Denton and Reddish South

[Xenophon PCDGS]

From 1tpw to 5tph? That's some improvement!

Given Denton has two platforms anyway, couldn't you operate a half-hourly service that involves trains passing there? The timings would be a tad tight towards Victoria, but that could be solved as the rest of you have suggested by extending current services. Also, is there any room at Stockport for a north-facing bay, or otherwise does one already exist? If not, could the service terminate at Cheadle Hulme?

Where has this sudden demand for rail travel from Denton emanated from? From a "Parliamentary" service to 5tph....who has formulated the operational costings for this ?

With regard to Cheadle Hulme, this is a major junction station where the line bifurcates to both Macclesfield and to Wilmslow and has a high throughput at present and its very situation does not allow for any extra terminal bay platforms to be constructed on either running line to allow for this proposal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Such a park-and-ride is already proposed at the Metrolink station at Ashton West on Lord Sheldon Way... and it's right on top of the railway line too. Would be a good place to slap down some platforms, eh?

From Metrolink's website:

Is this quite near the site of the old Ashton Park Parade station that was opened by the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway on the line from Stalybridge to Guide Bridge that had intermediate stations at Ashton Park Parade and at Dukinfield Central.

 

[paul1609]

If it didn't involve some strategic freight lines, I'd be half tempted to give Ashton to Stockport over to Metrolink.

Is there any reason why metro link couldn't share a line with freight? Tyne and Wear metro has for years.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is there any reason why metro link couldn't share a line with freight? Tyne and Wear metro has for years.

An example of why this will not happen is to be found at the site of the former Dean Lane station and the rail-served refuse compaction depot nearby. The new Metrolink station that will replace Dean Lane (Newton Heath and Moston) has only one bi-directional platform face whereas the other line passing through the former station area is reserved for heavy rail movements to and from the refuse compaction depot.

 

[Eagle]

Is there any reason why metro link couldn't share a line with freight? Tyne and Wear metro has for years.

TWM isn't a tram system though...

 

[Nym]

I'd be shoving it to a high level of tph to dispose of services terminating in Victoria

In years to come this is looking at something like...

4tph from Chat Moss (2tph Liverpool L St, 2tph Wigan NW) and the current 6tph from Windsor Bridge is likely to increase.

The 4tph Chat Moss EMUs can quite happily sod off and be handled by Stalybridge.
1tph Windsor Bridge currently extends to Rochdale, one could increase this by interworking the Todmorden super slow into one of these services. This still leaves 4tph to go somewhere, 2tph already go to Rochdale, with the fasts proberbly going to be going to Chester and Manchester Airport. Could proberbly up it to 3tph slow to Rochdale extending from Winsdor Bridge, one of these being the Toddy super slow, this leaves 3tph to take care of, 2tph of these will be DMUs 1 EMU, possibly additional services that have been put onto Victoria. Stalybridge can only handle so much. Denton or Ashburys will need to take some of these. So perhaps 2tph would be more sensible?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Of course if my weird plans for Victoria came through, then it would only be the Windsor Bridge terminators that would need to be handled elsewhere with the Chat Moss using some new bays on the old Exchange site...

 

[142094]

Is there any reason why metro link couldn't share a line with freight? Tyne and Wear metro has for years.

Just to clarify - the Metro system is totally grade-separated. In early years it did share tracks with freight between Benton Junction and Bank Foot, then when this was taken away, it wasn't until the Sunderland extension that it shared the same tracks with heavy rail systems.

Also worth pointing out that the minimum radius curve on the Metro is 50m.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

1tph Windsor Bridge currently extends to Rochdale, one could increase this by interworking the Todmorden super slow into one of these services. ..... Could probably up it to 3tph slow to Rochdale extending from Windsor Bridge, one of these being the Toddy super slow

Are these Todmorden super slow services that you describe the proposed ones from East Lancashire via the Todmorden Curve into Manchester Victoria ?

 

[150222]

Are these Todmorden super slow services that you describe the proposed ones from East Lancashire via the Todmorden Curve into Manchester Victoria ?

I think he's talking about the Brighouse/Leeds all stations.

 

[Nym]

Victoria - Leeds via Todmorden, Brighouse & Dewsbury

When the tod curve opens then we're looking at 4tph up that way..

