Should we replace heavy rail lines with Metrolink?

[daodao]

The existing rail overbridge over Roscoe's roundabout in Cheadle would surely need to be replaced unless I am mistaken in thinking it is only a single track bridge, which is in a location area of where a slip road from the M60 motorway is situated.

I thought that this was called Boundary Bridge, as it coincides with the old boundary of the former Stockport CBC. I don't see that this is relevant to the modern Metrolink system or possible future extensions, but it was a terminus for many years of Stockport's first generation tramway after the closure (in 1931) of the Gatley extension. My late father recalled catching a tram to Boundary Bridge c1950 when he worked at Barnes Hospital.

 

[Greybeard33]

I thought that this was called Boundary Bridge, as it coincides with the old boundary of the former Stockport CBC. I don't see that this is relevant to the modern Metrolink system or possible future extensions, but it was a terminus for many years of Stockport's first generation tramway after the closure (in 1931) of the Gatley extension. My late father recalled catching a tram to Boundary Bridge c1950 when he worked at Barnes Hospital.

You are referring to the original double track bridge over Stockport Road, which is still in situ over the eastern side of Roscoe's roundabout. The roundabout was constructed in 1974 to form the eastern terminus of the M63 (now part of the M60) where it joined Stockport Road (A560). As the railway goes across the middle of the roundabout a second bridge was needed over the western side. The line had already been singled and so the bridge was built as single track.

The other single track bridge, built at the same time, is a bit further west at M60 J3. It crosses over the slip road from the motorway to the A34 southbound.

 

[Chester1]

I thought that this was called Boundary Bridge, as it coincides with the old boundary of the former Stockport CBC. I don't see that this is relevant to the modern Metrolink system or possible future extensions, but it was a terminus for many years of Stockport's first generation tramway after the closure (in 1931) of the Gatley extension. My late father recalled catching a tram to Boundary Bridge c1950 when he worked at Barnes Hospital.

Stockport to Baguley, then down Airport line is a TfGM proposed tram train route so its relevant. The single track section west of the junction 3 slipway bridge could redoubled without major works. That would reduce the bottleneck by about 750 metres. Next time Stockport is resignalled the line could be redoubled east of Roscoes roundabout, removing most the bottleneck. In the event of tram train service being introduced there should be adequate funding for replacing both bridges.

 

[daodao]

Stockport to Baguley, then down Airport line is a TfGM proposed tram train route so its relevant. The single track section west of the junction 3 slipway bridge could redoubled without major works. That would reduce the bottleneck by about 750 metres. Next time Stockport is resignalled the line could be redoubled east of Roscoes roundabout, removing most the bottleneck. In the event of tram train service being introduced there should be adequate funding for replacing both bridges.

I should have used the phrase "probable future extensions". I don't realistically envisage sufficient demand to justify orbital Metrolink lines in the future, as distinct from lines running to/from central Manchester (which might be slightly indirect in places). Some of TfGM's 2040 Metrolink map is the work of crayonistas.

The Stockport-Altrincham line is really not suitable for Metrolink, given its single track sections, current heavy freight use and use by passenger trains to the mid Cheshire line (including possibly North Wales if option C of the current Manchester Recovery Taskforce Timetable consultation is implemented).

 

[HSTEd]

Yes just kill the chemical industry, which has existed in Northwich since 1873 and transported large quantities of limestone by rail ever since

The Lostock Gralam works actually don't interfere with the two tracks between Northwich and Manchester, there are four tracks south from their siding to the Northwich station, so rail access to the plant would not be lost completely.

, for no reason.

For the purpose of providing people with public transport they might actually use?

It's unlikely Northwich would get a tram departing every 5 or 10 minutes in that scenario so while some people might welcome a frequency improvement, others won't welcome the loss of their jobs to accommodate them.

Why wouldn't they get (atleast) the 12 minute tram service used for every other service pattern on the network?
Providing a conventional tram route on that service pattern would only require five or six additional trams.

Trying to provide it with a dedicated tram train service will require far more rolling stock, simply because the existing fleet could not be used.

Then we add in Metrolink to Hazel Grove and/or south Stockport, via a short extension of the line at Parrs Wood.

