How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

[nr758123]

Well, Hadfield (where most of that was filmed) is on a local rail service from Manchester, albeit not Castlefield!

The Local Shop for Local People was built on Deer Hill above Marsden.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would guess not. The stations on thay line would probably do very well if it had the same service as the Altrincham line.

Hence why Metrolink would be a game-changer. There would be losers - Widnes and Warrington West being the main ones - but the vast majority would be winners. Liverpool-Sheffield could run via Chat Moss once an hour as a 6-car 185 formation, dividing at Sheffield for Cleethorpes and Nottingham, or just curtail one of them to Manchester Pic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2021 ==

The Local Shop for Local People was built on Deer Hill above Marsden.

I was going to say "except the shop itself" but you beat me to it

 

[Purple Orange]

Hence why Metrolink would be a game-changer. There would be losers - Widnes and Warrington West being the main ones - but the vast majority would be winners. Liverpool-Sheffield could run via Chat Moss once an hour as a 6-car 185 formation, dividing at Sheffield for Cleethorpes and Nottingham, or just curtail one of them to Manchester Pic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2021 ==



I was going to say "except the shop itself" but you beat me to it

For metrolink to take on the line, Id have thought a metro tunnel would be needed under manchester.

 

[HSTEd]

For metrolink to take on the line, Id have thought a metro tunnel would be needed under manchester.

Well it would need additional central Manchester capacity for the tram system, there are other ways to provide it than some enormously expensive tram tunnel.

 

[Purple Orange]

Well it would need additional central Manchester capacity for the tram system, there are other ways to provide it than some enormously expensive tram tunnel.

What ways would that be? It wouldn't be a tram tunnel to begin with, if it came to pass. Tram-trains on the surface; metro trains underground.

 

[Glenn1969]

What ways would that be? It wouldn't be a tram tunnel to begin with, if it came to pass. Tram-trains on the surface; metro trains underground.

What would the cost of this be and wouldn't you still need a way to give Birchwood, Widnes and Liverpool South Parkway a Manchester rail link?

Also I note that the IRP has not appeared today. Does anyone know when it actually will be published?

 

[HSTEd]

It wouldn't be a tram tunnel to begin with, if it came to pass. Tram-trains on the surface; metro trains underground.

Tram trains and metro trains are essentially interchangeable, I don't think its safe to assume what would be going through such a tunnel.

What ways would that be?

Well ultimately the current bottleneck is in between Cornbrook and the 4-platform station at St Peter's Square.

There is an adjacent twin track-width unused viaduct for much of the route, and if some car parking is sacrificed it may be possible to force four tracks throughout.
Certainly cheaper than a full blown metro tunnel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

wouldn't you still need a way to give Birchwood, Widnes and Liverpool South Parkway a Manchester rail link?

Birchwood would be served by Metrolink services to Manchester 5 times per hour. This is better than one fast train per hour (the stopper isn't really relevant). Go and ask people in Ormskirk if they prefer 4tph to Liverpool as they have, or if they'd rather 1tph fast and 1tph slow, and I don't think many are going to choose the latter.

Widnes would be a loser, they'd have to change. Every beneficial scheme has a loser, e.g. Coventry and Stockport are the big HS2 losers, as their present 3tph fast to Euston is only provided out of convenience, they don't justify it on their own.

South Parkway could travel via Liverpool and onto the TPE fasts, or if they prefer change at Warrington C.

 

[HSTEd]

What would the cost of this be and wouldn't you still need a way to give Birchwood, Widnes and Liverpool South Parkway a Manchester rail link?

"Get off the Merseyrail train at Warrington, walk down the platform and board a tram"?

Or double back through Lime Street

 

[Glenn1969]

"Get off the Merseyrail train at Warrington, walk down the platform and board a tram"?

Or double back through Lime Street

Rather than change modes those that can will just drive

 

[HSTEd]

Rather than change modes those that can will just drive

1 passenger lost, 10 gained.

Rail does not have to retain all existing passengers at any cost - it has to ensure maximum possible traffic.

EDIT:

Birchwood would have a Manchester link because its on the Manchester side of Warrington......

 

[Glenn1969]

1 passenger lost, 10 gained.

Rail does not have to retain all existing passengers at any cost - it has to ensure maximum possible traffic.

Even if the number lost is in the 1000s? I think most through passengers would get into their cars unless like me they have no choice.

 

[HSTEd]

Even if the number lost is in the 1000s? I think most through passengers would get into their cars unless like me they have no choice.