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The reason why I brought the proposed Todmorden Curve services from Manchester Victoria to East Lancashire is to highlight the paths requirement from Manchester Victoria to Miles Platting Junction to allow for these services PLUS the services that the Ordsall Chord will also be bringing onto this stretch of line, in addition to the services already in use that use that route.

 

[trickyvegas]

Is this quite near the site of the old Ashton Park Parade station that was opened by the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway on the line from Stalybridge to Guide Bridge that had intermediate stations at Ashton Park Parade and at Dukinfield Central.

No, Park Parade was on the Stalybridge - Guide Bridge line where the town centre bypass towards Stalybridge is now near the Station pub.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The current plan for the Tormorden Curve is to extend the current hourly Wigan Wallgate-Rochdale service, which I suspect would be all stations to Burnley Manchester Rd, then as RAIL says, Rose Grove, Accrington and Blackburn.

 

[150222]

The current plan for the Tormorden Curve is to extend the current hourly Wigan Wallgate-Rochdale service, which I suspect would be all stations to Burnley Manchester Rd, then as RAIL says, Rose Grove, Accrington and Blackburn.

That sounds like a good plan although afterwards maybe the Kirkby or Southport service can be extended to Rochdale as they currently have capacity issues Man Vic to Rochdale even with the current 8-12 cars per hour (4tph between 2 and 5 cars).

Back to the main topic: Am I correct in thinking that the currant Stockport to Stalybridge service can only use the Piccadilly bound platform at Guide Bridge? If so are there enough paths through Guide Bridge to allow 1tph or somebodys ridiculous suggestion of 5tph? Even Portsmouth to London doesn't get that much! Bear in mind the Stalybridge bound one would need a path on each line through there. 3 paths per hour. Is it possible with Hadfield:4 paths, Romily:2 paths and North TPE:8 paths? Any ideas?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

That sounds like a good plan although afterwards maybe the Kirkby or Southport service can be extended to Rochdale as they currently have capacity issues Man Vic to Rochdale even with the current 8-12 cars per hour (4tph between 2 and 5 cars).

Back to the main topic: Am I correct in thinking that the currant Stockport to Stalybridge service can only use the Piccadilly bound platform at Guide Bridge? If so are there enough paths through Guide Bridge to allow 1tph or somebodys ridiculous suggestion of 5tph? Even Portsmouth to London doesn't get that much! Bear in mind the Stalybridge bound one would need a path on each line through there. 3 paths per hour. Is it possible with Hadfield:4 paths, Romily:2 paths and North TPE:8 paths? Any ideas?

Why compare it to Pompey-London? Very odd comparison

That is true about Guide Bridge, but the proposed cuts to the service via Woodley to 1tp2h (where did I hear that?!) may free up something, but not much. There may be a free path per hour in that, I suspect there is, and bear in mind also that the Northern Hub will take away a lot of TPE services from Guide Bridge.

 

[Nym]

I'd hardly call a net reduction of 2tph a lot of services

4tph Core TPE N Services will be routed via Ashton Moss, but 2tph Semi Fast Leeds - Manchester will almost certanly be routed into Piccadilly via (and calling at) Guide Bridge.

 

[150222]

Why compare it to Pompey-London? Very odd comparison

That is true about Guide Bridge, but the proposed cuts to the service via Woodley to 1tp2h (where did I hear that?!) may free up something, but not much. There may be a free path per hour in that, I suspect there is, and bear in mind also that the Northern Hub will take away a lot of TPE services from Guide Bridge.

Well Pompey to London never had 1 train per week did it!

 

[Eagle]

Portsmouth to London is 5tph... 4 to Waterloo and one to Victoria.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

There's 3tph via Haslemere; 2 express and 1 slow to Haslemere (the slow from Haslemere starts there).

 

[150222]

Portsmouth to London is 5tph... 4 to Waterloo and one to Victoria.

Oh, I thought one of them started at Haslemere. Still, I don't think a line that previously had 1 train per week in one direction needs the same service level as an intercity service that serves London!

 

[Batman]

Moving back to Denton and Reddish for a moment.

At first I think the best thing to do about this line would be to just have a 1tph service between Victoria and Stockport. I don't like the idea of an Ashton Parkway station because I doubt connection with the Metro will be needed at first if the rail service is only 1 tph.

