Would a Greater Manchester franchise be a good idea?

[thenorthern]

I think a big problem is the number of trains that run outside of Greater Manchester such as the Glossop line, Mid Cheshire Line, Buxton Line and the trains to New Mills Central.

One thing useful about the London Overground is the only major station not in Greater London is Watford Junction.

 

[Chester1]

I think a big problem is the number of trains that run outside of Greater Manchester such as the Glossop line, Mid Cheshire Line, Buxton Line and the trains to New Mills Central.

One thing useful about the London Overground is the only major station not in Greater London is Watford Junction.

There are plenty within or mostly within Greater Manchester. New Mills is very near and Glossop is a comparable distance from GM as Chester is from Merseyside. There is no major station outside Greater Manchester on the list of services I suggested in the opening post.

 

[Mathew S]

Surely it should be at least be 2tph

If that was a reply to me - nope. Only 1 of the VTWC servies through Wigan / Warrington stops at Crewe (the via Birmingham). The other is direct from Warrington to London. And obviously the inverse of that going North.

In the evenings it's actually less than 1tph because of the timings of the northbound services.

 

[Mathew S]

TfGM should try to arrange an alternative Metrolink + Northern only season ticket to reduce the prices but the latter would be under no obligation to agree.

Actually from my point of view (commuting Wigan - Manchester) the heavy rail season tickets are really very good value indeed. ~£110 a month Pemberton to Manchester is not only half as much as I'd be paying in petrol it's also twice as fast on the train as it is driving, and much more reliable. And that's despite the thoroughly naff rolling stock we get on the Kirkby line. It only gets expensive when you want to add on Metrolink travel outside of the City Zone, eg. to Media City, when the price can easily double. Better priced combined season tickets would be great, but I'd argue that it's TfGM who should be moving and bring down prices rather than the TOCs.

Of course, Metrolink is pretty useless at the moment due to poor service frequency outside the city centre, and overcrowding at silly levels in the peaks. If they ran at a 6 minute freqency on all lines, all day, then it would be a useable service for me. Unfortunately at the moment it's too crowded in the peak and too infrequent out of it for me to make regular use.

 

[142blue]

The stations proposal was rejected by the government this week.

TfGM are not proposing more conversions of NR track. They have proposed introducing Tram Trains but that now seems very unlikely.

Do you have a link to this proposal and subsequent rejection. Interested to hear what was proposed and then dismissed for local stations

 

[daodao]

Metrolink has its limiations, most notably speed. None of the lines I referenced will be converted to light rail and tram train seems very unlikely because of the Sheffield debacle. Glossop/New Mills Central/Rose Hill to Piccadilly highlight my point. The lines are mostly within Greater Manchester and largely segregated from other services. Tram train might work in the long term but the first stage should be placing them under TfGM control but allowing paths for the Hope Valley stoppers and TPE service.

A segregated Metrolink route could run (separate from the railway) from Piccadilly Metrolink station to just beyond Ashburys, then via Reddish North and Romiley to Rose Hill. For the 1.5 miles (approximately) between Romiley and Marple Bridge Junction, the route could be shared with Network Rail with 2 completely separate single tracks, 1 for Metrolink and 1 for Network Rail, which should be adequate for a 12 minute frequency on Metrolink and a 20-30 minute passenger train frequency on Network Rail, with capacity for freight trains outside peak periods.

It would be difficult to convert the Glossop line to Metrolink without restoring 4 tracks between Ashburys and Guide Bridge and an innovative solution to keep Metrolink separate from Network Rail between a point just west of Guide Bridge and Hyde North. In addition, Glossop and Hadfield are not in Greater M/c, so why would TfGM wish to invest in this line; it would also kill off for good any possibility of re-opening the Woodhead line.

On a general point, Tram-Train looks to be a very complicated and difficult-to-deliver solution for GB, based on the Sheffield experience. The continentals seem to be able to deliver it much more easily. However, there are a few lines in the UK that could be converted wholly to light rail. Ashburys to Rose Hill is one. Squires Gate to Lytham is another. There are other possibilities, but separate from existing LRT networks.

