Tram Train proposals in Greater Manchester

[northwichcat]

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.

They have to walk to St Peter's Square to get the next tram. If they go to Piccadilly Gardens or Market Street they might have an up to 12 minute wait opposed to an up to 6 minute wait.

I personally prefer to board southbound trams before St Peter's Square as there is more chance of getting a seat, especially with the M5000s only having 50 odd seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Slightly OT isn't MMU at Didsbury relocating in the next couple of years? If so I think it'll reduce the number of people travelling to Didsbury from east of Stockport.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I personally prefer to board southbound trams before St Peter's Square as there is more chance of getting a seat, especially with the M5000s only having 50 odd seats.

Seating capacity on the Tram-trains compared to the M5000's. Now that opens a whole new can of worms. Will the same platitude of tram journeys only being of a short duration cut this particular mustard when addressed to the subject of the layout design of the Tram-trains.

Perhaps they may try to evaluate matters by removing a goodly percentage of the existing seating in some of "Newton Heath's finest" as a trial to establish how the travelling public may feel upon this particular design matter.

 

[northwichcat]

Seating capacity on the Tram-trains compared to the M5000's. Now that opens a whole new can of worms. Will the same platitude of tram journeys only being of a short duration cut this particular mustard when addressed to the subject of the layout design of the Tram-trains.

From a report MCRUA wrote about tram-trains a couple of years ago they said on the continent tram-train interiors are usually designed with the route(s) they are going to be used on in mind meaning some tram-trains have toilets, cycle spaces, even vending machines while others have none of those.

 

[martinsh]

From a report MCRUA wrote about tram-trains a couple of years ago they said on the continent tram-train interiors are usually designed with the route(s) they are going to be used on in mind .

Bet that won't be the case over here though !

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

I think the only practical way to implement shared running through Navigation Road would be for both lines to remain bidirectional, with all heavy rail services continuing to use the eastern platform, all inbound Metrolink services continuing to use the western platform, but outbound tram-trains using either platform depending on whether or not there is a conflicting heavy rail service. Since not many passengers travel by Metrolink from Nav. Rd. to Altrincham, I am not sure jumping across the tracks would be a major problem, but I think it would be essential to provide a footbridge (with accessible lifts) to enable the tracks to be traversed when the crossing barriers are down. Added to the cost of junction remodelling and resignalling, this would amount to substantial infrastructure investment for only a modest benefit in improving the resilience of Metrolink services to disruption.

The alternative of a conventional double track, with both lines unidirectional, would mean that eastbound heavy rail services would have to cross the path of outbound Metrolink services twice, at the flat junctions at Navigation Road and Deansgate Lane. I think this would cause worse delays to Metrolink than the present arrangement.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=346

Just warm words from TfGM Committee’s Capital Projects and Policy Sub-Committee today.

 

[northwichcat]

http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=346

Just warm words from TfGM Committee’s Capital Projects and Policy Sub-Committee today.

So their news page lists tram-train options which their report effectively dismisses.

 

[WatcherZero]

It just says 'other routes under consideration' and they were considered?

 

[northwichcat]

It just says 'other routes under consideration' and they were considered?

it says "the other routes that are under consideration as part of a potential tram-train network" implying no option has been dismissed and giving no order of preference after the preferred Marple route. However, in their report it says the Knutsford option shouldn't be examined further and alternative heavy rail options should be looked at instead.

 

[Greybeard33]

I read Cllr Fender's remarks as effectively kicking the whole report into the long grass - the key paragraph being the last:

At this point however, tram-train very much remains a long-term project for Greater Manchester, making it difficult to identify potential implementation dates or funding.

 

[northwichcat]

I read Cllr Fender's remarks as effectively kicking the whole report into the long grass - the key paragraph being the last:

They've costed based on what they expect things to cost in 2020.

 

[Mattmatt]

It's an interesting debate, I for one can't wait for these proposals to see fruition. With the Marple route, they have space for adding a bay at Marple so that any fast services can pass through. With the glossop idea, it does somewhat loose any chance of the Woodhead being re-opened, but did anyone really think it would re-open? To improve capacity on this route I would imagine they would have to double the track at Dinting, & re-open the long lost platforms to aid a possible 12 min service??

I think TFGM has missed a trick, as the Denton branch (from Guide Bridge to Stockport) is an ideal under used line to convert & re energise the communities along the route, possibly with a station at Dane Bank. It could serve as a possible part of an orbital route, that in years to come will be needed, as not everyone want to or needs to travel through the city centre.

Am I correct in thinking that tram-trains will be much longer than our current crop of trams?

 

[northwichcat]

I think TFGM has missed a trick, as the Denton branch (from Guide Bridge to Stockport) is an ideal under used line to convert & re energise the communities along the route, possibly with a station at Dane Bank. It could serve as a possible part of an orbital route, that in years to come will be needed, as not everyone want to or needs to travel through the city centre.

