North West electrification query

[cle]

Stockport isn't a bad idea though - there are two spare bays, and actually the other through northbound platform isn't used that intensively either. And the tricky parts, like the line across the station, and the viaduct, are done already!

 

[lancastrian]

Well I have enjoyed reading the comments over the last few days and I do agree that re-instating the 4 tracks between Ashburys and Guide Bridge would be very helpful. When I used to work at Guide Bridge in the early 70's all 4 platforms were in use, pkus a real Stcokport to Stalybridge service exsisted. Also al 4 tracks were wire up for overhead lines, admitedly on the old Woodhead 750v DC system.

If the 4 tracks were re-instated and wired up with the Miles Platting to Ashburys link as well, then you will have a good alternate route into Manchester. Also if they ever electrify the south east Manchester lines, (ex Sheffield & Midland line) then an alternate destination would be available at Victoriam if Piccadilly was congested.

Regarding the comments over the suggested electrification through to Rochdale, I feel that is makes sense. If you then combine it with the Manchester to Southport services, via Bolton or Atherton & Wigan, and those lines where also electrified, then you would have a very good through Victoria service, freeing up platforms at Victoria. Which are in short supply since they messed it up with the Metrolink and MEN Arena works.

Sometimes when I have been travelling back from Victoria to Bolton, I have arrived on the right platform and have a choice of 3 trains on that platform, with no one to ask which trian is for where, or any notices, or signage to help you. I often have to wait to see the driver get in and then ask them where the train is going to get on the right one. It can be very annoying, especially when you are told you are on the Bolton train and it pulls out the wrong way and you end up going to Rochdale, which happened to me once.

 

[Lampshade]

Aren't there are still four tracks through Ashburys? I was there yesterday and there are two tracks the other side of the station, not sure how far they extend though.

 

[Invincibles]

Ashburys nominally still has 4 because the line that goes off to Victoria does not seem to be fully absorbed into the Guide Bridge line until some point east of Ashburys.

Proper 4 tracks with all 4 tracks able to reach Piccadilly and Victoria would be perfect.

At least they built the M60 with room for 4 tracks beneath it.

 

[bluenoxid]

But we've never interworked a heavy rail with a metro service, actually no Tyne and Wear tried with 2 services per hour and a full compliment of metro services and guess what happened shortly after, one of the heavy rail services per hour got kicked off the line as Metro couldn't keep to timings. There is no point putting a light rail service up there, it should be heavy rail or kept as DMU. It should be electrified just as much as Stalybridge but Stalybridge isnt likely to be done either. It is only a 10 mile (if that) extension of the wires to facilitate through services to keep Victoria clear barely a complex or expensive task. It would not be a hpurly or half hourly limb Rochdale to Manchester would remain at 4tph but go to 2 EMU, 2 DMU which would be the same service level at least as any Stalybridge - Manchester Vic service

Stalybridge benefits from being a logical place to terminate trains and delivers good connectivity opportunities for TPE passengers to access the NW and NW passengers without a direct MIA service to access the Manchester International with just one change at a station designed for this kind of interchange.

Stalybridge is also likely to receive wires and more services from additional services to remove stops from Hadfield services.

Just because it has not been done in the UK before does not mean that it is impossible or should be ignored as a serious option. Tram Train is going to be capable of speeds that should keep it out of the way of any services (and we are not talking an intense line (only 4tph at the moment)).

You are also blinded to the fact that a number of routes are unlikely to be electrified before 2030 including Clitheroe and Kirkby. I would add Southport as well because Lancashire is unlikely to fund any stops gaps that would develop its economy.

Am surprised no-one else is mentioning electrifying through Victoria to Ashbrys. Where it wouldn't be difficult to add two more platforms on the freight line to vic and open this up to passenger usage, for both pushing services through vic, it would keep them on the correct side of the lines, rather than running to stalybridge from chat moss. This would also provide diversion opportunities away from Piccadilly for the 'East Manchester' lines, should there be problems, track work, or work for putting in HS2 platforms on the NE of Picc...

