Could stations in Manchester receive a better service?

[Purple Orange]

'Outrage' is your word, not mine. I wish I could be as confident as you about the notion that an underground tunnel for replacement services will be built first. The history of Metrolink does not suggest this will be the case. It is actually a history of Manchester's leaders taking over existing railway lines when it suits them and ignoring what ran there before (ref. Altrincham, again). Metrolink works far better when it takes over disused routes, such as the East Didbsury line. This creates new journey possibiltiies whilst respecting those that already exist.

Yes outraged is how your writing comes across. You’re clearly choosing to look upon metrolink in a negative light when all evidence points towards the network being a far bigger success than what it replaced. It needs to be acknowledged that the vast majority of people in a city region wish to make journeys in to the centre of their city region, and an hourly train service to another city 30 miles away.

Regarding the Warrington line, it is not possible to convert it to tram-train without creating capacity through castlefield. The only solution suggested so far is a tunnel.

 

[Jack Hay]

Well, I think we should agree to differ on this. I have lived and worked in areas served by Metrolink both before and after it was built and I found it not to be an improvement but an inconvenience - through journeys being broken and requiring a change of tram / train. Now I live in another area which TfGM appear to want to convert to Metrolink and I suspect I'm going to be inconvenienced for a second time. You need to acknowledge that there is also evidence pointing the other way from the view you hold.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. Then probably run it up New Bury Rd to finish in the Prestwich area.

Liverpool could also do with a couple: along Prescot Rd and Smithdown Rd. The buses on those routes are super chocker.

Not going to happen though...

Yes, Merseyrail is good but there is a huge swathe of the city it doesn't cover, and that it wouldn't even provide useful connections for (i.e. to run buses to a station).

Manchester probably does better in this regard - its network is far more spread, particularly on the north side.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2020 ==

It really is hard to argue that Chassen Road should have the same service level as Warrington Central but Metrolink would probably not distinguish between them!

Yet Merseyrail has met with success by arguing exactly that. An all stations train every 15 minutes (the exception to the "all stations" principle being purely lopping out of one station, Capenhurst, because it saves a diagram). Dead simple, from each station you basically have to remember one number and be able to add 15/30/45 to it. Does Aughton Park deserve the same service as much busier Maghull? No, clearly not. But by giving it that service the whole network is really easy for people to understand. The Tube is the same, and even on the Metropolitan Line the move is increasingly towards keeping it simple and just running everything all-stations.

It's interesting you mention Chassen Road, though, as looking at a map it has a similar-sized catchment to Urmston (i.e. built up area around it, on the basis that people mostly walk to urban stations like those), and a larger one than Flixton, yet both of those get a better service. Chassen Road is therefore in a self-perpetuating situation - give it an awful service (and in an urban area anything less than half-hourly is awful, TBH) and people just won't bother using it, they'll drive or use the bus instead.

And with regard to Warrington itself, the popularity of the Merseyrail Chester and Southport services would demonstrate that actually a frequent service is appreciated by people even if it's really slow. And there's always Bank Quay if you do want the "fast but infrequent" option.

 

[Jack Hay]

Yes, Merseyrail is good but there is a huge swathe of the city it doesn't cover, and that it wouldn't even provide useful connections for (i.e. to run buses to a station).

Manchester probably does better in this regard - its network is far more spread, particularly on the north side.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2020 ==



Yet Merseyrail has met with success by arguing exactly that. An all stations train every 15 minutes (the exception to the "all stations" principle being purely lopping out of one station, Capenhurst, because it saves a diagram). Dead simple, from each station you basically have to remember one number and be able to add 15/30/45 to it. Does Aughton Park deserve the same service as much busier Maghull? No, clearly not. But by giving it that service the whole network is really easy for people to understand. The Tube is the same, and even on the Metropolitan Line the move is increasingly towards keeping it simple and just running everything all-stations.

It's interesting you mention Chassen Road, though, as looking at a map it has a similar-sized catchment to Urmston (i.e. built up area around it, on the basis that people mostly walk to urban stations like those), and a larger one than Flixton, yet both of those get a better service. Chassen Road is therefore in a self-perpetuating situation - give it an awful service (and in an urban area anything less than half-hourly is awful, TBH) and people just won't bother using it, they'll drive or use the bus instead.

