Should we replace heavy rail lines with Metrolink?

[RHolmes]

That is not a given.

It’s not even on TfGMs agenda

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s not even on TfGMs agenda

Doesn't mean it won't happen at some point.

 

[Chester1]

It should be noted that TfGM's plan envisages 'tram-train' operation for the Glossop and Atherton lines (amongst others) rather than conversion to pure Metrolink like Bury and Altrincham. The whole point of this is to enable trams to mix it with other heavy rail services and so not require complicated solutions like quadrupling from Ardwick to Guide Bridge or Hindley to Wigan. The vehicles will be of higher quality, suitable for longer distances, and dual voltage 750V DC / 25kV AC. Eventually I can envisage two distinct systems - a 'Stadtbahn' for the tram-train routes with a dedicated cross Manchester pre-metro type subway and 'Metrolink' for the street-tramway routes. Alternatively, Manchester City Council is pursuing a welcome pedestrianisation policy in the city-centre - to the predictable howls of motorists - so there may be opportunities for further cross-city tram routes, including Deansgate.

We have to remember that if the Atherton, Glossop, Rose Hill and Warrington lines were converted for metrolink usage, it wouldn’t be M5000 trams that use the line. It would be wholly reasonable to expect a tram-train that has the look and feel of any light rail metro train (i.e. 60-70m in length). Also of no tunnel is dug, I doubt there will be a line to Warrington.

The timescale were talking about means that the current fleet would be long gone anyway. Metrolink likes a uniform fleet, so if there is no tunnel I would bet that all units will be tram-trains the equivalent of a double length M5000. If a tunnel is built, I think it will be a mix of light-rail Metro trains at 70m in length, with fleet of tram-trains of similar length too.

The limit for trams and tram trains on Metrolink is 60m due to design of key junctions e.g. Piccadilly Gardens. Double units are 57m long. By not wasting space on two cabs and coupling a 60m purpose built tram train would probably increase usable length by maybe 15%. The Sheffield Tram Trains have a top speed of 62mph. Edinburgh trams have good high backed seats. If you put those all together a well designed tram train would be better than an ex BR DMU.

Actually a very, very, very, long time ago Altrincham had 12 Manchester train departures within a one hour period in the morning peak and there was an extra train on top of that starting at Sale. That was peak time only though with the off-peak frequency being much lower and it included 3 diesel trains from Chester that only stopped at Sale. On the plus side though a lot more seats than you'd get on Metrolink and faster Altrincham to Manchester journeys, even if the frequency was lower at the smaller stations and you didn't have a choice of stops across the city to alight at. Presumably it was also easier to divert North Wales to Manchester services if the Earlestown line was closed for engineering works, as there wouldn't be pathing issues through Stockport like they are now. I think that's really the issue with conversions is there's a shortage of paths around Manchester so closing lines to trains reduces the number of available options for trains to be diverted or for freight trains to be routed along. I get the impression there's a lot more freight now than when the Altrincham line was converted, I don't know if that is the case or if it's just because I'm seeing more and more freight trains every year.

Diversionary routes and flexibility are less important than the capacity freed up by removing the regular passenger services from the network. Imagine what Castlefield would be like with heavy rail services from Sale added into the mix... Short of trying to recreate the network as it was in the 1960s, its simply not viable if passenger numbers return to anything close to 2019 levels.

Redoubling the single section of track near Cheadle would significantly increase capacity on the Mid Cheshire Line for a modest price if more paths are required. Navigation Road could be rebuilt with 2 NR and 2 Metrolink platforms by demolishing two buildings and taking a thin strip of the park. That would significantly increase capacity and flexibility on both lines.

Since the Second City Crossing route was chosen the council has swung behind pedestrianisation of more city centre roads. During the early stages of the pandemic it introduced temporary barriers to close off the northern section of Deansgate for social distancing and I think they will be replaced by permanent barriers. Its already on Open Street map as pedestrianised. Albert Square is being expanded north and west by closing two roads next to it. A "3CC" above ground was bonkers 5 years ago, I am not so sure about that now. A route from Deansgate-Castlefield to south of Piccadilly Gardens via Great Bridgewater Steet, Chepstow Street and Portland Street could work with a couple of semi pedestrian sections used by buses and trams. The bottleneck in the city centre is the on street 3 track section between Deansgate-Castlefield and St Peter's Square. Such a route would remove it and make the bottleneck Cornbrook to Deansgate-Castlefield. A 4 platform stop at Piccadilly Station is a key objective for TfGM from HS2 rebuild. 10tph terminate at Piccadilly therefore capacity has not been entirely used up. I think TfGM have proposed Tram Trains from Marple to Piccadilly and then running through to Altrincham (but keeping Navigation Road segregated due to cost). 5tph from Glossop and 5tph from Marple Rose Hill would use up all the remaining Metrolink capacity in the city centre.