Well yes, if the number gained is in the tens of thousands.

Even if literally every passenger from Widnes was lost, Widnes itself has only ~460,000 passengers per year.

If it was already part of Merseyrail it would be one of the quieter stations in the system. Hunt's Cross manages ~1.4m!

 

[Purple Orange]

Tram trains and metro trains are essentially interchangeable, I don't think its safe to assume what would be going through such a tunnel.



Well ultimately the current bottleneck is in between Cornbrook and the 4-platform station at St Peter's Square.

There is an adjacent twin track-width unused viaduct for much of the route, and if some car parking is sacrificed it may be possible to force four tracks throughout.
Certainly cheaper than a full blown metro tunnel.

The adjacent viaduct cant be used and its being turned in to a national trust park in order to get some use and restoration for it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2021 ==

Birchwood would be served by Metrolink services to Manchester 5 times per hour. This is better than one fast train per hour (the stopper isn't really relevant). Go and ask people in Ormskirk if they prefer 4tph to Liverpool as they have, or if they'd rather 1tph fast and 1tph slow, and I don't think many are going to choose the latter.

Widnes would be a loser, they'd have to change. Every beneficial scheme has a loser, e.g. Coventry and Stockport are the big HS2 losers, as their present 3tph fast to Euston is only provided out of convenience, they don't justify it on their own.

South Parkway could travel via Liverpool and onto the TPE fasts, or if they prefer change at Warrington C.

Most stockport-london passengers will benefit from the airport hs2 station and piccadilly hs2. The town wins overall id say.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Flixton has a population around the 11,000 mark, much of which is in residential areas. Is the existing rail service something seem as attractive?

I would guess not. The stations on thay line would probably do very well if it had the same service as the Altrincham line.

Doesn't Flixton have something like 20 Northern services each way during the week, which I think is slightly more than Altrincham (Mid Cheshire line). And on Sundays, a broadly hourly service each way, whereas Altrincham (Mid Cheshire line) is only once every two hours.

 

[Glenn1969]

Doesn't Flixton have something like 20 services each way during the week, which I think is slightly more than Altrincham (Mid Cheshire line). And on Sundays, a broadly hourly service each way, whereas Altrincham is only once every two hours.

I think they mean the Altrincham Metrolink line

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I think they mean the Altrincham Metrolink line

Probably, but just wanted to emphasise that the heavy rail service frequency through Altrincham is mediocre at best.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably, but just wanted to emphasise that the heavy rail service frequency through Altrincham is mediocre at best.

The only reason someone from Alty would want to use heavy rail towards Manchester would be if going to Stockport itself.

 

[Purple Orange]

Probably, but just wanted to emphasise that the heavy rail service frequency through Altrincham is mediocre at best.

As Glenn stated, im referring to the metrolink line. I dont think many people have a prefence for using the heavy rail link from Altrincham to Piccadilly, other than a dedicated few.

 

[Ianno87]

Well ultimately the current bottleneck is in between Cornbrook and the 4-platform station at St Peter's Square.

.

More accurately, it is most likely the crossing of Oxford Street to get into St Peters Square that is the actual limitation, and the impact of the traffic lights on the operation of the trams.

 

[Purple Orange]

More accurately, it is most likely the crossing of Oxford Street to get into St Peters Square that is the actual limitation, and the impact of the traffic lights on the operation of the trams.

There is not really a bottleneck. St. Peter’s Square can handle 45 tph, which is fine for seeing the Glossop & Hadfield and Rose Hill converted to metro link with 5 tph each, an extension to Middleton, conversion of the Atherton line (5 tph) coming in through Bridge Street, the airport and Trafford Centre lines both increasing to 10 tph and Eccles & Media City also running in via Salford Central & Bridge Street.

For anything more from west of St. Peter’s Square, a very different route in to the centre would be needed.

 

[Greybeard33]

More accurately, it is most likely the crossing of Oxford Street to get into St Peters Square that is the actual limitation, and the impact of the traffic lights on the operation of the trams.

Indeed so. The 2-track line through Cornbrook and over the viaduct could accommodate more than the planned maximum of 45tph (a tram every 80 seconds on average), but Oxford Street would effectively be barred to road traffic if the traffic signal priorities were adjusted to pass more trams than this (many are double sets 56m long, traversing the crossing at little more than walking pace).

