Could Metrolink trams be the solution for the Rose Hill Marple line?

[Bletchleyite]

Or Tram Trains, so no "conversion" required.

New thread here to discuss Hadfield: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lossop-line-be-converted-to-metrolink.208867/

 

[geordieblue]

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.

You aren't taking into account the doubling of ridership. If passengers weren't attracted away from their cars, where did they come from? Buses that didn't parallel the route? (And even if so, that's an argument in favour of light rail, if it is able to free up bus resources).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2020 ==

It provided much more than what conversion of rail routes provided.

Again, the ridership on the Bury and Altrincham lines doubled in the year after conversion. They represents a significant new market. In what world does doubling of patronage represent less of a success than a totally new flow to an area of high-density, high-paid employment?

 

[peters]

If passengers weren't attracted away from their cars, where did they come from? Buses that didn't parallel the route? (And even if so, that's an argument in favour of light rail, if it is able to free up bus resources).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2020 ==


Again, the ridership on the Bury and Altrincham lines doubled in the year after conversion. They represents a significant new market. In what world does doubling of patronage represent less of a success than a totally new flow to an area of high-density, high-paid employment?

Re-read post number 11, I explained how a more frequent public transport service can get people to travel who would otherwise walk or cycle. If that wasn't clear enough if it takes you 30 minutes to walk home and the next bus/train/tram isn't for 30 minutes it's quicker to walk but if there's a bus/train/tram every 5 minutes and it's a 5 minute walk at either end then it's quicker to use the bus/train/tram.

Sale and Altrincham are the largest places on the Altrincham line, both of these were connected by bus and had a bus to Manchester both when Metrolink started and still do. In fact bus services still exist but to a reduced frequency suggesting they have lost patronage. As you're probably aware Metrolink arrange ticket acceptance on these buses when problems arise or there's engineering works. So the question you need to answer is are you posting information which you know is incorrect or are you making incorrect presumptions.

Metrolink costs a lot compared to a buses, that's why Leigh got a guided busway with brand new buses instead of Metrolink after the vote for the congestion charge returned a negative result.

Ridership has ballooned since the opening of Metrolink (the first phase, which included conversion of the Bury and Altrincham lines, saw annual usage double).
...
A doubling of usage isn't a success? Are you having a giggle?
...
You aren't taking into account the doubling of ridership.
...
Again, the ridership on the Bury and Altrincham lines doubled in the year after conversion. They represents a significant new market. In what world does doubling of patronage represent less of a success than a totally new flow to an area of high-density, high-paid employment?

You're going around in circles by repeating the one reliable statistic you have on Metrolink. It's also not correct to say Salford Quays was an area of high-density, high-paid employment when the Metrolink service started, it was a run down area in urgent need of re-development, the tram acted as part of that re-development. In a similar way the city centre tram section was beneficial in the re-development of the Market Street/Arndale area following the IRA bombing, especially considering the Arndale bus station was lost in that bombing without an immediate replacement being available.

Given your lack of knowledge of other Greater Manchester transport in the 1980s and 1990s and your lack of knowledge about the state of Salford Quays when Metrolink started I wouldn't be surprised if you're a tram enthusiast from another part of the country who has never visited Manchester except to ride trams for fun. Did you ever visit the replica of Francis Drake's Golden Hind at Salford Quays in the early 1990s? That was pretty much the only point of interest between Ordsall Hall and Eccles at the time and it wasn't there for long.

 

[geordieblue]

You're going around in circles by repeating the one reliable statistic you have on Metrolink.

Because you still haven't answered my point. Don't blame me for repeating an argument when you haven't responded to it!

You're correct in that I'm not from Manchester, but if you think the tram would have been built through Salford Quays without nailed-on development planned, you're wrong, I'm afraid. Transport planners don't build lines for fun; they build them because there is a travel need.

I don't think many people were walking from Bury to Manchester, either.

Finally, even if Metrolink did draw passengers away from buses, that simply proves it was better for the area than trains, to return to your original point. You will say 'that is because of Metrolink's higher frequency'. Yes. It is. That is why trams are good: because they can provide a high frequency for relatively little cost compared to that of trains with far simpler signalling and trackwork.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2020 ==

So the question you need to answer is are you posting information which you know is incorrect or are you making incorrect presumptions.

Not sure what you mean by this - I don't think I've posted any incorrect information, and you still haven't explained why any of my 'presumptions' are incorrect either.

 

[jfollows]

Sale and Altrincham are the largest places on the Altrincham line, both of these were connected by bus and had a bus to Manchester both when Metrolink started and still do. In fact bus services still exist but to a reduced frequency suggesting they have lost patronage. As you're probably aware Metrolink arrange ticket acceptance on these buses when problems arise or there's engineering works. So the question you need to answer is are you posting information which you know is incorrect or are you making incorrect presumptions.

Yes, frequency for me. I moved to central Manchester in 1996 and worked in Sale. I would drive to work if I left home at 8am, but if I decided to go later into work I probably wouldn't be able to park in the office car park, so I took the tram after 09:30. I lived close to Manchester Oxford Road so a fast DMU service might have been nice, but no longer so I had to walk a bit further to the Gmex station for the tram. But the reality and the significance of the tram was the service frequency, and I didn't need to use a timetable of course. However the tram ride quality between Stretford and Dane Road was abysmal, perhaps still is.

Prior to the tram service, the stopping train service ran every 30 minutes after 19:18 from Oxford Road. I don't know how frequent the evening tram service is now but it's a vastly increased frequency with a much later finish too. That sort of thing could be transformational for Rose Hill also.

 

[Ianno87]

Because you still haven't answered my point. Don't blame me for repeating an argument when you haven't responded to it!

