How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

[Purple Orange]

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......



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.

My point is there is capacity through St. Peter’s Square.

At 45 tph through Cornbrook you’ve got:

• 10 tph Altrincham
• 10 tph East Didsbury
• 10 tph Trafford Centre
• 10 tph Airport
• 5 tph Eccles & Media City

Those services will flow 15 tph to Piccadilly:

• 5 tph Glossop & Hadfield
• 5 tph Rose Hill
• 5 tph Ashton

Then we have 15 tph to Victoria:

• 5 tph Bury
• 5 tph Oldham via Rochdale
• 5 tph Middleton

And then 15 tph through Albert Square and Salford Central:

• 5 tph Wigan via Atherton
• 10 tph Eccles & Media City

Between Victoria & Piccadilly you can run a further 10 tph thus accounting for the additional 5 tph to Bury and 5 tph to Oldham/Rochdale and 5 to Ashton, with a further 5 either terminating at Piccadilly or continuing onwards.

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

A network could be:

• 5 tph Altrincham - Wigan
• 5 tph Altrincham - Glossop & Hadfield
• 5 tph East Didsbury - Rose Hill
• 5 tph East Didsbury - Eccles & Media City
• 5 tph Airport - Oldham & Rochdale
• 5 tph Airport - Eccles & Media City
• 5 tph Trafford Centre - Ashton
• 5 tph Trafford Centre - Middleton
• 5 tph Eccles & Media City - Bury
• 5 tph Bury - Ashton
• 5 tph Oldham & Rochdale - Piccadilly

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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

Where is this St Peter's Hill you make reference to?

 

[LOL The Irony]

I don't think having 60tph using the current core is a good idea, it's not a controlled environment like the Thameslink core. One car getting stuck in the middle of a junction and your perfectly planned timetable quickly falls apart. The only solution to this would be to ban traffic from all the roads that the central core uses. Or maybe, just maybe, build a line that as best as possible avoids the core, St Peter's Square and Cornbrook.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think having 60tph using the current core is a good idea, it's not a controlled environment like the Thameslink core. One car getting stuck in the middle of a junction and your perfectly planned timetable quickly falls apart. The only solution to this would be to ban traffic from all the roads that the central core uses. Or maybe, just maybe, build a line that as best as possible avoids the core, St Peter's Square and Cornbrook.

Reduced car traffic in the central area would be a very good thing, car parks could be on the periphery.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't think having 60tph using the current core is a good idea, it's not a controlled environment like the Thameslink core. One car getting stuck in the middle of a junction and your perfectly planned timetable quickly falls apart. The only solution to this would be to ban traffic from all the roads that the central core uses. Or maybe, just maybe, build a line that as best as possible avoids the core, St Peter's Square and Cornbrook.

That was part of the point of the Second City Crossing; no "single point failure" in the city centre (save for the very short section between St Peters Square and the start of the ramp to Deansgate-Castelfield.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Reduced car traffic in the central area would be a very good thing, car parks could be on the periphery.

But buses and taxis will still be around.

That was part of the point of the Second City Crossing; no "single point failure" in the city centre (save for the very short section between St Peters Square and the start of the ramp to Deansgate-Castelfield.

But that still doesn't account for junctions blocked by traffic, preventing trams from moving.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But buses and taxis will still be around.

In the new regulated system TfGM will be able to give consideration to routeing of buses and where they terminate so as to ensure they are not a risk to Metrolink. Taxis can be controlled similarly by restricting which roads they can use.

 

[LOL The Irony]

In the new regulated system TfGM will be able to give consideration to routeing of buses and where they terminate so as to ensure they are not a risk to Metrolink. Taxis can be controlled similarly by restricting which roads they can use.

I have reservations about doing so. I foresee bottlenecks popping up across the city center just to accommodate Metrolink.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have reservations about doing so. I foresee bottlenecks popping up across the city center just to accommodate Metrolink.

Rail should absolutely always have priority over road (and bus over private vehicles including taxis).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Rail should absolutely always have priority over road (and bus over private vehicles including taxis).

If you had raised that matter in the House of Commons as an MP, I could well imagine a most interesting debate would ensue....

 

[EllieAquitrain]

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.

I would presume there are many bridges across the network with insufficient clearance?!

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not true, in any case, that doubled-up trams take too much time across junctions. Most Metrolink services are now doubled up all day.

