• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,321
In the real world you have to run services that meet the demand. If you struggle to fill a 2 car 150 every hour, I doubt you will fill a 2 car every 15 minutes, even if there is pent up demand.
Ultimately this is the same logic that led to two car 150s in the first place, instead of the previous typical four car DMU formation. Shorter trains more often is better.

And one of the reasons I am interested in tram trains.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ken H

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,718
Location
N Yorks
Ultimately this is the same logic that led to two car 150s in the first place, instead of the previous typical four car DMU formation. Shorter trains more often is better.

And one of the reasons I am interested in tram trains.
If we are going for trams, what is the maximum length of route? Manchester - Oldham - Rochdale is quite a run on a tram, and I am sure people travel by tram from Manchester centre to the stops between Oldham and Rochdale. Do people at the extreme ends of a new tram route regard conversion to a tram as better?
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,459
Location
The North
If we are going for trams, what is the maximum length of route? Manchester - Oldham - Rochdale is quite a run on a tram, and I am sure people travel by tram from Manchester centre to the stops between Oldham and Rochdale. Do people at the extreme ends of a new tram route regard conversion to a tram as better?

Generally conversion of heavy rail lines to metrolink has been a roaring success. There are as many people using metrolink network as there are using the 5 central Manchester rail stations. It’s been better for Altrincham, Bury, East Didsbury (which also has a less frequent train service and is comparatively useless), Rochdale still has a very frequent heavy rail line to Victoria and now has better connections to Oldham. Oldham itself is close enough for it’s 10 trams per hour to be fast enough for it to not be an issue at all.

However tram-trains are different and on this forum I see people making the mistake of seeing the phrase ‘tram-train’ and just seeing ‘tram’. One proposal (often contentious and gets some people rather vexed on here) is the conversion of the Warrington-Manchester section of the CLC to metrolink. Yet the naysayers are not considering what this really means. It is dependent upon a couple of issues:
  1. Construction of a metro tunnel in Manchester city centre.
  2. This could facilitate light rail metro trains that run with heavy rail services, like the Tyne & Wear metro.
  3. This would enable light rail metro trains to run on the Altrincham and Warrington lines on to Glossop & Hadfield and Rose Hill.
  4. Tram-trains would be running on the other metrolink lines that shares track with the light rail metro trains outside the city centre.
  5. This would not prevent the existence of a direct heavy rail service from Liverpool to Manchester via the CLC. An hourly Middlesbrough-Newcastle train shares track with 5 Tyne & Wear metro trains each hour (again a roaring success for a line that would often see pacers and single car trains).
 

LOL The Irony

Established Member
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
Generally conversion of heavy rail lines to metrolink has been a roaring success.
2 self contained lines BR were happy to get rid of at the time. Why do you think every other line built since Phase 1 has been along closed alignments or street running? Because that's what Metrolink should be, not Andy Burnham's wet dream of sticking his fingers into as many pies possible.

Will he have any lines left to run his proposed trains on? (/s)
However tram-trains are different and on this forum I see people making the mistake of seeing the phrase ‘tram-train’ and just seeing ‘tram’. One proposal (often contentious and gets some people rather vexed on here) is the conversion of the Warrington-Manchester section of the CLC to metrolink. Yet the naysayers are not considering what this really means. It is dependent upon a couple of issues:
  1. Construction of a metro tunnel in Manchester city centre.
  2. This could facilitate light rail metro trains that run with heavy rail services, like the Tyne & Wear metro.
  3. This would enable light rail metro trains to run on the Altrincham and Warrington lines on to Glossop & Hadfield and Rose Hill.
  4. Tram-trains would be running on the other metrolink lines that shares track with the light rail metro trains outside the city centre.
  5. This would not prevent the existence of a direct heavy rail service from Liverpool to Manchester via the CLC. An hourly Middlesbrough-Newcastle train shares track with 5 Tyne & Wear metro trains each hour (again a roaring success for a line that would often see pacers and single car trains).
This is cool and all, but there are areas of Manchester not served by train or tram that could be served by the tram, such as along the Bury New Road to Prestwich and possibly onwards to Bolton, or along the guided busway to Leigh. This should be where Metrolink's focus is and Burnham's proposed Manchester rail operator can focus on improving the heavy rail in and around Manchester.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,321
2 self contained lines BR were happy to get rid of at the time. Why do you think every other line built since Phase 1 has been along closed alignments or street running?
The Oldham Loop is overwhelmingly ex BR alignment?
 

