Should we replace heavy rail lines with Metrolink?

[geoffk]

Has there ever been any plans to reopen from St Werburghs Road to Gorton as Metrolink?

You mean the ex-GC Fallowfield loop. I doubt it as it's an orbital route and the former stations at Hyde Road, Fallowfield, Levenshulme South and Wilbraham Road, all closed in 1958, are on or near direct bus routes into central Manchester. Also it's a popular footpath/cycle route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You mean the ex-GC Fallowfield loop. I doubt it as it's an orbital route and the former stations at Hyde Road, Fallowfield, Levenshulme South and Wilbraham Road, all closed in 1958, are on or near direct bus routes into central Manchester. Also it's a popular footpath/cycle route.

Wouldn't have to be about going to central Manchester. London Overground (basically orbital) has proven phenomenally successful.

 

[geoffk]

Wouldn't have to be about going to central Manchester. London Overground (basically orbital) has proven phenomenally successful.

But that's London. Edinburgh South Suburban maybe a better example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that's London. Edinburgh South Suburban maybe a better example.

Not really. Edinburgh is quite a small city, Manchester is a very large one. If you want people not to have cars, you need to provide quality orbital public transport, not just radial.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure why you would want tram trains on the Atheron line rather than pure trams.

The only even slightly troublesome section is what to do at Hindley.
There is no real need for the line for through traffic after all.

EDIT:

Easiest route might just be to run parallel thorugh Hindley (there appears to be a spare set of bridge arches south of the current station) and then continue on the old Wigan avoiding line through Ince. Then join the new A49 relief road and approach Wigan town centre from the south.

 

[geordieblue]

I'm not sure why you would want tram trains on the Atheron line rather than pure trams.

The only even slightly troublesome section is what to do at Hindley.
There is no real need for the line for through traffic after all.

EDIT:

Easiest route might just be to run parallel thorugh Hindley (there appears to be a spare set of bridge arches south of the current station) and then continue on the old Wigan avoiding line through Ince. Then join the new A49 relief road and approach Wigan town centre from the south.

I imagine the concerns derive from the large gaps between Atherton and Walkden and, to a lesser extent, Hindley and Daisy Hill. Are trams fast enough to provide a competitive journey time?
There's also a slight question of what to do at the Salford end.

 

[telstarbox]

Not really. Edinburgh is quite a small city, Manchester is a very large one. If you want people not to have cars, you need to provide quality orbital public transport, not just radial.

That's true, but parts of the LO circle are functionally very central (Shoreditch / Whitechapel / Clapham Junction) and most of it was operational immediately before TfL joined the bits up so the demand was already proven.

Greater Manchester does need better orbital links but probably not that far into town. Bolton - Bury - Rochdale for example would enable a lot of development.

 

[HSTEd]

I imagine the concerns derive from the large gaps between Atherton and Walkden and, to a lesser extent, Hindley and Daisy Hill. Are trams fast enough to provide a competitive journey time?

I make Atherton to Walkden 5.6km or so, taking about 6 minutes currently.
Which is a stunning average speed of 56km/h.

One would hope trams with a top speed of 80km/h could match that.

EDIT:
Line speed between Walkden and Atherton is 50mph as is, so trams should definitely be able to keep up.

EDIT #2: Line speed is 50 or below lal the way from Salford Crescent to the place where the line through Westhoughton joins up, when it goes to 60.

 

[A0]

Hi everyone.

Wanted to get your input on proposals to change heavy rail services to places like Glossop and Wigan to light rail Metrolink operations.

Personally, I think that light rail may not be the best solution for these longer distance journeys. I feel like limitations on top speeds and other compromises trams make to be able to do street running could risk making the service worse.

I think that there would probably have to be a different fleet of trams for those longer distance journeys too, more seats, etc - especially if they end up taking longer.

I also see perhaps less of the utility in being able to utilise the city centre tram lines considering how overcrowded they already are. If we need to build a cross city tunnel, it might as well be in the style of a metro, especially if that can be automated or use ATS.

What are your thoughts? Interested to hear the insights of others - especially if you have experience working/riding the existing Metrolink system!

