-Victoria link with a station in the central area halfway along the tunnel would have provided a railway station within 10 minutes' walk of the whole central area

A straight Picc-Vic tunnel would surely have been impossible given that the line has to be heading roughly WNW at Piccadilly and ENE at Victoria.

 

[LM93]

Not that I want to ask a question that's already been asked, but is this still sat with the 'Digital Railway' team to come up with a solution or is it with another part of NR? And what deadline have they been given?

 

[cle]

The Met to Alty, is what, 12 tph? Firstly, that is demand generated by Metrolink itself - but secondly, how on earth would we handle those trains through Oxford Road?!

People quacking on about the Altrincham heavy rail (via Sale) need a reality check. Mancheseter to Oldham/Shaw-Rochdale services are kicked out of Victoria too. This is only a good thing.

The fact is that Manchester needs even more rail capacity (and to run longer, double doored, electric services) - not wistful rail nostalgia.

 

[B&I]

A straight Picc-Vic tunnel would surely have been impossible given that the line has to be heading roughly WNW at Piccadilly and ENE at Victoria.

Straight, as in not performing a florid detour via Oxford Road.

 

[B&I]

The Met to Alty, is what, 12 tph? Firstly, that is demand generated by Metrolink itself - but secondly, how on earth would we handle those trains through Oxford Road?!

People quacking on about the Altrincham heavy rail (via Sale) need a reality check. Mancheseter to Oldham/Shaw-Rochdale services are kicked out of Victoria too. This is only a good thing.

The fact is that Manchester needs even more rail capacity (and to run longer, double doored, electric services) - not wistful rail nostalgia.

I fully agree that it needs more rail capacity. I lament that a plan to deliver this 45 years ago did not succeed.

 

[Mollman]

As for the Holy Grail of the GM S-Bahn, well that can only become a reality if a new cross-Manchester alignment can be built for longer distance InterCity services to clear the way for high frequency commuter trains. Otherwise you have exactly the same problems as seen today.

However GM needs first to decide what it actually wants, a S-Bahn heavy rail solution, a <cough> tram-train solution, or continual expansion of MetroLink. All things being equal, and viewed from afar I'd say the latter is not only the most likely but probably preferable, as the infrastructure is tried and tested there <dons tin hat>. Some cities further east would snatch a your arm off for even a fraction of the current and planned MetroLink network...

The issue is that MetroLink is fine for routes like Eccles and Ashton but the conversion of the Oldham loop saw an increase in journey time for or a need to change at Rochdale for many stops. If Tram-Trains are introduced on routes like the Atherton and Marple lines there needs to be an assurance that journeys times will not be significantly increased.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

......but the conversion of the Oldham loop saw an increase in journey time for or a need to change at Rochdale for many stops.

The Oldham loop line had the east-facing terminal bay platform at Rochdale station for services that terminated there.

 

[Bantamzen]

The issue is that MetroLink is fine for routes like Eccles and Ashton but the conversion of the Oldham loop saw an increase in journey time for or a need to change at Rochdale for many stops. If Tram-Trains are introduced on routes like the Atherton and Marple lines there needs to be an assurance that journeys times will not be significantly increased.

That's the idea behind tram-trains isn't it? To be able to run units along conventional lines at regular speeds, but also then be used on stree sections.

 

[142Pilot]

Tram trains are expensive, and offer little more than what the Atherton line gets now.

I don't get the clamour for it on the Atherton line. Its a very valuable diversion route to the wcml and would require lots of work for OLE.

 

[Bletchleyite]

1. Because the service is laughable.

2. It’s nothing of the sort unless the 25kV goes up.

 

[AndrewE]

The Met to Alty, is what, 12 tph?

and takes 26 minutes for less than 9 miles! A lot of people could do it more quickly by bike.

The fact is that Manchester needs even more rail capacity (and to run longer, double doored, electric services) - not wistful rail nostalgia.

it's not wistful nostalgia, it's a wish for proper heavy rail speeds and capacity on major radial routes. A tram stopping every few hundred yards isn't what is needed. So we can agree on your last sentence.
There needs to be a way of reinstating the rail service, maybe by diverting the trams onto some parallel alignment, or just recognising it is the wrong tool for the job and upgrading it back to heavy rail.
You might deal with the line capacity problem by thinning out other services to fit these in, or recognise that double-decking Oxford Rd to Piccadilly will have to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

and takes 26 minutes for less than 9 miles!