4Track to guide bridge anyone?

Ashburys would only be logical as a fill in or to run additional stoppers into Man Vic (to provide a cross Manchester local service) or to run them through. I like your thinking but as long as you think local and not TPE (which should be kept out of way if possible)

I think the idea of electrifying to Stalybridge (and my poo pooed idea of Rochdale) is strong enough as it frees up space in Manchester Victoria. There currently are no westbound bays even though some are planned, there still won't be as many as say Leeds and Manchester Piccadilly and it makes sense especially on what can very busy lines at times to run some services crsoo-city

Believe me, if I could fly, I would drop it from a higher point.

Rochdale will only give one train per hour electric with any new services likely to be to Rawtenstall, Todmorden or Blackburn. All of which will be DMU's.

Why does Man Vic need so many bays when two lines are likely to do. My personal masterplan would see six tracks from the west end of Man Vic through Salford Central. All of which is capable of handling a large number of arrivals and departures.

Well I have enjoyed reading the comments over the last few days and I do agree that re-instating the 4 tracks between Ashburys and Guide Bridge would be very helpful. When I used to work at Guide Bridge in the early 70's all 4 platforms were in use, pkus a real Stcokport to Stalybridge service exsisted. Also al 4 tracks were wire up for overhead lines, admitedly on the old Woodhead 750v DC system.

If the 4 tracks were re-instated and wired up with the Miles Platting to Ashburys link as well, then you will have a good alternate route into Manchester. Also if they ever electrify the south east Manchester lines, (ex Sheffield & Midland line) then an alternate destination would be available at Victoriam if Piccadilly was congested.

Regarding the comments over the suggested electrification through to Rochdale, I feel that is makes sense. If you then combine it with the Manchester to Southport services, via Bolton or Atherton & Wigan, and those lines where also electrified, then you would have a very good through Victoria service, freeing up platforms at Victoria. Which are in short supply since they messed it up with the Metrolink and MEN Arena works.

Sometimes when I have been travelling back from Victoria to Bolton, I have arrived on the right platform and have a choice of 3 trains on that platform, with no one to ask which trian is for where, or any notices, or signage to help you. I often have to wait to see the driver get in and then ask them where the train is going to get on the right one. It can be very annoying, especially when you are told you are on the Bolton train and it pulls out the wrong way and you end up going to Rochdale, which happened to me once.

I do worry that any other developments will cull a Stockport to Stalybridge. Don't forget that any service will have to cross upto four tracks and many services to both stop and then proceed. A very wasteful operation. I would have to get the whole range of options looked at to serve the areas looking at rail, bus, tram, tram-train. However, there is an option. When the line towards Ashton Moss North Junction goes under the M60, I would suggest bringing it left so it goes parallel to the M60 and then joins the line at Ashton Moss North Junction but facing Stalybridge. This offers direct services but without the damage to paths that going through Guide Bridge could bring.

 

[lancastrian]

I do worry that any other developments will cull a Stockport to Stalybridge. Don't forget that any service will have to cross upto four tracks and many services to both stop and then proceed. A very wasteful operation. I would have to get the whole range of options looked at to serve the areas looking at rail, bus, tram, tram-train. However, there is an option. When the line towards Ashton Moss North Junction goes under the M60, I would suggest bringing it left so it goes parallel to the M60 and then joins the line at Ashton Moss North Junction but facing Stalybridge. This offers direct services but without the damage to paths that going through Guide Bridge could bring.

Well I have two comments about this. First at this time there is NO Stockport Stalybridge service, apart from one train each Saturday. There is no service in the other direction AT ALL. Plus although there are trains through Guide Bridge to Stalybridge, as far as I am aware none actually stop at Guide Bridge. This means that all passengers from the South East Manchester area (the Hadfield, Marple, Hyde and New Mills passengers) all have to trabel through Guide Bridge into Piccadilly, then travel all the way back again through Guide Bridge, to get to West Yorkshire. How daft is that. By having a link from Stockport, through Guide Bridge to Stalybridge, it would not only give a time saving to them, there might also be a financial benefit.

