How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

[daodao]

If the Metrolink focuses on street running and bringing back disused alignments, there’s no need for it to run a downgraded service on former heavy rail lines is there. Those could easily run into a tunnel and resume proper service.

Metrolink was created primarily to retain and improve rail services on decaying suburban heavy rail routes, with some street running to create cross-city links and penetrate urban centres, and has been largely successful, including by cutting costs inevitably associated with heavy rail. It would be a good idea to have more of the same by converting other heavy rail routes, in particular the Atherton line and much of the ex-GC local network in SE Manchester. Too much street running destroys the attractiveness of light rail. Building tunnels is very expensive.

 

[snowball]

I went on the Leigh Guided Busway recently and I don’t understand why it’s so hilly when it’s supposed to be a disused rail alignment. Shouldn’t it be fairly level?

It goes up and down in places to cross roads on the level where the previous rail line went under or over. I imagine this is to reduce maintenance costs by eliminating bridges (or to reduce capital costs where the original bridges would have required replacement), but it could also be to improve ease of access for passengers.

 

[507020]

Metrolink was created primarily to retain and improve rail services on decaying suburban heavy rail routes, with some street running to create cross-city links and penetrate urban centres, and has been largely successful, including by cutting costs inevitably associated with heavy rail.

And to free up the paths of the Altrincham electrics through Castlefield for the newly opened Windsor Link and allow the partial demolition of Victoria for the construction of the NYNEX Arena. The decay in 1992 was worse on the non-standard Bury line than Altrincham.

It would be a good idea to have more of the same by converting other heavy rail routes, in particular the Atherton line and much of the ex-GC local network in SE Manchester. Too much street running destroys the attractiveness of light rail. Building tunnels is very expensive.

Not just for the sake of it though. Now the Atherton line can’t be described as anything other than decaying, even though it’s the most direct route from Wigan to Manchester. It’s a shame really when all the L&YR’s main expresses from Liverpool Exchange to Manchester Victoria and beyond ran that way. I must admit that I’ve never been on any of the Great Central lines east of Manchester, but I doubt the local services on them are the most efficient use of platform capacity at Piccadilly.

Note that the decaying suburban 3rd rail routes in the area that doesn’t fit the geographical designation of Merseyside (with some routes closer to the Ribble and the Dee than the Mersey) became vastly more profitable following the construction of an expensive new tunnel.

It goes up and down in places to cross roads on the level where the previous rail line went under or over. I imagine this is to reduce maintenance costs by eliminating bridges (or to reduce capital costs where the original bridges would have required replacement), but it could also be to improve ease of access for passengers.

Did any of the original bridges even survive until the construction of the busway?

 

[S&CLER]

As a dog owner, why do you not feel comfortable taking him on the train? This kind of insight is needed by TfGM and others in making their vehicles more dog-friendly. As for cycling on our roads, it’s counter intuitive that you have to take a different route when cycling than when driving, to avoid cars.

The infrastructure for wheelchairs has been improved on Merseyrail largely due to Stadler’s innovation of sliding steps and the T&W Metro will follow for the same reason. I don’t understand why lifts were provided at Formby, which already had step free access to both platforms, before certain other stations that were not accessible at all, namely Hillside, but Merseyrail apparently accounts for 2% of all heavy rail platforms in Great Britain and with the promise that all of them will be step free by 2028, it’s looking good for accessibility in the north. To say that level boarding could not be provided on Crossrail and Thameslink in London were just outright lies.

Without knowing that rail services in Greater Manchester HAVE to be improved, due to Castlefield unreliability and capacity issues etc, providing additional facilities for passengers on rail services in Greater Manchester including resolving the Metrolink dog/bike issue still constitutes a considerable improvement for those passengers who choose to bring dogs and/or bikes on trams, which they may have a very legitimate reason to do. While it is clearly not as much of a priority as resolving Castlefield or building HS2/HS3, it could be solved overnight with so much as a rule change, not requiring any of the complex infrastructural work Castlefield, a high speed line, a tunnel or even any more Metrolink conversions will.