Gareth

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
1,505
I reckon, long term, it would be good to evolve Metrolink into two systems. Build a metro tunnel and put the lines that run on the disused rail lines on them so it's effectively like the Tyne & Wear Metro. There would then be a more conventional tram system which would navigate the existing overground routes in the city centre; perhaps even bringing in low floor boarding.
 

geordieblue

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2020
Messages
787
Location
Leeds
So it was but I still stand my point of using trams to serve areas not served by tram nor train and heavy rail lines can keep their trains.
But some heavy rail lines are better served by light rail. Your argument is essentially 'heavy rail should stay because it is already heavy rail' - and then nothing would ever change. The constraints of Castlefield mean that a turn-up-and-go service cannot be provided on the vast majority of lines around Manchester by heavy rail.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
5,642
Also, there isn't endless money to build net-new tramlines. Taking over a heavy rail line is a lot more economical, and unlocks new frequencies for both old and new routes.

Having the train to Oldham Mumps once or twice in my time - it was absolutely grim. Nobody would go back to that. They are lucky they got the Met to be honest.
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
Why is everyone so happy to kill a city to city direct quick link (chester to manchester) and to the airport that links the north of an entire country?

It's lunacy to sacrifice the TfW link to at least piccadilly never mind the airport.

Whilst one horse towns like Southport demand it and it seems abhorrent to contemplate removal. File with redcar cleethorpes etc.

Don't give me the "via stockport or crewe" caper. They don't come close to meeting the needs of hundreds of thousands of people trying to access their local airport when people are coming from the other side of the pennines for a trip.
 

LOL The Irony

Established Member
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
But some heavy rail lines are better served by light rail. Your argument is essentially 'heavy rail should stay because it is already heavy rail' - and then nothing would ever change. The constraints of Castlefield mean that a turn-up-and-go service cannot be provided on the vast majority of lines around Manchester by heavy rail.
What you do is, you IMPROVE the heavy rail offering via rolling stock and signaling upgrades.
Also, there isn't endless money to build net-new tramlines. Taking over a heavy rail line is a lot more economical, and unlocks new frequencies for both old and new routes.
Why must every damn line into Manchester be converted to Metrolink? Have you ever been on the Altrincham line and sat by the articulation point? The noise is deafening. And you can't take your pets or bikes on the trams. Tram Trains could work but kicking the heavy rail off and making a line Metrolink only is a massive no no in my books.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,321
What you do is, you IMPROVE the heavy rail offering via rolling stock and signaling upgrades.
Ultimately signalling can't overcome physics.

There is a limit to how much high performance rolling stock (reducing the need for stopper-semi fast-fast splits) and signalling upgrades can get you
 

geordieblue

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2020
Messages
787
Location
Leeds
What you do is, you IMPROVE the heavy rail offering via rolling stock and signaling upgrades.
We've been doing that since the Sixties and Castlefield isn't any better!
P.S. - tongue firmly in cheek - how about introducing line-of-sight signalling and lightweight modern EMUs with plenty of standing room?
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,734
Location
Manchester
The Atherton line doesn't need converting to a slower Metrolink service, it just needs at least 3 of the 4tph service interval that was promised in the Northern franchise commitment. I don't think dropping from quarter-hourly back to half-hourly is acceptable.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,321
The Atherton line doesn't need converting to a slower Metrolink service, it just needs at least 3 of the 4tph service interval that was promised in the Northern franchise commitment. I don't think dropping from quarter-hourly back to half-hourly is acceptable.

Even franchise commitments must give way to engineering reality however
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,734
Location
Manchester
Even franchise commitments must give way to engineering reality however

The railway is 100 times better as a transport system than the Metrolink is. The Altrincham and Bury lines are suffering to this day since their conversion to light rail. The railway has its faults but it can at least deliver a reasonably reliable service to a set timetable, unlike TfGM Metrolink, which seems to cancel trams and the whole service when they feel like it.

The Metrolink should never have happened, it causes chaos for road users in the city centre and has downgraded the service on lines which used to have trains running on them. If you want to run electric vehicles on the Atherton line then electrify it, along with Westhoughton, Southport and Kirkby.
 

geordieblue

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2020
Messages
787
Location
Leeds
The Metrolink should never have happened, it causes chaos for road users in the city centre
If you're trying to improve public transport, this is basically irrelevant. The rest of your post is not particularly balanced and I'm not going to attempt to address it!
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
5,642
The railway is 100 times better as a transport system than the Metrolink is. The Altrincham and Bury lines are suffering to this day since their conversion to light rail. The railway has its faults but it can at least deliver a reasonably reliable service to a set timetable, unlike TfGM Metrolink, which seems to cancel trams and the whole service when they feel like it.

The Metrolink should never have happened, it causes chaos for road users in the city centre and has downgraded the service on lines which used to have trains running on them. If you want to run electric vehicles on the Atherton line then electrify it, along with Westhoughton, Southport and Kirkby.
You should be on an RAC forum. There should not eve. be road users in the city centre - that you sympathise with them over mass transit is astonishing.