Secondly, during the 70's when I used to work at Guide Bridge, there was an hourly service each way between Stockport & Stalybridge, I know I used it. That also crossed four tracks at Guide Bridge, while there was a greater freight traffic, Woodhead was still open then, with no difficulty that I observered. All that is needed is good timetable planning.

A simple way of solving this problem, is to stop all Trans Pennine services at Guide Bridge, cut back the Stockport service to Guide Bridge. Looking at Google Earth recently, the space were the two sourtherly platforms were taken out (one is the southern face of the old island platform) is clear and therefore both the tracks and platforms could be replaced. Not as long as they used to be, and these could now be used for all local services to Hadfield, Rose Hill and New Mills. The space where the old station buildings were, now they have been demolished could be used to put a bay platform in for reversing a Guide Bridge to Stockport service. This would eliminate any crossing of the reinstated four track line, plus it is possible for the line to not impinge upon the four tracks at all, although a connection would be beneficial.

Just a few ideas for your consideration.

 

[Sapphire Blue]

Well I have two comments about this. First at this time there is NO Stockport Stalybridge service, apart from one train each Saturday. There is no service in the other direction AT ALL. Plus although there are trains through Guide Bridge to Stalybridge, as far as I am aware none actually stop at Guide Bridge. This means that all passengers from the South East Manchester area (the Hadfield, Marple, Hyde and New Mills passengers) all have to trabel through Guide Bridge into Piccadilly, then travel all the way back again through Guide Bridge, to get to West Yorkshire. How daft is that. By having a link from Stockport, through Guide Bridge to Stalybridge, it would not only give a time saving to them, there might also be a financial benefit.

Secondly, during the 70's when I used to work at Guide Bridge, there was an hourly service each way between Stockport & Stalybridge, I know I used it. That also crossed four tracks at Guide Bridge, while there was a greater freight traffic, Woodhead was still open then, with no difficulty that I observered. All that is needed is good timetable planning.

A simple way of solving this problem, is to stop all Trans Pennine services at Guide Bridge, cut back the Stockport service to Guide Bridge. Looking at Google Earth recently, the space were the two sourtherly platforms were taken out (one is the southern face of the old island platform) is clear and therefore both the tracks and platforms could be replaced. Not as long as they used to be, and these could now be used for all local services to Hadfield, Rose Hill and New Mills. The space where the old station buildings were, now they have been demolished could be used to put a bay platform in for reversing a Guide Bridge to Stockport service. This would eliminate any crossing of the reinstated four track line, plus it is possible for the line to not impinge upon the four tracks at all, although a connection would be beneficial.

Just a few ideas for your consideration.

"Pedant mode on."

I believe the one train a week is early Friday morning.

"Pedant mode off"

 

[tbtc]

"Pedant mode on."

I believe the one train a week is early Friday morning.

"Pedant mode off"

That's something I've never understood. Surely trains/ staff are at a premium on weekdays - what does the unit/staff do the rest of the week?

If it was a weekly service that I had to run, I'd tag it on to another duty on a Saturday or Sunday, first thing or last thing, rather than 09.22 - 09.49 on a Friday...

Odd.

 

[The Engineer]

That's something I've never understood. Surely trains/ staff are at a premium on weekdays - what does the unit/staff do the rest of the week?

If it was a weekly service that I had to run, I'd tag it on to another duty on a Saturday or Sunday, first thing or last thing, rather than 09.22 - 09.49 on a Friday...

Odd.

