How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

[Railwaysceptic]

You could make that same argument for London Underground. No need for 7-car tube trains every 3 minutes off-peak, yet it would be stupid to take it away.

I assure you that pre-Covid some London Underground services needed a train every three minutes even off-peak.

 

[Purple Orange]

I assure you that pre-Covid some London Underground services needed a train every three minutes even off-peak.

FYI - I’m not of the opinion that they aren’t needed, just for clarity. However let’s face it, London service levels are irrelevant to Manchester.

 

[507020]

There is a false question or desire to see these issues solved before HS2 or NPR can be delivered, the problems in Manchester won’t be solved at all with the current infrastructure. Until then small changes might be made that eases bottlenecks but they will never deliver what the city really needs. In this context, the DfT Manchester consultation is a small change in the context of what is needed.

This is why we need to see fast Leeds services routed in to Piccadilly HS2. Let’s say we have the following infrastructure delivered over the next couple of decades:

• HS2 phase 2b to Piccadilly
• A short line heading east towards Leeds connecting to TRU via Huddersfield.
• Tram-train conversion of the Atherton line.
• Tram-train conversation of the Glossop-Hadfield and Rose Hill line (via Guide Bridge).

That would remove the following services from the off-peak:

• 2 tph London via Stoke
• 1 tph London via Crewe
• 2 tph Birmingham via Stoke
• 2 tph Leeds from Piccadilly P1-P4
• 2 tph Leeds via Victoria from the airport
• 2 tph Glossop & Hadfield from Piccadilly P1-P4
• 2 tph Rose Hill from Piccadilly P1-P4.
• 2 tph Wigan Wallgate via Atherton to Victoria (assuming the 3rd tph continues as heavy rail post tram-train)

All of those services apart from the two Leeds services that run around the ordsall chord are terminating trains, however it enables the following:

1. The two Atherton terminator services can enable the Scotland and North Wales services to terminate at Victoria rather than travel through Oxford Road and the Styal line.
2. Coupled with the removal of the two Leeds via Ordsall Chord services, the Styal line and the Castlefield corridor are relieved of 4 tph.
3. Of the 5 services removed by HS2, we should expect at least 2 to remain as long-distance semi-fast. However that enables an additional stopper from Macclesfield & Stoke and an additional stopper from Crewe & Wilmslow. Plus an additional stopper from Hazel Grove. This would give Cheadle Hulme a 5 tph frequency, Hazel Grove 4 tph and Levenshulme & Heaton Chapel has turn-up-and-go frequencies.
4. The Styal line then has the capacity to run as a 6 tph metro frequency
5. Capacity is relieved at Piccadilly P1-8 and Castlefield to facilitate higher frequencies.
6. Stations along the Atherton and Glossop & Hadfield and Rose Hill will see a minimum of 5 tph, some will see 10 tph.

These are the differences between communities having 1-2 tph or 4-6 tph. In my opinion more needs to be done on the WCML to enable big commuter areas like Bramhall to have a proper 4 tph frequency.

But when you’ve done all this, how exactly does your TPE service get from Piccadilly to Stalybridge via Guide Bridge? The other route via the Ordsall Chord.

I would support Metrolink on the Atherton line, provided that 4 tracks are reinstated west of Crow Nest Junction and that trams run onto the eastern section of the Pemberton Loop that hasn’t been converted into a dual carriageway and a new on-street route into Wigan.

 

[Purple Orange]

But when you’ve done all this, how exactly does your TPE service get from Piccadilly to Stalybridge via Guide Bridge? The other route via the Ordsall Chord.

I would support Metrolink on the Atherton line, provided that 4 tracks are reinstated west of Crow Nest Junction and that trams run onto the eastern section of the Pemberton Loop that hasn’t been converted into a dual carriageway and a new on-street route into Wigan.

The line between Stalybridge & Piccadilly would still exist for heavy rail usage. Tram-train conversion means that heavy rail still runs on a section of the line.

Furthermore it would be likely that between Guide Bridge and Piccadilly, the heavy rail and metrolink tracks would be segregated, given there is room for 4-tracking.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is cutting services because they are not 'justified' just leads you to a death spiral.

One train per hour is almost useless and two trains per hour are not really attractive to the user.

It needs to be turn up and go

There is one way and only one way to get that in Manchester within the constraints set - Metrolink.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2021 ==

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.

