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!
By keeping the size of the Metrolink network just as it is at present, means no need to purchase a new supplementary tram fleet for the suggested expanded geographical area and, the cost of a new tram depot and monies saved by this should be used to resolve the existing problems with the existing network.
An embargo on new Metrolink lines should be in place until the current Metrolink runs without any operational problems.
Does Metrolink have significant operational problems?
I am aware that sometimes there are points failures, or other small issues that require attention, but I was not aware that there were any fundamental operational issues that needed attention. I know there is ongoing maintenance aswell, but that will never end by definition.
The reduction in service on some lines is staffing-related? The below is from a Manchester Evening News article: Metrolink Changes
TfGM said: "From Monday, 30 March until autumn a revised timetable will be introduced across the tram network. There will still be reliable and frequent tram services running every 15 minutes, supported by a peak service running every 7.5 minutes at the busiest times on the most popular lines.
"This is being done while a significant recruitment drive gets under way to take on and train up new tram drivers, building extra capacity and resilience in the workforce. During this temporary change, more double trams will run on the network to increase capacity in the busiest areas where it is most needed.
It would seem to me that building and providing for the future is a much bigger priority in a growing city like Manchester. Given the planning lags, we are already behind.
By keeping the size of the Metrolink network just as it is at present, means no need to purchase a new supplementary tram fleet for the suggested expanded geographical area and, the cost of a new tram depot and monies saved by this should be used to resolve the existing problems with the existing network.
An embargo on new Metrolink lines should be in place until the current Metrolink runs without any operational problems.
Are some of the operational issues not issues which can be mittigated with expansion. Having alternate routes around core sections like Deansgate can allow diversionary services to run during engineering works, helping to increase maintenance and reducing some of the issues?
Are some of the operational issues not issues which can be mittigated with expansion. Having alternate routes around core sections like Deansgate can allow diversionary services to run during engineering works, helping to increase maintenance and reducing some of the issues?
That may well be a point of note, but it does involve new finance for the suggested alternative routes. My personal contention is to use any new funding solely on the nextwork as it stands. I really feel for the passengers on the Eccles line in particular for what they have had to put up with in recent times.
That may well be a point of note, but it does involve new finance for the suggested alternative routes. My personal contention is to use any new funding solely on the nextwork as it stands. I really feel for the passengers on the Eccles line in particular for what they have had to put up with in recent times.
Eccles line is a weird one. It's slow and fairly short. Especially with the Trafford centre line, most of the quays are reachable from along that line in a pinch. I guess it's easy to be deprioritised by tfgm. But I still believe another route, possibly coming into the quays from the Salford side would help alot. It could patch a big tram gap in the city centre as well as provide alternate routes into and out of the Eccles line. It may not be the ideal diversion but it's better than no diversion.
Just to clarify matters, are any of these new speculative Metrolink expansion lines that have occurred in postngs on this thread liable to clash with any of the eight heavy rail Burnham Rail Bee Network proposals that mention has been made of in recent months as remaining heavy rail services?
Just to clarify matters, are any of these new speculative Metrolink expansion lines that have occurred in postngs on this thread liable to clash with any of the eight heavy rail Burnham Rail Bee Network proposals that mention has been made of in recent months as remaining heavy rail services?
Manchester to Wigan via Atherton and Bolton I both believe. Rose hill and Glossop lines too. I don't think Rochdale, airport, Buxton or Alderly edge have come up.
Eccles line is a weird one. It's slow and fairly short. Especially with the Trafford centre line, most of the quays are reachable from along that line in a pinch. I guess it's easy to be deprioritised by tfgm. But I still believe another route, possibly coming into the quays from the Salford side would help alot. It could patch a big tram gap in the city centre as well as provide alternate routes into and out of the Eccles line. It may not be the ideal diversion but it's better than no diversion.
Manchester to Wigan via Atherton and Bolton I both believe. Rose hill and Glossop lines too. I don't think Rochdale, airport, Buxton or Alderly edge have come up.
