Tram-train for Moorside/Walkden to Manchester?

[evergreenadam]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/moorside-station-closed-for-foreseeable-future.200806/

There just isn't the demand to justify slowing down other services to stop there. I work with people who live in Moorside/Walkden and none of them will even countenance the idea of commuting into the city centre by train. Buses are cheaper, more frequent, more convenient, have WiFi and charging sockets, and turn up reliably and on time. When bus franchising comes along, I'd predict demand for rail services in the area will fall even further.
Much as it sticks in the throat to say it, if the station were permanently closed - or perhaps closed pending conversion of the line to tram/train operations - I can't imagine very many people would miss it.

I think tram/train might work quite well. Scope to reopen Pendlebury and Irlam o' th' Height and new stops at Westhoughton and Little Hulton. A frequent service right into Manchester City Centre would be more attractive than the current rail service. Southport line trains would need to be diverted via Bolton presumably with a time penalty.

 

[bengley]

I think tram/train might work quite well. Scope to reopen Pendlebury and Irlam o' th' Height and possibly a new station on Mort Lane, west of Walkden. A frequent service right into Manchester City Centre would be more attractive than the current rail service. Southport line trains would need to be diverted via Bolton presumably with a time penalty.

Southport trains all go via Bolton now anyway with the exception of a couple of trains in the early morning and late evening

 

[plugwash]

I can't see the rail network wanting to lose the option of using the manchester to wigan line as a diversion route,

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I can't see the rail network wanting to lose the option of using the manchester to wigan line as a diversion route,

Tram-trains wouldn't remove that option (though it would mean reduced tram services when other heavy-rail routes were under possession).

 

[Mathew S]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/moorside-station-closed-for-foreseeable-future.200806/



I think tram/train might work quite well. Scope to reopen Pendlebury and Irlam o' th' Height and new stops at Westhoughton and Little Hulton. A frequent service right into Manchester City Centre would be more attractive than the current rail service. Southport line trains would need to be diverted via Bolton presumably with a time penalty.

You'd also need to do something with the Kirkby services; somehow create additional capacity via either Bolton or Chat Moss; and find a way of maintaining end to end journey times of ~35 minutes from Wigan - Manchester. Not to mention that the M5000s would be a massive reduction in sevice quality even compared with Pacers.

There is, perhaps, scope for a mixture of train and tram services to run, but that would require Metrolink to operate to a published timetable, a proposal to which TfGM have proved themselves to be serially allergic.

 

[HSTEd]

How many services are even capable of using the line for diversions, given that it is not electrified and the normal route is?

 

[Mathew S]

How many services are even capable of using the line for diversions, given that it is not electrified and the normal route is?

The only services I can think of that could would be the Airport - Barrow/Windermere and the Southports. Anything else (e.g. TPE Liverpool's, Northern/TfW Chesters) would have to reverse at Wigan.

 

[HSTEd]

I would prefer to use the line as part of a proper light metro line, but since tram-trains are apparently all the GMCA is interested in.... better than that a backwater National Rail line

 

[Greybeard33]

You'd also need to do something with the Kirkby services; somehow create additional capacity via either Bolton or Chat Moss; and find a way of maintaining end to end journey times of ~35 minutes from Wigan - Manchester. Not to mention that the M5000s would be a massive reduction in sevice quality even compared with Pacers.

There is, perhaps, scope for a mixture of train and tram services to run, but that would require Metrolink to operate to a published timetable, a proposal to which TfGM have proved themselves to be serially allergic.

What about the twice daily Merseyside binliner empties from Wilton back to Knowsley? The early morning one already runs via the Castlefield corridor and the Chat Moss, but the mid afternoon one goes via Walkden. No paths available via Bolton or Chat Moss at that time.

 

[HSTEd]

What about the twice daily Merseyside binliner empties from Wilton back to Knowsley? The early morning one already runs via the Castlefield corridor and the Chat Moss, but the mid afternoon one goes via Walkden. No paths available via Bolton or Chat Moss at that time.