Also, when my local rail service, the Chase Line in the West Midlands re-oppened in the late 80's, it was just an hourly shuttle service from Hednesford to Walsall with no evening or Sunday service, and has gradually been imporved since then. So I suggest the same is done with Denton and Reddish; a 13 or 14 return journeys, 6 days a week between Victoria and Stockport with stops at Denton and Reddish South at first, so that demand can be established and gradual improvments made to the service over time if there is demand. This may come in the form of new stations or increased frequencies.

If there are problems with turn around times, then run it as an extension of the hourly Clitheroe - Victoria service, or extend it on to Hazel Grove.

There will also still need to be the 1tpw Stockport to Stalybridge 'parly' train. This could be done by running the last trains of the day from Stockport to Victoria via Guide Bridge, Stalybridge and Ashton one day a week (probably on a Saturday). And also make sure that the stations have the bare minimum facilities that passengers would expect from a station with an hourly service; one or two benches on each platform, fencing (on the far side of the platform at Reddish South), waiting shelters, lighting, full range of signs and timetable information, bins, CCTV and electronic information screens.

 

[Eagle]

Oh, I thought one of them started at Haslemere. Still, I don't think a line that previously had 1 train per week in one direction needs the same service level as an intercity service that serves London!

That's a red herring; we're talking about using the line for new through journey opportunities such as diverting services into Victoria or freeing up platform space there, not just for the sake of giving Denton a proper service.

Coventry to Leamington had zero trains per week 25 years ago; now Network Rail recommend putting 3tph that way (two XC, one local).

 

[OxtedL]

Oh, I thought one of them started at Haslemere. Still, I don't think a line that previously had 1 train per week in one direction needs the same service level as an intercity service that serves London!

Just to clarify, there are:

• 2 fast per hour Portsmouth Harbour to Waterloo via Guildford
• 1 slow per hour Portsmouth+Sthsea to Waterloo via Guildford, with another slow from Haslemere to Waterloo not going anywhere near Portsmouth
• 1 Portsmouth Harbour to Waterloo via Eastleigh & Basingstoke per hour
• 1 Portsmouth Harbour to Victoria via Horsham & East Croydon per hour

Making 5tph (as well as that Haslemere slow not going to Portsmouth).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why not leave matters as they are with the 1tpw service, to ensure the line status, but make the standard of line maintenance of a good enough quality to ensure that, with the eventual onset of the Ordsall Chord, the route remains of a sufficiently good standard as a diversionary route if required. There may well be future Open Operator services planned which would incorporate this route from Stockport to Stalybridge.

What worried me was the pathway availability for all these extra "local" services discussed earlier in this thread from Stockport railway station to Heaton Norris Junction (and in the reverse direction) and the crossing of the station throat by these services, assuming that the existing bay platform at Stockport was still proposed to be used.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Portsmouth to London is 5tph... 4 to Waterloo and one to Victoria.

There's 3tph via Haslemere; 2 express and 1 slow to Haslemere (the slow from Haslemere starts there).

Just to clarify, there are:

• 2 fast per hour Portsmouth Harbour to Waterloo via Guildford
• 1 slow per hour Portsmouth+Sthsea to Waterloo via Guildford, with another slow from Haslemere to Waterloo not going anywhere near Portsmouth
• 1 Portsmouth Harbour to Waterloo via Eastleigh & Basingstoke per hour
• 1 Portsmouth Harbour to Victoria via Horsham & East Croydon per hour

Making 5tph (as well as that Haslemere slow not going to Portsmouth).

Sorry Eagle, I forgot about the service via Basingstoke.

 

[Nym]

This is the reason why I would only have services running from Reddish to Victoria, and even these being run simply to get units out of the way on the through lines at Vic.

The problem we have is that NR and the DfT are blindly going into saying that the pair of throughs at victoria and the castleford viaduct is enough to take the predicted growth on the Chat Moss, CLC and Windsor Bridge lines, in addition to cord traffic. Windsor Bride today is 10tph, chat moss will soon be jumping to 8tph and there will still be a minimum of 4tph + freight on the CLC. Plus of course 4tph cord services, all crashing together within 200yds of eachother, without some form of either mitigation, massive turn backs being added at Piccadilly and Victoria (and religiously followed timetables) or the re-opening of a block of bay platforms somewhere, either Exchange or Central, or perhaps a manic rebuild of Oxford Road. Then everything will fall to peices the second you start trying to push what...
16tph across the Castlefeild Viaduct and 16tph through Victoria, something is going to give..!

