Manchester Metrolink: how could it be improved?

[Bevan Price]

Like for like, certainly. The comparison being offered is 1 or 2 tph of "proper" trains, or 4+ per hour of trams/ tram trains. On most suburban branches around Manchester, 2tph is about all you could hope for because of the constraints around the central area. Doubling (or more) that frequency could result in a much better overall offering, even if the vehicles themselves haven't improved.

No. The main comparison is whether or not we should lose heavy rail fast services on the CLC leaving only painfully slow all-shacks tram services.

Manchester to Warrington Bank Quay is a good 10 minutes slower than Manchester to Warrington Central, and Bank Quay is a good 10 minutes walk fro the town centre. - so that would be a much worse option than what we have now.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Manchester to Warrington Bank Quay is a good 10 minutes slower than Manchester to Warrington Central, and Bank Quay is a good 10 minutes walk fro the town centre. - so that would be a much worse option than what we have now.

Also, remember how near Warrington Central is to the very well-served bus station with hub routes in all directions.

 

[Bantamzen]

Not enough to have 2 lanes of traffic, 2 cycle lanes at least one tram lane, a high level platform to metrolink standards as well as street level access to premises. At a push you might by the job centre fit a single platform, whether it's long enough of a space however I don't know.

Ashton and airport lines are great examples of how much space street running stops need. Half of the Ashton lines problems is the slow weaving in and out of off street stops. For Wilmslow road to work as a tram, either it would need closing to all road traffic, or would need a radical rethink of metrolink design standards and potentially low floor trams to remove the platform problems. Although the high floors allowed the system to be built initially on a budget, I can't help but feel they've otherwise impacted growth by limiting what street runnning sections the system can use.

I wouldn't be looking at separate traffic and tram alignments, the tram lines and road would be shared through the narrow sections, and traffic would be limited to local / deliveries / taxis rather than having the route as a rat run off the other main roads. Think along the lines of the Sheffield Supertram through the Hillsborough area. Because as I say this extension's prime purpose would be to encourage modal shift onto Metrolink. It would probably need a little of work getting the raised platforms in, but as I say there are random car parking slots that certainly could be purposed without comprising the cycle lanes or pavements. The only thing that might be prudent as with Supertram would be to stagger platforms so that two passing trams don't snarl the traffic flows when stopped next to each other.

 

[edwin_m]

To be honest if cycle users don't mix well with tram services, then that's as much about the the cyclists than it is about the trams. Wherever you have tram street running, it's going to interact with cycle traffic. So cycle traffic cannot be a blocker, especially given that those trams can likely take a lot more traffic off the roads which only benefits cycle users.

If there isn't width for a separate cycle lane, then the cyclists have no alternative but to ride on or near the tracks. This creates a hazard of the cycle wheels getting trapped in the rail grooves, and also means a tram has to travel at the speed of the cyclist until the road widens out.

 

[Bantamzen]

If there isn't width for a separate cycle lane, then the cyclists have no alternative but to ride on or near the tracks. This creates a hazard of the cycle wheels getting trapped in the rail grooves, and also means a tram has to travel at the speed of the cyclist until the road widens out.

However cycle routes can be re-routed if there isn't space for both. They shouldn't be blockers for wider mass transit development, although as above it may be possible on my proposed route to accommodate both.

 

[edwin_m]

However cycle routes can be re-routed if there isn't space for both. They shouldn't be blockers for wider mass transit development, although as above it may be possible on my proposed route to accommodate both.

If the alternative route is significantly longer or slower then cyclists will continue to use the tram route regardless.

 

[Bantamzen]

If the alternative route is significantly longer or slower then cyclists will continue to use the tram route regardless.

Out in less densely populated areas I could see this being a problem, but somewhere like Manchester there are plenty of possible routes that shouldn't add too much to cycle times. However again, having a mass transit system is going to help enable far more modal shift than cycling, so cycle lanes and routing whilst needing consideration should not be a reason to not to build a new tram route.

