Manchester Metrolink: how could it be improved?

[HSTEd]

For 2, 3 and 4, rather than turning into Metrolink, I'd build substantial numbers of new terminating platforms into the area of the Picadilly HS2 station, then do some Borough Market/Londom Bridge style track widening. This will allow reasonable frequencies to be provided with full length trains. The chance to build new terminating platforms is worth making the most of, at least after 15 and 16, the new through platforms, have been built.

That would be extremely expensive however, and would probably require significantly greater ongoing operational subsidy.

With an independent third city crossing we can provide 4/5 or 8/10 ~55m trains per hour on all routes for a comparatively small sum of money.
That would be such a major uplift of capacity that it would take a long time to fill it in any case.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With an independent third city crossing we can provide 4/5 or 8/10 ~55m trains per hour on all routes for a comparatively small sum of money.
That would be such a major uplift of capacity that it would take a long time to fill it in any case.

With this being a Metrolink-related thread, what class of trains are you referring to above?

 

[HSTEd]

With this being a Metrolink-related thread, what class of trains are you referring to above?

Well, Metrolink M5000 double units come out to ~52m or so, the previous double T68 type trams came to ~58m.

Hypothetically, double length tram units of ~55m length could be ordered for Metrolink without requiring expenisve and highly disruptive platform extensions. The removal of cabs and such would allow measurably more capacity than a double tram.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

With note of what you say concerning line closure, it is worth keeping that line open as a dedicated freight train line, noting the type of traffic that it carries which take countless lorry loads off the road.

If the line were to be closed to passengers, I would imagine it to remain open to the decent number of freight services.
As such if Stockport - Altrincham is served directly by that line it could not be trams, they would need to be able to work alongside the freight trains, although I don't know how much frequency would be obtainable thanks to the single line sections.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the line were to be closed to passengers, I would imagine it to remain open to the decent number of freight services.
As such if Stockport - Altrincham is served directly by that line it could not be trams, they would need to be able to work alongside the freight trains, although I don't know how much frequency would be obtainable thanks to the single line sections.

Indeed so. If that line were to be closed to passengers, just think how much could be saved by not building the new station at Cheadle.

 

[Bantamzen]

For lines to be converted to Metrolink (either completely or tram train) I'd go for something like:

1. Atherton to Wigan
2: Rose Hill Marple/New MIlls Central - concentrate Hope Valley via Hazel Grove
3. Glossop/Hadfield
4. Local Services out to Greenfield post NPR (assuming any kind of new line happens ofcourse)
5. CLC, splitting with Merseyrail at Warrington.

Possibly stretching to Northwich and Buxton if specialised tram-train stock can be provided along the lines of German S-bahn tram trains.

Over most of these journeys, any degradation of journey times would be made up with a 4/5tph (whatever happens long term) frequency base.

On the Warrington / Northwich routes, unless both where proposed to be operated by S-Bahn type stock I'd say they should be a hard no for tram operation. With all an stopper on both it can be a long trundle into Manchester (especially on the Mid Cheshire), operate it with train / tram-train and it's going to be a rough commute if traditional tram configurations are used for the stock operating them. Plus on the Warrington route what are you going to do with the 2 fast TPE & EMR routes, they're not going to work well with more stopper services to trip over, and moving them or terminating them short is going to mean a serious loss of connectivity for Warrington.

 

[TheGrew]

Don't you think that the Leigh guided busway on its dedicated section with just a few well-spaced stops does a good job?

I think it does a reasonable job; however, I think the 'separated' bit ends too soon. I would continue to run it over the old railway alignment to at least Worsley Road or Monton.
I also think, for better or worse, the public prefers trams to buses on the whole, and it gives off a certain amount of 'network thinking'. Similarly, in London, I think the Thameslink core is underused because it doesn't appear on tube maps, unlike the operationally similar (at least in the 'core') Elizabeth Line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think it does a reasonable job; however, I think the 'separated' bit ends too soon. I would continue to run it over the old railway alignment to at least Worsley Road or Monton.
I also think, for better or worse, the public prefers trams to buses on the whole, and it gives off a certain amount of 'network thinking'. Similarly, in London, I think the Thameslink core is underused because it doesn't appear on tube maps, unlike the operationally similar (at least in the 'core') Elizabeth Line.

