We're not. Borough Market Jn isn't constrained by through platform capacity and dwell times. Manchester Victoria is.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Metrolink: Where should it go next?
- Thread starter Jorge Da Silva
- Start date
- Status
We're not. Borough Market Jn isn't constrained by through platform capacity and dwell times. Manchester Victoria is.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
LOL The Irony
Established Member
If it goes down the Mid-Cheshire Line, it'll terminate at either Knutsford or Northwich. Mobberley is just too far out of the way to be used as a terminus.
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
LOL The Irony
Established Member
Fun fact: with that proposal, it would be possible to go from Salford Red's old stadium (what's left of it) to their new one on one tram.
As I mentioned, there are now far better opportunities to turn bacck beyond Victoria (which, admittedley should have kept its six through platforms).
Greybeard33
Established Member
Currently the three off-peak services on the Atherton line, all hourly, are Southport to Leeds via Brighouse (semi-fast), Southport to Blackburn via Todmorden (semi-fast) and Kirkby to Victoria (all stations). When the fourth service starts next May, I believe it will be Wigan Wallgate to Victoria (all stations).
The turnbacks at Rochdale and Stalybridge currently reverse 2tph each, which I believe is their design capacity. The services are Clitheroe to Rochdale via Bolton, Blackburn to Rochdale via Bolton, Wigan Northwestern to Stalybridge via Bolton and Victoria to Stalybridge via Bolton.
I believe the two Atherton line stoppers have to terminate at Victoria because there is no suitably timed service to the east that they could be linked with.
Even so, I'm sure with all the surplus land to the East of Victoria it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to install a turnback siding somewhere if things were that desperate.
My preferred choice would be terminating at Heywood, making use of the former double track aliagnment on the link between the ELR and NR to build a seperate paralell single track terminating a 1 platform NR station. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority wants to link up the remaining 3 GM towns without either Metrolink or a Railway station. A Metrolink line to Crumpsall is currently being assessed for Middleton and there was was a report about 5 years ago about reconnecting Leigh to the rail network. A Parkway station or a new link to Chat Moss line is more likely than ripping up the guided busway. I would have thought heavy rail for Heywood would be cheaper than extending Metrolink further. Capacity to turnback an extra 2tph east of Victoria would be useful too.
Hasn't the guided busway been designed in a way to facilitate conversion to light rail ? (Not a rhetorical question)
That sounds like a good plan to me.
I think only in terms of layout and foundations. It would need replacing for Metrolink. The biggest problem would be linking it to the rest of Metrolink at an affordable cost and building sufficient capacity in the city centre. Atherton has a station and Leigh would be better served by a link to Chat Moss which would provide conections to Liverpool and a much faster journey into Manchester. I think the guided busway gets a excessive criticism, it does the job it was designed for and at an affordable cost. Its clearly worse than a railway or tram line but it was built for a fraction of the cost and would be complemented by a rail link serving different markets.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Lots of suggestions for converting more rail lines to tram in order to get services into the heart of Manchester, but is there actually any capacity on the tram network to do that? I was under the impression it was pretty much full up on the lines in the centre.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Could they? I'd imagine pathing the Salford Crescent-Bolton line must be difficult enough as it is, with trying to run the many non-stop trains alongside the stoppers - which themselves really ought to be more frequent.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Personally, I'd confine metrolink expansion to minor extensions - most obviously, East Didsbury to Stockport, and instead build a heavy rail tunnel from Piccadilly - not to Victoria, but to Salford Central/Salford Crescent with a new underground station somewhere around Market Street. And use that to revitalise the existing heavy lines, improving frequencies and ensuring most heavy rail metro routes can take people right into central Manchester. Also electrification of all non-electrified metro routes and redoubling/new stations as appropriate (Stockport to Altrincham, anyone?). Yes, I know that's a whole new ballpark of cost to build, but it'd give a much better step-change in public transport in the area.
I'd also look at options for building a limited stop rail line from the new tunnel to Bury and beyond in order to improve travel times from Bury to Manchester. Maybe you could do that with the link from Bury to Rochdale and a new chord, though that would not permit running into the Piccadilly-Salford tunnel.
I'd also look at options for building a limited stop rail line from the new tunnel to Bury and beyond in order to improve travel times from Bury to Manchester. Maybe you could do that with the link from Bury to Rochdale and a new chord, though that would not permit running into the Piccadilly-Salford tunnel.
Last edited:
daodao
Established Member
The way to cut costs and improve city centre penetration is to convert more heavy rail lines to light rail in Britain's cities, not just in M/c. A scheme has now been approved for the Taff Vale lines in South Wales, and there are potential conversions in Glasgow, the West Midlands, the West Riding and South London. Other possible examples include Hucknall-Worksop, Squires Gate-Kirkham, Watford-St Albans, Bristol-Severn Beach and Exeter-Exmouth.
