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!
Ok, I'll bite. If 'tramification' means a more frequent (but not significantly slower) service, more city centre destinations and lower unit operating costs hence more vehicle miles operated per pound subsidy, then I would have though that is exactly the sort of thing TfGM would want to at least consider?
Ok, I'll bite. If 'tramification' means a more frequent (but not significantly slower) service, more city centre destinations and lower unit operating costs hence more vehicle miles operated per pound subsidy, then I would have though that is exactly the sort of thing TfGM would want to at least consider?
Most stations on the line have decent canopies, however Hag Fold, Moorside, Hindley and Ince are a bit lacking in the "shelter" department (and yes I know some have shelters but nowhere near the scale of the rest of them)
I don't think tramification would adjust the stations pre-existing shelters, that feels like unnecessary work.
If anything it'd just have them start in Victoria alongside the current Leeds ones that start there.
Most stations on the line have decent canopies, however Hag Fold, Moorside, Hindley and Ince are a bit lacking in the "shelter" department (and yes I know some have shelters but nowhere near the scale of the rest of them)
I don't think tramification would adjust the stations pre-existing shelters, that feels like unnecessary work.
I don't know how much it'd be increased by being a tram, since the trams would be electric, we currently have diesel trains.
(I can't find stats for the acceleration of M500s and 150/156s, 158s 0.8m/s/s)
Just looked at that case, I was quite young at the time, until now I thought it'd've been closed since Beeching.
Although the current Oldham Mumps tram is not the same site as the train station's, the temporary metrolink terminus (At that site) is now overgrown nothingness, so the disappearance of the shelter is better fitting since now it'd be a liability.
I don't know how much it'd be increased by being a tram, since the trams would be electric, we currently have diesel trains.
(I can't find stats for the acceleration of M500s and 150/156s, 158s 0.8m/s/s)
Just looked at that case, I was quite young at the time, until now I thought it'd've been closed since Beeching.
Although the current Oldham Mumps tram is not the same site as the train station's, the temporary metrolink terminus (At that site) is now overgrown nothingness, so the disappearance of the shelter is better fitting since now it'd be a liability.
I certainly think the Atherton, Walkden and Swinton shelters will/would remain in Metrolink operation (And I would certainly hope they remain).
The "liability" is from the fact that the station (Old Oldham Mumps) is abandoned now and someone would have to deal with its rotting corpse.
I certainly think the Atherton, Walkden and Swinton shelters will/would remain in Metrolink operation (And I would certainly hope they remain).
The "liability" is from the fact that the station (Old Oldham Mumps) is abandoned now and someone would have to deal with its rotting corpse.
I admire your optimism regarding the current very good facilities on the Atherton line. But even if that happy situation were to come to pass, I would still end up stuck on a tram without a bog.
Yeah that would certainly be a negative to some people, I'd be willing to take higher frequency with lack of a toilet, although there'll be quite a bunch of people that won't work too well for.
At least there's toilets at Wigan's and Manchester's stations, so they'd be usable there, but certainly a negative.
Anyone know the current/planned longest distance operated by trams or tram-trains without access to a station toilet?
Yeah that would certainly be a negative to some people, I'd be willing to take higher frequency with lack of a toilet, although there'll be quite a bunch of people that won't work too well for.
At least there's toilets at Wigan's and Manchester's stations, so they'd be usable there, but certainly a negative.
Anyone know the current/planned longest distance operated by trams or tram-trains without access to a station toilet?
How often will local people travel to Leeds though? Surely improved access to Manchester city centre is worth the trade off for a slightly worse access to further-flung destinations?
How often will local people travel to Leeds though? Surely improved access to Manchester city centre is worth the trade off for a slightly worse access to further-flung destinations?
I do not think conversion of the Atherton route to Metrolink would be a good idea. Also, how easy would it be to share with Crow Nest Jn to Wigan when that becomes 25KV A.C. ?
Moreover, some of the Atherton line stations are less than ideally located relative to the town business or population centres. Atherton & Hindley stations are each a good 1/2 mile from their town centres, and Walkden must be about 1/4 mile from the centre. Trams are more useful when they serve those business or population centres.
Perhaps trams might be able to reuse the former fast lines formation as far as Walkden station and then go "on street" to serve Walkden Centre, and continue maybe as far as Farnworth? Or alternatively go as far as Atherton station and continue "on street" to Atherton Centre and Leigh ?
(Whilst retaining the heavy rail services through to Wigan & Southport. )
Yeah that would certainly be a negative to some people, I'd be willing to take higher frequency with lack of a toilet, although there'll be quite a bunch of people that won't work too well for.
At least there's toilets at Wigan's and Manchester's stations, so they'd be usable there, but certainly a negative.
Anyone know the current/planned longest distance operated by trams or tram-trains without access to a station toilet?
I don't think that'd be popular with the people in charge of the money with the 582 already serving that purpose.
