Tram Train proposals in Greater Manchester

[northwichcat]

It won't let me copy and paste the summary table (section 3.14) http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/capital_projects_and_policy_agenda_papers_8_11_13.pdf but in short:

Phase 1 would be:
* Tram-trains on existing Altrincham Metrolink route with no extension to Mid-Cheshire line.
* Marple would be a full tram-train line.

Phase 2 would be:
* Glossop
* Hazel Grove

Possible future options:
* Stockport-Altrincham (with interchange station at Baguley)
* Wigan via Atherton

With regards to the Mid-Cheshire line it says to look at alternative heavy rail options instead. Maybe a Western Airport link? I have thought for a while that the Mid-Cheshire line can't viability have both a tram-train service via Sale on top of a Western Airport link.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I see that Manchester Metrolink are adding to the cultural ethos of TfGM-land by running their very own version of the ballet, The Ice Maiden, by Osipenko and Markovsky, early on Monday morning, with real ice on the wires..

 

[MK Tom]

What's the point of tram-trains to Altrincham if they don't run on heavy rail lines at all? Or would that entail redoubling the section through Navigation Road?

I'd be fascinated to see how Marple and Glossop would tie into the existing Metrolink.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd have thought Glossop was too far out of Manchester city centre for a light-rail type operation. I certainly wouldn't fancy making a trip like that regularly! This was one of the problems I had with the originally-mooted trial using the Penistone line (leaving aside the issues with bi-mode vehicles; crossing PTE boundaries; and all the money NR had just spent on lifting the locomotive ban on Longroyd Bridge viaduct!:roll.

The Glossop/Hadfield line doesn't need more money spending (read:wasting) on what would essentially be a downgrade. Marple and Rose Hill make more sense, being mostly pacer-operated currently and within the boundaries of Greater Manchester.

 

[northwichcat]

What's the point of tram-trains to Altrincham if they don't run on heavy rail lines at all? Or would that entail redoubling the section through Navigation Road?

Hopefully it'll be to allow Metrolink to use either line through Navigation Road but it does also talk about alternate Marple tram-train services running through to Altrincham so that could be the sole reason.

The M5000s have a number of issues on the Altrincham line:
* Poor quality ride between Cornbrook and Altrincham.
* Slower journey time than T68s.
* The internal layout makes them less suitable for longer journeys than the T68s.
* Not being able to run on the same line as heavy rail around Navigation Road causing Altrincham bound trams to have to sit idle for a few minutes after Timperley.

A tram-train could solve the above problems.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd have thought Glossop was too far out of Manchester city centre for a light-rail type operation. I certainly wouldn't fancy making a trip like that regularly! This was one of the problems I had with the originally-mooted trial using the Penistone line (leaving aside the issues with bi-mode vehicles; crossing PTE boundaries; and all the money NR had just spent on lifting the locomotive ban on Longroyd Bridge viaduct!:roll.

The Glossop/Hadfield line doesn't need more money spending (read:wasting) on what would essentially be a downgrade. Marple and Rose Hill make more sense, being mostly pacer-operated currently and within the boundaries of Greater Manchester.

The Penistone line stations would have had part or all of their platforms lowered meaning there would have been issues if the trial was deemed to be unsuccessful.

I imagine TfGM's argument for Glossop/Hadfield is they get a high capacity EMU every 30 minutes when Altrincham and Bury get a tram every 6 minutes.

Has anyone been on an electric tram-train in Europe?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Has anyone been on an electric tram-train in Europe?

I've been on a tram-train in Nordhausen Germany, although it ran on a diesel engine when on the Harz Schmalspurbahn. The diesel engine took up rather a large space in the centre of the tram, not a terribly good design and quite noisy IIRC

 

[radamfi]

Has anyone been on an electric tram-train in Europe?

Mulhouse, Karlsruhe and Saarbrucken.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I imagine TfGM's argument for Glossop/Hadfield is they get a high capacity EMU every 30 minutes when Altrincham and Bury get a tram every 6 minutes.

