Should the Hadfield/Glossop line be converted to Metrolink?

[Bletchleyite]

You might be able to trim a minute or two off the Piccadilly end of the route, but it's still going to keep Glossop/ Hadfield the same duration for Manchester commuters as Dewsbury/ Stoke/ Preston, despite being around thirteen miles as the crow flies from central Manchester - not very attractive for passengers - no wonder the M67 is so busy!

But, if you like keeping things the way they were under British Rail then fair enough.

Yet Merseyrail passengers don't care that they are in a similar position - Ormskirk takes about 35 minutes now despite being about 10 miles, for example. What they like is the simplicity, consistency and frequency, and 35 minutes is just what it takes to go to Liverpool city centre - the car simply doesn't enter into consideration.

That being the case, if Metrolink took it over with the standard 5 tram per hour (every 12 minutes) frequency, they'd probably lap it up, whereas an hourly fast and hourly stopper would be less, not more popular, because that requires reading a timetable, and a 20 minute journey time would be great unless it leaves you standing around at your destination for half an hour as the times didn't suit.

 

[scrapy]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...he-rose-hill-marple-line.208857/#post-4758773



I'm not sure there's really much benefit in converting Hadfield/Glossop. It's already a 25kV wired "S-Bahn", and there's scope to increase frequency if it got busier (it was 3tph for a bit). OK, that's not much different to Altrincham, but I think that was more picked because (a) it's a bit posh, so higher demand at high Metrolink fares, and (b) you had to pick somewhere to link to Bury, which was going to need something doing to it because the third rail kit was life expired, and (c) it got something off Castlefield.

Altrincham was picked over Glossop due to the huge cost and liability of maintenance of Dinting viaduct which would fall on GMPTE (now TFGM) rather than BR and was in need of refurbishment. They would then be left with maintaining a viaduct that only serves stations outside the GM area. (Yes I know it's in their ticketing area, but High Peak council (or what ever it was then) aren't part of GMPTE).

 

[Ianno87]

Yet Merseyrail passengers don't care that they are in a similar position - Ormskirk takes about 35 minutes now despite being about 10 miles, for example. What they like is the simplicity, consistency and frequency, and 35 minutes is just what it takes to go to Liverpool city centre - the car simply doesn't enter into consideration.

That being the case, if Metrolink took it over with the standard 5 tram per hour (every 12 minutes) frequency, they'd probably lap it up, whereas an hourly fast and hourly stopper would be less, not more popular, because that requires reading a timetable, and a 20 minute journey time would be great unless it leaves you standing around at your destination for half an hour as the times didn't suit.

Different to Merseyrail is that on Merseyrail the intermediate markets are just as important as end-to-end.

Glossop*-Manchester is a pretty strong flow in itself relative to intermediate traffic. The line doesn't function as a 'metro' in the same way.

*Glossop is the 3rd busiest station in Derbyshire! (Last statistics put it over 1m passengers per year for the first time)

 

[daodao]

Though on Glossop's case, the acceleration for the number of stops probably cancels out the speedy dwell times that used to be achieved with slam door stock.

If my memory serves me correctly, from my one and only journey to Glossop by rail many years ago, and as confirmed by Wikipedia (!), the unique Glossop line electric trains built specifically for that route were equipped with sliding doors, not slam doors.

 

[Whistler40145]

Where would you split the Metrolink line from the Network Rail network, considering that trains towards Leeds use the line between Manchester Piccadilly and Guide Bridge?

 

[Ianno87]

If my memory serves me correctly, from my one and only journey to Glossop by rail many years ago, and as confirmed by Wikipedia, the Glossop line electric trains were equipped with sliding doors, not slam doors.

That would have been the Class 303s used between the AC conversion and about 1989.

Slam-door 304s/305s were then used until 323s took over in 1997.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2020 ==

Where would you split the Metrolink line from the Network Rail network, considering that trains towards Leeds use the line between Manchester Piccadilly and Guide Bridge?

Aside from using tram-trains, I think the idea would have been to reinstate the old 4-track formation* between Guide Bridge and Ashburys-ish, with flyovers where required.

Although the squeeze under the more recently-built M60 bridge would be "interesting".


Another factor to consider is that the route *fairly* closely parallels the Ashton Metrolink line, so also being Metrolink wouldn't be "good" transport planning in that respect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If my memory serves me correctly, from my one and only journey to Glossop by rail many years ago, and as confirmed by Wikipedia, the unique Glossop line electric trains built specifically for that route were equipped with sliding doors, not slam doors.