It used to be a Saturday. A group of enthusiasts adopted it and started using it regularly. So, to prevent the service appearing to be used and therefore "needed", they changed days!!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Really?! How incredibly vindictive of the railway... And I am not at all surprised. So when they said they moved it for "operational reasons" it wasn't the diagramming then? ( Except in terms of how to avoid having to diagram it more heavily...? )

 

[Sapphire Blue]

It used to be a Saturday. A group of enthusiasts adopted it and started using it regularly. So, to prevent the service appearing to be used and therefore "needed", they changed days!!

This also made the train unusable to people with Ranger/Rover tickets with 09.30 restrictions. (Except for Good Friday of course)

Oh, and on Royal Wedding celebration days it will be used as well. (stand by for a bus replacement maybe)

 

[tbtc]

It used to be a Saturday. A group of enthusiasts adopted it and started using it regularly. So, to prevent the service appearing to be used and therefore "needed", they changed days!!

Surely, by that logic, it was a profitable service?

 

[Nym]

The problem I have is that the Stockport - Guide Bridge line covers a big passenger flow, it would be even bigger if pepole got off their arsed and built a Heald Green Jcns - Cheadle Hume line (services to Manc Airport able to avoid Manc). Just how much re-moddeling round Levensume and Heaton Chappel would be needed to move some platforms round, then sending stuff up to Guide Bridge wouldn't have to cross 4 tracks, could just diverge off the fast lines and that would be the end of it, would also put everything in the right place for when the busy 2 track from Heald Green crashes into a very busy 4 track from Stockport, that IMO should be 6 track through Longsight as a priority, with re-opening Mayfeild and a 10track station throught but thats for a different thread. But me plans for that wouldn't need much extra viaduct, just to steal some sidings through Longsight, would need more viaduct after Ardwick to preserve 2 tracks for the E lines, would be combined with a flyover between the Guide Bridge Lines to land between the Through Lines and Mayfeild Lines. Approaching Picc in this order Left to Right.

Airport Lines feed directly into Mayfeild and diverge for the through platforms.
Slow Lines feed into Platforms 9 - 12, easy access to 5 - 9, diverge to meet airport lines to access through platforms
Fast Lines as is feeding directly into 5 - 9, easy access to 1 - 4 and 9 - 12
East Lines as is, proberbly needing to be slew onto a new section of viaduct in part before paving over the car park and having 3 shiney new platforms in the Car Park (Extend the multi-story to compensate), and this isn't stealing potential HS2 space, that would have to pave over the Mayfeild Insustrial space to the south of mayfeild, on a viaduct over the A635, of course leaving space for a GSJ for a new road from the A635 to meet up with the M67 (ie. finish the M602). I'd also be directly connecting it to Victoria via Phillips Park, no services would terminate from the West into Victoria, all would run through to terminate at Piccadilly's East Platforms, hence the extra 3.

With HS2 and all potential platforms that would make Piccadilly slightly larger.

Start with 14
+3 platforms on the east
+2 platforms (15 & 16)
+4 platforms in Mayfeild
+ up to 10 platforms on HS2

33 Platforms for Manchester Piccadilly? anyone? Confuse the hell out of everyone by badly numbering them

 

[jopsuk]

Surely, by that logic, it was a profitable service?

Logic and parliamentary services don't go hand in hand- though if it was a "regular" service the enthusiasts would stop using it so much.

 

[cle]

Could it be used for long distance trains? I know there are some open access ideas but they sound pie in the sky, due to needing diesel but then also tilt to keep time and be allowed on the fast lines out of Euston.

But regional - for example: Birmingham NS to Leeds, calling at Wolverhampton, Crewe, Stockport, Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Leeds.

How would that journey time compare with the current route via Derby, which is a flat 2 hours?

I've seen BHM to Stockport at 1h16. Stalybridge - Leeds is 43mins. And then God knows what Stockport to Stalybridge would be at linespeed, non-stop, 10 mins? So with the TPE improvements, this could be 2 hours too.