You could pay for an extra set of wagons so that the wagons can wait and run back in the early morning the next day?

It's negligible compared to the cost of any infrastructure changes.

 

[Ianno87]

I can't see the rail network wanting to lose the option of using the manchester to wigan line as a diversion route,

What about the other 2 diversionary routes? Via Bolton (thence via Wigan or Chorley) and via Chat Moss? Seems excessive.

Without this route there are still at least 2 distinct routes available south of Euxton Jn to central Manchester. (At least 4 effective tracks the whole way to Preston)

 

[VT 390]

You'd also need to do something with the Kirkby services; somehow create additional capacity via either Bolton or Chat Moss; and find a way of maintaining end to end journey times of ~35 minutes from Wigan - Manchester. Not to mention that the M5000s would be a massive reduction in sevice quality even compared with Pacers.

If the Atherton route were converted to Tram operation would Kirkby need to retain its direct Manchester link as the route could be part of Merseyrail to Wigan Wallgate with frequent Tram and Train connections available there to continue journeys.

 

[Greybeard33]

You could pay for an extra set of wagons so that the wagons can wait and run back in the early morning the next day?

It's negligible compared to the cost of any infrastructure changes.

Well, that would require infrastructure changes, because the Knowsley facility can only accommodate one train at a time, and the container unloading/loading operation takes several hours.

It would not only be the capital cost of the additional wagons and sidings, but the ongoing operating cost of a third locomotive and driver on the 24 hour circuit. I doubt that TfGM would be willing to pay that as part of the tram-train operating costs.

 

[HSTEd]

It would not only be the capital cost of the additional wagons and sidings, but the ongoing operating cost of a third locomotive and driver on the 24 hour circuit. I doubt that TfGM would be willing to pay that as part of the tram-train operating costs.

Well the alternative is to simply cut the traffic flow by half.... I wonder what the actual value of the traffic is.

And why do you need a third driver.........

The line would generate far more benefit to the public as a tram train or tram route than it will carrying a single freight train round trip, especially when the freight train is short and light like British ones always are.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

If the Atherton route were converted to Tram operation would Kirkby need to retain its direct Manchester link as the route could be part of Merseyrail to Wigan Wallgate with frequent Tram and Train connections available there to continue journeys.

Yes it would. The main flow on the line is from Orrell and Pemberton eastwards though with some student traffic (mostly cross-Wigan) to Orrell. If crayonistas want to imagine different scenarios for the line then consider how few people would notice if the line was closed between Orrell and Rainford. And how many would even think about Merseyrail running to/from Wigan if the bay platform at Wallgate didn't exist?

As for the wider topic why should Wigan (not to mention points west thereof) have to consider losing its most direct route to Manchester in exchange for a slower, rougher riding, toiletless, cycle un-friendly tram? Any tram-train via the Atherton line might be useful as an addition to the transport network which could improve connectivity for Little Hulton and/or Leigh but not as a replacement for Manchester-Wigan and beyond mainline rail services.

 

[HSTEd]

As for the wider topic why should Wigan (not to mention points west thereof) have to consider losing its most direct route to Manchester in exchange for a slower, rougher riding, toiletless, cycle un-friendly tram? Any tram-train via the Atherton line might be useful as an addition to the transport network which could improve connectivity for Little Hulton and/or Leigh but not as a replacement for Manchester-Wigan and beyond mainline rail services.

As far as I can tell, the fastest awy to travel from Wigan to Manchester is via the line through Patricroft, not the line through Walkden/Atherton at all.

'Directness' means nothing in this context.

So you are actually comparing to about 45 minute journey time, not the 29 minutes achieved by the fastest services.
And since tram-trains with toilets and cycle spaces exist...... Yeah.

EDIT:

Yes it would. The main flow on the line is from Orrell and Pemberton eastwards though with some student traffic (mostly cross-Wigan) to Orrell. If crayonistas want to imagine different scenarios for the line then consider how few people would notice if the line was closed between Orrell and Rainford. And how many would even think about Merseyrail running to/from Wigan if the bay platform at Wallgate didn't exist?