I understand the plan for the Atherton line is a tram-train which could ultimately run on current tram tracks? Without major construction, that would open up Wigan to Bury via Atherton/Victoria (although some works would be req @ Vic to enable this)? Can't think of anywhere else the tram-train could join the metrolink lines?
I understand the plan for the Atherton line is a tram-train which could ultimately run on current tram tracks? Without major construction, that would open up Wigan to Bury via Atherton/Victoria (although some works would be req @ Vic to enable this)? Can't think of anywhere else the tram-train could join the metrolink lines?
It feels like a lot of the lines were tram train as I also believe this was the proposal for Glossop/rose hill. I can only assume either branching off just before ardwick or potentially ashburys to meet the metrolink at the Etihad
I believe tram trains would be better suited to providing logical extension to existing light rail lines such as the proposed extensions in Rochdale and potentially Stockport depending on what route they want to take. I feel for longer routes such as Wigan or Glossop that the answer would surely be to look at upgrading the existing heavy rail service instead.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The most serious issues are things that are being addressed. Increased recruitment (drivers, travel safe officers, revenue, controllers, maintenance basically nearly everything) and replacement of track and other hardware which is worn out. My guess is that a big programme of life extension works will be needed on the rolling stock within the next five years or so.
I've gone digging for a while through the Warrington Central report on Realtimetrains. As far as I can tell the only services timed for 195s are the Liverpool stoppers that terminate at Warrington Central. All the Northern trains I can find east seem to be timed as 75mph Sprinters, even when operated by Class 195s. I may have missed a few but that seems to be the situation.
The running times of a 75mph DMU lashup with stop spacings as short as you see on the eastern half of the CLC are not very impressive. If you go looking you can find some pretty slow times given the distances being covered.
A 2-car super Sprinter weighs 76 tonnes, has 570hp at the engine and four of eight axles powered through a hydraulic transmission.
The Class 399 weighs 66 tonnes, has 1170hp at the motors and six of eight axles powered with an (duh) electric transmission.
The only advantage the Sprinter has is a higher nominal top speed (75mph vs 62mph).
Given the short station spacings (average stop spacing is about 2500m), I think its going to be substantially faster than the existing sprinter-timed DMUs on the stopping services.
Obviously our vehicle would not literally be a Class 399, it would longer and high floor, but it still demonstrates the sorts of performance modern light rail type vehicles are capable of.
I've had trouble finding a train that stops every station but I found one in the morning that stops all stops other than MUFC Halt (which is basically dead) and Glazebrook. It covers the distance from Deansgate to Warrington Central in 34 minutes stop to stop.
Assuming Deansgate-CAstlefield is a central Manchester station (given how close it is to Oxford Road!) I think we'd likely be looking at something much closer to 30 minutes than 40, once you include the stops at Cornbrook, Glazebrook and account for radically increased acceleration.
I'm not sure there are any services that make all stops at the moment. However you have to remember that one 1 tph most times of the day terminates at Oxford Road with the rest running through Piccadilly and beyond, so to give a better picture the timings really ought to be to Piccadilly, which obviously adds quite a bit of time for Metrolink. And if we're going to be realistic, using 15x timings will also be inaccurate as it far more likely to be 195s or equivalents once the new Northern stock comes on line (based on the fact it will take at least as long if not longer to convert the CLC than it will to receive the new Northern units).
I'm not sure I see what that gains us in terms of gains for the (high) price.
Two 25kV electrified routes might be nice to have, but it doesn't make more paths appear.
Well a second wired line will give better performance for the Northern services at the very least, and that might be enough to have 2 skip-stoppers in between the fasts again.
Diversionary purposes will never justify major infrastructure because diversions are very rare and operationally troublesome. In any case, in an emergency a metrolink and merseyrail to Warrington approach can still perform a "get me home" function. Sure it might be annoying to take a tram to Warrington, walk down a platform and board a Merseyrail train, but it will still get you home. It's still going to beat a late notice Rail Replacement bus in capacity and speed terms.
