Greater Manchester potential projects (Rail & Road)

[tbtc]

10tph Eccles (Yes this is an improvment for the Eccles Route)
5tph Media City UK
5tph Port Salford

Good news if you live in Salford, I guess...

 

[Nym]

The problem with 3 car would be a double length one wouldn't fit anywhere, all the platforms are 4 cars long...

The way to maximise capacity would be to order 4 car units, then you gain 5m space over 2 * 2cars.

Am curious as to the new signalling system, is it entirely in cab when running segrigated?

And I know I rant on this a lot, but it really does hack me off that 'direct journeys' are more important than capacity.

'We'd loose a direct link to Bury & Oldham"

All you'd need to do is change at Cornbrook, and you'll have trains twice as long and re-gain direct links to Chester, Crewe and Warrington!

 

[WestCoast]

And I know I rant on this a lot, but it really does hack me off that 'direct journeys' are more important than capacity.

I agree, but in the UK, some passengers won't take a journey by public transport if it isn't direct like a car!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Am curious as to the new signalling system, is it entirely in cab when running segrigated?

Well, it's based on line-of-sight operation, and is being installed by Thales (it has been delayed), and is in use on many similar networks. Something like 80 trams per hour will be able to use the Central viaduct. I don't really know the technical side of it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Frequency would suffer under heavy rail, that is inevitable. People prefer an every 6 mins tram to an every 30 mins train. Connectivity throughout the whole area would also suffer.

The trams are designed to be doubled up - so you have four 'car' trams. They don't have to be walk through, there is no guard!

I think that the existing Metrolink users would be horrified if they were told that a 30 minute heavy rail service was to be reintroduced over an existing Metrolink line, in lieu of their usual 6 minute Metrolink frequency.:roll:

 

[Nym]

But would pepole prefer a tram every 6mins or a train every 6mins? (or at a push 10 mins for the less used stops)

 

[WatcherZero]

Id like to see them manage that frequency of heavy rail through Navigation Road.

 

[northwichcat]

Id like to see them manage that frequency of heavy rail through Navigation Road.

They managed 6tph heavy rail at peak times through Navigation Road before Metrolink conversion, where 3tph were express and 3tph were stopping, so I imagine you could get higher than 6tph with more consistent stopping patterns.

 

[WatcherZero]

At the moment theres what, 20 trams and 6 trains per hour through that section of bi-directional track?
The headway is 4 minutes so 52/60 minutes in the hour doesnt leave much room for delays, and thats assuming theres always two trains waiting to pass both the level crossings in opposite directions at exactly the same time.

 

[northwichcat]

At the moment theres what, 20 trams and 6 trains per hour through that section of bi-directional track?

In my above post I was meaning in each direction so there was a total of 12tph in both directions.

There's never 6tph over the single track rail section (except maybe if ATW are being diverted down the Mid Cheshire line.) Manchester to Chester is 1tph in each direction with two extra Chester-Stockport's in the morning peak and two extra Stockport-Chester's in the evening peak. That's a maximum of 3tph that are passenger trains plus freight trains and ATW ECS moves that are less frequent than hourly.

 

[Nym]

do i need to explicitly mention that if the alty line went back to heavy, nav road would be a simple 2track layout, capable of 12tph per direction? Could you not work that out on your own?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think what is being lost here, in all the wonderful heavy rail versus tram argument, is the actual travelling needs of the public, especially the travel to-and-from work travellers, who disembark/embark in their thousands in various city centre locations every peak period.

The other point, since Altrincham and Navigation Road are being discussed, is the DIRECT Altrincham to Bury service. This has been totally overlooked and I see no heavy rail alternative to it, much as I have examined railway maps going back many years, in the hope of tracing a long lost Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway equivalent.

 

[stockport1]

I think what is being lost here, in all the wonderful heavy rail versus tram argument, is the actual travelling needs of the public, especially the travel to-and-from work travellers, who disembark/embark in their thousands in various city centre locations every peak period.