They were, but once the line was converted to 25kV, Class 305s (I think) were used for a while which had London commuter style slam doors to each seating bay.

 

[Whistler40145]

When was the Ashburys to Guide Bridge section reduced to two tracks?

 

[daodao]

That would have been the Class 303s used between the AC conversion and about 1989. Slam-door 304s/305s were then used until 323s took over in 1997.

The trains that I recall were built specifically for and confined to the Glossop line. There was no connection across Piccadilly with the MSJ&A line trains that used the same electrification system and were slam door stock, and in any case would have been precluded post 1960 with the new LNW line electrified system. I left NW England in 1982 and didn't return to live in the area until 2005.

 

[Ianno87]

The trains that I recall were built specifically for and confined to the Glossop line. There was no connection across Piccadilly with the MSJ&A line trains that used the same electrification system and were slam door stock, and in any case would have been precluded post 1960 with the new LNW line electrified system. I left NW England in 1982 and didn't return to live in the area until 2005.

Ah, those would be the Class 506s when the line was still DC. Plus that would have been on the old 'main line' double track layout (e.g. at Dinting), and stations that dodn't exist at the time (e.g Godley / Hattersley / Flowery Field)

 

[Halifaxlad]

For the sake of clarity: I do not advocate reopening the Woodhead line!

I do advocate a new line from Sheffield connecting Manchester via Hadfield or Glossop, hence why Im against conversion to tram/Metrolink.

 

[A0]

For the sake of clarity: I do not advocate reopening the Woodhead line!

I do advocate a new line from Sheffield connecting Manchester via Hadfield or Glossop, hence why Im against conversion to tram/Metrolink.

The obvious question is why?

There isn't the need for another Manchester - Sheffield line if Hope Valley is upgraded as that will provide capacity. And why would a new line have to go via Hadfield / Glossop ?

 

[Revaulx]

When was the Ashburys to Guide Bridge section reduced to two tracks?

60s I think. Probably not long after Gorton shed closed (1965 as per Wonkypedia).

Guide Bridge itself remained four track until the Woodhead closure. And remarkably busy; certainly up to the final year or so.

 

[FQTV]

Something needs to be done.

Taking around forty minutes for Manchester - Glossop (a distance of under fifteen miles) - enthusiasts bang on about the amazing acceleration skills of the 90mph 323s (e.g. when compared to 319s) but the Glossop line doesn't seem a great advert for them. Maybe four/hour with some skip stopping would speed things up a bit but there's not many stations to skip, so it'd only be a minute or two, and would mean complications for pathing around the triangle. Maybe half hourly to Hadfield and half hourly to Glossop and turn the north-eastern side of the triangle into a token parliamentary service?

For me, I think a "solution" would be to treat Glossop the same as New Mills and Rose Hill (Marple) - same traction - whether "tram"/ "tram-train"/ "EMU".

If it's EMU then that means something that can utilise the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly fairly well, in the way that 333s interwork at Leeds to avoid hogging platforms. If it's tram-based then you've got various services to run through in central Manchester.

Forget about grand designs of Woodhead, focus on something that will be of practical use to everyday passengers.

Compared to a great number of places, the square root of nothing at all needs to be done. It’s a good service, that meets demand well.

Glossop’s not Knutsford.

 

[Ianno87]

Compared to a great number of places, the square root of nothing at all needs to be done. It’s a good service, that meets demand well.

Regular snarl ups at both ends of the M67 and through Hollingworth might suggest otherwise, and that some demand potential is being lost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regular snarl ups at both ends of the M67 and through Hollingworth might suggest otherwise, and that some demand potential is being lost.

That completely ignores that most people driving along there aren't heading for Hadfield or Glossop, but rather the Snake and Woodhead Passes and onwards to the rather larger destination of Sheffield and environs. If you want to reduce that traffic, playing with the Hadfield and Glossop service won't make much of an inroad - you need to sort out the Manchester to Sheffield/Barnsley train service which is to be honest utterly dire (so much so that Hulleys of Baslow think a competing bus service will work). Or, and I know this isn't the done thing in 2020, build the rest of the M67.

It's certainly the case that people who live on Merseyrail tend not to even consider driving to Liverpool, because it's just not worth the faff. As the service is quite similar to Merseyrail (OK, Sunday frequency, but still), I'd imagine there's not much growing of it to be done.

 

[FQTV]

Regular snarl ups at both ends of the M67 and through Hollingworth might suggest otherwise, and that some demand potential is being lost.