 

[Purple Orange]

Something makes me suspicious that many forumers who are opposed to Metrolink and light rail tram networks generally engage with Manchester and the network very infrequently.

 

[HSTEd]

Where is this St Peter's Hill you make reference to?

Sorry, got mixed up with a place in my hometown.

St Peter's Square!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2021 ==

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.

Given how much of the system was converted from rail networks - you can no more have double deck trams in Manchester than we can have double decker trains!

Ultimately, the best way to improve capacity would be to make future orders for double length multiple-articulation vehicles, eliminating the intermediate cabs and coupler space.

 

[Purple Orange]

I am interested to know, what circumstances could lead to the CLC seeing 4 stopping services each hour as a heavy rail line?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am interested to know, what circumstances could lead to the CLC seeing 4 stopping services each hour as a heavy rail line?

Only the full Northern Powerhouse Rail could really deliver that (as it'd take all the long distance stuff off Castlefield and turn it into essentially an S-Bahn) as Castlefield hasn't the capacity otherwise, and Victoria hasn't really the capacity to move enough over there either.

Secondarily, my oft-made proposal to close the Arena and rebuild Victoria into a larger station with six or eight minimum 200m* through platforms might allow more to be moved over (and less resistance to it because it would be a nicer station to use).

* Ideally at least one island at 265m to allow for use by diverted 11 car Pendolinos for engineering work and in emergency.

 

[Purple Orange]

Only the full Northern Powerhouse Rail could really deliver that (as it'd take all the long distance stuff off Castlefield and turn it into essentially an S-Bahn) as Castlefield hasn't the capacity otherwise, and Victoria hasn't really the capacity to move enough over there either.

Secondarily, my oft-made proposal to close the Arena and rebuild Victoria into a larger station with six or eight minimum 200m* through platforms might allow more to be moved over (and less resistance to it because it would be a nicer station to use).

* Ideally at least one island at 265m to allow for use by diverted 11 car Pendolinos for engineering work and in emergency.

I’m wondering, does it specifically need full NPR, or are other interventions on Castlefield needed?

Assuming the latest HS2/NPR murmurs are true, the fast Leeds-airport TPE services would be taken away from the classic network at least. That leaves 8 tph through trains plus 1 freight and 2 terminating services at Oxford Road, which is well below the target of the Northern Hub to see 14 tph (plus 1 freight I assume).

How could this (excluding the Leeds service being taken off to NPR)

• Bolton Line
  • 2 x Blackpool - Airport
  • 1 x Scotland - Airport
  • 1 x Cumbria - Airport
  • 1 x Southport - Oxford Road
• Chat Moss
  • 1 x North Wales - Airport
  • 1 x Liverpool - Airport
• CLC
  • 1 x Liverpool - Nottingham
  • 1 x Liverpool - Cleethorpes
  • 1 x Liverpool - Oxford Road
  • 1 x Freight

Move to this:

• Bolton Line
  • 2 x Blackpool - Airport
  • 1 x Scotland - Airport
  • 1 x Cumbria - Airport
• Chat Moss
  • 1 x Liverpool - Nottingham
  • 1 x Liverpool - Cleethorpes
• CLC
  • 4 x Liverpool - Airport (northern stopper)
  • 1 x Freight
• Victoria
  • 2 x Leeds/Huddersfield - Airport (TRU stoppers)
  • 2 x Stalybridge - Airport (in place of Southport)

Could the North Wales services be run in to Victoria? Could Southport all go to Victoria too? Or do the Airport, Cumbria and North Wales services need an alternative place to terminate in central Manchester?

Therefore could the required infrastructure be:

• NPR for Leeds services
• Piccadilly P15 & P16
• Oxford Road remodelling
• Salford Central P3-P5
• Victoria bay platforms

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd add "a load of electrification", as with that you either have 6tph diesel to the Airport or 769s on local stopping services on the CLC. Neither of those is good.

Also, while Southport can be debated until the proverbial cows come home (local expression), I think moving the Airport, Cumbria and North Wales services off Castlefield to accommodate 4tph of stopping services on a route that has very poor usage is not a good plan.

FWIW my proposal for a "local only" CLC EMU service if we could path it through Castlefield would be thus:
2 x all stations to Warrington Central, Birchwood, Urmston, Deansgate etc
2 x South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington C then all stations

Perhaps two should terminate at Oxford Road.