And with regard to Warrington itself, the popularity of the Merseyrail Chester and Southport services would demonstrate that actually a frequent service is appreciated by people even if it's really slow. And there's always Bank Quay if you do want the "fast but infrequent" option.

A regular interval timetable is certainly appealing but the passenger groups I have met in Southport and Chester say one improvement they would really like is a limited stop service to Liverpool! And in Warrington, Bank Quay to Manchester just isn't fast - it's a lot longer and has too many junction conflicts along the way to ever be the quick route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A regular interval timetable is certainly appealing but the passenger groups I have met in Southport and Chester say one improvement they would really like is a limited stop service to Liverpool!

But would they accept a lower frequency for that? I doubt it.

 

[Bevan Price]

Once the new arena is built at eastlands they should demolish the current one and give Victoria its platform space back.

All the Warrington/north Wales services should be routed back through Victoria as should the lime st stoppers.

Salford Central should also have its platforms on the Chat Moss lines reopened.

On a technical point, Salford Central has never had platforms for Chat Moss services. The four through platforms only served the ex-L&YR routes towards Atherton & Bolton.
The track diversion via the disused platforms was a consequence of track alterations when the Ordsall chord was built. But I would agree, it would be sensible to rebuild the platforms, served preferably by half-hourly stopping services via Earlestown to Liverpool Lime Street (replacing the hourly sevices to Piccadilly / Airport / Crewe). I also think that long-distance services to/from the Airport should be curtailed, with, instead, a 15 minute all stations shuttle from Victoria to Airport via the Ordsall curve. (Of course "political" considerations mean that will never be allowed to happen.)

 

[Purple Orange]

Well, I think we should agree to differ on this. I have lived and worked in areas served by Metrolink both before and after it was built and I found it not to be an improvement but an inconvenience - through journeys being broken and requiring a change of tram / train. Now I live in another area which TfGM appear to want to convert to Metrolink and I suspect I'm going to be inconvenienced for a second time. You need to acknowledge that there is also evidence pointing the other way from the view you hold.

Yes we should agree to disagree. Personally I see the evidence provided by increased passenger volumes on metrolink compared to heavy rail (same with the Tyne & Wear metro), providing all stop services with regular intervals is the basis for a very good rail network, be that tram or train.

 

[daodao]

Yes we should agree to disagree. Personally I see the evidence provided by increased passenger volumes on metrolink compared to heavy rail (same with the Tyne & Wear metro), providing all stop services with regular intervals is the basis for a very good rail network, be that tram or train.

Metrolink is a cost-effective way of providing frequent light rail services within the Greater Manchester conurbation, but is not appropriate (whether as tram or tram-train) for longer distance services beyond the metropolitan boundaries. It is not the best solution for key main railway lines on which longer-distance traffic needs to run. Thus it is appropriate to convert the line to Rose Hill via Reddish to Metrolink, but not the interurban CLC line to Warrington (and Liverpool), where 25 kV electrification, with 2 tph express and 2 tph all station stopping services, is probably the best solution.

Aspirations for Metrolink to reach beyond the GM boundaries, such as the proposed tram-train to Wilmslow, are daft. Wilmslow is an affluent suburban dormitory town outside Greater Manchester where public transport use is fairly low and further public transport investment would not be cost-effective; in any case this is the responsibility of Cheshire East Council (not TfGM). It is noteworthy how public transport use drops off in low density suburban sprawl, such as Cheadle, Bramhall, Woodford and Poynton; compare the bus/rail services there with the frequency of bus/tram services terminating at the historic tram termini of Parrs Wood and Hazel Grove. Park and ride is the best way to encourage the residents of these areas to use public transport for at least part of their journeys into the city centre.

 

[RT4038]

But would they accept a lower frequency for that? I doubt it.

I think you would get a pretty mixed reaction. Would Bletchley people go for a higher frequency of all stations trains to Euston rather than the mixture of stopping and limited stop services? Bedford people have certainly been most vociferous about the loss of (relatively) infrequent express trains to London in spite of a very frequent suburban service stopping at (only a selection) of intermediate stations.

