Would a station in Longsight (Manchester) work?

[Merseysider]

Purely theoretical question.

Levenshulme station is a mile south but Longsight has a potentially larger catchment area - especially with the Asda supermarket near to the trackline.

Stanley Grove or Kirkmanshulme Lane could be potential sites for a new station.

The station would obviously have to be elevated from ground level. But what could the frequency of service be - Hope Valley stoppers only? And would it gain enough passengers (a lot of whom currently use the bus) to be successful?

 

[Bungle965]

i would think that capacity in that area is pretty tight at the moment but you never know.
Sam

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The station would obviously have to be elevated from ground level. But what could the frequency of service be - Hope Valley stoppers only?

Don't they run via Bredbury?

 

[PermitToTravel]

The usage of nearby Levenshulme and Mauldeth Road stations leads me to suspect that a Longsight station would be well used. The bridge over Kirkmanshulme Lane would need replacing.

I imagine it would get the 4tph that currently stop at the other stations between Manchester and Stockport - possibly only the Alderley Edge / Hazel Grove / Crewe services (electric) if it would slow the Buxton ones (diesel) down too much.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Does the staff halt at Longsight still exist?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There have been railway stations called both Longsight and Rushford in that area in days of yore.

 

[Elecman]

It physically exists ...just

 

[mwmbwls]

Purely theoretical question.

Levenshulme station is a mile south but Longsight has a potentially larger catchment area - especially with the Asda supermarket near to the trackline.

Stanley Grove or Kirkmanshulme Lane could be potential sites for a new station.

The station would obviously have to be elevated from ground level. But what could the frequency of service be - Hope Valley stoppers only? And would it gain enough passengers (a lot of whom currently use the bus) to be successful?

The old Longsight Station opened on to Kirkmanshulme Lane
http://manchesterhistory.net/railway/Railhist.html
It closed because of competition from the local buses and the restricting effect of stopping and starting trains so close to Piccadilly on the operation of the latter. The same restraints still apply - the bus frequency on the 192 is IIRC up to 15bph.

 

[PermitToTravel]

When the old station closed the line hadn't yet been electrified, and I believe it hadn't yet been quadrupled either.

 

[alwaystouchout]

In the peaks I think there's around 18 192's an hour, in addition to whatever other services run that stretch into/away from Piccadilly. A station could be handy when regeneration starts to kick in around the area. Similarly could there be a case to look at regular services from Ardwick - depending on how adversely it could affect operations in/out of Piccadilly - in light of renewal projects in the West Gorton/A635 area?

 

[dggar]

When the old station closed the line hadn't yet been electrified, and I believe it hadn't yet been quadrupled either.

Not quite correct

http://manchesterhistory.net/railway/RailLoc.html

I believe that prior to electrification( late Fifties) the roads through Longsight were:
Up Slow
Up Fast
Down Fast
Down Slow.


After electrification and remodelling of the layout this became:
Up Fast
Down Fast
Up Slow
Down Slow

There have been other remodelling works since the initial electrification scheme which results in "Slow Trains to Stockport" taking either Up road and the all airport traffic taking the "Slow" roads

 

[Jeni]

Seeing how busy the 192s get between the city and Longsight, a station near Asda would be hugely popular. Even if it only takes say 20% of the passengers from the bus, that will still be a very large number.

Saying that, if it were to be the existing Manchester - Stockport stopping services calling there, there is no way they'd cope! Would need a much higher frequency or much longer trains! (Neither of which would happen, so it's probably not even worth trying)

 

[185]

I've always thought it was down to sheer snobbery, where TfGM are concerned. They were dead set against opening Cornbrook to the locals.

Imagine the mindset, I don't want my train from Willimslow stopping to pick up those lot.

So many missed opportunities in Transport for Greater Manchester just due to the politics and inability to admit their mistakes of the past.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I've always thought it was down to sheer snobbery, where TfGM are concerned. They were dead set against opening Cornbrook to the locals.

Imagine the mindset, I don't want my train from Willimslow stopping to pick up those lot.

So many missed opportunities in Transport for Greater Manchester just due to the politics and inability to admit their mistakes of the past.