The other point, since Altrincham and Navigation Road are being discussed, is the DIRECT Altrincham to Bury service. This has been totally overlooked and I see no heavy rail alternative to it, much as I have examined railway maps going back many years, in the hope of tracing a long lost Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway equivalent.

i think a better service to knutsford and northwich and chester would trump the very few passsengers who would have to change at central to continue to bury and the extra paths released through stockport to manchester

its about the bigger picture.

 

[northwichcat]

I think what is being lost here, in all the wonderful heavy rail versus tram argument, is the actual travelling needs of the public, especially the travel to-and-from work travellers, who disembark/embark in their thousands in various city centre locations every peak period.

The other point, since Altrincham and Navigation Road are being discussed, is the DIRECT Altrincham to Bury service. This has been totally overlooked and I see no heavy rail alternative to it, much as I have examined railway maps going back many years, in the hope of tracing a long lost Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway equivalent.

That's where the Metrolink idea went wrong.

Someone once suggested on a forum that instead of going for a tram system GMPTE should have gone for a French style RER system - which isn't too dis-similar to what Liverpool has. I think that would have worked well.

There could have been new underground stops at Deansgate, Piccadilly, Victoria and St Peters Square. The Chester trains would have continued to Deansgate (upper level), while local trains from Altrincham would have gone to Deansgate (lower level) and on to Victoria and Bury semi-fast, while another service from Bury could have continued to Piccadilly serving all stops.

The Oldham Loop would have been added in without any further infrastructure changes, while a spur off the Manchester-Warrington line could have added Old Trafford and Salford Quays to the system.

In the circumstances we have now - where it would cost a lot of money to change back to heavy rail - the best solution would be a half-hourly Chester to Stockport service serving all stations, with a tram-train running semi-fast from Greenbank to Manchester Victoria via Sale. The tram-train should have comfy seating, luggage space and an on board toilet and be treated as a National Rail service.

The headway is 4 minutes so 52/60 minutes in the hour doesnt leave much room for delays, and thats assuming theres always two trains waiting to pass both the level crossings in opposite directions at exactly the same time.

Locally the signallers are being criticised for keeping the barriers at Navigation Road down for too long. For instance, someone quoted that the barriers are put down at 07:58 and then not put back up until after the 08:04 train has gone through, meaning if you're planning to catch the 08:04 train and the wrong side of the road you need to be at the station by 07:57, otherwise you'll be left watching the train leave without you. (http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansbl...-road-level-crossing-is-this-your-experience/)

You could surely make the trams larger (i.e. 3 car which could then be doubled).

The platforms that weren't originally BR only allow for maximum 4 car operation, meaning if you lengthen the trams, you remove the option to double up unless you implement a platform lengthening program.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think a better service to Knutsford and Northwich and Chester would trump the very few passsengers who would have to change at Central to continue to Bury and the extra paths released through Stockport to Manchester

Its about the bigger picture.

That is a bit of a subject change that has thrown me. The Altrincham to Bury is an EXISTING through Metrolink service, not a hypothetical one dreamed up by me. I do not recall the Chester service entering into my supposition, much as it offers new tourist potential.

However, since you have raised the matter, provided that there are the available stock and path availability, there is no one more than me who would like to see a more frequent heavy-rail service on the mid-Cheshire line, via Stockport, to Manchester. I was a member of the Mid-Cheshire Rail Users Association way back in the 1980's when Andrew MacFarlane was a leading light in the organisation. It was only a change of business base that caused me to relocate to our European offices that ended my association with those good people.

I would also refer you to Dave Roberts who is still fighting the good fight after very many years to try to see Middlewich back as part of the national rail network. He made a posting or a thread, on one of the sub-forums on this web-site not so very long ago, about this very matter.

I think that my answer, as stated above, answers your query as to me seeing the bigger picture.