I know that this goes against the grain of all things German railways are great, but long distance all stations services, however frequent they may be, are not universally liked. I have friends who live towards the extremity of the Munich S-bahn network who complain that the journey time to the City is so long, because the trains stop at all of the stations. It is OK when you are there on holiday, but not so good if doing it day in, day out.

Obviously there is a trade off between journey time and waiting times, and organised (lives regulated by timetables) people and disorganised. However I can quite understand the views of Chester and Southport people (both large places in their own right) who have to put up with slow journeys.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you would get a pretty mixed reaction. Would Bletchley people go for a higher frequency of all stations trains to Euston rather than the mixture of stopping and limited stop services?

Bletchley to Euston is 40-odd miles, whereas Warrington to Manchester is half that, so you're not really comparing like for like. But in my experience what people do at Euston is just get on the first train on the board to Bletchley, not wait for the fast one (though they might well plan for the fast one going into London). So a bit mixed there but at twice the distance.

If I lived in Tring, which is more comparable in distance? I'd deliberately get the stopper because it starts there, so better seating choice.

 

[Purple Orange]

Metrolink is a cost-effective way of providing frequent light rail services within the Greater Manchester conurbation, but is not appropriate (whether as tram or tram-train) for longer distance services beyond the metropolitan boundaries. It is not the best solution for key main railway lines on which longer-distance traffic needs to run. Thus it is appropriate to convert the line to Rose Hill via Reddish to Metrolink, but not the interurban CLC line to Warrington (and Liverpool), where 25 kV electrification, with 2 tph express and 2 tph all station stopping services, is probably the best solution.

Aspirations for Metrolink to reach beyond the GM boundaries, such as the proposed tram-train to Wilmslow, are daft. Wilmslow is an affluent suburban dormitory town outside Greater Manchester where public transport use is fairly low and further public transport investment would not be cost-effective; in any case this is the responsibility of Cheshire East Council (not TfGM). It is noteworthy how public transport use drops off in low density suburban sprawl, such as Cheadle, Bramhall, Woodford and Poynton; compare the bus/rail services there with the frequency of bus/tram services terminating at the historic tram termini of Parrs Wood and Hazel Grove. Park and ride is the best way to encourage the residents of these areas to use public transport for at least part of their journeys into the city centre.

Park and ride will not work as well as you imply. Period. The Wilmslow point you make is missing the issue there. It is only a link to the airport, which I can guarantee would be very well received. Cheadle and Woodford have no rail or tram stations in their locality and the traffic in Cheadle is horrendous. It’s just as built up in Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme, Heald Green and Bramhall as it is just the other side of the M60, they are very much part of the urban sprawl of Manchester and that’s the way life there is orientated.

You called out a drop-off in public transport usage, but Cheadle Hulme had 1 million passengers in 2018/19. 1 million, with only 3 tph! Bramhall gets over 300,000 with 1 tph, Handforth also gets 300,000 with 2 tph, Poynton gets about 250,000 with 1 tph. Collectively that is 1.85 million passenger journeys serviced by 3 tph. Yet still, traffic on the A34 is horrendous and traffic within the area is bumper to bumper on a daily basis within the main roads in Cheadle to Bramhall. Wilmslow gets 1.7m passengers with 5 tph, which is a similar passenger per train to Cheadle Hulme.

If those lines were not a part of the WCML, they would have been ripe for conversion to metrolink and would have enjoyed 10 tph. The lesson here is increase the frequency and reliability at these stations and people will make the shift from their car.

 

[RT4038]

Bletchley to Euston is 40-odd miles, whereas Warrington to Manchester is half that, so you're not really comparing like for like. But in my experience what people do at Euston is just get on the first train on the board to Bletchley, not wait for the fast one (though they might well plan for the fast one going into London). So a bit mixed there but at twice the distance.

If I lived in Tring, which is more comparable in distance? I'd deliberately get the stopper because it starts there, so better seating choice.

Tring is only a small place, Chester or Southport are more like (for similar journey times, as opposed strictly to mileage) Hemel Hempstead / Luton / St Albans / Welwyn Garden City / Stevenage only having all stations trains to London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tring is only a small place, Chester or Southport are more like (for similar journey times, as opposed strictly to mileage) Hemel Hempstead / Luton / St Albans / Hitchin / Stevenage only having all stations trains to London.