As someone who lives close by to the Airport Line, I would be against this line being converted to Metrolink.

The reason being is because it not only connects many train services to/from the Airport, but also acts as a diversionary route for Avanti/XC/TfW services in the event the Stockport line is blocked, and is also great that this line has connections to Wilmslow & Crewe (and as Greybeard mentioned, the freight container trains use this line to travel to/from Trafford Park, which would mean that it would need to go via Stockport if converted, and would mean a reduction in passenger services on that line).

What the line does need though is returning to regular half-hourly local service stops, which the Manchester Recovery Taskforce consultation has offered potential solutions for.

Very speculative idea but how about a tram line between Piccadilly and East Didsbury, going through back roads near Longsight e.g. New Bank Street and then down A34? It would enable Mauldeth Road and Burnage stations to be closed and replaced by neighbouring tram stops to ease timetabling problems caused by local stops.

 

[Purple Orange]

Except the CLC isn’t being converted to Metrolink so that doesn’t solve the question

For a railway forum, I am often surprised at how little attention is given to future Metrolink plans.

Metrolink tram-train expansion wins Government backing - Place North West

The Government has signalled its support for the potential introduction of tram-trains to expand the Metrolink network, which could see services extending to Wilmslow, Marple, and Wigan, with more detailed proposals expected to come forward before the summer.

www.placenorthwest.co.uk

This link is one of many that discuss the future metrolink proposals, which include a tram-train service to Warrington.

 

[Jozhua]

As someone who lives close by to the Airport Line, I would be against this line being converted to Metrolink.

The reason being is because it not only connects many train services to/from the Airport, but also acts as a diversionary route for Avanti/XC/TfW services in the event the Stockport line is blocked, and is also great that this line has connections to Wilmslow & Crewe (and as Greybeard mentioned, the freight container trains use this line to travel to/from Trafford Park, which would mean that it would need to go via Stockport if converted, and would mean a reduction in passenger services on that line).

What the line does need though is returning to regular half-hourly local service stops, which the Manchester Recovery Taskforce consultation has offered potential solutions for.

I don't think it would be able to be converted to Metrolink. It's pretty overcrowded as is. Besides, Metrolink already has an aiport connection, albeit a slow one.

The line really needs to be a dedicated all stop airport service.

Once the Avanti services are moved off thanks to HS2, very likely possibility.

The limit for trams and tram trains on Metrolink is 60m due to design of key junctions e.g. Piccadilly Gardens. Double units are 57m long. By not wasting space on two cabs and coupling a 60m purpose built tram train would probably increase usable length by maybe 15%. The Sheffield Tram Trains have a top speed of 62mph. Edinburgh trams have good high backed seats. If you put those all together a well designed tram train would be better than an ex BR DMU.

Diversionary routes and flexibility are less important than the capacity freed up by removing the regular passenger services from the network. Imagine what Castlefield would be like with heavy rail services from Sale added into the mix... Short of trying to recreate the network as it was in the 1960s, its simply not viable if passenger numbers return to anything close to 2019 levels.

Redoubling the single section of track near Cheadle would significantly increase capacity on the Mid Cheshire Line for a modest price if more paths are required. Navigation Road could be rebuilt with 2 NR and 2 Metrolink platforms by demolishing two buildings and taking a thin strip of the park. That would significantly increase capacity and flexibility on both lines.

Since the Second City Crossing route was chosen the council has swung behind pedestrianisation of more city centre roads. During the early stages of the pandemic it introduced temporary barriers to close off the northern section of Deansgate for social distancing and I think they will be replaced by permanent barriers. Its already on Open Street map as pedestrianised. Albert Square is being expanded north and west by closing two roads next to it. A "3CC" above ground was bonkers 5 years ago, I am not so sure about that now. A route from Deansgate-Castlefield to south of Piccadilly Gardens via Great Bridgewater Steet, Chepstow Street and Portland Street could work with a couple of semi pedestrian sections used by buses and trams. The bottleneck in the city centre is the on street 3 track section between Deansgate-Castlefield and St Peter's Square. Such a route would remove it and make the bottleneck Cornbrook to Deansgate-Castlefield. A 4 platform stop at Piccadilly Station is a key objective for TfGM from HS2 rebuild. 10tph terminate at Piccadilly therefore capacity has not been entirely used up. I think TfGM have proposed Tram Trains from Marple to Piccadilly and then running through to Altrincham (but keeping Navigation Road segregated due to cost). 5tph from Glossop and 5tph from Marple Rose Hill would use up all the remaining Metrolink capacity in the city centre.

