Metrolink: Where should it go next?

[Ianno87]

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.

Urban/suburban rail isn't just about raw profitability, it's about the social and economic benefit of connectivity between housing areas and places of employment. This is through both journey time and service frequency.

Taking both Atherton and Glossop, both areas would see benefits from moving towards 4 trains/trams per hour, no matter how this is achieved.

 

[yorksrob]

Urban/suburban rail isn't just about raw profitability, it's about the social and economic benefit of connectivity between housing areas and places of employment. This is through both journey time and service frequency.

Taking both Atherton and Glossop, both areas would see benefits from moving towards 4 trains/trams per hour, no matter how this is achieved.

Yes, or at least three, which still gets you near to a turn up and go service.

 

[Chester1]

TfGMs preference for tram train conversion is Rose Hill and then Glossop/Hadfield. Both have the advantage that 10tph terminate at Piccadilly Metrolink and therefore one of them could be done without requiring extra city centre capacity. Glossop/Hadfield could also be done without tram trains by building a Metrolink line on the old 3rd and fourth trackbed and then fully converting from Hyde to Glossop/Hadfield. I don't see the benefit of converting an electric line. Rose Hill seems a much better option. Parallel single tracks could work at Romiley, especially if the Hope Valley stopper ran via Hazel Grove and New Mills Central was served by an hourly Piccadilly-Chinley service to avoid the single track bottleneck created risking the resilience of long distance timetables.

 

[daodao]

TfGMs preference for tram train conversion is Rose Hill and then Glossop/Hadfield. Both have the advantage that 10tph terminate at Piccadilly Metrolink and therefore one of them could be done without requiring extra city centre capacity. Glossop/Hadfield could also be done without tram trains by building a Metrolink line on the old 3rd and fourth trackbed and then fully converting from Hyde to Glossop/Hadfield. I don't see the benefit of converting an electric line. Rose Hill seems a much better option. Parallel single tracks could work at Romiley, especially if the Hope Valley stopper ran via Hazel Grove and New Mills Central was served by an hourly Piccadilly-Chinley service to avoid the single track bottleneck created risking the resilience of long distance timetables.

I agree with much of the above - see my post 143. There is a benefit in converting the heavy rail electric line to Glossop/Hadfield to Metrolink as the service frequency could be improved.

 

[tbtc]

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

Fast?

It takes over half an hour to do thirteen miles - that's embarrassingly slow (despite the much-hyped acceleration abilities of the 323s!).

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

Agreed.

Urban/suburban rail isn't just about raw profitability, it's about the social and economic benefit of connectivity between housing areas and places of employment. This is through both journey time and service frequency.

Taking both Atherton and Glossop, both areas would see benefits from moving towards 4 trains/trams per hour, no matter how this is achieved.

If you can find a way of accommodating additional paths through central Manchester to permit the increased frequencies for heavy rail to both Glossop and Atherton then great.

But, realistically, paths are at a premium (as is platform space at Pic/Vic), so it's going to be very hard to find those paths.

And, if you do find those paths then Glossop/Atherton are going to be relatively low down the list when competing for paths to Stockport/Bolton etc.

If a tram (or tram-train) can provide a fast accelerating service that penetrates the city centre better (and can also accommodate additional suburban stops) much cheaper than heavy rail (and stock ordered much faster than heavy rail) then why not consider it?

 

[Greybeard33]

Taking both Atherton and Glossop, both areas would see benefits from moving towards 4 trains/trams per hour, no matter how this is achieved.

Atherton (plus Walkden, Daisy Hill and Hindley) will be getting 4tph from May 2019, per the Northern franchise agreement.

 

[Greybeard33]

TfGMs preference for tram train conversion is Rose Hill and then Glossop/Hadfield. Both have the advantage that 10tph terminate at Piccadilly Metrolink and therefore one of them could be done without requiring extra city centre capacity. Glossop/Hadfield could also be done without tram trains by building a Metrolink line on the old 3rd and fourth trackbed and then fully converting from Hyde to Glossop/Hadfield. I don't see the benefit of converting an electric line. Rose Hill seems a much better option. Parallel single tracks could work at Romiley, especially if the Hope Valley stopper ran via Hazel Grove and New Mills Central was served by an hourly Piccadilly-Chinley service to avoid the single track bottleneck created risking the resilience of long distance timetables.

Good luck finding a path for the Hope Valley stopper to run via Stockport! And the peak service between New Mills Central and Piccadilly is 3tph - far too much to cram through over a mile of single track between Romiley and Marple Wharf Junction. Which is why TfGM is considering tram-trains for Rose Hill.