 

[lowe1409]

I wouldn't be looking at separate traffic and tram alignments, the tram lines and road would be shared through the narrow sections, and traffic would be limited to local / deliveries / taxis rather than having the route as a rat run off the other main roads. Think along the lines of the Sheffield Supertram through the Hillsborough area. Because as I say this extension's prime purpose would be to encourage modal shift onto Metrolink. It would probably need a little of work getting the raised platforms in, but as I say there are random car parking slots that certainly could be purposed without comprising the cycle lanes or pavements. The only thing that might be prudent as with Supertram would be to stagger platforms so that two passing trams don't snarl the traffic flows when stopped next to each other.

Raised platforms would be a massive challenge. You'd need space wide enough (am I correct in saying 6m for a single sided platform?) as well as at least 2 lanes for trams to run along plus one lane for local traffic in the direction as the stop. On top of this you still need at least 2 footpaths for access to premesis either side.

And metrolink still doesn't even allow local traffic to drive through it's stations. Look at the Ashton line where road lanes get diverted around stops at droylesden and edge lane whilst stops like Clayton, cemetery road and audenshaw the tram has to take painfully slow turns to divert away from the road. The only on street stations where this isn't a problem is ones similar to market street where the road is all pedestrianised.

The only way I could see it working is if Manchester introduced a second tram network closer to a first generation tramway but with low floors that allows platforms at curb level. Essentially it'll be a bus replacement tram than a light rail line.

Out in less densely populated areas I could see this being a problem, but somewhere like Manchester there are plenty of possible routes that shouldn't add too much to cycle times. However again, having a mass transit system is going to help enable far more modal shift than cycling, so cycle lanes and routing whilst needing consideration should not be a reason to not to build a new tram route.

Cycles are always going to be popular on this student, budget conscious corridor. People are generally young and don't necessarily want to be spending money on tram fares and hence choose the cheaper bicycle. They generally travel between student accommodation in places such as withington and fallowfield, travel to the university and town. This is all along one road. Trying to push them onto an alternate road won't make a difference, especially if the majority of cars are removed, they will just cycle down the road. Look at Oxford road where the cycle lanes are of a higher quality yet lesser used as people have no problem cycling down the now very quiet road. Removing the traffic and putting tram tracks in won't solve the problem of reducing traffic. It'll still end up in accidents and trams being slowed down. Particularly if they are extended as far as withington where the existing road is too narrow for the cycle lanes and they just have painted bicycles in the middle of the road.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yesterday, as part of the journey to Withington Hospital for an echocardiogram, I took the Metrolink and with this thread in mind, took note of the type of seating. There have been some thread contributions that make mention of extending the Metrolink network to places way outside the border area of Greater Manchester and it made me wonder if those contributors felt that the existing seating typw was really suitable for journeys of such proposed lengths.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Yesterday, as part of the journey to Withington Hospital for an echocardiogram, I took the Metrolink and with this thread in mind, took note of the type of seating. There have been some thread contributions that make mention of extending the Metrolink network to places way outside the border area of Greater Manchester and it made me wonder if those contributors felt that the existing seating typw was really suitable for journeys of such proposed lengths.

Warrington is currently only 30 minutes from Central Manchester by a stopping train - even if we assume a change to tram to add a third of the time taking us to 40 minutes, that is about the same duration as from the city centre to Shaw and Crompton.

I would imagine that any of the tram-train proposals (e.g. Wigan via Atherton) would have chance to consider a different seat design - although that isn't too long a journey either.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Warrington is currently only 30 minutes from Central Manchester by a stopping train - even if we assume a change to tram to add a third of the time taking us to 40 minutes, that is about the same duration as from the city centre to Shaw and Crompton.

I would imagine that any of the tram-train proposals (e.g. Wigan via Atherton) would have chance to consider a different seat design - although that isn't too long a journey either.

Would such a Central Manchester to Warrington tram-train journey only have the same number of stops as the current heavy-rail service or would there be extra intermediate stops which would also lengthen the journey time in the section from Birchwood to Warrington which would give extra public transport provision for that line section.

The thought of having poorer quality seating than what is currently on offer for a longer journey time. seems to be a retrograde step.

