Improving Commuter Services in to Manchester

[Tomnick]

While this is heading a bit OT, the CLC stoppers are an excellent case for using these units (you could easily shave upwards of 5 minutes off an all-stations run).

The current problem is that there are barely any all-stations services because they don’t fit between the aforementioned sedate DMUs on the semi-fast services. Squeezing those few minutes out of the slows would make a proper all-stations service more likely to be achievable rather than the awkward mess of a skip-stop pattern that’s wholly inadequate for some intermediate stations!

 

[The Planner]

Purely comparing timings on RTT it would add on 12 minutes. Then you need to work out the accel/decel difference between a 319 (which the service I checked was timed for) and a 175 and add that accordingly.

319 and 175 SRTs along there are pretty much identical for stopping.

 

[Jozhua]

Are 195s all round amazing though? They must have some routes they are better on than others. 2 car 195s are helpful for routes which don't see loads of use. For example Leeds to Chester. Bar a few trips, the 2 cars can cope really well with the loads. The other advantage is coupling up with another unit to make a 4/5/6 as 4/5 cars will fit in more platforms than a 6 will. Not sure on specific examples but there will be some.

Will the 769s be that good for capacity? If it is standing in for a 2 car DMU, certainly it will be a capacity enhancement but against a 4 car 150, you will not gain much.

Any train is better than no train, I'd suggest even substandard rolling stock is better than your passengers sitting underneath someone else's armpit and getting covid!

Frankly, I've seen a lot of 195s rumble through Manchester and they are all very overcrowded, so I would have to disagree with the fact they cope well with loadings.

I would hope that no more 195s are procured. UK rail does not need to commit to another 30 years of diesel operation on even more new trains. Maybe a 'class 295' (i.e. a DEMU version would be much more appropriate). At least 769s only put out CO2, NOxs and particulates when there aren't any wires. Any by the time that they are retired from service, (5-10 years?) much greener trains will be the norm for all new deployments, especially if the CLC is electrified.

We committed to 30 more years of diesel when electrification ground to a halt. What do you expect them to run on, fairy dust?

I'd be suprised if we see the backs of 15X's within 5-10 years, never mind newer, cleaner diesels.

With oil being so cheap right now, there's certainly no financial incentive to get rid of them!

I would suggest a small order of 195 centre coaches to extend them all to 3-car. These should be designed so they can be shuffled round if it is later decided than 2s and 4s are more useful, as Chiltern have done with their 16x over time. Beyond that I would look at the project to make battery 331s for Windermere and see where else something similar could be applied, or as you say possibly a "231" or "295" or whatever you'd call it.

Battery for those short infill distances may make some sense, but the weight kind of starts to negate the point of EMUs, then there's the cost of batteries themselves. At what point does it become cheaper just to electrify it?

I disagree. They should be diesel power cars to insert into existing units; if you want to use them as "dead" trailers later just remove the engine and keep as a spare for the remaining diesel-powered units.

I do think Northern should have ordered a fleet of bi-modes (no EMUs, just bi-modes) but that ship has sailed.

Bi-modes would have been good, but they probably cost more, especially as they will rely on DEMU technology, vs say a bargain basement driveshaft and gearbox.

At the end of the day, the trains are there to get rid of pacers and provide some faster, more modern units. For that, they have fulfilled their purpose.

 

[HSTEd]

I would prefer to sacrifice one or more of the outer commuter lines for conversion into a light metro along the lines of the ones built in Rennes or Copenhagen.

 

[Purple Orange]

I would prefer to sacrifice one or more of the outer commuter lines for conversion into a light metro along the lines of the ones built in Rennes or Copenhagen.

On that, if I was a regular commuter from Heaton Chapel or Levenshulme, I think I would prefer there to be more frequent, but slower tram service. Perhaps a parallel on-street metrolink line from Piccadilly to Stockport with several more stops, thus allowing the main line stations to be closed.

 

[Jozhua]

On that, if I was a regular commuter from Heaton Chapel or Levenshulme, I think I would prefer there to be more frequent, but slower tram service. Perhaps a parallel on-street metrolink line from Piccadilly to Stockport with several more stops, thus allowing the main line stations to be closed.

