How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

[Bletchleyite]

Unicycles permitted, though!

 

[Purple Orange]

I was on the district line recently and the 7-car tube trains got me thinking: "why cant the rest of the country have infrastructure to take trains of such length?" Except the tube trains are not that long - roughly the equivelent of what would be a 5-car 331 or 323.

Therefore how well equiped is Greater Manchester and the surrounding commuter towns for taking 5-car trains at roughly 115m, given that 6-car working can be a problem? A 4-car 331 is 92m for reference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was on the district line recently and the 7-car tube trains got me thinking: "why cant the rest of the country have infrastructure to take trains of such length?" Except the tube trains are not that long - roughly the equivelent of what would be a 5-car 331 or 323.

Therefore how well equiped is Greater Manchester and the surrounding commuter towns for taking 5-car trains at roughly 115m, given that 6-car working can be a problem? A 4-car 331 is 92m for reference.

I suspect Oxford Road may well be one of the main constraints to genuinely long (e.g. 240m) trains. Extending platforms of normal halts isn't that expensive, they've done it all over the South East, and ASDO can be used to avoid needing to bother. A lot of North West stations have longer platforms with abandoned sections anyway.

 

[Purple Orange]

I suspect Oxford Road may well be one of the main constraints to genuinely long (e.g. 240m) trains. Extending platforms of normal halts isn't that expensive, they've done it all over the South East, and ASDO can be used to avoid needing to bother. A lot of North West stations have longer platforms with abandoned sections anyway.

But this begs the question of whether trains of roughly 115-120m are the answer? I think it probably is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But this begs the question of whether trains of roughly 115-120m are the answer? I think it probably is.

As outside the South East 24m vehicles are becoming the norm, I would start a programme of planning for 6 x 24m on most routes, as a combination of platform extensions and ASDO. Might even be worth going for 160m so spare 4-car EMUs from the South East (e.g. 350/2s) can be used, and possibly even 200m on the likes of the TPE core to provide for the use of HS2 "half sets" on Northern Powerhouse Rail related routes.

 

[Purple Orange]

As outside the South East 24m vehicles are becoming the norm, I would start a programme of planning for 6 x 24m on most routes, as a combination of platform extensions and ASDO. Might even be worth going for 160m so spare 4-car EMUs from the South East (e.g. 350/2s) can be used, and possibly even 200m on the likes of the TPE core to provide for the use of HS2 "half sets" on Northern Powerhouse Rail related routes.

But that requires a program of investment in infrastructure! Im not worried about the routes TPE will serve as post NPR/TRU they should be focussed on principal stations only. Lea Green, Dewsbury, Oxford Road etc shouldn't be their remit. Once that infrastructure is established, the remaining network on my view should be looking towards a uniforn standard fleet of commuter stock.

 

[snowball]

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

I assume that what you mean is that remodelling Oxford Road (altering the through platforms and closing the bay) is/was part of the proposal that has been sitting on the Transport Secretary's desk for several years, that included building two extra through platforms at Piccadilly.

 

[cle]

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.

I'm sorry, but do you mean having heavy rail EMUs like a 323 run up through Piccadilly Gardens and Market Street?

I do sympathize on the bikes issue, as a cyclist myself. On mention of Sprinters, the one thing that came to mind is that many more rural, scenic areas aren't electrified. Hope Valley being the nearest here, but plenty of East Anglia, Highlands, the West Country - so that might be why.

The solution is that Metrolink should run longer services throughout longer term, with fixed units like those new monsters in Sydney up George St - and allow bikes and dogs outside of the morning peak, say 7-9am. Evenings are more nebulous and range from school time to 9pm in some cases, later on Fridays. But start times are still quite set.

 

[507020]

I'm sorry, but do you mean having heavy rail EMUs like a 323 run up through Piccadilly Gardens and Market Street?

I do sympathize on the bikes issue, as a cyclist myself. On mention of Sprinters, the one thing that came to mind is that many more rural, scenic areas aren't electrified. Hope Valley being the nearest here, but plenty of East Anglia, Highlands, the West Country - so that might be why.

The solution is that Metrolink should run longer services throughout longer term, with fixed units like those new monsters in Sydney up George St - and allow bikes and dogs outside of the morning peak, say 7-9am. Evenings are more nebulous and range from school time to 9pm in some cases, later on Fridays. But start times are still quite set.

