S-Bahn-Manchester?

[Bletchleyite]

If the CLC was electrified, ran through a tunnel in Manchester and then out towards Glossop or Marple, it would likely be a metro like the Tyne & Wear Metro.

Though TW Metrocars are basically trams without the fairings, indicators and other street running features, as (if you ignore the self-driving bit) are DLR EMUs which are probably a reasonable example too. They're all LRVs which are just a type of EMU. Indeed, in the very early days of Metrolink they did try to resist them becoming called "trams", with the term "LRV" being bandied about a lot including above the nameplates, though obviously calling a spade a spade very quickly won out.

 

[Purple Orange]

Though TW Metrocars are basically trams without the fairings, indicators and other street running features, as (if you ignore the self-driving bit) are DLR EMUs which are probably a reasonable example too. They're all LRVs which are just a type of EMU. Indeed, in the very early days of Metrolink they did try to resist them becoming called "trams", with the term "LRV" being bandied about a lot including above the nameplates, though obviously calling a spade a spade very quickly won out.

The feel may not be too dissimilar, but I’d be happy with a T&W metro network in Manchester. It’s a brilliant system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The feel may not be too dissimilar, but I’d be happy with a T&W metro network in Manchester. It’s a brilliant system.

I don't disagree (if Merseyrail is a textbook S-Bahn, then the T&W Metro is a textbook U-Bahn) - indeed I think Metrolink will evolve in that direction.

 

[Purple Orange]

I don't disagree (if Merseyrail is a textbook S-Bahn, then the T&W Metro is a textbook U-Bahn) - indeed I think Metrolink will evolve in that direction.

I suppose if I had the choice I’d sooner see a tunnel connecting the Cornbrook to Victoria and a second from Piccadilly to Salford Crescent, than an underground NPR tunnel. That would really free up the surface lines for expansion in the inner city areas.

 

[HSTEd]

I think before we can have a meaningful discussion on a Manchester S-Bahn, we have to work out what are the boundaries of the S-Bahn area?

In the west I think we can agree it should reach the edge of the Merseyrail service area.
To the north, I would make the argument for Preston/Blackburn/Colne etc, with extensions to Blackpool for historical reasons.

What about the east?
Would we include stopping trains all the way to Sheffield and Leeds, or should we cut them off somewhere, like Huddersfield and Chinley?

What about the south?
All the way to Crewe?

Once we decide what we are trying to serve, then we can look at what infrastructuer is available to us, and work out what we should actually want.

 

[geordieblue]

Though TW Metrocars are basically trams without the fairings, indicators and other street running features, as (if you ignore the self-driving bit) are DLR EMUs which are probably a reasonable example too. They're all LRVs which are just a type of EMU. Indeed, in the very early days of Metrolink they did try to resist them becoming called "trams", with the term "LRV" being bandied about a lot including above the nameplates, though obviously calling a spade a spade very quickly won out.

Have you been on the Metro system? Just curious - I think that the system is much more alike the London Underground than it is Metrolink.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you been on the Metro system? Just curious - I think that the system is much more alike the London Underground than it is Metrolink.

Yep, admittedly only twice but I did have a decent ride around both times.

To me it feels like somewhere between the DLR and pick-a-random-German-U-Bahn, though the trains also aren't that unlike trams.

 

[Purple Orange]

Have you been on the Metro system? Just curious - I think that the system is much more alike the London Underground than it is Metrolink.

Yes it is more like London Underground than Metrolink. Running in a deep level tube helps too. If Metrolink did get a tunnel, I can’t imagine that the services that would use the tunnel would be anything like the current metrolink.

I think before we can have a meaningful discussion on a Manchester S-Bahn, we have to work out what are the boundaries of the S-Bahn area?

In the west I think we can agree it should reach the edge of the Merseyrail service area.
To the north, I would make the argument for Preston/Blackburn/Colne etc, with extensions to Blackpool for historical reasons.

What about the east?
Would we include stopping trains all the way to Sheffield and Leeds, or should we cut them off somewhere, like Huddersfield and Chinley?

What about the south?
All the way to Crewe?