I'd say "breaking up" the network to improve local services is what Merseyrail has done and it has certainly achieved massive traffic levels compared to lines that were not broken up. The previous "main" lines from Liverpool to Preston and Liverpool to Manchester via Wigan were sacrificed to this objective after all.
Funnily enough the option to divert onto the Chat Moss was talked about by the platform staff at Oxford Road when a Northern train failed around Birchwood.
And you also raise another problem, two separate networks = two potential fares. Will the two authorities play nice, or effectively try to compete for passengers and leave cross Warrington punters worse off?
Well, we could argue that converting the CLC to Metrolink is an engineering solution. It might not be the one many want, but it is still engineering.
Combined with the proposed Trafford Park relocation it significantly simplifies the junction complex, and even without that it is still going to make it easier to timetable trains through.
We shouldn't be talking about arbitrary lines on a map, for sure. Terminating Merseyrail at Ormskirk or West Kirkby/Headbolt lane are examples of why that is a bad idea. You end up with awkward stubs like the line between West Kirkby/Headbolt Lane and Wigan that is served by one train per hour from the Manchester end and are not very useful as a serious transport system.
But in the case of Warrington, its not just a council border, I'd argue its a sensible place to place the break between the two suburban/periurban networks because its a significant traffic centre in its own right. It's not just a platform in a field. It'd be like if Merseyrail went to Wigan which seems eminently sensible to me.
But the question is why break up the heavy rail on the CLC? What problems does it really solve that can't be achieved through heavy rail? More services, maybe, just? More capacity, well only standing at best whilst seating will reduce. It still seems to be that what it really does is give the hope of a "cheap" expansion of both networks, without actually asking if it's needed.
Connectivity to Sheffield and Nottingham and not much else. Sure its a nice to have, but not that many people use it as can be seen from the ODM data.
I think Warrington Bank Quay provides way more in the way of connectivity options than Central does.
And Piccadilly, which the tram might not dependant on where it's sent through the centre of Manchester, if it reaches that at all (think Airport & Trafford Centre services which for a long time terminated outside of the centre). Also don't forget once upon a time Leeds / York where also available, and where arguably equally as useful.
The tram marginally beats the heavy rail service into Manchester from Altrincham and there are (according to the electronic sectional appendix) no speed limits above 60mph between Northwich and Altrincham.
I'd say it would be a few minutes quicker than now, so something like 50 minutes or so.
But again long before this would happen there would likely be faster DMUs available. One thing the Mid Cheshire does suffer from is poor performances from Northern's aging 15xs, especially during Autumn's leaf fall season.
I honestly just don't see the need for any of this, there are plenty of areas closer to home for TfGM to prioritise.
I think that's excluding the connectivity sacrificed from the slightly smaller but still important stations. For Urmston, Lime st is the second most popular destination after oxford road. For Birchwood, the story is the same with significant flows also to South Parkway and Warrington West. At Warrington west, The numbers are roughly equal between Lime st and oxford road with both seeing about 70,000 passengers each way. Widnes is similar with 60,000 split between Piccadilly and Oxford Rd vs 80,000 for Lime St. South Parkway is the busiest with 105k heading into Manchester.
I think South Parkway demonstrates my point though. 105k heading to Manchester is a significant chunk, but it pales in comparison with the traffic that Merseyrail is capable of driving.
The 'Liverpool BR' stations are ~385,000 passengers, and the vast majority of the destinations high in the ODM list are Merseyrail stations. Obviously some of those will be on CLC trains and some will be on the Birmingham EMUs, but the ODM data has trouble with breaking up BR groups accurately so its hard to tell.
Widnes would be expected to have well over a million passengers if it was a Merseyrail station. Warrington Central would probably be expected to push two million looking at comparators at the outlying points of the Merseyrail system.
We might lose 105k passengers heading to Manchester from South Parkway, or at least a big chunk of them, but what we stand to gain far exceeds these losses in traffic terms.
Urmston, Lime Street is the second largest destination, sure, but you have to go an awful long way down the list to find another station west of Warrington Central (its Warrington West as far as I can tell, with 1014 passengers per year).