Blindly Metrolinking everything except the Leigh Guided Busway…

I went on the Leigh Guided Busway recently and I don’t understand why it’s so hilly when it’s supposed to be a disused rail alignment. Shouldn’t it be fairly level? Unfortunately I will never be able to cycle along the Leigh Guided Busway because I am unable to take my bike to Leigh.

If the Metrolink focuses on street running and bringing back disused alignments, there’s no need for it to run a downgraded service on former heavy rail lines is there. Those could easily run into a tunnel and resume proper service.

I’d like to see this evolution. What does the Metrolink do to the WCML?

I doubt that a 56m tram every 12 minutes is the greatest source of congestion on the roads. Another one might be the sheer number of cars above what most road junctions were designed for, or the use of temporary traffic lights.

I bet something more reasonable could be done with them, involving reconfiguring the waste ground and car park adjacent to Talbot Road and the depot. The one at Cornbrook doesn’t look quite as sharp.

It's true that the up platform at Formby had step-free access through the car park, but there was no easy way from the ticket office on the station bridge to the platforms for a wheelchair. The access to the down platform with a wheelchair involved walking quite a way past the station entrance and then doubling back. I did it many times with my wheelchair-bound friend, when I took him for an outing from Birkdale to Formby, and we certainly welcomed the lifts. The architectural design of the lifts at Formby was also very well done, and they are a very good match to the old L&Y building. It was money well-spent in my opinion. There were said to be issues that have delayed the building of lifts at Hillside until now, but I don't know what they were.

 

[Purple Orange]

Rose Hill currently has 2 tph. Glossop & Hadfield currently has 2 tph. Atherton currently has 3 tph. All three lines could have 5 tph (Atherton would technically have 6 if the 3rd heavy Rail service continues to stop there) if converted to metrolink and it wouldn’t be any slower reaching the city centre, while also improving inner city connectivity. This will create available capacity at Victoria & Piccadilly plus we have the prospect of a cross city tunnel which would create further capacity on the existing network.

It's true that the up platform at Formby had step-free access through the car park, but there was no easy way from the ticket office on the station bridge to the platforms for a wheelchair. The access to the down platform with a wheelchair involved walking quite a way past the station entrance and then doubling back. I did it many times with my wheelchair-bound friend, when I took him for an outing from Birkdale to Formby, and we certainly welcomed the lifts. The architectural design of the lifts at Formby was also very well done, and they are a very good match to the old L&Y building. There were said to be issues that have delayed the building of lifts at Hillside until now, but I don't know what they were.

Ramp access is never as good as a lift. My local station has a covered ramp, but even though it’s not at a ridiculous gradient, it still feels tenuous going down it.

 

[LOL The Irony]

It would be a good idea to have more of the same by converting other heavy rail routes, in particular the Atherton line and much of the ex-GC local network in SE Manchester.

A metro train service in a similar vein to Thameslink would be better frankly.

Too much street running destroys the attractiveness of light rail.

Oh no. Anyway...

Rose Hill currently has 2 tph. Glossop & Hadfield currently has 2 tph. Atherton currently has 3 tph. All three lines could have 5 tph (Atherton would technically have 6 if the 3rd heavy Rail service continues to stop there) if converted to metrolink and it wouldn’t be any slower reaching the city centre, while also improving inner city connectivity. This will create available capacity at Victoria & Piccadilly plus we have the prospect of a cross city tunnel which would create further capacity on the existing network.

But then you're saying all 3 could have the same if a metro service was also introduced on the line. Also trains every 30 and 20 minutes respectively doesn't sound particularly run down to me.

 

[HSTEd]

But then you're saying all 3 could have the same if a metro service was also introduced on the line. Also trains every 30 and 20 minutes respectively doesn't sound particularly run down to me.

For long distance journeys it would be fine, but for short distance journeys it is not really good enough to be attractive.

You probably need turn up and go frequencies for that to be attractive.

 

[LOL The Irony]

For long distance journeys it would be fine, but for short distance journeys it is not really good enough to be attractive.

You probably need turn up and go frequencies for that to be attractive.

I have to deal with a train every hour and it's every 2 when they bother to show up on Sundays. A train every 20 minutes shouldn't be taken for granted.

 

[daodao]

a train every hour and it's every 2 when they bother to show up on Sundays.