Once we decide what we are trying to serve, then we can look at what infrastructuer is available to us, and work out what we should actually want.

Regional S-bahn:

• Manchester Airport, Crewe & Stoke to the south;
• Buxton to the south east;
• Huddersfield to the east;
• Bradford & Burnley to the North East;
• Blackburn & Clitheroe to the north;
• Blackpool to the north west;
• Southport to the west;
• Chester to the south west.

Manchester Metro: A Y-shaped underground tunnel from Cornbrook to Piccadilly & Victoria

• 5 x Warrington CLC
• 10 x Altrincham
• 10 x East Didsbury (dual with trams from MAN to Cornbrook)
• 10 x Bury (dual with trams between Victoria and the line to Oldham & Middleton)
• 5 x Rose Hill Marple
• 5 x Glossop
• 5 x Hadfield

Metrolink Trams:

• 5 x Wigan - Whitworth Park via Atherton & St. Peter’s Sq
• 10 x Whitworth Park - Eccles via Salford Central
• 10 x Rochdale - Airport via Exchange Sq
• 10 x Middleton - Stalybridge
• 10 x Trafford Centre - Piccadilly
• 10 x Victoria - Media City via Piccadilly Gardens

 

[EastisECML]

So Warrington and other outlying destinations would not so much served by the current metrolink network but more by a separate network that is an addition to it? Meaning Manchester could potentially be served by three mainly self contained rail networks?

 

[Purple Orange]

So Warrington and other outlying destinations would not so much served by the current metrolink network but more by a separate network that is an addition to it? Meaning Manchester could potentially be served by three mainly self contained rail networks?

Apart from HS2, trains from outside the region would still use the existing lines. Apart from the airport line, S-bahn frequencies may be 2, 3 or 4 tph on the current lines, but fast services are still enabled on the West Coast mainline, the Chat Moss, the Bolton line and the Trans Pennine mainline.

The Warrington, Atherton and Marple lines could still be served by heavy rail from outside the region, just as the T&W Metro enables 5 tph Metro between Sunderland & Newcastle calling at all stations, 1-2 tph for Northern services running on the same line between Sunderland & Pelaw. Those lines have already been called out for conversion for tram-train usage, meaning that heavy rail services will share the track still. Otherwise they would just be converted directly to Metrolink. It’s also important to note that ‘tram-train’ doesn’t mean the existing trams can use those lines and if a Metro tunnel is built (as Manchester wishes to do) ‘tram-train’ wouldn’t be the right phrase at all, given the service would be more like the T&W Metro.

In the case of the Warrington line, there are 14 miles of track between Warrington Central and roughly where a metro would enter the tunnel, where there are 7 intermediate stations, of which heavy rail could call at at least 2 of those stations. On the T&W Metro, there is 8 miles of track and 6 intermediate stations where there are shared running, where heavy rail doesn’t call at any of those stations. Therefore it is possible for both heavy rail and metro services to share the same infrastructure.

 

[Greybeard33]

Apart from HS2, trains from outside the region would still use the existing lines. Apart from the airport line, S-bahn frequencies may be 2, 3 or 4 tph on the current lines, but fast services are still enabled on the West Coast mainline, the Chat Moss, the Bolton line and the Trans Pennine mainline.

The Warrington, Atherton and Marple lines could still be served by heavy rail from outside the region, just as the T&W Metro enables 5 tph Metro between Sunderland & Newcastle calling at all stations, 1-2 tph for Northern services running on the same line between Sunderland & Pelaw. Those lines have already been called out for conversion for tram-train usage, meaning that heavy rail services will share the track still. Otherwise they would just be converted directly to Metrolink. It’s also important to note that ‘tram-train’ doesn’t mean the existing trams can use those lines and if a Metro tunnel is built (as Manchester wishes to do) ‘tram-train’ wouldn’t be the right phrase at all, given the service would be more like the T&W Metro.

In the case of the Warrington line, there are 14 miles of track between Warrington Central and roughly where a metro would enter the tunnel, where there are 7 intermediate stations, of which heavy rail could call at at least 2 of those stations. On the T&W Metro, there is 8 miles of track and 6 intermediate stations where there are shared running, where heavy rail doesn’t call at any of those stations. Therefore it is possible for both heavy rail and metro services to share the same infrastructure.