For the likes of Birchwood, the journey on Metrolink would be so short that I'm not convinced 4tph to Warrington Central connecting to 5tph from Warrington Central to Birchwood is much worse than the status quo, which is 1 stopper and 1 fast per hour.
Public transport is a matter of trade-offs, and if our objective is to deliver bulk public transport, some things do have to be sacrificed in pursuit of this.
Metrolink to Warrington would be by far the longest and potentially busiest branch of the network if it should be built, and potentially would need a lot of dedicated tramway in the city centre anyway to deal with the likely high frequency the service will need to support.
I'm not sure the figures support that, the Altrincham route copes with only ten trams per hour for much of its length, and has passenger numbers that (if Metrolink stats are to be believed) exceed those seen on the line at present. We will certainly need a third city crossing for a large expansion programme of Metrolink, but I doubt warrington would need a line to itself.
If we get into a position where five or ten 58m trains per hour are not enough to cope, we will have succeeded beyond my dreams!
I feel Metrolink is best suited to suburban lines as opposed to interurban. I know some smaller cities in Europe use interurban trams (most notably Karlsruhe which has a population about 10% That of Manchester's). We should be looking at what similar European cities have. Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, and Cologne all have heavy rail metros and S-bahns. Not an interurban light rail system. Metrolink has proven itself with routes such as Altrincham and Bury as well as more local routes such as through the Quays. I think we should stick with trying to find similarly comparable routes for light rail conversion. I feel some of the other routes often proposed Such as Warrington and Wigan potentially more suit a proper S-Bahn or Overground style service.
The problem with this is it would many require billions for a "proper" S-bahn.
Those billions do not appear to be forthcoming, so the question is how we best use limited financial and operational resources.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm not sure there are any services that make all stops at the moment. However you have to remember that one 1 tph most times of the day terminates at Oxford Road with the rest running through Piccadilly and beyond, so to give a better picture the timings really ought to be to Piccadilly, which obviously adds quite a bit of time for Metrolink. And if we're going to be realistic, using 15x timings will also be inaccurate as it far more likely to be 195s or equivalents once the new Northern stock comes on line (based on the fact it will take at least as long if not longer to convert the CLC than it will to receive the new Northern units).
It will also add a chunk of time to the heavy rail option, so it won't change the comparative time that much.
But the central point I was driving at was trying to estimate the tram travel time, and I simply don't have a Class 195 timing to compare to.
If a Class 150 can do it in 34 minutes, a tram unit will do it in something like 30. What a Class 195 could hypothetically do won't impact the tram result.
30 minutes is of comparable magnitude to the journey time to places like Altrincham.
Well a second wired line will give better performance for the Northern services at the very least, and that might be enough to have 2 skip-stoppers in between the fasts again.
It might, but the question is where the path through castlefield to start the skip-stopper comes from. That is the limitation on the line now, more than anything.
I think if you did electrify it you'd be better off adding stops to the existing fast trains using the superior acceleration that would be available to gain more stops for the secondary stations.
But as it is, there won't be more than 3 trains out of Manchester onto the CLC any time soon, even if it eventually electrified.
And you also raise another problem, two separate networks = two potential fares. Will the two authorities play nice, or effectively try to compete for passengers and leave cross Warrington punters worse off?
Why would competing for passengers leave them worse off? I'm not sure of the mechanism.
Almost all Manchester-Liverpool etc traffic would just move to the Chat Moss.
It does not seem its going to get one any time soon though. So we have to make do with what we have.
The choice appars to be Metrolink to Warrington or no improvements at all for the forseable.
But the question is why break up the heavy rail on the CLC? What problems does it really solve that can't be achieved through heavy rail? More services, maybe, just? More capacity, well only standing at best whilst seating will reduce. It still seems to be that what it really does is give the hope of a "cheap" expansion of both networks, without actually asking if it's needed.
Many more services stopping at stations in Manchester, driving major traffic growth, a reduction in effective journey times for those intermediate stations, driving major traffic growth. Simplification of the castlefield junction complex, allowing more services to be timetabled more reliably. Clearing the way for a Merseyrail extension to Warrington Central, again driving major traffic growth. The CLC stopper path through Castlefield released to other duties, driving traffic growth.