From what I was told at the time, the existing Ellenbrook stop was ideally situated, being a short-distance away from the bus lane new sections on the East Lancashire Road which were installed as part and parcel of the Leigh Guided Busway

 

[HSTEd]

On the Warrington / Northwich routes, unless both where proposed to be operated by S-Bahn type stock I'd say they should be a hard no for tram operation. With all an stopper on both it can be a long trundle into Manchester (especially on the Mid Cheshire), operate it with train / tram-train and it's going to be a rough commute if traditional tram configurations are used for the stock operating them.

A tram or tram train is going to leave the low performance DMUs used today in the dust, so I expect the journey times would still end up significantly shorter than the stopping service today, but at higher frequency from the bulk of stations. I think Merseyrail and Metrolink show that frequency really is the greatest draw for passengers - to quote our American transit-activity cousins "frequency is freedom".

I'd guess you could have some sort of compromise interior, perhaps resembling the Metropolitan line S-stock in concept. But I personally don't found vibrating DMUs to be particularly comfortable at the best of times, although modern units do do much better in that respect.

Plus on the Warrington route what are you going to do with the 2 fast TPE & EMR routes, they're not going to work well with more stopper services to trip over, and moving them or terminating them short is going to mean a serious loss of connectivity for Warrington.

I'd suggest the fast trains would be concentrated onto the line via Chat Moss. Warrington would retain its current fast service to Manchester over the Chat Moss from Bank Quay, but there would be nothing else on the eastern half of the CLC. The western half would be turned over to Merseyrail services extended from Hunts Cross.

 

[Topological]

I'd suggest the fast trains would be concentrated onto the line via Chat Moss. Warrington would retain its current fast service to Manchester over the Chat Moss from Bank Quay, but there would be nothing else on the eastern half of the CLC. The western half would be turned over to Merseyrail services extended from Hunts Cross.

Well into speculation here. However, could you feasibly add another platform (5) to Warrington Bank Quay on the old ICI side. It looks like there is space.

Then have more trains from Lime Street to Bank Quay and from Manchester to Bank Quay, using the capacity on the West side to terminate/reverse. This will minimise conflicts with the WCML, especially if trains can use the westerly most track on the 4-track section. Traksy suggests that is currently signalled as if a down slow, so it might need making bi-directional. Trains towards Warrington would use this line, where trains away from Warrington could use either this line, or the fast. Even a short section of bi-directional single track should not be too problematic for the additional terminators.

One of the two CLC fasts would then route into Bank Quay to maintain Eastbound connectivity to Sheffield from Warrington. That provides a second hourly service between Bank Quay and Piccadilly/Oxford Road. The other ex-CLC fast would continue to Lime Street. There would also be at least one Lime Street stopper going into Bank Quay to terminate since there would be less space on the Eastern half of the CLC.

Of course, the Liverpool to Manchester high speed line solves all of this since there would be plenty of fasts and both the CLC and Chat Moss can be used for increases suburban stopping services. That project is just too useful to get built though.

 

[Bantamzen]

A tram or tram train is going to leave the low performance DMUs used today in the dust, so I expect the journey times would still end up significantly shorter than the stopping service today, but at higher frequency from the bulk of stations. I think Merseyrail and Metrolink show that frequency really is the greatest draw for passengers - to quote our American transit-activity cousins "frequency is freedom".

I'd guess you could have some sort of compromise interior, perhaps resembling the Metropolitan line S-stock in concept. But I personally don't found vibrating DMUs to be particularly comfortable at the best of times, although modern units do do much better in that respect.

But still not as quick as the current fasts, and to be fair some of the stoppers are run using 195s with the 15x stock due to go the way of the Dodo by the early part of next decade. So for the extra frequency, there's still the prospect of longer journey times on a good proportion of journeys. And realistically how many could actually be run, then rammed into all the existing services through the city centre, especially given your proposals for others coming off heavy rail routes and into the centre?

At this point I'd suggest trying to shoehorn in extra services from outside of Greater Manchester is going to need a lot of extra capacity in the centre, so maybe start off with looking if there are ways of a 3rd centre crossing to avoid the Deansgate - St Peters bottleneck. One thought I've had with the Crayolas is an alignment dropping down off the Castlefield Viaduct onto Bridgewater Street below Deansgate-Castlefield, then Deansgate which these days is giving off very strong "tram me" vibes. A line could then run along there towards Exchange Square / Victoria and even Shudehill if needs be. Or if we use the really big Crayolas have it head down Peter's Street down towards Oxford Road and on to serve that big hole in the Metrolink network to the south of the city.