Go on, I give up. I have been through all my maps both old and new and still cannot find this named settlement that I have emboldened in your posting.

I had to laugh when my good lady wife and I were on the stopping train from Manchester Airport to Manchester Piccadilly recently when at Heald Green, on every name station board side metal supports that display the name of the railway station, it had an identical size board immediately underneath, saying that the delights of Wythenshawe and its market and town centre were only 1 1/2 miles away.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The station would obviously have to be elevated from ground level. But what could the frequency of service be - Hope Valley stoppers only? And would it gain enough passengers (a lot of whom currently use the bus) to be successful?

It's served by a 192 bus at least every 10 minutes, and is very close to Manchester city centre so bus journey times are not excessive. I think it would need a metro-style service (at least every 15 minutes) to succeed.

Neil

 

[dggar]

It's served by a 192 bus at least every 10 minutes, and is very close to Manchester city centre so bus journey times are not excessive. I think it would need a metro-style service (at least every 15 minutes) to succeed.

Neil

assuming such a metro service could be provided which tracks would have platform faces.

 

[Bletchleyite]

assuming such a metro service could be provided which tracks would have platform faces.

That's part of the problem. (It was mad to change to fast-slow-fast-slow on this stretch, but they still did it, I think).

The outer ones, logically, were they the slows.

Neil

 

[PermitToTravel]

It changes at a flat crossing too! Looks very silly, I wonder why they did that.

 

[Ash Bridge]

A station would come in very handy for the Longsight Depot Open Day planned for 2017

 

[dggar]

A station would come in very handy for the Longsight Depot Open Day planned for 2017

They didn't bother when they had an open day in 1992

 

[Bevan Price]

Does the staff halt at Longsight still exist?

The staff halt is formed of short residual sections of the original Longsight station platforms, which were only on the then slow lines. The decision to reorganise the slow & fast lines probably helped to seal its fate, but in common with other stations close to city centres, I don't think it was well used. (I only used it once myself, with a couple of others who failed to negotiate an unplanned visit to Longsight steam depot. )

 

[ringi]

Seeing how busy the 192s get between the city and Longsight, a station near Asda would be hugely popular. Even if it only takes say 20% of the passengers from the bus, that will still be a very large number.

Saying that, if it were to be the existing Manchester - Stockport stopping services calling there, there is no way they'd cope! Would need a much higher frequency or much longer trains! (Neither of which would happen, so it's probably not even worth trying)

More buses would be a lot cheaper way to sort out over crowding on the 192 along with cashless operating to reduce times at stops. Given the short distance more investment in cycling may also pay off very well.

Train station too close into Manchester don’t help much, as the time saved by using the train is more then lost by having to then walk or use a bus once into Manchester.

I can’t see many more trains being fitted in between Stockport and Manchester until the HS2 removes the London trains from the line, but by that time most current commuters would have retired

 

[Bletchleyite]

It changes at a flat crossing too! Looks very silly, I wonder why they did that.

I think it had to do with PUG2 and 140mph running, which obviously didn't happen.

Neil

 

[Senex]

That's part of the problem. (It was mad to change to fast-slow-fast-slow on this stretch, but they still did it, I think).

The outer ones, logically, were they the slows.

Neil

They wanted to keep pairing by direction on the open line but have pairing by use approaching/leaving London Road, so that (a) the fasts would run into the longest platforms in the station (5,8 and 9, which were lengthened) and (b) the slows would lead directly into the South Junction line, since through running of the local services was planned.

The basic idea, that slow-fast-fast-slow is best on open line and slow-slow-fast-fast is best approaching a terminus, has been around for a very long time, but it only really works when you make the transition by means of a flyover/diveunder. Slade Lane was doing it on the cheap. Remember that PicVic proposed a flyover here, as well as another one at Edgeley Junction. The Railtrack solution, never implemented, was to pair by use all the way from Cheadle Hulme to Manchester, with the slows on the west side throughout.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Railtrack solution, never implemented, was to pair by use all the way from Cheadle Hulme to Manchester, with the slows on the west side throughout.