It's all very well wanting a heavy rail crossrail or similar, but we almost certainly aren't going to get one.
Even if we did, it would likely cost so much money that we could have several Metrolink expansions the size of the 'Big Bang' for the price.
Personally I'd take that over a handful of kilometres of Heavy Rail Metro.
And Piccadilly, which the tram might not dependant on where it's sent through the centre of Manchester, if it reaches that at all (think Airport & Trafford Centre services which for a long time terminated outside of the centre). Also don't forget once upon a time Leeds / York where also available, and where arguably equally as useful.
Yes, and as noted above, that won't retrospectively make the tram slower.
The tram would still take ~50-55 minutes or less whatever happens to a hypothetical Class 195 timing, and we don't actually have a timing to compare to.
I think South Parkway demonstrates my point though. 105k heading to Manchester is a significant chunk, but it pales in comparison with the traffic that Merseyrail is capable of driving.
The 'Liverpool BR' stations are ~385,000 passengers, and the vast majority of the destinations high in the ODM list are Merseyrail stations. Obviously some of those will be on CLC trains and some will be on the Birmingham EMUs, but the ODM data has trouble with breaking up BR groups accurately so its hard to tell.
Widnes would be expected to have well over a million passengers if it was a Merseyrail station. Warrington Central would probably be expected to push two million looking at comparators at the outlying points of the Merseyrail system.
We might lose 105k passengers heading to Manchester from South Parkway, or at least a big chunk of them, but what we stand to gain far exceeds these losses in traffic terms.
Urmston, Lime Street is the second largest destination, sure, but you have to go an awful long way down the list to find another station west of Warrington Central (its Warrington West as far as I can tell, with 1014 passengers per year).
For the likes of Birchwood, the journey on Metrolink would be so short that I'm not convinced 4tph to Warrington Central connecting to 5tph from Warrington Central to Birchwood is much worse than the status quo, which is 1 stopper and 1 fast per hour.
Public transport is a matter of trade-offs, and if our objective is to deliver bulk public transport, some things do have to be sacrificed in pursuit of this.
I'm sure the same arguments could be made for Chat Moss services & maybe those to St Helens. And indeed not just between Liverpool and Manchester, I'm sure tram-this could be applied to many routes in and out of many regions if you just ignore the requirements of punters not sticking only to one area's network.
I maintain my belief that both Liverpool and Manchester politicians see Warrington as nothing more than a handy place on the map to expand their services, and no other thinking has gone into their "planning". Both regions could, and probably should be looking elsewhere for improvements that don't break up well used heavy rail services and deliver real change. The concept gains traction on these forums because people do like to have neat little maps that look pleasing but don't always deliver what's needed on the ground.
I'm not sure the figures support that, the Altrincham route copes with only ten trams per hour for much of its length, and has passenger numbers that (if Metrolink stats are to be believed) exceed those seen on the line at present. We will certainly need a third city crossing for a large expansion programme of Metrolink, but I doubt warrington would need a line to itself.
If we get into a position where five or ten 58m trains per hour are not enough to cope, we will have succeeded beyond my dreams!
That route is not without it's problems. Services regularly full to the point they leave people behind, as well as fairly regular cancellations and short turning when the timetable falls apart. Plus now it's running through the summer at a even more reduced capacity! And you want to send in services even further afield, from multiple heavy rail routes. We're going to need 2 or even 3 more city centre crossings if any of this isn't going to result in utter chaos. At this rate it might be cheaper just to get Castlefield done properly.
The problem with this is it would many require billions for a "proper" S-bahn.
Those billions do not appear to be forthcoming, so the question is how we best use limited financial and operational resources.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And here is where I believe you and I do not agree. You're supporting easy fixes here, bolt something on and hope it holds.