Very speculative idea but how about a tram line between Piccadilly and East Didsbury, going through back roads near Longsight e.g. New Bank Street and then down A34? It would enable Mauldeth Road and Burnage stations to be closed and replaced by neighbouring tram stops to ease timetabling problems caused by local stops.

I was not aware that the Sheffield Tram Trains had a top speed of 62mph! That's not too shabby, definately suitable for those longer routes and indeed equivalent to the Vivarail units currently in use.

I think ultimately, there isn't going to be enough city centre capacity at street level to convert multiple heavy rail lines to Metrolink operation. If we're going to build a tunnel, might as well make it a proper metro. As soon as you introduce the need for street running, you introduce a comprimise. Removing the ability to go driverless, limitations on vehicles, power systems, etc. That said, I'd love to see it be run as part of the "Metrolink" system and take on some of the engineering talent that has done so well on the tram extentions. The extra city centre crossing capacity should be used for more "new" Metrolink alignments and for increased service on existing routes. Indeed, I'd love to see the tram aspect grow, but I think the heavy rail stuff offers an opportunity to introduce a new mode, one that is faster and more tuned for longer distances, as well as being able to carry more people. Sort of a crossover between regional rail and metro.

Réseau express métropolitain - Wikipedia

The Réseau express métropolitain (REM; English: Metropolitan Express Network; previously known as Réseau électrique métropolitain) is a light metro rapid transit system under construction in the Greater Montreal area around Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The system will link several suburbs with Downtown Montreal via Central Station. It involves the conversion of the existing Deux-Montagnes commuter rail line to light metro standards.

I'll link to the wikipedia article about Montreal's REM. Basically, they're converting commuter lines to automated light metro operation. The system has the benefit of already having a tunnel under the city centre, but that shows how city centre tunnels are kinda best used for this type of operation. Trains will run up to 62mph.
I honestly think this type of system would be perfect for Manchester. Relieve significant capacity in the stations, increase speeds, frequencies, etc. Some lines are already electrified, others should be. Signalling upgrades to support CBTC/ATO can pretty much be done alongside other metro-readying upgrades and existing signalling infrastructure. Then Northern will be able to focus on those less peaky longer distance/regional trips, which I think they tend to handle a bit better.

I expect passenger numbers will return to 2019 levels at some point. Perhaps not in the same peak-heavy fashion, but on average, yes.

I think having a line down Oxford Road may be more useful, but the more coverage the better really!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Very speculative idea but how about a tram line between Piccadilly and East Didsbury, going through back roads near Longsight e.g. New Bank Street and then down A34? It would enable Mauldeth Road and Burnage stations to be closed and replaced by neighbouring tram stops to ease timetabling problems caused by local stops.

With regards to the "back roads near Longsight" stated above, would the existing sub-surface infrastructure such as the Victorian sewer systems in those areas need total upgrading in order to provide a suitable hard base for such a tramway and what is the average street width of those roads? What provision will be made for occasions where house removal vans need to be at the affected properties, as in such a scenario such vehicles take quite a time to fully load and could block the new tramway.

It is not all that long ago that both Mauldeth Road and Burnage railway stations received brand new modern-style platforms and access points to platforms which must have incurred quite some costs. Was such a scenario as you propose above ever been a consideration in the minds of those charged to cost, plan and construct these new platforms?

 

[peters]

Diversionary routes and flexibility are less important than the capacity freed up by removing the regular passenger services from the network. Imagine what Castlefield would be like with heavy rail services from Sale added into the mix... Short of trying to recreate the network as it was in the 1960s, its simply not viable if passenger numbers return to anything close to 2019 levels.

Your scenario seems to presume if Metrolink didn't happen the money spent on conversions would have been used to revert the rail system back to how it was in the 1960s but wasn't Metrolink the economy option for creating a link between Piccadilly and Victoria and only built because the government didn't want to fund other options which could have provided more capacity for a higher cost?

While you may want to dismiss the importance of diversionary routes from a passenger's point of view one of the disadvantages of rail over road is trains (or trams) can't drive around an obstruction, the fewer diversionary routes that are available the more likely people are to experience significant disruption and be put off using the system whether it's train or tram. The Metrolink second city crossing doesn't just allow more trams it also helps ensure Deansgate to Victoria services aren't suspended if there's an incident.

Also when disruption does occur passengers have to use alternative routes regardless of whether their normal train or tram is diverted or not. In the case of Metrolink season ticket holders travelling between Altrincham and Manchester if the trams are suspended and they don't fancy spending an hour on an overcrowded bus that should be accepting Metrolink tickets then they have to buy a new ticket for the train. (Metrolink often don't bother to organise replacement buses and tell people their Metrolink ticket will be accepted on the normal 263 bus but often the drivers haven't been told or try to refuse travel to people with valid tickets because they aren't printed on standard yellow Metrolink ticket stock.) Then in the case of North Wales to Manchester passengers they'll often prefer the stopping service via Altrincham over a replacement bus so there not being a path to divert the North Wales service makes overcrowding problems worse.