The Northern Hub includes a Stockport-Victoria via Denton service so maybe TfGM don't want to ask for funding for something that Network Rail have on their list. There is also additional Greenbank-Stockport on there, which would benefit Hale and Knutsford.

I don't think the Northern Hub includes anything that'll benefit Marple so maybe that's one reason for TfGM preferring Marple?

 

[Greybeard33]

The Northern Hub includes a Stockport-Victoria via Denton service so maybe TfGM don't want to ask for funding for something that Network Rail have on their list. There is also additional Greenbank-Stockport on there, which would benefit Hale and Knutsford.

I don't think the Northern Hub includes anything that'll benefit Marple so maybe that's one reason for TfGM preferring Marple?

In fact the NR LNW Network Specification 2012 lists, under Northern Hub Phase 2 (p15):

Infrastructure enhancements to improve journey
time improvements on the following routes:
 Earlestown and Chester
 Salford Crescent and Euxton Junction (via
Bolton)
 New Mills and Ashburys (Marple line)
 Dore and New Mills South Junction (Hope
Valley line)
 Manchester and Bradford (Calder Valley line).

The Route Specification 2012 (Route H.28) details the improvements as:

Lengthening of peak passenger services December 2014.

Northern Hub train service changes including more peak hour services from Marple and Rose Hill further details to be confirmed December 2018.

See http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Network_specification_London_North_Western.aspx

 

[Polo Mint]

It's an interesting debate, I for one can't wait for these proposals to see fruition. With the Marple route, they have space for adding a bay at Marple so that any fast services can pass through. With the glossop idea, it does somewhat loose any chance of the Woodhead being re-opened, but did anyone really think it would re-open? To improve capacity on this route I would imagine they would have to double the track at Dinting, & re-open the long lost platforms to aid a possible 12 min service??

I think TFGM has missed a trick, as the Denton branch (from Guide Bridge to Stockport) is an ideal under used line to convert & re energise the communities along the route, possibly with a station at Dane Bank. It could serve as a possible part of an orbital route, that in years to come will be needed, as not everyone want to or needs to travel through the city centre.

Am I correct in thinking that tram-trains will be much longer than our current crop of trams?

Fully agree, also the trams could be extended from Stockport to Altrincham, I believe only 1 train per hour uses that piece of track.

 

[Greybeard33]

The same people were called in by TfGM to report on the wheel profile issues for Metrolink. I guess we won't know how successful they were until all the T68s have gone and enough time has elapsed to iron out the track wear they are accused of causing.

Although the heavier T68s are blamed for causing most of the track wear, the M5000s are more susceptible to hunting on the worn sections, necessitating some TSRs for M5000s only. I doubt that the Oldham/Rochdale and E Didsbury lines have yet been open long enough to judge if, and how quickly, the M5000s themselves will cause a similar wear pattern on track unsullied by T68s.

If the IRR wheel profile proves successful in Sheffield, perhaps Metrolink could adopt it too?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Fully agree, also the trams could be extended from Stockport to Altrincham, I believe only 1 train per hour uses that piece of track.

I take it that you are only referring to passenger train services, which is bi-directional. Can someone "in the know" say how many daily freight trains use part of this line.

 

[northwichcat]

I take it that you are only referring to passenger train services, which is bi-directional. Can someone "in the know" say how many daily freight trains use part of this line.

Here's a full list of freight trains that'll go through Navigation Road next Monday:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...001-2359?stp=WVS&show=non-passenger&order=wtt

Altrincham-Stockport is also used by ATW for ECS, a weekly scheduled service and diversions during disruption/engineering works.

There's also a Northern Hub proposal for a half-hourly service between Greenbank and Stockport all day.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Here's a full list of freight trains that'll go through Navigation Road next Monday:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...001-2359?stp=WVS&show=non-passenger&order=wtt

Altrincham-Stockport is also used by ATW for ECS, a weekly scheduled service and diversions during disruption/engineering works.

There's also a Northern Hub proposal for a half-hourly service between Greenbank and Stockport all day.

Many thanks for the list of these freight trains. Some forum members who may be unaware of the exact line utilisation, when discussing passenger train movements on the Stockport to Navigation Road line, tend to overlook freight movements.

In that Northern Hub proposal to which you allude, is there any plan for the reinstatement of an Edgeley-facing bay platform to allow for the Stockport termination of the Greenbank to Stockport service, which would not disrupt the through running lines.

 

[northwichcat]

In that Northern Hub proposal to which you allude, is there any plan for the reinstatement of an Edgeley-facing bay platform to allow for the Stockport termination of the Greenbank to Stockport service, which would not disrupt the through running lines.

If the Northern Hub goes ahead in full they'll be a Stockport-Denton-Victoria hourly service as well and Network Rail's preferred option is for a through service from Greenbank-Victoria which would prevent terminating services at Stockport in both directions.