You're correct in that I'm not from Manchester, but if you think the tram would have been built through Salford Quays without nailed-on development planned, you're wrong, I'm afraid. Transport planners don't build lines for fun; they build them because there is a travel need.

Metrolink to Saford Quays was Transport Planning (captial T and capital P) in its widest sense - a known run down area with potential for development, but needing transport as a stimulus to reach its full potential by improving access to the area. That's why there's such a relatively high frequency of stops on the line.

The area was semi-developed before Metrolink arrived (e.g. the offices next to Anchorage and Harbour City stops*), but Metrolink has really stimulated the Lowry / MediaCity end of things. I doubt that much future development was "nailed on" at the time (the Lowry centre and ourlet certainly were, but MediaCity wasn't) but was part of a Salford 'Masterplan' for the area.


*Salford Quays I believe holds the dubious honour of being the first multiplex cinema in the UK to close, in the 2000s

 

[Bletchleyite]

Metrolink to Saford Quays was Transport Planning (captial T and capital P) in its widest sense - a known run down area with potential for development, but needing transport as a stimulus to reach its full potential by improving access to the area. That's why there's such a relatively high frequency of stops on the line.

It was also quite clever in that by running it to Eccles, from which nobody in their right mind uses it because the bus is both cheaper and quicker (unless they work in the Quays I suppose), they managed to unlock Objective 1 funding which paid part of the cost of it.

 

[geordieblue]

Metrolink to Saford Quays was Transport Planning (captial T and capital P) in its widest sense - a known run down area with potential for development, but needing transport as a stimulus to reach its full potential by improving access to the area. That's why there's such a relatively high frequency of stops on the line.

The area was semi-developed before Metrolink arrived (e.g. the offices next to Anchorage and Harbour City stops*), but Metrolink has really stimulated the Lowry / MediaCity end of things. I doubt that much future development was "nailed on" at the time (the Lowry centre and ourlet certainly were, but MediaCity wasn't) but was part of a Salford 'Masterplan' for the area.


*Salford Quays I believe holds the dubious honour of being the first multiplex cinema in the UK to close, in the 2000s

I don't deny that Metrolink has been a major factor in the development of the area (and has expanded in recent years to reflect the MediaCity development, for example) but the other poster was implying that the Metrolink was built through effective wasteland. IMHO the situation is almost chicken and egg - the Metrolink wouldn't have been built without large-scale development, the large-scale development wouldn't have occurred without the Metrolink.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't deny that Metrolink has been a major factor in the development of the area (and has expanded in recent years to reflect the MediaCity development, for example) but the other poster was implying that the Metrolink was built through effective wasteland. IMHO the situation is almost chicken and egg - the Metrolink wouldn't have been built without large-scale development, the large-scale development wouldn't have occurred without the Metrolink.

Yes, Salford Quays at the time Metrolink opened was nothing like a wasteland (unlike, say Canary Wharf when the DLR opened), and was reasonably developed to a modest density with low/medium rise offices and flats. But the line itself, outside the peaks, was deadly quiet for the first 10 years.

Metrolink, over time, put Salford Quays 'on the map' a bit more to draw susequent development in.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2020 ==

It was also quite clever in that by running it to Eccles, from which nobody in their right mind uses it because the bus is both cheaper and quicker (unless they work in the Quays I suppose), they managed to unlock Objective 1 funding which paid part of the cost of it.

A great example to demonstrate how transport/strategic planning goes far beyond drawing a nice line on a map. It'll get nowhere unless it's fundable.

 

[peters]

Because you still haven't answered my point. Don't blame me for repeating an argument when you haven't responded to it!

To your original point I said a doubling of passenger usage by itself is NOT evidence that Metrolink has been a success. I backed up my claim by referring to a rail route which has not seen any improvements but has seen usage double. Consequently, as I've repeatedly said you need much more evidence to say Metrolink has been a success, a doubling of usage can happen by doing nothing so it is definitely not evidence that Metrolink has been successful.

but if you think the tram would have been built through Salford Quays without nailed-on development planned, you're wrong, I'm afraid. Transport planners don't build lines for fun; they build them because there is a travel need.

I said it was part of the regeneration, that's a fact not my opinion. That is not wrong so stop being rude because you don't agree with facts.

I don't think many people were walking from Bury to Manchester, either.

What about Trafford college, Timperley to Altrincham? No need to come up with ridiculous examples because the point I made doesn't fit with your opinion of where all the extra passengers came from.

I don't think I've posted any incorrect information, and you still haven't explained why any of my 'presumptions' are incorrect either.

You have, as I've already said you're wrong about the bus not being competition for journeys to and from Sale and now it seems you're ignoring that because it doesn't fit with your opinion. I'm not going to waste my time responding to your pro-Metrolink propaganda anymore, I'll just respond to the people who post genuine facts and opinions.

Yes, Salford Quays at the time Metrolink opened was nothing like a wasteland (unlike, say Canary Wharf when the DLR opened), and was reasonably developed to a modest density with low/medium rise offices and flats.

But not the apartments for the affluent and the well paid professional jobs that @willgreen was implying the line was built to serve.

I don't deny that Metrolink has been a major factor in the development of the area (and has expanded in recent years to reflect the MediaCity development, for example) but the other poster was implying that the Metrolink was built through effective wasteland. IMHO the situation is almost chicken and egg - the Metrolink wouldn't have been built without large-scale development, the large-scale development wouldn't have occurred without the Metrolink.

Nowhere did I mention wasteland.

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.

 

[jfollows]

The area was semi-developed before Metrolink arrived (e.g. the offices next to Anchorage and Harbour City stops*), but Metrolink has really stimulated the Lowry / MediaCity end of things. I doubt that much future development was "nailed on" at the time (the Lowry centre and ourlet certainly were, but MediaCity wasn't) but was part of a Salford 'Masterplan' for the area.