 

[lowe1409]

But still not as quick as the current fasts, and to be fair some of the stoppers are run using 195s with the 15x stock due to go the way of the Dodo by the early part of next decade. So for the extra frequency, there's still the prospect of longer journey times on a good proportion of journeys. And realistically how many could actually be run, then rammed into all the existing services through the city centre, especially given your proposals for others coming off heavy rail routes and into the centre?

At this point I'd suggest trying to shoehorn in extra services from outside of Greater Manchester is going to need a lot of extra capacity in the centre, so maybe start off with looking if there are ways of a 3rd centre crossing to avoid the Deansgate - St Peters bottleneck. One thought I've had with the Crayolas is an alignment dropping down off the Castlefield Viaduct onto Bridgewater Street below Deansgate-Castlefield, then Deansgate which these days is giving off very strong "tram me" vibes. A line could then run along there towards Exchange Square / Victoria and even Shudehill if needs be. Or if we use the really big Crayolas have it head down Peter's Street down towards Oxford Road and on to serve that big hole in the Metrolink network to the south of the city.

An on street route via Oxford road/Wilmslow road would never be immensely popular as most big destinations such as rusholme and the curry mile would not be easy to serve given the lack of space at street surface. Could a potential fallow field loop conversion not be a better way to serve the gap along with potential connectivity to existing heavy rail lines?

 

[Bantamzen]

An on street route via Oxford road/Wilmslow road would never be immensely popular as most big destinations such as rusholme and the curry mile would not be easy to serve given the lack of space at street surface. Could a potential fallow field loop conversion not be a better way to serve the gap along with potential connectivity to existing heavy rail lines?

It might be an option, but how much room does a tram really need? Heading south along Oxford Road / Wilmslow Road it looks to be a 20mph road for some distance, so would losing it to through traffic make a huge difference, especially as the tram could be soaking up a lot of passenger demand? I'd say with a bit of forethought, that route south might be very workable. Not knowing the area beyond, I'm not sure where it could then head after curry mile but there must be options. If it can be threaded through the tight areas in the centre and around the Salford Quays, that might be doable too?

 

[TheGrew]

A tram or tram train is going to leave the low performance DMUs used today in the dust, so I expect the journey times would still end up significantly shorter than the stopping service today, but at higher frequency from the bulk of stations. I think Merseyrail and Metrolink show that frequency really is the greatest draw for passengers - to quote our American transit-activity cousins "frequency is freedom".

I'd guess you could have some sort of compromise interior, perhaps resembling the Metropolitan line S-stock in concept. But I personally don't found vibrating DMUs to be particularly comfortable at the best of times, although modern units do do much better in that respect.


I'd suggest the fast trains would be concentrated onto the line via Chat Moss. Warrington would retain its current fast service to Manchester over the Chat Moss from Bank Quay, but there would be nothing else on the eastern half of the CLC. The western half would be turned over to Merseyrail services extended from Hunts Cross.

With NPR i completely agree with this approach. I think at the moment, though trying to path additional fasts on Chat Moss will be too much of a challenge.

 

[lowe1409]

It might be an option, but how much room does a tram really need? Heading south along Oxford Road / Wilmslow Road it looks to be a 20mph road for some distance, so would losing it to through traffic make a huge difference, especially as the tram could be soaking up a lot of passenger demand? I'd say with a bit of forethought, that route south might be very workable. Not knowing the area beyond, I'm not sure where it could then head after curry mile but there must be options. If it can be threaded through the tight areas in the centre and around the Salford Quays, that might be doable too?

If you look at the Ashton Line or airport line. A lot of stops are squeezed where there was empty space beside/around the road. Look at the giant gap between martins croft and Benchill and the lack of space surrounding the road. The curry mile offers none of that. The furthest you'd practically be able to send an on street route is the MRI.

 

[sprunt]

When people talk about a Salford Crescent link what kind of route are they envisioning? Street running along Chapel Street or sharing the existing heavy rail alignment? And either way, would that be linking up to the existing network via Bridge Street/John Dalton Street?

 

[lowe1409]

When people talk about a Salford Crescent link what kind of route are they envisioning? Street running along Chapel Street or sharing the existing heavy rail alignment? And either way, would that be linking up to the existing network via Bridge Street/John Dalton Street?