Probably better to have it on top of the existing main line stations, I don't think it is possible to close mainline stations unless it is replaced like for like, or demand is very low. Metrolink to Stockport definitely has to be on the agenda though.

 

[Purple Orange]

Probably better to have it on top of the existing main line stations, I don't think it is possible to close mainline stations unless it is replaced like for like, or demand is very low. Metrolink to Stockport definitely has to be on the agenda though.

True. It is daft to close good infrastructure.

 

[Jozhua]

True. It is daft to close good infrastructure.

And Metrolink would not be a viable replacement, it forgets that many rail users in-between Stockport and Manchester are not commuting into the city, but other areas.

In fact, due to the fact buses are probably less overcrowded and more reliable, wouldn't be surprised if the majority of users at these stations aren't going into Manchester.

 

[Purple Orange]

And Metrolink would not be a viable replacement, it forgets that many rail users in-between Stockport and Manchester are not commuting into the city, but other areas.

In fact, due to the fact buses are probably less overcrowded and more reliable, wouldn't be surprised if the majority of users at these stations aren't going into Manchester.

Not a viable replacement, but definitely a viable line. The argument about commuters from Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme to other cities could have been made to any of the lines that have since been converted to Metrolink. But the fact remains that most commuters will be going to central Manchester, and those who are going onwards are most likely changing trains anyway. A metro link line down that corridor would likely see a significant modal shift of passengers from heavy to light rail, resulting in very little reason for nothing more than a cursory service at the existing stations. It would allow for more services to run express to Piccadilly from Stockport.

 

[supervc-10]

A tram-train style unit with decent acceleration would be good for Manchester IMO if more paths could be found into the Metrolink. A line up Oxford Road, removing the horrendous buses (and the occasional somewhat murderous bus driver*) would be a good idea IMO. I was wondering if a new tram-train station could be built on the Mayfield site, with travelators over to Piccadilly proper, and potential to extend down to Stockport etc with some road running into the centre of those towns. I think they would be a good way to increase connectivity across the south side of Manchester, such as by increasing services between Altrincham and Stockport on the Mid-Cheshire line. Plenty of areas round there that could do with a train station - and the Airport Line is incredibly slow. Put in a station at Timperley (proper, not West like the current Metrolink stop), an interchange with the Airport Line at Baguely, Sharston, Cheadle, and Cheadle Heath, and then an all-stations stopper into Piccadilly. A tram-train with excellent acceleration would be a great option IMO.

The question of course is paths into central Manchester. Mayfield of course could provide the platforms, but the station approach is pretty crowded as is. Another alternative would be to come off the main line at somewhere like Longsight and continue into the city centre as a tram, thus avoiding the congested station throat.

*I may have been knocked off my bike by one on Oxford Road!

 

[darloscott]

A tram-train style unit with decent acceleration would be good for Manchester IMO if more paths could be found into the Metrolink. A line up Oxford Road, removing the horrendous buses (and the occasional somewhat murderous bus driver*) would be a good idea IMO. I was wondering if a new tram-train station could be built on the Mayfield site, with travelators over to Piccadilly proper, and potential to extend down to Stockport etc with some road running into the centre of those towns. I think they would be a good way to increase connectivity across the south side of Manchester, such as by increasing services between Altrincham and Stockport on the Mid-Cheshire line. Plenty of areas round there that could do with a train station - and the Airport Line is incredibly slow. Put in a station at Timperley (proper, not West like the current Metrolink stop), an interchange with the Airport Line at Baguely, Sharston, Cheadle, and Cheadle Heath, and then an all-stations stopper into Piccadilly. A tram-train with excellent acceleration would be a great option IMO.

The question of course is paths into central Manchester. Mayfield of course could provide the platforms, but the station approach is pretty crowded as is. Another alternative would be to come off the main line at somewhere like Longsight and continue into the city centre as a tram, thus avoiding the congested station throat.

*I may have been knocked off my bike by one on Oxford Road!