100 times? Ask anyone in Oldham or Stretford?

Suffering? It thrives more than heavy rail ever did. And it’s happened. It’s a better, more frequent network than any in the country aside from the tube, being 5tph per line, and packed.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,734
Location
Manchester
You should be on an RAC forum. There should not eve. be road users in the city centre - that you sympathise with them over mass transit is astonishing.

100 times? Ask anyone in Oldham or Stretford?

Suffering? It thrives more than heavy rail ever did. And it’s happened. It’s a better, more frequent network than any in the country aside from the tube, being 5tph per line, and packed.

Like it or not, people still have to drive to places sometimes; the train or the tram isn't convenient for everyone, ask people from Leigh or Worsley about this! The Metrolink increases traffic congestion in the city centre and thus pollution. The Metrolink is expensive and doesn't cooperate with Northern and other TOCs in relation to ticket acceptance when it should do. Example; people buying a ticket to Manchester stations from outside GM cannot use the Metrolink to traverse the city, they must pay more and buy a ticket from their origin to 'Metrolink city zone'. GM countycards are valid for buses and trains, so why not Metrolink as well?

It would've been better to have maintained the heavy rail service on the Bury and Altrincham lines with gradual improvements (new stock, more frequent service etc), rather than lumber it with substandard light rail stock which doesn't have toilets, is noisy and much more uncomfortable to travel in than a train is. The West Didsbury line should also have been restored to heavy rail as it was until the 1960s; connecting to the Midland line at Heaton Mersey and providing an alternative route towards Sheffield.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,118
Location
Wilmslow
I'm a reluctant convert to Metrolink; I moved to live in the centre of Manchester in 1996 and worked in Sale, so I'd either drive to work at 08:00 because I knew I'd get a space in the office car park or I'd take the tram at 09:31. Despite the rough ride then, probably as now, the service frequency convinced me.

I also hardly ever drove in the centre of Manchester, and when I did it was as much for the novelty given that alternative routes weren't any worse. Driving along Deansgate on a Saturday night when sober was interesting, though!

Since then, I'd personally rid Manchester of as much traffic as possible, but everyone involved seems conflicted and there are powerful people who argue against this. I find that a minority of drivers act in a way I find unpleasant and intimidating, and if all drivers could be persuaded to give priority to pedestrians less reluctantly it'd help. But when some of the road layouts are skewed in favour of traffic it's not totally surprising - improvements have been made over the years I grant.

I no longer mind Metrolink in the city streets. The position with ticketing is shameful and always has been, but I was accustomed to walking before the trams came so I simply continued to do so, it's better for me (provided I don't encounter an aggressive driver) and really not something I'm too worried about.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,601
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
It would've been better to have maintained the heavy rail service on the Bury and Altrincham lines with gradual improvements (new stock, more frequent service etc), rather than lumber it with substandard light rail stock which doesn't have toilets, is noisy and much more uncomfortable to travel in than a train is. The West Didsbury line should also have been restored to heavy rail as it was until the 1960s; connecting to the Midland line at Heaton Mersey and providing an alternative route towards Sheffield.
The Metrolink concept was a solution to the problem of the escalating costs of maintaining some of Manchester's increasingly run-down and antiquated suburban heavy rail network, while continuing rail-based provision of services, with the benefit of cross-link connectivity which the Picc-Vic line would have provided. A similar approach was taken in Tyneside with the Metro system there, although that system is heavy-rail compatible.

The problems of the 1980s persist on those heavy rail suburban lines that were not converted and are not used for longer-distance heavy rail services, hence the desire (?need) to convert the Atherton and ex-GC lines to SE Manchester to Metrolink.

The high frequency of Metrolink (minimum every 12 minutes, other than early and late on Sundays) makes it a turn-up-and-go service that renders timetables essentially redundant, and would be costly and difficult to provide using heavy rail that requires full signalling rather than line-of-sight operation.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
The Metrolink concept was a solution to the problem of the escalating costs of maintaining some of Manchester's increasingly run-down and antiquated suburban heavy rail network, while continuing rail-based provision of services, with the benefit of cross-link connectivity which the Picc-Vic line would have provided. A similar approach was taken in Tyneside with the Metro system there, although that system is heavy-rail compatible.

The problems of the 1980s persist on those heavy rail suburban lines that were not converted and are not used for longer-distance heavy rail services, hence the desire (?need) to convert the Atherton and ex-GC lines to SE Manchester to Metrolink.

The high frequency of Metrolink (minimum every 12 minutes, other than early and late on Sundays) makes it a turn-up-and-go service that renders timetables essentially redundant, and would be costly and difficult to provide using heavy rail that requires full signalling rather than line-of-sight operation.

