Metrolink: Where should it go next?

[Jorge Da Silva]

Any lines which could reopen around Manchester as a Metrolink?

Suggestions:

• Chorlton to Fairfield
• Altrincham-Stockport
• Middleton to Oldham
• Stockport-Marple (Possible tram-train)
• Oldham-Ashton
• Oldham-Greenfield

 

[LOL The Irony]

Altrincham-Stockport

Altrincham - Stockport is very much open as a heavy rail line and can't close due to the Viridor site at Northernden.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Altrincham - Stockport is very much open as a heavy rail line and can't close due to the Viridor site at Northernden.

Tram-train?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Tram-train?

Again, Viridor get's in the way.

 

[B&I]

Any lines which could reopen around Manchester as a Metrolink?

Suggestions:

• Chorlton to Fairfield
• Altrincham-Stockport
• Middleton to Oldham
• Stockport-Marple (Possible tram-train)
• Oldham-Ashton
• Oldham-Greenfield

The Delph Donkey

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Tram-train?

One thing worries me about the enthusiasm in some quarters for tram-trains: Aren't most rail lines around Manchester (and indeed most of the UK) at capacity, and therefore depend on trains keeping to time in order to avoid knock on effects causing delays to other trains? But as soon as a tram-train hits the roads, it is at the mercy of traffic levels and therefore much less likely to be able to keep to a precise timetable. So what then happens to all the (conventional) trains when the tram-train routinely reaches the rail line at some random time typically up to 10 minutes later than it was supposed to reach the rail line?

 

[northwichcat]

Tram-train?

Again, Viridor get's in the way.

Tram-trains can run on National Rail infrastructure alongside freight and passenger trains. However, the single track section through Cheadle and around Skelton Junction, alongside long freight trains using the line might mean it's not possible. Even without 2tph on the Mid-Cheshire line you have up to 2 passenger trains and 4 freight trains per hour running through Skelton Junction. Based on the current freight and passenger trains it would almost certainly be impossible for any tram-trains to run through Skelton Junction between 21:00 and 21:10, between 21:15 and 21:35 and between just after 21:50 and 22:10, so at best you can have a half-hourly service and then is it really worth doing all the work to allow tram-trains for a half-hourly service?

 

[Clip]

So what then happens to all the (conventional) trains when the tram-train routinely reaches the rail line at some random time typically up to 10 minutes later than it was supposed to reach the rail line?

Does this happen currently on the only other tram train we have in the country? If not then maybe there is your answer

 

[Chester1]

The East Disbury-Stockport could work on the back of a Stockport-Airport line. The 2000s route only runs on the old alignment part of the way with street running and new segregated alignments between Stockport and Gorsey Bank in order to serve the business park and bus station.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c.../seven-ideas-for-extending-metrolink-10826404

1. The Metrolink network as it stands... work is well underway on the Second City Crossing and bosses have already published plans for a line out to Trafford Park and the Trafford Centre1 of 8
   
   
2. What about Wigan? The Victoria to Wigan Wallgate line could become a Metrolink line, in much the same way as the Oldham-Victoria service was converted
3. 
   
   And could we head out east? Taking the line through Tameside out to Glossop and/or Marple could ease congestion around Denton Island
4. 
   
   Worsley. A popular residential area tantalisingly close to Eccles, the current end of the Salford line. Opening up a direct link from Worsley to MediaCity and Manchester could be an option
5. 
   
   Heywood is 'always left out'. It could be linked to the Bury or Rochdale lines - or even better, if it was linked to both then we've got the start of something resembling a 'circle line'
6. 
   
   ... and while we're in this neck o the woods. What about using the heritage railway line from Heywood to Rawtenstall, opening up Ramsbottom to the tram network
7. 
   
   Then let's work on this circle line. A direct link between Oldham and Ashton is one popular idea...
   