This is how we should be solving a number of urban transport issues. Stopping & express trains don't mix very well and we end up with a compromise answer that really doesn't work for everyone. Rail is good at shifting hundreds of people over long distances. Stopping every few hundred yards could be taken off the rail network onto a local tram network freeing up capacity on the 'big' network. It would also probably offer a far better frequency than most local rail lines allowing growth on both local and national networks.

 

[Jozhua]

This is how we should be solving a number of urban transport issues. Stopping & express trains don't mix very well and we end up with a compromise answer that really doesn't work for everyone. Rail is good at shifting hundreds of people over long distances. Stopping every few hundred yards could be taken off the rail network onto a local tram network freeing up capacity on the 'big' network. It would also probably offer a far better frequency than most local rail lines allowing growth on both local and national networks.

You may be right, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be the funding available to make it happen!

Leeds still seems to be stuck with relying on their rail network to provide mass transit in the place of trams or a metro system.

Buses should be providing a better local solution, but they actually cost far more than the train, especially in Manchester. The tram system has worked well in shifting people into the city, as the stations get increasingly overcrowded. The second city crossing has helped too, as around Piccadilly Gardens seems to be quite limited! I think there is definitely more room available for routes that go into St Peters Square and exit at Victoria (this may be good for an Oxford road/Stockport route), but probably not much more going towards piccadilly or Victoria via piccadilly Gardens.

I think to a certain extent it is good to have intercity connectivity provided at other local points as well. I know I've saved a good 20-30 minutes going straight up to the lakes from Salford Crescent vs going into Manchester first.

 

[HSTEd]

This is how we should be solving a number of urban transport issues. Stopping & express trains don't mix very well and we end up with a compromise answer that really doesn't work for everyone. Rail is good at shifting hundreds of people over long distances. Stopping every few hundred yards could be taken off the rail network onto a local tram network freeing up capacity on the 'big' network. It would also probably offer a far better frequency than most local rail lines allowing growth on both local and national networks.

I'm not really sure having a split between tram and train as such is particularly helpful.

Modern power electronics have seriously eroded the differences between the two in performance terms.

Buses should be providing a better local solution, but they actually cost far more than the train, especially in Manchester.

Buses are almost useless in South Manchester, even on the Oxford Road corridor they move at a glacial pace.
In much of the rest of South Manchester they struggle to beat walking.

If we can't have an Oxford Road metro or tramway, then at least a large scale rationalisation of the bus timetable is necessary.
The current system is truly a difficult to understand and use effectively mess.

 

[Jozhua]

I'm not really sure having a split between tram and train as such is particularly helpful.

Modern power electronics have seriously eroded the differences between the two in performance terms.



Buses are almost useless in South Manchester, even on the Oxford Road corridor they move at a glacial pace.
In much of the rest of South Manchester they struggle to beat walking.

If we can't have an Oxford Road metro or tramway, then at least a large scale rationalisation of the bus timetable is necessary.
The current system is truly a difficult to understand and use effectively mess.

Buses are even worse in the North of the city (somehow), not only are they slow/unreliable, but the cost is truly mind boggling! £5-6 single fares within the city should not be as common as they are.

I've been doing some lockdown rides along Oxford Road, as it has the bike lane and the top end of the road is rather pleasant. I frequently beat the 43 from around the top of curry mile right up to the city centre.

I wonder if a potential Stockport line could run down Oxford Road and Fallowfield before turning east into Stockport?

A shared bus/tram lane could work quite well, especially as the top end of Oxford Road is car free, so wouldn't get too busy with traffic. Then there could be an Oxford Road station tram stop, linking nicely up to St Peter's Square, where the trams could head up to the North of the city.

I'd also like to see some trams running up into Salford itself (rather than just the quays), as the majority of Salford seems quite transport deprived. For a city of 100,000 our train stations are rather small too, (Central, Crescent, Eccles.) although the routes provided are fairly good.

Expanding Salford Crescent has been floated as a way of getting trains to present at Castlefield and central Manchester on time, I can definitely see this being the case, as the platforms are very heavily utilised, and you can definitely notice services getting stuck behind each other coming from the North/South.