For a railway forum, I am often surprised at how little attention is given to future Metrolink plans.

TfGM seem to have been proposing tram-train trials for the past 15 years. I remember they were suggesting tram-trains could run to Marple and the Northwich area before the airport line got approved and funded. So perhaps it's not surprising people don't get excited about the prospect of something that keeps getting mentioned but never seems to get beyond the drawing board.

 

[RHolmes]

For a railway forum, I am often surprised at how little attention is given to future Metrolink plans.

Metrolink tram-train expansion wins Government backing - Place North West

The Government has signalled its support for the potential introduction of tram-trains to expand the Metrolink network, which could see services extending to Wilmslow, Marple, and Wigan, with more detailed proposals expected to come forward before the summer.

www.placenorthwest.co.uk

This link is one of many that discuss the future metrolink proposals, which include a tram-train service to Warrington.

This is largely a ‘We would eventually like to do this if we have endless capital’. Let’s not forget it’s taken over 20 years to secure funding and eventually build the Trafford Centre line and the Glossop/Marple metro style operation has been proposed since the 1970’s ‘futuroute’ scheme.

The CLC also is not high at all on TfGMs priorities for the regions transport bar the issue with the Castlefield capacity. The current interests are extensions to existing services to serve Port Salford, Stockport and Bolton. It won’t be happening in our lifetime and certainly won’t happen until a few years after NPR is completed to the west. I’d also predict is the section most likely to be dropped due to financial constraints when to compared the busier and more congested Manchester to York

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

TfGM seem to have been proposing tram-train trials for the past 15 years. I remember they were suggesting tram-trains could run to Marple and the Northwich area before the airport line got approved and funded. So perhaps it's not surprising people don't get excited about the prospect of something that keeps getting mentioned but never seems to get beyond the drawing board.

I think you have to remember that the first place chosen to host the development of this new UK transport mode and the subsequent trials was Sheffield, so TfGM and any other interested transport bodies had all such future plans put on hold until final trials were held. We all know just how long this project took to reach completion with many long delays for one reason or another.

 

[Purple Orange]

This is largely a ‘We would eventually like to do this if we have endless capital’. Let’s not forget it’s taken over 20 years to secure funding and eventually build the Trafford Centre line and the Glossop/Marple metro style operation has been proposed since the 1970’s ‘futuroute’ scheme.

The CLC also is not high at all on TfGMs priorities for the regions transport bar the issue with the Castlefield capacity. The current interests are extensions to existing services to serve Port Salford, Stockport and Bolton. It won’t be happening in our lifetime and certainly won’t happen until a few years after NPR is completed to the west. I’d also predict is the section most likely to be dropped due to financial constraints when to compared the busier and more congested Manchester to York

I guess it depends what you consider to be ‘our lifetime’, but either way it is on the radar for TfGM regardless of how far down the list it may be. It clearly is something that is being considered by TfGM. Tram-train as a concept is not new but it has been waiting for it to be a proven concept in the UK, which it has in Rotherham. The next stage will be proof of concept on the Metrolink network, hence three short lines (Altrincham-Hale, Wilmslow-Airport & Oldham-Heywood) to be the initial focus before looking at conversion of longer lines (Atherton, Glossop & Rose Hill, Warrington).

I agree that Warrington is a post NPR situation, but that was clear from the start. I also agree that there is a chance (let’s say a very high chance) that the western side of NPR will never be built, so yes, we may never see tram-train on the CLC. On the subject of NPR, I can see a bypass line being built somewhere between Manchester & Huddersfield and have the current HS2 plans for Manchester connected to the line to Leeds, but that will be the extent of NPR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that Warrington is a post NPR situation, but that was clear from the start. I also agree that there is a chance (let’s say a very high chance) that the western side of NPR will never be built, so yes, we may never see tram-train on the CLC.

Yes, I think on balance (and I know we've discussed at length) changing the CLC to be purely local services (Merseyrail one side, whatever GM wants on the other side) is a non-starter unless NPR is built in full and thus provides a replacement Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester fast service of at least 2tph.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes, I think on balance (and I know we've discussed at length) changing the CLC to be purely local services (Merseyrail one side, whatever GM wants on the other side) is a non-starter unless NPR is built in full and thus provides a replacement Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester fast service of at least 2tph.

The only other possible route would be over the Chat Moss if that could be done. Personally I would route both the north and south Wales services in to Victoria via Warrington & Newton. We also have the problem of Liverpool-Sheffield connectivity.

