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!
In my view, the sooner TfGM take over the ex-GC routes Southeast of Manchester to run as Metrolink, the better.
They should be the next Metrolink lines. It is clear that Northern Rail are not interested in secondary routes and conversion to light rail is a clear way forward. This also applies to the Kirkham-Blackpool South line.
In my view, the sooner TfGM take over the ex-GC routes SE of M/c to run as Metrolink, the better. They should be the next Metrolink lines. It is clear that Northern Rail are not interested in secondary routes and conversion to light rail is a clear way forward.
Indeed. Once the residents of Marple and Hyde get over the fact that they'll be downgraded to a tram rather than a "proper train", I'm sure they'll much prefer 5 smooth, quiet electric trams per hour over one noisy sprinter per hour
Indeed. Once the residents of Marple and Hyde get over the fact that they'll be downgraded to a tram rather than a "proper train", I'm sure they'll much prefer 5 smooth, quiet electric trams per hour over one noisy sprinter per hour
One would assume that this would be added to the Blackpool Tramway, and not Metrolink, if it were to be converted to light rail.
Indeed, Metrolink to Rose Hill would no doubt provide a 12 minute frequency from 0600-0100 plus similar frequencies on Sundays from around 0800-2330. Not only that but the trams would penetrate most of Manchester City Centre, not just Piccadilly and probably at cheaper fares.
It also provides Metrolink into the Stockport Council region which would be politically advantageous.
Trams work well for journeys of up to 4 or 5 miles within a built up area. They are not a good substitute for heavy rail over much longer distances. Rose Hill to Piccadilly is more than 12 miles via Hyde! So yes a higher frequency if converted to Metrolink but a less comfortable journey and none of the benefits of being part of the national rail network - through ticketing, care provided if connections missed, validity of railcards etc.etc.
I am not sure towns like Bury and Oldham have benefitted by their removal from the national rail map.
Trams work well for journeys of up to 4 or 5 miles within a built up area. They are not a good substitute for heavy rail over much longer distances. Rose Hill to Piccadilly is more than 12 miles via Hyde! So yes a higher frequency if converted to Metrolink but a less comfortable journey and none of the benefits of being part of the national rail network - through ticketing, care provided if connections missed, validity of railcards etc.etc.
I am not sure towns like Bury and Oldham have benefitted by their removal from the national rail map.
I'm not sure I entirely agree in the case of Bury.
10 trams per hour normally to Piccadilly and Altrincham, so all of the city centre is served directly. And whilst the train service to Bury was considerably before my time, the tram on that line doesn't feel particularly slow and takes around half the time of the bus. That's certainly not true of the Rochdale line.
Trams work well for journeys of up to 4 or 5 miles within a built up area. They are not a good substitute for heavy rail over much longer distances. Rose Hill to Piccadilly is more than 12 miles via Hyde! So yes a higher frequency if converted to Metrolink but a less comfortable journey and none of the benefits of being part of the national rail network - through ticketing, care provided if connections missed, validity of railcards etc.etc.
I am not sure towns like Bury and Oldham have benefitted by their removal from the national rail map.
Ridership has ballooned since the opening of Metrolink (the first phase, which included conversion of the Bury and Altrincham lines, saw annual usage double).
With respect, I think that the common opinion on this forum that trains are usually better than trams is limited primarily to 'rail fans' - in the real world light rail is far more successful (look at Heworth on the T&W Metro; passengers have a choice of a frequent Metro service or a faster hourly National Rail service, both serving Newcastle and Sunderland. The Metro usage in 17/18 (most recent figures) was over 2 million. The National Rail usage? Only 21k.
Passengers often don't care about speed if they can rely on something with higher frequency and better visibility. The conversion of the Bury and Oldham lines did just that.
Conversion of the Piccadilly to Rose Hill service to Metrolink would not be straightforward. It would be possible to convert the route via Bredbury to Metrolink but it would entail construction of an on-street Metrolink connection from the Ashton Metrolink line passing under the rail line in the Ashburys area to reach the Bredbury line and then parallel single lines between Romiley and Marple Wharf Junction. If tram-trains were used the existing track layout could be used between Romiley and Marple Wharf Junction.
Might be especially difficult if your intention was to do all of the Middlewood Way and you've already cycled from Macclesfield before doing that final uphill (additional) mile.
Might be especially difficult if your intention was to do all of the Middlewood Way and you've already cycled from Macclesfield before doing that final uphill (additional) mile.
Ridership has ballooned since the opening of Metrolink (the first phase, which included conversion of the Bury and Altrincham lines, saw annual usage double).