I presume you live in a rural area, with a much lower population density than most of Greater Manchester.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I presume you live in a rural area, with a much lower population density than most of Greater Manchester.

Like Bowden? It certainly has a higher population than your neck of the woods.

 

[Purple Orange]

A metro train service in a similar vein to Thameslink would be better frankly.

Oh no. Anyway...

But then you're saying all 3 could have the same if a metro service was also introduced on the line. Also trains every 30 and 20 minutes respectively doesn't sound particularly run down to me.

Yes a metro service should be introduced on those lines, but it won’t happen while the trains are running in to Piccadilly & Victoria. I’m not saying that the lines are run down either, but the service is not good enough.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Yes a metro service should be introduced on those lines, but it won’t happen while the trains are running in to Piccadilly & Victoria. I’m not saying that the lines are run down either, but the service is not good enough.

5tph is a train every 10 minutes (could drop to 4 during off peak) is entirely doable at Piccadilly post HS2 with signalling upgrades. My trains are turned around, including a crew swap and a light clean in under 10 minutes.

 

[HSTEd]

We have far too many lines radiating from Manchester to incorporate them into a haevy rail metro at high enough frequency to be worthwhile.

Manchester does not have the advantage Liverpool has in terms of being relatively long-and-thin.

 

[snowball]

Did any of the original bridges even survive until the construction of the busway?

Several did at least. I don't know what proportion of the total but they must have included most of the road-over-rail bridges. I visited the area a few times when it was under construction (it started 2013). I was surprised to see bridges demolished between visits. Here's a Google streetview of a road at Tyldesley that crosses the busway, taken in 2019, and you can turn the year back to 2105 when it was under construction, or to 2008-11 when the road was on a bridge over the former railway.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

 

[LOL The Irony]

We have far too many lines radiating from Manchester to incorporate them into a haevy rail metro at high enough frequency to be worthwhile.

Let's look at a post HS2 south Manchester.

First off, we have gained a net total of 6 paths per hour (3 in each direction). We could also drop one XC service, so that figure becomes 8 (since these aren't stopping services, the gross total will be higher). Then we can grade separate Slade Ln to remove that choke point. The next upgrade can be the introduction of ERTMS signalling to allow trains to run closer together, gaining us even more paths.

Now how do we put them all at Piccadilly? Well we introduce a maximum 10 minute turn around for the metro services. Castlefield can also be our friend in this situation, allowing for some north Manchester services to come from the south. Another way of solving it is bringing back the Picc-Vic project, keeping Castlefield free for other services.

 

[Purple Orange]

5tph is a train every 10 minutes (could drop to 4 during off peak) is entirely doable at Piccadilly post HS2 with signalling upgrades. My trains are turned around, including a crew swap and a light clean in under 10 minutes.

And converting the 3 lines to metrolink allows yet more paths to be freed on heavy rail. Why not do both HS2 and metrolink conversion?

 

[HSTEd]

Now how do we put them all at Piccadilly? Well we introduce a maximum 10 minute turn around for the metro services. Castlefield can also be our friend in this situation, allowing for some north Manchester services to come from the south. Another way of solving it is bringing back the Picc-Vic project, keeping Castlefield free for other services.

You could get a lot of Metrolink for the cost of a Picc-Vic tunnel.

 

[LOL The Irony]

And converting the 3 lines to metrolink allows yet more paths to be freed on heavy rail. Why not do both HS2 and metrolink conversion?

Because that's not what Metrolink is for in my opinion.

Those lines are Middleton, Hadfield and Marple, correct?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2021 ==

You could get a lot of Metrolink for the cost of a Picc-Vic tunnel.

I did figure it would cost a lot. The alternative is to compulsory purchase land for the quadrupling of Castlefield.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It goes up and down in places to cross roads on the level where the previous rail line went under or over. I imagine this is to reduce maintenance costs by eliminating bridges (or to reduce capital costs where the original bridges would have required replacement), but it could also be to improve ease of access for passengers.

The termination point of the actual Guided Busway at Ellenbrook still offers the opportunity to look at the former continuation of the Tyldesley loop line, as a cursory glance across the road shows the increase in land height at which the overbridge was constructed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2021 ==

 

[Purple Orange]

Because that's not what Metrolink is for in my opinion.