Metro systems generally feature high frequency services on dedicated track that is not shared with other trains. That is true of the London Underground, DLR, Merseyrail and all of the T&W Metro except the short Pelaw - Sunderland section.

The Northern Newcastle - Middlesbrough services that share Pelaw - Sunderland are stoppers, calling at all shacks except those on the shared section. They only just fit in the 12 minutes between successive Metro services, with pathing allowances that slow them down. Their average speed over those 8 shared miles is only about 35mph. Not really equivalent to Liverpool - Manchester semi-fasts on the CLC line.

I believe that Nexus has shelved plans for tram-train extensions to the Metro. I don't think the replacement Stadler rolling stock will have street running capability.

S-Bahn, light metro and tram-train are all distinct concepts with differing infrastructure, rolling stock and service patterns.

 

[geordieblue]

Metro systems generally feature high frequency services on dedicated track that is not shared with other trains. That is true of the London Underground, DLR, Merseyrail and all of the T&W Metro except the short Pelaw - Sunderland section.

There are a couple of places on LU where track is shared with National Rail services (the branch to Richmond, for example). The essence of your point still stands, though..

 

[Purple Orange]

Metro systems generally feature high frequency services on dedicated track that is not shared with other trains. That is true of the London Underground, DLR, Merseyrail and all of the T&W Metro except the short Pelaw - Sunderland section.

The Northern Newcastle - Middlesbrough services that share Pelaw - Sunderland are stoppers, calling at all shacks except those on the shared section. They only just fit in the 12 minutes between successive Metro services, with pathing allowances that slow them down. Their average speed over those 8 shared miles is only about 35mph. Not really equivalent to Liverpool - Manchester semi-fasts on the CLC line.

I believe that Nexus has shelved plans for tram-train extensions to the Metro. I don't think the replacement Stadler rolling stock will have street running capability.

S-Bahn, light metro and tram-train are all distinct concepts with differing infrastructure, rolling stock and service patterns.

Well perhaps in the case of the CLC it will become dedicated track. Yet the routes east to Hadfield will still need to share space with services from further afield when they are converted to tram-train.

Ultimately this is really about increasing frequency of stoppers on the heavy rail lines, which requires a shift away from prioritising long distance traffic. That can be achieved.

 

[HST43257]

Ultimately this is really about increasing frequency of stoppers on the heavy rail lines, which requires a shift away from prioritising long distance traffic. That can be achieved.

This doesn’t need to be done through light train/tram train conversion does it? Just have high frequency mainly segregated heavy rail stuff. In the Ashburys lines situation, make them have sole occupancy of 2 tracks into Piccadilly and platforms 1-4. Then have:

2tph Huddersfield
2tph Hadfield/Glossop
2tph Rose Hill (all stations)
2tph Stalybridge (all stations)
2tph New Mills (all stations)
2tph Sheffield

4 car EMUs on all of these - job done.

 

[Greybeard33]

Yet the routes east to Hadfield will still need to share space with services from further afield when they are converted to tram-train.

The alignment is wide enough for four tracks all the way to Hyde Junction, so you could construct a segregated metro line to Glossop and Hadfield (grade separation at the junctions might be tricky). If you are going to dive into a metro tunnel at Piccadilly you don't need tram-trains. They are for street running through the city centre.

 

[Purple Orange]

This doesn’t need to be done through light train/tram train conversion does it? Just have high frequency mainly segregated heavy rail stuff. In the Ashburys lines situation, make them have sole occupancy of 2 tracks into Piccadilly and platforms 1-4. Then have:

2tph Huddersfield
2tph Hadfield/Glossop
2tph Rose Hill (all stations)
2tph Stalybridge (all stations)
2tph New Mills (all stations)
2tph Sheffield