I don't know much about the latter two, but I wouldn't see a problem with the former three being served only by a high frequency (perhaps 6tph off peak and 12tph peak) of all-stations trains in preference to less frequent fasts and slows.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't know much about the latter two, but I wouldn't see a problem with the former three being served only by a high frequency (perhaps 6tph off peak and 12tph peak) of all-stations trains in preference to less frequent fasts and slows.

St Albanians *definitely* like their 4 non-stop services per hour. In any case, with capacity being dictated by the Thameslink core and St Pancras high level, there is nothing to be gained capacity-wise by metroifying everything.

Similarly, Hitchin/Stevenage basically have a 4tph fast Thameslink service (plus 2tph LNER st Stevenage) driven by the flighting on the ECML fast lines across Welwyn between Finsbury Park and Woolmer Green. Again, slowing everything down doesn't gain any capacity - if anything it would lose capacity.

 

[geordieblue]

St Albanians *definitely* like their 4 non-stop services per hour. In any case, with capacity being dictated by the Thameslink core and St Pancras high level, there is nothing to be gained capacity-wise by metroifying everything.

Going to jump in here - this is why splitting the CLC is a fundamentally good idea. Capacity at Lime St and Piccadilly is severely constrained and isn't going to be eased without serious investment. Meanwhile Warrington retains its fast trains to Manchester and Liverpool and the intermediate stations get a much improved service. The only real opposition here is coming from anti-light rail types who refuse to accept that light rail is more appropriate in urban areas than heavy rail.

 

[RT4038]

I don't know much about the latter two, but I wouldn't see a problem with the former three being served only by a high frequency (perhaps 6tph off peak and 12tph peak) of all-stations trains in preference to less frequent fasts and slows.

I suspect that may be a controversial view ......

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2020 ==

St Albanians *definitely* like their 4 non-stop services per hour. In any case, with capacity being dictated by the Thameslink core and St Pancras high level, there is nothing to be gained capacity-wise by metroifying everything.

Similarly, Hitchin/Stevenage basically have a 4tph fast Thameslink service (plus 2tph LNER st Stevenage) driven by the flighting on the ECML fast lines across Welwyn between Finsbury Park and Woolmer Green. Again, slowing everything down doesn't gain any capacity - if anything it would lose capacity.

It is more the principle that is being discussed, than the practicalities or capacity of lines, and is anyway getting far away from the thread title!

 

[Purple Orange]

Going to jump in here - this is why splitting the CLC is a fundamentally good idea. Capacity at Lime St and Piccadilly is severely constrained and isn't going to be eased without serious investment. Meanwhile Warrington retains its fast trains to Manchester and Liverpool and the intermediate stations get a much improved service. The only real opposition here is coming from anti-light rail types who refuse to accept that light rail is more appropriate in urban areas than heavy rail.

Splitting the CLC in what sort of way? Using Warrington Central as a terminus for merseyrail and Metrolink?

 

[cle]

Splitting the CLC in what sort of way? Using Warrington Central as a terminus for merseyrail and Metrolink?

That's what I would assume. The Chat Moss route has emerged as the main Liverpool-Manchester route. So it is just Warrington journeys and the odd edge case (Widnes to Manchester, Birchwood to Liverpool) which would be impacted.

Warrington - Manchester frequency and time has improved with the Chester/Leeds service, and I would think that the North Wales service might shift to Victoria too. For Piccadilly (and west of it) - take the Met.

Warrington to Liverpool would be worse off. But not in frequency. Same as Altrincham today. 5-10 more mins on a train, but no timetables required and get a seat at the starting point. With smart phones and laptops, it's a no brainer.

 

[geordieblue]

Splitting the CLC in what sort of way? Using Warrington Central as a terminus for merseyrail and Metrolink?

Yep. Bit of a distance for Metrolink but the trams are pretty rapid between stops (60mph?). It makes even more sense for Merseyrail - the line terminates just a few stations down the line at Hunts Cross.

 

[tbtc]

(please not another thread about the service from Bletchley to Euston...)

Going to jump in here - this is why splitting the CLC is a fundamentally good idea. Capacity at Lime St and Piccadilly is severely constrained and isn't going to be eased without serious investment. Meanwhile Warrington retains its fast trains to Manchester and Liverpool and the intermediate stations get a much improved service. The only real opposition here is coming from anti-light rail types who refuse to accept that light rail is more appropriate in urban areas than heavy rail.