No point in low floor, the system is already set up for high platform level boarding.

 

[507020]

The line between Stalybridge & Piccadilly would still exist for heavy rail usage. Tram-train conversion means that heavy rail still runs on a section of the line.

But when you’ve got 10tph (trams per hour) to both Hadfield/Glossop and Rose Hill Marple, that’s at least 20tph running through Guide Bridge. Where is your path for Piccadilly - Stalybridge? Even then the heavy rail train which there wouldn’t be a path for would likely have to run on Diesel due to not being compatible with the 750V DC overhead wires of the tram system. What about the Freightliner depot? It sounds like Guide Bridge will become a worse bottleneck than Castlefield has ever been.

Will there then be a commitment from Andy Burnham to allow full size bikes on all Metrolink trams? A use case for Rose Hill Marple is that anyone wanting to cycle the former trackbed of the Macclesfield, Bollington and Marple Railway requires use of a bike, which is something that can currently be taken there on a heavy rail train but will not be possible if this goes ahead due to stupid rules on the Metrolink. By far the worst thing about it is that you can’t take bikes on trams.

 

[HSTEd]

But when you’ve got 10tph (trams per hour) to both Hadfield/Glossop and Rose Hill Marple, that’s at least 20tph running through Guide Bridge. Where is your path for Piccadilly - Stalybridge? Even then the heavy rail train which there wouldn’t be a path for would likely have to run on Diesel due to not being compatible with the 750V DC overhead wires of the tram system.

The Sheffield tram train trial cost such an enormous sum of money because they build 750Vdc overhead wiring that could easily be converted to 25kV if required.

It is likely that any electrification on lines with any real chance of electrification would be 25kV for this reason.

EDIT:

Also wouldn't Rose Hill Marple trams run via Bredbury, rather than Hyde?

 

[Purple Orange]

But when you’ve got 10tph (trams per hour) to both Hadfield/Glossop and Rose Hill Marple, that’s at least 20tph running through Guide Bridge. Where is your path for Piccadilly - Stalybridge? Even then the heavy rail train which there wouldn’t be a path for would likely have to run on Diesel due to not being compatible with the 750V DC overhead wires of the tram system. What about the Freightliner depot? It sounds like Guide Bridge will become a worse bottleneck than Castlefield has ever been.

Will there then be a commitment from Andy Burnham to allow full size bikes on all Metrolink trams? A use case for Rose Hill Marple is that anyone wanting to cycle the former trackbed of the Macclesfield, Bollington and Marple Railway requires use of a bike, which is something that can currently be taken there on a heavy rail train but will not be possible if this goes ahead due to stupid rules on the Metrolink. By far the worst thing about it is that you can’t take bikes on trams.

It wouldn’t be 20 tph, but rather 5 to both. Currently there are 10 tph that terminate at Piccadilly metrolink. If they were to continue to Glossop & Rose Hill, they’d be segregated for a bit of a distance at street level (not necessarily mixed with road traffic) before joining the heavy rail route towards Guide Bridge. That section had space to be 4-tracked and therefore segregated from any heavy rail services heading to Stalybridge.

The tram-train & heavy rail sharing might take place after Guide Bridge for n the route towards Rose Hill, where you’d have 5 tram-trains mixed with 2 heavy rail services.

 

[507020]

It wouldn’t be 20 tph, but rather 5 to both. Currently there are 10 tph that terminate at Piccadilly metrolink. If they were to continue to Glossop & Rose Hill, they’d be segregated for a bit of a distance at street level (not necessarily mixed with road traffic) before joining the heavy rail route towards Guide Bridge. That section had space to be 4-tracked and therefore segregated from any heavy rail services heading to Stalybridge.

The tram-train & heavy rail sharing might take place after Guide Bridge for n the route towards Rose Hill, where you’d have 5 tram-trains mixed with 2 heavy rail services.

Wherever there’s space for 4 tracks it can work. I’ve just had a thought. Why do they not retain the 2tph heavy rail service with 323s which can carry bikes and then run the trams in between to increase the frequency? Why does it have to be an outright conversion? They can start running a 2tph heavy rail service from Bury to Altrincham while they’re at it.

 

[daodao]

They can start running a 2tph heavy rail service from Bury to Altrincham while they’re at it.