 

[peters]

The Lostock Gralam works actually don't interfere with the two tracks between Northwich and Manchester, there are four tracks south from their siding to the Northwich station, so rail access to the plant would not be lost completely.

OK so how are you going to create extra paths on the West Coast Mainline so that freight get from Chinley to Lostock Gralam by going via Wilmslow and reversing somewhere near Sandbach to go up the Middlewich line to Northwich? Maybe if the Cardiff to Manchester services terminate at Crewe that would free up paths for freight? How far are you going to go in order to get freight off the line through Altrincham?

Why wouldn't they get (atleast) the 12 minute tram service used for every other service pattern on the network?

Look at the studies TfGM have done, they are suggesting any service beyond Hale would be around every 20 minutes.

"A limited stop tram-train would operate every 20 minutes" https://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansb...2/08/Altrincham-Greenbank-Report-REDACTED.pdf (page 14)

There's another, more recent, one as well which suggested tram-trains every 5 minutes to Altrincham, every 10 to Hale and every 20 to Knutsford and not going beyond Knutsford. They decided even the Hale option wasn't a suitable option and wanted to progress with heavy rail improvements instead.

It seems any proposals to run more than 3 services to Knutsford or to remove freight from the line have been deemed unworkable.

 

[Greybeard33]

Stockport to Baguley, then down Airport line is a TfGM proposed tram train route so its relevant. The single track section west of the junction 3 slipway bridge could redoubled without major works. That would reduce the bottleneck by about 750 metres. Next time Stockport is resignalled the line could be redoubled east of Roscoes roundabout, removing most the bottleneck. In the event of tram train service being introduced there should be adequate funding for replacing both bridges.

Reducing the length of the single track section would provide very little benefit. You need to redouble it completely to get a worthwhile increase in line capacity.

In respect of capacity, the effective length of the single track bottleneck is extended by the overlap distance from the protecting signal, plus the additional distance back to the preceding distant signal, where an approaching train has to commence braking if the single track is occupied by an oncoming train. About a mile on this 75mph line.

You just have to make a value judgement - I happen to view the conversion of the Mid Cheshire line to multiple Metrolink branches as a greater benefit than the relative handful of freight trains.

Looking at RTT for a random day last week, there was a total of 17 freight trains that actually ran through Altrincham (plus plenty more unused paths). These could only be rerouted by removing passenger services from the WCML.

The freight flows have far more economic value than the relative handful of passengers who used the hourly Piccadilly - Chester DMU service pre-Covid.

Knutsford and Northwich are small towns in rural Cheshire, surrounded by farmland. No way could they support a high frequency Metrolink service to Manchester.

 

[geordieblue]

Firstly, I didn't say Metrolink dissatisfaction is because people prefer trains to trams. Metrolink dissatisfaction is because fares are going up and the service is getting worse not better, especially for Altrincham line passengers. Do you even have passenger numbers for the Altrincham line? I guess passenger numbers for the entire network have been going up at a rapid rate because the number of lines and services have increased a lot over the past 10 years.

Secondly, Knutsford is one of the most expensive places to live in the north of England. A service provided by a class 150 train every hour, which takes the long route to Manchester should go down badly with Knutsford residents, where car ownership is high and city centre parking isn't unaffordable for a lot of people. Yet a town with a population of less than 14,000 gets around 500,000 rail journeys per annum. The train service in Knutsford is very much another case of people use what's available to them because there isn't a better alternative.

I don't see any sneering at trams on this forum, I see 2 or 3 people who are obviously pro-tram wanting to view Metrolink with rose tinted glasses and being unwilling to accept real negative feedback from passengers who actually use the service. It's also interesting the pro-tram forum members don't seem to be from Greater Manchester, how do you know how good Metrolink is unless you use it regularly?