No, I was thinking of running a mixture of M5000 trams and Class 323 heavy rail EMUs on the actual lines to Glossop, Rose Hill Marple, Bury, Altrincham and East Didsbury etc, but have only the trams run through the streets to Piccadilly Gardens and Market Street and have the 323s terminate somewhere else, either at current heavy rail stations such as Victoria, Oxford Road or Piccadilly, or in a new Picc-Vic tunnel. To run to Rochdale via Oldham, the original heavy rail route would have to be reopened, as only trams can use the street running section at Oldham.

The Sprinters in their 30+ year history have of course visited virtually the entire network, so where you will currently find them and the number of cyclists on those services isn’t to say that they didn’t see more (or less) on their previous routes. There might not have been many on Silverlink for example.

That is a good longer term solution, but the shorter term solution is to just allow bikes on the M5000s as they are. I can guarantee it won’t cause a single problem. Passengers who own bicycles will be a lot happier knowing they can be carried. I don’t see any issue with allowing bikes at peak times. I’ve seen a man bring a bike onto a crush loaded Merseyrail train and no one had a problem with it.

 

[HSTEd]

I suppose you could have some variation of the Zwickau model if you wanted.

Not sure why you would to be honest.

There are precious few places on the Manchester suburban system where trains get much faster than the 60mph tram trains are good for, and given the lack of width constraints you can even build tram trains with Toilets if you wish

 

[Mcr Warrior]

That is a good longer term solution, but the shorter term solution is to just allow bikes on the M5000s as they are. I can guarantee it won’t cause a single problem. Passengers who own bicycles will be a lot happier knowing they can be carried. I don’t see any issue with allowing bikes at peak times.

We can agree to disagree on that.

Absolutely no chance of a bicycle getting anywhere near the majority of Metrolink trams inbound into Manchester (in normal times) during the morning main peak or immediately after full time at a match at Old Trafford / the Etihad.

If you've a bicycle, it would undoubtedly best to use it / ride it at such times, rather than try to board with it on to an already crush-loaded tram. Why would you want to do that anyway?

And, with all due respect, your keeping on saying that you don't see "any issue", doesn't mean that there wouldn't be!

There's a reason why most other public transport networks don't allow bicycles during peak hours.

 

[LittleAH]

If you've a bicycle, it would undoubtedly best to use it / ride it at such times, rather than try to board with it on to an already crush-loaded tram. Why would you want to do that anyway?

Because, sometimes, people are making longer journeys with their bikes. You see it on the rail network all the time, ride from their house to a station - go to another location get off and ride to complete their journey.

Bike space on all rail transport is needed and should be a mandatory requirement.

 

[cle]

Because, sometimes, people are making longer journeys with their bikes. You see it on the rail network all the time, ride from their house to a station - go to another location get off and ride to complete their journey.

Bike space on all rail transport is needed and should be a mandatory requirement.

How about the low level tube in London? The Met is that, in normal times morning peaks. I think carving out a few hours (same for elderly people and their free rides lol) - is good practice.

Fold-up bikes fine, but regular ones wouldn't fit on many peak AM trams with the current. It's massively selfish, as you're taking up way more space than multiple people would, and in some cases; Dane Road, Stretford inbound - keeping folks from boarding due to your hobby. Non-starter.

 

[Purple Orange]

No, I was thinking of running a mixture of M5000 trams and Class 323 heavy rail EMUs on the actual lines to Glossop, Rose Hill Marple, Bury, Altrincham and East Didsbury etc, but have only the trams run through the streets to Piccadilly Gardens and Market Street and have the 323s terminate somewhere else, either at current heavy rail stations such as Victoria, Oxford Road or Piccadilly, or in a new Picc-Vic tunnel. To run to Rochdale via Oldham, the original heavy rail route would have to be reopened, as only trams can use the street running section at Oldham.

The Sprinters in their 30+ year history have of course visited virtually the entire network, so where you will currently find them and the number of cyclists on those services isn’t to say that they didn’t see more (or less) on their previous routes. There might not have been many on Silverlink for example.

That is a good longer term solution, but the shorter term solution is to just allow bikes on the M5000s as they are. I can guarantee it won’t cause a single problem. Passengers who own bicycles will be a lot happier knowing they can be carried. I don’t see any issue with allowing bikes at peak times. I’ve seen a man bring a bike onto a crush loaded Merseyrail train and no one had a problem with it.