Most probably would be a street running route though one of Andy Burnhams grand tunnel ideas is also probably not out of the planners ideas.

 

[HSTEd]

But still not as quick as the current fasts, and to be fair some of the stoppers are run using 195s with the 15x stock due to go the way of the Dodo by the early part of next decade. So for the extra frequency, there's still the prospect of longer journey times on a good proportion of journeys.

Well the lesson of metro-isation elsewhere seems to be that people really like frequencies. One fast train an hour isn't that attractive when you are this close to the destination.
4-5 trains per hour from Warrington Central to Manchester vs the 3 today, one of which is slower than the 4-5 isn't an awful tradeoff based on our experience elswhere.

And realistically how many could actually be run, then rammed into all the existing services through the city centre, especially given your proposals for others coming off heavy rail routes and into the centre?

Well I did posit a third city centre crossing as a condition for this. You might be able to rejig services on a crossing from Salford to South Manchester to move the Eccles/Media City trams of the existing route, but that would require a detailed proposal.

At this point I'd suggest trying to shoehorn in extra services from outside of Greater Manchester is going to need a lot of extra capacity in the centre, so maybe start off with looking if there are ways of a 3rd centre crossing to avoid the Deansgate - St Peters bottleneck. One thought I've had with the Crayolas is an alignment dropping down off the Castlefield Viaduct onto Bridgewater Street below Deansgate-Castlefield, then Deansgate which these days is giving off very strong "tram me" vibes. A line could then run along there towards Exchange Square / Victoria and even Shudehill if needs be. Or if we use the really big Crayolas have it head down Peter's Street down towards Oxford Road and on to serve that big hole in the Metrolink network to the south of the city.

I'd suggest a route from the existing Eccles Line to Salford Crescent (connect to Atherton line), then along the Crescent, Chapel Street, Bridge Street and John Dalton Street. You'd connect to the second city crossing etc there and then continue south to Princess Street - split there towards Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

You'd divert the Eccles/Media City trams via Salford Crescent, then run a tram from Cornbrook in a big loop via Pomona and Salford Crescent to serve the southern half of the Salford Quays loop.
If you can keep the Eccles Line to Salford Crescent segment fast you should still beat the meandering through Salford Quays.

EDIT:

Of my other proposals, Atherton obviously routes via Salford Crescent, Northwich could operate as an extension of Altrincham terminators whilst the destinations to the East don't necessarily require access to the existing bottleneck.
Only warrington definitively needs paths through the existing bottleneck, and I think you could shift Eccles to the new crossing and free those paths.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well the lesson of metro-isation elsewhere seems to be that people really like frequencies. One fast train an hour isn't that attractive when you are this close to the destination.
4-5 trains per hour from Warrington Central to Manchester vs the 3 today, one of which is slower than the 4-5 isn't an awful tradeoff based on our experience elswhere.

Well I did posit a third city centre crossing as a condition for this. You might be able to rejig services on a crossing from Salford to South Manchester to move the Eccles/Media City trams of the existing route, but that would require a detailed proposal.

Even if new capacity to absorb these new services could be made, it's still going to look like a real downgrade from a full rail service to a tram. And if the build quality isn't much improved on the M5000s then it won't be a lot of fun bouncing along the CLC. I've spent more than my fair share of rides out to Altrincham and when they get anywhere close to max speeds it's like a fairground ride. Plus Metrolink services are always going to be constrained by the existing platform lengths, so even increasing frequency might not give as much (seated) capacity, possibly even less.

Quite honestly taking a main line between two cities with long distance services and turning it into a bloody long tram ride seems counter-intuitive to me. There's plenty of room for Metrolink to expand and improve services inside the city, without trying to become a poor-man's S-Bahn out in the sticks. It's even more so when you consider that most of the Northern stock will be replaced long before this line could be converted to tram ops. I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavour at all. Wiring to route for EMUs sometime in the future definitely feels like a better solution to improve timings and reliability, and attract more business.

I'd suggest a route from the existing Eccles Line to Salford Crescent (connect to Atherton line), then along the Crescent, Chapel Street, Bridge Street and John Dalton Street. You'd connect to the second city crossing etc there and then continue south to Princess Street - split there towards Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

You'd divert the Eccles/Media City trams via Salford Crescent, then run a tram from Cornbrook in a big loop via Pomona and Salford Crescent to serve the southern half of the Salford Quays loop.
If you can keep the Eccles Line to Salford Crescent segment fast you should still beat the meandering through Salford Quays.