   
8. ... and a simple link between St Werburgh's Road and Stretford would make moving around south Manchester and Trafford a lot easier. Especially when the Trafford Park line opens

The Ideas suggested in the article:

• Victoria-Wigan
• Bury-Heywood
• Rochdale-Heywood
• Freehold-Bowker Vale via Middleton
• Oldham-Ashton
• Audenshaw to Glossop and Marple
• Media City UK to Worsley
• Bury to Ramsbottom

Further Ideas?:

• Ashton to Stalybridge
• Wythenshawe Loop

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Does this happen currently on the only other tram train we have in the country? If not then maybe there is your answer

Is that a reasonable comparison? As far as I'm aware, the Sheffield tram-train route does not at any point run along roads that are shared with road traffic (it terminates at Cathedral, before the tracks hit any shared stretches of road).

 

[johnnychips]

Is that a reasonable comparison? As far as I'm aware, the Sheffield tram-train route does not at any point run along roads that are shared with road traffic (it terminates at Cathedral, before the tracks hit any shared stretches of road).

That is one reason it terminates there: further north there is quite a lot of on-street running which could mean trams getting stuck in road traffic.

 

[Greybeard33]

The East Disbury-Stockport could work on the back of a Stockport-Airport line. The 2000s route only runs on the old alignment part of the way with street running and new segregated alignments between Stockport and Gorsey Bank in order to serve the business park and bus station.

Although more recently TfGM has seemed to favour the tram-train route outlined in the Stockport Rail Strategy report, for E Didsbury to Stockport. This would share the Northenden to Hazel Grove freight line through Cheadle Heath to Adswood, then join the Altrincham to Stockport line where they cross. At Edgeley Junction the tram-trains would leave the heavy rail line and run on street to Stockport railway station, then on down the hill to the planned new Interchange, on the site of the current bus station.

 

[Chester1]

Although more recently TfGM has seemed to favour the tram-train route outlined in the Stockport Rail Strategy report, for E Didsbury to Stockport. This would share the Northenden to Hazel Grove freight line through Cheadle Heath to Adswood, then join the Altrincham to Stockport line where they cross. At Edgeley Junction the tram-trains would leave the heavy rail line and run on street to Stockport railway station, then on down the hill to the planned new Interchange, on the site of the current bus station.

That would be less direct but probably faster. It would essentially swap a couple of proposed stations serving employment areas with residential. I guess it would partly depend on how a link was provided to the Airport. A chord near Baguley onto the existing line would be cheapest but would struggle to compete on time with buses. I think a direct route from Northenden to near Benchill tram stop would be the minimum needed to compete. After the Sheffield debacle it might be easier to just build tram tracks on the open space next to the freight line and then street run through Edgeley. Its possible to link the Airport and East Disbury to Stockport using normal trams but tram trains would be better if the right plan was chosen and competently implemented.

 

[B&I]

Although more recently TfGM has seemed to favour the tram-train route outlined in the Stockport Rail Strategy report, for E Didsbury to Stockport. This would share the Northenden to Hazel Grove freight line through Cheadle Heath to Adswood, then join the Altrincham to Stockport line where they cross. At Edgeley Junction the tram-trains would leave the heavy rail line and run on street to Stockport railway station, then on down the hill to the planned new Interchange, on the site of the current bus station.

If I am following my maps correctly, that suggests a long stretch of line through the middle of nowhere, then creating a bootleneck on another line which Metrolink has already created.a bottleneck and a colossal diversion on. You really have got to hand it to TfGM.

 

[Chester1]

If I am following my maps correctly, that suggests a long stretch of line through the middle of nowhere, then creating a bootleneck on another line which Metrolink has already created.a bottleneck and a colossal diversion on. You really have got to hand it to TfGM.

Metrolink caused the diversion but the bottleneck is irrelevant while there is insufficient city centre capacity. If the line had stayed as heavy rail there would be even more trains entering central Mamchester. The Cheadle single track section would be cheap to redouble and the Navigation Road single track section can support as many trains as the line will realistically get. The suggested route would serve both sides of Edgeley, Cheadle Heath and Sharston, which I would not describe as the middle of nowwhere. I would still prefer a route via Kingsway Business Park and the Pyramid but either route would make sense.