Agreed.

This seems to be about the fact that everyone wants a fast service to the nearest big city without the inconvenience of stopping at several intermediate places... whilst Liverpool passengers want a fast train to Manchester without the hassle of stopping at smaller intermediate places like Widnes/ Warrington, Warrington passengers will want a fast train to Manchester without the hassle of stopping at smaller intermediate places like Irlam...

...but there's not enough capacity on a two track railway to accommodate a half hourly semi-fast as well as giving all of the local stations a decent enough service - hence places like Urmston and Irlam getting a half hourly Manchester service plus one "fast" train per hour (and some other intermediate stations only getting an hourly service, some stations getting worse than that).

The fact that there was no scope in the timetable to accommodate the new Warrington West stop without making equivalent cuts at Sankey shows how tight the timetable is, with the stoppers leaving Lime Street a couple of minutes after the eastbound "fast" and then trying to get to Oxford Road a couple of minutes ahead of the subsequent eastbound "fast" (and vice versa in the other direction).

People in Greater Manchester can't have an appropriate service at their local station because of the apparent need for a fast service from Liverpool to Nottingham - I can see why councillors/ MPs/ Andy Burnham/ TfGM (etc) are frustrated and would rather their constituents had a more suitable frequency - the needs of their constituents can't be served because a combination of two fast and two slow services per hour mean there's no space.

Electrification would improve things, given acceleration, but it's still going to be a horribly tight timetable with precious little scope to improve frequencies for intermediate stations.

However, chopping the line in two would permit places both sides of Warrington to have a suitable frequencies.

Merseyrail have already given up on the "every service has to stop at every station" idea, with some Chester services omitting some intermediate stations, so it's not inconceivable that they could extend the Kirkby/Ormskirk service beyond Liverpool Central to Warrington Central, semi fast from Liverpool Central to Hunts Cross (maybe just stopping at Liverpool South Parkway?).

There is the problem of what to do with Mossley Hill and West Allerton though - dumping those stops on the longer distance Birmingham services probably wouldn't be popular - but maybe there'd be scope to use two of the four freed up Lime Street paths for a half hourly Runcorn stopper (since Runcorn always feels to me like it has a pretty poor frequency)?

That would allow five trams per hour east of Warrington (with a half hourly service from Bank Quay to central Manchester, the existing Chester service, takes around half an hour to get into central Manchester), which would be a big improvement for many local stations.

Plus, with one half of the CLC route freed up from having to match up with the other half of the route, you could see about extending the Metrolink service beyond Warrington Central to serve Bank Quay, improving links - trams can be much more flexible than heavy rail when it comes to such things - look at how Metrolink serves central Oldham/ Rochdale much better than heavy rail ever managed to.

IMHO, Warrington passengers would get a better service in each direction than they currently have, plus their services would penetrate Manchester City Centre and Liverpool City Centre better than the current situation. The real "losers" would be people in places like Widnes who lost their Manchester service and people in places like Urmston who lost their Liverpool service. But I think that the winners would outweigh the losers (and I say this as someone living in Sheffield who'd lose a direct service to Warrington/ Liverpool if this were to happen - but the number of people doing that kind of journey are insignificant compared to passengers doing simple everyday trips like Widnes to Liverpool.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail have already given up on the "every service has to stop at every station" idea, with some Chester services omitting some intermediate stations

They haven't per-se. The only station they miss out is Capenhurst, and that is only because serving it (and it's in the middle of nowhere) on all 4tph would require an additional unit diagram. Arguably it needs one more anyway because it's very tightly timed and often runs late, so if that does happen I'm sure those stops will go back in.

 

[Gareth]

I predict all will stop at Capenhurst once the new trains have totally displaced the old.

 

[daodao]

(please not another thread about the service from Bletchley to Euston...)



Agreed.

This seems to be about the fact that everyone wants a fast service to the nearest big city without the inconvenience of stopping at several intermediate places... whilst Liverpool passengers want a fast train to Manchester without the hassle of stopping at smaller intermediate places like Widnes/ Warrington, Warrington passengers will want a fast train to Manchester without the hassle of stopping at smaller intermediate places like Irlam...

