Could we see tram trains at Rose Hill Marple and/or Marple?

[Ianno87]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/temporary-closure-for-rose-hill-marple.206872/

A former colleague who lived in the area did make the point that the catchment is very different for the two stations. It probably also helps with timetabling to have a station where trains can be turned back without blocking through trains (a bay could be added at Marple to address that, but would cost money and reduce the car park). That colleague has since retired and last I heard was active in the local transport group, so will probably be rattling various cages about this as we speak.

Depends whether the cost of a bay would pay for itself over a long period of time compared to the ongoing maintenance of the route to Rose Hill...?

Also depends what the future of both routes is with the prospect of Tram Train services

 

[edwin_m]

Depends whether the cost of a bay would pay for itself over a long period of time compared to the ongoing maintenance of the route to Rose Hill...?

Also depends what the future of both routes is with the prospect of Tram Train services

A bay has been talked about for tram-train, but I think it was to support extra frequency to Marple rather than a replacement for Rose Hill. More recently the plan seems to be to send all the tram-trains to Rose Hill with Marple just served by conventional trains probably via Hyde. Rose Hill is probably more convenient for more people than Marple is.

 

[geoffk]

Depends whether the cost of a bay would pay for itself over a long period of time compared to the ongoing maintenance of the route to Rose Hill...?

Also depends what the future of both routes is with the prospect of Tram Train services

Yes, I think a tram train would be best running to Rose Hill via Bredbury, with the New Mills/Sheffield service rerouted via Guide Bridge and Woodley (a route which also carries freight, of course), but this isn't going to happen in the short term. Also housing being built beyond the Rose Hill terminus could justify an extension.

 

[D365]

Yes, I think a tram train would be best running to Rose Hill via Bredbury, with the New Mills/Sheffield service rerouted via Guide Bridge and Woodley (a route which also carries freight, of course), but this isn't going to happen in the short term. Also housing being built beyond the Rose Hill terminus could justify an extension.

Sorry for OT but why would the Hope Valley via Marple need to be rerouted if a Rose Hill tram-train is introduced?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry for OT but why would the Hope Valley via Marple need to be rerouted if a Rose Hill tram-train is introduced?

Because it'd make sense to run the tram service via Brinnington/Bredbury rather than Hyde, as the former is a lot busier.

 

[D365]

Because it'd make sense to run the tram service via Brinnington/Bredbury rather than Hyde, as the former is a lot busier.

Ah, would it be a case of freeing up some paths for the tram.

 

[yorksrob]

Come to think of it, one would expect TfGM to be horrified at such an arbitrary closure - perhaps they see this as a stepping stone to tramification !

 

[Starmill]

Come to think of it, one would expect TfGM to be horrified at such an arbitrary closure - perhaps they see this as a stepping stone to tramification !

It's a good job that Northern aren't being asked to resource the Sale, Bury and Oldham loop lines now eh. The people on there might actually have a service that can be relied on.

 

[yorksrob]

It's a good job that Northern aren't being asked to resource the Sale, Bury and Oldham loop lines now eh. The people on there might actually have a service that can be relied on.

A fair point in some ways. But lets not forget that old Northern and its predecessors managed to run a stable (if quite dull) service on these routes for decades.

This suggests to me that being part of the National rail network isn't inherantly the problem.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It's a good job that Northern aren't being asked to resource the Sale, Bury and Oldham loop lines now eh. The people on there might actually have a service that can be relied on.

Were there any redundancies due to the abandonment of those lines as part of the National Rail network or did they simply lead to there being more resourcing slack?

 

[Starmill]

Some old trains were withdrawn, or withdrawn and then returned to service in the case of some class 142s, but I'm fairly sure there weren't redundancies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A fair point in some ways. But lets not forget that old Northern and its predecessors managed to run a stable (if quite dull) service on these routes for decades.

This suggests to me that being part of the National rail network isn't inherantly the problem.

My take would be that the present Northern management are the main issue. TUPE has its downsides.

 

[yorksrob]

My take would be that the present Northern management are the main issue. TUPE has its downsides.

Well, to be fair, one doesn't know what pressures the current management are working under, but the result is less than satisfactory.

 

[py_megapixel]

I genuinley don't think tram conversion would be a terrible idea for this line anyway. Are residents going to be more likely to use the railway if it's:
a) A noisy 2-car Sprinter every 60 minutes to Piccadilly, or
b) A quiet, smooth tram every 12 minutes to Piccadilly or a number of other possible destinations in the city centre?

I know it wouldn't work for many commuter routes, but in the case of the Rose Hill line where there's a stop every few minutes (so the acceleration of light rail might actually reduce journey times), the journey time is less than 35 minutes, and there's still a viable heavy rail option fairly nearby (plus the option to change at Romiley isn't going away), tram operation actually looks to me like a pretty positive idea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd agree it does. But what we shouldn't see is it remaining closed for the next 10 years or so while they work out how they're going to pay for it and get it built (that has echoes of Gateacre in Liverpool, which Merseyrail was meant to reach but never did). The train service needs to run until the day the spades are taken out of the van.

 

[Edgeley]

Fall-back option: re-lay some track towards Macclesfield and turn it into a heritage railway.

 

[py_megapixel]

Fall-back option: re-lay some track towards Macclesfield and turn it into a heritage railway.

Can't really do that - the old railway alignment is now a bridleway, and I hear it's actually quite well-used so closing it isn't really an option

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can't really do that - the old railway alignment is now a bridleway, and I hear it's actually quite well-used so closing it isn't really an option

It's been done north of Northampton (Nene Valley Railway?). Heritage railways tend to be single-track (I think there's only one that's double throughout, the GCR?) and so there's usually space for a narrower cycle track alongside.

 

[py_megapixel]

It's been done north of Northampton (Nene Valley Railway?). Heritage railways tend to be single-track (I think there's only one that's double throughout, the GCR?) and so there's usually space for a narrower cycle track alongside.

I mean, I for one would more than happily go for a day out cycling the length of a heritage railway with steam trains running alongside

 

[furnessvale]

Fall-back option: re-lay some track towards Macclesfield and turn it into a heritage railway.

Better still, extend from Rose Hill by a mile or so to a new terminal station in the proposed housing estate.

 

[dggar]

Even better still, extend it towards the Disley tunnel west portal and create a chord to link it to the lines towards Hazel Grove station.(giving Marple a direct link to Stockport.)

 

[py_megapixel]

Even better still, extend it towards the Disley tunnel west portal and create a chord to link it to the lines towards Hazel Grove station.(giving Marple a direct link to Stockport.)

Marple already has a theoretical direct link to Stockport, via the Denton curve. The main problem with that is trains approach Stockport from the wrong direction to continue towards Manchester.

 

[Greybeard33]

I'd agree it does. But what we shouldn't see is it remaining closed for the next 10 years or so while they work out how they're going to pay for it and get it built (that has echoes of Gateacre in Liverpool, which Merseyrail was meant to reach but never did). The train service needs to run until the day the spades are taken out of the van.

Other than forum wibble, is there any evidence whatsoever for the conspiracy theory of a secret Northern plot to make the temporary suspension of the Rose Hill Marple service permanent?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Other than forum wibble, is there any evidence whatsoever for the conspiracy theory of a secret Northern plot to make the temporary suspension of the Rose Hill Marple service permanent?

None that I've seen, and I don't think it's a conspiracy, I think Northern genuinely do intend to restore the service in December. However, I also think Merseyside PTE/BR also genuinely intended Merseyrail to reach Gateacre in the early 1980s, and yet that fell by the wayside. Sometimes events overtake this sort of thing, which is why I have a bit of a fear of permanent closure here.