Tramifying Marple - how might Strines and Chinley be served?

[Bletchleyite]

So trams to Marple keep being suggested - other than an Ormskirk or Kirkby-style end-on DMU shuttle how might service to Strines and Chinley be maintained?

 

[158756]

I assume if both routes were done the sensible thing would be for the tram to go all the way to New Mills. Or if that's not viable you could do the oft-talked-about tram-train thing to allow the Hope Valley stopper to continue via Marple, as an alternative to running it via Stockport - which runs into trouble with the shortage of paths that way and loss of the connection between Marple and Sheffield.

It's not ideal, but the solution for the Mid Cheshire line when Altrincham was converted shows that it doesn't have to be.

 

[daodao]

An easier solution would be to convert the section between Romiley and Marple Bridge Junction to 2 parallel bidirectional lines. Metrolink would run every 12 minutes from Rose Hill via Reddish North and Ashburys and then on street to the eastern portal of the Piccadilly underground tram stop. Heavy rail passenger services would continue to operate from the Hope Valley/New Mills Central via Hyde and Guide Bridge and then non-stop to Piccadilly (hourly from Sheffield and every 30 minutes from New Mills Central). This route could also accommodate some freight traffic.

 

[Chester1]

I have brought this up before and was told be multiple members in the industry it would be a nightmare to path Hope Valley services after adding another bottleneck. The Navigation Road single section works because services spend most of their time on the mid Cheshire line and delayed trains can be accommodated on the WCML.

The only viable solution would be tram trains. These could have a higher top speed (60mph vs 50mph) and be purpose built as 60m single sets instead of 2 x 30m tram sets. Rose Hill would be served only by tram trains via Reddish and the hourly Hope Valley stopper would run via Hyde.

 

[Ianno87]

I think the solution would be Tram Trains and shared use of the Romiley - Marple Wharf Jn section double track.

A tram train every 12 minutes gives a theoretical path for something else in between each tram train. The Tram Trains could then have pretty much exclusive use of the route via Brinnington, with frieght/passenger heavy rail services via Hyde (or vice-versa)

The only challenge would be that Romiley Jn and Marple Wharf Jn are only 3 minutes running time apart...so T-Ts every 12 minutes could not parallel move at both junctions, so scheduling of the section would be a little tricky.

 

[daodao]

I think the solution would be Tram Trains and shared use of the Romiley - Marple Wharf Jn section double track. A tram train every 12 minutes gives a theoretical path for something else in between each tram train. The Tram Trains could then have pretty much exclusive use of the route via Brinnington, with frieght/passenger heavy rail services via Hyde (or vice-versa) The only challenge would be that Romiley Jn and Marple Wharf Jn are only 3 minutes running time apart...so T-Ts every 12 minutes could not parallel move at both junctions, so scheduling of the section would be a little tricky.

If Romiley Jn and Marple Wharf Jn are only 3 minutes running time apart, the 2 lines could be run as separate bidrectional lines and accommodate a tram service every 12 minutes on one line and a train service every 30 minutes (with spare paths for freight) on the other line.

 

[Chester1]

I think the solution would be Tram Trains and shared use of the Romiley - Marple Wharf Jn section double track.

A tram train every 12 minutes gives a theoretical path for something else in between each tram train. The Tram Trains could then have pretty much exclusive use of the route via Brinnington, with frieght/passenger heavy rail services via Hyde (or vice-versa)

The only challenge would be that Romiley Jn and Marple Wharf Jn are only 3 minutes running time apart...so T-Ts every 12 minutes could not parallel move at both junctions, so scheduling of the section would be a little tricky.

If Marple Wharf Junction to Rose Hill switched to tram only then the junction could be grade separated (using Metrolink gradients) to stop tram trains heading to Rose Hill blocking the line. TfGM has proposed 10tph to Marple which would be very hard to timetable around heavy rail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Marple Wharf Junction to Rose Hill switched to tram only then the junction could be grade separated (using Metrolink gradients) to stop tram trains heading to Rose Hill blocking the line. TfGM has proposed 10tph to Marple which would be very hard to timetable around heavy rail.