Correct - at the time the Bury line basically needed total renewal, and the Altrincham line was getting increasingly antiquated too.

Light Rail offers a frequency for short trips (where frequency generates demand, not "ambience" of the rolling stock) that heavy rail can't compete with, without consuming Central Manchester rail capacity, and takes folk into the city centre rather than the periphery and most of Manchester's stations do.
 

LittleAH

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2018
Messages
1,211
Why is everyone so happy to kill a city to city direct quick link (chester to manchester) and to the airport that links the north of an entire country?

It's lunacy to sacrifice the TfW link to at least piccadilly never mind the airport.

Whilst one horse towns like Southport demand it and it seems abhorrent to contemplate removal. File with redcar cleethorpes etc.
Redcar/Cleethorpes didn't demand link to the Airport though and Cleethorpes loses theirs with MRTF. South Yorkshire though are demanding they maintain the link and the Tees Valley mayor was more interested in the link to Manchester than the Airport itself.

There is some strange proposals on this thread though. Manchester Airport is a proper international Airport with custom from all over the North of England and even further beyond that. The Airport should maintain it's direct connections to as many major cities as reasonably possible.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
Redcar/Cleethorpes didn't demand link to the Airport though and Cleethorpes loses theirs with MRTF. South Yorkshire though are demanding they maintain the link and the Tees Valley mayor was more interested in the link to Manchester than the Airport itself.

There is some strange proposals on this thread though. Manchester Airport is a proper international Airport with custom from all over the North of England and even further beyond that. The Airport should maintain it's direct connections to as many major cities as reasonably possible.
I'd say as many as "operationally possible", I.e. those that naturally reach Manchester Airport via Castlefield, which can include some services from Yorkshire via the Ordsall Chord.

I think Cleethorpes/Sheffield is just too inconvenient nowadays- *but* (assuming the service becomes Liverpool-Cleethorpes in the near future) ends up with a half-hourly cross-platform interchange at Piccadilly 13/14 as a pretty good alternative to the hourly direct service.
 

LittleAH

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2018
Messages
1,211
I'd say as many as "operationally possible", I.e. those that naturally reach Manchester Airport via Castlefield, which can include some services from Yorkshire via the Ordsall Chord.

I think Cleethorpes/Sheffield is just too inconvenient nowadays- *but* (assuming the service becomes Liverpool-Cleethorpes in the near future) ends up with a half-hourly cross-platform interchange at Piccadilly 13/14 as a pretty good alternative to the hourly direct service.
Of course, Sheffield isn't an option due to crossing the Piccadilly throat. But the suggestions of cutting all direct Airport service to the Lakes, Scotland, Yorkshire and the North East is barmy.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,601
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
The Airport should maintain it's direct connections to as many major cities as reasonably possible.
No. This is the crux of the problem with Manchester's rail services. However inconvenient it may be to some rail users, longer distance trains from Wales, Scotland and North-East England need to be banished from the Castlefield line. Unless this is done, service reliability will not improve.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
No. This is the crux of the problem with Manchester's rail services. However inconvenient it may be to some rail users, longer distance trains from Wales, Scotland and North-East England need to be banished from the Castlefield line. Unless this is not done, service reliability will not improve.

But we again come back to the point that there isn't (short of a Victoria re-build) capacity for these somewhere else.

The Airport is the "least worst" option.
 

LittleAH

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2018
Messages
1,211
No. This is the crux of the problem with Manchester's rail services. However inconvenient it may be to some rail users, longer distance trains from Wales, Scotland and North-East England need to be banished from the Castlefield line. Unless this is not done, service reliability will not improve.
Then you will ultimately drive people away from the railway. Direct services are always preferable and all you'd be doing is driving the capacity issue to Manchester Victoria, which was struggling to cope Pre-Covid with capacity issues. Nothing solved at all.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,337
Is there scope for an out of town interchange for these long distance services. Somewhere around the point at which the Eccles line crosses the Windsor Link or around Salford. Trains from Scotland, Wales, Cumbria could all terminate there and passengers be carried into Manchester on local services, which could be extended in length for that purpose. Maybe even develop a Manchester Gateway around Warrington and only run trains on the CLC line over Castlefield.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
Is there scope for an out of town interchange for these long distance services. Somewhere around the point at which the Eccles line crosses the Windsor Link or around Salford. Trains from Scotland, Wales, Cumbria could all terminate there and be carried into Manchester on local services, which could be extended in length for that purpose.

Non-starter. Far too remote from the city centre, and introducing double-change for some cross-Manchester journeys (e.g. if you're doing something like Blackpool-Sheffield)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top