It has stimulated the development, hasn't it?
I remember deciding to move to Manchester in 1996, and I lived with my parents between April 1996 and whenever I bought a place of my own (which ended up being August 1996). During the period I looked around, and it was obvious that Salford Quays was going to be somewhere to live, but at the time it was pretty desolate, I remember going there and walking around and deciding it wasn't for me. It wasn't dreadful, but it was quiet and felt removed from things more than a little.


I ended up in a converted warehouse close to Oxford Road and not far from the then-BBC. Even this has changed from being on the "outskirts" (working factory, disused petrol station, wasteland) to being "central", but more to the point Salford Quays is somewhere the 35-year-old me would now consider seriously and the tram has played a large part in this change.

 

[Ianno87]

But not the apartments for the affluent and the well paid professional jobs that @willgreen was implying the line was built to serve.

The low rise flats on the south side of Erie Basin (by the red swing bridge) pre-date Metrolink.

The taller blocks by the MediaCity line (who I've no idea who actually lives there and whether they are affluent/well-paid or not - it's hard to tell by looking at the outside) certainly exist *because* of MediaCity/Metrolink.

 

[geordieblue]

To your original point I said a doubling of passenger usage by itself is NOT evidence that Metrolink has been a success. I backed up my claim by referring to a rail route which has not seen any improvements but has seen usage double. Consequently, as I've repeatedly said you need much more evidence to say Metrolink has been a success, a doubling of usage can happen by doing nothing so it is definitely not evidence that Metrolink has been successful.



I said it was part of the regeneration, that's a fact not my opinion. That is not wrong so stop being rude because you don't agree with facts.



What about Trafford college, Timperley to Altrincham? No need to come up with ridiculous examples because the point I made doesn't fit with your opinion of where all the extra passengers came from.



You have, as I've already said you're wrong about the bus not being competition for journeys to and from Sale and now it seems you're ignoring that because it doesn't fit with your opinion. I'm not going to waste my time responding to your pro-Metrolink propaganda anymore, I'll just respond to the people who post genuine facts and opinions.



But not the apartments for the affluent and the well paid professional jobs that @willgreen was implying the line was built to serve.



Nowhere did I mention wasteland.

Not very good with the quote function I'm afraid so this will be in one message.
Firstly I'm sorry if I was coming across as rude; that wasn't my intention. Whilst I was delivering my thoughts in a direct manner this was a response to messages of yours that I saw as direct (not that that excuses any perceived rudeness on my part).
This debate essentially comes down to one issue - your assertion that doubling of usage was not a success for Metrolink. You pointed to the Mid-Cheshire line doubling in patronage 2004-2009 (I can't find a source for that but I might be looking in the wrong place) and stated that doing nothing can lead to substantial increases in usage.
In my eyes this is not backed up by the prevailing trend of rail usage around the UK, as I said earlier. Rail usage was falling in the mid-90s, so a doubling of usage then was impressive. Yes, Metrolink offers higher frequency and more stops, but this comes at the cost of speed (something you appear to value highly going off your original post. Again, I may have misinterpreted it). However, in the mid-2000s, an era of rapid rail growth, a doubling of usage, whilst still impressive, is less so. The baseline is different.
RE Salford Quays - I think this is a misunderstanding and even more off topic than our main discussion. From your Francis Drake comments I thought you were suggesting a wasteland. I was clearly wrong.
RE buses from Sale - I have never mentioned Sale once in this discussion. Of course buses provide competition, but buses have always provided competition to rail-based transport. My point about trams was that if they can capture bus passengers when heavy rail couldn't, trams are better.
And no, I'm not a 'tram enthusiast' as you slightly patronisingly put it... I'm a 19-year-old student (ok, perhaps the patronising was justified!) who took umbrage to the idea that Manchester would be better off without Metrolink.

 

[Purple Orange]

I fully support the idea of converting more heavy rail lines to light rail metro in the Manchester area. In fact I don’t understand the objection either. The proof to me is: would residents on the existing Metrolink (and Tyne & Wear Metro) lines want their line to change from 5 or 10 tph to a maximum of 4 (or back to 2) tph on heavy rail. We know that heavy rail can’t replicate the frequency of Metrolink.

The sooner the better on my opinion. And building a second (more direct) line to Salford Quays too.

Plus, it is not just the residents in Marple (just under 10 miles to Piccadilly) that benefit, but the communities along the route.

 

[Ianno87]

And building a second (more direct) line to Salford Quays too.

The Trafford Centre line goes some way to achieving that. The problem will become Cornbrook viaduct becoming full to capacity (assuming the Airport loop gets completed at some point), as being the barrier to any further new lines in the south/west direction.

 

[Purple Orange]

The Trafford Centre line goes some way to achieving that. The problem will become Cornbrook viaduct becoming full to capacity (assuming the Airport loop gets completed at some point), as being the barrier to any further new lines in the south/west direction.

If tram-train is approved, there is also the proposal to link Eccles & Media City over to Salford Crescent, which may be faster link in to the city. Of course it is this technology that will unlock Rose Hill & Marple and Glossop & Hadfield as realistic metrolink conversion.

 

[edwin_m]

If tram-train is approved, there is also the proposal to link Eccles & Media City over to Salford Crescent, which may be faster link in to the city. Of course it is this technology that will unlock Rose Hill & Marple and Glossop & Hadfield as realistic metrolink conversion.

I doubt Glossop and Hadfield will go over to Metrolink in the short-medium term, as there are a limited number of trams turning back at Piccadilly that could be extended, and it's preferred to give a decent service on one route (Rose Hill) rather than something that's not frequent enough on two. Glossop/Hadfield loads a 3-car EMU which has much more capacity than a tram-train, so the frequency would have to increase considerably to meet the demand.