How? Are you living in LaLa land?

Why this obsession with expensive heavy rail? It should be eliminated wherever possible for local suburban services.

Purple Orange is on the right lines with Metrolink extension east of Piccadilly, but in my view after running at street level as far as Ashburys:

• 5 trams per hour could continue via Reddish to Rose Hill, with parallel single tracks for heavy and light rail between Romiley and Marple Wharf Junction
• 5 trams per hour could continue on re-laid tracks on the former quadruple line as far as Guide Bridge, and then cross existing heavy rail lines on a flyover to continue to Glossop/Hadfield.

Heavy rail services would run on existing lines from Piccadilly to Guide Bridge and then:

• via Stalybridge onto the Standedge line; or
• via Woodley to New Mills Central and beyond

 

[507020]

How? Are you living in LaLa land?

Why this obsession with expensive heavy rail? It should be eliminated wherever possible for local suburban services.

Purple Orange is on the right lines with Metrolink extension east of Piccadilly, but in my view after running at street level as far as Ashburys:

• 5 trams per hour could continue via Reddish to Rose Hill, with parallel single tracks for heavy and light rail between Romiley and Marple Wharf Junction
• 5 trams per hour could continue on re-laid tracks on the former quadruple line as far as Guide Bridge, and then cross existing heavy rail lines on a flyover to continue to Glossop/Hadfield.

Heavy rail services would run on existing lines from Piccadilly to Guide Bridge and then:

• via Stalybridge onto the Standedge line; or
• via Woodley to New Mills Central and beyond

So if only trams are running to Rose Hill Marple and Hadfield/Glossop, how do you transport bikes and/or dogs? The same problem already exists for Bury and Altrincham. We certainly don’t need another Navigation Road. Track sharing would be a better solution. Coincidentally, Navigation Road is where I once saw a group of people having an argument with the tram driver about wanting to board with bikes…

 

[daodao]

So if only trams are running to Rose Hill Marple and Hadfield/Glossop, how do you transport bikes and/or dogs? The same problem already exists for Bury and Altrincham. We certainly don’t need another Navigation Road. Track sharing would be a better solution. Coincidentally, Navigation Road is where I once saw a group of people having an argument with the tram driver about wanting to board with bikes…

There are exceptions for the carriage on Metrolink of:

• Guide dogs accompanying blind persons; and / or
• Hearing dogs accompanying deaf persons.

There is no legislative requirement to permit the carriage of other animals or bicycles.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

In more normal times, you really don't want bicycles on the Metrolink during peak hours or when match/event days are being held at Old Trafford/Etihad/MEN Arena, or even when the Christmas market in the City Centre is on. Especially if it's just a two car tram operating.

 

[507020]

There are exception for the carriage of:

• Guide dogs accompanying blind persons; and / or
• Hearing dogs accompanying deaf persons.

There is no legislative requirement to permit the carriage of other animals or bicycles.

Why do they need to be forced with legislation? I thought Greater Manchester was an area which wanted to encourage cycling? Most modern train interiors, both new and refurbished, include the provision of a bike space for cyclists. Why would you want to deter people from using your trams, or cut people off from their home entirely, simply for wanting to use their bike? Animals are another issue. Is there an exception for people needing to cycle for mobility reasons?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2021 ==

In more normal times, you really don't want bicycles on the Metrolink during peak hours or when match/event days are being held at Old Trafford/Etihad/MEN Arena, or even when the Christmas market in the City Centre is on.

It is possible to have exceptions so that bicycles can’t be carried during peak hours or match/event days. I know I am much happier knowing bicycles can be carried, whether I need to use the facility at that moment or not. The lack of bike spaces is my biggest issue with the 769s compared to the 150/156s they replaced. You’ll never guess why I’m a fan of the buses in the Lake District.

 

[HS2isgood]

I personally think, as many others on here, that a full solution will not come until HS2 and NPR are built. I also think that a new curve from HS2 north to Manchester Airport (and on to Picadilly) should be built, allowing the Scotland via WCML service to be taken off Castlefield without a significant time penalty. The Crewe north connection would allow the South Wales to be removed from the Wilmslow line too, meaning the Manchester-Crewe line wouldn't have any fast services (IMO the Birmingham-Manchester HS2 services should call at Crewe, or at least 1 tph) and NPR to Liverpool via Warrington (Bank Quay Low Level station with a curve for Chester-bound trains) would remove all fasts from the CLC. To allow a better use of capacity in Manchester, services should be repeated in a half-hourly pattern.