Fares going up is called inflation. It happens on the real railway too (to shrieks of horror from the press every January). It may be that Metrolink fares are higher than you think they are worth but that's beside the point; Metrolink paid for itself pre-pandemic, suggesting that the cost is actually working well.
You then suggest that Metrolink numbers are increasing because the network is growing, as if this is a bad thing. Why do networks grow? Because they're unpopular? Nope. Metrolink has managed more extensions in its lifetime than line reopenings in the north of England since the millennium and vastly benefited Greater Manchester. The biggest losers have probably been those in Cheshire but it is frankly churlish to complain about a slightly extended journey to central Manchester when millions of Mancunians have an improved service (and, by the way, it's their town - you don't live in Manchester (I assume) so why should commuters from wealthy Cheshire be prioritised over people who live there?) For context, I fully support better services for Knutsford et al., but blaming Metrolink for infrequent trains isn't entirely logical.
Fair point about the rose-tinted spectacles. I am, generally, pro-light rail (which is what Metrolink is, really, with fairly limited sections of street running compared to most tramways). I also don't live in Manchester and have only used the tram twice. That said, I was lucky enough to grow in a city with a fantastic light rail network (Newcastle) and am well aware of the benefits of light rail in general. I'd suggest that your opposition to Metrolink seems more ideological than pragmatic - 'dark-tinted spectacles', if you will - you prefer trains to light rail. I've tried both, and in urban areas, metros and trams are by far the better option.

 

[HSTEd]

Looking at RTT for a random day last week, there was a total of 17 freight trains that actually ran through Altrincham (plus plenty more unused paths). These could only be rerouted by removing passenger services from the WCML.

Well its a good thing we are currently spending huge sums on a scheme that's primary purpose is to remove passenger trains from the WCML!

Also biomass would just be short shipped on a coastal freighter to the Drax importation quay, its not going to go to road. Or just deep sea shipped to a closer port.

The freight flows have far more economic value than the relative handful of passengers who used the hourly Piccadilly - Chester DMU service pre-Covid.

Well that might have something to do with the hourly DMU being nearly worthless as a serious transport system?

Knutsford and Northwich are small towns in rural Cheshire, surrounded by farmland. No way could they support a high frequency Metrolink service to Manchester.

There is also the uplift from Hale to think of.

The marginal cost of running the tram a bit further out is not that dramatic.

 

[Purple Orange]

Fares going up is called inflation. It happens on the real railway too (to shrieks of horror from the press every January). It may be that Metrolink fares are higher than you think they are worth but that's beside the point; Metrolink paid for itself pre-pandemic, suggesting that the cost is actually working well.
You then suggest that Metrolink numbers are increasing because the network is growing, as if this is a bad thing. Why do networks grow? Because they're unpopular? Nope. Metrolink has managed more extensions in its lifetime than line reopenings in the north of England since the millennium and vastly benefited Greater Manchester. The biggest losers have probably been those in Cheshire but it is frankly churlish to complain about a slightly extended journey to central Manchester when millions of Mancunians have an improved service (and, by the way, it's their town - you don't live in Manchester (I assume) so why should commuters from wealthy Cheshire be prioritised over people who live there?) For context, I fully support better services for Knutsford et al., but blaming Metrolink for infrequent trains isn't entirely logical.
Fair point about the rose-tinted spectacles. I am, generally, pro-light rail (which is what Metrolink is, really, with fairly limited sections of street running compared to most tramways). I also don't live in Manchester and have only used the tram twice. That said, I was lucky enough to grow in a city with a fantastic light rail network (Newcastle) and am well aware of the benefits of light rail in general. I'd suggest that your opposition to Metrolink seems more ideological than pragmatic - 'dark-tinted spectacles', if you will - you prefer trains to light rail. I've tried both, and in urban areas, metros and trams are by far the better option.

Well said. The Tyne & Wear metro is what Metrolonk should be growing in to over the next 20 years. The upshot will be that because it has the street-running lines, the infrastructure already exists in the centre to develop a metro that consists of both rapid light-rail and tram lines, just as we find in many cities in Europe.

This is also where HS2 and NPR come in. Build a network that removes long distance services from the core rail network in the centre, coupled with an underground east-west metro tunnel(s). The result will be a high capacity regional network on the existing heavy rail lines, a metro network for the ex-heavy rail metrolink lines (Altrincham, Bury & East Didsbury, plus Atherton, Glossop & Rose Hill lines), and a tram network that shares tracks with the metro outside the city centre, but now has the capacity for street running through inner-city areas.

 

[Greybeard33]

There is also the uplift from Hale to think of.

The marginal cost of running the tram a bit further out is not that dramatic.

TfGM is planning tram-trains to Hale (which is only half a mile from Altrincham Metrolink). But no further - there is no business case.