 

[MarkyT]

After the Sheffield debacle it might be easier to just build tram tracks on the open space next to the freight line and then street run through Edgeley. Its possible to link the Airport and East Disbury to Stockport using normal trams but tram trains would be better if the right plan was chosen and competently implemented.

The difficulties of Sheffield-Rotherham should not and must not be an repeated for future tram-train rollout in UK. If we look at the positives, we now have an approved vehicle from Stadler, much underpinning work on infrastructure requirements, creation of applicable standards and regulations. The same basic vehicle, albeit necessarily modified for classic UK high platforms, is planned for use in South Wales. The big ticket overspend items on Rotherham were the late changes and unanticipated work for 25kV clearances and the renegotiated contracting costs associated with with lost work and delays. With a technical spec much better tied down as should now be expected this should not recur. That said, for East Didsbury - Stockport I'm surprised a dedicated light rail line throughout is not the best solution. For Airport - Stockport, some heavy rail sharing might be of benefit, although at the Stockport end such tram trains need not share any of the East Didsbury line tram infrastructure. I suppose the argument is if you need the tram train link into Stockport station via Edgeley for the airport line, you might as well use it for the Didsburys as well, but it means the Didsbury/Stockport line needs to be operated by specialist tram-train vehicles throughout, or at least those services running the whole distance to Stockport.

 

[Clip]

Is that a reasonable comparison? As far as I'm aware, the Sheffield tram-train route does not at any point run along roads that are shared with road traffic (it terminates at Cathedral, before the tracks hit any shared stretches of road).

Maybe maybe not but it’s better than a lot of whataboutery

I mean I’d hope leasons were learned from Rotherham for future reference but experienced engineers my not know any better by now
Who knows

 

[Chester1]

The difficulties of Sheffield-Rotherham should not and must not be an repeated for future tram-train rollout in UK. If we look at the positives, we now have an approved vehicle from Stadler, much underpinning work on infrastructure requirements, creation of applicable standards and regulations. The same basic vehicle, albeit necessarily modified for classic UK high platforms, is planned for use in South Wales. The big ticket overspend items on Rotherham were the late changes and unanticipated work for 25kV clearances and the renegotiated contracting costs associated with with lost work and delays. With a technical spec much better tied down as should now be expected this should not recur. That said, for East Didsbury - Stockport I'm surprised a dedicated light rail line throughout is not the best solution. For Airport - Stockport, some heavy rail sharing might be of benefit, although at the Stockport end such tram trains need not share any of the East Didsbury line tram infrastructure. I suppose the argument is if you need the tram train link into Stockport station via Edgeley for the airport line, you might as well use it for the Didsburys as well, but it means the Didsbury/Stockport line needs to be operated by specialist tram-train vehicles throughout, or at least those services running the whole distance to Stockport.

I think the main issue is cost vs benefit. I think passenger numbers would be similar to Rochdale-Shaw and Eccles-Harbour City. Very few people would do end to end journeys and a single tram 5tph service would be fine for the long term. East Didsbury-Stockport is only being considered because most of the track bed is clear to a point near to the proposed routes for a Airport-Stockport line.

 

[B&I]

Metrolink caused the diversion but the bottleneck is irrelevant while there is insufficient city centre capacity. If the line had stayed as heavy rail there would be even more trains entering central Mamchester. The Cheadle single track section would be cheap to redouble and the Navigation Road single track section can support as many trains as the line will realistically get. The suggested route would serve both sides of Edgeley, Cheadle Heath and Sharston, which I would not describe as the middle of nowwhere. I would still prefer a route via Kingsway Business Park and the Pyramid but either route would make sense.

Assuming I was following the correct line on the map, the stretch running through open land more or less under the M60 looled rather isolated to me. As for the city centre, sorry to be predictable, but Manchester would be facing many fewer capacity problems if a heavy rail tunnel had been buult years ago.