This could also work for sure.

EDIT:

Of my other proposals, Atherton obviously routes via Salford Crescent, Northwich could operate as an extension of Altrincham terminators whilst the destinations to the East don't necessarily require access to the existing bottleneck.
Only warrington definitively needs paths through the existing bottleneck, and I think you could shift Eccles to the new crossing and free those paths.

As with the CLC, I don't see the point in running all the way out into Northwich (and what about services beyond to Chester?). Whilst an increase in frequency would be marvellous, the same concern about ride quality exists as with the CLC. It would be a full hour sitting on a tram every day for commuters, and as bad as the 15xs can be, they are still way more comfortable than the M5000s currently working Metrolink. And once you break out of the cover of the urban sprawl, you'd notice this a heck of a lot more, the wind out here is almost as bad as it is in my old haunt in West Yorkshire. So without some pretty high specs for any tram-trains, I'd again I'd argue that it would be a downgrade that won't attract new custom, which is really what should be a priority for Metrolink.

 

[lowe1409]

Even if new capacity to absorb these new services could be made, it's still going to look like a real downgrade from a full rail service to a tram. And if the build quality isn't much improved on the M5000s then it won't be a lot of fun bouncing along the CLC. I've spent more than my fair share of rides out to Altrincham and when they get anywhere close to max speeds it's like a fairground ride. Plus Metrolink services are always going to be constrained by the existing platform lengths, so even increasing frequency might not give as much (seated) capacity, possibly even less.

Quite honestly taking a main line between two cities with long distance services and turning it into a bloody long tram ride seems counter-intuitive to me. There's plenty of room for Metrolink to expand and improve services inside the city, without trying to become a poor-man's S-Bahn out in the sticks. It's even more so when you consider that most of the Northern stock will be replaced long before this line could be converted to tram ops. I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavour at all. Wiring to route for EMUs sometime in the future definitely feels like a better solution to improve timings and reliability, and attract more business.


This could also work for sure.


As with the CLC, I don't see the point in running all the way out into Northwich (and what about services beyond to Chester?). Whilst an increase in frequency would be marvellous, the same concern about ride quality exists as with the CLC. It would be a full hour sitting on a tram every day for commuters, and as bad as the 15xs can be, they are still way more comfortable than the M5000s currently working Metrolink. And once you break out of the cover of the urban sprawl, you'd notice this a heck of a lot more, the wind out here is almost as bad as it is in my old haunt in West Yorkshire. So without some pretty high specs for any tram-trains, I'd again I'd argue that it would be a downgrade that won't attract new custom, which is really what should be a priority for Metrolink.

The only way of improving ride quality and potentially speeds on metrolink would be changing the wheel profile to something less steep. Would this be possible by just restricting the routes for new stock to avoid harsh curves (i.e Eccles line) or would it require a whole seperate network? Absolutely agree however an m5000 to Northwich sounds painful.

 

[edwin_m]

The only way of improving ride quality and potentially speeds on metrolink would be changing the wheel profile to something less steep. Would this be possible by just restricting the routes for new stock to avoid harsh curves (i.e Eccles line) or would it require a whole seperate network? Absolutely agree however an m5000 to Northwich sounds painful.

You probably need to pay some very clever people a six-figure sum to get an answer to that question.

 

[HSTEd]

Even if new capacity to absorb these new services could be made, it's still going to look like a real downgrade from a full rail service to a tram. And if the build quality isn't much improved on the M5000s then it won't be a lot of fun bouncing along the CLC

What advantages does the current rail service actually have compared to a tram though?
It provides one faster train per hour, and stopper services that are somewhat slower than the tram service would be.

Ride quality might be somewhat better, but that is about it. And the tram provides access to the city centre in a way the existing railway simply does not.

Quite honestly taking a main line between two cities with long distance services and turning it into a bloody long tram ride seems counter-intuitive to me.

Is it really a main line for any reason other than tradition?
It's not the primary route between Liverpool and Manchester, it only carries two fast/semi fast and one stopping train per hour east of Warrington, all trains are formed of comparatively short DMU formations.