My proposal is:
- 1 tph Manchester Piccadilly HS2-Edinburgh/Glasgow (current TPE service), calling at Manchester Airport instead of Bolton, then the same stopping pattern.

- 1 tph Manchester Victoria-Windermere calling at (Golborne if re-opened), Wigan North Western, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, stations to Windermere.

- 1 tph Manchester Victoria-Barrow in Furness, calling at (Golborne if re-opened), Wigan North Western, Preston, Lancaster, stations to Barrow.

- 2 tph Hazel Grove-Manchester Piccadilly-Blackpool North/Preston (to make routes uniform across Manchester, all Blackpools and Southports would run via Bolton to Picadilly, and all Atherton line services would run to Victoria.) Calling at stations to Picadilly, Oxford Road, Deansgate, Salford Crescent, Bolton, then all stations to Blackpool North, except Salwick. (1 tph from Preston)

- 2 tph Southport-Alderley Edge, calling at all stations via Bolton (except New Lane and Bescar Lane, with limited service).

- 2 tph Wigan North Western-Atherton-Manchester Victoria-Huddersfield (NPR would remove the fasts from the Standedge line, so the slows should go back to Northern for through running). All stops, except Ashton-under-Lyne.

- 2 tph Skelmersdale-Rochdale via Atherton (all stops), giving the Atherton line 4 tph to Victoria.

- 2 tph Leeds-Manchester Victoria-Blackburn (1 tph Clitheroe), calling at Bramley, New Pudsey, Bradford St. James (NPR), Bradford Interchange, Halifax, Sowerby Bridge, Mytholmroyd (1 tph), Hebden Bridge, Todmorden (1 tph), Rochdale, Manchester Victoria, Bolton, all stations to Blackburn/Clitheroe.

- 1 tph Leeds-Manchester Victoria: White Rose, Morley, Dewsbury, Mirfield, Brighouse, Sowerby Bridge, stations to Rochdale, Manchester Victoria.

- 1 tph Leeds-Manchester Victoria-Chester: Cottingley, Morley, Dewsbury, Mirfield, Brighouse, stations to Rochdale, Manchester Victoria, Salford Central (new platforms), Eccles, Patricroft, Newton-le-Willows, Earlestown, Warrington BQ High Level, Runcorn East, Frodsham, Helsby, Chester.

- 2 tph Manchester Victoria-Liverpool Lime Street via Chat Moss, all stops.

- 2 tph Liverpool Lime Street-Manchester Picadilly-Crewe, via Chat Moss. All stops, except Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel.

- 2 tph Stalybridge-Mamchester Victoria-Manchester Picadilly-Airport, all stops.

- 4 tph Liverpool Lime Street-Manchester Picadilly-Airport, via CLC, all stops.

The Hope Valley services would all be curtailed at Picadilly.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

It is possible to have exceptions so that bicycles can’t be carried during peak hours or match/event days. I know I am much happier knowing bicycles can be carried, whether I need to use the facility at that moment or not.

Bicycles on Metrolink during off peak operations might indeed be something for future consideration.

As I understand is the case on most London and South East heavy rail commuter routes.

BTW, are bicycles currently permitted on Tramlink in London at any time?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Why this obsession with expensive heavy rail? It should be eliminated wherever possible for local suburban services.

No, improve the heavy rail service and use Metrolink running on streets or old railway alignments in areas that don't have good transport links. Nobody here will convince me to completely eradicate heavy rail from a line that already has it.

There is no legislative requirement to permit the carriage of other animals or bicycles.

So screw those guys who want to still bring bikes and pets on the lines you want converting, I guess?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also wouldn't Rose Hill Marple trams run via Bredbury, rather than Hyde?