 

[daodao]

Of course, Metrolink is pretty useless at the moment due to poor service frequency outside the city centre, and overcrowding at silly levels in the peaks. If they ran at a 6 minute freqency on all lines, all day, then it would be a useable service for me. Unfortunately at the moment it's too crowded in the peak and too infrequent out of it for me to make regular use.

A 12 minute frequency (15 minutes before 1000 and after 1730 on Sundays) is good in comparison to nearly all rail and most bus services.

 

[Ianno87]

A segregated Metrolink route could run (separate from the railway) from Piccadilly Metrolink station to just beyond Ashburys, then via Reddish North and Romiley to Rose Hill. For the 1.5 miles (approximately) between Romiley and Marple Bridge Junction, the route could be shared with Network Rail with 2 completely separate single tracks, 1 for Metrolink and 1 for Network Rail, which should be adequate for a 12 minute frequency on Metrolink and a 20-30 minute passenger train frequency on Network Rail, with capacity for freight trains outside peak periods.

It would be difficult to convert the Glossop line to Metrolink without restoring 4 tracks between Ashburys and Guide Bridge and an innovative solution to keep Metrolink separate from Network Rail between a point just west of Guide Bridge and Hyde North. In addition, Glossop and Hadfield are not in Greater M/c, so why would TfGM wish to invest in this line; it would also kill off for good any possibility of re-opening the Woodhead line.

On a general point, Tram-Train looks to be a very complicated and difficult-to-deliver solution for GB, based on the Sheffield experience. The continentals seem to be able to deliver it much more easily. However, there are a few lines in the UK that could be converted wholly to light rail. Ashburys to Rose Hill is one. Squires Gate to Lytham is another. There are other possibilities, but separate from existing LRT networks.

The risk of singling the NR route between Romiley and Marple Wharf Jn is you'd risk having to time the whole Hope Valley service pattern around the resulting single.

E.g. Sheffield-Manchester stoppers basically pass each other at Marple Wharf Jn. Tweaking them means tweaking their Hope Valley paths, which then means retiming Airport-Cleethorpes and Liverpool-Norwich, etc. etc.

 

[pemma]

That problem exists for all franchises and is a matter of decent planning. We will soon be awash with old EMUs nationally anyway. London Overground doesn't limit stock available for its neighbouring franchises.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the GM franchise will have enough stock under normal circumstances but a few unit failures at a time when a couple of units are away for exams or refreshes will leave the GM franchise short of stock. Currently if GM area is short of stock Northern can use an additional Allerton 156 on a Newton Heath diagram but the GM franchise won't have access to stock from another depot and even if they can arrange a loan it might not be they can loan a unit which their crews sign e.g. if they only sign 150s and 319s then a loaned 156 isn't any better than no train.

As it is there's 319s sat around spare but Northern can't just put them on GM services for a few reasons:
1. Crew training.
2. 319s needing paths timed for 319s not paths timed for 323s.
3. Diagramming e.g. putting a 319 on the 16:58 Piccadilly to Hazel Grove won't release a DMU for another service and it will require additional ECS moves, which need more paths.

 

[pemma]

The attitude of those at the top at Transport for Greater Manchester seems to be one of... the answer is Metrolink, what is the question? So if they could convert all the remaining heavy rail lines to Metrolink they would be more satisfied.

The original question was how do we link Piccadilly and Victoria if funding isn't available for a Piccadilly to Victoria tunnel or the Ordsall Chord? The answer they came up with was a Piccadilly-Bury Metrolink line.

 

[pemma]

There are plenty within or mostly within Greater Manchester. New Mills is very near and Glossop is a comparable distance from GM as Chester is from Merseyside. There is no major station outside Greater Manchester on the list of services I suggested in the opening post.

There's already a special arrangement between TfGM and Derbyshire CC for Glossop, Dinting and Hadfield stations.

The New Mills and Marple services would be complicated to transfer to a new franchise without also transferring the stoppers through to Sheffield. It would be easier to transfer Ellesmere Port to Liverpool services to a separate franchise to Merseyrail, then to transfer the New Mills services to a GM franchise but not the ones through to Sheffield.