Another thought on the matter, being mindful of the costs incurred in electrifying the Bolton-Westhoughton-Wigan heavy rail line for posts, wiring, labour et al, how much would the costs incurred be for the whole cenral Manchester to Warrington Central line and the rolling stock provision to run such a new service (unless it is to be provided by reducing the number of trams on other lines).

 

[Bantamzen]

Warrington is currently only 30 minutes from Central Manchester by a stopping train - even if we assume a change to tram to add a third of the time taking us to 40 minutes, that is about the same duration as from the city centre to Shaw and Crompton.

I would imagine that any of the tram-train proposals (e.g. Wigan via Atherton) would have chance to consider a different seat design - although that isn't too long a journey either.

But don't forget on the CLC there will be longer runs at top speed where certainly the M5000's ride quality gets, erm interesting, plus there's the loss in overall in seat capacity especially given that tram lengths are going to be capped at what the city centre stops can handle (i.e. 4 cars). That's not going to prove popular, unless there is a fundamental change in the design of the tram-train interiors and ride quality, which in turn will cost. Is it really worth all that when Northern's 150/6 are up for replacement in the coming years anyway?

(Just as an aside, is this the first time in forum history a downgrade in seat and ride quality is being promoted as a good thing... )

 

[Bletchleyite]

But don't forget on the CLC there will be longer runs at top speed where certainly the M5000's ride quality gets, erm interesting, plus there's the loss in overall in seat capacity especially given that tram lengths are going to be capped at what the city centre stops can handle (i.e. 4 cars). That's not going to prove popular, unless there is a fundamental change in the design of the tram-train interiors and ride quality, which in turn will cost. Is it really worth all that when Northern's 150/6 are up for replacement in the coming years anyway?

(Just as an aside, is this the first time in forum history a downgrade in seat and ride quality is being promoted as a good thing... )

Many CLC local trains are 2-car, so you would have a capacity uplift - when coupled with a frequency increase even more so. I do think the tram trains will need a more train like interior less about standees, though, probably in a fixed formation 4 car unit. Something that looks a bit like the Sheffield tram-trains, with the centre sections with more seats and fewer doors for those going further and standee/accessible bits at the ends (kind of creating a double decker bus on the level) would be no bad idea. The Class 777 sort of does it too albeit not for that reason. The seats don't specifically concern me (I find them more comfortable than those in the 777, though they aren't that dissimilar), but more that a standee layout isn't really well suited to the longer Metrolink journeys. I'd consider putting such units on the Rochdales too for the same reason, which would allow a cascade for more double trams on other shorter routes.

As for that downgrade, it can be a good thing if you get a big frequency uplift plus the direct city centre accessibility Metrolink offers. Along similar lines I can't see the denizens of Wigan or Burscough being upset if/when Merseyrail ever gets to those places - yes, the 777s have nasty seats, but going from 1tph on weekdays and nothing on Sundays to 2 or 4tph all day every day is such an upgrade that most would be thrilled.

 

[Zomboid]

I think it has been shown that the biggest driver of demand (which means modal shift) is frequency. An armchair once an hour will be less popular than 4 park benches an hour, especially on suburban runs.

 

[daodao]

The thread title is about improving Metrolink, not extending it to places outwith Greater Manchester such as Warrington.

The most straightforward things to do would be to:

• mitigate some of the marked speed restrictions
• buy some 4 coach trams for routes where double trams are currently routinely used, to eliminate the wasted space of unnecessary cabs
• extend Metrolink as a tram service (not tram train) from Piccadilly undercroft to Marple Rose Hill on street as far as Ashburys and then via Reddish, with single tracks dedicated exclusively to Metrolink and heavy rail respectively between Romiley station and the current Marple Bridge Junction, and a double track for trams between Marple Bridge Junction and Rose Hill

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thread title is about improving Metrolink, not extending it to places outwith Greater Manchester such as Warrington.

Extending Metrolink is one way of improving it, by bringing its benefits to a wider audience.

