Metrolink: Where should it go next?

[Bletchleyite]

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.

To be fair, a Den Haag-style pre-metro Tramtunnel (it's quite an impressive bit of engineering) would have a fair bit of merit.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To be fair, a Den Haag-style pre-metro Tramtunnel (it's quite an impressive bit of engineering) would have a fair bit of merit.

But of course, if you're going to build a tunnel anyway, the question becomes, why not make it a heavy rail tunnel? Yes, it'd mean less flexibility for where it can go, and maybe it'd be more expensive to build, but if you run 8 or 10-car trains in it with modern signalling, the people-moving capacity would be several times bigger than what a tram tunnel could ever give you. And there are definitely enough terminating metro rail lines around Manchester to be able to make full use of a heavy rail tunnel.

 

[B&I]

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.

The speed isn't ideal, although connecting to Salford Quays would at least be a link to an employment hub.

 

[B&I]

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.

If the airport western link was built, Knutsford would seem like a sensible terminus for Metrolink. If you're going to keep the Altrincham line as 2 tracks (where it's not 1) and clog it with trams, you might as well convert Timperely-Stockport to trams as well and at least have more stations and a more frequent service.

 

[B&I]

But of course, if you're going to build a tunnel anyway, the question becomes, why not make it a heavy rail tunnel? Yes, it'd mean less flexibility for where it can go, and maybe it'd be more expensive to build, but if you run 8 or 10-car trains in it with modern signalling, the people-moving capacity would be several times bigger than what a tram tunnel could ever give you. And there are definitely enough terminating metro rail lines around Manchester to be able to make full use of a heavy rail tunnel.

There's also the small but relatively pressing matter of the Castlefield Cataclysm. I've yet to see a Metrolink expansion proposal that would do anything to address that. Though if this thread continues long enough somebody will probably propose converting all services on Castlefield to Metrolink, so long as Thornaby retains a direct Metrolink connection to Ringway

 

[northwichcat]

If the airport western link was built, Knutsford would seem like a sensible terminus for Metrolink. If you're going to keep the Altrincham line as 2 tracks (where it's not 1) and clog it with trams, you might as well convert Timperely-Stockport to trams as well and at least have more stations and a more frequent service.

Would have to be tram-trains under NR signalling unless you can find somewhere else for the freight to go.

 

[edwin_m]

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

That't why Metrolink goes to the centre of Oldham and Rochdale when heavy rail never could.

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.

The Rotherham tram-trains are equipped for dual voltage (and the overhead on the Network Rail section is 25kV-ready) but only run on DC. There's a piece in Modern Railways saying the Route Director considers that was a big mistake and they should have gone for DC overhead or batteries instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's also the small but relatively pressing matter of the Castlefield Cataclysm. I've yet to see a Metrolink expansion proposal that would do anything to address that.

The only one I could think of that would viably contribute to solving that would be to remove through trains from the CLC line and send Metrolink and Merseyrail to both "meet in the middle" at Warrington Central. But that is a bit far fetched, though no more ridiculous than sending Metrolink down a rural backwater (sorry @jcollins) to a small Cheshire town just because you can.

 

[daodao]

If the airport western link was built, Knutsford would seem like a sensible terminus for Metrolink. If you're going to keep the Altrincham line as 2 tracks (where it's not 1) and clog it with trams, you might as well convert Timperely-Stockport to trams as well and at least have more stations and a more frequent service.

Knutsford is a small Cheshire town in the middle of a low population density rural area. It cannot justify high frequency passenger rail services.

On a general note, England is not France or Germany and cannot afford to build rail infrastructure as extensively as much wealthier EU countries can. I do not envisage any new underground lines in the UK outside London.

 

[LOL The Irony]

But that is a bit far fetched, though no more ridiculous than sending Metrolink down a rural backwater (sorry @jcollins) to a small Cheshire town just because you can.

Even he agrees with TfGM's findings.

 

[Emyr]

https://postimg.cc/GBb75PvS

Another map showing peoples ideas of potential extensions. Thoughts??