 

[daodao]

The risk of singling the NR route between Romiley and Marple Wharf Jn is you'd risk having to time the whole Hope Valley service pattern around the resulting single.

E.g. Sheffield-Manchester stoppers basically pass each other at Marple Wharf Jn. Tweaking them means tweaking their Hope Valley paths, which then means retiming Airport-Cleethorpes and Liverpool-Norwich, etc. etc.

That is not a fundamental reason why it can't be done. If the M/c to Rose Hill service is transferred to Metrolink (+/- the M/c-Glossop) service, the remaining train service would in any case have to be re-timetabled. The Airport-Cleethorpes service (and probably the local Hope Valley service) should probably be transferred to the EM franchise. It is problematic having 3 operators on the M/c-Sheffield route. TPE should be confined to the core fast services via Standedge tunnel.

 

[Mathew S]

A 12 minute frequency (15 minutes before 1000 and after 1730 on Sundays) is good in comparison to nearly all rail and most bus services.

The problem stems from the fact that Metrolink tries to be a 'turn up and go' service, like the Tube, and so doesn't have a timetable (publically). Unfortunately, a 12/15 minute frequency just isn't enough to run in that way. For example, just missing a tram from the park and ride at Ladywell can add 50% onto the length of my journey from there into the city. In that time I can have driven the rest of the way into the city, parked, and be in my office. It's just not practical to use the Metrolink for time-sensitive journeys.

I'm not trying to do Metrolink down, in many ways it's fantastic. My issue is that with a bit of thought and investment in the right places it could be a thousand times better.

 

[pemma]

The problem stems from the fact that Metrolink tries to be a 'turn up and go' service, like the Tube, and so doesn't have a timetable (publically). Unfortunately, a 12/15 minute frequency just isn't enough to run in that way. For example, just missing a tram from the park and ride at Ladywell can add 50% onto the length of my journey from there into the city. In that time I can have driven the rest of the way into the city, parked, and be in my office. It's just not practical to use the Metrolink for time-sensitive journeys.

Metrolink has a working timetable which might show (hypothetically) from Piccadilly - Eccles departures at xx:00, xx:12, xx:24, xx:36 and xx:48 with MediaCity departures at xx:06, xx:18, xx:30, xx:42 and xx:54. However, if xx:06 MediaCity tram is cancelled the xx:12 to Eccles might leave at xx:09 to keep the trams evenly spaced out, or alternatively if it's already known the Eccles trams are all 3 minutes behind schedule then the MediaCity trams might make themselves deliberately late.

 

[Mathew S]

Metrolink has a working timetable which might show (hypothetically) from Piccadilly - Eccles departures at xx:00, xx:12, xx:24, xx:36 and xx:48 with MediaCity departures at xx:06, xx:18, xx:30, xx:42 and xx:54. However, if xx:06 MediaCity tram is cancelled the xx:12 to Eccles might leave at xx:09 to keep the trams evenly spaced out, or alternatively if it's already known the Eccles trams are all 3 minutes behind schedule then the MediaCity trams might make themselves deliberately late.

It's that very variability that makes it so silly though. Either have a timetable, publish it, and stick to it or run a true 'walk up and go' service where - disruption not withstanding - passengers never have to wait more than 5/6 mins max.

 

[Chester1]

There's already a special arrangement between TfGM and Derbyshire CC for Glossop, Dinting and Hadfield stations.

The New Mills and Marple services would be complicated to transfer to a new franchise without also transferring the stoppers through to Sheffield. It would be easier to transfer Ellesmere Port to Liverpool services to a separate franchise to Merseyrail, then to transfer the New Mills services to a GM franchise but not the ones through to Sheffield.

Hope Valley stoppers are every two hours apart from on Saturdays. They could run seperately by Northern.

If Hazel Grove receives a 4th hourly service I would like it to be a Piccadilly-Stockport-Haze Grove-Chinley-Dore-Sheffield semi fast service opperating hourly using 185s with a skip stop pattern to serve the remaining Hope Valley stations. Perhaps extending some New Mills Central services to Chinley to provide a connection. The Hope Valley passing loops don't seem to be a high priority and without them a 3rd fast service can't happen.