If it was diesel tram train the simple answer would be to add a bay to the very wide island platform at Chinley and run one tram per hour through. If electric, though, I could see it just being a 2-car DMU shuttle from Marple to Chinley. You could send the stopper via Stockport, but I'm not sure dead-ending Marple and closing New Mills Central would be popular - it would be like closing Ormskirk-Preston or similar.

To me logic would be to tram-train only Rose Hill via Guide Bridge (if Hadfield is being tram-trained), and to retain heavy rail (ideally electrified as far as Marple at least with bi-modes used) for the route via Bredbury including the Hope Valley stopper, or at least a service to Chinley once an hour timed to connect with it running via Stockport.

 

[Glenn1969]

I suggested in another thread sending the stopper via Stockport and maintaining 2 per hour at New Mills Central by pathing a Piccadilly- Marple- Strines- New Mills service around the trams like happens on the Sunderland line if that is practical

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suggested in another thread sending the stopper via Stockport and maintaining 2 per hour at New Mills Central by pathing a Piccadilly- Marple- Strines- New Mills service around the trams like happens on the Sunderland line if that is practical

But then you've still dead-ended it - it would really need to go to Chinley for connections. With the large island platform there constructing a bay for it would not be overly difficult.

 

[HSTEd]

Its about 4km from the junction where the two lines join together to Chinley station.

There looks to be mainly room for a third track.
So the obvious solution is convert the via Marple segment of the Hope Valley line to pure tram operation.
Some New Mills Central trams could be extended over a single track section to Chinley to provide connections.

The other alternative is a new station at the connection point, or an inclined travellator walkway between the two New Mills stations, with two new platforms where it crosses the via Stockport line.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If a tram-train option is taken, one advantage that Metrolink has compared to Sheffield's system is that it's high floor, so any dual-use stations can just use the existing platforms (though ideally you'd also rebuild them to allow level boarding) rather than having to build extra lower sections. It would also possibly allow the Navigation Road bottleneck to be removed, providing that enough tram-train vehicles are ordered to allow the Altrincham line to switch over to those.

 

[tbtc]

I think that if this were to happen (IF), then it'd be a step change in Metrolink operations and probably a whole new set up.

The existing branches made sense as extensions because they were either (a) wholly within Manchester (and therefore relatively short distances, where buses are the main kind of competition, so a tram is still a step up) and/or (b) routes where there was a natural extension (e.g. you've already got a few trams per hour terminating at Piccadilly, so you can extend them through to Ashton.

But if you are going to New Mills/ Chinley then, for me, it makes sense to do it as part of Rose Hill/ Hadfield/ Glossop - a whole separate fleet, a whole different operation... no need to be stuck with the same twelve minute frequencies etc, since it'd have to be operationally separate.

i.e. there are currently six trains per hour (Glossop, Rose Hill, New Mills) - that's probably going to need to be at least double (to justify conversion), possibly closer to fifteen/ twenty services per hour - you're not going to be running that onto the ten Bury/ Altrincham services (that currently terminate at Piccadilly)

Plus, IMHO, Glossop requires something more substantial than the current trams (at least Altrincham/ Rochdale/ Airport have direct Northern trains into central Manchester), and hopefully something that can deal with the journey a bit faster (it's almost an hour and a half to do a round trip of under thirty miles).

So that then leaves the question of whether you try on street running from New Mills Central to Newtown or go onto Chinley. Either way, I guess you're going to need to have tram-trains (rather than "just" trams), given the need to deal with heavy rail from Piccadilly to Guide Bridge. Plus the Hope Valley trains. Terminate them at Chinley would be negative - running them via Hazel Grove (e.g. running onto the Hazel Grove stopper that currently runs through to Blackpool)? Not going to be many extra paths through Stockport, so probably got to accept them being an extension of something else. Or continue to run via Marple and try to squeeze it in between the tram-trains?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not going to be many extra paths through Stockport, so probably got to accept them being an extension of something else. Or continue to run via Marple and try to squeeze it in between the tram-trains?