And considering the 'cheapest' solution is a grade separation of Ordsall Lane and some bays at Exchange, although I'll be told this is stupid, I can see the Castleford Corridor having to scale back to 3tphpr rather than 4tphpr. (3 CLC, 3 Cord, 3 Chat, 3 Windsor) but again, with the CLC still showing growth and the desire to potentially more to a 3SF3S pattern, that would mean even more to take through Deansgate, it just won't work!

Manchester needs somewhere to terminate local services from these lines...

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Why not leave matters as they are with the 1tpw service, to ensure the line status, but make the standard of line maintenance of a good enough quality to ensure that, with the eventual onset of the Ordsall Chord, the route remains of a sufficiently good standard as a diversionary route if required. There may well be future Open Operator services planned which would incorporate this route from Stockport to Stalybridge.

What worried me was the pathway availability for all these extra "local" services discussed earlier in this thread from Stockport railway station to Heaton Norris Junction (and in the reverse direction) and the crossing of the station throat by these services, assuming that the existing bay platform at Stockport was still proposed to be used.

GNWR proposed using the line between Stockport and Stalybridge, however, I suspect neither they nor any other OAO over a long distance would wish to serve Denton and Reddish South. Although no paths at peak times exist over Stockport-Piccadilly, working off the basis of 13tph between the two off-peak, there may be a spare path in there to Heaton Norris at least.

 

[northwichcat]

What worried me was the pathway availability for all these extra "local" services discussed earlier in this thread from Stockport railway station to Heaton Norris Junction (and in the reverse direction) and the crossing of the station throat by these services, assuming that the existing bay platform at Stockport was still proposed to be used.

Maybe you should look at where the Chester-Stockport services go/come from at peak times.

The first Chester-Stockport in the morning peak does a shunt round and then runs ECS to Hazel Grove, the second and the evening workings do an ECS run between Stockport and Newton Heath via Denton.

The Chester-Stockport services only exist due to a lack of paths over the Mersey viaduct, so it is obviously easier to send a local train across all the paths at Stockport then it is to put another one over the Mersey viaduct.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

GNWR proposed using the line between Stockport and Stalybridge, however, I suspect neither they nor any other OAO over a long distance would wish to serve Denton and Reddish South. Although no paths at peak times exist over Stockport-Piccadilly, working off the basis of 13tph between the two off-peak, there may be a spare path in there to Heaton Norris at least.

I once said I wonder if GNWR could call one northbound and one southbound train at Denton and Reddish South on Saturdays only, which could be put in as a condition of their track access application and then Northern could cease to run the service. The response I got was that an Open Access operator can't run a franchise service - one Stockport to Stalybridge service per week being part of the Northern franchise - unless they keep separate accounts for open access and franchise operations.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

GNWR proposed using the line between Stockport and Stalybridge, however, I suspect neither they nor any other OAO over a long distance would wish to serve Denton and Reddish South.

I was only referring to keeping this stretch of line in good maintained condition and there was no wish whatsoever to consider either Denton or Reddish South for any more services than the current 1tpw as stated in the very first line of my posting.. As far as I am concerned, these two railway stations are only there to ensure the line remains open....nothing more, nothing less.

Denton railway station is not exactly where you would consider a railway station to serve a town of that size to be situated and the 201 Stagecoach Manchester bus passes through the centre of the town offering a 10 minute frequency service to the centre of Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Chester-Stockport services only exist due to a lack of paths over the Mersey viaduct, so it is obviously easier to send a local train across all the paths at Stockport then it is to put another one over the Mersey viaduct.

My posting was really in response to the proposal of no less 5tph that was made in an earlier posting. I was endeavouring to bring some realism into the debate.

 

[tbtc]

I love these Manchester-area threads, where a line with a once a week service becomes a train every few minutes (as well as a London service)...

I'm a bit confused by the need to run all of these trains to Denton/ Reddish just to free up space at Manchester Victoria though.