Merseyrail speeds are very similar; Picc Vic would have been like that with PEP EMUs and all stations services every 15 minutes or so. What are you after, a non stop service at the expense of the local stations?

 

[AndrewE]

Merseyrail speeds are very similar; Picc Vic would have been like that with PEP EMUs and all stations services every 15 minutes or so. What are you after, a non stop service at the expense of the local stations?

Fair point, I see that the Euston DC line does 9 stops over the same distance in about 23 mins. However the 25kV AC 319s out of Lime St take just 21 minutes for 7 stops over about the same distance.
It is possible to path a fast train just before the next stopper, overtaking the previous one somewhere like Altrincham on the way to somewhere further out...

 

[142Pilot]

1. Because the service is laughable.

2. It’s nothing of the sort unless the 25kV goes up.

Who says the service is laughable?

It gets 3tph and rising, and the issue of what happens to the "tram train" when it hits the crescent is still unclear. It also allows through trains to Southport and Kirkby instead of changing at wallgate.


Also the OLE issue would be highlighted if and when northwestern to lostock gets wired. They don't mix very well when the proper train wires get near the flimsy tram OLE.


I haven't heard of a good practical reason why it would be better.

Unless you believe it's going to get 12 minutely services. Which is debatable to say the least.

 

[Altfish]

and takes 26 minutes for less than 9 miles! A lot of people could do it more quickly by bike.

But, if as most people do, you want to get to Piccadilly Gardens or St Peter's Square it is quicker than any heavy train was/is because of the walk. And with the Exchange Square stop the shops of the Arndale are easily reached.
I also spent 4-years at college in Newcastle and the walk from Deansgate to Victoria with luggage was not great.

it's not wistful nostalgia, it's a wish for proper heavy rail speeds and capacity on major radial routes. A tram stopping every few hundred yards isn't what is needed. So we can agree on your last sentence.
There needs to be a way of reinstating the rail service, maybe by diverting the trams onto some parallel alignment, or just recognising it is the wrong tool for the job and upgrading it back to heavy rail.
You might deal with the line capacity problem by thinning out other services to fit these in, or recognise that double-decking Oxford Rd to Piccadilly will have to happen.

If you take the Altrincham line, there is one more stop between Altrincham and Deansgate than the heavy trains had; so, "...stopping every few hundred yards ,,," is somewhat of an exaggeration.
And putting the trains back on the Altrincham line will add yet more congestion to the already crowded Deansgate to Piccadilly section. In fact the removal of the Altrincham trains was one of the drivers for the trams.
If you ask most non-train enthusiasts they would prefer the tram because of the penetration into the city; they are also at street level so no need for dark subways and escalators.

 

[transmanche]

and takes 26 minutes for less than 9 miles! A lot of people could do it more quickly by bike. it's not wistful nostalgia, it's a wish for proper heavy rail speeds and capacity on major radial routes.

The MSJ&A electrics took 22 minutes for a London Road (Piccadilly) to Altrincham run at the time of nationalisation: it was 20 minutes for Oxford Road to Altrincham at the end of the DC era - so pretty much unchanged.

If it's 26 mins today (with more stops and some on-street running) that seems pretty good to me. I think most people would prefer the more frequent service of 10 trams per hour to the heart of the city over 3 trains per hour to Oxford Road - even if it is a couple of minutes slower.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The MSJ&A electrics took 22 minutes for a London Road (Piccadilly) to Altrincham run at the time of nationalisation

11 minutes express, 13 for the 304's.

 

[transmanche]

11 minutes express, 13 for the 304's.

I'm not sure that express timings are relevant for comparing all-stations timings.

This is from a 1960s DC timetable. Are you saying that the AC electrics did the same journey 7 minutes faster than their DC predecessors?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Are you saying that the AC electrics did the same journey 7 minutes faster than their DC predecessors?

No, they were 2 minutes slower.

 

[B&I]

The issue is that MetroLink is fine for routes like Eccles and Ashton but the conversion of the Oldham loop saw an increase in journey time for or a need to change at Rochdale for many stops. If Tram-Trains are introduced on routes like the Atherton and Marple lines there needs to be an assurance that journeys times will not be significantly increased.