The most straightforward things to do would be to:

• mitigate some of the marked speed restrictions
• buy some 4 coach trams for routes where double trams are currently routinely used, to eliminate the wasted space of unnecessary cabs
• extend Metrolink as a tram service (not tram train) from Piccadilly undercroft to Marple Rose Hill on street as far as Ashburys and then via Reddish, with single tracks dedicated exclusively to Metrolink and heavy rail respectively between Romiley station and the current Marple Bridge Junction, and a double track for trams between Marple Bridge Junction and Rose Hill

I do agree on Rose Hill, I find it odd that they intend to send it via Guide Bridge on a shared route when you could instead run it via Brinnington/Bredbury (the busier part) to Rose Hill (would be busier than Marple Bridge if the service was better as it's more central to Marple) and concentrating the New Mills/Sheffield services on the Guide Bridge route which has the Hadfields to add to the frequency.

 

[Bantamzen]

Many CLC local trains are 2-car, so you would have a capacity uplift - when coupled with a frequency increase even more so. I do think the tram trains will need a more train like interior less about standees, though, probably in a fixed formation 4 car unit. Something that looks a bit like the Sheffield tram-trains, with the centre sections with more seats and fewer doors for those going further and standee/accessible bits at the ends (kind of creating a double decker bus on the level) would be no bad idea. The Class 777 sort of does it too albeit not for that reason. The seats don't specifically concern me (I find them more comfortable than those in the 777, though they aren't that dissimilar), but more that a standee layout isn't really well suited to the longer Metrolink journeys. I'd consider putting such units on the Rochdales too for the same reason, which would allow a cascade for more double trams on other shorter routes.

And others can be 4, 5 and 6 car services out of Warrington and other main stops, so it's still an overall loss of seats.

As for that downgrade, it can be a good thing if you get a big frequency uplift plus the direct city centre accessibility Metrolink offers. Along similar lines I can't see the denizens of Wigan or Burscough being upset if/when Merseyrail ever gets to those places - yes, the 777s have nasty seats, but going from 1tph on weekdays and nothing on Sundays to 2 or 4tph all day every day is such an upgrade that most would be thrilled.

What's being proposed isn't a massive uplift in service frequency though, maybe at most one or two more an hour with longer journey times into Manchester.

 

[artemic]

single tracks dedicated exclusively to Metrolink and heavy rail respectively between Romiley station and the current Marple Bridge Junction

Wouldn't this preclude (for example) any expansion of Manchester - Sheffield service, never mind the resilience of the existing Hope Valley service?

I do agree on Rose Hill, I find it odd that they intend to send it via Guide Bridge on a shared route when you could instead run it via Brinnington/Bredbury (the busier part) to Rose Hill (would be busier than Marple Bridge if the service was better as it's more central to Marple) and concentrating the New Mills/Sheffield services on the Guide Bridge route which has the Hadfields to add to the frequency.

Rose Hill may be slightly more central to Marple in that it isn't down a slope from the centre, but is thus a long uphill walk from the settlement of Marple Bridge - 25 minutes at least.
There are buses, but at that point you could just stay on the bus to Stockport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And others can be 4, 5 and 6 car services out of Warrington and other main stops, so it's still an overall loss of seats.

It remains my view that Fiddlers Ferry (NPR) should be required before any such Merseyrail/Metrolink option is taken for the CLC. Thus for fast services, likely 8-car 200m EMUs will run several times an hour, provding that fast capacity.

What's being proposed isn't a massive uplift in service frequency though, maybe at most one or two more an hour with longer journey times into Manchester.

The local service on the western side is 2tph and the local service on the eastern side is between 0.5 and 1tph with the odd peak extra. Going to 4/5tph is a massive uplift. The fast service is irrelevant, that'd be on NPR as a precondition of this.

The massive (!) number of people living in Birchwood and Widnes may not like it, but you can't make an omelette, as it were.

 

[Bantamzen]

It remains my view that Fiddlers Ferry (NPR) should be required before any such Merseyrail/Metrolink option is taken for the CLC. Thus for fast services, likely 8-car 200m EMUs will run several times an hour, provding that fast capacity.



The local service on the western side is 2tph and the local service on the eastern side is between 0.5 and 1tph with the odd peak extra. Going to 4/5tph is a massive uplift. The fast service is irrelevant, that'd be on NPR as a precondition of this.