 

[peters]

I fully support the idea of converting more heavy rail lines to light rail metro in the Manchester area. In fact I don’t understand the objection either. The proof to me is: would residents on the existing Metrolink (and Tyne & Wear Metro) lines want their line to change from 5 or 10 tph to a maximum of 4 (or back to 2) tph on heavy rail. We know that heavy rail can’t replicate the frequency of Metrolink.

The sooner the better on my opinion. And building a second (more direct) line to Salford Quays too.

Plus, it is not just the residents in Marple (just under 10 miles to Piccadilly) that benefit, but the communities along the route.

There's been calls for the Trafford Centre to be on the Metrolink network since it was built. I think the lesson it's taught us is if public transport isn't introduced from the outset, in the way the short extension to MediaCity was, then it'll be a very long wait before it happens, if it happens, so while I agree the route from Manchester to Salford Quays is slow and indirect I doubt we'll see a more direct route built in the next 10 years or so.

The issue I have is when people say Metrolink's good, let's turn more rail routes in to Metrolink lines without properly understanding that there are both winners and losers from any conversion. The number of losers is lower on some routes than others and the problems don't always relate to trams themselves but how TfGM implements a tram policy.

Regarding frequency of trams against heavy rail, how frequent are trams in Manchester city centre compared to Merseyrail in Liverpool city centre?

Here's a summary of some of the issues I'm aware of which can come up:
1. If I went to Plumley station now and the ticket machine is working properly I can buy a through ticket to any Metrolink zone. However, if I went to Sale Metrolink stop and tried to buy a ticket to Plumley I'd have no luck and would have to buy a more expensive combination of tickets. The strange thing is even if you go to a station ticket office and try to buy a ticket from a Metrolink zone to a station outside Greater Manchester they can't do it, as the system doesn't allow it.
2. Following on from the first point if someone in Altrincham buys an Advance ticket to London with a change at Stockport then they will be able to travel on the next service if the Northern service to Stockport is cancelled. If someone from Sale buys an Advance ticket from Manchester to London then finds Metrolink shuts down due to a power cut meaning they arrive in Manchester late then they have to buy a new full priced ticket to London.
3. Trams don't run to a timetable making it difficult to plan connections and know how long journeys are going to take e.g. for connections between different trams you don't know if you're going to face a 2 minute wait or a 12 minute wait. If it's 12 minutes and the two legs you spend on trams are both 10 minutes, you might find your commute to work one day takes over 30 minutes but your commute to work another day takes 20 minutes.
4. As mentioned already bikes cannot be carried on trams.
5. Trams do not have toilets unlike local trains operating around Manchester which means they are less accessible to people with certain medical conditions.
6. Trams are generally slower so while some people will have a tram stop closer to their workplace it means if the less frequent train ran at convenient times for you then the switch to Metrolink doesn't mean less waiting around for the next service.
7. Some people claim trains shouldn't run without guards for safety reasons but trams run without guards on former railway routes and where trams run doubled up the rear unit has no member of staff on board.
8. Various Metro systems throughout the world consist of a mixture of different routes with different requirements and different constraints e.g. line A might be overground, line B might be part underground and line C might involve street running. What I've not seen anywhere outside of Manchester is a system where trams are used on everything.
9. Freight can't run on the same lines as trams so if the number of lines suitable for freight decrease it could mean either mean more congestion on lines which aren't converted or more freight being carried by road instead.

Like I said much of these issues aren't a fault with trams themselves but problems TfGM could address in one way or another but don't in their plan to just convert lines to Metrolink as and when they feel like it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2020 ==

If tram-train is approved, there is also the proposal to link Eccles & Media City over to Salford Crescent, which may be faster link in to the city. Of course it is this technology that will unlock Rose Hill & Marple and Glossop & Hadfield as realistic metrolink conversion.

There was some study TfGM did in to tram-trains including the different options of tram-trains. I seem to recall they preferred options where there's no overhead wires for regular trains in use as dual voltage tram-trains are a lot more costly than single voltage tram-trains and they also dismissed any options of diesel-electric tram-trains and tram-trains which can utilise 3rd rails.

 

[Purple Orange]

There's been calls for the Trafford Centre to be on the Metrolink network since it was built. I think the lesson it's taught us is if public transport isn't introduced from the outset, in the way the short extension to MediaCity was, then it'll be a very long wait before it happens, if it happens, so while I agree the route from Manchester to Salford Quays is slow and indirect I doubt we'll see a more direct route built in the next 10 years or so.

The issue I have is when people say Metrolink's good, let's turn more rail routes in to Metrolink lines without properly understanding that there are both winners and losers from any conversion. The number of losers is lower on some routes than others and the problems don't always relate to trams themselves but how TfGM implements a tram policy.

Regarding frequency of trams against heavy rail, how frequent are trams in Manchester city centre compared to Merseyrail in Liverpool city centre?