I’d argue that’s not quite good enough because it still consumes capacity at Piccadilly. 15-20 years from now, there will be an additional 6 platforms which will mean no Leeds/Huddersfield services in to P1-4 or P13/14. If TfGM were to get a tunnel built to Cornbrook, that results in a further batch of services removed from Piccadilly from Glossop & Hadfield and Rose Hill. The Stalybridge stoppers won’t be required at Piccadilly either. Overall these steps can move the network towards what is required for proper turn-up-and-go services, which is what people want in an urban area. What they don’t want is 2 tph.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2021 ==

The alignment is wide enough for four tracks all the way to Hyde Junction, so you could construct a segregated metro line to Glossop and Hadfield (grade separation at the junctions might be tricky). If you are going to dive into a metro tunnel at Piccadilly you don't need tram-trains. They are for street running through the city centre.

Yes ‘tram-trains’ is a bit of a misleading term and only applicable if no tunnel is built under Manchester.

 

[Amstel]

I have a long history with both S-Bahns and Manchester!
In the 1960s I was taken off the Berlin S-Bahn at Friedrichstrasse by an East German Border Guard whilst trying to get to the West.
I have lived in Manchester for 40 years.
German S-Bahns are often separated from the heavy rail trains, many were rebuilt after being devastated in the war. And German cities are different to English ones, with far more people living in the centre and so the population is more compact.
So from my experience S-Bahns are great in German cities but not the solution for Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So from my experience S-Bahns are great in German cities but not the solution for Manchester.

Yet at the other end of the M62, Liverpool has one?

 

[Purple Orange]

I have a long history with both S-Bahns and Manchester!
In the 1960s I was taken off the Berlin S-Bahn at Friedrichstrasse by an East German Border Guard whilst trying to get to the West.
I have lived in Manchester for 40 years.
German S-Bahns are often separated from the heavy rail trains, many were rebuilt after being devastated in the war. And German cities are different to English ones, with far more people living in the centre and so the population is more compact.
So from my experience S-Bahns are great in German cities but not the solution for Manchester.

What would you offer as the solution?

 

[Amstel]

Since you ask.
Most airport stations are either intercity mainline (Gatwick, Dusseldorf) or branch lines (Heathrow, Hannover).
Manchester went for a different solution, to run long distance trains into the airport terminus.
My inlaws near Huddersfield used to have a 35 mile taxi journey to the airport, they thought a frequent service direct into the airport was brilliant, not having to change. Lots of others with luggage do too.
So unlike most people on this board I would keep the TPEs to the airport. I would get rid of the pressure on the Ordsall Chord by moving 3 trains, LLandudno, Southport and Liverpool stopper via Chat Moss to Victoria (which would require the 2 corresponding Alderley and Crewe trains to start at Piccadilly).

 

[Purple Orange]

Since you ask.
Most airport stations are either intercity mainline (Gatwick, Dusseldorf) or branch lines (Heathrow, Hannover).
Manchester went for a different solution, to run long distance trains into the airport terminus.
My inlaws near Huddersfield used to have a 35 mile taxi journey to the airport, they thought a frequent service direct into the airport was brilliant, not having to change. Lots of others with luggage do too.
So unlike most people on this board I would keep the TPEs to the airport. I would get rid of the pressure on the Ordsall Chord by moving 3 trains, LLandudno, Southport and Liverpool stopper via Chat Moss to Victoria (which would require the 2 corresponding Alderley and Crewe trains to start at Piccadilly).

I hope I don’t sound rude, but I’m struggling to see how that relates to an S-bahn situation in Manchester. There are a couple of factors that need to be considered here. 1) the city centre population is growing fast. 2) by ‘S-bahn’, it really means using Piccadilly P13/14, Oxford Road, Deansgate, Salford Central, Salford Crescent & Victoria for regional all stop services, with clearly defined routes as opposed to current model. The one exception would be Victoria, which could see long distance services still.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I hope I don’t sound rude, but I’m struggling to see how that relates to an S-bahn situation in Manchester. There are a couple of factors that need to be considered here. 1) the city centre population is growing fast. 2) by ‘S-bahn’, it really means using Piccadilly P13/14, Oxford Road, Deansgate, Salford Central, Salford Crescent & Victoria for regional all stop services, with clearly defined routes as opposed to current model. The one exception would be Victoria, which could see long distance services still.

