Released Capacity In Manchester As A Result Of Tram-Train Introduction

[Purple Orange]

They are however ideally suited to urban and suburban lines into major cities. Like the Atherton line.

I think the circa 40 million passenger journeys made on Metrolink are testament to its popularity and usefulness. In fact that’s about as many as the heavy rail network in to central Manchester.

 

[yorksrob]

They are however ideally suited to urban and suburban lines into major cities. Like the Atherton line.

Except the Atherton line isn't really an urban/suburban line. It's a middle distance regional route linking Manchester and Wigan and serving distinct intermediate towns. It's ideally suited to a good frequency regional commuter line service.

 

[Purple Orange]

Except the Atherton line isn't really an urban/suburban line. It's a middle distance regional route linking Manchester and Wigan and serving distinct intermediate towns. It's ideally suited to a good frequency regional commuter line service.

Walkden, Swinton, Salford are not suburban? Atherton itself is ideal for being a place to commute too.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the circa 40 million passenger journeys made on Metrolink are testament to its popularity and usefulness. In fact that’s about as many as the heavy rail network in to central Manchester.

Which is clearly testament to the popularity and usefulness of the heavy rail network.

Walkden, Swinton, Salford are not suburban? Atherton itself is ideal for being a place to commute too.

There are lots of places that people commute from that aren't suburbs. Since when was Basingstoke a suburb of London ?

 

[geordieblue]

Really ? I can't imagine many of my fellow passengers would approve of a set of buffers apearing at say, Wakefield Kirkgate, and having to traipse onto another train every time they wanted to travel south.

I'm also not convinced that light rail is spectacularly more popular than heavy. Light rail systems are relatively rare and suited to a small number of large urban areas. They are not a national transit system.

Of course they aren't, but towns around Manchester (a large urban area) would benefit far more from a 5tph tram service than a 2tph diesel train service. People use light rail more than heavy rail (e.g. Heworth on the T&W Metro) and your example of Wakefield is cherry-picked- this sort of splitting is only really found on Merseyrail, which is a heavy rail service!

 

[yorksrob]

Of course they aren't, but towns around Manchester (a large urban area) would benefit far more from a 5tph tram service than a 2tph diesel train service. People use light rail more than heavy rail (e.g. Heworth on the T&W Metro) and your example of Wakefield is cherry-picked- this sort of splitting is only really found on Merseyrail, which is a heavy rail service!

Well, I have some sympathy with your point of view - I don't believe the cities and towns of the North are that much different from eachother. And as I've said, I live in a town that's disadvantaged by what is frankly, an inadequate heavy rail service to the nearest City, so in a way, I know where you're coming from in terms of the need to improve local services into cities.

I just really think that a decent, half hourly heavy rail service to (in my case Leeds and Sheffield) would be a real game changer, and that those links into the national network would be better than.a self-contained network based on Leeds, however frequent. I also aspire to the service to Huddersfield coming back as this was useful as well.

I travel to Atherton a lot and I see somewhere in the same boat.

 

[Purple Orange]

This thread has clearly been derailed from my original question, but either way the plans as we know it are for tram-trains to be used on 4 routes in to Manchester, providing an improved frequency of at least 5 tph, with some sections potentially seeing 10.

The debate on 3 EMUs per hour vs 5 trams per hour offers no discernible benefit to passengers for having EMUs in to Victoria or Piccadilly, when the Train-Trams can alleviate capacity at Victoria and Piccadilly for use on other services not aligned to Metrolink.

With that in mind, should the capacity at Piccadilly and Victoria be released as a result of the introduction of tram trains, where should this capacity be allocated?

 

[geordieblue]

Well, I have some sympathy with your point of view - I don't believe the cities and towns of the North are that much different from eachother. And as I've said, I live in a town that's disadvantaged by what is frankly, an inadequate heavy rail service to the nearest City, so in a way, I know where you're coming from in terms of the need to improve local services into cities.

I just really think that a decent, half hourly heavy rail service to (in my case Leeds and Sheffield) would be a real game changer, and that those links into the national network would be better than.a self-contained network based on Leeds, however frequent. I also aspire to the service to Huddersfield coming back as this was useful as well.

I travel to Atherton a lot and I see somewhere in the same boat.

I hugely agree, heavy rail is very important and somewhere like Normaton definitely deserves a proper railway station. Indeed I would definitely support an increase in frequency for towns like Normanton which sit just outside of urban areas. However, I feel somewhere like West Yorkshire should have a metro service anyway and this should come even if it is at the expense of heavy rail, as per the Merseyrail model. If Normanton had 4tph metro and 1tph heavy rail to Leeds, that would at least provide a service improvement and give the consumer a choice.

 

[yorksrob]

I hugely agree, heavy rail is very important and somewhere like Normaton definitely deserves a proper railway station. Indeed I would definitely support an increase in frequency for towns like Normanton which sit just outside of urban areas. However, I feel somewhere like West Yorkshire should have a metro service anyway and this should come even if it is at the expense of heavy rail, as per the Merseyrail model. If Normanton had 4tph metro and 1tph heavy rail to Leeds, that would at least provide a service improvement and give the consumer a choice.