I would agree that logic would be to run it that way - I suspect higher demand, and it can be dedicated to Metrolink unlike the other way (you could even completely segregate by street running to Ashburys and two separate single lines at Romiley).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2021 ==

So if only trams are running to Rose Hill Marple and Hadfield/Glossop, how do you transport bikes and/or dogs? The same problem already exists for Bury and Altrincham. We certainly don’t need another Navigation Road. Track sharing would be a better solution. Coincidentally, Navigation Road is where I once saw a group of people having an argument with the tram driver about wanting to board with bikes…

The bicycle and dog issue needs solving, yes, but it isn't a reason not to convert, it's a reason to solve that issue. I must admit I was surprised it wasn't solved when Oldham opened. (Bury and Alty less so - BR was very anti-bike in the early 90s, I seem to recall it was a flat fare of £3.50 at that point, which is like a tenner or more now, which would be very off putting for city journeys that are quite cyclable, certainly from Alty as south Manchester is not very hilly).

 

[507020]

I would agree that logic would be to run it that way - I suspect higher demand, and it can be dedicated to Metrolink unlike the other way (you could even completely segregate by street running to Ashburys and two separate single lines at Romiley).

Is there any advantage to completely segregating or is track sharing better? Obviously heavy rail trains shouldn’t be running through the streets Weymouth style.

The bicycle and dog issue needs solving, yes, but it isn't a reason not to convert, it's a reason to solve that issue. I must admit I was surprised it wasn't solved when Oldham opened. (Bury and Alty less so - BR was very anti-bike in the early 90s, I seem to recall it was a flat fare of £3.50 at that point, which is like a tenner or more now, which would be very off putting for city journeys that are quite cyclable, certainly from Alty as south Manchester is not very hilly).

Converting the GCR lines has the potential to ruin my bike ride from Macclesfield to Marple. The towns east of Manchester are more hilly aren’t they, so if they start converting lines that way it will need solving with more urgency.

BR’s discriminatory bike policy from the late 80s/early 90s is evident from the unrefurbished interiors of EMUs from that era (319s and 323s) lacking any cycle provision at all. I’m interested in why Sprinters had a few seats ripped out later to create bike spaces but the electrics didn’t. Particularly on Northern today, where bikes are allowed on all services regardless, the other trains in their fleet have much more suitable interiors.

Just look at Merseyrail and T&W’s bike solution, with a lot of emphasis put on having dedicated bike spaces on new stock. There is absolutely no reason for bikes not to be allowed on the Metrolink other than TfGM being awkward.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there any advantage to completely segregating or is track sharing better? Obviously heavy rail trains shouldn’t be running through the streets Weymouth style.

The advantage of segregating would be not having to have tram-trains as well as trams (the crashworthiness requirements, for example, differ). But if there will be tram-trains in the fleet anyway, a few more don't matter.

Converting the GCR lines has the potential to ruin my bike ride from Macclesfield to Marple. The towns east of Manchester are more hilly aren’t they, so if they start converting lines that way it will need solving with more urgency.

I doubt there will be any plan for there to be no heavy rail service to Marple at all, because that would involve closing the line from Marple to Chinley (Metrolink to Chinley is not happening) and that would be unacceptable. The only change that might happen at some point (has been talked about for a while) is for the Hope Valley locals to run via Stockport and the Marple trains to terminate at Chinley, but that seems to have gone quiet.

BR’s discriminatory bike policy from the late 80s/early 90s is evident from the unrefurbished interiors of EMUs from that era (319s and 323s) lacking any cycle provision at all. I’m interested in why Sprinters had a few seats ripped out later to create bike spaces but the electrics didn’t. Particularly on Northern today, where bikes are allowed on all services regardless, the other trains in their fleet have much more suitable interiors.

150/1s have always had a large multipurpose van area with side facing seats - it was used for parcels originally. I thought /2s always had bike space.

Just look at Merseyrail and T&W’s bike solution, with a lot of emphasis put on having dedicated bike spaces on new stock. There is absolutely no reason for bikes not to be allowed on the Metrolink other than TfGM being awkward.

I do agree there. The issue of them flying around in an emergency stop is usually quoted, but given that there are buses that carry bicycles inside (not many but they exist) it just requires an appropriate design of fixture.

Goodness knows why dogs are not allowed when they are allowed on buses and heavy rail. I suspect there was a canophobe in TfGM somewhere.

 

[Manutd1999]

Would it be feasible to increase capacity by terminating more services at Oxford Road?

With some minor re-modelling, the two central platforms could act as de-facto west-facing bays. This would reduce the crossing moves required with the use of the current bay platform (5). I imagine 4-6x trains per hour could be comfortably turned around from the 2x central platforms? The outer platforms can continue to act as through platforms to Piccadilly.