There will never be any heavy rail vehicles on the former heavy rail lines. I think what we will see is a tunnel eventually, which will either have the M5000s run through it (like Cologne which is very similar to the M5000s and the Frankfurt U-Bahn is not too dissimilar), or we will have trains like the Tyne & Wear metro.

For example we’d have Warrington to Rose Hill and Altrincham to Glossop with Metro trains at 5 tph each, with services from Altrincham to Bury (5 tph) running with tram-trains. Those tram-trains would also run on the rest of the existing Metrolink network and ‘trams’ would no longer be used.

 

[HSTEd]

There will never be any heavy rail vehicles on the former heavy rail lines. I think what we will see is a tunnel eventually, which will either have the M5000s run through it (like Cologne which is very similar to the M5000s and the Frankfurt U-Bahn is not too dissimilar), or we will have trains like the Tyne & Wear metro.

For example we’d have Warrington to Rose Hill and Altrincham to Glossop with Metro trains at 5 tph each, with services from Altrincham to Bury (5 tph) running with tram-trains. Those tram-trains would also run on the rest of the existing Metrolink network and ‘trams’ would no longer be used.

I think tram-trains and train-trams will blur the line so much between light and heavy rail that I would not put money on anything to be honest.

But any serious expansion of Manchester Metrolink tram trains to solve CAstlefield would likely require a third city crossing.

EDIT:

I don't think a tram route doubling back from Victoria to the Atherton line is particularly practical.

So we need more paths on the western side of Manchester.

 

[Purple Orange]

I think tram-trains and train-trams will blur the line so much between light and heavy rail that I would not put money on anything to be honest.

But any serious expansion of Manchester Metrolink tram trains to solve CAstlefield would likely require a third city crossing.

EDIT:

I don't think a tram route doubling back from Victoria to the Atherton line is particularly practical.

So we need more paths on the western side of Manchester.

Well the city centre network as it is can facilitate the extension to Middleton (5 tph), conversation of Hadfield & Glossop (5 tph) and Rose Hill (5 tph), Atherton (5 tph) and a link from the Eccles line to the city centre via the Atherton line extension.

If that happened there would be 4 paths in to Piccadilly P1-P4 and 2 terminating paths in to Victoria made available, therefore there would be a question of how that capacity can be best utilised.

It could provide some capacity relief for Castlefield, such as switching the TfW North Wales service to Victoria.

 

[Greybeard33]

Well the city centre network as it is can facilitate the extension to Middleton (5 tph), conversation of Hadfield & Glossop (5 tph) and Rose Hill (5 tph), Atherton (5 tph) and a link from the Eccles line to the city centre via the Atherton line extension.

If that happened there would be 4 paths in to Piccadilly P1-P4 and 2 terminating paths in to Victoria made available, therefore there would be a question of how that capacity can be best utilised.

It could provide some capacity relief for Castlefield, such as switching the TfW North Wales service to Victoria.

Conversion of the Atherton line to tram-train would not make available "2 terminating paths in to Victoria". The Atherton line trains run through Victoria, on to Leeds via Todmorden and Brighouse, and to Blackburn via Todmorden and Burnley.

If those services from the east could no longer run through to Wigan, they would have to terminate at Victoria. That would increase congestion and reduce capacity for other services.

 

[Purple Orange]

Conversion of the Atherton line to tram-train would not make available "2 terminating paths in to Victoria". The Atherton line trains run through Victoria, on to Leeds via Todmorden and Brighouse, and to Blackburn via Todmorden and Burnley.

If those services from the east could no longer run through to Wigan, they would have to terminate at Victoria. That would increase congestion and reduce capacity for other services.

I stand corrected - had always thought Atherton line servoces terminated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Conversion of the Atherton line to tram-train would not make available "2 terminating paths in to Victoria". The Atherton line trains run through Victoria, on to Leeds via Todmorden and Brighouse, and to Blackburn via Todmorden and Burnley.

If those services from the east could no longer run through to Wigan, they would have to terminate at Victoria. That would increase congestion and reduce capacity for other services.

What that of course does is frees up east-side services for any west-side services you want to run through so as not to terminate at Vic.

 

[30907]

If those services from the east could no longer run through to Wigan, they would have to terminate at Victoria.

Perhaps using the existing bay platforms, which IIRC see 2tph between them in normal times. Alternatively, assuming the necessary timetable reorganisation, continue over the vacant paths to other destinations, as Bletchleyite suggests.