The problem stems from the fact that Metrolink tries to be a 'turn up and go' service, like the Tube, and so doesn't have a timetable (publically). Unfortunately, a 12/15 minute frequency just isn't enough to run in that way. For example, just missing a tram from the park and ride at Ladywell can add 50% onto the length of my journey from there into the city. In that time I can have driven the rest of the way into the city, parked, and be in my office. It's just not practical to use the Metrolink for time-sensitive journeys.

I'm not trying to do Metrolink down, in many ways it's fantastic. My issue is that with a bit of thought and investment in the right places it could be a thousand times better.

There is insufficient demand to run every 6 minutes on all parts of the network. The Eccles Line cannot support the demand after 18 years which makes the Media City spur (built to bribe the BBC to move) surprisingly useful as an alternative terminus. Id bet Media City terminators become double sets before services all the way to Eccles. Ashton line may grow enough in the next few years to justify extending the Etihad terminator from Altrincham all the way to Ashton. Shaw to Rochdale will likely never support more than a 12 minute service. East Didsbury line has already switch from 12 to 6 minute frequency. Bury line is going to be every 4 minutes between Victoria and Crumpsall (the terminal for Trafford Park line services). Manchester Airport services could possibly justify 6 minutely frequency but the limit between Cornbrook and St Peters Square is 45tph (10 Altrincham, 10 East Disbury, 10 Eccles / Media City) meaning that it would take up 10 of the remaining 15 paths limiting Trafford Park to 5, which will probably be enough but not definitely.

 

[pemma]

Hope Valley stoppers are every two hours apart from on Saturdays. They could run seperately by Northern.

They'll be every hour Mon-Sat at the next recast, which will mean no off-peak daytime services will terminate at New Mills Central.

 

[Ianno87]

Hope Valley stoppers are every two hours apart from on Saturdays. They could run seperately by Northern.

If Hazel Grove receives a 4th hourly service I would like it to be a Piccadilly-Stockport-Haze Grove-Chinley-Dore-Sheffield semi fast service opperating hourly using 185s with a skip stop pattern to serve the remaining Hope Valley stations. Perhaps extending some New Mills Central services to Chinley to provide a connection. The Hope Valley passing loops don't seem to be a high priority and without them a 3rd fast service can't happen.



There is insufficient demand to run every 6 minutes on all parts of the network. The Eccles Line cannot support the demand after 18 years which makes the Media City spur (built to bribe the BBC to move) surprisingly useful as an alternative terminus. Id bet Media City terminators become double sets before services all the way to Eccles. Ashton line may grow enough in the next few years to justify extending the Etihad terminator from Altrincham all the way to Ashton. Shaw to Rochdale will likely never support more than a 12 minute service. East Didsbury line has already switch from 12 to 6 minute frequency. Bury line is going to be every 4 minutes between Victoria and Crumpsall (the terminal for Trafford Park line services). Manchester Airport services could possibly justify 6 minutely frequency but the limit between Cornbrook and St Peters Square is 45tph (10 Altrincham, 10 East Disbury, 10 Eccles / Media City) meaning that it would take up 10 of the remaining 15 paths limiting Trafford Park to 5, which will probably be enough but not definitely.

I reckon 5 will be adequate most of the time for Trafford Park, although I wouldn't be at all surprised if 'reliefs' end up having to be operated to meet Christmas/New Year sales shopping demand, even if just shuttling between Trafford Centre and Cornbrook/DG-CF.

 

[Chester1]

They'll be every hour Mon-Sat at the next recast, which will mean no off-peak daytime services will terminate at New Mills Central.

There should be though! All day service 2tph for New Mills Central. As I have said, I would like to see the Hope Valley stopper replaced with a semi fast skip stop service via Stockport using 185s. Pathing through Stockport would be an issue. I know the third Hazel Grove service starts next year but I am not sure what is happening to plans for a fourth service. If Hazel Grove gets 4tph I would have see 2tph EMUs all stops to Piccadilly with a Buxton 769 service and a Hope Valley skip stop 185 service both calling only at Stockport.