Here's a summary of some of the issues I'm aware of which can come up:
1. If I went to Plumley station now and the ticket machine is working properly I can buy a through ticket to any Metrolink zone. However, if I went to Sale Metrolink stop and tried to buy a ticket to Plumley I'd have no luck and would have to buy a more expensive combination of tickets. The strange thing is even if you go to a station ticket office and try to buy a ticket from a Metrolink zone to a station outside Greater Manchester they can't do it, as the system doesn't allow it.
2. Following on from the first point if someone in Altrincham buys an Advance ticket to London with a change at Stockport then they will be able to travel on the next service if the Northern service to Stockport is cancelled. If someone from Sale buys an Advance ticket from Manchester to London then finds Metrolink shuts down due to a power cut meaning they arrive in Manchester late then they have to buy a new full priced ticket to London.
3. Trams don't run to a timetable making it difficult to plan connections and know how long journeys are going to take e.g. for connections between different trams you don't know if you're going to face a 2 minute wait or a 12 minute wait. If it's 12 minutes and the two legs you spend on trams are both 10 minutes, you might find your commute to work one day takes over 30 minutes but your commute to work another day takes 20 minutes.
4. As mentioned already bikes cannot be carried on trams.
5. Trams do not have toilets unlike local trains operating around Manchester which means they are less accessible to people with certain medical conditions.
6. Trams are generally slower so while some people will have a tram stop closer to their workplace it means if the less frequent train ran at convenient times for you then the switch to Metrolink doesn't mean less waiting around for the next service.
7. Some people claim trains shouldn't run without guards for safety reasons but trams run without guards on former railway routes and where trams run doubled up the rear unit has no member of staff on board.
8. Various Metro systems throughout the world consist of a mixture of different routes with different requirements and different constraints e.g. line A might be overground, line B might be part underground and line C might involve street running. What I've not seen anywhere outside of Manchester is a system where trams are used on everything.
9. Freight can't run on the same lines as trams so if the number of lines suitable for freight decrease it could mean either mean more congestion on lines which aren't converted or more freight being carried by road instead.

Like I said much of these issues aren't a fault with trams themselves but problems TfGM could address in one way or another but don't in their plan to just convert lines to Metrolink as and when they feel like it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2020 ==



There was some study TfGM did in to tram-trains including the different options of tram-trains. I seem to recall they preferred options where there's no overhead wires for regular trains in use as dual voltage tram-trains are a lot more costly than single voltage tram-trains and they also dismissed any options of diesel-electric tram-trains and tram-trains which can utilise 3rd rails.

I suppose all I can really cite is the strategic plan for metrolink & other transport modes for Greater Manchester.

https://assets.ctfassets.net/nv7y93idf4jq/2GBbEBM4hm68q9qqvdaI1T/97f7b3d51ef9b312b756cd15bd0b008c/190128_Delivery_Plan_2020-2025_Draft_MASTER_final.pdf

If you look at slides 29 & 30, the plans for the next 5 years and thereafter are depicted on a map, of which Marple, Glossop, Hadfield & a second link to Media City are planned. The timescale is difficult to quantify, but the point is that this is the direction that Metrolink is planned to be taken. The points I made earlier in the thread about future metrolink growth are not crayonista fantasies, but genuine aspirations for TfGM.

On the train v tram debate, the reality of the rail transport in Manchester is that you either have 1 or 2 trains per hour from the majority of stations, while a handful have 3 or more. On a tram line you either have 5 or 10 trams per hour across all stations, with some seeing 20 or more per hour. The beauty of it is that you do not need to plan your journey - you leave your house when you want, turn up and go. If you’re in Altrincham and are going to London and you have a specific train to catch at Piccadilly (you wouldn’t go to Stockport), you know that the tram will take 30 minutes and you give yourself enough time. It’s not a difficult system to use.

Your example about metrolink being down due to a power failure can easily happen on any mode of rail. It is a rare occasion where people are caught out like this.

Another significant positive for the tram network is that it is fully accessible. Disabled people using wheelchairs and people with pushchairs are essentially excluded from the heavy rail network. One of the stations further up the line from me has recently been granted funds for a lift, but it is not planed to be installed for more than 12 months. Then once on the platform. You can’t just access the train easily. You need the guard to get a ramp, with very limited space on the train. You do the same in reverse at your destination and not all stations have disabled access.

PS, the Trafford Centre is now on the metrolink network and the biggest lesson I can conclude from this is, that if there are plans to build a line somewhere on the network, it has a far greater chance of being built than any heavy rail proposal. I’d go as far to say that the plans in the strategic framework are far more likely to see the light of day than NPR.

 

[peters]

Your example about metrolink being down due to a power failure can easily happen on any mode of rail. It is a rare occasion where people are caught out like this.

It doesn't sound like you got the point I was making, it wasn't about how often Metrolink fails but about how passengers using multiple modes of transport are affected when problems do arise. I'll also give you the reverse example which should make it clearer.

The last train of the day between London and Manchester breaks down at Stoke and the train operator decides to organise replacement road transport. If someone holds a London to Altrincham rail ticket then the rail operator has a responsibility to get them to Altrincham, if someone holds a London to Manchester rail ticket then the rail operator has a responsibility to get them to Manchester. It makes no difference to the rail operator whether the person with a Manchester ticket lives in Manchester or if they intended to get a tram to Bury afterwards, if they arrive back in Manchester after Metrolink has shut down then it's the passenger's responsibility to pay for a taxi. Now in that instance a taxi from Manchester to Bury costs peanuts compared to a brand new peak time train fare from Manchester to London, which is why I originally gave the example of Metrolink failing as that could cost someone £100+, opposed to something like £20.

If you’re in Altrincham and are going to London and you have a specific train to catch at Piccadilly (you wouldn’t go to Stockport)

When things return to normal I suggest catching one of the early trains from Altrincham to Stockport and seeing how many people who board at Altrincham, alight at Stockport and then make their way to platforms 1&2, where trains towards Birmingham, Cardiff and London depart. With London trains being every 20 minutes there's never a long wait at Stockport for southbound journeys and it's a quicker journey than going via Manchester, so even if you end up waiting 19 minutes at Stockport it's still quicker than using Metrolink via Manchester. A lot of people do go to Stockport and probably for the reason that they are protected if there's disruption to trains to Stockport but risk having to fork out for a new ticket if they use Metrolink and problems arise. Even if I travelled weekly from Altrincham to London and had been using Metrolink to connect for 2 years and only missed my connection once I would seriously consider never using Metrolink for southbound rail connections again if I'd had to fork out £100 for a new ticket on that one occasion.