I've heard that before. Although, it's worth considering annual rail usage on the Mid-Cheshire line doubled between 2004 and 2009 without new trains or an enhanced frequency. Therefore, if rail usage can increase by that level, Metrolink needs to do a hell of a lot more than just double annual usage for the conversion to be labelled a success.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Conversion of the Piccadilly to Rose Hill service to Metrolink would not be straightforward. It would be possible to convert the route via Bredbury to Metrolink but it would entail construction of an on-street Metrolink connection from the Ashton Metrolink line passing under the rail line in the Ashburys area to reach the Bredbury line and then parallel single lines between Romiley and Marple Wharf Junction. If tram-trains were used the existing track layout could be used between Romiley and Marple Wharf Junction.
I've heard if tram-trains get introduced in Manchester TfGM's preferred route for them to run is Rose Hill to Altrincham via Piccadilly and then they would look at all Altrincham services being switched to tram-trains in an attempt to eliminated the bottle neck through Navigation Road.
I've heard that before. Although, it's worth considering annual rail usage on the Mid-Cheshire line doubled between 2004 and 2009 without new trains or an enhanced frequency. Therefore, if rail usage can increase by that level, Metrolink needs to do a hell of a lot more than just double annual usage for the conversion to be labelled a success.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
A doubling of usage isn't a success? Are you having a giggle?
In the period of 2005-2010 (best source I can find) rail usage increased by around 300 million p/a (from 1.1 billion to 1.4 billion). A period of growth is thus to be expected, although it seems on the Mid-Cheshire growth was above average. However, in the 1990-1995 period, when Metrolink was built, passenger rail usage declined by around 50 million. In this climate, a doubling of usage was a staggering success.
Metrolink has been fantastic for Manchester and anyone who thinks otherwise frankly needs their head screwing on.
I've heard that before. Although, it's worth considering annual rail usage on the Mid-Cheshire line doubled between 2004 and 2009 without new trains or an enhanced frequency. Therefore, if rail usage can increase by that level, Metrolink needs to do a hell of a lot more than just double annual usage for the conversion to be labelled a success.
The Bury line alone is getting a frequent enhancement south of Crumpsall so there will be a tram every 3 to 6 minutes.
It struggles with loadings running double units at a 6 minute frequency, You can’t say Metrolink hasn’t been successful! I myself lived in the City and used to commute using the tram to Bury because of how frequent and reliable it was compared to my old job at Bolton with Northern trains
A doubling of usage isn't a success? Are you having a giggle?
In the period of 2005-2010 (best source I can find) rail usage increased by around 300 million p/a (from 1.1 billion to 1.4 billion). A period of growth is thus to be expected, although it seems on the Mid-Cheshire growth was above average. However, in the 1990-1995 period, when Metrolink was built, passenger rail usage declined by around 50 million. In this climate, a doubling of usage was a staggering success.
Metrolink has been fantastic for Manchester and anyone who thinks otherwise frankly needs their head screwing on.
Horses for courses. Metrolink is fine for the right distances. Bury is fine. You bound along nicely with no round the houses diversions. Atherton would be too long, assuming trams take closer to bus times.
I'm not sure where the Rose Hill line sits in all this. It looks as though it would be difficult to disentangle from NR.
A doubling of usage isn't a success? Are you having a giggle?
In the period of 2005-2010 (best source I can find) rail usage increased by around 300 million p/a (from 1.1 billion to 1.4 billion). A period of growth is thus to be expected, although it seems on the Mid-Cheshire growth was above average. However, in the 1990-1995 period, when Metrolink was built, passenger rail usage declined by around 50 million. In this climate, a doubling of usage was a staggering success.
Metrolink has been fantastic for Manchester and anyone who thinks otherwise frankly needs their head screwing on.
Is that rail usage on the commuter routes in the Manchester area? If not then I fail to see the point of quoting that statistic. As you'll be well aware Manchester roads have faced challenges at rush hours which has forced more people on to public transport, that doesn't mean that situation is reflected in a little village in Devon which has a railway station but the nationwide stats will take that little village in Devon in to consideration. Altrincham and Knutsford are very similar in demographic and neither town has a typical 'northern town' demographic, both have high car ownership and a high average income meaning trains or trams aren't essential for a lot of people, yet both have seen a doubling of usage - Altrincham with Metrolink, Knutsford without. Consequently, if you want to sing the praises of Metrolink conversions you need more to back up your claim than just a doubling of usage. There are both winners and losers from conversions.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Which is best:
a) 10 trams per hour carrying 2m passengers per annum (2019 figures)
b) 2 trains per hour carrying 1m passengers per annum (2014 figures)
c) 4 trains per hour carrying 2.5m passengers per annum (2019 figures)
Just because a sounds better than b doesn't mean a was the right approach and should be done everywhere.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How many people are on those trams? Metrolink say the capacity of one of their trams is around 200 even though only 25% of those passengers will get a seat. People are used to saying a service is overcrowded if they don't get a seat but with Metrolink most of the capacity is standing capacity not seating capacity.
