We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[Ianno87]

What they are suggesting is Hull to Liverpool express, with a Scarborough (or possibly Newcastle) to Piccadilly picking up the stops between Huddersfield & Stalybridge. I'm sure others would be far more qualified than me to comment on how practicable this is.

"Somebody else can have the slow service so we can have the fast one"

I'm not sure there's going to be much demand for passengers from Hull or Leeds changing at Piccadilly for points south, as they have a perfectly good (and shorter) service towards the West Midlands, South West & South Wales either direct from Leeds or by changing at Doncaster.

Another reason why running "fast" TPE service to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge doesn't really stack up; the westward links to/via Victoria are arguably more important (when you open up fast journeys like Bolton-Victoria-Leeds)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well that does suggest significant economies in paths could be made with high performance units.

Also it's really a rat's nest of paths isn't it?

That's the classic "hourly from everywhere to everywhere" issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2021 ==

Another reason why running "fast" TPE service to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge doesn't really stack up; the westward links to/via Victoria are arguably more important (when you open up fast journeys like Bolton-Victoria-Leeds)

Is that a proposal to give the fast Manchester-Blackpools or even the Barrows/Windermeres to TPE and operate as through services? Interesting idea. It'd be great to see a 5-car 80x show up at Barrow or Windermere, that would have a really nice IC feel. Would need a few extra ones, though.

You could I suppose connect a TPE to the Scotland service but that would be less useful because you can get to Scotland the other way much quicker. Probably more useful to connect that to a post HS2 London-Manchester semifast.

 

[HSTEd]

Unpopular opinion - convert the fast trains via Warrington into stoppers, axe the existing stoppers (that terminate at Oxford Road).

Using high performance units (755s etc) you should be able to dramatically accelerate the existing stopper travel time.
Two paths saved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unpopular opinion - convert the fast trains via Warrington into stoppers, axe the existing stoppers (that terminate at Oxford Road).

Using high performance units (755s etc) you should be able to dramatically accelerate the existing stopper travel time.
Two paths saved.

One proposal I've made in the past for the CLC is that you have 4tph over the route, with 2 stopping at all stations on each side, if you see what I mean, giving 4tph to the busier stations and 2 to the quieter ones.

You wouldn't need to get different units in, it would be an ideal route for 2-car 195s.

 

[LittleAH]

I don’t see 6tph being needed for Leeds to Manchester.

Yet the objectives of TRU state 4 fast services and 2 semi-fasts. Reducing frequency means you impact the fast services that will be required to pick up additional calls at Stalybridge, Dewsbury, Garforth etc.

As for Castlefield, it needs to see the removal of TPE, TfW and EMR. Only then can a proper commuter network begin.

But how do you get to Airport efficiently? Having been on numerous services to the Airport on TPE - there's clear demand for this (pre-covid) and any stripping back of this would lead to more cars on the M62.

There's major problems within Manchester given that there are now west facing terminating platforms, more ideal for commuters. That's a solution that needs solving and is much more difficult to do. Would it be bonkers to suggest reopening Manchester Central?

Having 6 is kind of contingent on using Ordsall, though I suppose you could terminate them at Victoria bays

How do you get a 130m train into a 100m platform?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do you get a 130m train into a 100m platform?

Is there room to extend them?

 

[HSTEd]

But how do you get to Airport efficiently? Having been on numerous services to the Airport on TPE - there's clear demand for this (pre-covid) and any stripping back of this would lead to more cars on the M62.

Well if people want a one seat ride to the the airport, do they care if it takes a bit longer?

What if we made the airport trains all shacks to the Airport from Picadilly and withdrew the Northern stopper?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well if people want a one seat ride to the the airport, do they care if it takes a bit longer?

What if we made the airport trains all shacks to the Airpot from Picadilly and withdrew the Northern stopper?

It already is a bitty service involving TPEs doing random stops, isn't it, rather than the old 2tph EMU stopper?

The answer is to stop concentrating on where most people go maybe twice a year if that (Ringway) and start concentrating where lots of people go daily or weekly (Manchester city centre). Yes, the airport also has commuters, but as most jobs in airports are low-paid service jobs they will be much more local - I would expect a very high proportion of the Airport staff live in Wythenshawe, for one, so they'll be using the trams and buses.