While we're almost heading OT, I'd suggest it as something sensible to do with the other end of a service from Liverpool via the CLC using Class 195s rather than send it to a certain airfield.

 

[daodao]

It is not appropriate to extend Metrolink into Derbyshire, other than possibly to Glossop. There is also a need to keep a link from Chinley to Guide Bridge suitable for mainline freight, and a link into the goods facilities at Bredbury from Woodley. Therefore, in my view, the Marple route that should be converted to Metrolink is Ashburys to Rose Hill via Reddish North, with an on street connection from the east portal of the Piccadilly Metrolink underground station to Ashburys. Trams could run through from Bury. Stopping passenger and freight trains from New Mills Central and beyond would be routed via Hyde. The only question is how to deal with the common section from Romiley to Marple Bridge junction (running time about 3 minutes). If the Metrolink service is only every 12 minutes, two completely separate single parallel running lines would suffice, with no need for tram-trains; at busy times, double trams could be used to provide adequate capacity.

In the longer term, the Glossop route could be converted to Metrolink too, with trams running through from Altrincham. However, this would preclude re-opening of the Woodhead route, and would need a significant new alignment from just west of Guide Bridge to Flowery Field to keep tram and train services separate; between Ashburys and Guide Bridge the line was originally quadruple track and a spare trackbed is available.

Neither suggestion requires extra capacity in the city centre, as these routes could be extensions of services terminating at Piccadilly. In my view, these extensions should be the next ones to be considered as part of a Metrolink expansion programme. Other proposals recently mooted, such as trams from the Airport to Wilmslow, and Altrincham to Hale, are daft.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Converting Glossop/Hadfield to tram or tram-train would be a huge mistake IMO. It's a high quality electrified suburban railway with relatively modern rolling stock and equipment that still has plenty of life left in it, so any conversion would be viewed as a downgrade. The Bury and Altrincham lines had elderly units and in Bury's case non-standard equipment, so conversion made sense. The Rose Hill line, being a diesel stub, would make sense to be converted... particularly as the route previously ran through to Stockport and possibly could do so again as a tram line.

 

[daodao]

The Rose Hill line, being a diesel stub, would make sense to be converted... particularly as the route previously ran through to Stockport and possibly could do so again as a tram line.

The Rose Hill stub-end terminus was created following closure of the rest of the Macclesfield, Bollington and Marple Railway (MB&MR), which was opened jointly by the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (MS&LR) and the North Staffordshire Railway (NSR) in 1869, and closed in January 1970. The link from Marple to Stockport was the ex-Midland route via Tiviot Dale, which has long since been obliterated by the M60 motorway.

There was at one time a branch off the line via Reddish to Stockport (Tiviot Dale), and the GCR ran some local services along it from London Road (13 per day on weekdays in 1910), but these had ceased well before 1948. The track bed is extant as a cycleway as far as Portwood, where it joined the CLC/MR line from Woodley/Romiley.

 

[158756]

While we're almost heading OT, I'd suggest it as something sensible to do with the other end of a service from Liverpool via the CLC using Class 195s rather than send it to a certain airfield.

Unless it's replacing something else you need an extra path to Stockport though, which doesn't exist.

I would guess that if the stopper ran via Stockport it'd probably also need a passing loop (or better but not going to happen a substantial length of 3/4 tracks) somewhere to be overtaken.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Rose Hill stub-end terminus was created following closure of the rest of the Macclesfield, Bollington and Marple Railway (MB&MR), which was opened jointly by the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (MS&LR) and the North Staffordshire Railway (NSR) in 1869, and closed in January 1970. The link from Marple to Stockport was the ex-Midland route via Tiviot Dale, which has long since been obliterated by the M60 motorway.