I understand one of the major constraints is platform re-occupation time at Piccadilly. If we limited the number of trains continuing east of Oxford Road to ~10ph (9 PAX + 1x freight, a big reduction vs 2019) at an even spacing, this would be resolved and there wouldn't be a need for extra platforms.

Minimum headway to the west is sufficient such that Oxford Road terminators could be sent out 3 minutes behind each 'through' service. This could increase the total capacity to 14-16 per hour? Oxford Road could then become the main station for some of the 'commuter' lines (eg. CLC and Chat Moss stoppers, maybe Southport). Better connections to Deansgate and Metrolink could also be investigated. Meanwhile, the longer distance services could continue to go through Castlefield and on to the Airport.

What have I forgotten?

 

[Purple Orange]

No, improve the heavy rail service and use Metrolink running on streets or old railway alignments in areas that don't have good transport links. Nobody here will convince me to completely eradicate heavy rail from a line that already has it.

So screw those guys who want to still bring bikes and pets on the lines you want converting, I guess?

Do you happen to use trams or light rail metro frequently? Or does your local line happen to be a potential line for conversion?

I have lived in an area where light rail metro systems have been prevalent for most of my life, with the exception of a few years in London and now that I live by the WCML. However if I had a magic wand, I’d have my local line converted in a heartbeat. 2 tph heavy rail v turn-up-and-go on a metro system only has one winner, and it ain’t heavy rail.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2021 ==

I personally think, as many others on here, that a full solution will not come until HS2 and NPR are built. I also think that a new curve from HS2 north to Manchester Airport (and on to Picadilly) should be built, allowing the Scotland via WCML service to be taken off Castlefield without a significant time penalty. The Crewe north connection would allow the South Wales to be removed from the Wilmslow line too, meaning the Manchester-Crewe line wouldn't have any fast services (IMO the Birmingham-Manchester HS2 services should call at Crewe, or at least 1 tph) and NPR to Liverpool via Warrington (Bank Quay Low Level station with a curve for Chester-bound trains) would remove all fasts from the CLC. To allow a better use of capacity in Manchester, services should be repeated in a half-hourly pattern.

My proposal is:
- 1 tph Manchester Piccadilly HS2-Edinburgh/Glasgow (current TPE service), calling at Manchester Airport instead of Bolton, then the same stopping pattern.

- 1 tph Manchester Victoria-Windermere calling at (Golborne if re-opened), Wigan North Western, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, stations to Windermere.

- 1 tph Manchester Victoria-Barrow in Furness, calling at (Golborne if re-opened), Wigan North Western, Preston, Lancaster, stations to Barrow.

- 2 tph Hazel Grove-Manchester Piccadilly-Blackpool North/Preston (to make routes uniform across Manchester, all Blackpools and Southports would run via Bolton to Picadilly, and all Atherton line services would run to Victoria.) Calling at stations to Picadilly, Oxford Road, Deansgate, Salford Crescent, Bolton, then all stations to Blackpool North, except Salwick. (1 tph from Preston)

- 2 tph Southport-Alderley Edge, calling at all stations via Bolton (except New Lane and Bescar Lane, with limited service).

- 2 tph Wigan North Western-Atherton-Manchester Victoria-Huddersfield (NPR would remove the fasts from the Standedge line, so the slows should go back to Northern for through running). All stops, except Ashton-under-Lyne.

- 2 tph Skelmersdale-Rochdale via Atherton (all stops), giving the Atherton line 4 tph to Victoria.

- 2 tph Leeds-Manchester Victoria-Blackburn (1 tph Clitheroe), calling at Bramley, New Pudsey, Bradford St. James (NPR), Bradford Interchange, Halifax, Sowerby Bridge, Mytholmroyd (1 tph), Hebden Bridge, Todmorden (1 tph), Rochdale, Manchester Victoria, Bolton, all stations to Blackburn/Clitheroe.

- 1 tph Leeds-Manchester Victoria: White Rose, Morley, Dewsbury, Mirfield, Brighouse, Sowerby Bridge, stations to Rochdale, Manchester Victoria.