 

[HSTEd]

It already is a bitty service involving TPEs doing random stops, isn't it, rather than the old 2tph EMU stopper?

The answer is to stop concentrating on where most people go maybe twice a year if that (Ringway) and start concentrating where lots of people go daily or weekly (Manchester city centre). Yes, the airport also has commuters, but as most jobs in airports are low-paid service jobs they will be much more local - I would expect a very high proportion of the Airport staff live in Wythenshawe, for one.

Well if all airport trains stopped all stops, we could have an ersatz metro line!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well if all airport trains stopped all stops, we could have an ersatz metro line!

I'd be totally supportive of that, but I'd rather it was an actual metro line, i.e. they were all Northern services. Perhaps two from Stalybridge* over Ordsall (if we have to use the thing), and two from Piccadilly main trainshed, to give a total of 4tph (so Merseyrail equivalent) all stations, using 4-car Class 331 sets, ideally modified with extra luggage racks and branded up. One continuing from the Airport via Styal to Crewe.

* Obviously not until the wires get to Stalyvegas.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yet the objectives of TRU state 4 fast services and 2 semi-fasts. Reducing frequency means you impact the fast services that will be required to pick up additional calls at Stalybridge, Dewsbury, Garforth etc.

But how do you get to Airport efficiently? Having been on numerous services to the Airport on TPE - there's clear demand for this (pre-covid) and any stripping back of this would lead to more cars on the M62.

There's major problems within Manchester given that there are now west facing terminating platforms, more ideal for commuters. That's a solution that needs solving and is much more difficult to do. Would it be bonkers to suggest reopening Manchester Central?

How do you get a 130m train into a 100m platform?

It can only happen with NPR and having the Leeds trains reverse at Piccadilly down the HS2 tunnel, this clearing space at Victoria for TfW. Sheffield-Liverpool is a more difficult one to address, because those trains will need to get over to Castlefield. The alternative is to terminate Sheffield trains at Piccadilly and have the smaller minority of passengers crossing Manchester to change trains.

 

[Greybeard33]

Unpopular opinion - convert the fast trains via Warrington into stoppers, axe the existing stoppers (that terminate at Oxford Road).

Using high performance units (755s etc) you should be able to dramatically accelerate the existing stopper travel time.
Two paths saved.

The Option B/C recast does go part way towards that. One fast, non stop from Oxford Road to Warrington Central, one semi-fast, calling at Urmston, Irlam and Birchwood, and one all shacks stopper terminating at Warrington.

One path saved, and all stations get at least hourly frequency.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2021 ==

Is there room to extend them?

The buffer stops of the bay platforms at Manchester Victoria back on to the concourse. If Platform 2 were sacrificed to make room, I think it might be possible to extend the country end of Platform 1 sufficiently to take a 6-car 185 formation (145m), although it would have to extend under the road bridge.

 

[Jozhua]

Manchester does have a similar population to Dusseldorf, Stuttgart and Leipzig I believe which all have rail tunnels under the city, most of which have been built within the last few decades I believe. So I'd say it's not pie in the sky but simply unlikely in the context of UK infrastructure funding.

Exactly, it's only because the UK is desperate to be/already is, a second world country, that we don't have these things. An S-bahn system is long term a lot better, as it can move those commuter services off Castlefield, allowing for more long distance stuff to use the existing infrastructure.

While the populations of certain cities are artificially depressed by only considering the population resident within the borough itself, the regional metropolitan counties of England are not equivalent to the largest cities within them, which is what matters when considering transport provision. Some of them contain other significant cities in their own right, e.g. Bradford and Coventry.

Manchester city's effective population is probably just over 1 million, when one includes most of Salford, north Trafford, Middleton and parts of south Bury. Birmingham's effective population is about 1.3 million once Solihull is included. The city of Leeds is not artificially constrained by borough boundaries and its population is only 750,000.

Further discussion on this matter would be inappropriate, as it is off topic for this thread.