 

[Greybeard33]

Here's a full list of freight trains that'll go through Navigation Road next Monday:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...001-2359?stp=WVS&show=non-passenger&order=wtt

Altrincham-Stockport is also used by ATW for ECS, a weekly scheduled service and diversions during disruption/engineering works.

There's also a Northern Hub proposal for a half-hourly service between Greenbank and Stockport all day.

More realistically, http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/NTHNDNJ/2014/01/07/0000-2359?stp=WVSC&show=non-passenger&order=wtt shows the non-passenger trains that actually ran through Northenden Junction on Tuesday 7th January, which was the busiest day this week. This includes the daily "binliner" train between Northenden and Scunthorpe, which does not pass through Navigation Road, and the related light engine moves.

The only trains that actually ran were those with a time shown in the rightmost "Act Dep" column. It can be seen that most of the freight paths in the Working Timetable are merely placeholders that "run as required" (Q) or were cancelled on the day (Cancel). There were a total of seven freight movements, including light engines, and three Northern ECS moves. It appears that ATW no longer normally uses this route for ECS moves.

Of course, the fact that many freight paths are only used occasionally does not necessarily mean that they can be "stolen" for additional passenger services.

 

[northwichcat]

It appears that ATW no longer normally uses this route for ECS moves.

It looks like they are running trains which previously would have been ECS moves in passenger service:

00:25 Manchester Piccadilly to Chester
03:36 Chester to Manchester Airport

When the Northern franchise started the first direct Chester-Manchester train of the day was around 05:55 and it was via Altrincham.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Network Rail's preferred option is for a through service from Greenbank-Victoria which would prevent terminating services at Stockport in both directions.

I thought the idea was to cut down the number of services that terminate at Manchester Victoria station, unless it is envisaged that the proposed Greenbank to Manchester Victoria service, which appears to continue from Stockport through Denton, then using the Ashton Moss North Junction to Manchester Victoria into the one of the two east-facing terminal bay platforms 1 or 2.

Has anyone any other thoughts on this matter ?

 

[northwichcat]

I thought the idea was to cut down the number of services that terminate at Manchester Victoria station, unless it is envisaged that the proposed Greenbank to Manchester Victoria service, which appears to continue from Stockport through Denton, then using the Ashton Moss North Junction to Manchester Victoria into the one of the two east-facing terminal bay platforms 1 or 2.

Has anyone any other thoughts on this matter ?

I think the problem is services from the west terminating at Victoria as they would have to use the through platforms which would be needed for services from the Huddersfield and Rochdale directions heading to Manchester Airport once the Ordsall Chord opens. If some of the Calder Vale services continue beyond Victoria then that'll mean the east bound terminus platforms will be used less.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think the problem is services from the west terminating at Victoria as they would have to use the through platforms which would be needed for services from the Huddersfield and Rochdale directions heading to Manchester Airport once the Ordsall Chord opens. If some of the Calder Vale services continue beyond Victoria then that'll mean the east bound terminus platforms will be used less.

It shows what the frequency and destination points on services to and from Manchester Victoria railway station must have been like in the days of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway to have no less than ten dedicated east-facing terminal platforms there. Many of the younger forum members would never had the opportunity to travel to the now closed terminal stations of Middleton, Royton, Bacup, etc, as I did in the 1950's and early 1960's, let alone have even heard of them, but all these services used those terminal platforms.

 

[Greybeard33]

I thought the idea was to cut down the number of services that terminate at Manchester Victoria station, unless it is envisaged that the proposed Greenbank to Manchester Victoria service, which appears to continue from Stockport through Denton, then using the Ashton Moss North Junction to Manchester Victoria into the one of the two east-facing terminal bay platforms 1 or 2.

Has anyone any other thoughts on this matter ?

I think the problem is services from the west terminating at Victoria as they would have to use the through platforms which would be needed for services from the Huddersfield and Rochdale directions heading to Manchester Airport once the Ordsall Chord opens. If some of the Calder Vale services continue beyond Victoria then that'll mean the east bound terminus platforms will be used less.

Might another option be to link the Greenbank services to Southport via Atherton services, which would otherwise have to be extended to Rochdale to reduce platform occupancy at Victoria?

 

[northwichcat]

Might another option be to link the Greenbank services to Southport via Atherton services, which would otherwise have to be extended to Rochdale to reduce platform occupancy at Victoria?

Then you might finish up with a 'grand tour' style working as per the old:
Victoria-Selby
Selby-Halifax-Wakefield
Wakefield-Halifax-Leeds
Leeds-Victoria

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Then you might finish up with a 'grand tour' style working as per the old:
Victoria-Selby
Selby-Halifax-Wakefield
Wakefield-Halifax-Leeds
Leeds-Victoria

Where does the "Southport" dimension in the posting to which you allude fit into this. I assumed that Greybeard33 was making reference to the possibility of a Greenbank-Manchester Victoria-Southport service in his posting.