Obviously in the northbound direction you might face a long wait at Stockport but as the financial risks of a missed connection in the northbound direction are lower than maybe more people will take that risk, after all no-one's stopping people buying an Altrincham to London advance single and a London to Manchester advance single for the return journey.

PS, the Trafford Centre is now on the metrolink network and the biggest lesson I can conclude from this is, that if there are plans to build a line somewhere on the network, it has a far greater chance of being built than any heavy rail proposal. I’d go as far to say that the plans in the strategic framework are far more likely to see the light of day than NPR.

The Trafford Centre opened in 1998, it took 20 years to get that line built. I also seem to recall the Oldham conversion was supposed to happen in the 1990s.

One thing I should have added to my list of things which aren't the fault of trams but is one of the disadvantages of Metrolink is that any cross border plans which have been proposed haven't seen the light of day. The border of Greater Manchester councils are effectively randomly drawn lines, they don't represent where commuter flows for Manchester start and finish and neither do they represent an entirely urban area for Greater Manchester - a ride on the 247 bus between Altrincham and the Trafford centre shows how diverse Greater Manchester is from rural farmland and narrow country lanes a bus can only just fit down to large industrial parks.

 

[edwin_m]

It doesn't sound like you got the point I was making, it wasn't about how often Metrolink fails but about how passengers using multiple modes of transport are affected when problems do arise. I'll also give you the reverse example which should make it clearer.

The last train of the day between London and Manchester breaks down at Stoke and the train operator decides to organise replacement road transport. If someone holds a London to Altrincham rail ticket then the rail operator has a responsibility to get them to Altrincham, if someone holds a London to Manchester rail ticket then the rail operator has a responsibility to get them to Manchester. It makes no difference to the rail operator whether the person with a Manchester ticket lives in Manchester or if they intended to get a tram to Bury afterwards, if they arrive back in Manchester after Metrolink has shut down then it's the passenger's responsibility to pay for a taxi. Now in that instance a taxi from Manchester to Bury costs peanuts compared to a brand new peak time train fare from Manchester to London, which is why I originally gave the example of Metrolink failing as that could cost someone £100+, opposed to something like £20.



When things return to normal I suggest catching one of the early trains from Altrincham to Stockport and seeing how many people who board at Altrincham, alight at Stockport and then make their way to platforms 1&2, where trains towards Birmingham, Cardiff and London depart. With London trains being every 20 minutes there's never a long wait at Stockport for southbound journeys and it's a quicker journey than going via Manchester, so even if you end up waiting 19 minutes at Stockport it's still quicker than using Metrolink via Manchester. A lot of people do go to Stockport and probably for the reason that they are protected if there's disruption to trains to Stockport but risk having to fork out for a new ticket if they use Metrolink and problems arise. Even if I travelled weekly from Altrincham to London and had been using Metrolink to connect for 2 years and only missed my connection once I would seriously consider never using Metrolink for southbound rail connections again if I'd had to fork out £100 for a new ticket on that one occasion.

Obviously in the northbound direction you might face a long wait at Stockport but as the financial risks of a missed connection in the northbound direction are lower than maybe more people will take that risk, after all no-one's stopping people buying an Altrincham to London advance single and a London to Manchester advance single for the return journey.



The Trafford Centre opened in 1998, it took 20 years to get that line built. I also seem to recall the Oldham conversion was supposed to happen in the 1990s.

One thing I should have added to my list of things which aren't the fault of trams but is one of the disadvantages of Metrolink is that any cross border plans which have been proposed haven't seen the light of day. The border of Greater Manchester councils are effectively randomly drawn lines, they don't represent where commuter flows for Manchester start and finish and neither do they represent an entirely urban area for Greater Manchester - a ride on the 247 bus between Altrincham and the Trafford centre shows how diverse Greater Manchester is from rural farmland and narrow country lanes a bus can only just fit down to large industrial parks.

Your points about ticketing are really criticisms of the lack of integrated transport in Manchester, not of trams as such. It would be perfectly possible to address these while making no change to the tram system itself other than perhaps the ticket machines. You made the point previously about cities where trams do everything, but there are plenty on the continent with just trams and heavy rail like Manchester. The difference is that the cities that do things better have integrated ticketing across trains and trains (and buses too, but that's for another thread).

 

[peters]

Your points about ticketing are really criticisms of the lack of integrated transport in Manchester, not of trams as such. It would be perfectly possible to address these while making no change to the tram system itself other than perhaps the ticket machines. You made the point previously about cities where trams do everything, but there are plenty on the continent with just trams and heavy rail like Manchester. The difference is that the cities that do things better have integrated ticketing across trains and trains (and buses too, but that's for another thread).

Like I said some of the issues are the fault of TfGM and their ticketing and choice of tram specifications, not necessarily a problem with trams vs trains. If TfGM are going to look at an alternative form of Metrolink expansion in tram-trains then it's the ideal opportunity to address these issues prior to that, especially considering tram-trains will make it possible for either Metrolink to continue beyond Greater Manchester on the National Rail network or for a rail operator to start running on Metrolink lines. Maybe even an opportunity for services between two cities which involve street running in both cities?

 

[edwin_m]

Like I said some of the issues are the fault of TfGM and their ticketing and choice of tram specifications, not necessarily a problem with trams vs trains. If TfGM are going to look at an alternative form of Metrolink expansion in tram-trains then it's the ideal opportunity to address these issues prior to that, especially considering tram-trains will make it possible for either Metrolink to continue beyond Greater Manchester on the National Rail network or for a rail operator to start running on Metrolink lines. Maybe even an opportunity for services between two cities which involve street running in both cities?

For trams and trains it could be done quite simply just by joining the relevant National Rail systems and requiring the Metrolink operator to provide the necessary measures. Some cost would be involved, but it might be recouped by making public transport easier to use and more attractive.