The primary stopping point for long distance trains on the line, Warrington Central, doesn't feature a non-CLC station (including Oxford Road and Lime Street as CLC) on its destination list until entry number 10 with Sheffield.
Sure it carries two longer distance services, but they hardly interact with much of the line other than stopping at Widnes, Warrington and sometimes Urmston.

Warrington Central gets 3 trains per hour to Manchester and thanks to the mess of the Castlefield corridor is highly unlikely to get more. The secondary statinos on the line get a service well below what would be expected for a peri-urban railway. One only gets one train per two hours but still manages 30,000 passengers per annum! I think there is probably an awful lot of suppressed demand on the route that could be released by more services, which we can only get by Metrolink-ification.

If that occurs, we can put many more trains down the line and we can reduce the operational complexity of Castlefield by reducing the use of the current CLC access to a handful of freight trains per day. If and when Trafford Park depot gets relocated, even that would go away and the junction could be abolished entirely.

Wiring to route for EMUs sometime in the future definitely feels like a better solution to improve timings and reliability, and attract more business.

Wiring without improving the service frequency probably won't achieve much in traffic terms, and the service frequency can't be improved because of Castlefield.
The future without Metrolink is BEMU services on the present pattern, most likely for the forseable future.

Wiring it would be an enormous expensive for the gain at present 25kV prices.

As with the CLC, I don't see the point in running all the way out into Northwich (and what about services beyond to Chester?). Whilst an increase in frequency would be marvellous, the same concern about ride quality exists as with the CLC. It would be a full hour sitting on a tram every day for commuters, and as bad as the 15xs can be, they are still way more comfortable than the M5000s currently working Metrolink. And once you break out of the cover of the urban sprawl, you'd notice this a heck of a lot more, the wind out here is almost as bad as it is in my old haunt in West Yorkshire. So without some pretty high specs for any tram-trains, I'd again I'd argue that it would be a downgrade that won't attract new custom, which is really what should be a priority for Metrolink.

The experience from Germany is that people are willing to spend this long on tram/tram-train vehicles out in the sticks.
Karslruhe even puts people onto tram-trains for ~90 minutes. The Karlsurhe S-bahn line S8 is notionally 120km long!

Running through to Chester is a bit far even for me, so I'd suggest breaking the services at Northwich. The journey planner seems to favour going via Warrington Bank Quay or Crewe most of the time from Manchester in any case.

One train per hour to Piccadilly or four/five tram-trains per hour. (The heavy rail solution is going to be fighting larger flows for paths over Stockport Viaduct for the forseable, so unlikely to see that second train per hour materialise)

 

[lowe1409]

Warrington Central gets 3 trains per hour to Manchester and thanks to the mess of the Castlefield corridor is highly unlikely to get more. The secondary statinos on the line get a service well below what would be expected for a peri-urban railway. One only gets one train per two hours but still manages 30,000 passengers per annum! I think there is probably an awful lot of suppressed demand on the route that could be released by more services, which we can only get by Metrolink-ification.

So would the solution for the CLC assuming we can move the long distance services off it is more of an Elizabeth style conversion as opposed to splitting it metrolink and mersyrail? It does connect 3 large population centres with some smaller ones in a fairly short journey. Find a suitable line to marry it up with on the other side of Manchester (Say hypothetically Marple/Glossop) And you have North West crossrail? Both routes tbh feel slightly too long for metrolink conversion as Didsbury to Rochdale is a very painful service on the metrolink as present.

 

[HSTEd]

So would the solution for the CLC assuming we can move the long distance services off it is more of an Elizabeth style conversion as opposed to splitting it metrolink and mersyrail? It does connect 3 large population centres with some smaller ones in a fairly short journey. Find a suitable line to marry it up with on the other side of Manchester (Say hypothetically Marple/Glossop) And you have North West crossrail? Both routes tbh feel slightly too long for metrolink conversion as Didsbury to Rochdale is a very painful service on the metrolink as present.

The problem with that sort of heavy rail conversion is we have nowhere to send the trains because there are no paths through Castlefield. Attempting to convert the route into a crossrail lookalike would be extremely expensive - probably more expensive than a third city crossing Metrolink line and all the conversions I suggested.

 

[Topological]

If you look at the Ashton Line or airport line. A lot of stops are squeezed where there was empty space beside/around the road. Look at the giant gap between martins croft and Benchill and the lack of space surrounding the road. The curry mile offers none of that. The furthest you'd practically be able to send an on street route is the MRI.