I figured the original alignment was probably mostly lost, but wasn't sure exactly where it ran anyway. However one advantage of tramways compared to heavy rail is the ability to negotiate tighter curves, to share road alignments, and to tackle steeper gradients. With the right will a suitable route could probably be found into Stockport town centre. Is Metrolink to Stockport still on TfGM's wishlist?

 

[Greybeard33]

Insofar as TfGM's plans can be discerned from the published documents, the first phase would be tram-trains from Piccadilly to Rose Hill, with the Belle Vue line converted to light rail. The Hyde branch would remain heavy rail, with the New Mills and Hope Valley services diverted that way. Romiley Junction to Marple Wharf Junction would be shared double track. I believe parallel single lines have been ruled out because of the performance risk (it would be twice the length of the Navigation Road single line).

This would be dependent on successful implementation of the three proposed tram-train pilot projects - Altrincham to Hale, Manchester Airport to Wilmslow and Rochdale to Heywood.

Longer term TfGM also envisions tram-trains to Marple via Hyde, in conjunction with light rail conversion of the Glossop/Hadfield line. But this would be dependent on a city centre metro tunnel to provide increased cross-city capacity. The vehicles might be light rail metro, longer than tram-trains with no street running capability.

TfGM has no plans to extend tram-train/metro services to New Mills or Chinley.

We should bear in mind that there is substantial freight traffic on the Hyde branch. Through trains between Guide Bridge and Chinley, but also services to/from the Bredbury freight branch at Woodley (stub of the former CLC line to Tiviot Dale). This serves both Bredbury Tilcon and the Bredbury Refuse Treatment sidings.

 

[py_megapixel]

I figured the original alignment was probably mostly lost, but wasn't sure exactly where it ran anyway. However one advantage of tramways compared to heavy rail is the ability to negotiate tighter curves, to share road alignments, and to tackle steeper gradients. With the right will a suitable route could probably be found into Stockport town centre. Is Metrolink to Stockport still on TfGM's wishlist?

I don't know, but I do wonder if the 192 bus could be replaced by a tram. I don't imagine putting tram rails branching off from St Peter's Square onto the Oxford Road Bus Corridor would be too difficult, as it's a largely straight wide road which realistically could cope with only one lane of traffic now that it's just buses, especially with the 192s gone. I don't know if the rest of the route (on the A6) is tram able in any way.

 

[daodao]

I don't know, but I do wonder if the 192 bus could be replaced by a tram. I don't imagine putting tram rails branching off from St Peter's Square onto the Oxford Road Bus Corridor would be too difficult, as it's a largely straight wide road which realistically could cope with only one lane of traffic now that it's just buses, especially with the 192s gone. I don't know if the rest of the route (on the A6) is tram able in any way.

You do realise that Manchester-Stockport-Hazel Grove (now bus 192) was Manchester's last first generation tram route (35); much of the track within Stockport was extensively relaid as late as 1944. However, it was all street-running and there is no practical possibility of segregated light rail anywhere on the A6 corridor to justify converting it back to a tramway.

 

[daodao]

Insofar as TfGM's plans can be discerned from the published documents, the first phase would be tram-trains from Piccadilly to Rose Hill, with the Belle Vue line converted to light rail. The Hyde branch would remain heavy rail, with the New Mills and Hope Valley services diverted that way. Romiley Junction to Marple Wharf Junction would be shared double track. I believe parallel single lines have been ruled out because of the performance risk (it would be twice the length of the Navigation Road single line).

This would be dependent on successful implementation of the three proposed tram-train pilot projects - Altrincham to Hale, Manchester Airport to Wilmslow and Rochdale to Heywood.

Longer term TfGM also envisions tram-trains to Marple via Hyde, in conjunction with light rail conversion of the Glossop/Hadfield line. But this would be dependent on a city centre metro tunnel to provide increased cross-city capacity. The vehicles might be light rail metro, longer than tram-trains with no street running capability. TfGM has no plans to extend tram-train/metro services to New Mills or Chinley.