 

[yorksrob]

Fast?

It takes over half an hour to do thirteen miles - that's embarrassingly slow (despite the much-hyped acceleration abilities of the 323s!).



Agreed.



If you can find a way of accommodating additional paths through central Manchester to permit the increased frequencies for heavy rail to both Glossop and Atherton then great.

But, realistically, paths are at a premium (as is platform space at Pic/Vic), so it's going to be very hard to find those paths.

And, if you do find those paths then Glossop/Atherton are going to be relatively low down the list when competing for paths to Stockport/Bolton etc.

If a tram (or tram-train) can provide a fast accelerating service that penetrates the city centre better (and can also accommodate additional suburban stops) much cheaper than heavy rail (and stock ordered much faster than heavy rail) then why not consider it?

You say the existing services are slow. It takes around 25 min - half an hour on the train from Vic to Atherton, which is about as fast as you're going to get on a grade separated metro service.

The guided busway from Leigh to Oxford road appears to take around 50 mins for a similar distance, presumably because of the town section.

 

[yorksrob]

Atherton (plus Walkden, Daisy Hill and Hindley) will be getting 4tph from May 2019, per the Northern franchise agreement.

If that comes about then job sorted. Quarter hourly is turn up and go.

 

[158756]

If that comes about then job sorted. Quarter hourly is turn up and go.

If being the operative word here. I'm sure I've read Network Rail aren't keen. An even interval service would require a major timetable rewrite, so that's years off anyway.

Even if the 4tph service happens, there would still be major benefits to conversion - the smaller stations aren't going to get a better service from heavy rail, it'd free up paths into Victoria, and turn a loss making route into a potentially profitable one.

 

[Greybeard33]

If being the operative word here. I'm sure I've read Network Rail aren't keen. An even interval service would require a major timetable rewrite, so that's years off anyway.

Even if the 4tph service happens, there would still be major benefits to conversion - the smaller stations aren't going to get a better service from heavy rail, it'd free up paths into Victoria, and turn a loss making route into a potentially profitable one.

There is currently a roughly 30 minute gap between two of the three services on the Atherton line. If the 4th service plugs that it will be a great improvement, even though not clockface.

The smaller stations could get a better service if the line were electrified as heavy rail. Electrification would be needed for Metrolink conversion anyway. The same is true of the Bredbury line.

 

[yorksrob]

If being the operative word here. I'm sure I've read Network Rail aren't keen. An even interval service would require a major timetable rewrite, so that's years off anyway.

Even if the 4tph service happens, there would still be major benefits to conversion - the smaller stations aren't going to get a better service from heavy rail, it'd free up paths into Victoria, and turn a loss making route into a potentially profitable one.

I'm not convinced. It's only a couple of the smaller stations towards Manchester that don't get all trains stopping, and there's nothing to stop them stopping all four potential services there (it would be easier to timetable) other than the choice to have some faster services towards the outer stations. That's a legitimate choice, and precisely the sort of thing that would be lost by conversion to tram.

In terms of capacity at Victoria, NR already have the solution - run trains through to Rochdale, Stalybridge and possibly even Heywood, and there's plenty of room for more trains, so long as they don't hang around blocking up the platforms.

In terms of funding, it might be cheaper to run a tram, but NR loses the flexibility of having another comparatively fast through route, between Manchaster and Wigan. The current situation is beneficial not only in terms of diversion, but also provides additional capacity from Wigan itself, for example allowing TPE's Scotland services to miss out Wigan and be speeded up.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If a tram (or tram-train) can provide a fast accelerating service that penetrates the city centre better (and can also accommodate additional suburban stops) much cheaper than heavy rail (and stock ordered much faster than heavy rail) then why not consider it?

Could someone clarify why running as a tram is allegedly so much cheaper. This puzzles me as you're basically still running the same infrastructure aren't you? Maybe the actual trams are cheaper than trains - although from experience I'd say that gets paid for in lower comfort and ride quality for passengers, but that's not a huge proportion of running costs, is it?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Could someone clarify why running as a tram is allegedly so much cheaper.

Fun fact. It's cheaper to get a through rail fare to Manchester from stations on the Mid-Cheshire than it is to buy one that includes Metrolink travel - by a whole pound!

This puzzles me as you're basically still running the same infrastructure aren't you?

Well they're lighter than trains. A 142 is 49 tonnes over 8 4 axles where as an M5000 is 37.9 tonnes over 12 6 axles.