Fortunately there appears to be plenty room for another island platform to the east of the two existing tracks. Perhaps 1/2 could be used for North bound and a potential 3/4 for services towards the city. Or alternatively 1/2 for Castlefield and 3/4 for Victoria.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Buses should be providing a better local solution,

No, they shouldn't. In a city context buses are for transporting people to their local rapid transport rail station and for very local journeys. They are a poor solution to other things as they are so slow.

The idea of replacing calls at places like the Styal Line and WCML local stations with buses is preposterous.

 

[si404]

They are a poor solution to other things as they are so slow.

Buses are pretty much identical to trams here - if segregated they can go fast, if not then they are slow. Manchester's trams work well because they have high levels of segregation - most notably and effectively on the several ex-railway lines.

Having trams that basically put rails under the buses suffers the same speed problem as buses - they aren't a panacea. Metrolink on Oxford Road wouldn't speed up journeys anymore than bus-based priority, regulation and stop rationalisation schemes that could be done a lot more cheaply (pollution is the main benefit).

The idea of replacing calls at places like the Styal Line and WCML local stations with buses is preposterous.

Concur completely. The same applies to replacing with tram unless we're talking tram takeover of the railway or tram-trains.

 

[HSTEd]

Having trams that basically put rails under the buses suffers the same speed problem as buses - they aren't a panacea. Metrolink on Oxford Road wouldn't speed up journeys anymore than bus-based priority, regulation and stop rationalisation schemes that could be done a lot more cheaply (pollution is the main benefit).

Not really.
Trams will be much faster simply because they don't load through a single narrow door with revenue control conducted by the driver.

And the bus operators will never go for a multi door boarding and roving revenue patrol system.
And the bus timetable needs serious rationalisation.

For exampe inbound subsidiary routes like the 111, 15 etc should be drop off only once they are on the bus corridor.

 

[si404]

Trams will be much faster simply because they don't load through a single narrow door with revenue control conducted by the driver.

And the bus operators will never go for a multi door boarding and roving revenue patrol system.
And the bus timetable needs serious rationalisation.

Surely solvable by bus regulation?

And without that regulation, the trams on Oxford Road will be stuck behind the deregulated buses slowed by bad practise.

 

[HSTEd]

Surely solvable by bus regulation?

And without that regulation, the trams on Oxford Road will be stuck behind the deregulated buses slowed by bad practise.

If there is a tramway on Oxford Road, the route will no longer be usable by buses in significant numbers, since there will only be one lane in one direction along most of it.

A proper regulated BRT scheme might be a tolerable alternative, but it would be pretty far from cheap itself.

 

[Stephen Lee]

Guys I wondered whether some Northern Manchester commuter services can hold longer trains such as 6-coach, if yes i would think Northern can get the remaining 9 class 323s from WMR when they got displaced by Aventras

 

[Purple Orange]

Guys I wondered whether some Northern Manchester commuter services can hold longer trains such as 6-coach, if yes i would think Northern can get the remaining 9 class 323s from WMR when they got displaced by Aventras

Well apparently there are only a few routes they can operate in 6 car formation, but then the additional WMR units could allow 331s to be deployed in 6 car formations more frequently on routes where SDO is required.

 

[Starmill]

It's hard to reduce the issues here down to what we're really interested in.

In days gone by both Crewe to Manchester trains and the Alderley Edge to Manchester trains were operated by 323s. 319s and in the latter case 150s took over a proportion of the work in question, which required some extra time in timetables. Platform requirements at Manchester Airport also made the timetable slower. Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme were for a time served by more diesel trains than before, and spent some time with the service reduced to below TSR.

Some of this has been dealt with, but not all. Actively degrading the service as a direct result of May 2018 timetable changes and then coming up with new reasons to improve it is a little bit odd.

Cheadle Hulme generally has 3tph to Manchester and Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme 4. Handforth admittedly only has 2, and Alderley Edge has 3 but one of which is extremely slow. It's not completely clear where the changes are being suggested but just maintaining these with reasonable journey times and not dipping below frequency, as well as providing half decent 7 Day service and running into the evening.