Well I would.
Since having a high intensity metro service end a few miles short of a major population centre is just silly.

Do you really think four trains per hour to Wigan and change onto either a fast train to Manchester there, or a slightly slower high intensity tram-train is going to be significantly worse than one slow hourly stopper to Manchester?

They also gain four trains an hour to Liverpool into the equation......

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

As far as I can tell, the fastest awy to travel from Wigan to Manchester is via the line through Patricroft, not the line through Walkden/Atherton at all.

True, at least on paper. But through services from beyond Wigan (because there's no way it would be acceptable do end through trains from Southport) would rely on a slow speed single track connection at Wigan Stn Jn and all services would have a similar constraint at Golborne Jn. Not to mention the issue of pathing both on the WCML and the Chat Moss line. Do-able but probably for no more than 2tph (not enough) and would almost certainly require the two routes timetables to be fully co-ordinated to make it happen. Some additional trackage, or even better grade separation, would help but realistically there's no chance of that before HS2 reaches the area.

And since tram-trains with toilets and cycle spaces exist...... Yeah.

I highly doubt that tram style street tracks will support the weight of vehicles carrying retention toilets with all the associated plumbing and weight of fluids. Not to mention the performance penalty compared with other trams.

Do you really think four trains per hour to Wigan and change onto either a fast train to Manchester there, or a slightly slower high intensity tram-train is going to be significantly worse than one slow hourly stopper to Manchester?

Like it or not the demand in this country is for through services although high quality connections can be acceptable. The connection between Wallgate and North Western stations is not such a thing. And extended journey times are unlikely to be welcomed either. What the Greater Manchester portion of the Kirkby line needs is a half-hourly through service to Manchester with the Atherton line providing the most useful local links. The proposed Skelmersdale scheme would allow just such a service.

They also gain four trains an hour to Liverpool into the equation......

For which there is almost no demand. Pure crayonista.

Once again I'll say that tram-train on the Atherton line could be useful but as a supplement to the current range of services, not a replacement.

 

[Greybeard33]

Well the alternative is to simply cut the traffic flow by half.... I wonder what the actual value of the traffic is.

And why do you need a third driver.........

The line would generate far more benefit to the public as a tram train or tram route than it will carrying a single freight train round trip, especially when the freight train is short and light like British ones always are.

The binliner traffic flow is all Merseyside's rubbish. You cannot just cut it by half! If half the flow were transferred to road, that would be 40-odd containers being individually hauled across the Pennines and back daily.

Currently the two binliner diagrams are each a 24 hour merry-go-round. About 16 hours travelling and most of the remaining time loading and unloading at each end. The loco and driver have to remain on site while the containers are swapped, in order to shunt the wagons through the loading shed two by two.

In order for two sets of empties to return to Knowsley in the small hours, avoiding the Atherton line, three interworked diagrams would be needed, with some long layovers. During the night all three trains would be on the move concurrently, each with a loco and driver, so there would be a substantial increase in operating costs compared with the current two trains.

 

[HSTEd]

I highly doubt that tram style street tracks will support the weight of vehicles carrying retention toilets with all the associated plumbing and weight of fluids. Not to mention the performance penalty compared with other trams.

And yet such tram-trains exist, and are manufactured by (atleast) Alstom and Stadler.

With modern crash standards, the weight of the toilet and it's tanks are not that large compared to the mass of the vehicle.

Like it or not the demand in this country is for through services although high quality connections can be acceptable. The connection between Wallgate and North Western stations is not such a thing. And extended journey times are unlikely to be welcomed either. What the Greater Manchester portion of the Kirkby line needs is a half-hourly through service to Manchester with the Atherton line providing the most useful local links. The proposed Skelmersdale scheme would allow just such a service.

The journey time from Wallgate into Manchester is 42 minutes.
It's about 27km to Victoria Station.