Of the NR routes converted to Metrolink so far:

Bury - this was a standalone operation and the equipment (1200V DC 3rd rail) was nearing life expiry - arguably conversion to tram improved what was on offer before.

Altrincham - this one's more difficult because although it improved frequencies to / from Altrincham in a way heavy rail probably couldn't, it did have a knock of reduced capacity and longer journey times for the Mid Cheshire line.

Oldham / Rochdale - again a line which was over-due an upgrade and this one did mean that into Oldham itself there was a better service, because none of Oldham's stations were particularly well sited. Rochdale has retained a heavy rail link, so has got a choice of connections.

Of the others that get touted - usually Marple or Glossop - the problem is likely to be these have much more shared infrastructure with longer-distance routes - not sure how easy it will be to segregate these ?

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure it is entirely necessary to go to something entirely like the existing Metrolink system.
For example you could image a system using the existing vehicles with platform edge doors and a more metro-y feel.

Or even trams that turn into an automated metro over part of the route, and the driver gets out and gets on a tram going the other way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of the others that get touted - usually Marple or Glossop - the problem is likely to be these have much more shared infrastructure with longer-distance routes - not sure how easy it will be to segregate these ?

Rose Hill wouldn't be hard to do if you dedicated the Brinnington route to it, you'd run on-street to Ashburys then it'd be possible to keep it entirely separate with a Navigation Road style single line setup for Romiley station. (Someone else said this upthread).

Hadfield would be more difficult (particularly as you'd want to run the New Mills/Sheffield locals via Guide Bridge). I'm less convinced about that, to be honest; it's probably best staying as a heavy rail S-Bahn into Picc main trainshed.

 

[Greybeard33]

I highly doubt either Metrolink or NR will want to introduce another avoidable constraint to their systems, particularly since the line isn't hemmed in by high-value housing as at Navigation Rd, and Romiley Jn to Wharf Jn, at about 1.5 miles, would be a considerably longer stretch of single line.

The reason that Romiley Junction to Marple Wharf Junction is not hemmed in by housing is that it is on a viaduct over the Goyt valley! Too costly to build a second viaduct for the trams.

TfGM long ago concluded that parallel single tracks would not provide enough capacity for the reason you state, which is why the current proposal is for tram-trains that could share the tracks with heavy rail.

It should be noted that Rose Hill station serves a different market to Marple station - there is a steep hill between them. It would not be acceptable to reduce the 3tph peak frequency at Marple just because Rose Hill had been tram-ified.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The whole point of tram-trains is that they can mix it with heavy-rail on the same tracks, and there is no need for the rigorous separation currently seen at Navigation Road. TfGM's plan is for tram-trains on the Glossop, Rose Hill and Atherton lines plus Stockport - Altrincham amongst others. The only pure tram extensions will be on completely new corridors such as Ashton - Stalybridge, Bowker Vale - Middleton and Wythenshawe Hospital Loop for example.

 

[HSTEd]

The whole point of tram-trains is that they can mix it with heavy-rail on the same tracks, and there is no need for the rigorous separation currently seen at Navigation Road. TfGM's plan is for tram-trains on the Glossop, Rose Hill and Atherton lines plus Stockport - Altrincham amongst others. The only pure tram extensions will be on completely new corridors such as Ashton - Stalybridge, Bowker Vale - Middleton and Wythenshawe Hospital Loop for example.

They may plan it now, but given experience from Rotherham I think they will change their tune when they realise how much tram trains on Atherton line will cost.

 

[Greybeard33]

They may plan it now, but given experience from Rotherham I think they will change their tune when they realise how much tram trains on Atherton line will cost.

Up to 2025 the TfGM plan is only to work up the business cases for three "pathfinder" tram-train projects - Altrincham - Hale, Manchester Airport - Wilmslow and Rochdale - Heywood. The other lines are merely at a "develop options for" stage.

 

[vlad]

• The Hadfield bit of the "triangle" - I could see a twelve minute tram replacing a half hourly train as a simple Manchester - Glossop service, but what do you do with Hadfield? Keep the existing set up with a twelve minute frequency? Run a six minute tram as far as Dinting with separate branches? Complicate things further with some services running Manchester - Hadfield - Glossop - Manchester and others running Manchester - Glossop - Hadfield - Manchester? Abandon the Dinting - Hadfield section entirely and run a dedicated guided busway instead? A Local Bus For Local People?