Well I think we agree on the need, if not necessarily the solution!

 

[geordieblue]

Well I think we agree on the need, if not necessarily the solution!

Good way of putting it

 

[Bevan Price]

Well yes a train-tram would be very useful on the Atherton line.

View attachment 84226


The map above shows a possible route the tram could take from Salford Crescent, which is fairly direct and drops you off more centrally than Victoria. Prior to Salford Crescent, the line would be on the existing tracks.

Maybe - in some kind of dreamworld. But in the real world, using roads between Salford Crescent and Manchester city centre is painfully s..l..o..w - as demonstated by anyone using the "express" buses V1 & V2 over the same route -- despite cars being discouraged from much of that section. .

 

[Purple Orange]

Maybe - in some kind of dreamworld. But in the real world, using roads between Salford Crescent and Manchester city centre is painfully s..l..o..w - as demonstated by anyone using the "express" buses V1 & V2 over the same route -- despite cars being discouraged from much of that section. .

It will likely be segregated.

 

[Bevan Price]

It will likely be segregated.

But it will still have to endure the same road junctions & traffic lights as the bus routes. The current on-street sections of Metrolink are mostly very slow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it will still have to endure the same road junctions & traffic lights as the bus routes. The current on-street sections of Metrolink are mostly very slow.

Poor design. It should have absolute priority and it doesn't.

 

[158756]

This thread has clearly been derailed from my original question, but either way the plans as we know it are for tram-trains to be used on 4 routes in to Manchester, providing an improved frequency of at least 5 tph, with some sections potentially seeing 10.

The debate on 3 EMUs per hour vs 5 trams per hour offers no discernible benefit to passengers for having EMUs in to Victoria or Piccadilly, when the Train-Trams can alleviate capacity at Victoria and Piccadilly for use on other services not aligned to Metrolink.

With that in mind, should the capacity at Piccadilly and Victoria be released as a result of the introduction of tram trains, where should this capacity be allocated?

Well, if we're removing (pre Covid) 3tph Atherton, 4tph CLC, 2tph Glossop, 2 or 4tph depending if it's one or both routes to Marple, plus likely service cuts to other destinations in the post Covid world, rather than looking at reallocating capacity I'd be asking how much the land at Victoria is worth.

 

[The Ham]

Well, if we're removing (pre Covid) 3tph Atherton, 4tph CLC, 2tph Glossop, 2 or 4tph depending if it's one or both routes to Marple, plus likely service cuts to other destinations in the post Covid world, rather than looking at reallocating capacity I'd be asking how much the land at Victoria is worth.

The problem with such thinking is that it assumes that any cut* would be maintained forever and that people would still use rail services even if the station that they use no longer exists (remembering that many wouldn't use a station the next village over without getting in a car to get there, even though it may well be a distance whi

* If they were to happen at all, given rail is currently running at 40% of last year's figures with some very strong encouragements not to travel. Which leads to the question when did we last see that level of passenger use on the railways?

If it were 1985 then we'd probably all agree that there'd be a need for significant cuts, but what about 1995? Sounds there be if it that way the case, I'd imagine that more would start to argue that there shouldn't be cuts or that they be fairly limited in nature.

What if it was in 2005? How would your view change then? If it was then I'd imagine that the balance would be shifting towards not making cuts, and even many of those supporting cuts would agree that they would be limited in nature.

Hopefully I've given you enough of a chance to consider your possession based on when that 40% of 2010 passenger flows happened. If not please do so before reading on.

For those who have I'll give you some numbers in 2019 there was 1,795 million passenger trips, so 40% of this would be 718 million passenger trips.

Now here's the historical figures:
2005 1,076
2000 957
1995 761
1990 810
1985 686

As such it's probably late 80's and early 1990's that we had those figures.

However that's only part of the story, in that demands is very much suppressed with the rule of six, large areas where 2 households can't mix, much more working from home than they or their employers would like, etc.

As such where would passenger numbers likely to be one those restrictions are removed?

Even if getting back to 45% would put it late 1990's, whilst back to 60% (and only 50% more than current figures) would be 2005.

As such before we start looking to sell of city centre stations maybe we should wait a year or two to see what happens, as it's possible that were could see falls of just 10% (2015) to 20% (~2012). If that were to happen would it still be wise to cut services?

 

[daodao]

This thread has clearly been derailed from my original question, but either way the plans as we know it are for tram-trains to be used on 4 routes in to Manchester, providing an improved frequency of at least 5 tph, with some sections potentially seeing 10. The debate on 3 EMUs per hour vs 5 trams per hour offers no discernible benefit to passengers for having EMUs in to Victoria or Piccadilly, when the Train-Trams can alleviate capacity at Victoria and Piccadilly for use on other services not aligned to Metrolink. With that in mind, should the capacity at Piccadilly and Victoria be released as a result of the introduction of tram trains, where should this capacity be allocated?