It could help speed up Birmingham - Manc trains by taking some stops off, and surely linking Hudds/Leeds and Crewe would open up a lot of journeys and connections. You could run it to York too.

Or indeed trains from North Wales/Chester - although these would probably need to go via Manchester.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Look at it this way: The line directly connects two quite busy areas of the Manchester suburbs with good long distance and local services from each end.

As things stand, people have to travel via Manchester in order to connect between one lot of these services and the other.

A regular direct link as opposed to one train a week in one direction only would surely be much better used than the previous service was before it got chopped back to Parliamentary status?

It would also reduce congestion slightly in central Manchester.

They would have nothing to lose by at least trying it as an experimental service for 12 months would they? ( Assuming they could get the diagramming done with the present rolling stock situation, of course ).

 

[tbtc]

Look at it this way: The line directly connects two quite busy areas of the Manchester suburbs with good long distance and local services from each end.

As things stand, people have to travel via Manchester in order to connect between one lot of these services and the other.

A regular direct link as opposed to one train a week in one direction only would surely be much better used than the previous service was before it got chopped back to Parliamentary status?

It would also reduce congestion slightly in central Manchester.

They would have nothing to lose by at least trying it as an experimental service for 12 months would they? ( Assuming they could get the diagramming done with the present rolling stock situation, of course ).

Make it regular and you lose the Enthusiast market, since there'll be no "novelty" any more...

Seriously though, it has a lot in common with the Motherwell - Cumbernauld service outside Glasgow, which is a direct link from "east" to the main line in the "south" and avoids having to go into the big city.

It ought to sustain some service, the only trouble is it'd need to be relatively frequent to encourage people to go "direct" and not into/out of Manchester.

To be realistic, if the 27 minute journey time could allow an hourly service with one unit, then I'd suggest a half hourly service with 153s timed to connect with TPE services from Yorkshire at Staleybridge. That ought to be often enough to encourage people to avoid central Manchester.

However, I can't see one unit managing it hourly, I can't see two units being freed up and I can't see anything less frequent being that attractive to passengers. For anything less frequent I'd suggest the only way for the line to pay would be for longer distance services to go via the line (since people would be reluctant to change onto an infrequent service).

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I agree it would need to be half hourly, and it would also need to have a decent start and finish time as well.

If I was going to divert a service along that route, I would suggest the Chester - Knutsford - Piccadilly one might be ideal for one per hour - send it to Stalybridge instead; for the other per hour I wonder about running Rose Hill Marple to Stockport instead of Piccadilly?

Avoids messing around with the long distance pattern and provides direct local links for Denton and Reddish South - which is essential if one is to develop the local market.

Then if the uptake looks good, make the service permanent instead of experimental and develop a Reddish Interchange station where the lines cross over - pretty much like the Smethwick Galton Bridge interchange - to create local connectional opportunities and reduce some journey times considerably ( albeit by introducing a change of train at the new station, but the time savings would be so significant that the hassle of changing will be seen as worth it ).

 

[cle]

I think regional, TPE-style services would do better than local ones, where people want to travel to Manchester CBD. Linking North Wales, Chester, Crewe and Stoke to Tameside and then across the Pennines would be good.

 

[tbtc]

If I was going to divert a service along that route, I would suggest the Chester - Knutsford - Piccadilly one might be ideal for one per hour - send it to Stalybridge instead

I can see the logic, but the trouble is you'd need to cross every line at Stockport to get from the Altricham one to the Stalybridge one, which could cause some potential for delays on other services.

However, it is a nice "fit", I agree.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think regional, TPE-style services would do better than local ones

The advantage of a stand alone 153 shuttle is that it could work independently of existing services, so avoid tinkering.

To run a long distance service via Denton, you have the issue of whether to divert existing services that way (so reducing the existing service from Manchester to, say, Leeds), or are planning an additional service (which would need more stock to run, and paths further afield).