 

[HSTEd]

Indeed so. The 2-track line through Cornbrook and over the viaduct could accommodate more than the planned maximum of 45tph (a tram every 80 seconds on average), but Oxford Street would effectively be barred to road traffic if the traffic signal priorities were adjusted to pass more trams than this (many are double sets 56m long, traversing the crossing at little more than walking pace).

So really the problem is the inability to route traffic on Oxford Street around that crossing?

Because ideally we'd have 50tph or more to allow Atherton and Warrington conversions.

 

[Purple Orange]

Indeed so. The 2-track line through Cornbrook and over the viaduct could accommodate more than the planned maximum of 45tph (a tram every 80 seconds on average), but Oxford Street would effectively be barred to road traffic if the traffic signal priorities were adjusted to pass more trams than this (many are double sets 56m long, traversing the crossing at little more than walking pace).

Let’s say Oxford Street is barred to traffic; all road traffic needs to turn left or right at Portland Street & Chepstow Street. Yet that would mean that Peter Street also would not see through traffic, although it could see traffic from the various side roads.

Could we see a 3rd city crossing travel up Oxford Road and on to Peter Street and Quay Street? This could link up to Chapel Street.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2021 ==

So really the problem is the inability to route traffic on Oxford Street around that crossing?

Because ideally we'd have 50tph or more to allow Atherton and Warrington conversions.

Additional capacity is not needed for Atherton.

 

[HSTEd]

Additional capacity is not needed for Atherton.

If you want to put both Atherton and Warrington over the track west of St Peter's Square, you would need that though.

Although myself I often ponder Atherton via Victoria.......

 

[Purple Orange]

If you want to put both Atherton and Warrington over the track west of St Peter's Square, you would need that though.

Although myself I often ponder Atherton via Victoria.......

Warrington is what can’t fit. You’ve got 45 tph running through SPS, which can service 15 tph to Piccadilly, 15 tph to Victoria and 15 tph to Salford Central (5 to Wigan via Atherton and 10 to Eccles & Media City).

 

[HSTEd]

Warrington is what can’t fit. You’ve got 45 tph running through SPS, which can service 15 tph to Piccadilly, 15 tph to Victoria and 15 tph to Salford Central (5 to Wigan via Atherton and 10 to Eccles & Media City).

Salford Central?

EDIT:

If you are going to serve Salford Central, wouldn't it be more logical to run along Chapel Street and join the core lines at Victoria?

That allows you access to the line through Shudehill and Piccadilly Gardens to Piccadilly, which still has plenty of spare capacity.

 

[Purple Orange]

Salford Central?

EDIT:

If you are going to serve Salford Central, wouldn't it be more logical to run along Chapel Street and join the core lines at Victoria?

That allows you access to the line through Shudehill and Piccadilly Gardens to Piccadilly, which still has plenty of spare capacity.

Why? There is capacity and a line from Chapel Street to Alibert Square to join the 2CC opens access to a part of the city centre that is not served by the tram.

It could do both of course, allowing trams from Salford Central to head east to Piccadilly and west to Deansgate.

 

[AndrewE]

How long before someone realises that 93-ft single-deck articulated trams take up too much time across junctions so you can't double them up - and there is a desperate and growing need for a step-change increase in capacity?
Please, someone, investigate re-introducing double-deckers! London and lots of other cities couldn't survive without them (buses) and I don't understand why road-trains are allowed to waste so much road-space, aka capacity, anywhere, Edinburgh, S London or Manchester.

 

[HSTEd]

Why? There is capacity

Well given that we have projects that you are saying there is not capacity for, funneling even more trams into the limiting portion of the system sounds like a bad idea.

Once the Trafford Centre trams reach the centre of Manchester there is only 5tph more capacity through St Peter's Hill that is not spoken for. (Currently seven patterns, eight with Trafford Centre)

I contend that they should be held for a project where approaching from the Cornbrook direction is the only reasonable option - like Warrington or similar.

Meanwhile we have relatively quiet lines via Shudehill et al.

If St Peter's Hill could be pushed to 60tph or so it would be a very different situation......

and a line from Chapel Street to Alibert Square to join the 2CC opens access to a part of the city centre that is not served by the tram.

Well so does proceeding down Chapel Street to Victoria, there are still several areas of the "city centre", depending on how you define it, not served.

EDIT:

I'm a little confused now - if you want to put Atherton down Bridge St-John Dalton St to the east end of St Peter's Square, there is no conflict between Atherton and Warrington because in extremis they could just be the same 5tph path.

Although that would be rather strange routing.