I reckon 5 will be adequate most of the time for Trafford Park, although I wouldn't be at all surprised if 'reliefs' end up having to be operated to meet Christmas/New Year sales shopping demand, even if just shuttling between Trafford Centre and Cornbrook/DG-CF.

I doubt a shuttle would be practical to Cornbrook and there would be no spare paths to Deansgate-Castlefield. If Trafford Park exceeds demand it would have to opperate doubled up services every 12 minutes instead of the usual singles every 6 minutes. Major shopping days are mostly at weekends and Bank Holidays when Eccles line services could be reduced to the Sunday frequency of every 12 minutes running Eccles via Media City to free up 5 paths per hour for Trafford Park.

 

[route:oxford]

They work well in London because they are effectively subsided.

They also work quite well here in Oxford. I can use a Smartzone card on either Stagecoach or Go-Ahead service. Services every 4 minutes on some routes. There are also services all through the night on some routes. Christmas Day services have operated for a number of years now too.

As far as I can see, there are no subsidised bus services in Oxfordshire anymore. Although there are some private & public sector subisdies from a number of key employers to assist their employees getting to and from work.

 

[pemma]

I was forgetting Mon-Fri that New Mills Central got an extra hourly service introduced a few years back. However, New Mills Central just gets the Sheffield trains at the weekend.

The Sheffield stopper going via New Mills prevents there being an issue if the Norwich service doesn't run to time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a Greater M/c rail network - it's called Metrolink.

I have wondered if it would make sense to integrate the GM-"domestic" rail services into Metrolink and brand them "MetrolinkExpress" or something. But operationally it would probably make sense to leave them with Northern, just like the Merseyrail "branded" Northern services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was forgetting Mon-Fri that New Mills Central got an extra hourly service introduced a few years back. However, New Mills Central just gets the Sheffield trains at the weekend.

It is about time the Marples got a full Sunday service. It really is very poor at present and has been for years.

 

[Mathew S]

There is insufficient demand to run every 6 minutes on all parts of the network. The Eccles Line cannot support the demand after 18 years which makes the Media City spur (built to bribe the BBC to move) surprisingly useful as an alternative terminus. Id bet Media City terminators become double sets before services all the way to Eccles. Ashton line may grow enough in the next few years to justify extending the Etihad terminator from Altrincham all the way to Ashton. Shaw to Rochdale will likely never support more than a 12 minute service. East Didsbury line has already switch from 12 to 6 minute frequency. Bury line is going to be every 4 minutes between Victoria and Crumpsall (the terminal for Trafford Park line services). Manchester Airport services could possibly justify 6 minutely frequency but the limit between Cornbrook and St Peters Square is 45tph (10 Altrincham, 10 East Disbury, 10 Eccles / Media City) meaning that it would take up 10 of the remaining 15 paths limiting Trafford Park to 5, which will probably be enough but not definitely.

I don't disagree with any of that (save one point, below), and it's the same logic that TfGM used when creating the service spec for the new franchise (I can't find it again now, but it's on the GMCA transport committee website... somewhere).

All I would say is that TfGM are supposed to be on a kick to reduce congestion on the roads. If they were serious about it, then an increase in tram frequency to create a true 'walk up and go' service would surely be the right move.

The point I disagree with is the max frequencies of trams on the network. One of the statements that came out of TfGM at the award of the new franchise was that the entire signalling/tram management system is to be replaced with a new/better system. If that's the case, then the opportunity should be taken to dramatically increase capacity through core sections of the network (eg. 60tph through Cornbrook-St Peter's Square) to allow a matching increase elsewhere on the network. It won't happen, though, despite the fact it would encourage more people off the roads, because nobody will pay for it.

 

[Chester1]

I don't disagree with any of that (save one point, below), and it's the same logic that TfGM used when creating the service spec for the new franchise (I can't find it again now, but it's on the GMCA transport committee website... somewhere).