 

[Greybeard33]

That said, for East Didsbury - Stockport I'm surprised a dedicated light rail line throughout is not the best solution. For Airport - Stockport, some heavy rail sharing might be of benefit, although at the Stockport end such tram trains need not share any of the East Didsbury line tram infrastructure. I suppose the argument is if you need the tram train link into Stockport station via Edgeley for the airport line, you might as well use it for the Didsburys as well, but it means the Didsbury/Stockport line needs to be operated by specialist tram-train vehicles throughout, or at least those services running the whole distance to Stockport.

Yes, the E Didsbury to Stockport route was part of a package of tram-train proposals centred on Stockport, see http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Stockport-Rail-Strategy-January-2015.pdf
These included:
- 5tph Piccadilly to Rose Hill Marple via Belle Vue (on street from Piccadilly to Ashburys)
- 5tph Piccadilly to Stockport Interchange via Belle Vue and Reddish South (new curve at Reddish North; on street from Heaton Norris to Stockport Interchange)
- Stockport Interchange to Manchester Airport via Cheadle (new curve to join existing Metrolink line at Baguley)
- Stockport Interchange to Altrincham (single track section through Cheadle redoubled)
- E Didsbury to Hazel Grove along existing freight line (redoubled throughout).

From Piccadilly the tram-trains could run on to Bury and Altrincham in place of the existing Metrolink services, so would not require any additional city centre infrastructure.

As these proposed routes would interconnect and share track, there would be economies of scale if the whole package were developed.

The proposed Metrolink routes have been protected in the Stockport Rail Station Masterplan and the plans for the Interchange, the Gorsey Bank development and the Vision housing development off Europa Way, Adswood.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

How about a route from East Didsbury to Stockport and Hazel Grove?

 

[daodao]

How about a route from East Didsbury to Stockport and Hazel Grove?

The next routes to be converted to Metrolink should be the ex-GC lines from M/c Piccadilly, firstly to Marple Rose Hill via Bredbury and secondly to Hadfield via Glossop. Trams should run on a street alignment (preferably reserved) from Ashbury's to the east end portal for the current underground Metrolink Piccadilly stop. The line from Ardwick to Guide Bridge was originally quadruple track, so there would be space for 2 parallel pairs of tracks, to enable heavy rail trains to continue to run from Piccadilly to Stalybridge and beyond, and via Woodley to New Mills Central and beyond. There may need to be some parallel single lines from Guide Bridge to Hyde North, and from Romiley to Marple Bridge Junction. if tram trains were not used, with some tram flyovers. The existing services that terminate at Piccadilly from Altrincham and Bury could be extended to Hadfield and Rose Hill respectively, so no extra capacity would be required in the city centre. Conversion to Metrolink would regenerate these run down heavy rail services and the extension into Stockport borough would reduce complaints about it contributing to Metrolink via TfGM but not getting anything back in return.

Following that, the line via Atherton to Wigan should be converted, together with the Leigh Busway, but some innovative thinking will be needed regarding how to get from Pendleton to the city centre to connect with the existing network and from Hindley to Wigan town centre.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The next routes to be converted to Metrolink should be the ex-GC lines from M/c Piccadilly, firstly to Marple Rose Hill via Bredbury and secondly to Hadfield via Glossop. Trams should run on a street alignment (preferably reserved) from Ashbury's to the east end portal for the current underground Metrolink Piccadilly stop. The line from Ardwick to Guide Bridge was originally quadruple track, so there would be space for 2 parallel pairs of tracks, to enable heavy rail trains to continue to run from Piccadilly to Stalybridge and beyond, and via Woodley to New Mills Central and beyond. There may need to be some parallel single lines from Guide Bridge to Hyde North, and from Romiley to Marple Bridge Junction. if tram trains were not used, with some tram flyovers. The existing services that terminate at Piccadilly from Altrincham and Bury could be extended to Hadfield and Rose Hill respectively, so no extra capacity would be required in the city centre. Conversion to Metrolink would regenerate these run down heavy rail services and the extension into Stockport borough would reduce complaints about it contributing to Metrolink via TfGM but not getting anything back in return.