Not really, what matters is the regional picture and commuter flows when considering transport provision. A Metro area is useful for this because it generally includes the watershed of commuters around the job centres of the city.

Take New York for example, one side of the city ends at the hudson river going over to New Jersey, yet Jersey city and the New Jersey suburbs are just as important as the boroughs of Brooklyn in terms of how people tend to travel around the region. Transport provision within the city effects the region as a whole, therefore you have to take a regional view, looking beyond outdated borders.

The Greater Manchester area is a good reflection of what the modern city area looks like and it stands at around 3.1m.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Take New York for example, one side of the city ends at the hudson river going over to New Jersey, yet Jersey city and the New Jersey suburbs are just as important as the boroughs of Brooklyn in terms of how people tend to travel around the region. Transport provision within the city effects the region as a whole, therefore you have to take a regional view, looking beyond outdated borders.

The Greater Manchester area is a good reflection of what the modern city area looks like and it stands at around 3.1m.

If anything the UK is a bit more complex because the North West conurbation (unlike say London) very much overlaps, and the same exists east of the Pennines with Leeds and its surrounds. You could argue that it should actually all be treated as one "city area" consisting of Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Chester and surrounds - though that would be politically impossible. But with regard to GM as it is, yes, most people would consider that the city area, not just the bizarrely small Manchester City Council area, with possibly the sole exception being Wigan which might be a better fit in Lancashire. Similarly, Liverpool, by standards of other countries, basically consists of most of the Merseyrail map.

The actual city of Manchester (i.e. the Manchester city council area) is basically just a borough, same with the city of Salford.

 

[Purple Orange]

Exactly, it's only because the UK is desperate to be/already is, a second world country, that we don't have these things. An S-bahn system is long term a lot better, as it can move those commuter services off Castlefield, allowing for more long distance stuff to use the existing infrastructure.

I agree with the premise that a regional S-bahn is needed in Manchester, but I see the delivery of it being the other way around. The S-bahn already exists in the form of Piccadilly P14, Oxford Road, Deansgate, Salford Central (with 5 platforms) and Victoria, plus spurs off that line for Salford Crescent and a possible station at Cornbrook. To deliver it, we need to see NPR delivered, taking TPE services off the line. TfW can be routed in to Picc main shed and that leaves what to do with Liverpool-Sheffield and the Freight service. Perhaps those need to be lived with, but once NPR is up and running the Manchester S-bahn can start to take shape. To deliver that, we just need a Piccadilly reversing station and a link to Liverpool via Warrington.

The Greater Manchester area is a good reflection of what the modern city area looks like and it stands at around 3.1m.

Agreed, although I think it’s at 2.8m but the effect is the same.

 

[HSTEd]

I think S-Bahn and U-Bahn are not particularly helpful dichotomies in the context of the UK.

Even our U-Bahn equivalents take on many of the characteristics of S-Bahns (see the London Underground, Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro etc)

EDIT:

The longest line on the Berlin U-Bahn is only 31km.
London Underground has multiple lines over 50km

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think S-Bahn and U-Bahn are not particularly helpful dichotomies in the context of the UK.

Even our U-Bahn equivalents take on many of the characteristics of S-Bahns (see the London Underground, Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro etc)

EDIT:

The longest line on the Berlin U-Bahn is only 31km.
London Underground has multiple lines over 50km

Merseyrail is a textbook S-Bahn - very similar to Hamburg's or Berlin's.

I'd say T&W Metro is a pretty textbook U-Bahn.

LU is a non-National Rail heavy rail metro - no real German equivalent, though by comparison I'd probably call the deep Tube an U-Bahn and the subsurface lines S-Bahn.

 

[HSTEd]

LU is a non-National Rail heavy rail metro - no real German equivalent, though by comparison I'd probably call the deep Tube an U-Bahn and the subsurface lines S-Bahn.

Ironically the tube lines being the longest of them! (4 of the 5 longest lines are tube)

 

[Purple Orange]

I think S-Bahn and U-Bahn are not particularly helpful dichotomies in the context of the UK.