Not forgetting that Broadbottom sees the border of normal unfettered TfGM operations without recourse to any Derbyshire County Coucil involvement with the stations of Dinting, Glossop and Hadfield.

What has happened to the proposal for a station in the Gamesley area that comes under the Debyshire County Council jurisdiction ?

Have Derbyshire County Council made any official response to either of these two proposals?

 

[tbtc]

* Tram-trains on existing Altrincham Metrolink route with no extension to Mid-Cheshire line

Would that mean an end to the current through service to Bury (e.g. Eccles trams would have to run to Bury instead)?

Is the distance from Altricham really that much further than Bury (in terms of "internal layout makes them less suitable for longer journeys than the T68s")?

Phase 2 would be:
* Glossop
* Hazel Grove

Where are the spare paths through Hazel Grove and Guide Bridge (and why can't they be used for regular trains?

That'd presumably be quite a capacity decrease from the current 323s to Glossop - and I thought that one of the reasons why people were saying that 319s wouldn't be able to replace 323s was that they weren't as well powered (for getting up the slopes to Glossop)? In which case, a lightweight EMU (which is what I presume a "tram train" is going to be?) is really going to struggle.

 

[radamfi]

and I thought that one of the reasons why people were saying that 319s wouldn't be able to replace 323s was that they weren't as well powered (for getting up the slopes to Glossop)? In which case, a lightweight EMU (which is what I presume a "tram train" is going to be?) is really going to struggle.

Trams are better at hills than normal trains (see the steep gradients on Metrolink) so you would have thought that a tram train would be at least as good as a 323.

 

[northwichcat]

Would that mean an end to the current through service to Bury (e.g. Eccles trams would have to run to Bury instead)?

Not necessarily. Half of Altrincham trams go to Bury, the other half terminate at Piccadilly. Half of Bury trams go to Altrincham, the other half go to Ashton via Piccadilly.

Is the distance from Altricham really that much further than Bury (in terms of "internal layout makes them less suitable for longer journeys than the T68s")?

No. Metrolink claim Altrincham-Piccadilly and Bury-Piccadilly both take around 30 minutes: http://www.metrolink.co.uk/stationinfo/Documents/Pocket Guide.pdf

I think most of the reasons I gave for the Altrincham line apply for the Bury line as well.

That'd presumably be quite a capacity decrease from the current 323s to Glossop - and I thought that one of the reasons why people were saying that 319s wouldn't be able to replace 323s was that they weren't as well powered (for getting up the slopes to Glossop)? In which case, a lightweight EMU (which is what I presume a "tram train" is going to be?) is really going to struggle.

A 323 has up to around 280 seats. If Glossop was to get a 6 minute tram-train frequency then 47 seats on each tram-train would provide the same capacity as a 323 every 30 minutes.

 

[edwin_m]

Would that mean an end to the current through service to Bury (e.g. Eccles trams would have to run to Bury instead)?

Is the distance from Altricham really that much further than Bury (in terms of "internal layout makes them less suitable for longer journeys than the T68s")?



Where are the spare paths through Hazel Grove and Guide Bridge (and why can't they be used for regular trains?

That'd presumably be quite a capacity decrease from the current 323s to Glossop - and I thought that one of the reasons why people were saying that 319s wouldn't be able to replace 323s was that they weren't as well powered (for getting up the slopes to Glossop)? In which case, a lightweight EMU (which is what I presume a "tram train" is going to be?) is really going to struggle.

Hazel Grove would be an extension from East Didsbury, reinstating a connection across the Mersey then picking up the freight line which would be doubled and upgraded to a new terminus just before the bridge over the Buxton line.

Northern Hub will release some paths through Guide Bridge but there is also mention of safeguarding the former third and fourth tracks between there and Ashburys.

 

[tbtc]

Not necessarily. Half of Altrincham trams go to Bury, the other half terminate at Piccadilly. Half of Bury trams go to Altrincham, the other half go to Ashton via Piccadilly.