All I would say is that TfGM are supposed to be on a kick to reduce congestion on the roads. If they were serious about it, then an increase in tram frequency to create a true 'walk up and go' service would surely be the right move.

The point I disagree with is the max frequencies of trams on the network. One of the statements that came out of TfGM at the award of the new franchise was that the entire signalling/tram management system is to be replaced with a new/better system. If that's the case, then the opportunity should be taken to dramatically increase capacity through core sections of the network (eg. 60tph through Cornbrook-St Peter's Square) to allow a matching increase elsewhere on the network. It won't happen, though, despite the fact it would encourage more people off the roads, because nobody will pay for it.

I am not sure if new signalling would be sufficient to increase services past 45tph. I think the old viaduct would need to be brought back into use (at enormous expense because it is in a very poor state) and a fourth platform built at Deansgate-Castlefield to allow the planned 45tph plus an additional 10tph terminating at Deansgate. I doubt this would be worth the huge cost and 45tph is not hugely limiting.

One solution to rolling stock issues created by a Greater Manchester ToC would be to have a dual franchise with Northern being run as a normal ToC and TfGM keeping all revanue of the GM ToC services in a Merseyrail style management contract. TfGM could decide the GM ITT but DFT and TfN decide the winner for the whole Northern and GM franchise. The staff could switch regularly depending on need and units switched when one part of the joint franchise is short.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Good though Merseyrail Electrics are, their services all stop at or just across the county border at places like Ellesmere Port, Ormskirk, Kirkby and Hunts Cross. This is bad news for people living in places like Neston, Burscough, Helsby, Skelmersdale etc. To make matters worse, ME's fares are much higher for places outside Merseyside and trains to Ellesmere Port are the first to be cancelled or reduced whenever there is a strike or other disruption.

TfGM are equally hostile to out-of-county visitors, charging us to use the tram to make connections between Piccadilly and Victoria. The Ordsall Chord will hopefully cut off this source of income.

If you focus power in a particular area, you are like to end up with barmpot circular or U-shaped services of little use to long-distance passengers. There used to be Chester - Manchester - Southport workings for example when both end points would have been better served by through trains to Yorkshire. Kirkby to Blackburn via Todmorden is equally bizarre.

 

[pemma]

There used to be Chester - Manchester - Southport workings for example when both end points would have been better served by through trains to Yorkshire.

Weekday and Saturday workings between Southport and Chester existed in the 90s but stopped when Southport got it's Manchester Airport service. Sunday services finished up being introduced in December 2008 - apparently the original plan would have seen Southport services terminate at Stockport but Northern decided it would be more efficient to run alternate trains through to Chester. The ones that didn't extend to Chester were later extended to Hazel Grove at the request of TfGM.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Abolish TfGM and Merseytravel and re-instate the proper county palatinate of Lancashire. Had Lancashire remained in it's original form it would have had near enough the population of London within it's boundary. With that sway it's transport network could have been far more extensive than the fractured Manchester-centric mess we have today.

 

[Chester1]

Abolish TfGM and Merseytravel and re-instate the proper county palatinate of Lancashire. Had Lancashire remained in it's original form it would have had near enough the population of London within it's boundary. With that sway it's transport network could have been far more extensive than the fractured Manchester-centric mess we have today.

What about Wirral, Runcorn, Stockport and Altrincham? The cross county nature of the Manchester and Liverpools urban areas meant that something needed to be done.

Would having rural areas in the same area of local government as Liverpool and Manchester make sense? Lancaster City district, Wyre (minus Fleetwood), Ribble Valley, Pendle and northern (rural) parts of Fylde and Preston districts would make sense as a unitary authority. Maybe a Lancashire Combined Authority could be created by merging the rest into unitary authority boroughs and adding in Blackpool and Blackburn but thats about as big as Lancashire could get.

Manchester is the economic centre for the north thats why both rail franchises are Manchester centric.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Manchester is the economic centre for the north thats why both rail franchises are Manchester centric.

It may be but it needs the surrounding areas to propel that economy. Having blinkered transport policies and funding that end at contrived boundaries do nothing for the region as a whole.