The massive (!) number of people living in Birchwood and Widnes may not like it, but you can't make an omelette, as it were.

I do agree that NPR must be a pre-condition. If that got built and served where we currently expect it to, then the CLC could then be carved as proposed.

 

[Grimsby town]

Wouldn't this preclude (for example) any expansion of Manchester - Sheffield service, never mind the resilience of the existing Hope Valley service?

I imagine this is why TfGM seem to see Glossop and Marple as pretty low down the Metrolink priority list. There's too much interaction with potential additional Manchester to Leeds/Sheffield services. I don't think there'll be any Metrolink development on those lines until NPR is more developed.

Warrington is in a very similar position in that conversion depends on either new lines or additional capacity on alternative routes like the Chat Moss. I'm confident no conversion will occur until then. Talks of ride quality and seats is pretty premature as it's likely to be a future tram-train vehicle or even metro vehicle given we're talking a 15 year+ time frame.

Conversion of the Atherton line is far more likely to occur first because heavy rail services can easily be diverted via Bolton. A simple conversion to Hindley might be possible initially without having to interact with heavy rail services. There's probably even space for Metrolink to continue to Wigan without interacting with heavy rail with some street running.

 

[BankQuayLowLvl]

If Metrolink can be used to provide a connection between Warrington Central and Bank Quay, then the additional benefit of that is well worth splitting the CLC services (in addition to the service level uplift).

The existing Central platforms could be retained for Merseyrail.

Finding an on-street route between Central and Bank Quay is tricky, though. Some options:
1. Metrolink leaves CLC to north, with platforms on existing surface carpark. Sharp left turn southbound onto Winwick St (is the underbridge too low?) then loop round the town centre via Scotland Rd, Academy Way, St Austins Lane, and terminate on Museum St just before WBQ. A lot of this is bus gated and low traffic. Wilson Patten St is unfortunately not a viable option due to traffic levels.
2. Metrolink leaves CLC to north, with platforms on existing surface carpark. Sharp right turn northbound onto Winwick St, left onto Tanners Lane (lots of flats planned around here) then another low underbridge on Froghall Lane, south on Crossfield St, demolish Poundstretcher, and terminate on WBQ northern car park alongside Parker St.
3. Metrolink leaves CLC to south, with platforms on current line but east of existing platforms. Join Midland Way heading west (this is probably already too busy for this to work) then demolish Wilsons Motor Company and turn under Froghall Lane to run alongside WCML into WBQ. No idea if there's space for this bu there are at least some sidings just north of WBQ which could be relocated.

Of these probably Option 1 is most viable but all are tricky.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I imagine this is why TfGM seem to see Glossop and Marple as pretty low down the Metrolink priority list. There's too much interaction with potential additional Manchester to Leeds/Sheffield services. I don't think there'll be any Metrolink development on those lines until NPR is more developed.

I don't really see any sense in converting Glossop. It's perfectly decent as an EMU service. If TfGM want to improve it they could increase frequency.

Loads of trams (well, 10 per hour) sharing with TPE services between Manchester and Guide Bridge strikes me as a recipe for unpunctuality, though I suppose you could re-quad it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think basing future plans on NPR ever happening is a recipe for nothing to ever happen. There are two hopes of NPR happening: no hope and Bob Hope, and Bob's been dead for 20 years.

Anyway.

Converting the CLC to tram can't and won't work unless you find a way of moving the express trains somewhere else. The only diversion route is over Chat Moss, which is full,

You could look at rebuilding Cadishead-Timperley and/or Latchford-Timperley. But unless you have the expresses miss Manchester and run direct from Timperley to Hazel Grove or up the Reddish/Denton line to Guide Bridge, all you're doing is moving the problem somewhere else.

Loads of trams (well, 10 per hour) sharing with TPE services between Manchester and Guide Bridge strikes me as a recipe for unpunctuality, though I suppose you could re-quad it.

The only TPE that goes that way at the moment is the 1tph stopper, although I think there will be an additional 1tph at some point if/when the Hull semi-fasts come back. They'd easily fit down there.