I doubt we'll see tram-trains through running between cities in the UK in the lifetime of anyone living today. The closest are probably Manchester and Sheffield or Blackpool, but their tramways have different floor heights some would need some very weird hybrid vehicle to run through. Sheffield trams are too wide to run in Nottingham and Nottingham ones would have a dangerously wide platform gap if used in Sheffield. It's possible that a tram-train could use the railway to get to some suburb or nearby town with its own street section, as happens in a few places in Germany.

 

[peters]

You pointed to the Mid-Cheshire line doubling in patronage 2004-2009 (I can't find a source for that but I might be looking in the wrong place) and stated that doing nothing can lead to substantial increases in usage.

ORR publish station usage figures annually. As there's only one service serving stations between Mouldsworth and Navigation Road every passenger boarding and alighting at those stations is using the Mid-Cheshire service. For instance, Knutsford station went from around 240,000 journeys per annum to over 500,000. Lots of other lines in the north saw huge increases in usage in the late 00s and if you search the web you'll see hundreds of results talking about the old Northern franchise being let on a 'no growth' basis but the government having to reluctantly change that after huge levels of growth were recorded across the North. The government's idea was the old franchise didn't need new rolling stock, they didn't need additional rolling stock, they didn't even need to refurbish the rolling stock they had (beyond repaints and new seat covers) and they certainly didn't need to enhance the frequency of service but despite that huge levels of growth were recorded. Metrolink needed a lot of investment to get the level of growth you were talking about, I think they took 3 years to covert the Altrincham line and the Altrincham line had overhead electrics before the conversion work started.

From your Francis Drake comments I thought you were suggesting a wasteland. I was clearly wrong.

You'll be too young to remember but at one point the Golden Hind replica which is in now London was in Salford Quays and was one of only two real tourist attractions at Salford Quays at the time, Ordsall Hall being the other which has obviously been there for a very long time. There's now lots of reasons for people to get the Metrolink to Salford Quays if they don't live there.

RE buses from Sale - I have never mentioned Sale once in this discussion.

You said no buses didn't parallel Metrolink and asked the question that if Metrolink didn't drive people out of cars where did the extra passengers come from. That's why I referred to the 263 bus Altrincham-Sale-Manchester which Metrolink passengers get told to use when there's disruption and pointed out there's always been buses from Sale to Manchester and Sale to Altrincham. It wasn't that Arriva decided to set up the 263 bus to rival Metrolink, if anything they decided to scale it down because Metrolink took their passengers.

Of course buses provide competition, but buses have always provided competition to rail-based transport. My point about trams was that if they can capture bus passengers when heavy rail couldn't,

Which seems to be a change of tone from what you said previously.

who took umbrage to the idea that Manchester would be better off without Metrolink.

I didn't say that. I was questioning the assertion that Metrolink is always better than trains, which is incorrect for the reasons stated in earlier posts.

trams are better.

That's my main objection to your posts. There's pros and cons to trams and you only have to look at why Leigh busway got built to see that even pro-tram TfGM accept there's instances where they can't justify the high costs involved in creating a new Metrolink route and that a segregated bus route using high spec buses provides many of the benefits which Metrolink provides, as well as some Metrolink don't like comfortable seats.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2020 ==

I doubt we'll see tram-trains through running between cities in the UK in the lifetime of anyone living today.

I think where it would be most beneficial is where stations aren't very central, so a short section of new track in a town or city of under 1 mile can make the difference between people being able to alight in the heart of the city or facing a 15 minute walk. Chester, Crewe and Milton Keynes come to mind as such places but there's many others as well.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The simple answer must surely, in this case, be no.

Heavy rail has a good level of available capacity into Piccadilly using the Up & Down East lines, as well as possibly into Victoria off Ashburys, and capacity will surely only grow as some services are diverted onto HS2.

If we assume a realistic 14tph out of Piccadilly on the Up & Down East lines, using only the 4 lowest numbered platforms, can you achieve:
- 2tph Hull / somewhere out East with a stop at Stalybridge
- 2tph Stalybridge slow including stops such as Gorton
- 4tph Glossop / Hadfield (probably 2 to each, no services between Hadfield and Glossop)
- 2tph New Mills via Hyde
- 2tph Rose Hill via Bredbury (all stopping)
- 2tph fast New Mills (one Chinley, one Sheffield or two Sheffield) calling only at Reddish North, Romiley, Marple and New Mills; so the stopping New Mills connects into it and recesses at New Mills to let it go; then the slow Bredbury connects off that (e.g. order of services leaving Romiley being New Mills slow, Rose Hill, Sheffield / Chinley and repeat).

The long and short of what I'm saying is a decent heavy rail service is better and I dread to think what sort of segregation and infrastructure is needed between Guide Bride and Romiley, at Romiley and then between wherever Metrolink "cuts off" in Manchester to Guide Bridge? There's also freight, diversions, etc.

Better to just make the service better and operate better quality commuter stock, no?

 

[geordieblue]

ORR publish station usage figures annually. As there's only one service serving stations between Mouldsworth and Navigation Road every passenger boarding and alighting at those stations is using the Mid-Cheshire service. For instance, Knutsford station went from around 240,000 journeys per annum to over 500,000. Lots of other lines in the north saw huge increases in usage in the late 00s and if you search the web you'll see hundreds of results talking about the old Northern franchise being let on a 'no growth' basis but the government having to reluctantly change that after huge levels of growth were recorded across the North. The government's idea was the old franchise didn't need new rolling stock, they didn't need additional rolling stock, they didn't even need to refurbish the rolling stock they had (beyond repaints and new seat covers) and they certainly didn't need to enhance the frequency of service but despite that huge levels of growth were recorded. Metrolink needed a lot of investment to get the level of growth you were talking about, I think they took 3 years to covert the Altrincham line and the Altrincham line had overhead electrics before the conversion work started.