- 1 tph Leeds-Manchester Victoria-Chester: Cottingley, Morley, Dewsbury, Mirfield, Brighouse, stations to Rochdale, Manchester Victoria, Salford Central (new platforms), Eccles, Patricroft, Newton-le-Willows, Earlestown, Warrington BQ High Level, Runcorn East, Frodsham, Helsby, Chester.

- 2 tph Manchester Victoria-Liverpool Lime Street via Chat Moss, all stops.

- 2 tph Liverpool Lime Street-Manchester Picadilly-Crewe, via Chat Moss. All stops, except Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel.

- 2 tph Stalybridge-Mamchester Victoria-Manchester Picadilly-Airport, all stops.

- 4 tph Liverpool Lime Street-Manchester Picadilly-Airport, via CLC, all stops.

The Hope Valley services would all be curtailed at Picadilly.

I think this all depends if a line to Liverpool is built. In addition to the 5 HS2 services, there are 4 paths available through the south Manchester tunnel. If the line via Warrington is built, then all four would go to Liverpool. If not, I could see one going to Scotland if a chord was built, but the other three going to Crewe and then continuing along the WCML rather than off to Wales.

 

[Fokx]

Would it be feasible to increase capacity by terminating more services at Oxford Road?

What have I forgotten?

That platform 1 of Oxford Road is completely inaccessible to anyone who requires the use of a lift and that the Platform length is short and cannot be used if another longer train is being held at Platform 2 as it occupies the points.

You wouldn’t be able to have trains longer than 4 carriages stopping at Oxford Road in your concept for central terminating platforms

 

[507020]

I doubt there will be any plan for there to be no heavy rail service to Marple at all, because that would involve closing the line from Marple to Chinley (Metrolink to Chinley is not happening) and that would be unacceptable. The only change that might happen at some point (has been talked about for a while) is for the Hope Valley locals to run via Stockport and the Marple trains to terminate at Chinley, but that seems to have gone quiet.

Closure of the Hope Valley would then mean the end of train services between Manchester and Sheffield, which there are already not enough of. If only Woodhead was still open to make the conversion of Guide Bridge equally unacceptable. I don’t particularly know a lot about the Hazel Grove chord, but for historical reasons it should not be physically possible to reach Stockport (except Tiviot Dale) from Sheffield in the same way as it should not be possible to reach Piccadilly from Southport.

150/1s have always had a large multipurpose van area with side facing seats - it was used for parcels originally. I thought /2s always had bike space.

If 150s have always had them, then that begs the question why the EMUs have never had them. Some (I believe ex-FGW/GWR) 150s have a different bike space located underneath a luggage rack. What about 156s which feature a slot to fit bike wheels in.

I do agree there. The issue of them flying around in an emergency stop is usually quoted, but given that there are buses that carry bicycles inside (not many but they exist) it just requires an appropriate design of fixture.

Goodness knows why dogs are not allowed when they are allowed on buses and heavy rail. I suspect there was a canophobe in TfGM somewhere.

The Stagecoach buses in the Lake District feature a very robust area to carry bicycles, complete with cables to tie them down.

As for animals, they are not technically allowed on heavy rail. Railway Byelaw 16(1) states that an operator may refuse carriage or entry to any animal and 16(2) that no person shall bring any animal onto the railway without a valid ticket for that animal, but I’ve never seen this enforced. What animal tickets, if any, are available?

Byelaw 14(1) simply states that no person in charge of any bicycle shall “use” it on any part of the railway. There is nothing to say that bicycles can’t or shouldn’t be carried. Clearly a cyclophobe as well as a canophone.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Do you happen to use trams or light rail metro frequently? Or does your local line happen to be a potential line for conversion?

Neither and the BCR said no to conversion. Plus I'm quite happy not being deafened by the articulation point that sounds like hell freezing over at anything above 20.

I have lived in an area where light rail metro systems have been prevalent for most of my life, with the exception of a few years in London and now that I live by the WCML. However if I had a magic wand, I’d have my local line converted in a heartbeat. 2 tph heavy rail v turn-up-and-go on a metro system only has one winner, and it ain’t heavy rail.

Once again, I'm happy not having an inferior form of transport. We moan about ironing boards but you ain't seen nothing yet if we convert everything to Metrolink. We moan about the engine noise in 150s but they don't have anything on the articulation points on the M5000s.