That way the smaller stations get 2tph, Warrington W and C have fastish services to Manchester and the busier stations get 4tph.

 

[Purple Orange]

I'd add "a load of electrification", as with that you either have 6tph diesel to the Airport or 769s on local stopping services on the CLC. Neither of those is good.

Yes, electrification is needed more than any other intervention.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, electrification is needed more than any other intervention.

With all its local services and closely packed stations, I can think of no unelectrified line around Manchester that would benefit more, though the Atherton line might equal it.

195s would be a start, though. New Northern does at least seem to realise their being very suited to local diesel services.

 

[HST43257]

With NPR, the biggest benefit for Castlefield comes if the Hope Valley fasts are on HS2/NPR tracks before the existing Airport line comes in near Longsight. This means the only fasts would be WCML Cumbria and Scotland services.

After these works:
HS2 West in full
NPR in full
Warrington to Manchester CLC metrolink

This is what I suggest:

1tph Airport Fast to Cumbria via Golborne
1tph Airport Fast to Scotland via Bolton
1tph Airport Fast to North Wales
1tph Airport Fast to Newcastle (semi fast on non NPR route)
2tph Crewe via Airport Slow to Blackpool North
1tph Airport Slow to Leeds via Rochdale and Dewsbury
1tph Airport Slow to Preston via Rochdale and Blackburn (not meant for through passengers!)
2tph Crewe via Handforth to Southport
1tph Stoke to Chat Moss Slow
1tph FREIGHT


When I refer to Airport slow, I mean all stations MIA-MAN, and when I refer to Airport fast, I mean nonstop MIA-MAN


Then on NPR:

2tph Scotland to Liverpool via ECML
1tph Newcastle to Birmingham via Manchester
1tph Middlesbrough (or maybe just NCL) to Birmingham via Manchester
1tph Cleethorpes to Liverpool
1tph Nottingham to Liverpool
2tph Hull to Liverpool

 

[Purple Orange]

^^^On NPR & TRU, I think we will see 8 tph max across the Pennines initially (I.e. upon opening an NPR line through east Manchester). NPR could, like HS2, see a multi stage approach to construction. So at stage 1 (East Manchester line), I think we will have:

• 4 fast NPR
  • 1 Birmingham-Piccadilly-Newcastle
  • 1 Birmingham-Piccadilly-Leeds
  • 2 Piccadilly-Leeds-Newcastle
• 2 Semi-fast TRU
  • 2 Liverpool-Victoria-Stalybridge-Huddersfield-Dewsbury-Leeds-Hull
• 2 Stoppers TRU
  • 2 Airport-Piccadilly-Victoria-Leeds/Huddersfield
• 2 Stoppers Northern
  • 2 Airport-Piccadilly-Victoria-Stalybridge

Then if Liverpool gets a spur to HS2, the two Newcastle services that start at Piccadilly will begin at Liverpool.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I take it there is no time limit to some of the proposals put forward on certain threads, as I am sure I have seen the use of HS2 tracks mentioned at sometime on this long-running thread.

 

[Purple Orange]

I take it there is no time limit to some of the proposals put forward on certain threads, as I am sure I have seen the use of HS2 tracks mentioned at sometime on this long-running thread.

Why put a time limit on? If a solution to improve services happens to be a long term plan, why discount it from the discussion?

 

[Greybeard33]

My point is there is capacity through St. Peter’s Square.

At 45 tph through Cornbrook you’ve got:

• 10 tph Altrincham
• 10 tph East Didsbury
• 10 tph Trafford Centre
• 10 tph Airport
• 5 tph Eccles & Media City

Those services will flow 15 tph to Piccadilly:

• 5 tph Glossop & Hadfield
• 5 tph Rose Hill
• 5 tph Ashton

Then we have 15 tph to Victoria:

• 5 tph Bury
• 5 tph Oldham via Rochdale
• 5 tph Middleton

And then 15 tph through Albert Square and Salford Central:

• 5 tph Wigan via Atherton
• 10 tph Eccles & Media City

Between Victoria & Piccadilly you can run a further 10 tph thus accounting for the additional 5 tph to Bury and 5 tph to Oldham/Rochdale and 5 to Ashton, with a further 5 either terminating at Piccadilly or continuing onwards.