Those lines are Middleton, Hadfield and Marple, correct?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2021 ==


I did figure it would cost a lot. The alternative is to compulsory purchase land for the quadrupling of Castlefield.

Glossop & Hadfield, Rose Hill and Atherton. In my opinion Metrolink is specifically for that purpose. Taking a line that services commuters in to Manchester and providing an all stop metro service.

In what way will people along those lines lose out? They get a better frequency, greater capacity, it will be just as fast to Piccadilly and Salford Central respectively, with better penetration of the city centre.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Glossop & Hadfield, Rose Hill and Atherton.

Ok. Hadfield and Marple seem like better options than Atherton but they're still not the most ideal. I'd say Leigh is more deserving than Atherton. I do see how Hadfield and Rose Hill Marple could work but you've got the Huddersfield stopper and the Buxton trains to deal with, so that's something to be careful of. Sharing with the rail service seems like a better interim option until HS2 arrives.

In my opinion Metrolink is specifically for that purpose. Taking a line that services commuters in to Manchester and providing an all stop metro service.

That may have been true when it originally opened in 1992, however, that philosophy started to change with Eccles. Now out of phase 3, the only line to be converted from a current heavy rail alignment was Oldham, with Didsbury, Manchester Airport and Ashton being on new or disused alignments. The Trafford Center continues this new philosophy (left out the 2CC as that's kind of cheating).

In what way will people along those lines lose out? They get a better frequency, greater capacity, it will be just as fast to Piccadilly and Salford Central respectively, with better penetration of the city centre.

They wouldn't lose out to the existing services and would be similar to the offering of a metro rail service, although the train could have more capacity than the the tram train, which is limited by the platform lengths of Metrolink (the length of 2 M5000s).

I would be ok with the idea of converting some lines to Metrolink if all of these following conditions are met;

I.) The route they operate is self contained for the majority of it's route.
I a.) If it isn't self contained or shares part of its route with other traffic, it must share with or make way for heavy rail.
II.) The trams should offer similar provisions to the train, ie. toilets at select stops, the allowing of bikes and pets (even if only on that specific section).
III.) The ticket prices do not exceed the price of the rail service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let's look at a post HS2 south Manchester. First off, we have gained a net total of 6 paths per hour (3 in each direction). We could also drop one XC service, so that figure becomes 8 (since these aren't stopping services, the gross total will be higher).

Do you feel that Manchester is overserved by XC services, so your proposal for dropping one of those services above will not affect the travelling public unduly.

I had assumed that those charged with running XC services into Manchester knew what their customer market was. Which cities served by XC did you have in mind for a service reduction?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Do you feel that Manchester is overserved by XC services, so your proposal for dropping one of those services above will not affect the travelling public unduly.

Not at present but post HS2, an XC service could be dropped and enable extra paths for stopping trains. You still have a direct service from Manchester to the South West, so that market is still served.

I had assumed that those charged with running XC services into Manchester knew what their customer market was. Which cities served by XC did you have in mind for a service reduction?

It can still serve Wolverhampton and Stafford. It could potentially act as a way of getting Liverpool back on the XC network. The service won't cease to exist, it'll simply no longer serve Manchester.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not at present but post HS2, an XC service could be dropped and enable extra paths for stopping trains. You still have a direct service from Manchester to the South West, so that market is still served.

It can still serve Wolverhampton and Stafford. It could potentially act as a way of getting Liverpool back on the XC network. The service won't cease to exist, it'll simply no longer serve Manchester.

So Manchester is therefore seen by XC as a market worth very little in the way of connecting a major city in the North of England. A most very London-centric view of matters. Perhaps if that be the case, XC will withdraw completely in terms of service provision to such a major city, with Birmingham and Leeds being the recipients of better XC services.

Manchester, with its position of being a central hub in the North-West region, would not let this slight go un-noticed and if politicians such as Burnham are around, they would be not prepared to see such an affront go unanswered.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2021 ==

I did figure it would cost a lot. The alternative is to compulsory purchase land for the quadrupling of Castlefield.