However both tram-train and light rail metro can operate alongside heavy rail. I wonder if it is possible to run a 5tph metro with 2 tph Liverpool-Sheffield that makes a call at Liverpool South Parkway, Warrington & Urmston?

Now this plays in to the politics of NPR. Andy Burnham has been pushing the agenda for an underground HS2/NPR station, but I suspect this will never happen. As a sop/consolation, initial funding could be provided for an underground Metrolink route under Manchester city centre. (For those who require smelling salts at the mention of a tram, such a tunnel would be operated by Metrolink, but it wouldn't be a tram line). Such a line could be used for any service on the Bury, Altrincham, East Didsbury, Atherton, Glossop or Warrington lines depending on how the tunnel is aligned (n.b. not all lines). Tram-trains would be used on of these lines too outside the city centre.

 

[Chester1]

With regards to the "back roads near Longsight" stated above, would the existing sub-surface infrastructure such as the Victorian sewer systems in those areas need total upgrading in order to provide a suitable hard base for such a tramway and what is the average street width of those roads? What provision will be made for occasions where house removal vans need to be at the affected properties, as in such a scenario such vehicles take quite a time to fully load and could block the new tramway.

It is not all that long ago that both Mauldeth Road and Burnage railway stations received brand new modern-style platforms and access points to platforms which must have incurred quite some costs. Was such a scenario as you propose above ever been a consideration in the minds of those charged to cost, plan and construct these new platforms?

I stated it was a very speculative idea! It is a hypothetical idea that I had, not a public plan! The vast majority of the roads are definitely of sufficient width for trams, there would be a couple of challenging parts. Such a project would have similar issues to the Ashton line i.e. tricky to construct due to disruption and would require a handful of demolitions but it would be a viable route from a technical perspective.

Your scenario seems to presume if Metrolink didn't happen the money spent on conversions would have been used to revert the rail system back to how it was in the 1960s but wasn't Metrolink the economy option for creating a link between Piccadilly and Victoria and only built because the government didn't want to fund other options which could have provided more capacity for a higher cost?

While you may want to dismiss the importance of diversionary routes from a passenger's point of view one of the disadvantages of rail over road is trains (or trams) can't drive around an obstruction, the fewer diversionary routes that are available the more likely people are to experience significant disruption and be put off using the system whether it's train or tram. The Metrolink second city crossing doesn't just allow more trams it also helps ensure Deansgate to Victoria services aren't suspended if there's an incident.

Also when disruption does occur passengers have to use alternative routes regardless of whether their normal train or tram is diverted or not. In the case of Metrolink season ticket holders travelling between Altrincham and Manchester if the trams are suspended and they don't fancy spending an hour on an overcrowded bus that should be accepting Metrolink tickets then they have to buy a new ticket for the train. (Metrolink often don't bother to organise replacement buses and tell people their Metrolink ticket will be accepted on the normal 263 bus but often the drivers haven't been told or try to refuse travel to people with valid tickets because they aren't printed on standard yellow Metrolink ticket stock.) Then in the case of North Wales to Manchester passengers they'll often prefer the stopping service via Altrincham over a replacement bus so there not being a path to divert the North Wales service makes overcrowding problems worse.



TfGM seem to have been proposing tram-train trials for the past 15 years. I remember they were suggesting tram-trains could run to Marple and the Northwich area before the airport line got approved and funded. So perhaps it's not surprising people don't get excited about the prospect of something that keeps getting mentioned but never seems to get beyond the drawing board.

Diversionary routes are not part of cost benefit analysis for funding. They are very popular amongst enthusiasts but they are not considered because railways are not designed around the very small % of time that a line is closed.

In a world with unlimited resources a tunnel would probably be a good option but in the 80s and today Metrolink is the best pragmatic option due to cost. Metrolink stops have some benefits over the city centre stations and any theoretical tunnel station. Multiple stops within the city centre at ground level mean that passengers can (on average) get to their final destination faster than if they arrived at one of the main line station or a theoretical underground station. Heavy rail purists don't like Metrolink but it is (or was until the pandemic started) popular with residents and was growing faster than expected.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, I think on balance (and I know we've discussed at length) changing the CLC to be purely local services (Merseyrail one side, whatever GM wants on the other side) is a non-starter unless NPR is built in full and thus provides a replacement Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester fast service of at least 2tph.

Do we really need a Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester fast service?

If you want to get a fast train from Warrington to Manchester you can just go to Bank Quay and take a train via Newton-le-Willows. There seems little cause to have a train that runs basically non stop from Warrington to Manchester via a second route.

Post HS2 you could even have a train that runs Liverpool-Warrington Bank Quay - Manchester if you wanted.

 

[peters]

Diversionary routes are not part of cost benefit analysis for funding. They are very popular amongst enthusiasts but they are not considered because railways are not designed around the very small % of time that a line is closed.