 

[daodao]

TfGM is planning tram-trains to Hale (which is only half a mile from Altrincham Metrolink). But no further - there is no business case.

They may be "planning!" it, but it ain't worth the effort and complications that would ensue. It is no use as a park and ride, and it would interfere with other traffic on this line if it is run at a 12 minute frequency. Another tram-train service proposed is the Airport to Wilmslow, but the traffic demand is minimal and Wilmslow/Styal are not even in M/c.

I really don't understand why TfGM don't just prioritise converting the line to Rose Hill via Reddish to Metrolink, as it would be relatively straightforward, does not require extra city centre capacity, would significantly improve the service on this line, and would extend Metrolink into an area of Greater M/c not currently served, including Stockport Borough.

 

[Purple Orange]

They may be "planning! it, but it ain't worth the effort and complications that would ensue. It is no use as a park and ride, and it would interfere with other traffic on this line if it is run at a 12 minute frequency. Another tram-train service proposed is the Airport to Wilmslow, but the traffic demand is minimal and Wilmslow/Styal are not even in M/c.

I really don't understand why TfGM don't just prioritise converting the line to Rose Hill via Reddish to Metrolink, as it would be relatively straightforward, does not require extra city centre capacity, would significantly improve the service on this line, and would extend Metrolink into an area of Greater M/c not currently served, including Stockport Borough.

I suspect it’s all a part of testing the proof of concept. We only have one working example in the U.K. and it is tram-train that will enable greater extension of metro services across Greater Manchester. Therefore it follows that you then open short sections of tram-train usage, before opening up a much longer line.

I don’t see what complications you expect to see, but the Altrincham-Hale extension is similar to the Rotherham extension in South Yorkshire. Hale needs to see a greater frequency of trains, so why not have this done by metrolink rather than the convoluted journey via Stockport.

 

[Jozhua]

That still does not give the answer to the question of where you intend the total daily tonnage of the freight carried by these trains to go and the method used if not by rail.

You state the words "relative handful" in respect of the existing freight trains in your posting and I invite those with operational knowledge of these rail freight movements to give a daily/weekly figure of such trains and the actual tonnage carried.

Yes just kill the chemical industry, which has existed in Northwich since 1873 and transported large quantities of limestone by rail ever since, for no reason. It's unlikely Northwich would get a tram departing every 5 or 10 minutes in that scenario so while some people might welcome a frequency improvement, others won't welcome the loss of their jobs to accommodate them. It's also not necessary to remove freight to accommodate light rail, if Metrolink gets extended beyond Altrincham, alternative suitable vehicles need to be sourced. That's the case with every form of transport, the vehicles used need to be suitable for their purpose.

There is a freight branch located next to the Metrolink line up to Rochdale, where it goes down to single track. (Newton Heath & Moston) It seems to cope okay-ish with fairly frequent trams needing to stop at the single platform station. It's a bottleneck for sure though.

Well said. The Tyne & Wear metro is what Metrolonk should be growing in to over the next 20 years. The upshot will be that because it has the street-running lines, the infrastructure already exists in the centre to develop a metro that consists of both rapid light-rail and tram lines, just as we find in many cities in Europe.

This is also where HS2 and NPR come in. Build a network that removes long distance services from the core rail network in the centre, coupled with an underground east-west metro tunnel(s). The result will be a high capacity regional network on the existing heavy rail lines, a metro network for the ex-heavy rail metrolink lines (Altrincham, Bury & East Didsbury, plus Atherton, Glossop & Rose Hill lines), and a tram network that shares tracks with the metro outside the city centre, but now has the capacity for street running through inner-city areas.

I think that street running and more traditional tram operation is fine for some routes. And indeed I am eager for the existing tram network to grow to cover more areas of the city. But I think it would be best playing to strengths and do more alignments like the Trafford Centre Line, which offers fairly competitive travel times and a lot of interchange options. The Eccles Line is a bit too comprimise-y, but still attracts decent ridership out to Mediacity, perticularly due to those easy interchanges at Cornbrook and now Pamona.

For those ex-heavy rail lines though, dedicated Metro/Light Metro would be the best. I'm not sold on mixing operations too much though. When you introduce vehicles that need to run on the street, you may end up reducing options (such as for automatic operation or general CBTC). Having too many lines branch in and out of each other can compound delays to unrelated parts of the system, something which will be especially present introducing the more flexible schedules of the existing tram network to a more finely tuned metro operation. And it will likely not prove itself neccessary with the through ticketing and good interchange options most of the proposed systems have.