...but there's not enough capacity on a two track railway to accommodate a half hourly semi-fast as well as giving all of the local stations a decent enough service - hence places like Urmston and Irlam getting a half hourly Manchester service plus one "fast" train per hour (and some other intermediate stations only getting an hourly service, some stations getting worse than that).

The fact that there was no scope in the timetable to accommodate the new Warrington West stop without making equivalent cuts at Sankey shows how tight the timetable is, with the stoppers leaving Lime Street a couple of minutes after the eastbound "fast" and then trying to get to Oxford Road a couple of minutes ahead of the subsequent eastbound "fast" (and vice versa in the other direction).

People in Greater Manchester can't have an appropriate service at their local station because of the apparent need for a fast service from Liverpool to Nottingham - I can see why councillors/ MPs/ Andy Burnham/ TfGM (etc) are frustrated and would rather their constituents had a more suitable frequency - the needs of their constituents can't be served because a combination of two fast and two slow services per hour mean there's no space.

Electrification would improve things, given acceleration, but it's still going to be a horribly tight timetable with precious little scope to improve frequencies for intermediate stations.

However, chopping the line in two would permit places both sides of Warrington to have a suitable frequencies.

Merseyrail have already given up on the "every service has to stop at every station" idea, with some Chester services omitting some intermediate stations, so it's not inconceivable that they could extend the Kirkby/Ormskirk service beyond Liverpool Central to Warrington Central, semi fast from Liverpool Central to Hunts Cross (maybe just stopping at Liverpool South Parkway?).

There is the problem of what to do with Mossley Hill and West Allerton though - dumping those stops on the longer distance Birmingham services probably wouldn't be popular - but maybe there'd be scope to use two of the four freed up Lime Street paths for a half hourly Runcorn stopper (since Runcorn always feels to me like it has a pretty poor frequency)?

That would allow five trams per hour east of Warrington (with a half hourly service from Bank Quay to central Manchester, the existing Chester service, takes around half an hour to get into central Manchester), which would be a big improvement for many local stations.

Plus, with one half of the CLC route freed up from having to match up with the other half of the route, you could see about extending the Metrolink service beyond Warrington Central to serve Bank Quay, improving links - trams can be much more flexible than heavy rail when it comes to such things - look at how Metrolink serves central Oldham/ Rochdale much better than heavy rail ever managed to.

IMHO, Warrington passengers would get a better service in each direction than they currently have, plus their services would penetrate Manchester City Centre and Liverpool City Centre better than the current situation. The real "losers" would be people in places like Widnes who lost their Manchester service and people in places like Urmston who lost their Liverpool service. But I think that the winners would outweigh the losers (and I say this as someone living in Sheffield who'd lose a direct service to Warrington/ Liverpool if this were to happen - but the number of people doing that kind of journey are insignificant compared to passengers doing simple everyday trips like Widnes to Liverpool.

Splitting the CLC line service at Warrington removes 1 of the 2 remaining Manchester-Liverpool through routes; BR destroyed the ex L&YR route in the late 1960s and the line via Dunham Massey (see photo) was roundabout and closed to passengers in 1962. All 3 principal routes used to support hourly expresses taking 40-45 minutes pre WW1. Removing the CLC through service would make the overall service worse than in 1910, albeit the Chat Moss line expresses now take 32-35 rather than 40 minutes. There is unlikely to be enough capacity on the remaining Chat Moss line for extra express trains, given that this line is also used for trains to Wigan and beyond, from Manchester to Chester and beyond and for local services, as well as existing express trains and some goods traffic. I am assuming that NPR (if it ever gets built) would not open for many years to come. There is also no capacity on Metrolink to run extra services via Cornbrook and any underground light rail route under Manchester city centre (if it ever gets built) would also not open for many years to come.

The simplest, quickest and cheapest solution to the CLC line via Warrington is to electrify it at 25 kV as a heavy rail route. There should then be sufficient capacity for 2 fast trains per hour and 2 stopping trains per hour, with the latter calling at all stations between Lime Street and Halewood, then selected stations to Irlam (with every station having at least 1 tph) and then all stations between Irlam and Oxford Road. The section between Halewood and Irlam is outwith the Liverpool and Manchester conurbations, so providing 2 tph at the minor stations on this section is not essential if capacity is tight.