Based on current plans (assuming that the Northern Hub happens as planned etc*), the eastern end of Victoria will be something like:

1x Burnley/Blackburn via Todmorden
2x Leeds via Todmorden and Bradford
1x Leeds via Todmorden and Dewsbury
4x fast to Leeds (and beyond?) via Huddersfield
2x Stalybridge

...so that's ten an hour (how many more services will there be at the western end of Victoria?). Plus there's the plan for two slow Leeds services (stopping at Marsden etc) which may have to run from Piccadilly because (according to some) the eastern end of Victoria will be too busy.

So where the space for five Victoria - Denton services comes from I don't know. The logical thing to do (if there is space at the eastern end of Victoria) would be to put the "slow" Leeds (via Marsden etc) services to Victoria, so that all West Yorkshire services use the same Manchester terminus.

(* - I'm not assuming anything about the Northern Hub at the moment as Paul Sidorczuk has rightly cast doubt on whether everything will actually get built)

 

[Nym]

Western end of Victoria soon to become:

4tph Ordstall Cord (2TPE, 2NT)
2tph Liverpool Fast (2TPE)
2tph Liverpool Slow (NT)
1tph Blackburn & Clitheroe via Bolton
1tph Kirby via Atherton
1tph Southport via Atherton
2tph Wigan via Bolton
1tph Blackpool North via Bolton

Thats 14tph, and thats also assuming that the new Wigan services will continue to run to Piccadilly after the cord is built, that I'm reckoning they won't. So that's another 2tph.

Then add in the possibility of the Bolton stopper moving to EMU and terminating there with a wigan instead running fast (possibly diverting the Southport via Bolton to Victoria) can add another tph to this. We can very quickly get up to 17tph on that side of Victoria. Plus freight, pathed at 1tph IIRC

So thats 9tph per platform available. And 7tph more than the other side's services. If one desires a standardised pattern then the diesels from Windsor Bridge would be going onwards via Rochdale or terminating at Stalybridge, and those from the Chat Moss onto Stalybridge or Philips Park.

So if we assume we're going to have 4tph via Rochdale (2 fast, 2 slow) 2tph to Stalybridge and 4tph TPE N, we need more...

One would possibly look into 6tph running out up to Rochdale, taking two cord services (as a requirement of the project) and the Wigan via Bolton or Atherton services perhaps. With 2tph terminating at Rochdale, providing them a better service.

So now from Windsor we only have 2 or 3 tph to worry about (Blackpool, Clitheroe and Bolton all shacks if it's split)

From the Chat Moss one is anticipating if we're including Wigan services and Liverpool Slow services to have 4tph to find a home for, these could slot quite nicely behind the TPE services, or they could if it wasn't 2 track for the whole route so the TPE ex. Liverpool would be stuck behind the stoppers, unless Eccles grows platforms again, or bays are put into Victoria to handle these. Logically these EMUs would continue to Stalybridge.

The remaing 2/3tph would either have to use a reversing siding, or also continue to Stalybridge, but 4tph fast and 4tph slow where the fast WILL be jammed behind the slow in most cases until Stalybridge isn't perticularly desireable anyway, let alone trying to fit more down there.

Not that I feel like I'm repeating myself or anything, but if one had bay platforms available on the Exchange site, then 4tph stoppers from the Chat Moss can be timed to sod off directly behind each fast service. And any additional Chester services, not yet mentioned potentially adding even more westward services into Victoria, will also be able to make use of these bays. And if grade seperation is provided in the manner I have previously discribed at Ordsall Lane, then services could run via the Windsor Link avoiding Salford Central, but able to make use of the bay platforms.

So with bays, the services that would need to be pushed through would be reduced to only the Windsor Bridge services and through services from the Cord and Chat Moss, I get that to be 4tph Cord, 2tph Chat Moss and 6/7tph Windsor Bridge. Much more manageable, and a clockface 15min timetable for TPE and cord would be easyer to maintain, with the Liverpool and Cord services leaving at the same time Westbound, and arriving at the same time, thanks to the grade seperation provided at Ordsall Lane. With the Bradford - Airport services using Platform 5 and all TPE services, cord or Liverpool using Platform 3. Some of the Windsor Bridge to Stalybridge services would need to jump southward on the Deal St approaches to counter this and maintain 6/7tph per platform.