Bramhall and Hale are stuck with 1tph and negligible Sunday services. Northern were contracted to improve these significantly but never did so. I would suggest this line of thinking more productive.

 

[Gareth]

The Oxford Road corridor needs an underground metro really. Won't happen, of course.

 

[markymark2000]

Buses are even worse in the North of the city (somehow), not only are they slow/unreliable, but the cost is truly mind boggling! £5-6 single fares within the city should not be as common as they are.

Fake news. Who told you that? Andy Burnham? It's £6 for a System 1 pass. Day tickets are around £5 with singles starting from £2 and going up gradually to around £4 is the highest price I believe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Oxford Road corridor needs an underground metro really. Won't happen, of course.

If we were in Germany it certainly would have!

A tram would do, though.

 

[Purple Orange]

It's hard to reduce the issues here down to what we're really interested in.

In days gone by both Crewe to Manchester trains and the Alderley Edge to Manchester trains were operated by 323s. 319s and in the latter case 150s took over a proportion of the work in question, which required some extra time in timetables. Platform requirements at Manchester Airport also made the timetable slower. Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme were for a time served by more diesel trains than before, and spent some time with the service reduced to below TSR.

Some of this has been dealt with, but not all. Actively degrading the service as a direct result of May 2018 timetable changes and then coming up with new reasons to improve it is a little bit odd.

Cheadle Hulme generally has 3tph to Manchester and Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme 4. Handforth admittedly only has 2, and Alderley Edge has 3 but one of which is extremely slow. It's not completely clear where the changes are being suggested but just maintaining these with reasonable journey times and not dipping below frequency, as well as providing half decent 7 Day service and running into the evening.

Bramhall and Hale are stuck with 1tph and negligible Sunday services. Northern were contracted to improve these significantly but never did so. I would suggest this line of thinking more productive.

The nub of the issue to me is frequency and it harks to what we believe the railways should be used for. Take London as an example, it is commuters who are the back bone of passenger volume and only madness would bring people to drive in to central London each and every day. Yet for Manchester it appears that the emphasis is much more on long & medium distance passengers over regular daily commuters, which I believe to be the wrong focus.

Essentially, South Manchester and North Cheshire needs a metro quality service similar to Metrolink and the Tyne & Wear Metro. Even a Merseyrail service level would be an improvement. If no spare paths exist in to Piccadilly, then in my opinion I think sacking off one or two of the long distance services would be preferential, in order to start attracting people out of their cars. And it is the level of car usage that underpins my whole issue with the service in Manchester.

 

[HSTEd]

Essentially, South Manchester and North Cheshire needs a metro quality service similar to Metrolink and the Tyne & Wear Metro. Even a Merseyrail service level would be an improvement. If no spare paths exist in to Piccadilly, then in my opinion I think sacking off one or two of the long distance services would be preferential, in order to start attracting people out of their cars. And it is the level of car usage that underpins my whole issue with the service in Manchester.

If the railfreight could be dealt with, we could go with my oft repeated suggestion that all existing trains between Picadilly and the Airport be made to stop at all stations en route.
Becoming an ersatz metro, after all the 185s etc have huge vestibule standing areas as it is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Essentially, South Manchester and North Cheshire needs a metro quality service similar to Metrolink and the Tyne & Wear Metro. Even a Merseyrail service level would be an improvement. If no spare paths exist in to Piccadilly, then in my opinion I think sacking off one or two of the long distance services would be preferential, in order to start attracting people out of their cars. And it is the level of car usage that underpins my whole issue with the service in Manchester.

I agree, though @Bantamzen might well object to the "Manc-Bahn" being raised again!

 

[Glenn1969]

Should Alderley Edge terminators be more frequent and should TfW services at least call at Sandbach?

 

[miami]

Presumably no scope for the Wales service to run onto HS2b into Manchester (due to max speed/acceleration). Perhaps scope for the WCML Manchester-Wimslow-Crewe-Rugby service to stop at Sandbach or Holmes Chapel?