Cheadle station

[M60lad]

Its not just that the bus service from Cheadle to Manchester is poor is the route and amount of time it takes to get to Manchester as it doesn't take the direct route instead it runs via Didsbury, Withington, Fallowfield and up Wilmslow/Oxford Roads which are known for generating traffic especially through Curry Mile through Rusholme

 

[py_megapixel]

Its not just that the bus service from Cheadle to Manchester is poor is the route and amount of time it takes to get to Manchester as it doesn't take the direct route instead it runs via Didsbury, Withington, Fallowfield and up Wilmslow/Oxford Roads which are known for generating traffic especially through Curry Mile through Rusholme

This is a good point. There have actually been faster services in the relatively recent past.

Stagecoach tried the X57, which was the same route as what is now the 42B, but with limited stops north of East Didsbury. But this only lasted a few years, and in any case it was still ridiculously slow at rush hour because of traffic.

Then there was the long-standing route 130 which ran via the A34 rather than Wilmslow Road, but that service suffered a death by a thousand cuts at the hands of Arriva, and the section between Heald Green and Manchester is now gone entirely.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

The elephant in the room is that rail will be far quicker than the bus from Cheadle to Manchester. This will lead to massive levels of overcrowding on Chester to Manchester trains.

 

[Rail Ranger]

The elephant in the room is that rail will be far quicker than the bus from Cheadle to Manchester. This will lead to massive levels of overcrowding on Chester to Manchester trains.

Cheadle is an affluent area with a high level of car ownership. There is a well established culture of driving to the park and ride car park at East Didsbury Metrolink station from where trams depart every 7.5 minutes to Manchester. I don't see an hourly train to Manchester doing much to change that culture.

 

[D Mylchreest]

Interesting theory & perhaps that's what's happening in this case. The problem though would be that if they installed the platform at Cheadle to the current design, it would remove the possibility of providing a passing loop at a later date as the platform would be sited on the currently disused portion of the trackbed which would be needed to provide a loop.

IIRC the original station at Cheadle had its platforms mounted on the embankment. Perhaps that could be done again?
I really don't know how Cheadle village is going to find the space for additional car parking

 

[davechis]

IIRC the original station at Cheadle had its platforms mounted on the embankment. Perhaps that could be done again?
I really don't know how Cheadle village is going to find the space for additional car parking

As I understand it, the proposed platform is to be located on the north side of the existing running line. Unfortunately this would obstruct the currently disused trackbed which could otherwise be used for a passing loop. One possible solution (as suggested by a previous correspondent) would be for a permanent platform to be located along the line of a future loop and a temporary extension to this platform provided to bridge the gap between the edge of the permanent structure and the existing running line. The performance of this arrangement in terms of network capacity could then be monitored and if found to be satisfactory, the extended platform be made permanent. If on the other hand the network capacity under this arrangement was found to be inadequate, the temporary platform could be removed and a passing loop installed.

 

[biggerisbetter]

Cheadle is an affluent area with a high level of car ownership. There is a well established culture of driving to the park and ride car park at East Didsbury Metrolink station from where trams depart every 7.5 minutes to Manchester. I don't see an hourly train to Manchester doing much to change that culture.

Metrolink also has better penetration of the city centre than the rail service terminating at Piccadilly. However, based on the current journey time, it is likely to be around a 16-17 minute journey from Cheadle to Piccadilly on the train which is less than a third of the time on the bus and materially quicker than the Metrolink, particularly for those who work in the eastern part of the city centre as East Didsbury services run via 2CC. This obviously doesn't include the time taken to drive to East Didsbury so I think the station will be very popular for those within walking distance.

Could some of the concerns regarding journey times and potentially needing to reduce calls at existing stations be prevented or mitigated by exlusively using Class 195s with their better acceleration than sprinters on the line?

 

[Rail Ranger]

195s are currently banned from the Mid Cheshire Line due to a clearance issue at an overbridge south of Hale.

 

[biggerisbetter]

195s are currently banned from the Mid Cheshire Line due to a clearance issue at an overbridge south of Hale.

Thanks for confirming. Would be interesting to know how difficult this clearance issue would be to resolve if use of 195s would indeed prevent the loss of calls at existing stations following opening of Cheadle.

 

[Rail Ranger]

It is galling to see 195s on the Rose Hill service when the Mid Cheshire Line is exclusively 150s and 156s.

 

[Rail Quest]

Could some of the concerns regarding journey times and potentially needing to reduce calls at existing stations be prevented or mitigated by exlusively using Class 195s with their better acceleration than sprinters on the line?

Thats an interesting idea. The time gains of running with 195s may only be a few minutes at most but if thats what would be needed to facilitate Cheadle, then that could be enough. Maybe longer dwell times cancel out any performance benefits.

195s are currently banned from the Mid Cheshire Line due to a clearance issue at an overbridge south of Hale.