Do you mean a carriage of no horse drawn? We'll have no trouble here!

 

[Fokx]

To answer the original question:

Absolutely not, with the exception of branch lines or places where Metrolink could run alongside inter-city/inter-town heavy rail.

For example in theory I would be completely FOR the idea of converting the Piccadilly to Airport line to Metrolink but totally against a route like the CLC being converted to Metrolink, whereby we would effectively be severing an intercity route in half for the benefit of giving Humphrey Park a 12 minute service but then slashing the service for long-distance travellers/commuters who pay more to travel on said route and then causing issues for intercity travellers and commuters when the Chat Moss closes

 

[Bletchleyite]

To answer the original question:

Absolutely not, with the exception of branch lines or places where Metrolink could run alongside inter-city/inter-town heavy rail.

For example in theory I would be completely FOR the idea of converting the Piccadilly to Airport line to Metrolink but totally against a route like the CLC being converted to Metrolink, whereby we would effectively be severing an intercity route in half for the benefit of giving Humphrey Park a 12 minute service but then slashing the service for long-distance travellers/commuters who pay more to travel on said route and then causing issues for intercity travellers and commuters when the Chat Moss closes

Of course once NPR opens (assuming it does), there will be no need for it as an intercity route.

 

[HSTEd]

The CLC is of questionable usefulness as an Intercity route following the major upgrades expended on the Chat Moss.
It remains a fast route solely because of timetable inertia.

 

[Greybeard33]

For example in theory I would be completely FOR the idea of converting the Piccadilly to Airport line to Metrolink

It would be impractical to convert the Piccadilly to Airport line to Metrolink and so that does not feature in TfGM's 2040 strategy.

The alignment between Slade Lane Junction and Piccadilly is not wide enough for the four tracks from Stockport plus two segregated Metrolink tracks.

Some trains from the west need to run through Piccadilly to the Airport because there is nowhere else for them to go to turn round.

The container trains to/from Trafford Park need to use the Airport line. Otherwise they would have to run via Stockport, which would reduce capacity for passenger trains.

 

[Fokx]

The CLC is of questionable usefulness as an Intercity route following the major upgrades expended on the Chat Moss.
It remains a fast route solely because of timetable inertia.

I disagree with that, The Chat Moss works well if you’re at Lime Street and want Victoria but not if you’re travelling from the likes of Widnes to work at Trafford Park or Halewood to Deansgate say.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Feb 2021 ==

It would be impractical to convert the Piccadilly to Airport line to Metrolink and so that does not feature in TfGM's 2040 strategy.

I was referring to the line as a simple example of the original topic of how Metrolink works for branch lines (in that both the airport and Piccadilly could still be served by heavy rail) and not stating that this should be done.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Feb 2021 ==

Of course once NPR opens (assuming it does), there will be no need for it as an intercity route.

There would still be need for some form of route say all stations stopper (removing the express services) between the two and Metrolink is not the answer to that.

 

[Jozhua]

I can't blame (Greater) Manchester for looking at Metrolink for the future.

Heavy rail takes a long time to get anything done (look at how long it's taken to arrange a passenger service over a relatively short existing bit of railway to Blyth compared to how Metrolink was built without major delays), heavy rail is expensive to build infrastructure for (compared to Metrolink), heavy rail requires large ongoing subsidies (forty pence per passenger mile for Northern services, whilst Metrolink runs without operational subsidy?), heavy rail can see the assets taken away for use elsewhere (e.g. the Manchester area lost the relatively modern TPE 170s because they were secured by a TOC down south, but nobody else is going to get their hands on Mancunian trams), heavy rail can mean that Mancunians play second fiddle to longer distance passengers (e.g. the terrible service at local stations on the Airport line because all those Newcastle/ Glasgow/ Cleethorpes passengers are apparently more important), Metrolink means that you can increase frequencies much easier...

Makes sense that they'd look at some kind of light rail based solution to their problems.