 

[Nym]

Not to mention that if there where sections of 4 track added aswell it would speed up (dramatically) journey times from the Mid Cheshire Line into Manchester, as the diesels could run non-stop or limited stop and overtake stoppers.

Not to mention being able to re-open the link to Lymm and Warrington...

And with sections of 4 track it would be easy to path upto 12tph on the route, and peak services could be 6 or 8 car units. And there could be a step increase in the services on the CLC as a result of re-opening Central and providing a connection from the CLC to Central at Cornbrook with the station layed out as a full interchange with 9 or more platforms.

I'm sure the CLC rail users would be very happy with 4tph into Manchester...

 

[northwichcat]

I was a member of the Mid-Cheshire Rail Users Association way back in the 1980's when Andrew MacFarlane was a leading light in the organisation. It was only a change of business base that caused me to relocate to our European offices that ended my association with those good people.

Things have changed a lot since then. The 1980s saw 1st gen units turning up at what ever time they felt like and rail usage in decline. Today the service is relatively punctual, people are working further away from home and more people make leisure trips by train. Manchester was a city in decline until the mid-1990s when an IRA bomb directly resulted in a regeneration project being undertaken.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not to mention that if there where sections of 4 track added aswell it would speed up (dramatically) journey times from the Mid Cheshire Line into Manchester, as the diesels could run non-stop or limited stop and overtake stoppers.

Not to mention being able to re-open the link to Lymm and Warrington...

And with sections of 4 track it would be easy to path upto 12tph on the route, and peak services could be 6 or 8 car units. And there could be a step increase in the services on the CLC as a result of re-opening Central and providing a connection from the CLC to Central at Cornbrook with the station layed out as a full interchange with 9 or more platforms.

I'm sure the CLC rail users would be very happy with 4tph into Manchester...

I can't see there ever being 4 track between Altrincham and Cornbrook - there's too many buildings, rivers etc. close to the line.

The best way of getting more trains (not tram-trains) between the Mid Cheshire line and Manchester would be to build the proposed westerly Airport link, which would allow trains which currently terminate at the Airport to continue to Chester or North Wales.

I like the once mooted suggestion of Liverpool-Runcorn-Northwich-Knutsford-Manchester Airport-Piccadilly.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Things have changed a lot since then. The 1980s saw 1st gen units turning up at what ever time they felt like and rail usage in decline. Today the service is relatively punctual, people are working further away from home and more people make leisure trips by train. Manchester was a city in decline until the mid-1990s when an IRA bomb directly resulted in a regeneration project being undertaken.

I hope that you noted in my posting #44 yesterday, that I referred to : -

A more frequent heavy rail service on the mid-Cheshire line via Stockport,....to Manchester. i.e. the line service that runs at this present time.

Just had to make this clear of what I meant when I made that posting.

 

[Nym]

And what magic wand are we using to find paths through stockport?

Without grade seperating Slade Lane and 6 tracking from there to Ardwick (Then 8 track from Ardwick to Piccadilly) I can't see any more paths on that line.

Bearing in mind there would only be two major things to do to revert the Alt'ham line back to heavy, join in the CLC and send them both into Central, compared to the cost of building under Manchester Airport, and diverting the Mid Cheshire Line away from Alt'ham (that would be quite unpopular!).

Doing the project as laid out on that google maps shortcut dramatically increases the capacity of two lines into Manchester, and helps a 3rd by removing a Diesel Path.

With the growth expected in the north soon, shouldn't we be futureproofing the networks while we still can.

There may not be demand now for 2, 3 or 4 tph on the Mid Cheshire Line, but if journey times where reduced, trains improved, and frequency increased then what did VXC show us would happen?