Following that, the line via Atherton to Wigan should be converted, together with the Leigh Busway, but some innovative thinking will be needed regarding how to get from Pendleton to the city centre to connect with the existing network and from Hindley to Wigan town centre.

I’ll make a map sometime this week or next week to show what it would look like!

 

[yorksrob]

The next routes to be converted to Metrolink should be the ex-GC lines from M/c Piccadilly, firstly to Marple Rose Hill via Bredbury and secondly to Hadfield via Glossop. Trams should run on a street alignment (preferably reserved) from Ashbury's to the east end portal for the current underground Metrolink Piccadilly stop. The line from Ardwick to Guide Bridge was originally quadruple track, so there would be space for 2 parallel pairs of tracks, to enable heavy rail trains to continue to run from Piccadilly to Stalybridge and beyond, and via Woodley to New Mills Central and beyond. There may need to be some parallel single lines from Guide Bridge to Hyde North, and from Romiley to Marple Bridge Junction. if tram trains were not used, with some tram flyovers. The existing services that terminate at Piccadilly from Altrincham and Bury could be extended to Hadfield and Rose Hill respectively, so no extra capacity would be required in the city centre. Conversion to Metrolink would regenerate these run down heavy rail services and the extension into Stockport borough would reduce complaints about it contributing to Metrolink via TfGM but not getting anything back in return.

Following that, the line via Atherton to Wigan should be converted, together with the Leigh Busway, but some innovative thinking will be needed regarding how to get from Pendleton to the city centre to connect with the existing network and from Hindley to Wigan town centre.

I have no experience of the Rose Hill line, however having travelled on the Glossop line a few times, it's certainly not one that has ever struck me as feeling run down. It has a decent, fast electric service with plenty of carriages.

I've already rehearsed my complete opposition to the conversion of the Atherton line on here, suffice to say these are both solutions looking for problems that don't exist. If you're going to spend lots of money, spend it on an area that doesn't already have adequate public transport connections.

 

[daodao]

I have no experience of the Rose Hill line, however having travelled on the Glossop line a few times, it's certainly not one that has ever struck me as feeling run down. It has a decent, fast electric service with plenty of carriages.

I've already rehearsed my complete opposition to the conversion of the Atherton line on here, suffice to say these are both solutions looking for problems that don't exist. If you're going to spend lots of money, spend it on an area that doesn't already have adequate public transport connections.

Suburban rail services in provincial British cities make heavy losses. The operational costs need to be reduced if they are to survive, and conversion to light rail is an obvious solution, particularly in conurbations such as M/c where it already exists and been a proven success. Conversion of the ex-GC lines would be relatively straightforward. I have alluded to some of the difficulties about converting the Atherton route.

 

[yorksrob]

Suburban rail services in provincial British cities make heavy losses. The operational costs need to be reduced if they are to survive, and conversion to light rail is an obvious solution, particularly in conurbations such as M/c where it already exists and been a proven success. Conversion of the ex-GC lines would be relatively straightforward. I have alluded to some of the difficulties about converting the Atherton route.

I would have to see some line by line statistics to accept how 'heavy' these losses are, particularly for a modern electrified service with unstaffed stations.

If Greater Manchester want to spend money to make a difference, they should be ensuring that areas which don't currently have access to rail such as Heywood or Leigh, are connected to either rail or tram.

 

[PR1Berske]

Metrolink to Wigan? Without toilets? I think not!

 

[Mutant Lemming]

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.

..and why should the council tax payers of the poorer inner city areas subsidise a more affluent town that comes under a different administration ?

 

[Ianno87]

Metrolink to Wigan? Without toilets? I think not!

Except that if you were *actually* travelling between Manchester and Wigan, you'd get the numerous remaining train services via Bolton or Chat Moss with toilets aplenty.