That would have been madness, as it would have meant that southbound stopping trains would run on the fast lines (there was no proposal to move the platforms for Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel).

Neil

 

[Greybeard33]

They wanted to keep pairing by direction on the open line but have pairing by use approaching/leaving London Road, so that (a) the fasts would run into the longest platforms in the station (5,8 and 9, which were lengthened) and (b) the slows would lead directly into the South Junction line, since through running of the local services was planned.

The basic idea, that slow-fast-fast-slow is best on open line and slow-slow-fast-fast is best approaching a terminus, has been around for a very long time, but it only really works when you make the transition by means of a flyover/diveunder. Slade Lane was doing it on the cheap. Remember that PicVic proposed a flyover here, as well as another one at Edgeley Junction. The Railtrack solution, never implemented, was to pair by use all the way from Cheadle Hulme to Manchester, with the slows on the west side throughout.

As I understand it, the section between Cheadle Hulme Junction and Adswood Road Junction would have remained double track, so southbound trains coming from the Up Slow would have had to cross the path of northbound trains heading for the Down Fast at Adswood Road. It seems arguable that this "solution" would have caused worse conflicts at Adswood Road than currently occur at Slade Lane.

That would have been madness, as it would have meant that southbound stopping trains would run on the fast lines (there was no proposal to move the platforms for Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel).

Neil

Hardly "madness", because some of the southbound non-stop trains could have used the Up Slow line - its track alignment and linespeed would presumably have been similar to that of the Down Fast in the current configuration. As things are, some non-stop trains in both directions use the Slow lines to maximise the total number of paths - it makes little difference to the journey time between Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport.

 

[185]

Go on, I give up. I have been through all my maps both old and new and still cannot find this named settlement that I have emboldened in your posting.

Haha, I'm thinking of the TfGM bigwigs, many who've been there for some time, and no matter what, will never change. Some years ago when I worked there, there were suggestions of a stop being placed onto a busy peak time express service to help move the overspill left behind by an all-stops service, and one manager, now retired, went to war to prevent the stop. Some years later, the stop appeared, and common sense prevailed.

 

[Senex]

That would have been madness, as it would have meant that southbound stopping trains would run on the fast lines (there was no proposal to move the platforms for Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel).

Neil

Indeed. Up locals on the up fast and down locals on the down slow. Loss of the flexibility of working at Edgeley, where I have quite often known trains switched from one island face to another at very short notice. A whole string of potential junction conflicts. Like quite a few others, I never understood at the time where this idea came from. The Ansaldo signalling fiasco saved us from all that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I understand it, the section between Cheadle Hulme Junction and Adswood Road Junction would have remained double track, so southbound trains coming from the Up Slow would have had to cross the path of northbound trains heading for the Down Fast at Adswood Road. It seems arguable that this "solution" would have caused worse conflicts at Adswood Road than currently occur at Slade Lane.
Hardly "madness", because some of the southbound non-stop trains could have used the Up Slow line - its track alignment and linespeed would presumably have been similar to that of the Down Fast in the current configuration. As things are, some non-stop trains in both directions use the Slow lines to maximise the total number of paths - it makes little difference to the journey time between Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport.

Yes, with 70-mph turnouts at Adswood Road Junction. Then 75 on the slow and 90 on the fasts onwards, so the up slow would not have had the same speed as the up fast.

As far as I can see the big loss in not getting that scheme is the failure to bring back Edgeley Jn to Hazel Grove to 60 from the 30/40 speeds that have applied for some twenty-odd years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hardly "madness", because some of the southbound non-stop trains could have used the Up Slow line - its track alignment and linespeed would presumably have been similar to that of the Down Fast in the current configuration. As things are, some non-stop trains in both directions use the Slow lines to maximise the total number of paths - it makes little difference to the journey time between Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport.

But wasn't this proposal part of PUG2, thus the fast would have been 140mph and essentially dedicated to Pendolinos and Voyagers?

Neil

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With the existing proximity of the depot at Longsight and Slade Lane junction coupled with the running line problems already stated in this thread to this proposed railway station alone, surely this is enough to convince anyone of the futility of this fantasy project.