I believe the time has come to accept that our rail network is a shambles, and needs proper investment not glue on solutions. The Castlefield / Piccadilly upgrade should have been financed, more lines need to be wired, more trains are needed as are more staff, and more heavy rail capacity including redundancy needs to be planned in. Systems like Metrolink should be used to reach previously under served areas, not just as "cheap n cheerful" sticking plaster solutions, that will just add more problems to those networks further down the line. For far too long we have gone down the "we can't because it's too hard / expensive / scary" route with public transport. It's one thing replacing shortish sections of isolated routes with trams to shoehorn in a bit more capacity, but we're in the realms of busy regional routes where it's not as simple as these passengers go west, the others go east. And if you don't tough, go somewhere else.
Widnes would be expected to have well over a million passengers if it was a Merseyrail station. Warrington Central would probably be expected to push two million looking at comparators at the outlying points of the Merseyrail system.
We might lose 105k passengers heading to Manchester from South Parkway, or at least a big chunk of them, but what we stand to gain far exceeds these losses in traffic terms.
If you expect these stations to double just with better connectivity to Merseyrail, then surely they'd more than double with better connections both ways. Lets also not forget that Widnes would only see an additional 1tph and Warrington would see no difference to/from Liverpool with only a minor improvement in frequency towards Manchester.
Public transport is a matter of trade-offs, and if our objective is to deliver bulk public transport, some things do have to be sacrificed in pursuit of this.
What tradeoffs does London ever face? The biggest trade off with the Elizabeth line was loosing the Semi-fast Heathrow services for a much more frequent, cheaper, and not much slower journey whilst still keeping all express services. Surely if London doesn't have to loose out then why should the north.
The problem with this is it would many require billions for a "proper" S-bahn.
Those billions do not appear to be forthcoming, so the question is how we best use limited financial and operational resources.
Metrolink has been an excuse for decades to avoid building a proper S-Bahn whilst still poorly fixing the problems it was supposed to solve. It hardly increased picc-vic connectivity with a fairly slow, 5tph service. It has also done little to alleviate Castlefield congestion though admittedly it wasn't as big a problem as it is today. Don't get me wrong, Metrolink is a massive success, but that doesn't mean we should convert everything to Metrolink. In order for local services on the line to be improved, it requires NPR and HS2 to be wrapped up to divert express services away. By which time the treasury will have a lot more cash to spend on railway infrastructure upgrades and a Crossrail project connecting two cities sounds like a massive political win to me. Certainly a lot better than any half and half metro conversion.
As nice as it may be, I doubt a single path would make a dent in the mess that is Castlefield. Especially when said path is to a bay platform meaning its not holding up trains behind from entering the through platforms or at Piccadilly with it's only conflict being addressed in the Oxford Rd remodelling. For any dent to be made, it either requires NPR to free up express paths through Castlefield, or a tunnel for some services to bypass it. None of the services at present using the corridor are suitable for Metrolink conversion unless you want to send trams to Scotland. I feel Metrolink expansions are best left to creating public transport demand on corridors which currently have very little or former rail lines which couldn't justify a heavy rail service but could sustain a light rail one instead. (Think Didsbury extension)
If you expect these stations to double just with better connectivity to Merseyrail, then surely they'd more than double with better connections both ways. Lets also not forget that Widnes would only see an additional 1tph and Warrington would see no difference to/from Liverpool with only a minor improvement in frequency towards Manchester.
There isn't really any practical means to provide "better connections" both ways.
Merseyrail has a selling point beyond the 4tph frequency - it has all the other stations that can easily be reached within the very centre of Liverpool. Just as Metrolink does.
To get those connections we'd have to actual fuse them to Merseyrail and/or Metrolink - we can't provide through services within paradigm without creating likely unacceptable performance risks from trying to mix the current vestigial express services, Merseyrail and Metrolink together on the same tracks.
At least not without spending Crossrail levels of money on tunnels and multiple underground stations, without generating Crossrail levels of traffic to justify it.
Because London can actually generate the traffic levels to sustain this level of infrastructure. The North West cannot, it simply does not have the agglomeration of people necessary. London and the South East region have 20 million people!