Getting my crayons out, I'd keep the line via Hyde Central as heavy rail and I'd convert the line via Reddish North to Metrolink. Use the current alignment as far as Belle Vue then either on-street running down Hyde Road or link up with the Ashton line at Etihad Campus/Velopark.

 

[daodao]

Wouldn't this preclude (for example) any expansion of Manchester - Sheffield service, never mind the resilience of the existing Hope Valley service?

The Manchester-Sheffield fast service runs via Hazel Grove and Stockport.

There would be adequate capacity on a single track heavy rail line between Romiley and Marple Bridge Junction for 2tph passenger service (Manchester to New Mills and beyond, via Guide Bridge) and 1tph freight path. That is all that is needed.

I suspect that the reluctance to extend Metrolink services currently terminating at Piccadilly (undercroft) further east is related to the possibility of reconstructing Piccadilly mainline station to accommodate HS2/NPR. Given that is many years away (if it ever happens), this condemns the ex-GCR lines in Southeast Manchester to a poor dmu service for many years hence.

Getting my crayons out, I'd keep the line via Hyde Central as heavy rail and I'd convert the line via Reddish North to Metrolink. Use the current alignment as far as Belle Vue then either on-street running down Hyde Road or link up with the Ashton line at Etihad Campus/Velopark.

I agree, other than that IMO it would be better to run the Metrolink service into Piccadilly (undercroft) from just east of Ashburys along Ashton Old Road.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect that the reluctance to extend Metrolink services currently terminating at Piccadilly (undercroft) further east is related to the possibility of reconstructing Piccadilly mainline station to accommodate HS2/NPR. Given that is many years away (if it ever happens), this condemns the ex-GCR lines in Southeast Manchester to a poor dmu service for many years hence.

I'm not sure that's the issue given that (a) the Ashton line already goes east, and (b) you would likely run on street as far as Ashburys anyway, because there's no room to quad that bit?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I suspect that the reluctance to extend Metrolink services currently terminating at Piccadilly (undercroft) further east is related to the possibility of reconstructing Piccadilly mainline station to accommodate HS2/NPR.

I think it's probably more to do with capacity in the city centre. The Altrincham-Piccadilly trams have been extended to Etihad Campus to partially cover the withdrawal of the MediaCityUK to Etihad Campus trams. The issue seems to be more that you couldn't put much more through the city centre from the Piccadilly direction, although you could move some services (I'm thinking Victoria - Airport) to the 2CC.

 

[artemic]

The Manchester-Sheffield fast service runs via Hazel Grove and Stockport.

There would be adequate capacity on a single track heavy rail line between Romiley and Marple Bridge Junction for 2tph passenger service (Manchester to New Mills and beyond, via Guide Bridge) and 1tph freight path. That is all that is needed.

Indeed they do, although Stockport is even more 'full'.

Another single track section (in addition to Hyde Jn) on the only route accessible to heavy rail to Manchester would effectively remove the 'remaining' diversionary route from Sheffield, nor would it leave much wiggle room for the 2tph stoppers in all too familiar disruption.
I note that passenger trains already pass each other at Marple Wharf Jn every half hour. (I presume it would be possible/necessary to retime these, but how sensibly?)

 

[daodao]

I think it's probably more to do with capacity in the city centre. The Altrincham-Piccadilly trams have been extended to Etihad Campus to partially cover the withdrawal of the MediaCityUK to Etihad Campus trams. The issue seems to be more that you couldn't put much more through the city centre from the Piccadilly direction, although you could move some services (I'm thinking Victoria - Airport) to the 2CC.

I would simply extend the 5 tph Bury service, which currently terminates at Piccadilly, to Marple Rose Hill. This would not require any further capacity in the city centre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would simply extend the 5 tph Bury service, which currently terminates at Piccadilly, to Marple Rose Hill. This would not require any further capacity in the city centre.

Presumably when the full service is reinstated you could also extend the Altrincham service to Glossop and Hadfield on the same basis?

If you had the "ex railway" bits both operating paired with other "ex railway" bits then using fixed 4 car more long-distance-style trams on that set of services would be a good fit, too.