Why not draw that argument to its logical conclusion and compulsory purchase all the railway viaducts in the Castlefield area, raze all to the ground, then use the brownfield site land in order to extend new housing development.

 

[LOL The Irony]

So Manchester is therefore seen by XC as a market worth very little in the way of connecting a major city in the North of England. A most very London-centric view of matters. Perhaps if that be the case, XC will withdraw completely in terms of service provision to such a major city, with Birmingham and Leeds

I don't think you're understanding where I'm coming from. The loss of a single XC service per hour would allow for more stopping services in the south Manchester area, with the slack for Birmingham passengers being taken up by a large increase in trains between Birmingham and Manchester caused by the arrival of HS2. The Manchester to South West England market would still be served by the remaining XC service.

HS2 will turn Manchester to Birmingham into a turn up and go service, meaning that you can lose an XC service per hour whilst still gaining an increase in Manchester to Birmingham trains and keeping the services to the South West. OK, the services to the South West become hourly, but at the benefit of South Manchester and Cheshire passengers, as well as passengers between Birmingham and Manchester.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't think you're understanding where I'm coming from. The loss of a single XC service per hour would allow for more stopping services in the south Manchester area, with the slack for Birmingham passengers being taken up by a large increase in trains between Birmingham and Manchester caused by the arrival of HS2. The Manchester to South West England market would still be served by the remaining XC service.

HS2 will turn Manchester to Birmingham into a turn up and go service, meaning that you can lose an XC service per hour whilst still gaining an increase in Manchester to Birmingham trains and keeping the services to the South West. OK, the services to the South West become hourly, but at the benefit of South Manchester and Cheshire passengers, as well as passengers between Birmingham and Manchester.

I do understand your view, but local train services and long-distance train services are two completely different entities. especially in a major city, such as Manchester. It does naught to "Rob Peter to pay Paul" in terms of your contention. Manchester needs a better local area service provision, but for heavens sake, do not reduce the service availability of Manchester's long-distance train services in order to meet your local service aspirations.

Do you think that Manchester Airport would for one moment consider a reduction in its long-haul direct flight service provision in order to better its short-haul flights provision?

 

[LOL The Irony]

I do understand your view, but local train services and long-distance train services are two completely different entities. especially in a major city, such as Manchester. It does naught to "Rob Peter to pay Paul" in terms of your contention. Manchester needs a better local area service provision, but for heavens sake, do not reduce the service availability of Manchester's long-distance train services

But HS2 will introduce more trains to Birmingham, allowing you to pay Paul without robbing Peter. Yes the services to the South West will be hourly and by default, Stafford and Wolverhampton as well. But you solve that by sending the service via Crewe on its onward journey to/from another place in the North West so a HS2 train could meet it. Another option is just directly replacing it with a stopping service between Manchester and Birmingham.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But HS2 will introduce more trains to Birmingham, allowing you to pay Paul without robbing Peter. Yes the services to the South West will be hourly and by default, Stafford and Wolverhampton as well. But you solve that by sending the service via Crewe on its onward journey to/from another place in the North West so a HS2 train could meet it. Another option is just directly replacing it with a stopping service between Manchester and Birmingham.

Is that option better than a direct train service from Manchester to the South-West with no changes entailed?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Is that option better than a direct train service from Manchester to the South-West with no changes entailed?

The South West trains aren't disappearing, just dropping to hourly. The service that would've gone to Manchester will instead go to 2 other destinations, splitting at Crewe for Liverpool and Preston or Blackpool or Windermere. So South West to North West XC services will now be split between up to 5 destinations.

 

[JamesT]

Is that option better than a direct train service from Manchester to the South-West with no changes entailed?

I'm not quite sure how the HS2 journey planner decides on a time for a station that doesn't exist, but it claims that currently Piccadilly to Curzon Street (to New Street?) is 1h27, which will drop to 41 minutes after Phase 2. So you'd have 45 minutes to get over to New Street to pick up a train to the SW. So probably not losing out in time for the overall journey.
Of course, many people won't be starting in the centre of Manchester for a trip such as that. Having more stopping trains available makes connecting into a long-distance service easier.