 

[Aictos]

Well they're lighter than trains. A 142 is 49 tonnes over 8 axles where as an M5000 is 37.9 tonnes over 12 axles.

That might well be but remember you're also spreading the weight over MORE axles which also makes a massive difference in much the same way that snow shoes spreads your weight when walking over snow.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That might well be but remember you're also spreading the weight over MORE axles which also makes a massive difference in much the same way that snow shoes spreads your weight when walking over snow.

I believe that's what I was putting across

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Fun fact. It's cheaper to get a through rail fare to Manchester from stations on the Mid-Cheshire than it is to buy one that includes Metrolink travel - by a whole pound!

Well they're lighter than trains. A 142 is 49 tonnes over 8 axles where as an M5000 is 37.9 tonnes over 12 axles.

Thanks. That's interesting, and I won't knock you for being the first (and so far the only) person to reply. I guess your point here is to argue that the lower axle weight of a tram leads to less track maintenance being required? But to play Devil's advocate, I'm not sure that a 35ish-year-old diesel that will soon be withdrawn from service is a good comparison. And I'd bet a 142 has masses more seats in it (although less standing room) than an M5000 Possibly fairer to compare a modern tram with a modern electric train of similar capacity to the tram?

 

[Chester1]

Has any proposed route for linking an Atherton Metrolink line to the rest of the network been published? All I have seen is vauge stuff about a tunnel. I don't think conversion of the line or the guided busway makes financial sense. Middleton would be an extension of Trafford Park-Crumpsall, the Airport services could be extended past Victoria and there are 2 services that terminate at Piccadilly (Media City-Etihad Campus will be extended to Ashton in the next year or so). They are the cheap options after Trafford Park and the planned extension of Airport services to terminal 2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You say the existing services are slow. It takes around 25 min - half an hour on the train from Vic to Atherton, which is about as fast as you're going to get on a grade separated metro service.

I reckon you'd do better with 25kV, fast acceleration EMUs and driver door release.

I also think missing out stations on a line like this is the wrong plan. Merseyrail is simple, understandable and very popular. The same concept would be better on Manchester area locals than slow DMUs and odd stopping patterns.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I'm not sure that a 35ish-year-old diesel that will soon be withdrawn from service is a good comparison.

I chose a pacer as they're quite lightweight.

 

[yorksrob]

I reckon you'd do better with 25kV, fast acceleration EMUs and driver door release.

I also think missing out stations on a line like this is the wrong plan. Merseyrail is simple, understandable and very popular. The same concept would be better on Manchester area locals than slow DMUs and odd stopping patterns.

Well 25kv EMU's would certainly work for me. The route already has 4 carriage DMU's a lot of the time, so a good interval service of EMU's would be fine. That said, I think part of the value of the line is that it provides through journeys to places such as Southport and I wouldn't particularly want to lose that (having made use of it on occasions).

In terms of missing stops, there are arguments for and against. The service wouldn't be degraded much if they all stopped there.

 

[VT 390]

for example allowing TPE's Scotland services to miss out Wigan and be speeded up.

TPE no longer stops at Wigan anymore anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

TPE no longer stops at Wigan anymore anyway.

I'm all too aware of that. The presence of the routes via Atherton and Bolton would have made this less disruptive to passengers to implement (had a proper service been running).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well 25kv EMU's would certainly work for me. The route already has 4 carriage DMU's a lot of the time, so a good interval service of EMU's would be fine. That said, I think part of the value of the line is that it provides through journeys to places such as Southport and I wouldn't particularly want to lose that (having made use of it on occasions).

That's a fair point, but I doubt you'd find many on the Merseyrail Northern Line who would swap Merseyrail and a change at Ormskirk if they happen to want to go to Preston for a smelly, slow old through DMU on a not quite regular interval all the time. The Atherton line is very much comparable with Merseyrail.

The key benefit of a Merseyrail style service is that you only have to remember a single number of minutes, you can then work out the entire timetable (give or take possibly having to check when it goes from 2 to 4 to 2tph, but most people aren't travelling at those very off-peak times when it drops). I don't agree that 4tph is frequent enough to be turn-up-and-go in the sense that you'd arrive randomly - people don't generally do that on Merseyrail, they time it to get to the station for a train. I'd say you have to go to at least 6tph, possibly even more, before people will actually do that.

Of course, had Northern ordered bi-mode FLIRTs instead of separate DMUs and EMUs, and had them as direct Pacer replacements instead of as long distance, you could have achieved what I suggest *and* retained through operation to Southport and Kirkby. Poshed-up 158s and 170s would have been fine for Northern Connect.