Even our U-Bahn equivalents take on many of the characteristics of S-Bahns (see the London Underground, Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro etc)

EDIT:

The longest line on the Berlin U-Bahn is only 31km.
London Underground has multiple lines over 50km

Well let’s just call it what it is more likely to become:

• Underground Metro. This will be light rail, like the Tyne & Wear Metro if a tunnel is built and will run services that are currently run on former Metrolink heavy rail lines.
• Tram. This will also be light rail using a fleet of tram-trains that will run services that are currently operated by Metrolink on routes with on-street track. They will share tracks with the Metro where there is overlap, hence the use of tram-trains.
• Overground Metro. This will focus on Castlefield and Ordsall, with dedicated routes and not every town will be connected to the airport. Think stoppers to Liverpool via Warrington, Southport, Chester, Blackpool, Clitheroe, Burnley, Bradford & Leeds via Rochdale, Huddersfield, Stalybridge, Sheffield via New Mills, Buxton, Stoke, Crewe and the Airport. Some routes will simply terminate in Piccadilly main shed.

All of this is dependent upon NPR, HS2 and a metro tunnel in the city centre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FWIW I would adopt the very strong Metrolink brand, i.e. "Metrolink Bus", "Metrolink Tram" and "Metrolink Rail" - it's a much stronger brand than TfGM.

 

[Purple Orange]

FWIW I would adopt the very strong Metrolink brand, i.e. "Metrolink Bus", "Metrolink Tram" and "Metrolink Rail" - it's a much stronger brand than TfGM.

Exactly. With distinct colour designs too: Yellow for trams, Orange for buses, Green for Metro Underground and Metro Overground

 

[Ianno87]

FWIW I would adopt the very strong Metrolink brand, i.e. "Metrolink Bus", "Metrolink Tram" and "Metrolink Rail" - it's a much stronger brand than TfGM.

Exactly. With distinct colour designs too: Yellow for trams, Orange for buses, Green for Metro Underground and Metro Overground

I know some people genuinely think the old GMPTE 'M' logo (the "M-blem") is the Metrolink logo!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know some people genuinely think the old GMPTE 'M' logo (the "M-blem") is the Metrolink logo!

Metrolink had its own M originally (at a 45 degree angle) - but now just the diamond thing.

 

[HSTEd]

As long as they stop plastering bees on literally everything

 

[RAPC]

FWIW I would adopt the very strong Metrolink brand, i.e. "Metrolink Bus", "Metrolink Tram" and "Metrolink Rail" - it's a much stronger brand than TfGM.

Metrolink is very much a tram, rather than a transport brand, so it wouldn’t easily transfer to other forms of transport in that way.

TfGM isnt really used as a customer facing transport brand, but that, or a new (geographical) name would be a lot easier to land as a brand across different forms of transport.

 

[Purple Orange]

Metrolink is very much a tram, rather than a transport brand, so it wouldn’t easily transfer to other forms of transport in that way.

TfGM isnt really used as a customer facing transport brand, but that, or a new (geographical) name would be a lot easier to land as a brand across different forms of transport.

Oh it could easily transfer as a brand. But maybe it should all be based on 'Manchester Metrolink' and the diamond emblem and a common colour scheme.

 

[Jozhua]

I agree with the premise that a regional S-bahn is needed in Manchester, but I see the delivery of it being the other way around. The S-bahn already exists in the form of Piccadilly P14, Oxford Road, Deansgate, Salford Central (with 5 platforms) and Victoria, plus spurs off that line for Salford Crescent and a possible station at Cornbrook. To deliver it, we need to see NPR delivered, taking TPE services off the line. TfW can be routed in to Picc main shed and that leaves what to do with Liverpool-Sheffield and the Freight service. Perhaps those need to be lived with, but once NPR is up and running the Manchester S-bahn can start to take shape. To deliver that, we just need a Piccadilly reversing station and a link to Liverpool via Warrington.


Agreed, although I think it’s at 2.8m but the effect is the same.

I think a Metro tunnel would service the city better for running S-bahn style stuff. Just too many conflicts going in and out of Castlefield, would be better left as a longer distance regional/intercity rail thing.

Really have the traditional network be something mancunians mostly interact with to travel longer distances, rather than within GM. Then you can have a ton of intercity service connect across Manchester, using the Ordsall Chord, etc.