It is interesting to note that the recently published Network Rail strategic report for the Liverpool area does not recommend extension of Merseyrail services beyond Hunts Cross to Warrington.
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...ool-City-Region-Strategic-Rail-Study-2020.pdf

 

[geordieblue]

Removing the CLC through service would make the overall service worse than in 1910, albeit the Chat Moss line expresses now take 32-35 rather than 40 minutes.

And this is where your argument falls down. Doubling frequency for small stations on the line - or more than doubling - represents a huge service improvement. Warrington will still have fast trains to Manchester and Liverpool. Manchester and Liverpool will still have fast trains to each other. That's not a bad service. But when conversion would provide an opportunity to give a turn-up-and-go service - and a self-contained one, mind, with a simple clockface timetable - this is a clear service improvement. Quality of service cannot be measured on journey time from one end station to another when the journeys are short and duplicated.
And, by the way, the Network Rail document doesn't really provide any information on extensions; it's a very broad study which kicks extensions into the long grass and instead focuses on the basics (understandably with the new fleet coming in). Conversion of the line to Warrington has long been an aspiration for Merseytravel and they're not going to give up on it for good following one document.
The Manchester side is a slightly different topic, but in many ways it'd be ideal for tram-train. And if - big if - you moved Trafford Park terminal, then you could remove all freight from the line, and Cornbrook would cease to be an issue - you'd have a new double-track segregated Metrolink viaduct all the way to Deansgate.

 

[daodao]

And this is where your argument falls down. Doubling frequency for small stations on the line - or more than doubling - represents a huge service improvement. Warrington will still have fast trains to Manchester and Liverpool. Manchester and Liverpool will still have fast trains to each other. That's not a bad service. But when conversion would provide an opportunity to give a turn-up-and-go service - and a self-contained one, mind, with a simple clockface timetable - this is a clear service improvement. Quality of service cannot be measured on journey time from one end station to another when the journeys are short and duplicated.
And, by the way, the Network Rail document doesn't really provide any information on extensions; it's a very broad study which kicks extensions into the long grass and instead focuses on the basics (understandably with the new fleet coming in). Conversion of the line to Warrington has long been an aspiration for Merseytravel and they're not going to give up on it for good following one document.
The Manchester side is a slightly different topic, but in many ways it'd be ideal for tram-train. And if - big if - you moved Trafford Park terminal, then you could remove all freight from the line, and Cornbrook would cease to be an issue - you'd have a new double-track segregated Metrolink viaduct all the way to Deansgate.

I shan't attempt to debunk the whole of your argument, but just point out that:

• conversion of the Hunt's Cross-Warrington Central section to Merseyrail would completely remove all fast trains between Liverpool and Warrington and significantly reduce the number of fast trains between Manchester and both Warrington and Liverpool.
• my suggestion doubles or more than doubles the frequency for small urban stations on the line such as Humphrey Park and Chassen Road.

The CLC Warrington line is not a short minor urban route like Piccadilly to Rose Hill, where Metrolink conversion is a good idea and there is capacity to link into the existing Metrolink network. Cornbrook to St Peter's Square is the most congested segment of Metrolink and has no capacity for additional services.

 

[geordieblue]

I shan't attempt to debunk the whole of your argument, but just point out that:

• conversion of the Hunt's Cross-Warrington Central section to Merseyrail would completely remove all fast trains between Liverpool and Warrington and significantly reduce the number of fast trains between Manchester and both Warrington and Liverpool.
• my suggestion doubles or more than doubles the frequency for small urban stations on the line such as Humphrey Park and Chassen Road.

The CLC Warrington line is not a short minor urban route like Piccadilly to Rose Hill, where Metrolink conversion is a good idea and there is capacity to link into the existing Metrolink network. Cornbrook to St Peter's Square is the most congested segment of Metrolink and has no capacity for additional services.

- You said that 1tph would be sufficient in your previous post. That is not a doubling or more than doubling of frequency.
- fast trains between Liverpool and Manchester should be provided on the Chat Moss line, where this is the capacity
- in all honesty, I believe Warrington would accept the end of fast services to Manchester or Liverpool if a replacement of 4/6tph was available, with better access into city centres. Look at Altrincham or Heworth or a host of other examples.
- I did mention Cornbrook at the end of my reply. I appreciate that debunking all of it is time-consuming but it's hardly fair to not read my argument then criticise me for not making it!