Same for the CLC Route, it sees 4tph now and is saturated and can't cope, crossing paths at Oxford road into platforms 5 or 6 is idiotic and wastes so many paths over the viaduct, and if 4, or even 6 tph where to terminate at Piccadilly, where would they be sent? Unless they don't stop at Platforms 15 and 16, and build 17 and 18 aswell, or slot in a couple of centre road turnbacks to the south there isn't a convenient way to turnround services, expecially if we're looking at 16tph over the viaduct.

I wasn't sudgesting all of the Alt'ham line be 4 tracked, only where convenient to do so and the trackbed isn't completely gone. At a glance, between Sale and Stretford, Just NE of Stephenson Road to Trafford Bar.

And of course, there would be the benifit of incresed linespeed and reduced journey times into Manchester.

36mins via Stockport and 26mins via Sale?

So, with linespeed increases and express services able to overtake stoppers (linespeed for metrolink is 50mph, easilly change that up to 75/90, depending on the intended Diesel Stock)

Journey times could be reduced to under 20mins via Sale. I'm sure the mid Cheshire Line would appreciate 15mins off their journey into Manchester, and the potential to quadruple frequency of service. It would also bring Chester much closer to within an hour of Manchester via the Mid Cheshire Line, making it more competetive with the overcrowded route via Earlstown and Warrington. A few extra tweaks to the route and I'd bet it could be braught sub 1 hour.

Oh, and before somone shouts at me, I'd look at trying to regain the ability to run services from the Alt'ham line through Deansgate, OR and Piccadilly, so that the Mid Cheshire Line could be combined with the Buxton Line for through running at Piccadilly, making sure links aren't lost at Piccadilly. Although this would mean an alteration of the proposed layout at Cornbrook. From NW to SE it would need to be re-arranged Metrolink - Alt'ham to Central - CLC to Central (Where the Met Currently Sits) - CLC Through, with the Alt'ham to Knot Mill being a coard back onto the old CLC route, but that would be quite tight and might mean splitting a platform in half, and even then, there would be a pretty steep gradient, the only alternative I can see being a single or twin track bridge over the Bridgewater way, but doing that would change the whole layout of the station. (Of course the easy and very unpolular way around this would be to close Cornbrook, or initally not have trains calling there, but that isn't really an option)...

Hmmm, one is now wondering if a bridge over bridgewater way would a: be possible, b: mean a better layout.

If you wanted to go mad, retaining a 30min shuttle between Stockport and Alt'ham could work nicely, ideal for a 153 I'd say, and could prove popular if combined with the re-opening of some of the stations on route.


EDIT: Done some more pointless thinking, how about 4 platforms of heavy and two (or three) of light rail at Cornbrook. Coming from central there would be a two track 8 car platform on the viaduct, at the end of this a grade seperated junction formed of:

Down Alt
Down CLC
Up CLC
UP Alt

That would merge immediatly prior to the platforms (but be built in such a way that two more can be added later)

The line to alt'ham would immidiatly start to rise on a viaduct to be carried over the bridgewater way and current CLC on a bridge with as gentler gradients as possible, comparing space with some other viaducts about the country it would seem there is space.

The line from Alt'ham would approach as is now, but the gradient would be smothed out, meeting track level at Panoma Strand. Again, should be smooth enough.

The CLC would run between the two under the dn alt, and then merge onto the Current CLC SW of Panoma Strand.

If it would be too steep for that to happen over Bridgewater Way, then with the metrolink kicked off to where I'm about to say, the alt'ham line run the way it does now, but it would require 4 platforms for this layout, extending the viaduct NW toward the river. And demolishing (potentally) part of the old one, to smooth out the gradients enough for heavy rail. But without the junction after passing under the CLC it should be shallow enough for heavy rail by panoma strand.

Looking at it with some measurments, the Caledonean Road Viaduct (Kings Cross Tunnels) is 760ft long end to end, and there is 820ft to plat with to get the alt'ham lines into line with the central viaduct track level. And that only has to go up, not up and down.