No. Metrolink claim Altrincham-Piccadilly and Bury-Piccadilly both take around 30 minutes: http://www.metrolink.co.uk/stationinfo/Documents/Pocket Guide.pdf

I think most of the reasons I gave for the Altrincham line apply for the Bury line as well

...in which case, could you see the Bury line also getting these "tram trains"?

A 323 has up to around 280 seats. If Glossop was to get a 6 minute tram-train frequency then 47 seats on each tram-train would provide the same capacity as a 323 every 30 minutes.

I think that a 323 every half hour occupies the single track east of Dinting (Dinting - Glossop - Dinting - Hadfield - Dinting - Glossop - Dinting), so I'm not sure how they'd accomodate that with a frequent tram.

Interesting idea though - cheers for the link.

 

[northwichcat]

...in which case, could you see the Bury line also getting these "tram trains"?

Well it's probably the "Not being able to run on the same line as heavy rail around Navigation Road causing Altrincham bound trams to have to sit idle for a few minutes after Timperley" that would give the best business case for putting them on the Altrincham line. If having a more comfortable journey in a more suitable vehicle allowed new vehicles to be ordered then lots of line would be getting their Pacers replaced.

I think that a 323 every half hour occupies the single track east of Dinting (Dinting - Glossop - Dinting - Hadfield - Dinting - Glossop - Dinting), so I'm not sure how they'd accomodate that with a frequent tram.

Double checking the original document they are proposing 5tph. They don't go in to too much detail after they say "Marple outperforms Glossop both in terms of social cost-benefit analysis and whole-life financial cost to the public sector."

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With regard to capacity to Glossop/Hadfield, surely once the Ordsall Chord is completed and most of the TPE services head via Ashton to Victoria rather than via Guide Bridge to Piccadilly will there not be the possibility (rolling stock permitting, obviously!) to increase the services between Glossop and Manchester? If that's the case, a 323 (or re-engineered 319) every 15 or 20 minutes would be more capacity and far greater comfort than a tram-train every 6 minutes.

There's also the issue of platform heights: Metrolink being high platforms should in theory make it more suitable for tram/train, but all existing tram/train vehicles are of a low-floor format. Therefore any vehicle for Manchester would have to be a bespoke design, pushing the costs up somewhat.
I'd also question whether tram-style frequencies would be possible on existing heavy-rail infrastructure and operating alongside true heavy-rail services: TMS-style 'line-of-sight' signalling would presumably not be in use on these sections, and I'd have thought that wholesale conversion of the route would be needed to achieve the frequencies required to counteract the loss in capacity per-vehicle.
If this is indeed the case, then surely a route that's already electrified and operated with fast, modern (by Northern standards) rolling-stock would not be the obvious contender for conversion, be it to tram-train or full tramway.

EDIT: With reference to tbtc's point, I understand that the direction of operation around the 'triangle' at the end of the Glossop/Hadfield line is currently reversed between the morning and evening peaks. Would adopting a permanent method of operation around this section be a way of increasing the number of paths per hour, be it with heavy-rail/trams/something in-between?

EDIT2: Was rather confused for a moment, thought I'd posted in the wrong thread- they were merged while I was writing this post!

 

[185]

To be fair, I am of the view that Metrolink is a tram-train in it's own right.

- It runs around city streets, and has road vehicular running lights.
- It hits 50mph on heavy rail sections, with stops often 4 miles apart.

Thus I feel it should be considered the closest thing to a tram train. I wonder once ATS is removed, could TPWS be put in for use on heavy rail?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

To be fair, I am of the view that Metrolink is a tram-train in it's own right.

- It runs around city streets, and has road vehicular running lights.
- It hits 50mph on heavy rail sections, with stops often 4 miles apart.

Thus I feel it should be considered the closest thing to a tram train. I wonder once ATS is removed, could TPWS be put in for use on heavy rail?