You'll be too young to remember but at one point the Golden Hind replica which is in now London was in Salford Quays and was one of only two real tourist attractions at Salford Quays at the time, Ordsall Hall being the other which has obviously been there for a very long time. There's now lots of reasons for people to get the Metrolink to Salford Quays if they don't live there.



You said no buses didn't parallel Metrolink and asked the question that if Metrolink didn't drive people out of cars where did the extra passengers come from. That's why I referred to the 263 bus Altrincham-Sale-Manchester which Metrolink passengers get told to use when there's disruption and pointed out there's always been buses from Sale to Manchester and Sale to Altrincham. It wasn't that Arriva decided to set up the 263 bus to rival Metrolink, if anything they decided to scale it down because Metrolink took their passengers.



Which seems to be a change of tone from what you said previously.



I didn't say that. I was questioning the assertion that Metrolink is always better than trains, which is incorrect for the reasons stated in earlier posts.



That's my main objection to your posts. There's pros and cons to trams and you only have to look at why Leigh busway got built to see that even pro-tram TfGM accept there's instances where they can't justify the high costs involved in creating a new Metrolink route and that a segregated bus route using high spec buses provides many of the benefits which Metrolink provides, as well as some Metrolink don't like comfortable seats.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2020 ==



I think where it would be most beneficial is where stations aren't very central, so a short section of new track in a town or city of under 1 mile can make the difference between people being able to alight in the heart of the city or facing a 15 minute walk. Chester, Crewe and Milton Keynes come to mind as such places but there's many others as well.

Still haven't worked out how to use multi quote so here's bullet points instead.
- Hang on, so despite previously suggesting that my statistics were in accurate, your claim that the Mid-Cheshire Line doubled in usage is based on a single station, Knutsford? Come on.
- Looking back over the messages I've confused you with another poster who said Bury and Oldham would be better off without trams; apologies.
- I never said that buses didn't parallel Metrolink. That's untrue. I said that they served different markets. Many people use trams but wouldn't be seen dead on a bus (I'm a regular bus user but there's serious anti-bus prejudice in this country; that's probably a story for another thread!)
- The 'you're probably too young to remember' comment is, again, patronising. Age is obviously relevant to experiences and discussion but 'I am older than you' is not an argument.
- Metrolink did obviously require huge investment (though I think the Alty electrics couldn't be used as they were a different voltage. Happy to be corrected). But the argument from people who are pro-tram is that trams justify that investment for a multitude of reasons, hence why usage has increased.
- You still - still - haven't answered my point about regional growth being less impressive in a period of national growth than in a period of national decline.
- There was a change of tone from me because I hadn't fully understood what you were saying before; I was making a new point off the back of the old one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Altrincham electrics were 25kV at the end, they were converted from DC though I forget when.

 

[edwin_m]

The simple answer must surely, in this case, be no.

Heavy rail has a good level of available capacity into Piccadilly using the Up & Down East lines, as well as possibly into Victoria off Ashburys, and capacity will surely only grow as some services are diverted onto HS2.

Assuming rail use into Manchester continues to grow (and if it doesn't all bets are off), Piccadilly will be under pressure. The paths released by HS2 will be filled by other passenger services that also need to use Piccadilly, and there is also NPR to accommodate somewhere. Also the easiest way to increase capacity is to lengthen trains at existing frequencies, but that may mean trains that can share a platform at Piccadilly now will need one each in future.

 

[daodao]

The simple answer must surely, in this case, be no.

Heavy rail has a good level of available capacity into Piccadilly using the Up & Down East lines, as well as possibly into Victoria off Ashburys, and capacity will surely only grow as some services are diverted onto HS2.

If we assume a realistic 14tph out of Piccadilly on the Up & Down East lines, using only the 4 lowest numbered platforms, can you achieve:
- 2tph Hull / somewhere out East with a stop at Stalybridge
- 2tph Stalybridge slow including stops such as Gorton
- 4tph Glossop / Hadfield (probably 2 to each, no services between Hadfield and Glossop)
- 2tph New Mills via Hyde
- 2tph Rose Hill via Bredbury (all stopping)
- 2tph fast New Mills (one Chinley, one Sheffield or two Sheffield) calling only at Reddish North, Romiley, Marple and New Mills; so the stopping New Mills connects into it and recesses at New Mills to let it go; then the slow Bredbury connects off that (e.g. order of services leaving Romiley being New Mills slow, Rose Hill, Sheffield / Chinley and repeat).

The long and short of what I'm saying is a decent heavy rail service is better and I dread to think what sort of segregation and infrastructure is needed between Guide Bride and Romiley, at Romiley and then between wherever Metrolink "cuts off" in Manchester to Guide Bridge? There's also freight, diversions, etc.

Better to just make the service better and operate better quality commuter stock, no?

Given the lack of interest that Northern are currently showing in the service to Rose Hill, conversion of this service to Metrolink would be a vast improvement. However, it would be much simpler to convert the more direct route via Reddish and leave the Hyde loop for freight and the Hope Valley stopping service.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Some interesting points on this thread.

Lack of through ticketing from Metrolink stations to National Rail stations outwith the Greater Manchester area has always been an issue since Metrolink started in 1992, the original Metrolink TVMs were certainly somewhat rudimentary.

Some clarification points...

I think they took 3 years to covert the Altrincham and the Altrincham line had overhead electrics before the conversion work started.

The Altrincham line was shut for just under six months for conversion from heavy rail to Metrolink, this from from end of service on Christmas Eve 1991 to mid June 1992. The replacement buses in the meantime were a pain!

The Altrincham electrics were 25kV at the end, they were converted from DC though I forget when.

This was almost 50 years ago, back in 1971.