Bolton-Walkden-Moston using the Looplines alignments is now a very well used route for pedestrians, cyclists and horseriders, forming part of Sustrans NCN route 55. Reinstating rails would be a lot of work given the buildup of the surface as trail and the restrictive gauge of many brick overbridges between Worsley and Little Hulton.

You'd need to provide new off-road routes for the current users and you wouldn't gain much over the three current heavy rails through Bolton, Walkden and Particroft.

 

[Gareth]

Knutsford is a small Cheshire town in the middle of a low population density rural area. It cannot justify high frequency passenger rail services.

On a general note, England is not France or Germany and cannot afford to build rail infrastructure as extensively as much wealthier EU countries can. I do not envisage any new underground lines in the UK outside London.

I’ve never heared France and Germany referred to as “much wealthier” than England before. I’m pretty sure they’re broadly similar and that the superior infrastructure often found in cities of a similar size to Manchester is more to do with higher social value given to public transport investment compared with the UK’s more stringent BCR bar plus apartment living being much more popular and so higher population density makes such infrastructure easier to justify.

 

[daodao]

I’ve never heard France and Germany referred to as “much wealthier” than England before. I’m pretty sure they’re broadly similar and that the superior infrastructure often found in cities of a similar size to Manchester is more to do with higher social value given to public transport investment compared with the UK’s more stringent BCR bar plus apartment living being much more popular and so higher population density makes such infrastructure easier to justify.

Most of the rest of England outside London/SE is as prosperous as Wales, which is the poorest country in Western Europe bar Portugal. Brexit will accelerate the divide. There are exceptions, such as the local area where I currently live. Within the UK, major new local heavy rail investment (such as Crossrail and Crossrail 2) is only justified and affordable for the Greater London conurbation. Some extensions to local rail systems, e.g. from Kirkby to Skelmersdale, might have a reasonable BCR, but major new schemes, particularly where underground routes would be needed, are out of the question. Metrolink has been and is a successful way to cope with providing mass transit for the M/c conurbation at a reasonable cost.

 

[B&I]

The only one I could think of that would viably contribute to solving that would be to remove through trains from the CLC line and send Metrolink and Merseyrail to both "meet in the middle" at Warrington Central. But that is a bit far fetched, though no more ridiculous than sending Metrolink down a rural backwater (sorry @jcollins) to a small Cheshire town just because you can.

It is far-fetched, consider8ng that the CLC still hosts 1 medium distance and 1 long distance swrvice from Liverpool. Howwver, that would probably be grounds in favour of Metrolinkification for some on here

 

[B&I]

Knutsford is a small Cheshire town in the middle of a low population density rural area. It cannot justify high frequency passenger rail services.

On a general note, England is not France or Germany and cannot afford to build rail infrastructure as extensively as much wealthier EU countries can. I do not envisage any new underground lines in the UK outside London.

So, Metrolink should be expanded everywhere because, while it is second rate, it is cheap, and nowhere outside London should have any money spent on its public transport.

At least you're more honest in expressing your views on the subject than several posters on here, TfGM, or the government, who never tire of telling us how rich and economically successful this country is. Funny how we're suddenly in the Burkina Faso league when it comes fo spending anything outside the south east

 

[yorksrob]

Most of the rest of England outside London/SE is as prosperous as Wales, which is the poorest country in Western Europe bar Portugal. Brexit will accelerate the divide. There are exceptions, such as the local area where I currently live. Within the UK, major new local heavy rail investment (such as Crossrail and Crossrail 2) is only justified and affordable for the Greater London conurbation. Some extensions to local rail systems, e.g. from Kirkby to Skelmersdale, might have a reasonable BCR, but major new schemes, particularly where underground routes would be needed, are out of the question. Metrolink has been and is a successful way to cope with providing mass transit for the M/c conurbation at a reasonable cost.

In which case, one wonders what has been the point of all this economic liberalism over the past forty years. The protectionist economies were clearly right.