 

[yorksrob]

That's a fair point, but I doubt you'd find many on the Merseyrail Northern Line who would swap Merseyrail and a change at Ormskirk if they happen to want to go to Preston for a smelly, slow old through DMU on a not quite regular interval all the time. The Atherton line is very much comparable with Merseyrail.

The key benefit of a Merseyrail style service is that you only have to remember a single number of minutes, you can then work out the entire timetable (give or take possibly having to check when it goes from 2 to 4 to 2tph, but most people aren't travelling at those very off-peak times when it drops). I don't agree that 4tph is frequent enough to be turn-up-and-go in the sense that you'd arrive randomly - people don't generally do that on Merseyrail, they time it to get to the station for a train. I'd say you have to go to at least 6tph, possibly even more, before people will actually do that.

Of course, had Northern ordered bi-mode FLIRTs instead of separate DMUs and EMUs, and had them as direct Pacer replacements instead of as long distance, you could have achieved what I suggest *and* retained through operation to Southport and Kirkby. Poshed-up 158s and 170s would have been fine for Northern Connect.

Perhaps its me, however if Normanton had four trains an hour, instead of the measly one it gets, I'd treat it as turn up and go.

If they extended the third rail from Kirkby to Wigan, the 319's could be reconverted to dual voltage and run a through service. Southport is a bit more difficult.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they extended the third rail from Kirkby to Wigan, the 319's could be reconverted to dual voltage and run a through service. Southport is a bit more difficult.

You could use 769s (I think they will be doing), but 319s are a bit sluggish for the kind of service I would anticipate, they are more suited to middle-distance semifast work than local stopping services. (While Thameslink might feel like a local stopping service, it really isn't in that sense, the stations are quite far apart, as are those on the south WCML). That's why the "Northern should keep 323s" thing keeps coming up.

If someone managed to convert a 350/2 (or 323) to bi-mode that'd do the job, they go like stink.

 

[edwin_m]

If someone managed to convert a 350/2 (or 323) to bi-mode that'd do the job, they go like stink.

Only if they managed to fit in enough diesel power to give something similar to electric performance. If, for example, a 350/2 was fitted with two diesel engines similar to those in the 769 then its performance on diesel would be no better than that of a 769 and probably worse. It has more traction motors so would accelerate better at low speed, but above about 20mph the acceleration is limited by the power available. Because the 350 is heavier it would accelerate less well than a 769 with the same diesel power.

(and in case anyone asks, I doubt a 350/2 could be fitted with two diesel engines as there's only one coach that has the underfloor area largely empty)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only if they managed to fit in enough diesel power to give something similar to electric performance.

I was suggesting that in the context of 25kV on the Atherton line (as an alternative to Metrolinking it per the thread), so it'd only need to run on diesel west of the Wallgate bridge.

If you did this there'd be other options like batteries for that short section, which could go above the floor distributed through the train.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Atherton line is very much comparable with Merseyrail.

The key benefit of a Merseyrail style service is that you only have to remember a single number of minutes, you can then work out the entire timetable (give or take possibly having to check when it goes from 2 to 4 to 2tph, but most people aren't travelling at those very off-peak times when it drops). I don't agree that 4tph is frequent enough to be turn-up-and-go in the sense that you'd arrive randomly - people don't generally do that on Merseyrail, they time it to get to the station for a train. I'd say you have to go to at least 6tph, possibly even more, before people will actually do that.

Of course, had Northern ordered bi-mode FLIRTs instead of separate DMUs and EMUs, and had them as direct Pacer replacements instead of as long distance, you could have achieved what I suggest *and* retained through operation to Southport and Kirkby. Poshed-up 158s and 170s would have been fine for Northern Connect.

The Atherton line is not comparable to Merseyrail, because it is not segregated from other National Rail services in Salford and Manchester like Merseyrail is in Liverpool. Consequently it is not possible to have a clockface timetable - the services must mesh with all the other, potentially conflicting, services through Salford Crescent and Victoria.

Metrolink regards 5tph as a "turn up and go" service and refuses to publish public timetables. It is possible to use a journey planner to check the working timetable for your local stop, but few users bother. People just turn up at random - on average you only wait 6 minutes.

 

[Bevan Price]

I agree with much of the above - see my post 143. There is a benefit in converting the heavy rail electric line to Glossop/Hadfield to Metrolink as the service frequency could be improved.

A capacity benefit - provided they don't use single 2 coach trams to replaces the 323s.........