So thinking as I type. Move the Metrolink to the SE of it's current site, or the NW, either's good, it will need to cross some heavy rail on a bridge wherever it's put. I'm favouring the NW, with a new bridge over the river next to Panoma Strand. Then join the Viaduct on the NW Side and in one weekend possession, the bridge to cross from one side to the other could be placed and commissioned, or one half at a time.

Cornbrook could initally open with 2 heavy and 2 light platforms. With sight to extending to 4 heavy, with grade seperation provided at the Alt'ham side, I'll draw a diagram later if anyone cares, but I'd have the CLC with a single line branch to the NW before the Altham line passed under so that the tracks into Cornbrook could be paired by direction. If 4 platforms where provided it would be two per direction, as is common sense.

New sections of viaduct to the NW would incorporate an undercroft car park, ticket office and waiting area etc. And this layout would allow through services from Knot Mill to Alt'ham, there would be (just) enough space for a link either north or south of the platforms onto the Altham line, but it would mean some crossing movments, or a 6 platform layout with platforms on the current CLC tracks, that would need to cross a few lines to get there, so it's not a desirable movment, but if the movment was possible to the North East, it could be a bit healthyer, but would restrict platform length to 6 car. So a link at the south west end would be best, nothing fancy, just a 2 track slew junction immidiately south of Panoma Strand. The only major confilct would be South West bound traffic needing to wait for the crossing manuvre, but with 4 platforms facing central, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. And isn't a problem at all for through CLC services, they'd only be corsssing eachother.

Anyway, I've ranted enough for one morning on this thread now... Enjoy saying it won't work..

 

[Invincibles]

I just do not see any benefit of making Altrincham to Manchester via Sale heavy rail.

There are major works needed at the Cornbrook end and the whole thing only works with a new Manchester Central, which is not realisitic imo.

It is far better to have a regular tram shuttling along between Altrincham and Manchester serving all of the important city centre destinations (and with 2CC it will serve even more) so that people can change at Altrincham and take that.

I would look at a second service on the Mid Cheshire, but terminate it at Altrincham (Adding turn back facilities if these are needed) in the platform that adjoins the metrolink.

People then have a choice of the hourly direct to Piccadilly via Stockport or to change at Altrincham for the tram.

Indeed you can start looking at things like Wrexham - Manchester supplemented by a Chester - Altricham shuttle.

My major Manchester project would be a chord in Reddish to allow slower services to Piccadilly to route via platform 0 at Stockport and there (effectively a short single line stretch devoted to Buxton/Hazel Grove to Manchester services) into Piccadilly platforms 1-4. Hadfield and Glossop would move to Victoria as extensions of electric trains from the west.

 

[Nym]

You'd still need to jam them onto Stockport Viaduct though.

And I havn't seen any exibitions in the main hall at Manchester Central in a long time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I just do not see any benefit of making Altrincham to Manchester via Sale heavy rail.

Asside from knocking 15mins off the journey on the Mid Cheshire Line?

There are major works needed at the Cornbrook end and the whole thing only works with a new Manchester Central, which is not realisitic imo.

Manchester Central doesn't see that many confrences any more, and while we're looking at spending hundreds of millions on a pair of platforms over Fairfeild Street, do you not think that looking at brining Central back into use should be entertained, especially if combined with a major project for the alt'ham line, returning it to heavy, and in the edit of my above post, I've worked out just how major the works would need to be, it's not as major as some would think.

It is far better to have a regular tram shuttling along between Altrincham and Manchester serving all of the important city centre destinations (and with 2CC it will serve even more) so that people can change at Altrincham and take that.

The 2CC should still go ahead, theres many tram lines in Greater Manchester that could be and should be built, but if each line wants 10tph or even 5 or 6tph, even with 2CC there just won't be the space later on.

Personally I do like the Met for routes like Port Salford, Wythenshawe, Eccles, and to an extent, Oldham, (but it should have suplimented, not replaced) and East Manchester/ Ashton. I'd like to see more routes where it's predominatly street/segrigated running rather than closing or re-opening heavy rail, that could well be used as heavy rail.