That’s absolutely right, but looking at a more generic picture, to take the letter ‘S’ as a random initial only, do Skelmersdale or Spennymoor benefit from an electric service like Glossop, or could ever hope for one?

 

[yorksrob]

Regular snarl ups at both ends of the M67 and through Hollingworth might suggest otherwise, and that some demand potential is being lost.

I don't see that at all quite frankly. There are regular snarl ups on the motorways into London, yet that city has some of the best public transport in the world.

 

[Ianno87]

That completely ignores that most people driving along there aren't heading for Hadfield or Glossop, but rather the Snake and Woodhead Passes and onwards to the rather larger destination of Sheffield and environs. If you want to reduce that traffic, playing with the Hadfield and Glossop service won't make much of an inroad - you need to sort out the Manchester to Sheffield/Barnsley train service which is to be honest utterly dire (so much so that Hulleys of Baslow think a competing bus service will work). Or, and I know this isn't the done thing in 2020, build the rest of the M67.

It's certainly the case that people who live on Merseyrail tend not to even consider driving to Liverpool, because it's just not worth the faff. As the service is quite similar to Merseyrail (OK, Sunday frequency, but still), I'd imagine there's not much growing of it to be done.

The obvious thing lacking is some sort of Park & Ride capturing cross-Pennine traffic via Woodhead (from a range of origins) ound for Central Manchester.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2020 ==

I don't see that at all quite frankly. There are regular snarl ups on the motorways into London, yet that city has some of the best public transport in the world.

Snarl ups where public transport is not adequately satisfying demand.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The obvious thing lacking is some sort of Park & Ride capturing cross-Pennine traffic via Woodhead (from a range of origins) ound for Central Manchester.

That's an interesting idea. Driving to Manchester from the Snake Pass you go right past Glossop station (and I *think* the Snake is busier than Woodhead?). But is there room for a bigger car park and a sign? Even with the half hour journey time it's still quicker than driving it and faffing about finding somewhere to park.

The other problem, though, is that not every car coming over the Snake/Woodhead is going to central Manchester, either. I have driven over both lots of times, and on no occasion was my origin or destination in Greater Manchester.

 

[Ianno87]

That's an interesting idea. Driving to Manchester from the Snake Pass you go right past Glossop station. But is there room for a bigger car park and a sign? Even with the half hour journey time it's still quicker than driving it and faffing about finding somewhere to park.

Biggest car parks on the route seem to be Broadbottom (hardly convenient down country lanes) or Guide Bridge (by which point you've sat through most of the traffic anyway).

"Mottram Parkway" would probably be the best way of capturing it.

 

[yorksrob]

The obvious thing lacking is some sort of Park & Ride capturing cross-Pennine traffic via Woodhead (from a range of origins) ound for Central Manchester.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2020 ==



Snarl ups where public transport is not adequately satisfying demand.

There probably are places where public transport isn't satisfying demand. Most likely places without it, rather than places on the Glosdop line that have a very good service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Mottram Parkway" would probably be the best way of capturing it.

I struggle to see where you'd put one, TBH. Broadbottom is too much of a quainte olde Englishe village, and you wouldn't leave your car parked in Hattersley for any longer than absolutely necessary (it's basically Wythenshawe-in-the-Peak). Back of Gamesley at a push maybe?

Edit: a bit of Google Streetview-ing suggests it's the same as Hattersley, so maybe not

Probably just easier to get the long-threatened Mottram bypass built, TBH, it's around Mottram that you get most of the problems. Then a big car park at Denton at the Manchester end of the M67?

 

[Ianno87]

There probably are places where public transport isn't satisfying demand. Most likely places without it, rather than places on the Glosdop line that have a very good service.

Glossop is quite a good service. But quite slow for the distance against the car journey time (in clear traffic at least).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Glossop is quite a good service. But quite slow for the distance against the car journey time (in clear traffic at least).

The passenger loadings on the Merseyrail Southport and Chester lines (those being the longer two which are both far slower than driving) would suggest that people don't really care provided it's frequent, reasonably comfortable, not too expensive and avoids the general unpleasantness of driving in town. I'd still venture that most people stuck in jams at Mottram are not headed for nor originating at Manchester city centre, TBH.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Driving to Manchester from the Snake Pass you go right past Glossop station (and I *think* the Snake is busier than Woodhead?).

Woodhead Road (A628) tends to be busier than the Snake Road (A57) due primarily to the number of HGVs using it.

Particularly busy on the section where the A628 and A57 then meet at Hollingworth and up the steep(ish) hill through Mottram to the M67.