An interesting observation. Do any other forum members have any views on the differences between these two items. I always think of Manchester Metrolink as a light-rail system and a tram-train as something different to that definition, but I am willing to be corrected.

Will the type of units performing the tram-train trials in the Sheffield/Rotherham area be much different than those items of rolling stock that run as the Sheffield Supertram system and if so, what are the differences ?

 

[edwin_m]

An interesting observation. Do any other forum members have any views on the differences between these two items. I always think of Manchester Metrolink as a light-rail system and a tram-train as something different to that definition, but I am willing to be corrected.

Will the type of units performing the tram-train trials in the Sheffield/Rotherham area be much different than those items of rolling stock that run as the Sheffield Supertram system and if so, what are the differences ?

The tram-trains will have 25kV power equipment, slightly stronger body structure than a typical tram (but a lot less than a train) and safety equipment such as TPWS and (I think) GSM-R radio for operation on Network Rail. Otherwise they are standard trams and indeed more will be ordered than are needed on the Rotherham service so as to provide extra services on other Supertram routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But surely there is rather a difference between a Manchester Metrolink tram and those items of rolling-stock that are termed "tram-trains".

That said, if a master thread for tram-train matters exists, then why is it ignored ?

I was going by the actions of somebody in the admin who this very day merged a thread on TfGM tram-train strategy into the Metrolink thread. But overlapping topics are a common problem on all forums and I don't think it's worth getting hung up on where there are two equally good places to have a discussion.

And if TfGM goes forward with that strategy you may be surprised at how little difference there is between a tram-train and a Metrolink tram.

 

[tbtc]

With regard to capacity to Glossop/Hadfield, surely once the Ordsall Chord is completed and most of the TPE services head via Ashton to Victoria rather than via Guide Bridge to Piccadilly will there not be the possibility (rolling stock permitting, obviously!) to increase the services between Glossop and Manchester? If that's the case, a 323 (or re-engineered 319) every 15 or 20 minutes would be more capacity and far greater comfort than a tram-train every 6 minutes

True. The more I think about the Glossop line, the more problems...

A frequent tram-style service through Dinting would scupper most plans for re-opening the Woodhead line any time soon - especially given that heavy freight is often mentioned as a justification).

It'd be a long way to travel on a toiletless tram (which, presumably would be what would run such a service?)

There's still going to be heavy rail through Guide Bridge (a half hourly train from Piccadilly toward Stalybridge), so its not going to be as segregated as some other potential conversions.

If we are going to build new tram-trains, we'd be better going for current diesel lines rather than downgrading EMU services.

A heavy rail conversion of the current Rose Hill Marple and Chinley lines out of Manchester to conventional EMUs would be a lot better IMHO.

IF they wanted to introduce something bigger/better than a "regular" tram, wouldn't it have been better to do so for the Oldham loop conversion?

(given how much better Manchester is at getting things done, I wonder whether these Mancunian "tram trains" will be up and running before the modest couple of mile route from Meadowhall South to Rotherham and Parkgate is ever put into operation!)

 

[WatcherZero]

One of the options they assessed which had 'moderate' value for money was replacing the current Altrincham line stock with tram-trains and sharing the Navigation Road section with heavy rail rather than having single line working..

The tram-train options they looked at only had around 1/4 the cost for rolling stock, the rest was infrastructure such as electrification and upgrades to station facilities/new stops.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Another point of query. Can tram-trains share the same track as heavy-rail rolling stock, whereas Manchester Metrolink trams cannot, as was demonstrated by having separate single line tracks at Newton Heath and Moston (waste compaction depot heavy rail trains) and also at Navigation Road

 

[Manchester77]

Yes think so since it's proposed for tram trains to operate the Altrincham Line to get rid of the Navigation Road bottleneck by running on the NR owned track too

 

[northwichcat]

To be fair, I am of the view that Metrolink is a tram-train in it's own right.

- It runs around city streets, and has road vehicular running lights.
- It hits 50mph on heavy rail sections, with stops often 4 miles apart.