Additionally, you'd probably need to stop a decent number of trains at Reddish South/ Denton/ Guide Bridge, which may go against an "intercity" service (e.g. only two or three stops from York to Stalybridge, then three stops between there and Stockport). Tough one.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I can see the logic, but the trouble is you'd need to cross every line at Stockport to get from the Altricham one to the Stalybridge one, which could cause some potential for delays on other services.

It shouldn't be too difficult to build in a suitable pathing allowance to the Chester - Stalybridge and use the extensive pointwork arrangements just outside Stockport in a form of dynamic looping to avoid delaying main line services though should it? ( Or have they reduced it all to a simple ladder crossing these days? )

The advantage of a stand alone 153 shuttle is that it could work independently of existing services, so avoid tinkering.

True, but then we are back to trying to source additional rolling stock aren't we? Plus, I suspect a shuttle may not attract as many people to use it as a through service would.

 

[bluenoxid]

Well I have two comments about this. First at this time there is NO Stockport Stalybridge service, apart from one train each Saturday. There is no service in the other direction AT ALL. Plus although there are trains through Guide Bridge to Stalybridge, as far as I am aware none actually stop at Guide Bridge. This means that all passengers from the South East Manchester area (the Hadfield, Marple, Hyde and New Mills passengers) all have to trabel through Guide Bridge into Piccadilly, then travel all the way back again through Guide Bridge, to get to West Yorkshire. How daft is that. By having a link from Stockport, through Guide Bridge to Stalybridge, it would not only give a time saving to them, there might also be a financial benefit.

Secondly, during the 70's when I used to work at Guide Bridge, there was an hourly service each way between Stockport & Stalybridge, I know I used it. That also crossed four tracks at Guide Bridge, while there was a greater freight traffic, Woodhead was still open then, with no difficulty that I observered. All that is needed is good timetable planning.

A simple way of solving this problem, is to stop all Trans Pennine services at Guide Bridge, cut back the Stockport service to Guide Bridge. Looking at Google Earth recently, the space were the two sourtherly platforms were taken out (one is the southern face of the old island platform) is clear and therefore both the tracks and platforms could be replaced. Not as long as they used to be, and these could now be used for all local services to Hadfield, Rose Hill and New Mills. The space where the old station buildings were, now they have been demolished could be used to put a bay platform in for reversing a Guide Bridge to Stockport service. This would eliminate any crossing of the reinstated four track line, plus it is possible for the line to not impinge upon the four tracks at all, although a connection would be beneficial.

Just a few ideas for your consideration.

It's an idea but it depends on which provides the best connectivity for passengers. Would Stalybridge win because of its current connections to Man Vic? Would Guide Bridge be popular as a stop with up to two minutes added to trains stopping there? Could TPE's alternate with some stopping at Stalybridge or Guide Bridge?

Whilst I agree there is no service there now (one a week is certainly not a service), the transport corridor must be scrutinised closely to ensure that value is gained from whatever choice is chosen. If a bus with through rail ticketing is better value, then so be it. If M****link proves better value then it should be rolled out.

That's something I've never understood. Surely trains/ staff are at a premium on weekdays - what does the unit/staff do the rest of the week?

If it was a weekly service that I had to run, I'd tag it on to another duty on a Saturday or Sunday, first thing or last thing, rather than 09.22 - 09.49 on a Friday...

Odd.

It runs directly to Newton Heath ECS.

The problem I have is that the Stockport - Guide Bridge line covers a big passenger flow, it would be even bigger if pepole got off their arsed and built a Heald Green Jcns - Cheadle Hume line (services to Manc Airport able to avoid Manc). Just how much re-moddeling round Levensume and Heaton Chappel would be needed to move some platforms round, then sending stuff up to Guide Bridge wouldn't have to cross 4 tracks, could just diverge off the fast lines and that would be the end of it, would also put everything in the right place for when the busy 2 track from Heald Green crashes into a very busy 4 track from Stockport, that IMO should be 6 track through Longsight as a priority, with re-opening Mayfeild and a 10track station throught but thats for a different thread. But me plans for that wouldn't need much extra viaduct, just to steal some sidings through Longsight, would need more viaduct after Ardwick to preserve 2 tracks for the E lines, would be combined with a flyover between the Guide Bridge Lines to land between the Through Lines and Mayfeild Lines. Approaching Picc in this order Left to Right.