I think there may be a bit of confusion caused by there being two types of S-Bahn in the German speaking countries.

One of them is fully or largely segregated, typically third rail power but heavy rather than light rail - examples are Berlin and Hamburg (there are I'm sure others) or in the UK Merseyrail or London Overground.

The other is that it isn't segregated, typically OHLE power (but the odd diesel route) - examples are the Ruhr and Rhein systems or the Swiss ones (urban and rural). Manchester would be more like this.

All of them have these features (which I guess are what makes a given heavy rail route S-Bahn):
- Fixed, usually numbered, simple routes
- Clockface timetables
- Often (but not always) coordinated connections
- Basic rolling stock designed for high capacity
- Trains typically call at all stations
- Frequencies are typically higher than RB/RE/R trains (though again not always)

 

[HSTEd]

What about a loop through Manchester Victoria, Bolton, Blackburn, Burnley and back to Manchester via Todmorden?

Two trains per hour in each direction.

 

[adrock1976]

What about a loop through Manchester Victoria, Bolton, Blackburn, Burnley and back to Manchester via Todmorden?

Two trains per hour in each direction.

That would be a larger version of the 1949-2009 incarnation of London Underground's Circle Line, where it is best practice I believe not to have circular routes that have trains continually in orbit.

Any delays along a continuous orbital service would cause the timetable to collapse and make it difficult to recover.

 

[HSTEd]

That would be a larger version of the 1949-2009 incarnation of London Underground's Circle Line, where it is best practice I believe not to have circular routes that have trains continually in orbit.

Any delays along a continuous orbital service would cause the timetable to collapse and make it difficult to recover.

The Circle line operates are far more constrained infrastructure than such a route would do.
You could build in recovery time scattered around the loop without too much difficulty.

EDIT:

Having a train wait a couple of minutes in Blackburn or Rochdale is far less problematic than on the underground, where all platforms must be used near maximum output.

 

[HST43257]

What about a loop through Manchester Victoria, Bolton, Blackburn, Burnley and back to Manchester via Todmorden?

Two trains per hour in each direction.

I like the idea of a circular route, but I see potential reliability issues. What about sending these service to either Clitheroe or Colne (1tph)?

They could go:
Clitheroe/Colne - Blackburn - Bolton - Manchester - Todmorden - Blackburn - Preston and vice versa.

Colne loses a Preston service, but surely a Manchester one is better, though perhaps indirect. Preston to Burnley stopping is made 2tph which I think is a good thing.

 

[Greybeard33]

What about a loop through Manchester Victoria, Bolton, Blackburn, Burnley and back to Manchester via Todmorden?

Two trains per hour in each direction.

In the pre-Covid timetable, the Rochdale - Blackburn via Bolton train and the Wigan to Blackburn via Todmorden train used to be in Blackburn Platforms 1 and 2 at the same time. But they normally reversed rather than interworking.

The time for the complete circuit would be about 140 minutes, so rather awkward for a clockface timetable.

 

[HST43257]

The time for the complete circuit would be about 140 minutes, so rather awkward for a clockface timetable.

Put 5 minutes in at Rochdale and 5 at Blackburn for recovery if you want the full circuit

 

[Bletchleyite]

Put 5 minutes in at Rochdale and 5 at Blackburn for recovery if you want the full circuit

You want a bit more than that!

 

[HSTEd]

In the pre-Covid timetable, the Rochdale - Blackburn via Bolton train and the Wigan to Blackburn via Todmorden train used to be in Blackburn Platforms 1 and 2 at the same time. But they normally reversed rather than interworking.

The time for the complete circuit would be about 140 minutes, so rather awkward for a clockface timetable.

If we were to buy some really high performance units, like a 755/3 or 4 (or even a hybrid /3 with the generators from a /4) you could go to 2 trains per hour (150 minute timetable cycle) and use any time saving from the new units as extra resilience time.

You want a bit more than that!

Perhaps, but I was speaking more for form's sake than giving specific numbers.
Most of the route is going to be relatively lightly trafficked however, so I'm not sure how much recovery is actually required.