 

[Purple Orange]

Neither and the BCR said no to conversion. Plus I'm quite happy not being deafened by the articulation point that sounds like hell freezing over at anything above 20.

Once again, I'm happy not having an inferior form of transport. We moan about ironing boards but you ain't seen nothing yet if we convert everything to Metrolink. We moan about the engine noise in 150s but they don't have anything on the articulation points on the M5000s.

I guess this is clearly a differing opinion we won’t agree upon. Being a rail forum, I can also say with certainty that I have ‘endured’ a 150, but I certainly don’t mind an M5000. In my view, the experience is night and day. Metrolink it all if I could.

 

[LittleAH]

Would it be feasible to increase capacity by terminating more services at Oxford Road?

With some minor re-modelling, the two central platforms could act as de-facto west-facing bays. This would reduce the crossing moves required with the use of the current bay platform (5). I imagine 4-6x trains per hour could be comfortably turned around from the 2x central platforms? The outer platforms can continue to act as through platforms to Piccadilly.

I understand one of the major constraints is platform re-occupation time at Piccadilly. If we limited the number of trains continuing east of Oxford Road to ~10ph (9 PAX + 1x freight, a big reduction vs 2019) at an even spacing, this would be resolved and there wouldn't be a need for extra platforms.

Minimum headway to the west is sufficient such that Oxford Road terminators could be sent out 3 minutes behind each 'through' service. This could increase the total capacity to 14-16 per hour? Oxford Road could then become the main station for some of the 'commuter' lines (eg. CLC and Chat Moss stoppers, maybe Southport). Better connections to Deansgate and Metrolink could also be investigated. Meanwhile, the longer distance services could continue to go through Castlefield and on to the Airport.

What have I forgotten?

Oxford Road is being remodelled, but not anything like this. It will become a through station only.

 

[daodao]

Oxford Road is being remodelled, but not anything like this. It will become a through station only.

It is still planned to terminate some local services from the west there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oxford Road is being remodelled, but not anything like this. It will become a through station only.

The middle platform will be used for terminating services once this is done, as it will allow turn back without crossing the other line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2021 ==

Closure of the Hope Valley would then mean the end of train services between Manchester and Sheffield, which there are already not enough of. If only Woodhead was still open to make the conversion of Guide Bridge equally unacceptable. I don’t particularly know a lot about the Hazel Grove chord, but for historical reasons it should not be physically possible to reach Stockport (except Tiviot Dale) from Sheffield in the same way as it should not be possible to reach Piccadilly from Southport.

I think you missed what I said. I was suggesting that if you Metrolinked to Marple it would end up with closure of Marple to Chinley, not the whole Hope Valley. Most Manchester to Sheffield trains already go via Stockport and Hazel Grove.

I am not proposing this, by the way, I am pointing it out as a reason why Marple (probably via Guide Bridge) will retain heavy rail, with Rose Hill getting trams.

If 150s have always had them, then that begs the question why the EMUs have never had them.

321s do have a parcel area. But as above they were intended for parcels, not bicycles.

As for animals, they are not technically allowed on heavy rail. Railway Byelaw 16(1) states that an operator may refuse carriage or entry to any animal and 16(2) that no person shall bring any animal onto the railway without a valid ticket for that animal, but I’ve never seen this enforced. What animal tickets, if any, are available?

De facto the railway saying there is no charge for a dog (as they have) means a human ticket includes carriage of one, and thus means that unless the dog is there unaccompanied such a ticket does exist.

Byelaw 14(1) simply states that no person in charge of any bicycle shall “use” it on any part of the railway. There is nothing to say that bicycles can’t or shouldn’t be carried. Clearly a cyclophobe as well as a canophone.

I never said there was. Metrolink is not the railway and so the Byelaws do not apply to it.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Metrolink is not the railway and so the Byelaws do not apply to it.

Indeed. Metrolink has its own separate Byelaws and Conditions of Carriage. Like it or not, the conveyance of bicycles has not been permitted on their trams since the Metrolink system first commenced back in 1992.

18.No passenger shall cause or permit to be brought into, or remain in, any Metrolink vehicle or any part of any Metrolink premises:
a) Any bicycle or tricycle except that these may be brought onto Metrolink premises as long as they are stored only in the designated bicycle racks.

Metrolink conditions of carriage

Conditions of carriage applying to Greater Manchester Metrolink

tfgm.com