It may be worth remembering that the road used to have two lanes in both directions:

You would be able to have platforms and the tram lines within the space. It may even be possible to stagger the platforms so that the line that was stopping went off the carriageway, whilst the other stop followed its carriageway towards the pavement.

The challenge with Rusholme is the number of cars that stop at the various businesses. The issue always seems worse than on the Ashton metrolink line.

I still think buses are better than trams for Oxford Road though.

 

[lowe1409]

The problem with that sort of heavy rail conversion is we have nowhere to send the trains because there are no paths through Castlefield. Attempting to convert the route into a crossrail lookalike would be extremely expensive - probably more expensive than a third city crossing Metrolink line and all the conversions I suggested.

I never said it'd be cheap though I suspect it will be the best way of driving growth, particularly along the CLC having frequent and reasonably fast trains to two major cities on either end as well as a massive boost for Warrington. It'd also make sure journey times are improved along side frequency. I'm confident the CLC between Liverpool and Manchester could support such a service. Its just where you'd choose to send it on the Manchester end? Because as well, how much capacity would 5 double trams have? How would it compare to the existing service which can be a very busy 6 car TPE, 4 car EMR and is it 4 car northern run over there? I doubt that many are through Liverpool to Sheffield passengers meaning most of that capacity is already soaked up by CLC stations. Assuming a full 56m tram takes the equivalent of 2 train carriages, it'd equal roughly a loss of 4 carriages an hour of capacity over the line.

It may be worth remembering that the road used to have two lanes in both directions:

The road is still the same width. It still has one lane each way and a parking lane and a very busy bike lane. Any Metrolink conversion would likely eat away the well used cycle path. The curry mile needs a massive rework. Sending trams down there is absolutly the wrong one

 

[158756]

I don't see how a tram down the Curry Mile would work. Any line sharing road space with traffic down there would be completely impossible to operate reliably (or at all, given the now permanent bus diversions on Friday and Saturday evenings). Either the road would have to be closed to traffic, or the cycle lanes and parking would have to go, which both seem politically impossible. And that doesn't solve the problem of low speeds - it'd be a massive expense to create a line barely if at all faster than the buses.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It may be worth remembering that the road used to have two lanes in both directions:

You would be able to have platforms and the tram lines within the space. It may even be possible to stagger the platforms so that the line that was stopping went off the carriageway, whilst the other stop followed its carriageway towards the pavement.

The challenge with Rusholme is the number of cars that stop at the various businesses. The issue always seems worse than on the Ashton metrolink line.

I still think buses are better than trams for Oxford Road though.

Seconded...note the existing bicycle lanes.

 

[158756]

I'd suggest a route from the existing Eccles Line to Salford Crescent (connect to Atherton line), then along the Crescent, Chapel Street, Bridge Street and John Dalton Street. You'd connect to the second city crossing etc there and then continue south to Princess Street - split there towards Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

You'd divert the Eccles/Media City trams via Salford Crescent, then run a tram from Cornbrook in a big loop via Pomona and Salford Crescent to serve the southern half of the Salford Quays loop.
If you can keep the Eccles Line to Salford Crescent segment fast you should still beat the meandering through Salford Quays.

The problem I see with a street running route to Salford Crescent is how slow it would be. The number 50 bus is timed for 15 minutes between St Peter's Square and Salford Crescent at peak times, and on a bad day it can be a lot longer than that. There isn't much room to give the tram any more dedicated lanes than the buses already have.

It'd be very difficult for such a route to compete with the current journey time to Salford Quays, and the existing route isn't exactly fast.

I'd also be concerned how a tram would interact with buses on the Crescent - removing the bus lanes will wreck the service, but tram and bus sharing space would make the tram even slower. Gateshead style forced interchange at Salford Crescent? Can't see that going down well.

EDIT:

Of my other proposals, Atherton obviously routes via Salford Crescent, Northwich could operate as an extension of Altrincham terminators whilst the destinations to the East don't necessarily require access to the existing bottleneck.
Only warrington definitively needs paths through the existing bottleneck, and I think you could shift Eccles to the new crossing and free those paths.

Is there capacity on Altrincham trams at peak times to accommodate an extension? I suppose if all the Altrincham trams became tram-trains you could remove the single track section to increase capacity, but that's starting to sound very expensive.