What that of course does is frees up east-side services for any west-side services you want to run through so as not to terminate at Vic.

 

[S&CLER]

Perhaps using the existing bay platforms, which IIRC see 2tph between them in normal times. Alternatively, assuming the necessary timetable reorganisation, continue over the vacant paths to other destinations, as Bletchleyite suggests.

What about the sidings at Salford Crescent? How long a train can they take?

 

[cle]

I would also suggest that the Eccles line would make for a very slow journey into town for the Atherton line folks. MediaCity connections would not be enough to sway it.

Connecting into '2CC' after St Peters Square could be a more realistic approach. Or a N/S route (Oxford Road bingo!). Or get down onto Deansgate, and a westerly direction to pick up and take over the CLC at a lower-level Cornbrook stop! Crayon time.

 

[Greybeard33]

What that of course does is frees up east-side services for any west-side services you want to run through so as not to terminate at Vic.

But what west side services? I presume no-one would advocate running the Scotland or N Wales services through to Leeds or Blackburn!

Perhaps using the existing bay platforms, which IIRC see 2tph between them in normal times. Alternatively, assuming the necessary timetable reorganisation, continue over the vacant paths to other destinations, as Bletchleyite suggests.

A train departing from the Victoria bays has to cross the entire layout to get to the Rochdale line. That blocks all other services in both directions - a capacity killer.

To minimise conflicts, services from the Rochdale line should be linked to services through Salford Crescent, so avoiding crossing movements either side of Victoria. That is achieved with the current Leeds - Wigan and Blackburn - Kirkby services that use the Atherton line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But what west side services? I presume no-one would advocate running the Scotland or N Wales services through to Leeds or Blackburn!

Actually, yes, I was thinking of those. Or the second Southport if it doesn't go to Oxford Road. Or whatever.

 

[Purple Orange]

I would also suggest that the Eccles line would make for a very slow journey into town for the Atherton line folks. MediaCity connections would not be enough to sway it.

Connecting into '2CC' after St Peters Square could be a more realistic approach. Or a N/S route (Oxford Road bingo!). Or get down onto Deansgate, and a westerly direction to pick up and take over the CLC at a lower-level Cornbrook stop! Crayon time.

Yes thats the plan, but with a second route from Eccles also connecting in via Salford Cental. I.e. two lines converging on to Salford Central then along to Albert Sq before going through St. Peters Sq.

 

[Greybeard33]

Actually, yes, I was thinking of those. Or the second Southport if it doesn't go to Oxford Road. Or whatever.

Well, the second Southport already runs through Victoria, so that would not be an additional service from the west.

As for the others, pairings such as Scotland - Vic - Calder Valley - Leeds or N Wales - Vic - Burnley - Blackburn would be problematic regarding rolling stock and crew training issues.

For best punctuality performance, cross-city routes should pair a long distance destination on one side with a local destination (such as Manchester Airport) on the other.

 

[cle]

Yes thats the plan, but with a second route from Eccles also connecting in via Salford Cental. I.e. two lines converging on to Salford Central then along to Albert Sq before going through St. Peters Sq.

Ahh, I was thinking Salford - Albert Sq and then along Cross St. You think it would loop back west, and take over a Cornbrook branch?

 

[Purple Orange]

Ahh, I was thinking Salford - Albert Sq and then along Cross St. You think it would loop back west, and take over a Cornbrook branch?

Yeah. Splitting the media city or eccles services between a route via Cornbrook and a route via Salford Central enables an even split of services eitherside of St. Peters Sq.

 

[LittleAH]

How about the low level tube in London? The Met is that, in normal times morning peaks. I think carving out a few hours (same for elderly people and their free rides lol) - is good practice.

Fold-up bikes fine, but regular ones wouldn't fit on many peak AM trams with the current. It's massively selfish, as you're taking up way more space than multiple people would, and in some cases; Dane Road, Stretford inbound - keeping folks from boarding due to your hobby. Non-starter.

If encouraging active travel as it's called is selfish - what sad world we live in.

If the provision right now offers bike spaces, then whatever replaces it must as well. This is why I think Metrolink'ing most lines in and around Manchester is stupid - because you sacrifice too much.

 

[HSTEd]

Given the explosive growth on Metrolink conversion, I'm not sure ordering more M5000s would even be the best move for Metrolink on any future expansions.

I think it should probably order double length vehicles, it could then provide bike spaces in the space freed by eliminating the intermediate cabs.