In a world with unlimited resources a tunnel would probably be a good option but in the 80s and today Metrolink is the best pragmatic option due to cost. Metrolink stops have some benefits over the city centre stations and any theoretical tunnel station. Multiple stops within the city centre at ground level mean that passengers can (on average) get to their final destination faster than if they arrived at one of the main line station or a theoretical underground station. Heavy rail purists don't like Metrolink but it is (or was until the pandemic started) popular with residents and was growing faster than expected.

I agree that the railway isn't that to accommodate for rail enthusiasts, which is why I was discussing what's best for regular passengers, not the aspirations of enthusiasts. Saying diversionary routes are not considered before lines are converted to Metrolink says a lot and it results in a railway system which was never properly fit-for-purpose becoming even less fit-for-purpose, it increases the chance of people being stuck on a train which can't proceed anywhere because of an incident on the line ahead, which as I already said, makes the railway less attractive to the regular passengers.

I would actually agree that normally within a city centre a tram is better than an underground train but that doesn't mean a tram should be running what's effectively a suburban rail service from Altrincham to Bury or one from Manchester Airport to Rochdale. Although, saying that you've underlooked something in saying people 'get to their final destination faster' by tram. In many cases underground stations have exits leading directly into shopping centres, look at Liverpool Central or Fulham Broadway but for Manchester Arndale Centre you may have to get Metrolink off at Market Street, cross a tramline, then cross a road, then walk along a busy street possibly while it's pouring with rain or the pavement is very icy, street level isn't always an advantage!

I'm not sure Metrolink is popular with residents, they use it because it's the only option they have. I certainly hear a lot more complaints about Metrolink from passengers from the Altrincham, Timperley and Sale areas than compliments - the shortage of seats on the new trams, how uncomfortable the seats are on the new trams, the poor ride quality of trams, how slow the journeys have become since the airport line opened, how much fares have increased and that Metrolink thinking it's acceptable for trams to not bother running to Altrincham to recover late running, are the most common complaints I hear.

Do we really need a Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester fast service?

If you want to get a fast train from Warrington to Manchester you can just go to Bank Quay and take a train via Newton-le-Willows. There seems little cause to have a train that runs basically non stop from Warrington to Manchester via a second route.

Post HS2 you could even have a train that runs Liverpool-Warrington Bank Quay - Manchester if you wanted.

For some of those who have to get a bus into central Warrington before being able to get a train, Warrington Central is a lot more convenient (just across the road from the bus station) and of course the fasts don't just serve Warrington - there's Liverpool South Parkway, Widnes and Birchwood to consider as well. Plus of course Liverpool would be affected if you ended fast services.

Long term based on the Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation it sounds like all Manchester bound services from Warrington Bank Quay will go to Manchester Victoria.

 

[geordieblue]

I'm not sure Metrolink is popular with residents, they use it because it's the only option they have.

Two things.
1) passenger numbers would absolutely suggest otherwise.
2) you can apply that the other way round, too - 'people in Knutsford don't like the train, they use it because it's the only option and therefore would obviously prefer trams.'
Once again, I fail to understand the degree of sneering at trams and light rail on this forum.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once again, I fail to understand the degree of sneering at trams and light rail on this forum.

I think the thing about Metrolink is that in the early days it was pretty rubbish (uk.railway pretty universally referred to it as "Metroc**p" and it was very much seen as a poor relation to Merseyrail) and a considerable downgrade on the heavy rail services it replaced. It was done on the cheap, the stations felt unsafe and were bare minimum "board the ticket office up, paint it turquoise and leave it unstaffed", the trams rode incredibly badly and were small, it was expensive, and cycle carriage and through ticketing were lost.

OK, some of those things are still true (I think lack of cycle carriage on the wider network is a particular problem, as is the "no dogs" rule). However, many of them aren't, and indeed Metrolink has now reached the sort of standard of a German Stadtbahn, and once put underground as some of it no doubt will be will basically be a proper U-Bahn (as say the Newcastle Metro is).

So I can sort of get it based on past experience.

 

[geordieblue]

I think the thing about Metrolink is that in the early days it was pretty rubbish (uk.railway pretty universally referred to it as "Metroc**p" and it was very much seen as a poor relation to Merseyrail) and a considerable downgrade on the heavy rail services it replaced. It was done on the cheap, the stations felt unsafe and were bare minimum "board the ticket office up, paint it turquoise and leave it unstaffed", the trams rode incredibly badly and were small, it was expensive, and cycle carriage and through ticketing were lost.

OK, some of those things are still true (I think lack of cycle carriage on the wider network is a particular problem, as is the "no dogs" rule). However, many of them aren't, and indeed Metrolink has now reached the sort of standard of a German Stadtbahn, and once put underground as some of it no doubt will be will basically be a proper U-Bahn (as say the Newcastle Metro is).