A rail tunnel under M/c is unaffordable and will encounter geological issues, the reasons why the Picc-Vic scheme of the 1970s was abandoned.
Given the capacity constraints on the existing tram lines in the city centre, as several services currently terminate at Piccadilly, conversion of the south-easterm suburban rail lines, in particular those to Marple Rose Hill and Hadfield/Glossop, should be the next priority for Metrolink expansion. There is a four line track bed as far as Guide Bridge, so existing rail services could be maintained from Piccadilly to Guide Bridge with no intermediate stops and then onwards to Stalybridge and beyond, or to New Mills Central and beyond via Woodley.
Other potential extensions are from Crumpsall/Bowker Vale to Middleton (and possibly Heywood), and from the Trafford Centre to Port Salford. I don't think the demand exists for the shelved western part of the Wythenshawe loop and am uncertain of the benefit of extending from East Didsbury to Stockport town centre.
There is insufficient demand for routes linking the outer ring of towns on the edge of Greater Manchester, most of which have decaying town centres that are not sufficient traffic generators in their own right.
This is where the problem.arises for me with Metrolinkification. For most people on here, as for TfGM, it's all about downgrading existing heavy rail lines and constraining future growth, not providimg a fast-growing conurbation with the transport system it needs.
Those 'decaying town centres' are where a lot of people actually live and work, and need to get between. If I was a Manc, particularly one stuck on the horribly overcrowded M60, I'd be furious
Or reopening Clifton Junction to Radcliffe, if that's still possible. Would really work best aa part of a re-opened national rail line to Rawtenstall
The east end of the busway is currently separated from Metrolink at Eccles by a few miles of what seems to be unobstructed ex-railway alignment, and about a mile of street running in Eccles itself. One of the reasons light rail is meant to be so wonderful is because it is cheaper than heavy rail. If we cannot manage to buuld a light rail.line along the Leigh alignment, we might as well give up on building anything in this country.
I agree btw that any route to Leigh from Manchester should continue on to a Parkway station on the Chat Moss line, but probably also to Wigan. If Metrolink is to be expanded, it should be as a way of creating a network connecting the whole of a polycentric connurbation, not as a cheap quasi-alternative to providing a proper heavy rail service to and from central Manchester
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The problem with connecting it to the Eccles line is that it is ridiculously slow. Really it was a Salford Quays line that was extended to Eccles because external EU funding was forthcoming due to Eccles being deprived.
It is (quite substantially) faster to take the bus from Eccles to Manchester than the tram.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Not convinced about that. Altrincham to Piccadilly journey times on Metrolink have increased quite a bit with more services and line of sight being introduced. It's now around half an hour to get from Altrincham to Piccadilly - you can't really have a tram-train running semi-fast Altrincham-Manchester given the frequency of all stops Metrolink services so you're still looking at a journey time approaching one hour between Northwich and Piccadilly, even if you can get to Deansgate or Piccadilly Gardens slightly faster. The TfGM proposal (which was dismissed as poor value for money) proposed a tram-train every 5 minutes to Altrincham (which would mean the single track bottleneck would be got rid of), every 10 minutes to Hale and every 20 minutes to Knutsford/Northwich. However, it proposed DC overhead wiring to Northwich and since then a good business case has been submitted for AC wiring of Edgely Junction to Chester.
MCRUA have mooted options for street running either from Northwich station to the town centre or from Greenbank to Hartford station, while some councillors in Chester thought tram-trains running the entire route and extending on to the streets of Chester would be a good idea.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Rose Hill Marple is TfGM's preferred option for tram-trains, if they are ever introduced and their proposal is for a 12 minute Rose Hill Marple to Altrincham service, as well as putting tram-trains on Piccadilly-Altrincham services to eliminate the single track bottleneck - which could still create a complication if Network Rail want the option of electrifying Stockport-Altrincham as AC and would mean Altrincham loses its' direct services to Victoria.
LOL The Irony
Established Member
The 319's have 750V DC contact shoes & a 25KV AC pantograph, so I'm sure a dual voltage tram-train could be made with 750 DC & 25KV AC pantograph's.
You can't overstate this point. Any significant extension of the Eccles line is a non starter. Nearly 20 years after opening it is still opperated by single sets running 5tph between Eccles and Harbour City. Its just for getting people from Eccles to Salford Quays.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Bi-mode tram-train options have been looked at before. Diesel only or Diesel and electric were seen as not a good option which is one reason the proposal to run tram-trains from Huddersfield to Sheffield didn't happen. Having tram-trains which operate off both overheads and third rail was also seen as a poor option.
LOL The Irony
Established Member
I think you missed the pantograph's at the end.
LLivery
Established Member
Maybe a Salford loop. St Peter's Sq along Princes St/Bridge St, Salford Central, either Chapel St or Trinity Way to Victoria.
Also East Didsbury to Stockport, Trafford Park to Eccles.