I definately think if we do a tunnel, it's worth doing properly with the latest standards, so automated trains that can run up to at least 62mph (100kph).

 

[plugwash]

For example in theory I would be completely FOR the idea of converting the Piccadilly to Airport line to Metrolink but totally against a route like the CLC being converted to Metrolink, whereby we would effectively be severing an intercity route in half for the benefit of giving Humphrey Park a 12 minute service but then slashing the service for long-distance travellers/commuters who pay more to travel on said route and then causing issues for intercity travellers and commuters when the Chat Moss closes

Afaict the line past Manchester airport is used as a freight and diversion route from manchester to the south, so I don't think converting it to metrolink would fly.

I do think the current service on that line is a case of the airport tail wagging the local/regional public transport dog, but that is a separate issue and could be resolved without converting the line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is a freight branch located next to the Metrolink line up to Rochdale, where it goes down to single track. (Newton Heath & Moston) It seems to cope okay-ish with fairly frequent trams needing to stop at the single platform station. It's a bottleneck for sure though.

REPLY TO THE ABOVE.....Sorry for the way I have responded.

That is not a freight branch, but the line into the Waste Compaction Unit. The original unit is being replaced by a more updated one. Can anyone on the thread say what the number of daily or weekly waste container trains that used this facility.

 

[peters]

Knutsford and Northwich are small towns in rural Cheshire, surrounded by farmland. No way could they support a high frequency Metrolink service to Manchester.

I notice TfGM's proposal for tram-trains to Greenbank involved the services not serving Ashley, Hale, Plumley or Lostock Gralam. I think their second proposal for Knutsford only was for an all-stops service but included a proposal to relocate Mobberley so it could act as a Park & Ride facility. The reality is if everyone living in Ashley used a Metrolink service every day it would still get low loadings compared to Timperley.

Fares going up is called inflation. It happens on the real railway too (to shrieks of horror from the press every January). It may be that Metrolink fares are higher than you think they are worth but that's beside the point; Metrolink paid for itself pre-pandemic, suggesting that the cost is actually working well.

There's inflation plus in the case of Metrolink fares have been restructured twice.

A few years ago it was cheaper to buy a through ticket to a Metrolink station or zone than two separate tickets, that has changed and it's now exactly the same price. So a ticket that was around £7 a few years ago is now something like £11, rather than the £8 it would be with inflation.

Also Metrolink have standardised their fares and now price by zone, for some people that means their fares have dropped in relation to inflation, for others it means fares have increased a lot more than inflation.

I think it was also the case that Oldham line fares increased by around 50% following Metrolink conversion, compared to what they were pre-conversion

You then suggest that Metrolink numbers are increasing because the network is growing, as if this is a bad thing. Why do networks grow? Because they're unpopular? Nope. Metrolink has managed more extensions in its lifetime than line reopenings in the north of England since the millennium and vastly benefited Greater Manchester.

I'm pretty sure the Oldham line conversion was to save money long term. Saving money doesn't always mean a better service is provided, if it was than George Osborne's austerity measures would have been welcomed by everyone.

I'm not sure of the relevance of heavy rail reopenings compared to Metrolink. There isn't one Metrolink service which runs entirely on an old British Rail route and if there was a street running tram wouldn't be the best vehicle for it, even if the line was more suitable for light rail than heavy rail.

The biggest losers have probably been those in Cheshire but it is frankly churlish to complain about a slightly extended journey to central Manchester when millions of Mancunians have an improved service (and, by the way, it's their town - you don't live in Manchester (I assume) so why should commuters from wealthy Cheshire be prioritised over people who live there?) For context, I fully support better services for Knutsford et al., but blaming Metrolink for infrequent trains isn't entirely logical.

I was talking about people who use the Altrincham Metrolink line and live on or near that line becoming less satisfied with the service over the past few years earlier. I only mentioned Knutsford because you mentioned it in your analogy.

That said, I was lucky enough to grow in a city with a fantastic light rail network (Newcastle) and am well aware of the benefits of light rail in general.