So I can sort of get it based on past experience.

I remember seeing a stat that usage doubled on the Bury and Altrincham lines post-conversion. They may have been less comfortable, but a doubling of usage seems like a pretty good downgrade to me! Fair point about dogs and bikes though (and possibly these things could be addressed with future metroisation of bits of the network).

 

[peters]

Two things.
1) passenger numbers would absolutely suggest otherwise.
2) you can apply that the other way round, too - 'people in Knutsford don't like the train, they use it because it's the only option and therefore would obviously prefer trams.'
Once again, I fail to understand the degree of sneering at trams and light rail on this forum.

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?

 

[Greybeard33]

Redoubling the single section of track near Cheadle would significantly increase capacity on the Mid Cheshire Line for a modest price if more paths are required. Navigation Road could be rebuilt with 2 NR and 2 Metrolink platforms by demolishing two buildings and taking a thin strip of the park. That would significantly increase capacity and flexibility on both lines.

Redoubling Cheadle Village Jn to Sharston Jn would involve replacement of two single track bridges over M60 slip roads. Not what I would call modest cost!

Quad tracking Deansgate Jn to Navigation Road would require a lot more than two buildings to be demolished. Ain't going to happen!

 

[HSTEd]

Well the easiest way out of the Altrincham problem is Metrolink to Northwich and stuff the freight.

But I know I am in the minority for suggesting that.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well the easiest way out of the Altrincham problem is Metrolink to Northwich and stuff the freight.

But I know I am in the minority for suggesting that.

Freight traffic by rail of the type to which you allude does take off a large number of HGV off the roads.

 

[Jozhua]

This is largely a ‘We would eventually like to do this if we have endless capital’. Let’s not forget it’s taken over 20 years to secure funding and eventually build the Trafford Centre line and the Glossop/Marple metro style operation has been proposed since the 1970’s ‘futuroute’ scheme.

The CLC also is not high at all on TfGMs priorities for the regions transport bar the issue with the Castlefield capacity. The current interests are extensions to existing services to serve Port Salford, Stockport and Bolton. It won’t be happening in our lifetime and certainly won’t happen until a few years after NPR is completed to the west. I’d also predict is the section most likely to be dropped due to financial constraints when to compared the busier and more congested Manchester to York

The funny thing is, these proposals aren't that capital intensive.

Many similarly sized cities in the rest of Europe have transport systems beyond the proposals even made here. Many German cities have funded under-city rail tunnels and Budapest (Metro 3 million) has 4 underground Metro lines, alongside 33 tram lines. Manchester (Metro 3.3 million) has a number of tram lines, but no Metro service. It's no co-incidence that Leeds is the largest city in Europe without a mass transit system.

I don't know if you are frustrated or justifying the current status-quo fear of capital investment, but the situation is a bit silly really. The UK is desperately behind on our national infrastructure and the situation is holding back economic growth in many regional centres. People cannot reach job or education opportunities reliably by public transport and increasing numbers of young people are priced out of driving, ignoring the climate/social ramifications of various modes.

Making sure we invest in upgrading our regional routes around Manchester properly, instead of continuing compromises that cause more harm than good seems like a sensible idea. (See: Ordsall Chord)

The only other possible route would be over the Chat Moss if that could be done. Personally I would route both the north and south Wales services in to Victoria via Warrington & Newton. We also have the problem of Liverpool-Sheffield connectivity.

However both tram-train and light rail metro can operate alongside heavy rail. I wonder if it is possible to run a 5tph metro with 2 tph Liverpool-Sheffield that makes a call at Liverpool South Parkway, Warrington & Urmston?

Now this plays in to the politics of NPR. Andy Burnham has been pushing the agenda for an underground HS2/NPR station, but I suspect this will never happen. As a sop/consolation, initial funding could be provided for an underground Metrolink route under Manchester city centre. (For those who require smelling salts at the mention of a tram, such a tunnel would be operated by Metrolink, but it wouldn't be a tram line). Such a line could be used for any service on the Bury, Altrincham, East Didsbury, Atherton, Glossop or Warrington lines depending on how the tunnel is aligned (n.b. not all lines). Tram-trains would be used on of these lines too outside the city centre.

The only risk is mixing up all these different local/long distance routes simply results in a repeat of the Castlefield debacle. But moving some services onto the Metro system could definitely help relieve capacity through Castlefield and Piccadilly/Victoria in general, so that would help out some of the long distance stuff.