Maybe we should focus on tackling the complicated/expensive issues with heavy rail, sure, but you could upgrade an unnelectrified line to Metrolink and have five trams an hour running along it in the time you we still knee deep in fundraising/ planning to try to run a half hourly EMU along it.

Metrolink isn't going to solve every problem but there are a number of lines where the frequency (at at leat some stations) is held back by finite heavy rail infrastructure (e.g. paths into central Manchester, terminus space), electrification isn't going to happen any time soon, you can't divert the route easily to serve town centres the way that Oldham/ Rochdale have benefited from a service that actually runs into the heart of the town rather than half a mile away.

However there are three problems with conversion:

• Firstly, the tram infrastructure in central Manchester is already pretty busy - so it might not just be the cost of converting a line to Metrolink, you might have to consider the need for a third city centre crossing
• Secondly, as the existing routes are already matched up so you might have to try to pair up new lines (e.g. do one from the west and you need to one from the east to match up and run through to)
• Thirdly, the twelve minute frequency seems locked into Metrolink, so you'd have to consider whether a train service would be replaced by a twelve minute tram or a six minute tram

Stopping the nostalgists from their "Woodhead" obsession seems a good enough reason to salt the soil and introduce trams to me!

More seriously though, the Glossop line is a long way out of Manchester but that's no reason why you can't order stock better suited to such journeys - ask a tram manufacturer for more comfortable seats and a toilet and they'll do it.

Pros:

• It's pretty slow for a train line (e.g. over half an hour for about a dozen miles as the cross flies), so it's not as if a fast accelerating tram is going to mean a significantly slower journey.
• Capacity into Piccadilly means you're not going to find additional paths for heavy rail to Glossop

Cons:

• The Hadfield bit of the "triangle" - I could see a twelve minute tram replacing a half hourly train as a simple Manchester - Glossop service, but what do you do with Hadfield? Keep the existing set up with a twelve minute frequency? Run a six minute tram as far as Dinting with separate branches? Complicate things further with some services running Manchester - Hadfield - Glossop - Manchester and others running Manchester - Glossop - Hadfield - Manchester? Abandon the Dinting - Hadfield section entirely and run a dedicated guided busway instead? A Local Bus For Local People?
• The existing station is already very central for Glossop, so there's not much scope for expansion there - it doesn't serve Hyde very well but I can't see an easy way to rectify that
• The low numbered platforms at Piccadilly aren't a major bottleneck (compared to Castlefield etc), so can cope with the current two trains per hour (just as long as you don't want to increase the frequency)

So I'm not convinced about Glossop - it doesn't offer much that the train can't (unless you need to increase capacity/frequency significantly - but there's not significant housing growth that I'm aware of) - and Hadfield complicates things a bit too much

I guess one reason for converting the Glossop line would be that you were doing the "Marple via Hyde" line too (i.e. you're combining the costs of converting the line as far as "Hyde" between two lines, so cheaper than doing things separately)?



Atherton seems the best line to convert IMHO.

The current line is pretty poor at actually serving Salford/ Atherton etc - it's stuck alongside golf courses/ fields/ industrial estates rather than properly serving the places that the station names suggest it does

It's very low down the pecking order in terms of paths into central Manchester

The Southport frequency and the "via Bolton" frequency match up, so you could remove the Atherton trains whilst Wigan retains heavy rail services

Removing paths through Salford Crescent and the flat junctions would improve reliability for other services

Maybe a six minute service as far as the current Atherton station, every twelve minutes into the actual town and every twelve minutes carrying on to Wigan?

Could combine it with conversion of the Leigh busway (as far as Irlam), if we are talking medium-term?




Metrolink runs beyond Merseyside, Sheffield's Supertram runs through Derbyshire - GMPTE/TfGM have had powers over public transport in the north western bits of Derbyshire for a while



...some may say the same about re-opening "Beeching" lines I guess - maybe we should forget about them too?

So I think with heavy rail VS Metrolink, it's interesting to think about how Metrolink has been able to keep construction costs/timescales under control and deliver lines on, or ahead of, time. In fact, not only was the Trafford Park delivered on time, it was delivered on time despite covid.