 

[Chester1]

So, Metrolink should be expanded everywhere because, while it is second rate, it is cheap, and nowhere outside London should have any money spent on its.public transport.

At least you're more honest in expressing your views on the subject than several posters on here, TfGM, or the government, who never tire of telling us how rich and economically successful this country is. Funny how we're suddenly in the Burkina Faso league when it comes fo spending anything outside the south east

We are ussually just above or below France in terms of population and GDP. I would say the biggest transport infrastructure differences between our cities are the age of the railways and the "demolition" works between 1939 and 1945. I am not convinced that an underground network would suit Manchester. A Picc-Vic HS2-NPR tunnel would be good for regional and intercity services but adding an immediate station would add to the cost and slow services down. Metrolink is very good at serving the whole city centre and being at street level is a significant part of ease of use.

 

[northwichcat]

Knutsford is a small Cheshire town in the middle of a low population density rural area. It cannot justify high frequency passenger rail services.

On a general note, England is not France or Germany and cannot afford to build rail infrastructure as extensively as much wealthier EU countries can. I do not envisage any new underground lines in the UK outside London.

Knutsford's rail usage is higher than usage at many Greater Manchester stations, despite a lower frequency and despite the fact overall Knutsford is quite affluent and a number of people drive or get taxis to places with a more frequent service. The issue is what is between Knutsford and Altrincham - Ashley is a very small village which barely justifies a station, while Mobberley is a large village but the station is a long way from most of the homes in the village.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We are ussually just above or below France in terms of population and GDP. I would say the biggest transport infrastructure differences between our cities are the age of the railways and the "demolition" works between 1939 and 1945. I am not convinced that an underground network would suit Manchester. A Picc-Vic HS2-NPR tunnel would be good for regional and intercity services but adding an immediate station would add to the cost and slow services down. Metrolink is very good at serving the whole city centre and being at street level is a significant part of ease of use.

And don't forget that quote a few German cities have a "Stadtbahn" which is what Metrolink basically is - a "pre metro" type thing rather than a simple street tramway as the Dutch are more fond of.

 

[LLivery]

To be fair, a Den Haag-style pre-metro Tramtunnel (it's quite an impressive bit of engineering) would have a fair bit of merit.

Something like that would be great. I'd be surprised if TfGM won't be pushing strongly for something like this with the next decade.

But of course, if you're going to build a tunnel anyway, the question becomes, why not make it a heavy rail tunnel? Yes, it'd mean less flexibility for where it can go, and maybe it'd be more expensive to build, but if you run 8 or 10-car trains in it with modern signalling, the people-moving capacity would be several times bigger than what a tram tunnel could ever give you. And there are definitely enough terminating metro rail lines around Manchester to be able to make full use of a heavy rail tunnel.

A Manchester Crossrail would go a long way. A pre-metro tunnel, allows for the conversion if it's deemed too expensive straight away. At least it would be a step in the right direction.

 

[B&I]

In which case, one wonders what has been the point of all this economic liberalism over the past forty years. The protectionist economies were clearly right.

It has worked very well for the south east. The gap between the poorest and richest regions in Britain is several times what it is in any other EU country, and grew between 2010 and 2015. You might say that we've had protectionist economics, but that only some people have been protected

 

[B&I]

We are ussually just above or below France in terms of population and GDP. I would say the biggest transport infrastructure differences between our cities are the age of the railways and the "demolition" works between 1939 and 1945. I am not convinced that an underground network would suit Manchester. A Picc-Vic HS2-NPR tunnel would be good for regional and intercity services but adding an immediate station would add to the cost and slow services down. Metrolink is very good at serving the whole city centre and being at street level is a significant part of ease of use.

It is unfortunate that the drive towards post-war rebuilding in Manchester, as in so many other places, was utterly, fatally fixated on roads. A public transport-based alternatibe would have led to less damage being done to the urban fabric, as well as providing us with a better network today. If someone had given me a clean sheet of paper in 1945 (or 1948), I might have suggested taking advantage of the existing connections by building an inner rail loop using ovwrhead lines around the northern and eastern edges of the city centre. I woild probably also have focused long-distance travel on Victoria, given its then-size, and built additional approach lines as necessary. I would also have made sure the tram.and trolleybus networks of Manchester and surrounding towns were maintained and expanded.