 

[HSTEd]

I never said it'd be cheap though I suspect it will be the best way of driving growth, particularly along the CLC having frequent and reasonably fast trains to two major cities on either end as well as a massive boost for Warrington. It'd also make sure journey times are improved along side frequency. I'm confident the CLC between Liverpool and Manchester could support such a service. Its just where you'd choose to send it on the Manchester end?

Where to send it at the Manchester end is the rub. Theres no suitable surface terminus and a through connection will cost many billions because it will involve a lot of tunneling unless you use a tram route!
Plus running a heavy rail service of that intensity could end up consuming substantial additional ongoing subsidy compared to the comparatively cheap operations cost for a Metrolink solution.

I can't see it generating the sorts of enormous traffic flows that make Crossrail financially lucrative - after all Crossrail has something like 1 in 6 of all railway journeys on the National Rail system.

Because as well, how much capacity would 5 double trams have? How would it compare to the existing service which can be a very busy 6 car TPE, 4 car EMR and is it 4 car northern run over there? I doubt that many are through Liverpool to Sheffield passengers meaning most of that capacity is already soaked up by CLC stations.

Manchester to Liverpool traffic is a major load on the line, and most of that would divert to the Chat Moss rather than taking a tram to change at Warrington onto Merseyrail.
The top destination from Manchester Oxford Road is Liverpool by a rather large margin.

Assuming a full 56m tram takes the equivalent of 2 train carriages, it'd equal roughly a loss of 4 carriages an hour of capacity over the line.

I think that's a little pessimistic, given that 2 train carriages is significantly shorter than that! I believe the T68 doubles were ~58m long; assuming that's the limit of what the core platforms can cope with, I think you'd probably get something resembling 2.5-2.75 carriages per train. As this expansion project requires new stock so we can order single unit trams at the maximum length the system can take. That would take us at 5 trams per hour to 12.5-13.75 vehicle equivalents per hour, with the end to end passengers removed. And of course not all of the existing trains are at full length.

The road is still the same width. It still has one lane each way and a parking lane and a very busy bike lane. Any Metrolink conversion would likely eat away the well used cycle path. The curry mile needs a massive rework. Sending trams down there is absolutly the wrong one

I have lived in and around the curry mile since before the reconstruction of the corridor that put the bike lanes in.
The bike lanes in the curry mile are not particularly well used in my experience, there are just too many cars and people around.

But I've thought about this alot over the years and I agree that putting both tram lines down there is problematic. My own answer to this is to put one line down the Curry mile and divert the other track around it.
If the tram reaches Fallowfield Campus the majority of the bus services on the route will vanish which makes a bit more room.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Apr 2026 ==

The problem I see with a street running route to Salford Crescent is how slow it would be. The number 50 bus is timed for 15 minutes between St Peter's Square and Salford Crescent at peak times, and on a bad day it can be a lot longer than that. There isn't much room to give the tram any more dedicated lanes than the buses already have.

It'd be very difficult for such a route to compete with the current journey time to Salford Quays, and the existing route isn't exactly fast.

I'd also be concerned how a tram would interact with buses on the Crescent - removing the bus lanes will wreck the service, but tram and bus sharing space would make the tram even slower. Gateshead style forced interchange at Salford Crescent? Can't see that going down well.

I think you'd have to totally reconstruct the existing road layout to be sure, but it is an awfully wide corridor.
Much of the central reservation is 6m+ wide including the "hatched in" parts of the road surface.
If you put tram lines in the centre then layer the car lanes and bus lanes outside of them you might be able to do it without taking up too much additional ground. The 20mph speed limit might make it tenable I think.

Albion Way from Salford Crescent south to near the Ecclesline at least seems pretty wide and has no high intensity bus service to get in the way.

Is there capacity on Altrincham trams at peak times to accommodate an extension? I suppose if all the Altrincham trams became tram-trains you could remove the single track section to increase capacity, but that's starting to sound very expensive.

In the short term I'd say yes. There will be a non zero capacity gain from going to single unit tram-trains, and Northwich traffic will take time to build up to the enormous levels seen on the tram network proper,
I think you'd increase capacity by providing a route for the tram trains to switch to the existing freight route at Deansgate Junction, with two additional point machines, rather than trying to untangle the current system. That way you wouldn't remove the capability for existing trams to reach Altrincham if required.

The limiting factor, in any case, is probably paths through the bottleneck around Deansgate Castlefield unless Salford etc can be diverted away from it.