I've only used Tyne & Wear Metro once and the impression I got it's more like a small scale London Underground than a small scale Metrolink.

I'd suggest that your opposition to Metrolink seems more ideological than pragmatic - 'dark-tinted spectacles', if you will - you prefer trains to light rail. I've tried both, and in urban areas, metros and trams are by far the better option.

I'm not against Metrolink. Trams can be very useful in some instances but they aren't a solution for all suburban railway lines around Manchester. A German city the same size as Manchester would probably have systems similar to Metrolink, Merseyrail and Tyne & Wear Metro all serving the same city. If 'Metrolink' meant a tram, a tram-train or a suburban train, depending on the route, then converting lines to Metrolink would have a whole different meaning.

Well its a good thing we are currently spending huge sums on a scheme that's primary purpose is to remove passenger trains from the WCML!

The scheme that's going to be finished in 2035-2040? New Metrolink lines shouldn't take 15-20 years to plan and build, so if your proposal is to convert the Northwich route once HS2 is serving Manchester then alternative proposals need to be looked at now, as people won't be happy about waiting that long for improvements.

Also worth remembering you haven't thought about/mentioned what's going to happen to the Altrincham to Stockport and Northwich to Chester heavy rail services in your proposal to run trams to Northwich. I don't think changing twice to get from Delamere to Stockport would be an attractive option for anyone! If you would run tram-trains to Chester then there's no point in doing a full conversion of Altrincham to Northwich and creating problems for freight in the process.

There is also the uplift from Hale to think of.

It was reported, not that long ago, that the Stockport to Chester route has a good business case for AC electrification. What would the cost be of obtaining dual-voltage tram-trains and undertaking the work required to allow trams to turn back at Hale, rather than continuing towards Knutsford? Also note that currently the Metrolink platforms at Altrincham are terminus platforms so infrastructure changes at Altrincham need to be factored in for that short extension.

 

[Greybeard33]

I notice TfGM's proposal for tram-trains to Greenbank involved the services not serving Ashley, Hale, Plumley or Lostock Gralam. I think their second proposal for Knutsford only was for an all-stops service but included a proposal to relocate Mobberley so it could act as a Park & Ride facility. The reality is if everyone living in Ashley used a Metrolink service every day it would still get low loadings compared to Timperley.

TfGM does not have any proposals for tram-trains to Greenbank or Knutsford in its current five year delivery plan.

Our Five Year Transport Delivery Plan

greater manchester transport strategy

tfgm.com

 

[Jozhua]

I notice TfGM's proposal for tram-trains to Greenbank involved the services not serving Ashley, Hale, Plumley or Lostock Gralam. I think their second proposal for Knutsford only was for an all-stops service but included a proposal to relocate Mobberley so it could act as a Park & Ride facility. The reality is if everyone living in Ashley used a Metrolink service every day it would still get low loadings compared to Timperley.



There's inflation plus in the case of Metrolink fares have been restructured twice.

A few years ago it was cheaper to buy a through ticket to a Metrolink station or zone than two separate tickets, that has changed and it's now exactly the same price. So a ticket that was around £7 a few years ago is now something like £11, rather than the £8 it would be with inflation.

Also Metrolink have standardised their fares and now price by zone, for some people that means their fares have dropped in relation to inflation, for others it means fares have increased a lot more than inflation.

I think it was also the case that Oldham line fares increased by around 50% following Metrolink conversion, compared to what they were pre-conversion



I'm pretty sure the Oldham line conversion was to save money long term. Saving money doesn't always mean a better service is provided, if it was than George Osborne's austerity measures would have been welcomed by everyone.

I'm not sure of the relevance of heavy rail reopenings compared to Metrolink. There isn't one Metrolink service which runs entirely on an old British Rail route and if there was a street running tram wouldn't be the best vehicle for it, even if the line was more suitable for light rail than heavy rail.



I was talking about people who use the Altrincham Metrolink line and live on or near that line becoming less satisfied with the service over the past few years earlier. I only mentioned Knutsford because you mentioned it in your analogy.



I've only used Tyne & Wear Metro once and the impression I got it's more like a small scale London Underground than a small scale Metrolink.