And that through railway routes will not be broken up to the detriment of wider connections (as happened with the Altrincham line)

 

[fowler9]

Undoubtedly the timetable change has been disastrous for performance on the CLC line, and most of the other lines out of Manchester. But the chaos has multiple causes, as discussed at length in this and other threads. Not specifically due to the swap of the TPE and Northern services between the CLC and Chat Moss lines.

My point was that, on the occasions the trains do still run on time, this swap has benefitted some users of the Scarborough and Buxton services. It has also provided a direct service from South Parkway and Birchwood to Manchester Airport.

Yeah I get your point but to be honest as a South Liverpool resident getting to Manchester Airport wasn't that great a burden anyway. I really am delighted that people in Scarborough and Buxton can get to Manchester more easily but when it comes to commuters surely Merseyside provides more, also don't the trains get to Victoria before it all goes t*ts up at Oxford Road and Picadilly? It's not like they can't get to Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fair point, I see that the Euston DC line does 9 stops over the same distance in about 23 mins. However the 25kV AC 319s out of Lime St take just 21 minutes for 7 stops over about the same distance.

Each stop in itself adds a minute to two, realistically (the time stopped and the time lost from slowing down and speeding up), so that's comparable. A 319 accelerates similarly to a 508. A tram accelerates rather more quickly!

 

[cle]

The MSJ&A electrics took 22 minutes for a London Road (Piccadilly) to Altrincham run at the time of nationalisation: it was 20 minutes for Oxford Road to Altrincham at the end of the DC era - so pretty much unchanged.

If it's 26 mins today (with more stops and some on-street running) that seems pretty good to me. I think most people would prefer the more frequent service of 10 trams per hour to the heart of the city over 3 trains per hour to Oxford Road - even if it is a couple of minutes slower.

Exactly. The tram is far more likely to get people closer to where they need to be.
Frequency is a part of journey time too - take the average wait (if you didn't check a timetable) today vs 1980. Add it to the ride time.

There is no way of putting those trams alongside the rail line! Navvy Road isn't even sorted... it's more popular than ever, and would be a huge obstacle today in terms of capacity through the Castlefield Corridor.

Lots of old rail times were shorter than today. There are many reasons why, but it's a very small part of the story.

 

[B&I]

Exactly. The tram is far more likely to get people closer to where they need to be.
Frequency is a part of journey time too - take the average wait (if you didn't check a timetable) today vs 1980. Add it to the ride time.

There is no way of putting those trams alongside the rail line! Navvy Road isn't even sorted... it's more popular than ever, and would be a huge obstacle today in terms of capacity through the Castlefield Corridor.

Lots of old rail times were shorter than today. There are many reasons why, but it's a very small part of the story.

Of course you'd have problems running the volume of trains which once ran on the Altrincham electric line (6 TPH ?) into Oxford Road or Piccadilly with the current volume of trains using Castlefield. I don't think, however, that's what anyone's arguing for. The Picc-Vic plan could have removed at least some of what currently uses Castlefield. It could have removed more if connected to additional lines eg Bolton via Clifton. This diagram suggests that Altrincham services were intended to run at least to Piccadilly, perhaps beyond towards the Glossop line (though that would have required an Ardwick viaduct to make it workable);

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAz2HyT.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f

In those days, Victoria could have been used for all the services from the east, north east, west and north west which currently trundle round Castlefield. As there would have been a cross-city rail link, there would have been far less need to clog up Castlefield with services from those directions.

 

[Greybeard33]

Yeah I get your point but to be honest as a South Liverpool resident getting to Manchester Airport wasn't that great a burden anyway. I really am delighted that people in Scarborough and Buxton can get to Manchester more easily but when it comes to commuters surely Merseyside provides more, also don't the trains get to Victoria before it all goes t*ts up at Oxford Road and Picadilly? It's not like they can't get to Manchester.

Fair enough. The CLC does seem to be particularly hard hit by the Oxford Road congestion. Looking at RTT for today, the majority of westbound CLC trains, both Northern and EMT, were either delayed or cancelled, all day long. And I see that Northern is still routinely cancelling some of the CLC stoppers, despite the promise that they would have enough traincrew to operate their full timetable from September.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is the not insignificant matter of the number of recent Saturdays from 1st September and certain weekdays prior to that the commuter and shopping Altrincham to Manchester Metrolink route has still provided transportation on RMT strike days.