The 582 (likely) brings a decent bit of traffic to Atherton station, with trams there it would (quite possibly) increase that flow, as the penalty for the bus being late (which as any bus route will, happens a lot) being lesser than the 30m it can be now.
I feel like for this conversation we should just consider that electrification as "complete" for any timescale of this project happening. The answer is I have literally no clue.
I think Metrolink could make good use of Wigan North Western Platform 3 to avoid needing to electrify under Wallgate, which I think they'll push down the road as far as they can.
I don't think that'd be popular with the people in charge of the money with the 582 already serving that purpose.
The 582 (likely) brings a decent bit of traffic to Atherton station, with trams there it would (quite possibly) increase that flow, as the penalty for the bus being late (which as any bus route will, happens a lot) being lesser than the 30m it can be now.
I feel like for this conversation we should just consider that electrification as "complete" for any timescale of this project happening. The answer is I have literally no clue.
I think Metrolink could make good use of Wigan North Western Platform 3 to avoid needing to electrify under Wallgate, which I think they'll push down the road as far as they can.
You can make the same argument about Huddersfield-Cas... Something where you regularly argue a bus is inadequate.
And as stated upthread a tram wouldn't be much slower than what is currently on offer.
Any 'tramification' of the Atherton route (and Marple / Rose Hill) would surely be using 'tram-trains' rather than as a dedicated Metrolink route. They can be dual voltage (the Sheffield / Rotherham vehicles are 25kV AC ready), mix it with heavy rail yet serve Manchester City Centre, and offer a superior passenger experience to the shockingly rough-riding M5000s.
Yes, fairly easy greenfield extension from that hypothetical line could serve Atherton,
Without going to indepth into guided busways, they always seem a bit weird for how much they cost compared to trams, for comparison the Nottingham tram phase 1 was £300mil vs £120mil for the leigh busway and £180mil for the Cambridge busway,
Yes, fairly easy greenfield extension from that hypothetical line could serve Atherton,
Without going to indepth into guided busways, they always seem a bit weird for how much they cost compared to trams, for comparison the Nottingham tram phase 1 was £300mil vs £120mil for the leigh busway and £180mil for the Cambridge busway,
No need for electrification and utility diversions for on street running.
With battery trams running on VLR technology, the economics could soon change to be more in favour of trams, especially if the rolling stock costs are excluded from the construction costs (busways tend to keep that separate, making them look better).
Busways are just a downgraded version of a regular tram system and generally a pretty niche solution for when a heavy rail route or tramway is simply unviable for the route but there is still a significant transport need. (Luton-Dunstable and maybe Leigh are good examples of this)
You can make the same argument about Huddersfield-Cas... Something where you regularly argue a bus is inadequate.
And as stated upthread a tram wouldn't be much slower than what is currently on offer.
You've ignored my point though, why are buses an adequate alternative to the train on the Atherton line but not Huddersfield-Cas? Why are long-distance passengers a priority on the former but local passengers a priority on the latter?
And when you consider trams' better penetration of the city centre compared to heavy rail it is seriously questionable whether they are slower than the current offering, especially considering superior electric acceleration.
A class 399 [just a tram-train reference] has 1.15m/s/s of acceleration, the 158 has 0.8m/s/s.
How would it be slower, when the max speed is still reachable and acceleration is better?
A class 399 [just a tram-train reference] has 1.15m/s/s of acceleration, the 158 has 0.8m/s/s.
How would it be slower, when the max speed is still reachable and acceleration is better?
I also use the 582 from time to time. Recently, it seems to be suffering the same problems as some TOCs - a big shortage of drivers for the operator (Diamond, part of Rotala group), with long gaps (up to 35 minutes) when there should be a bus every 12 minutes.
You've ignored my point though, why are buses an adequate alternative to the train on the Atherton line but not Huddersfield-Cas? Why are long-distance passengers a priority on the former but local passengers a priority on the latter?
And when you consider trams' better penetration of the city centre compared to heavy rail it is seriously questionable whether they are slower than the current offering, especially considering superior electric acceleration.
That's because on the Atherton route, the bus and the train serve different markets. If you want a slower journey, but thats a little bit more "door to door" because it stops more often, you get the bus. If you want a fastish journey to the centre of Manchester or the WCML, you get the train. The two complement eachother.
What you're talking about is shoehorning everyone onto the same mode of transport for journeys that aren't suitable.
As for the guided busway to Leigh, I'd rather it were re-opened as a railway. As it is, it doesn't suit my needs whereas the good, swift railway service from Atherton does.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
A class 399 [just a tram-train reference] has 1.15m/s/s of acceleration, the 158 has 0.8m/s/s.
How would it be slower, when the max speed is still reachable and acceleration is better?
I also use the 582 from time to time. Recently, it seems to be suffering the same problems as some TOCs - a big shortage of drivers for the operator (Diamond, part of Rotala group), with long gaps (up to 35 minutes) when there should be a bus every 12 minutes.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