Airport Lines feed directly into Mayfeild and diverge for the through platforms.
Slow Lines feed into Platforms 9 - 12, easy access to 5 - 9, diverge to meet airport lines to access through platforms
Fast Lines as is feeding directly into 5 - 9, easy access to 1 - 4 and 9 - 12
East Lines as is, proberbly needing to be slew onto a new section of viaduct in part before paving over the car park and having 3 shiney new platforms in the Car Park (Extend the multi-story to compensate), and this isn't stealing potential HS2 space, that would have to pave over the Mayfeild Insustrial space to the south of mayfeild, on a viaduct over the A635, of course leaving space for a GSJ for a new road from the A635 to meet up with the M67 (ie. finish the M602). I'd also be directly connecting it to Victoria via Phillips Park, no services would terminate from the West into Victoria, all would run through to terminate at Piccadilly's East Platforms, hence the extra 3.

With HS2 and all potential platforms that would make Piccadilly slightly larger.

Start with 14
+3 platforms on the east
+2 platforms (15 & 16)
+4 platforms in Mayfeild
+ up to 10 platforms on HS2

33 Platforms for Manchester Piccadilly? anyone? Confuse the hell out of everyone by badly numbering them

And £5 billion or so spent on a supersized railway station??? 10 HS2 platforms? How long do you see trains sitting in a platform. Remember, when the wheels are not turning, a train is not earning (unless you own the track which the train is standing on)

Could it be used for long distance trains? I know there are some open access ideas but they sound pie in the sky, due to needing diesel but then also tilt to keep time and be allowed on the fast lines out of Euston.

But regional - for example: Birmingham NS to Leeds, calling at Wolverhampton, Crewe, Stockport, Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Leeds.

How would that journey time compare with the current route via Derby, which is a flat 2 hours?

I've seen BHM to Stockport at 1h16. Stalybridge - Leeds is 43mins. And then God knows what Stockport to Stalybridge would be at linespeed, non-stop, 10 mins? So with the TPE improvements, this could be 2 hours too.

It could help speed up Birmingham - Manc trains by taking some stops off, and surely linking Hudds/Leeds and Crewe would open up a lot of journeys and connections. You could run it to York too.

Interesting proposal but unlikely to survive even the most cursory of attempts to fit it in. Even if the time could be cut back, it would need to have pathing time. I doubt that the intermediate stations would be pleased at missing that big Manchester thing that they go past.

In addition, the Derby route is likely to be a close second for electrification, which should bring the end to end time down and HS3 will slot it to below an hour.

Make it regular and you lose the Enthusiast market, since there'll be no "novelty" any more...

To be realistic, if the 27 minute journey time could allow an hourly service with one unit, then I'd suggest a half hourly service with 153s timed to connect with TPE services from Yorkshire at Staleybridge. That ought to be often enough to encourage people to avoid central Manchester.

However, I can't see one unit managing it hourly, I can't see two units being freed up and I can't see anything less frequent being that attractive to passengers. For anything less frequent I'd suggest the only way for the line to pay would be for longer distance services to go via the line (since people would be reluctant to change onto an infrequent service).

One billion passenger journeys on the rail network and I don't think all of them were enthusiasts Just running it to Guide Bridge should give a good idea of demand. Would users prefer it running to Man Vic instead? Just because the existing service does what it does now, does not mean it should be followed.