Plus, the tunnel will likely be closed off to diesel trains, to avoid giving everyone carbon monoxide poisoning, so electrification of the Hope Valley Line would almost certainly be needed to make that work. Or bi-modes I guess...probably bi-modes. But I can only see it saving a couple mins max, when compared to a decongested Castlefield. Peanuts compared to creating a new alignment, or upgrading the existing Hope Valley alignment to be a bit quicker.

The current plan for NPR is to have the trains leave from the new HS2 platforms at Piccadilly. So no need for any boring underground, I think they're alongside the existing station, or down in the old warehouses.

Two things.
1) passenger numbers would absolutely suggest otherwise.
2) you can apply that the other way round, too - 'people in Knutsford don't like the train, they use it because it's the only option and therefore would obviously prefer trams.'
Once again, I fail to understand the degree of sneering at trams and light rail on this forum.

I think trams and light rail are good, but I think one of the key reasons I started the thread was that they are not suitable for everything. Metrolink is a bit better than other systems in that it is high floor, something that maximises interior space and makes the interiors actually level for disabled people.

I do think it is silly to sneer at trams though, or in general systems that aim to reduce or eliminate mixed traffic operation. Yes they are boring, but they often provide more reliable and cost effective journeys.

Well the easiest way out of the Altrincham problem is Metrolink to Northwich and stuff the freight.

But I know I am in the minority for suggesting that.

Freight traffic by rail of the type to which you allude does take off a large number of HGV off the roads.

Everyone forgets about freight, but it is very important.

HGVs cause significant damage to roads (road wear increases with square of weight), they are large and therefore more likely to get in accidents, especially on tight congested streets. They are less labour efficient (truck driver shortage in the UK) and less energy efficient than rail. Any plan we create has to consider the needs to at minimum maintain, but preferably increase, the amount of freight moved by rail.

 

[HSTEd]

HGVs cause significant damage to roads (road wear increases with square of weight), they are large and therefore more likely to get in accidents, especially on tight congested streets. They are less labour efficient (truck driver shortage in the UK) and less energy efficient than rail. Any plan we create has to consider the needs to at minimum maintain, but preferably increase, the amount of freight moved by rail.

We also have a crippling short of train drivers!

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.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We also have a crippling short of train drivers!

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.

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.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

If any trains can be rerouted they would be, the others would cease and the traffic would go by road, or in the case of the Drax biomass workings, via sea to a port a bit closer to the destination?

 

[peters]

Well the easiest way out of the Altrincham problem is Metrolink to Northwich and stuff the freight.

But I know I am in the minority for suggesting that.

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.

 

[Chester1]

Redoubling Cheadle Village Jn to Sharston Jn would involve replacement of two single track bridges over M60 slip roads. Not what I would call modest cost!

Quad tracking Deansgate Jn to Navigation Road would require a lot more than two buildings to be demolished. Ain't going to happen!

In the context of the sort of stuff suggested on this thread that is pretty cheap. Most of the Cheadle bottleneck could be removed without replacing the bridges. From similar discussings in the past, I know it would have to wait until the WCML around Stockport is resignalled.

I meant removing the very short section of single track directly south of Navigation Road, with one small block of flats and the building next to the station requiring demolition. Removing the station from the bottleneck would make a big difference.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the context of the sort of stuff suggested on this thread that is pretty cheap. Most of the Cheadle bottleneck could be removed without replacing the bridges. From similar discussings in the past, I know it would have to wait until the WCML around Stockport is resignalled.

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.

 

[peters]

If any trains can be rerouted they would be, the others would cease and the traffic would go by road, or in the case of the Drax biomass workings, via sea to a port a bit closer to the destination?

If better rail infrastructure existed then the Drax workings wouldn't go via Northwich anyway. I'm not sure how practical it is to get from the Atlantic Ocean to a port on the eastern side of the country, the English Channel is obviously a congested shipping channel and in any case it would add hundreds of miles to the shipping distance. You also seem to be presuming a ship comes across with only biomass for Drax on board and they doesn't contain any goods with a final destination in the North West. Have there ever been any ships to North America from the eastern side of the UK, either passenger or freight? Liverpool and Southampton have always been the main ports for goods arriving into Britain.

Removing the station from the bottleneck would make a big difference.

Where would the replacement station be in this hypothetical scenario? I know of people using Navigation Road station for Trafford College, as while it's closer to Timperley Metrolink stop, alighting the train at Navi Road and walking is more straight forward. It's also a park & ride for Metrolink, which for obvious reasons for some people is better than a park & ride in a town centre and moving the station north would put it in a location that's less easy to access by road. Would it not just be easier for the trams to leave the rails in the Timperley area and run down the A56 to Altrincham Interchange with a new stop near Altrincham Retail Park? That would also eliminate the single track bottleneck and isn't one of the benefits of trams supposed to be they can run on the streets to stop closer to passenger's final destinations?