Do you know which bridge (or multiple) is the issue just out of interest? If its just one bridge then I'd love to see that get resolved. Even if the point on better performance doesn't stand, 195s still would suit the mid-Cheshire line more than, as you said, Rose Hill.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Not sure exactly which bridge it is. It may be the bridge with two single arches (Ashley Road). Photo here: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5230447
I see there is a limited clearance sign next to the up line.

 

[Bantamzen]

195s are currently banned from the Mid Cheshire Line due to a clearance issue at an overbridge south of Hale.

That's going to need to be addressed when the 15x stock starts to be withdrawn.

 

[CheshireCrusty]

Does the passing loop actually have to be at the station?
About half the route between Deansgate Junction is already dual (Deansgate Junction to the Manchester Airport line overpass and the Buxton freight line underpass to Edgeley). It looks as if the former dual track-bed to the east of Manchester Road is still available as far as Roscoe's roundabout. Surely with modern signaling a dual - single- dual - single - dual - single route could be operate with minimum delay knock-ons even with limited acceleration.
National Rail seemed to wish to downplay the Mid-Cheshire Line service - I believe refusing the promised 2tph service because of the number of uncontrolled user operated farm crossings. Leaving Knutsford as the station with the most passengers for a 1tph service in the country.
The Ashley to Airport link seems to have long gone - with the focus on the former HS2 now Northern Powerhouse Rail link and airport station half a mile from the airport and the existing station.

 

[davechis]

Does the passing loop actually have to be at the station?
About half the route between Deansgate Junction is already dual (Deansgate Junction to the Manchester Airport line overpass and the Buxton freight line underpass to Edgeley). It looks as if the former dual track-bed to the east of Manchester Road is still available as far as Roscoe's roundabout. Surely with modern signaling a dual - single- dual - single - dual - single route could be operate with minimum delay knock-ons even with limited acceleration.
National Rail seemed to wish to downplay the Mid-Cheshire Line service - I believe refusing the promised 2tph service because of the number of uncontrolled user operated farm crossings. Leaving Knutsford as the station with the most passengers for a 1tph service in the country.
The Ashley to Airport link seems to have long gone - with the focus on the former HS2 now Northern Powerhouse Rail link and airport station half a mile from the airport and the existing station.

Ideally yes so that a train in the opposite direction could bypass a stopped train at the station which is where the main time delay would otherwise occur. I think it would be possible to construct a loop of approximately 1200 metres starting from a little west of Roscoe's roundabout to include the station site. This could accommodate the longest freight trains currently in service on UK railways. From knowledge of the line at this point, all the intermediate bridge structures and trackbed appear wide enough to accommodate a second track.

 

[takno]

Ideally yes so that a train in the opposite direction could bypass a stopped train at the station which is where the main time delay would otherwise occur. I think it would be possible to construct a loop of approximately 1200 metres starting from a little west of Roscoe's roundabout to include the station site. This could accommodate the longest freight trains currently in service on UK railways. From knowledge of the line at this point, all the intermediate bridge structures and trackbed appear wide enough to accommodate a second track.

I suspect the point here is that even without the specific issues at this location, accessibility issues make a 2 platform station massively more expensive than a single platform. It would arguably be cheaper and more effective to double the whole line *except* stations, rather than take the traditional approach of passing loops at stations

 

[kieron]

Basically the paths at the Chester and Stockport ends are fixed in stone so there isn't time in the schedule for an extra station call without missing out another station.

Why do you say the paths at the Chester end are fixed? There's a single line and a junction with a busier line nearby, but neither seems like something which would stop you from adding a few minutes in if needed, or like something which couldn't be improved at a price.

That's going to need to be addressed when the 15x stock starts to be withdrawn.

Maybe, or they could use other trains instead. 197s would work, according to the Sectional Appendix PDF. What they do will probably depend on what the problem is and how hard it is to fix.

 

[Bantamzen]

Maybe, or they could use other trains instead. 197s would work, according to the Sectional Appendix PDF. What they do will probably depend on what the problem is and how hard it is to fix.

Well as things stand they won't have 197s, so the first question begs what is the difference between 195s & 197s that would allow the latter to work the line? After that could 158s be used, or will it be a case of ensuring the specs of the new stock will allow their use, should the problem itself be too difficult or expensive to resolve?

 

[Rail Ranger]

Why do you say the paths at the Chester end are fixed? There's a single line and a junction with a busier line nearby, but neither seems like something which would stop you from adding a few minutes in if needed, or like something which couldn't be improved at a price.

Maybe, or they could use other trains instead. 197s would work, according to the Sectional Appendix PDF. What they do will probably depend on what the problem is and how hard it is to fix.

You can't leave Chester earlier to cater for a stop at Cheadle because that would conflict with the TfW train to Manchester Airport via Warrington.