I would look at a second service on the Mid Cheshire, but terminate it at Altrincham (Adding turn back facilities if these are needed) in the platform that adjoins the metrolink.

People then have a choice of the hourly direct to Piccadilly via Stockport or to change at Altrincham for the tram.

Yes, it would be nice to have a 2nd with a turnback at Alt'ham in the short term, but as pepole have said, that means chaning trains!

If it where 2 or 3 through services per hour and 15 mins quicker, perhaps it would tempt more cheshire commuters out of their cars and free up the very congested M56, and I know some pepole commute into Stockport, hence keeping that link.

In the world of the greater good, whats more important,

a) Direct Journeys from Alt'ham to Bury / Oldham via Manchester City Centre
b) up to 6tph for the CLC, up to 12tph for Alt'ham, 15mins quicker from the Mid Cheshire, and a diversionary route for when Piccadilly needs works doing (that will be soon for HS2)

Indeed you can start looking at things like Wrexham - Manchester supplemented by a Chester - Altricham shuttle.

My major Manchester project would be a chord in Reddish to allow slower services to Piccadilly to route via platform 0 at Stockport and there (effectively a short single line stretch devoted to Buxton/Hazel Grove to Manchester services) into Piccadilly platforms 1-4. Hadfield and Glossop would move to Victoria as extensions of electric trains from the west.

Can I have your magic paths on the stockport viaduct machine please?

And for the amount this cord would cost, why not have a flying junction at Slade Lane? That would provide much more capacity for futre, and facilitate 6 track from Slade Lane to Ardwick. And fasts could run faster, not needing to slow for Slade Ln Jcn.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And what magic wand are we using to find paths through stockport?

Anyway, I've ranted enough for one morning on this thread now... Enjoy saying it won't work..

I was stating the point that the current Chester-Altrincham-Stockport-Manchester heavy rail route does indeed take its route THROUGH STOCKPORT and that there are already dedicated paths for the timetabled use of this service as it runs at present.

Are you fully sure that all path capacity in Stockport is at the maximum amount possible and that there can not be any increase in services from Stockport to Manchester Piccadilly from services run by Virgin, XC, First TPE, East Midlands or Northern?

If there is a problem, the new ADDITIONAL Chester service would terminate at Altrincham,, where passengers would transfer to the extremely frequent Altrincham to Manchester Metrolink service.

 

[tbtc]

In the world of the greater good, whats more important,

a) Direct Journeys from Alt'ham to Bury / Oldham via Manchester City Centre
b) up to 6tph for the CLC, up to 12tph for Alt'ham, 15mins quicker from the Mid Cheshire, and a diversionary route for when Piccadilly needs works doing (that will be soon for HS2)

I could similarly ask in the world of the greater good, whats more important:

A. Getting rid of a fairly modern tram line?
B. Spending the money upgrading some of the other lines which haven't had much investment in recent years?

 

[northwichcat]

I was stating the point that the current Chester-Altrincham-Stockport-Manchester heavy rail route does indeed take its route THROUGH STOCKPORT and that there are already dedicated paths for the timetabled use of this service as it runs at present.

Are you fully sure that all path capacity in Stockport is at the maximum amount possible and that there can not be any increase in services from Stockport to Manchester Piccadilly from services run by Virgin, XC, First TPE, East Midlands or Northern?

If there is a problem, the new ADDITIONAL Chester service would terminate at Altrincham,, where passengers would transfer to the extremely frequent Altrincham to Manchester Metrolink service.

Stockport-Manchester is full to capacity between 07:00 and 09:00 and also between 16:30 and 18:30. Outside of these times there should be capacity to allow at least one additional service an hour without preventing the Trafford Park freight and ECS moves.