But I think the reasons Metrolink's project delivery has been sucessful goes beyond purely the use of light rail technology:
TGFM have been great with figuring out a long term strategy for the system. Instead of the frequent stop-starting of capital projects seen on the heavy rail network, mostly managed by the DfT, Metrolink has had a fairly consistent lineup of new lines and improvements over the past few years. Phase 3 has been rattling off a ton of new routes in the past decade, with one project pretty much following another. The team working on Metrolink already has a lot of practice and essentially works with similar designs for rails, stations, OLE, signalling that they have for a number of years now. Having this knowlege and experience makes it less likely they will run into costly delays trying to figure out things. I'm sure there were issues when Phase 3 started, but the recent deliveries have been pretty smooth.

Again, going into consistency - Metrolink runs the same vehicle fleet, reducing maintainence costs and the need to train staff on different vehicle types. Also makes it easy to swap sets in/out as they can run on any line. Again, signalling, switches and the like are all pretty consistent, as are stations. This all reduces the number of spares that need to be kept and the amount of time maintainence teams have to spend figuring out how to fix things.

I think that the same sucess could be achieved having a heavy-rail network that runs alongside Metrolink, possibly making use of automated metro technology, like on the Vancouver Skytrain.

Den Haag put some of its tramways underground, but the roads above were just kept for cycles and pedestrians, not cars, so there's a precedent there.

I think if we were to build tunnels, going for automated metro might be the best. I think it would work quite well for serving places like Bolton/Wigan. Or possibly non-automated using in-cab signalling so that you can run really short headways in the tunnels. Then it might be possible for trams/heavy rail to share it, if Metrolink was willing to fit in cab to trams (which could be possible if they are already looking at tram-trains.)

Wouldn't have to be about going to central Manchester. London Overground (basically orbital) has proven phenomenally successful.

Yeah, I think that we could definately do with some orbital lines around say zone 2/3. But it might be deemed by how practical it is to place a line in certain areas vs where might be best to actually have them.

Re-opening the Roe Green loop line as Metrolink, connecting Eccles and Bolton could be quite good. You'd then have three connections between national rail at Eccles, Walkden and Bolton.

There's also an old freight line that appears to connect Warrington with Stockport, running through Cardishead and Altrincham. Might not be the most heavily used, but could probably support a 2-car tram running every 12 minutes or so. Would provide some useful local connections and also allow people to avoid going through Castlefield when connecting from West-East.

Not really. Edinburgh is quite a small city, Manchester is a very large one. If you want people not to have cars, you need to provide quality orbital public transport, not just radial.

Manchester has quite a lot of satellite communities that operate independently of the central area. I'm sure there's decent traffic between these areas - proven by the three (plus?) ringroads around the city itself. The M60 mostly serves to move intercity traffic around the city itself, but the rest are pretty much for in-city journeys. Plus, it's worth considering people will choose wether to take an intercity journey by car or public transport based on how good the connections to the intercity rail/bus service are from their house. All of this is to say, yes, more orbital lines! Especially to places like Stockport/Wigan, where the onwards intercity connections are pretty good.

Of the NR routes converted to Metrolink so far:

Bury - this was a standalone operation and the equipment (1200V DC 3rd rail) was nearing life expiry - arguably conversion to tram improved what was on offer before.

Altrincham - this one's more difficult because although it improved frequencies to / from Altrincham in a way heavy rail probably couldn't, it did have a knock of reduced capacity and longer journey times for the Mid Cheshire line.

Oldham / Rochdale - again a line which was over-due an upgrade and this one did mean that into Oldham itself there was a better service, because none of Oldham's stations were particularly well sited. Rochdale has retained a heavy rail link, so has got a choice of connections.

Of the others that get touted - usually Marple or Glossop - the problem is likely to be these have much more shared infrastructure with longer-distance routes - not sure how easy it will be to segregate these ?

Yeah, I think the lines that have been converted so far have been pretty suitable. That said, conversion to light rail does come with some pitfalls and this is worth considering.

For a small town quite far out, like Glossop, I don't know if the tram is going to provide good journey times. I think money may be better spent upgrading track capacity in the city centre and getting better public transport connections to the local stations along the route. If ridership increases, service frequency can increase as well.