The first change should be the conversion of the Rose Hill to Piccadilly service to Metrolink, running via Reddish and "on street" from Ashburys to the eastern portal of underground Piccadilly Metrolink station. That would release 2 tph capacity at Piccadilly platforms 1-3, which could then be used as the terminus for all Standedge route trains not extending to Liverpool Lime Street. This would have the added benefit of removing 2 tph from the Castlefield corridor.

 

[Purple Orange]

The first change should be the conversion of the Rose Hill to Piccadilly service to Metrolink, running via Reddish and "on street" from Ashburys to the eastern portal of underground Piccadilly Metrolink station. That would release 2 tph capacity at Piccadilly platforms 1-3, which could then be used as the terminus for all Standedge route trains not extending to Liverpool Lime Street. This would have the added benefit of removing 2 tph from the Castlefield corridor.

Would those Standedge services be the TPE airport services that go around the chord? Or am I mistaken?

 

[daodao]

Would those Standedge services be the TPE airport services that go around the chord? Or am I mistaken?

Yes.

For clarification (although this is off topic), IMO use of the Castlefield corridor should be restricted to the Northern TOC, which should take over the Nottingham-Sheffield-Stockport-Liverpool service from EMR. TPE and TfW should not be allowed to congest the Castlefield corridor with unsuitable long-distance trains notorious for poor time-keeping. Northern could run a service from the Airport to Leeds via the Ordsall curve and Rochdale to preserve links from Manchester Airport to the West Riding.

 

[Purple Orange]

The problem with such thinking is that it assumes that any cut* would be maintained forever and that people would still use rail services even if the station that they use no longer exists (remembering that many wouldn't use a station the next village over without getting in a car to get there, even though it may well be a distance whi

* If they were to happen at all, given rail is currently running at 40% of last year's figures with some very strong encouragements not to travel. Which leads to the question when did we last see that level of passenger use on the railways?

If it were 1985 then we'd probably all agree that there'd be a need for significant cuts, but what about 1995? Sounds there be if it that way the case, I'd imagine that more would start to argue that there shouldn't be cuts or that they be fairly limited in nature.

What if it was in 2005? How would your view change then? If it was then I'd imagine that the balance would be shifting towards not making cuts, and even many of those supporting cuts would agree that they would be limited in nature.

Hopefully I've given you enough of a chance to consider your possession based on when that 40% of 2010 passenger flows happened. If not please do so before reading on.

For those who have I'll give you some numbers in 2019 there was 1,795 million passenger trips, so 40% of this would be 718 million passenger trips.

Now here's the historical figures:
2005 1,076
2000 957
1995 761
1990 810
1985 686

As such it's probably late 80's and early 1990's that we had those figures.

However that's only part of the story, in that demands is very much suppressed with the rule of six, large areas where 2 households can't mix, much more working from home than they or their employers would like, etc.

As such where would passenger numbers likely to be one those restrictions are removed?

Even if getting back to 45% would put it late 1990's, whilst back to 60% (and only 50% more than current figures) would be 2005.

As such before we start looking to sell of city centre stations maybe we should wait a year or two to see what happens, as it's possible that were could see falls of just 10% (2015) to 20% (~2012). If that were to happen would it still be wise to cut services?

Yes, it would be crazy to sell off infrastructure due to Covid. It would only lead to increased car usage, which would be absolutely the wrong thing to do, given that climate change is a far greater threat.

Yes.

For clarification (although this is off topic), IMO use of the Castlefield corridor should be restricted to the Northern TOC, which should take over the Nottingham-Sheffield-Stockport-Liverpool service from EMR. TPE and TfW should not be allowed to congest the Castlefield corridor with unsuitable long-distance trains notorious for poor time-keeping. Northern could run a service from the Airport to Leeds via the Ordsall curve and Rochdale to preserve links from Manchester Airport to the West Riding.

It might not be popular, but I would split the EMR service at Piccadilly, with the Nottingham-Manchester portions terminating at Piccadilly and the Manchester-Liverpool portion working as a stopper. If there is capacity, have a 3rd express between Victoria & Lime Street. I used to have the opposite opinion, but Castlefield is simply not working for the majority of passengers who use it.

Sorry Liverpool, you’ll have to wait till NPR comes along.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It might not be popular, but I would split the EMR service at Piccadilly, with the Nottingham-Manchester portions terminating at Piccadilly and the Manchester-Liverpool portion working as a stopper. If there is capacity, have a 3rd express between Victoria & Lime Street. I used to have the opposite opinion, but Castlefield is simply not working for the majority of passengers who use it.

What might be a reasonable thing to do with regard to Liverpool would be to do the following:
- Lop the EMR at Piccadilly as noted
- Introduce a 1tph 3-car Class 195 service from Liverpool Lime St calling at Widnes, Warrington W, Warrington C, Oxford Rd, Picc, Stockport, (Davenport, Woodsmoor,) Hazel Grove then all stations to Sheffield via the Hope Valley
- Terminate Hope Valley trains via Marple at Chinley

I think this does fit with a long-term plan to move the Hope Valley stoppers to run via Stockport. It would retain Liverpool's connection to Sheffield, as well as making leisure opportunities in the Hope Valley better available without a change, and upgrading the quality of the rolling stock on that service too.