Is that rail usage on the commuter routes in the Manchester area? If not then I fail to see the point of quoting that statistic. As you'll be well aware Manchester roads have faced challenges at rush hours which has forced more people on to public transport,.
We seem to have returned to the argument that there's no point in improving public transport because people have to use it however bad it is. This is a ridiculous assertion from anything other than a pure profit perspective.
There are both winners and losers from conversions.
This is nonspecific; who in particular would lose out from converting Rose Hill - Romiley - Hyde - Manchester to tram operation?
Which is best:
a) 10 trams per hour carrying 2m passengers per annum
b) 2 trains per hour carrying 1m passengers per annum
c) 4 trains per hour carrying 2.5m passengers per annum
What makes you think that 4 trains per hour will attract more passengers than 10 trams per hour? I don't believe actual passengers have that much prejudice for trains over trams, and in any case Metrolink is about as train-like as trams get (short of tram-trains)
Just because a is better than b doesn't mean a was the right approach and should be done everywhere.
You couldn't convert Piccadilly to Rose Hill via Hyde to Metrolink unless you reinstated the slow lines between Ashburys and Hyde Junction and then built a flyover or diveunder at Hyde Junction.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You would also need to fly over the Stalybridge line at Guide Bridge.
Is that rail usage on the commuter routes in the Manchester area? If not then I fail to see the point of quoting that statistic. As you'll be well aware Manchester roads have faced challenges at rush hours which has forced more people on to public transport, that doesn't mean that situation is reflected in a little village in Devon which has a railway station but the nationwide stats will take that little village in Devon in to consideration. Altrincham and Knutsford are very similar in demographic and neither town has a typical 'northern town' demographic, both have high car ownership and a high average income meaning trains or trams aren't essential for a lot of people, yet both have seen a doubling of usage - Altrincham with Metrolink, Knutsford without. Consequently, if you want to sing the praises of Metrolink conversions you need more to back up your claim than just a doubling of usage. There are both winners and losers from conversions.
They're national statistics, but you've totally ignored my point. Doubling of usage in a period when rail journeys are increasing is impressive but doubling of usage of a period of rail decline is far, far more noteworthy.
Additionally, your point about cars works against yourself - car ownership is higher now than in the 90s, there is more car congestion now, thus increases in rail usage in the 00s are less impressive than increases in tram usage in the 90s - despite less congested roads in the 90s, the trams still managed to attract new passengers because they were much better than the trains they replaced.
I've heard if tram-trains get introduced in Manchester TfGM's preferred route for them to run is Rose Hill to Altrincham via Piccadilly and then they would look at all Altrincham services being switched to tram-trains in an attempt to eliminated the bottle neck through Navigation Road.
You couldn't convert Piccadilly to Rose Hill via Hyde to Metrolink unless you reinstated the slow lines between Ashburys and Hyde Junction and then built a flyover or diveunder at Hyde Junction.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You would also need to fly over the Stalybridge line at Guide Bridge.
I'm sure I read that there was consideration of street running until Hyde Junction then onto the railway. It could I guess branch off the Ashton line where it turns left onto the A6140, though between Guide Bridge and Hyde Junction you'd need the second two tracks because there isn't an obvious road to put it down.
That or you send it via Brinnington instead, which would probably make more sense as it's busier.
Horses for courses. Metrolink is fine for the right distances. Bury is fine. You bound along nicely with no round the houses diversions. Atherton would be too long, assuming trams take closer to bus times.
I'm not sure where the Rose Hill line sits in all this. It looks as though it would be difficult to disentangle from NR.
Generally light rail schemes in the UK that have part-converted rail lines have been more successful (Tyne and Wear, Nottingham, Croydon) as opposed to those which are almost entirely on-road (Edinburgh, Sheffield (I'm aware both of those have significant off-road sections but the general rule is that the more segregation for tram / light rail systems, the better).
They're national statistics, but you've totally ignored my point. Doubling of usage in a period when rail journeys are increasing is impressive but doubling of usage of a period of rail decline is far, far more noteworthy.
Additionally, your point about cars works against yourself - car ownership is higher now than in the 90s, there is more car congestion now, thus increases in rail usage in the 00s are less impressive than increases in tram usage in the 90s - despite less congested roads in the 90s, the trams still managed to attract new passengers because they were much better than the trains they replaced.
Interesting logic. I would have thought getting car owners on to public transport would be classed as more of a success than getting people without cars on to trams ahead of other non-car modes of transport.