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

A network could be:

• 5 tph Altrincham - Wigan
• 5 tph Altrincham - Glossop & Hadfield
• 5 tph East Didsbury - Rose Hill
• 5 tph East Didsbury - Eccles & Media City
• 5 tph Airport - Oldham & Rochdale
• 5 tph Airport - Eccles & Media City
• 5 tph Trafford Centre - Ashton
• 5 tph Trafford Centre - Middleton
• 5 tph Eccles & Media City - Bury
• 5 tph Bury - Ashton
• 5 tph Oldham & Rochdale - Piccadilly

Some corrections to the above: pre-pandemic, there were separate 5tph services Eccles - Ashton and MediaCityUK - Ashton, giving Ashton 10tph. This will be reintroduced before any new services, so there is only capacity for 5tph from the Trafford Park line into the city centre (the Airport line is planned to go to 10tph). An additional 5tph from Trafford Park could perhaps terminate at Deansgate-Castlefield if demand grows sufficiently.

From St Peters Square the 1CC line will have 25tph and the 2CC 20tph, considered to be pretty much their maximum capacity.

The Oldham line has 10tph (5tph Rochdale, 5tph Shaw). The Bury line is planned to have 15tph (10tph Bury, 5tph Crumpsall) once the Trafford Park service runs through, and 10tph Airport will terminate at Victoria, giving Victoria 35tph (20tph via 2CC, 15tph via 1CC). The proposed Middleton service might perhaps be an extension of one of the Airports.

10tph terminate at Piccadilly (5tph Bury, 5tph Altrincham) and could potentially be extended to Marple/Glossop as tram-trains. There is also an aspiration for a direct Oldham - Piccadilly service, doubling frequency between Victoria and Piccadilly to 10tph, but that is not feasible as long as 10tph continue to terminate at the current 2-platform Piccadilly stop.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Rail should absolutely always have priority over road (and bus over private vehicles including taxis).

I do agree, but you need to convince people to leave their cars at home, not force them.

Something makes me suspicious that many forumers who are opposed to Metrolink and light rail tram networks generally engage with Manchester and the network very infrequently.

Likewise that the United Church of Metrolink members seemingly want every suburban and regional line into Manchester part or fully converted to Metrolink, regardless whether it's wanted or needed, don't use trains outside of Greater Manchester. I initially wanted Metrolink on my line, then I smelled the roses.

Also if I'm so anti Metrolink, remind me who suggested a 3CC along Deansgate that avoided St Peter's Square and Cornbrook. Just because I view its purpose differently to you, does not make me anti Metrolink. Same way in which it doesn't make you anti heavy rail.

I'd add "a load of electrification", as with that you either have 6tph diesel to the Airport or 769s on local stopping services on the CLC. Neither of those is good.

Electrify every suburban and regional route into Manchester. It needs to be turned into a fully electric railway.

Therefore could the required infrastructure be:

• NPR for Leeds services
• Piccadilly P15 & P16
• Oxford Road remodelling
• Salford Central P3-P5
• Victoria bay platforms

Ideally at least one island at 265m to allow for use by diverted 11 car Pendolinos for engineering work and in emergency.

Yes, build all of it.

 

[py_megapixel]

Likewise that the United Church of Metrolink members seemingly want every suburban and regional line into Manchester part or fully converted to Metrolink, regardless whether it's wanted or needed, don't use trains outside of Greater Manchester. I initially wanted Metrolink on my line, then I smelled the roses.

You seem to be suggesting that Metrolink is some sort of evil cult...? that's a new one on me. People wouldn't be proposing it if it didn't work.

 

[Ianno87]

I do agree, but you need to convince people to leave their cars at home, not force them.

No, some more forcing is needed. For as long as driving is easy/cheap, people will do it.

 

[muddythefish]

How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

My foremost wish would be widespread electrification across the entire region, including the Sheffield, Calder Valley, North Wales, Buxton, CLC, Southport and Blackburn lines.

More late night trains would be welcome too

 

[HSTEd]

Deansgate really isn't close enough to the true centre of Manchester to be much use as a Metrolink core line IMO.

Which is a problem because the paucity of bridges means that we end up with a flat crossing over other Metrolink lines which is likely to be little better in traffic management terms than simply putting more trains through the existing core.


Also my understanding was that no trams terminate in the platforms at the Picadilly tram stop, don't they run into the tunnel beyond and use a reversing siding?