We should bear in mind that there is substantial freight traffic on the Hyde branch. Through trains between Guide Bridge and Chinley, but also services to/from the Bredbury freight branch at Woodley (stub of the former CLC line to Tiviot Dale). This serves both Bredbury Tilcon and the Bredbury Refuse Treatment sidings.

The 3 proposed tram-train pilots are daft, except if Rochdale-Heywood forms part of a new line from Crumpsall via Middleton and Heywood to Rochdale. However, the latter would take some years to plan and construct. TfGM should proceed directly with conversion of the line to Rose Hill via Reddish as their next Metrolink project, given that it would be relatively straightforward and replace a very poor and infrequent diesel heavy rail service. The presence of significant freight on the Hyde loop and the desirability of maintaining through passenger trains from M/c to New Mills Central and beyond means that it would be better to retain this line as a heavy rail route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless it's replacing something else you need an extra path to Stockport though, which doesn't exist.

I would guess that if the stopper ran via Stockport it'd probably also need a passing loop (or better but not going to happen a substantial length of 3/4 tracks) somewhere to be overtaken.

FWIW this isn't my "speculative idea" - it has genuinely been proposed somewhere - was it TfN?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You do realise that Manchester-Stockport-Hazel Grove (now bus 192) was Manchester's last first generation tram route (35); much of the track within Stockport was extensively relaid as late as 1944. However, it was all street-running and there is no practical possibility of segregated light rail anywhere on the A6 corridor to justify converting it back to a tramway.

It's a pity that the lay of the land prevents Stockport station being anywhere near the town, really. There is a railway line following that bus route, yet most people use the bus.

As for Metrolink to Stockport it won't use the 192 route but is a proposed extension from East Didsbury.

 

[daodao]

It's a pity that the lay of the land prevents Stockport station being anywhere near the town, really. There is a railway line following that bus route, yet most people use the bus. As for Metrolink to Stockport it won't use the 192 route but is a proposed extension from East Didsbury.

When the Manchester-Crewe electrification was completed in 1960, the ex-LNW suburban stations south of Manchester gained a frequent regular interval service. This has now been slashed, and the irregular infrequent service now provided at stations such as Fog Lane (Burnage) and Levenshulme is hardly conducive to the retention of custom when there are frequent parallel bus services.

 

[edwin_m]

We should bear in mind that there is substantial freight traffic on the Hyde branch. Through trains between Guide Bridge and Chinley, but also services to/from the Bredbury freight branch at Woodley (stub of the former CLC line to Tiviot Dale). This serves both Bredbury Tilcon and the Bredbury Refuse Treatment sidings.

Note also that anything going into the Bredbury terminals from the south has to run round on the main line, blocking it for nearly 30min. This fits in between the current service but would cause problems for a high-frequency tram-train on that route. It's possible to arrive/depart northwards and loop round via Stockport but that route has capacity issues of its own.

 

[HSTEd]

Note also that anything going into the Bredbury terminals from the south has to run round on the main line, blocking it for nearly 30min. This fits in between the current service but would cause problems for a high-frequency tram-train on that route. It's possible to arrive/depart northwards and loop round via Stockport but that route has capacity issues of its own.

Surely it would be cheaper just to buy locotrol gear for the handful of freight formations and operate those trains push pull?

 

[Greybeard33]

As for Metrolink to Stockport it won't use the 192 route but is a proposed extension from East Didsbury.

Yes, some previous tram-train studies have proposed an orbital route from Stockport to Ashton via the Denton line, with a new curve from Reddish South to Reddish North to link with the Marple tram-train.

However, the TfGM 2040 Strategy Draft Delivery Plan only has investigation of "a potential rapid transit corridor" for Stockport - Ashton.

See Map 3 in the document, downloadable from https://tfgm.com/2040/delivery-plan-2020-2025, for details of all the tram-train proposals.

 

[furnessvale]

Surely it would be cheaper just to buy locotrol gear for the handful of freight formations and operate those trains push pull?

Even so, they are still freight trains and thay and others passing through come from the quarries which will be at odds with suggestions that the line from NMSJ be tram only.