 

[Purple Orange]

I’m not one for sticking to the topic of the thread very well or very often, but this is about how Manchester stations could get a better service. Conversion of the CLC line to Warrington is certainly one option, but the opposition to the idea is not acknowledging the events that need to happen for it to be possible to introduce tram-trains on the line at all.

1. A Piccadilly - Cornbrook tunnel would be needed
2. The time frame is 20 years away, minimum.
3. Warrington would be one of the best connected towns to the wider network, with 4 NPR tph to Manchester and beyond, a recipient of any Liverpool HS2 trains, fast services on the chat moss route plus the existing WCML.

Without acknowledging those issues, the whole debate is pointless.

For Manchester to get any decent service levels on existing lines, NPR and HS2 must happen. Without it, any changes will be tinkering around the edges, or we fundamentally change the priorities of rail services through Greater Manchester. We can:

• Significantly reduce long distance services and give more paths to stoppers. Lose the South Wales TfW, lose the EMR service, half TPE, reduce the London & Birmingham services.
• Convert lines such as the Atherton & Glossop lines to Metrolink that do not greatly impact long distance services;
• Build more on-street tram lines in the inner city areas.
• Build HS2 & NPR.

Any real solution is a long-term solution and we have to live with a crap local rail network in the meantime. I know what I’d rather do.

 

[daodao]

I’m not one for sticking to the topic of the thread very well or very often, but this is about how Manchester stations could get a better service. Conversion of the CLC line to Warrington is certainly one option, but the opposition to the idea is not acknowledging the events that need to happen for it to be possible to introduce tram-trains on the line at all.

1. A Piccadilly - Cornbrook tunnel would be needed
2. The time frame is 20 years away, minimum.
3. Warrington would be one of the best connected towns to the wider network, with 4 NPR tph to Manchester and beyond, a recipient of any Liverpool HS2 trains, fast services on the chat moss route plus the existing WCML.

Without acknowledging those issues, the whole debate is pointless.

For Manchester to get any decent service levels on existing lines, NPR and HS2 must happen. Without it, any changes will be tinkering around the edges, or we fundamentally change the priorities of rail services through Greater Manchester. We can:

• Significantly reduce long distance services and give more paths to stoppers. Lose the South Wales TfW, lose the EMR service, half TPE, reduce the London & Birmingham services.
• Convert lines such as the Atherton & Glossop lines to Metrolink that do not greatly impact long distance services;
• Build more on-street tram lines in the inner city areas.
• Build HS2 & NPR.

Any real solution is a long-term solution and we have to live with a crap local rail network in the meantime. I know what I’d rather do.

I agree that radical changes to the CLC Warrington line service as suggested in earlier posts would require construction of NPR/HS2b and a Piccadilly to Cornbrook tunnel for Metrolink. I also agree that the time frame is many years hence, but frankly, the UK is unlikely to have the financial and other resources for such major infrastructure projects in future, nor the authoritarian determination to undertake them, so I doubt whether they will ever be built. The UK is rapidly slipping down the economic league, exacerbated by Brexit and the Covid crisis, and is now at serious risk of fracturing. The UK was a world leader and global economic and military power in the 19th century, after all, Manchester to Liverpool via Chat Moss was the first main intercity railway line in the world. However, the 21st century will be dominated by China. If Manchester was in China, I'm sure that all these radical proposals would be achievable by 2030.

In the meantime, some lesser affordable improvements to the CLC Warrington line are desirable - 25kV electrification would facilitate this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Look at Altrincham or Heworth or a host of other examples.

Alty is worth a look - which do the passengers choose from there - the hourly fastish DMU or the slowish tram every 6 minutes?

 

[daodao]

Alty is worth a look - which do the passengers choose from there - the hourly fastish DMU or the slowish tram every 6 minutes?

The current dmu service is neither faster than the Metrolink service nor is it direct. Before Metrolink conversion, fast trains from M/c to Altrincham were scheduled for 13 minutes with a stop at Sale.

A better comparison would be Birmingham to Wolverhampton.