I'm not against Metrolink. Trams can be very useful in some instances but they aren't a solution for all suburban railway lines around Manchester. A German city the same size as Manchester would probably have systems similar to Metrolink, Merseyrail and Tyne & Wear Metro all serving the same city. If 'Metrolink' meant a tram, a tram-train or a suburban train, depending on the route, then converting lines to Metrolink would have a whole different meaning.



The scheme that's going to be finished in 2035-2040? New Metrolink lines shouldn't take 15-20 years to plan and build, so if your proposal is to convert the Northwich route once HS2 is serving Manchester then alternative proposals need to be looked at now, as people won't be happy about waiting that long for improvements.

Also worth remembering you haven't thought about/mentioned what's going to happen to the Altrincham to Stockport and Northwich to Chester heavy rail services in your proposal to run trams to Northwich. I don't think changing twice to get from Delamere to Stockport would be an attractive option for anyone! If you would run tram-trains to Chester then there's no point in doing a full conversion of Altrincham to Northwich and creating problems for freight in the process.



It was reported, not that long ago, that the Stockport to Chester route has a good business case for AC electrification. What would the cost be of obtaining dual-voltage tram-trains and undertaking the work required to allow trams to turn back at Hale, rather than continuing towards Knutsford? Also note that currently the Metrolink platforms at Altrincham are terminus platforms so infrastructure changes at Altrincham need to be factored in for that short extension.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on everything.

When I said "Metrolink" in the thread title, I think I was referring to more the tram or tram/train style of service, rather than the idea of Metrolink running the lines in more of a segregated Metro style fashion.

The Oldham line isn't a bad service by any means, but it could be argued it may be better without the limitations street running trams bring to it. But at the same time, street running is useful for connecting better to the town centre.

The travel times to Oldham are pretty acceptable and Rochdale continues to have a heavy rail link, so all's well ends well in that regard.

Places like Glossop, Wigan and the like I'm less convinced. Trams could provide an upgrade, but equally they could exacerbate the overcomplicated, tangled mess that Manchester's rail service already is.

Mix and match Northern & Metrolink services on the same track just seems like a recipe for disaster, confusing for passengers and prone to cascading delays.

If they do convert to some kind of locally run service, I'd like to see that be a dedicated Metro tunnel with vehicles that are appropriate for regional journeys.

Operating costs are important as they determine the kind of frequencies that can be run. But once they are set up, trams may not be necessarily cheaper, especially if they are limited in capacity. Plus, I know I bang the automated drum a lot, but getting rid of street running means you can do automated driving. Which increases speed, reduces headway and reduces the operating costs (making it cheap to run a very frequent service)

 

[peters]

TfGM does not have any proposals for tram-trains to Greenbank or Knutsford in its current five year delivery plan.

Our Five Year Transport Delivery Plan

greater manchester transport strategy

tfgm.com

As mentioned the Greenbank proposal is an old one (link to the document is in post 126), the more recent one looked at tram-trains going as far as Hale or Knutsford and decided not to proceed with plans to extend Metrolink to Knutsford.

Your link seems to suggest they'll be no new Metrolink routes in the next five years but they will work on business cases for some Metrolink extensions, like tram-train to Hale and Heywood.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Oldham line isn't a bad service by any means, but it could be argued it may be better without the limitations street running trams bring to it. But at the same time, street running is useful for connecting better to the town centre.

I think street running is the "killer app" in that specific case. If of course Mumps was better located for Oldham town centre that may be different, and in that case 25kV and new EMUs might have been preferable.

It may also prove the "killer app" in the case of Atherton. The stations on that are not well-located for the places they serve either.

 

[Chester1]

I think street running is the "killer app" in that specific case. If of course Mumps was better located for Oldham town centre that may be different, and in that case 25kV and new EMUs might have been preferable.

It may also prove the "killer app" in the case of Atherton. The stations on that are not well-located for the places they serve either.

The Sheffield trial has shown that it is best to maximise tram only sections and minimise mixed sections (especially with passenger rail services). Converting the line between Salford Crescent and Hindley would simplify the process while still keeping heavy rail services to Wigan and Manchester for some of the places currently served. As soon as its a tram only line diversions onto streets become much more straightforward i.e. no signalling and junctions were tram and trains seperate.

With Marple, the mixed section could be limited to Romiley to Marple Wharf Junction. One the occasions that main line services are diverted they would have to run via Hyde instead of Bredbury.