Thus I feel it should be considered the closest thing to a tram train. I wonder once ATS is removed, could TPWS be put in for use on heavy rail?

But if they were strict tram-trains there wouldn't be a need to have Metrolink and National Rail segregated in the Navigation Road area.

If the Altrincham line had remained National Rail and had the EMU stoppers replaced by tram-trains then it would have allowed more options for passenger trains on the Mid-Cheshire line, freight and more diversionary options. As it didn't it added to the congestion around Slade Lane Junction.

 

[Manchester77]

One thing about this is that if metrolink are considering running on NR metals at Navigation Road that'll mean that Altrincham - Bury will have to be converted too, is this mentioned anywhere?

 

[northwichcat]

One thing about this is that if metrolink are considering running on NR metals at Navigation Road that'll mean that Altrincham - Bury will have to be converted too, is this mentioned anywhere?

Not necessarily. They could use the National Rail platform for Marple services in both directions and the Metrolink platform for Bury services in both directions or alternatively only route half the Altrincham bound services on to the National Rail track.

 

[WatcherZero]

Or simply change the terminus of the service....

I considered bi-directionally operating Navigation Road but theres a couple of issues, firstly passengers wont know which platform to queue on unless they replaced it with an island platform. Secondly theres the (marginal) chance of a head on collision which I think even with tram-train they would be looking to minimise the chances of.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Or simply change the terminus of the service....

I considered bi-directionally operating Navigation Road but theres a couple of issues, firstly passengers wont know which platform to queue on unless they replaced it with an island platform. Secondly theres the (marginal) chance of a head on collision which I think even with tram-train they would be looking to minimise the chances of.

An island platform would bring a running line even nearer to the houses in the Brook Avenue area.

 

[northwichcat]

firstly passengers wont know which platform to queue on unless they replaced it with an island platform.

That was an argument used in objection to Mosley Street closing - the Altrincham passengers knew that the next service will depart from there which isn't the case for Piccadilly Gardens or Market Street. TfGM put up a 'next Altrincham departures' screen at Mosley Street as a solution to that problem so the same could be done at Navigation Road. And if they want to be really clever they can integrate National Rail departures in to the same system.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

An island platform would bring a running line even nearer to the houses in the Brook Avenue area.

I agree that an island platform wouldn't work that well.

I wonder what the feasibility would be of building a replacement station 300ft south just where the quadruple track starts. It would still be the closest station for those living in the Broadheath area. In fact Broadheath may be a good name for a new station as it describes an area rather than just one road and there isn't still a Broadheath station on the Warrington & Stockport railway.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Reading the TfGM briefing documents I must admit I was surprised by the proposal to use the Adswood line to Hazel Grove. The journey times to Manchester wouldn't be in the least bit competitive compared to the direct Buxton line trains from Hazel Grove and Davenport. OK it would serve Adswood and Cheadle Heath but the main flow from these points is towards Stockport.
It would also be rather a trek to reach Wythenshawe and the Airport by changing at St Werburgh's Rd. I would have thought extending the East Didsbury line to Stockport and maybe onwards to join the Marple line at Bredbury would have been a better bet.

 

[WatcherZero]

That was an argument used in objection to Mosley Street closing - the Altrincham passengers knew that the next service will depart from there which isn't the case for Piccadilly Gardens or Market Street. TfGM put up a 'next Altrincham departures' screen at Mosley Street as a solution to that problem so the same could be done at Navigation Road. And if they want to be really clever they can integrate National Rail departures in to the same system.

Nah that was just a sop to help get the permission to close the stop, coffee drinking suits kicked up a fuss about how they would have to walk all of 200m if the stop closed and demanded it didnt and the next tram indicator was 'listening to concerns' from the consultation, throwing them a biscuit to shut them up. Thing is they had a bit more pull than the Woodlands Road residents for some reason... :roll:

Problem with Navigation Road is a NTI would encourage them to jump across the tracks, potentially putting them at risk especielly if theres traffic in both directions.