It shouldn't be too difficult to build in a suitable pathing allowance to the Chester - Stalybridge and use the extensive pointwork arrangements just outside Stockport in a form of dynamic looping to avoid delaying main line services though should it? ( Or have they reduced it all to a simple ladder crossing these days? )


True, but then we are back to trying to source additional rolling stock aren't we? Plus, I suspect a shuttle may not attract as many people to use it as a through service would.

Nothing wrong with suggesting additional rolling stock. Many of the ideas floated are going to struggle to see the next Control Period, never mind this one. Whilst PPM's are not popular, and anything that uses some form of tarmac despised, they should not be dismissed because they go against the grain of what you usually associate with Heavy Rail.

 

[Invincibles]

Thinking about this a little but with sensible small improvements what would be the journey time for Stalybridge -> Stockport -> Wilmslow -> Manchester Airport?

It might seem completely daft but as electrification frees TPE units it might make sense to make one of the existing services from Leeds to Manchester faster and add an extra service for Leeds > Dewsbury > Huddersfielod > Stalybridge > Guide Bridge > Stockport > Cheadle Hulme > Wilmslow > Manchester Airport. This would relieve some pressure on the existing Leeds to Manchester (Huddersfield even could become pick up only) and open up many connection opportunities.

 

[CosherB]

Thinking about this a little but with sensible small improvements what would be the journey time for Stalybridge -> Stockport -> Wilmslow -> Manchester Airport?

Difficult at Wilmslow. It'd involve running south out of the station, stopping on the main line, then reversing back north to gain the Styal line for the airport.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Nothing wrong with suggesting additional rolling stock. Many of the ideas floated are going to struggle to see the next Control Period, never mind this one. Whilst PPM's are not popular, and anything that uses some form of tarmac despised, they should not be dismissed because they go against the grain of what you usually associate with Heavy Rail.

Agreed - I was suggesting a way it could be done very quickly at minimal cost.

 

[Invincibles]

Difficult at Wilmslow. It'd involve running south out of the station, stopping on the main line, then reversing back north to gain the Styal line for the airport.

Is there no way to install points between the down stockport and the up airport in the gap between the viaduct and the tunnels. It looks possible on google maps.

Because the two Airport lines are not intensively used it would seem possible to schedule a train into the up platform there and have it reverse while being totally clear of the main lines.

I did think that there would not be the trackwork in place to allow it at the moment.

There are other advantages to such a line, it would allow fast trains to overtake late running services that would go on to stop at Handforth and Cheadle Hulme when bound for Manchester. So the cost of installing points here would not need to be set just against the service I suggested.

 

[Bevan Price]

It's an idea but it depends on which provides the best connectivity for passengers. Would Stalybridge win because of its current connections to Man Vic? Would Guide Bridge be popular as a stop with up to two minutes added to trains stopping there? Could TPE's alternate with some stopping at Stalybridge or Guide Bridge?

.

I recall a suggestion some years ago that Guide Bridge should become a park & ride station for TPE. The disadvantage was that Stalybridge would lose all its TPE stops.

Bevan
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree it would need to be half hourly, and it would also need to have a decent start and finish time as well.

If I was going to divert a service along that route, I would suggest the Chester - Knutsford - Piccadilly one might be ideal for one per hour - send it to Stalybridge instead; for the other per hour I wonder about running Rose Hill Marple to Stockport instead of Piccadilly?

Avoids messing around with the long distance pattern and provides direct local links for Denton and Reddish South - which is essential if one is to develop the local market.

.

I don't think Chester / Northwich line passengers would be impressed with that idea. They were not pleased when services were diverted via Stockport (with increased journey time) when Altrincham - Manchester was converted to Metrolink.

If you want to serve Reddish South, then a Stockport - Manchester Victoria service is more likely to be attractive than a service to Guide Bridge & Stalybridge. Denton has problems in that it is not particularly well-sited for the town centre business & residential areas. When you add walking times to or from the station, journey times to Manchester would find it difficult to compete with the local high frequency bus services.

Bevan