The problems with a Metrolink connection at Altrincham are as follows:
1. Tickets are not interchangeable between Altrincham and Manchester.
2. Combined tickets do not allow railcard discounts.
3. No combined tickets are available for journeys like Knutsford-Huddersfield or Northwich-Bolton using the Metrolink between Altrincham and Manchester.
4. No large luggage allowed on Metrolink.
5. Bikes aren't permitted on trams. Many Mid-Cheshire line trains run with the full allocation of bike space taken up.
6. Trams run to an flexible timetable so it's difficult to make connections at Altrincham in a southbound way.

As a suggestion why not the following and kill two birds with one stone:
* Hazel Grove services diverted to Victoria calling at intermediate stations between Stockport and Victoria.
* New Northwich-Stockport service takes over the Stockport-Preston part of the Hazel Grove service.

The criticism with sending an additional Northwich-Stockport service up the Denton line before has been it would use more paths than if it came from the Hazel Grove direction.

The Northwich-Preston service would omit Plumley, Mobberley and Ashley as those stations can't justify 2tph off-peak and MCRUA are keen for them to keep direct links to both Chester and Manchester.

 

[Holly]

I just do not see any benefit of making Altrincham to Manchester via Sale heavy rail.
.

If there is money can be spent (hah!) to improve links in that area it would be better to spend it creating (reinstating?) an Altrincham-Partington-Cadishead-Manchester semi-fast route.
That would take pressure off Stockport and create additional capacity and useful diversion routes.

 

[Invincibles]

Stockport-Manchester is full to capacity between 07:00 and 09:00 and also between 16:30 and 18:30. Outside of these times there should be capacity to allow at least one additional service an hour without preventing the Trafford Park freight and ECS moves.

The problems with a Metrolink connection at Altrincham are as follows:
1. Tickets are not interchangeable between Altrincham and Manchester.
2. Combined tickets do not allow railcard discounts.
3. No combined tickets are available for journeys like Knutsford-Huddersfield or Northwich-Bolton using the Metrolink between Altrincham and Manchester.
4. No large luggage allowed on Metrolink.
5. Bikes aren't permitted on trams. Many Mid-Cheshire line trains run with the full allocation of bike space taken up.
6. Trams run to an flexible timetable so it's difficult to make connections at Altrincham in a southbound way.

As a suggestion why not the following and kill two birds with one stone:
* Hazel Grove services diverted to Victoria calling at intermediate stations between Stockport and Victoria.
* New Northwich-Stockport service takes over the Stockport-Preston part of the Hazel Grove service.

The criticism with sending an additional Northwich-Stockport service up the Denton line before has been it would use more paths than if it came from I think the Hazel Grove can easily be sent via the Denton line without causing too many problems.

If there are issues of paths over Stockport viaduct then I appreciate using the US (is that how it is labelled) to get to/from platform 0 is going to need paths. But I assumed that the real problem was what happened to these trains further up the route (particularly thinking some paths have Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme stops slowing them down)

The Northwich-Preston service would omit Plumley, Mobberley and Ashley as those stations can't justify 2tph off-peak and MCRUA are keen for them to keep direct links to both Chester and Manchester.

The problem as I understand it is single track between Altrincham and Stockport which is difficult to overcome. This is why I sugested the Altrincham terminator. If people want the through journey then they can choose the direct piccadilly train with the Altrincham terminator simply picking up extra stops and creating extra capacity.

The PTE would need to work with Metrolink to ensure that tickets could be issued from anywhere on the Mid Cheshire to anywhere on Metrolink using the Altrincham terminator. This is not beyond the realms of possibility.

 

[northwichcat]

The problem as I understand it is single track between Altrincham and Stockport which is difficult to overcome.