Starting from where we are now, I'd agree that the first tunnel built should be an east-west tunnel for long-distance (not just high speed) services between the existing main stations, with the spare capacity on existing lines used for a suburban heavy rail system.

Eventually, I'd like to see the Altrincham, Bury and Oldham lines restored to heavy rail (perhaps with Metrolink providing local services for some or all of the way to Altrincham, using the unused 4 track alignments and bits of street running), with a north-south local rail tunnel, and the remaining Metrolink infrastructure refocused into a denser network, making more use of street running.

This is because I want to see Manchester (and everywhere else in Britain) provided with as extensive and good quality public transport as possible, rather than being fobbed off with whatever's cheapest.

 

[B&I]

Knutsford's rail usage is higher than usage at many Greater Manchester stations, despite a lower frequency and despite the fact overall Knutsford is quite affluent and a number of people drive or get taxis to places with a more frequent service. The issue is what is between Knutsford and Altrincham - Ashley is a very small village which barely justifies a station, while Mobberley is a large village but the station is a long way from most of the homes in the village.

Knutsford's rather bigger than Marple, and not much more isolated than it is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Knutsford's rather bigger than Marple, and not much more isolated than it is.

The difference is that Marple has a load of urban areas on the way to it. Knutsford doesn't - Ashley and Mobberley, say, are about as busy as Strines.

 

[B&I]

The difference is that Marple has a load of urban areas on the way to it. Knutsford doesn't - Ashley and Mobberley, say, are about as busy as Strines.

The route to Knutsford is if anything more densely populated as far as Hale. The only real difference is that there's a wider stretch of open country after that, compared to between Romiley and Marple

 

[Bletchleyite]

The route to Knutsford is if anything more densely populated as far as Hale

Yes, and I'd support extension to Hale, just not beyond.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes, and I'd support extension to Hale, just not beyond.

I wouldn't support an extension to Hale unless it either involved:
1. Using tram-trains on National Rail tracks.
2. Building a new line from Altrincham to Hale.

The Mid-Cheshire already has too many single track sections which are proving to be bottlenecks as more and more freight is introduced on the route.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Yes, and I'd support extension to Hale, just not beyond.

Building an extension to Hale wouldn't be worth the time, effort & money. We're just going to have to accept that IRL, Trams aren't going down the MCL for the foreseeable future.

 

[Chester1]

I wouldn't support an extension to Hale unless it either involved:
1. Using tram-trains on National Rail tracks.
2. Building a new line from Altrincham to Hale.

The Mid-Cheshire already has too many single track sections which are proving to be bottlenecks as more and more freight is introduced on the route.

Mid Cheshire line tram trains had a poor business case in 2013 and I doubt its changed. The Navigation Road bottleneck would be easier to solve by a small amount of demolition to reduce the single track section and building seperate a railway station and tram stop next to but not parallel with each other and both with 2 platforms. Tram train doesn't make sense over the distance to Knutsford. AC electrifcation from Stockport with stations at Cheadle Heath, Baugely and Timperley would be better. There should be capacity for 2tph (769s?)

 

[northwichcat]

Mid Cheshire line tram trains had a poor business case in 2013 and I doubt its changed. The Navigation Road bottleneck would be easier to solve by a small amount of demolition to reduce the single track section and building seperate a railway station and tram stop next to but not parallel with each other and both with 2 platforms. Tram train doesn't make sense over the distance to Knutsford. AC electrifcation from Stockport with stations at Cheadle Heath, Baugely and Timperley would be better. There should be capacity for 2tph (769s?)

The business case for electrifying the whole Mid-Cheshire line was found to be excellent and much stronger than many other Northern routes in the Northern Electrification Taskforce report. Although, Network Rail will need to get existing postponed projects like North TPE and Bolton-Wigan done before new routes can realistically be considered for electrification.