Does anyone know if light rail can be pushed much beyond 50mph?

 

[Watershed]

Does anyone know if light rail can be pushed much beyond 50mph?

Not without compromising its ability to negotiate tight bends. So, given that Metrolink is full of tight bends throughout its network, no!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Not without compromising its ability to negotiate tight bends. So, given that Metrolink is full of tight bends throughout its network, no!

Not the case for the lengthy sections using old heavy rail alignments, e.g. Altrincham -> Old Trafford/Trafford Bar and Bury -> Victoria.

 

[daodao]

Not the case for the lengthy sections using old heavy rail alignments, e.g. Altrincham -> Old Trafford/Trafford Bar and Bury -> Victoria.

Or Firswood to Parrs Wood on the former MR South District line.

Returning to the thread topic, I don't think that are any existing rail routes really suitable for Metrolink conversion beyond the ex-GC lines extending east from Piccadilly, and at a pinch the Atherton line. Sections of the former Bolton-Rochdale line might be suitable for Metrolink, and also the disused line to Stockport branching off the GC line south of Reddish, although there is no obvious route from junction 27 of the M60 into Stockport town centre.

 

[Watershed]

Not the case for the lengthy sections using old heavy rail alignments, e.g. Altrincham -> Old Trafford/Trafford Bar and Bury -> Victoria.

But you still have to cater for the lowest common denominator - the city centre crossings. Unless you're suggesting that Metrolink should have their own terminus in the city!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

But you still have to cater for the lowest common denominator - the city centre crossings. Unless you're suggesting that Metrolink should have their own terminus in the city!

The City centre crossings have, since the opening of the original network, been a compromise for Metrolink. It's very much a curate's egg of a transport system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you still have to cater for the lowest common denominator - the city centre crossings. Unless you're suggesting that Metrolink should have their own terminus in the city!

Terminus no (a key benefit is it not terminating in the city) - but quite possibly a tunnel.

 

[Greybeard33]

The team working on Metrolink already has a lot of practice and essentially works with similar designs for rails, stations, OLE, signalling that they have for a number of years now. Having this knowlege and experience makes it less likely they will run into costly delays trying to figure out things.

However, the MPT team that has built the Metrolink extensions has no experience of working on or alongside active heavy rail lines or of working with Network Rail.

Again, going into consistency - Metrolink runs the same vehicle fleet, reducing maintainence costs and the need to train staff on different vehicle types. Also makes it easy to swap sets in/out as they can run on any line. Again, signalling, switches and the like are all pretty consistent, as are stations. This all reduces the number of spares that need to be kept and the amount of time maintainence teams have to spend figuring out how to fix things.

Not entirely true. The line between Timperley and Altrincham, which is owned and maintained by Network Rail, has a legacy block signalling system that requires Automatic Tram Stop (ATS) equipment to be fitted to the trams. Only some of the sets are equipped with ATS, so the rest of the fleet is not allowed on the Altrincham line.

There's also an old freight line that appears to connect Warrington with Stockport, running through Cardishead and Altrincham. Might not be the most heavily used, but could probably support a 2-car tram running every 12 minutes or so. Would provide some useful local connections and also allow people to avoid going through Castlefield when connecting from West-East.

I think you are referring to the Glazebrook to Skelton Junction line, via Partington? There is a plan for a large new housing development at Carrington on the old industrial site and there have been suggestions of a Metrolink extension from Timperley to serve it, via the old alignment. However, I think the current plan is for a bus link.

All of this is to say, yes, more orbital lines! Especially to places like Stockport/Wigan, where the onwards intercity connections are pretty good.

Greater Manchester is tiny compared with Greater London, so the London Overground orbital model does not read across. It is unlikely that any orbital service could capture enough passenger flow to sustain a viable tram service. That is why TfGM is proposing Bus Rapid Transit for future orbital links.

 

[telstarbox]

The other point about London Overground is it has full fare integration with the radial routes, so you can do the whole journey on one Oyster or contactless card. That isn't yet the case for Metrolink + Northern.

In the meantime it should be possible to buy through "paper" fares between Metrolink and National Rail. It makes no sense that you can buy a Bolton to Birmingham return but not a Bury to Crewe one for example.