There's also the question about whether a very frequent tram carries people who would have walked if they'd had to wait longer and whether that's really much better than driving a distance you can walk. When Chester rail station had a free city centre bus it seemed a lot of people got the bus if there was one waiting but walked if there wasn't.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's stating the obvious. In these cases the trams acquired passengers from the outset and to keep them all the tram system had to do was not to provide a worse or significantly more expensive service. Acquiring new passengers for a brand new service requires a lot more work. Have you ever noticed how Stagecoach put more effort in to duplicating bus routes that already exist opposed to starting new ones.
Just looking back at talks of Tram Train on Rose Hill to Altrincham. Though I am unsure that it will be that reliable on the eastern side of Manchester, I think I’d support this idea. However, I’d extend it through to Hale and maybe round the back of the houses to Manchester Airport, which should cut out many car journeys from Altrincham (and perhaps other Mid Cheshire Line places) to the Airport, which would be good for connecting onto planes AND trains including HS2. I’d say it’s a short extension using a partially existing alignment (bringing down costs) that should bring a lot of benefit. In terms of new tram stations, I’d have 2. One just off the mainline near where the B5162 and B5163 cross and one in the Warburton Green area.
Interesting logic. I would have thought getting car owners on to public transport would be classed as more of a success than getting people without cars on to trams ahead of other non-car modes of transport.
I'm really not sure you're reading my posts. When did I say car owners didn't get onto Manchester trams? I was saying that, considering the relative ease of driving in the Nineties to driving now, the doubling of passenger numbers (including no doubt a substantial number of car users) was more impressive.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's stating the obvious. In these cases the trams acquired passengers from the outset and to keep them all the tram system had to do was not to provide a worse or significantly more expensive service. Acquiring new passengers for a brand new service requires a lot more work. Have you ever noticed how Stagecoach put more effort in to duplicating bus routes that already exist opposed to starting new ones.
Stating the obvious? Not really, since on-street trams have predominantly been built on busy bus routes, therefore not providing a 'brand new service'.
Conversion of the Piccadilly to Rose Hill service to Metrolink would not be straightforward. It would be possible to convert the route via Bredbury to Metrolink but it would entail construction of an on-street Metrolink connection from the Ashton Metrolink line passing under the rail line in the Ashburys area to reach the Bredbury line and then parallel single lines between Romiley and Marple Wharf Junction. If tram-trains were used the existing track layout could be used between Romiley and Marple Wharf Junction.
Conversion of the route via Bredbury to Rose Hill to Metrolink would be relatively straightforward. The Hyde loop could be served by trains to New Mills Central and the Hope Valley, and this route could also be used for freight. However, the connection between the eastern portal of the Piccadilly Metrolink underground station and Ashburys would probably be best constructed more directly via or alongside Ashton Old Road.
Conversion of the Glossop line would be more difficult unless the quadruple lines from Ashburys to Guide Bridge were reinstated and a flyover created between Guide Bridge and Flowery Field for the trams. It would also shut the door on any possible reinstatement of the Woodhead line.
Conversion of the Glossop line would be more difficult unless the quadruple lines from Ashburys to Guide Bridge were reinstated and a flyover created between Guide Bridge and Flowery Field for the trams. It would also shut the door on any possible reinstatement of the Woodhead line.
You couldn't convert Piccadilly to Rose Hill via Hyde to Metrolink unless you reinstated the slow lines between Ashburys and Hyde Junction and then built a flyover or diveunder at Hyde Junction.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You would also need to fly over the Stalybridge line at Guide Bridge.
My preferred option would be Metrolink tram-trains to Rose Hill (and possibly beyond if new housing at High Lane gets the go-ahead) via Bredbury, then reroute the remaining heavy rail services (New Mills and Sheffield) via Guide Bridge and Woodley, a route already used for freight. A link would be needed from the Ashton tram line at or near Velopark then along the A6010 and perhaps Gorton Lane to join the railway before Belle Vue, but that's a "back of envelope idea" at the moment.
You who said Metrolink's achievement is more impressive because it happened at a time when there was lower car ownership, implying that because the roads were quieter driving was more attractive but then that also implies that a smaller proportion of those living close to any form of rail service to Manchester (tram or train) would have access to a car.
Stating the obvious? Not really, since on-street trams have predominantly been built on busy bus routes, therefore not providing a 'brand new service'.
And like I already alluded to why do you think that is? People are already making the journeys so they just move from one form of transport to another. I'd argue the Salford Quays route is the most successful Metrolink route as, while it took a number of years to get any decent level of patronage on the route, it was a new service provided as part of the first stage of regeneration of the area. It provided much more than what conversion of rail routes provided.
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.