Spending real monies, I'd like to see a Brussels style Pre-Metro from Fallowfield to Victoria with underground stops at Moss Side, St Mary's Hospital, Uni of Manchester, Oxford Road stn, St Peter's, Exchange Sq, Victoria. Then connect onto the Bury line at Queen's Road. Could lengthen platforms and have 6 car units.
A route - tram or metro from the city into Worsley, Tyldesley, Leigh and to a Chat Moss Parkway at Culcheth. Also a branch from Tyldesley to South Atherton, Hindley Green, Platt Bridge and along the WCML to Wigan. At risk of being unpopular with the locals, homes could be built on some of the open land along that alignment. Furthermore, if that was a Metro I'd have an underground route to Ardwick, taking over the Glossop & Hadfield routes.
Which to me seems like a short sighted solution to a long term issue. Metrolink isn't a high capacity Metro, it's a tram. Some of these extensions/proposals seem to be making the Metrolink try to do both. Capacity is already an issue (2 car trams was a poor idea) and Gtr. Manchester's population is hitting 3 million and rising. Even in Melbourne, trams compliment suburban rail, not replace. The problem is we've had governments who won't spend the necessary money, but it's becoming clear they must soon. Cheap solutions can't work for Manchester & Birmingham for much longer, they aren't small cities like Nottingham. Also, the very idea that NET will ever reach Worksop is ridiculous.
As for the cost of tunnels, it is true they are expensive, however TfGM want a Metro system soon. It's one of the largest metropolitan areas in Europe without one - even Rennes and Lille have metro lines, the bullet will be bitten eventually.
London had two lines converted for Tramlink, that was fine because the routes had an awful service, worse than anything now. Converting any other line won't go down well. The idea of converting the Sutton Loop from a Cross London Thameslink service to a Tram will be rejected by locals. They were mad just at the idea of terminating trains at Blackfriars.
Also East Didsbury to Stockport, Trafford Park to Eccles.
Spending real monies, I'd like to see a Brussels style Pre-Metro from Fallowfield to Victoria with underground stops at Moss Side, St Mary's Hospital, Uni of Manchester, Oxford Road stn, St Peter's, Exchange Sq, Victoria. Then connect onto the Bury line at Queen's Road. Could lengthen platforms and have 6 car units.
A route - tram or metro from the city into Worsley, Tyldesley, Leigh and to a Chat Moss Parkway at Culcheth. Also a branch from Tyldesley to South Atherton, Hindley Green, Platt Bridge and along the WCML to Wigan. At risk of being unpopular with the locals, homes could be built on some of the open land along that alignment. Furthermore, if that was a Metro I'd have an underground route to Ardwick, taking over the Glossop & Hadfield routes.
Which to me seems like a short sighted solution to a long term issue. Metrolink isn't a high capacity Metro, it's a tram. Some of these extensions/proposals seem to be making the Metrolink try to do both. Capacity is already an issue (2 car trams was a poor idea) and Gtr. Manchester's population is hitting 3 million and rising. Even in Melbourne, trams compliment suburban rail, not replace. The problem is we've had governments who won't spend the necessary money, but it's becoming clear they must soon. Cheap solutions can't work for Manchester & Birmingham for much longer, they aren't small cities like Nottingham. Also, the very idea that NET will ever reach Worksop is ridiculous.
As for the cost of tunnels, it is true they are expensive, however TfGM want a Metro system soon. It's one of the largest metropolitan areas in Europe without one - even Rennes and Lille have metro lines, the bullet will be bitten eventually.
London had two lines converted for Tramlink, that was fine because the routes had an awful service, worse than anything now. Converting any other line won't go down well. The idea of converting the Sutton Loop from a Cross London Thameslink service to a Tram will be rejected by locals. They were mad just at the idea of terminating trains at Blackfriars.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Which is exactly what it is. Metrolink was a cheap alternative to a Piccadilly-Victoria tunnel and the Ordsall Chord, which were both deemed to be too expensive at the time. It was also seen as a cheap solution for the Bury and Oldham lines which were both in need of a lot investment if they were to remain open as heavy rail routes. Having Altrincham as part of phase 1 rather than East Didsbury was also a cheap option, as it involved converting a line already open and electrified, opposed to a route which is a combination of new tracks and reopening a disused line.
LLivery
Established Member
Indeed but if conversions continue and unless there is another cross city route built, with trams being more frequent, it will just struggle and not be fit for purpose. It'll be like Tokyo in peak times with LA motorway style bottlenecks and very long journey times.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You didn't notice the one they just built which carries very few trams at the moment?
LLivery
Established Member
I've been on it, but I'm talking about another one. Once Trafford Park is open, plus factor in continuing growth and then say there are two tram-train/conversion routes, would the city centre be able to cope for long? I thinking of Corbrook - St Peter's Square and the Piccadilly area.
- Status