There's only two relatively short sections of single track - one between Skelton Junction and Navigation Road with the speed limit going as low as 15mph and another at Northenden with a 50mph speed limit. The rest of the line is mainly 60-75mph. Half-hourly frequency in both directions shouldn't be any issue between Northwich and Stockport. Although for a half hourly frequency between Chester and Stockport both directions I imagine there could be an issue as there's another single track section in the Mouldsworth area. Although, the issue would be extended journey times which could be cut back by not all services calling at all stations. For instance, omitting Navigation Road would reduce the amount of time the train spends on the single track.

The PTE would need to work with Metrolink to ensure that tickets could be issued from anywhere on the Mid Cheshire to anywhere on Metrolink using the Altrincham terminator. This is not beyond the realms of possibility.

You do create an issue in doing that though. If you accept Hale-Manchester railcard discounted tickets on trams then people using tram stops further up will buy railcards and Hale-Manchester tickets instead of Metrolink tickets.

 

[Invincibles]

There's only two relatively short sections of single track - one between Skelton Junction and Navigation Road with the speed limit going as low as 15mph and another at Northenden with a 50mph speed limit. The rest of the line is mainly 60-75mph. Half-hourly frequency in both directions shouldn't be any issue between Northwich and Stockport. Although for a half hourly frequency between Chester and Stockport both directions I imagine there could be an issue as there's another single track section in the Mouldsworth area. Although, the issue would be extended journey times which could be cut back by not all services calling at all stations. For instance, omitting Navigation Road would reduce the amount of time the train spends on the single track.

If the train can make it to Stockport then of course that is a good thing, I was just under the impression that it would be hard. The Hazel Grove - Preston path seems a natural one to steal as it runs on Platform 4 going to Manchester and involves the unit crossing the lines just south of Stockport (which any train from Altrincham would not). However there is still the need to get the additional train across the lines as it heads for Altrincham so all is not perfect.

An Altrincham terminator has a few advantages for flexibility even if we are still then left with:

You do create an issue in doing that though. If you accept Hale-Manchester railcard discounted tickets on trams then people using tram stops further up will buy railcards and Hale-Manchester tickets instead of Metrolink tickets.

Which either has to be accepted as the way of things or things have to be done to prevent people buying tickets that are not the ones they should use.

I actually do not think there is much wrong with the suggestion of Hale tickets as you would have to go to Hale to buy them if you were city centre bound and that is a lot of effort imo.

 

[northwichcat]

I actually do not think there is much wrong with the suggestion of Hale tickets as you would have to go to Hale to buy them if you were city centre bound and that is a lot of effort imo.

You should be able to purchase a ticket with any from destination from any station. For instance, a lot of business people in Cheshire turn up at ticket offices and ask for London tickets from Crewe for the next day, week etc.

They could also make out they had either just got the train from Hale and been unable to buy on board (Hale ticket office is only part time) or that they are doing Altrincham-Manchester but want to return to Hale.

 

[Invincibles]

You should be able to purchase a ticket with any from destination from any station. For instance, a lot of business people in Cheshire turn up at ticket offices and ask for London tickets from Crewe for the next day, week etc.

They could also make out they had either just got the train from Hale and been unable to buy on board (Hale ticket office is only part time) or that they are doing Altrincham-Manchester but want to return to Hale.

Still involves a lot of messing around and a real ticket seller, not a ticket machine. So you would actually have to find staff able to sell rail tickets.

I would suggest that people who did not have their ticket from the heavy rail would have to buy metrolink tickets and would then have to think about their return journey seperately. It is not convenient but they would need to do that I think. I would certainly not expect Metrolink ticket inspectors to suddenly sell non Metrolink tickets.

 

[northwichcat]

I would certainly not expect Metrolink ticket inspectors to suddenly sell non Metrolink tickets.

Metrolink ticket inspectors do not sell tickets they only hand out penalty fares to people who didn't buy tickets before they boarded. The ticket sellers at Altrincham booking office are Northern Rail and I'm sure Northern Rail wouldn't mind getting some extra commission, as long as they weren't seen as encouraging people to act in the wrong.