That said, if someone could untangle Castlefield and divert some IC trains, using the raised rail network as essentially local rapid transit could be good. Upgrading Salford Central and electrifying all the feeder lines would be a necessity, but that's not too hard.

I think there would be a couple of proposals that have fairly comparable systems:
Crossrail:
Metro tunnel under city centre, heavy rail lines diverted into/through it.
Tyne & Wear:
Light rail/Medium Capacity rail tunnel under city centre, carrying traffic from Metrolink lines, perhaps with some heavy rail lines converted to tram-train operation.
Thameslink:
Move longer distance services off the corridor, by building a new link to Piccadilly as part of NPR. Use the existing infrastructure to run a high frequency regional rail service.

As long as they stop plastering bees on literally everything

I like the bees lol, let's have "beebus" or "buzz"

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is Metrolink yellow meant to be a bee? I did wonder.

 

[tbtc]

Interesting to see people gradually accepting that two additional platforms at Piccadilly aren't the panacea that they used to be assumed as (in fact, they'd only encourage the messy combination of hourly services that strangle Manchester's capacity, e.g. there'd be demands for Bradford to have a service to the Airport).

The problem is that I can't see that a tunnel is going to tick all the boxes that people want to tick either.

I started a thread on this a while ago (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tunnel-under-manchester-city-centre-where-and-what-for.197419/) and there's not much consensus about what where to have it - would it need to include both "Pic" and "Vic"? Would there also be a station bang in the centre too (as well as serving existing heavy rail stations)? Would it be restricted to only "Metro" trains (in the way that Thameslink's core is efficient because all of the trains have wide doored commuter configuration - same will apply with Crosslink)?

If you build it you need a high frequency service to justify it, but end doored stock at irregular intervals won't work too well.

Still, it's another thing that people will use to complain about how little Manchester gets spent on it, I suppose ...

I like the bees lol, let's have "beebus" or "buzz"

I'm old enough to remember the days of the Bee Line Buzz Company running around Manchester - it's nothing new (I was a regular Boddingtons drinker in those days too)

Is Metrolink yellow meant to be a bee? I did wonder.

I assumed that it was like the Eurostar yellow - intended to comply with UK heavy rail requirements without being as ugly as painting the front yellow with no connection to the rest of the colour scheme (in case Metrolink ever ended up on heavy rail lines at some future stage)

 

[RAPC]

Oh it could easily transfer as a brand. But maybe it should all be based on 'Manchester Metrolink' and the diamond emblem and a common colour scheme.

As a marketeer, I politely beg to differ that it will easily transfer as a brand. That isn't to say that it couldn't be used in the way that people are suggesting, but it won't transfer the existing brand value that exists.

Firstly, virtually everyone in this forum has an interest or a professional involvement in transport and rail. What we know and what we are aware of, isn't the same as that the average paying bus / train / tram customer. Metrolink is one of the few known brands in the area, mainly because they are the only operator of the tram system - Metrolink *is* the tram. The brand is centered around the tram, not transport. Similarly, Metrolink isn't exactly a universally loved brand either based on previous research (although last data I saw was from 2018), so why take a name that is a negative to some of the public and apply it to something else? It doesn't make sense.

Finally, to roll it out to other modes of transport will potentially cause confusion for a while and the inherent value of the Metrolink brand won't easily shift over to other forms of transport just because it is used.

If you are creating a newly aligned, integrated transport system, then I would suggest that you more likely need a new brand because you are trying to build something new and that is easier to explain with a launch, rather than trying to get people to re-appraise a brand / removing any brand scarring.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Mar 2021 ==

I'm old enough to remember the days of the Bee Line Buzz Company running around Manchester - it's nothing new (I was a regular Boddingtons drinker in those days too)

I remember them well, as they launched back during my school years and I used them for a while on my regular bus route down to Stockport. They only lasted for a few years with their original buses, but the fact that they are well remembered 30+ years later says a lot for them.

There is also an original Bee Line Buzz bus, in the Museum of Transport, Greater Manchester at Cheetham Hill. Worth a visit as and when COVID conditions allow.