Victoria Station to Rochdale on the tram line is about 24km and takes ~48 minutes.
Worth noting that that is with a 50mph top speed, whereas with tram trains 60mph is available.

But either way, its not going to be a catastrophic change in journey time.

And whilst they lose direct trains and suffer marginal inconvenience from changing trains, they also gain a high intensity service to a far closer urban area.

Worth noting that from Kirkby, a significant fraction of the time nationalrail recommends doubling back through Moorfields!

Tell them they can have four trains an hour to Wigan and Liverpool, or the present situation with a slow 2tph service to Manchester and no through service to Liverpool... I'm honestly not sure what I would pick.

For which there is almost no demand. Pure crayonista.

Given that Kirkby alone has far more passengers than all the toher stations on the Manchester portion of the line combined, this is almost certainly not true.
Why would you take an hourly DMU to Kirkby and change when you can just drive to a Merseyrail station of your choice?

Rainford is ~35k users.
Upholland is ~35k users
Orrel is ~95k users
Pemberton is ~70k users.

So in total something like ~235k users.
Kirkby has ~2.5 million.
Where do you propose this huge number of passengers comes from?

Hell, it even beats it if you all count all of Wallgate's passengers!

Kirkby is only 16 minutes from Moorfields and thus Central Liverpool.
That puts Upholland 30 minutes from central Liverpool, even using sectional timings from the current timetable for the branch line section.

Even from Wigan Wallgate itself you would be looking at about a 41 minute journey time to Liverpool.

Upholland is 30 minutes to Liverpool or 54 minutes from Manchester - and can pick up traffic from the like of Skelmersdale as it would then be the closest merseyrail station.
Can you really say that the people of Skelmersdale would prefer two trains an hour to Manchester that take 54 minutes to four trains per hour to Liverpool that take 30?

Once again I'll say that tram-train on the Atherton line could be useful but as a supplement to the current range of services, not a replacement.

But it is likely that having a "mix of services" will cause serious operational problems and reduce the number of trains that can be operated - since you will apparently want a mix of stopping patterns, which causes all sorts of problems.
The traffic potential of the main part of the Atherton line is likely to be drastically greater than this small Kirkby branch line.

There are three practical options if tram trains are to be introduced on the Kirkby Branch line.
1. Split the service at Wigan and hopefully extend Merseyrail to meet it at Wallgate.
2. Try to operate trains on the Kirkby Branch line via either Bolton or Chat Moss
3. Extend the tram train to Kirkby. This preserves the apparently essential through services but avoids any operational nightmares caused by trying to mix and match on the Atherton line.

The binliner traffic flow is all Merseyside's rubbish. You cannot just cut it by half! If half the flow were transferred to road, that would be 40-odd containers being individually hauled across the Pennines and back daily.

So not much at all?
40 lorry round trips a day is nothing.
Have you seen the M62?

In order for two sets of empties to return to Knowsley in the small hours, avoiding the Atherton line, three interworked diagrams would be needed, with some long layovers. During the night all three trains would be on the move concurrently, each with a loco and driver, so there would be a substantial increase in operating costs compared with the current two trains.

Well if they can't make it work then at least half the traffic would just go over to the road.
40 lorry journeys over the pennines is nothing compared to the transport potential for a properly utilised Atherton line.

 

[edwin_m]

I highly doubt that tram style street tracks will support the weight of vehicles carrying retention toilets with all the associated plumbing and weight of fluids. Not to mention the performance penalty compared with other trams.

Some of the original Karlsruhe tram-trains had a bar and a toilet in the centre section. The bar wasn't successful and both it and the toilet were taken out of use fairly quickly, but it does show they were technically feasible. This was a traditional wardrobe-sized toilet, but an accessible toilet wouldn't be that much heavier.

 

[Greybeard33]

Well if they can't make it work then at least half the traffic would just go over to the road.
40 lorry journeys over the pennines is nothing compared to the transport potential for a properly utilised Atherton line.

Do you believe that TfGM would be willing to compensate the Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority for the ongoing cost of funding 40 HGV drivers instead of one train driver?