Even if such a scheme was built, it would not generate the overwhelming traffic growth that Crossrail has. Those few miles of track are now responsible for 1 in 6 of all rail passenger journeys on the National Rail system. The Crossrail core stations have jumped straight into the list of busiest stations.
None of the current NPR proposals (if you can call them that) would divert the Sheffield bound expresses away from the CLC. So after that we'd just be in the same position, although perhaps I am too cynical.
As nice as it may be, I doubt a single path would make a dent in the mess that is Castlefield. Especially when said path is to a bay platform meaning its not holding up trains behind from entering the through platforms or at Piccadilly with it's only conflict being addressed in the Oxford Rd remodelling.
The Oxford Road remodelling won't turn Castlefield junction into a flyover, so it still conflicts even if Oxford Road is fixed.
And as noted, the elimination of that junction, beyond the path released, would simplify train planning in the entire complex. Just like conversion of the Atherton line to Wigan would remove another, even if the relevant paths don't go through the corridor itself.
One of the problems with the Castlefield corridor is so many flat junctions so close together.
At least not without spending Crossrail levels of money on tunnels and multiple underground stations, without generating Crossrail levels of traffic to justify it.
It wouldn't cost that much however as crossrail built several large stations underground in about 15 miles of tunnels. This scheme would use a fraction of that and wouldn't need crossrail passenger numbers to be a success.
None of the current NPR proposals (if you can call them that) would divert the Sheffield bound expresses away from the CLC. So after that we'd just be in the same position, but iwth the argument being used for why Warrington must have three "main line" railways to manchester instead of two.
It would however divert Manchester-liverpool expresses which are the vast majority of usage over the line. It'll probably be easiest to curtail the Sheffields at Piccadilly. There would be no express workings via Warrington Central. It would all be stoppers or maybe some semifasts if the demand calls for it. However it should be overwhelmingly local services.
I forgot about castlefield junction. I was only thinking of P5 being removed when I wrote the comment. Regardless, 1 path per hour is nothing in the grand scheme of things.
And as noted, the elimination of that junction, beyond the path released, would simplify train planning in the entire complex. Just like conversion of the Atherton line to Wigan would remove another, even if the relevant paths don't go through the corridor itself.
One of the problems with the Castlefield corridor is so many flat junctions so close together.
Bolton is always going to be heavy rail. I didn't think the junction at Salford Cresent created so many problems, I thought it was mainly Windsor/water st/castlefield junctions where the problems were
I'm not sure what they are now, it just feels like they keep being pushed back. I remember a few years back reading they wanted airport-wilmslow to be their first trial run by mid 2020s but I may be mistaken. Eitherway the Wilmslow proposal seems to have been quietly dropped.
None of the current NPR proposals (if you can call them that) would divert the Sheffield bound expresses away from the CLC. So after that we'd just be in the same position, although perhaps I am too cynical.
It seems strange to see the phrase "Sheffield bound expresses" appearing on a thread that is supposed to be discussing improvements to the Manchester Metrolink system.
But the question is why break up the heavy rail on the CLC? What problems does it really solve that can't be achieved through heavy rail? More services, maybe, just? More capacity, well only standing at best whilst seating will reduce. It still seems to be that what it really does is give the hope of a "cheap" expansion of both networks, without actually asking if it's needed.
So from my point of view I'm assuming that a new Liverpool to Manchester route is provided for fast trains because I don't see either a particularly high frequency heavy rail service or tram conversion being possible without either Sheffield-Liverpool trains being directly moved on to a new line or a freed up Chat Moss line. New battery electric stock is a sensible medium term solution to get 2 stoppers covering most stations every hour but I doubt 4 stoppers per hour is possible without removing the express services.
So the future scenario is 4 trains per hour heavy rail from Liverpool to Manchester operated by Northern or splitting the service with conversion to Metrolink and Merseyrail.
The heavy rail scenario maintains cross Warrington connections but those journey times are still likely to be slower than currently for the larger stations like Widnes and Birchwood. It also provides the potential for onward connections to Manchester Airport.
The Metrolink scenario potentially means:
Very high frequency - potentially 10 trams per hour to Irlam with 5 onwards to Warrington. That would fit with similar Metrolink lines. Such high frequency won't be possible with heavy rail due to higher rollingstock and staff costs
Potential to serve new destinations- build a branch to serve Partington and Cadishead at relatively low cost
Better reliability - removing the interaction with wider rail servics. The CLC stoppers have shocking reliability compared to Merseyrail or Metrolink
Freed up capacity for mainline services - at the Liverpool end services could run onto the Northern Line or Northern Line services could be extended to Widnes for example, giving very high frequencies to stations closer to the urban area
Consistent branding and intergrated ticketing within an urban area. I think there's risk that the CLC line becomes quite a confused product and misses out in things like intergrated ticketing.
Standing Capacity - could be very useful for any additonal development or new stops at Old Trafford. Heavy rail is going to be far worse at catering for crowds both to the city centre and to the west.
This will likely require additional city centre Metrolink capacity but that is going to be needed anyway to cater for increasing demand on existing lines.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It seems strange to see the phrase "Sheffield bound expresses" appearing on a thread that is supposed to be discussing improvements to the Manchester Metrolink system.
Has there been any formal official discussions in the last few years in regards to the conversion of any section of the CLC from being a heavy-rail line to light-rail operation?
Has there been any formal official discussions in the last few years in regards to the conversion of any section of the CLC from being a heavy-rail line to light-rail operation?
Has there been any formal official discussions in the last few years in regards to the conversion of any section of the CLC from being a heavy-rail line to light-rail operation?
I don't think it was ever down for full light rail conversion, I think it was just down for tram-trains but it's been officially proposed several times
It wouldn't cost that much however as crossrail built several large stations underground in about 15 miles of tunnels. This scheme would use a fraction of that and wouldn't need crossrail passenger numbers to be a success.
It will still cost many billions. Even the single underground station of the Burnham proposal was costed at £5-10bn alone.
To create a capable system will require much more than that.
Bolton is always going to be heavy rail. I didn't think the junction at Salford Cresent created so many problems, I thought it was mainly Windsor/water st/castlefield junctions where the problems were
My understanding is the problem is cumulative. The more junctions and crossing moves you pile on the harder and harder it gets to create an efficient and workable timetable. Constraint upon constraint.
All paths through each junction have to fit together, especially as many of these junctions are not separated by much more than a train length.
I think the solution for the North west would be a unified transport solution, a bit like Germany's Rhine Rhur as the area between Liverpool, Warrington Manchester and Preston is very dense and quite interconnected. A lot of people travel between all these cities. Would Liverpool and Manchester hate being lumped together making it near politically possible? Probably. Would it be a massive benefit none the less? Definitly
I agree, you could link Merseyrail to the CLC and the Chat Moss line, and have trains run through to places like Rochdale and Glossop. The distances are short enough for a system like this to work.
I agree, you could link Merseyrail to the CLC and the Chat Moss line, and have trains run through to places like Rochdale and Glossop. The distances are short enough for a system like this to work.
Does this proposal actually mean third-rail instatement to both Rochdale and Glossop? Has anyone any views on what problems in the TfGM area this will cause?
Life was so much simpler when threads on this website concentrated upon trams in the light-rail section and heavy-rail trains in a heavy-rail section. Tram-trains do naught but blur the difference and give opportunities for all weird and wonderful speculation forum discussions.
Does this proposal actually mean third-rail instatement to both Rochdale and Glossop? Has anyone any views on what problems in the TfGM area this will cause?
Life was so much simpler when threads on this website concentrated upon trams in the light-rail section and heavy-rail trains in a heavy-rail section. Tram-trains do naught but blur the difference and give opportunities for all weird and wonderful speculation forum discussions.
Dual Voltage trains, of course! Castlefield desperately needs replacement with a tunnel. They say that perfect is the enemy of good. In my opinion, good is the enemy of ambition. England is such a London-centric country that some true investment outside the south-east would benefit national perceptions enough to sway a general election.
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.
