Tram-Train...any future ?

[j0hn0]

This is a most valid point and surely would come into consideration during the period of evaluation.

Like I said, see Nice trams as to what is capable on a battery

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps they may have included the Nice trams as part of their preliminary research. I am sure that they would have looked at all actual European models that currently run.

 

[Anvil1984]

Tram-Train is essentially an already tried and tested mode of operating though.
Typically it is known as the Karlsruhe model because the city of Karlsruhe developed the modern version of it. But it is in use, and works, here in the UK, and it is a nonsense to suggest otherwise. Tyne and Wear Metro cars are built to light rail standards, although they are not built to be compatible with the road network. The Sunderland Direct extension runs on heavily-used network rail track from Pelaw Junction to Sunderland (although in fact the entire line to South Hylton is actually owned by NR). The two main issues that required accommodating, other than the OHLE, is that the signalling uses both TPWS and the german PZB system for train-stop functions, and there is a mandatory three-minute separation between light rail and heavy rail vehicles enforced by the signalling system. But the model works here and is not untested. What may be untested is the use of Light Rail Vehicles with diesel engines or battery/capacitor power.

I would barely say Pelaw Jn - Sunderland is heavily used by Network Rail services, it is used by an hourly Northern service in each direction and 4 GC's each way a day. It used to have 2 Northern services per hour but as punctuality figures were struggling on the line it was reduced to one, so hardly a major success of sharing if we are being honest.

This is not a dig at my hometown Tyne and Wear Metro as I think it is a good system including the Sunderland extension but to suggest the sharing has worked completely is inaccurate

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

During a debate some while ago, where someone made a suggestion that the Leeds-Harrogate-York route could be considered for tram-train operation, there is one matter on that route that would be a relevant infrastructural point.

On that route, between Horsforth and Weeton, lies Bramhope Tunnel, which has a length of 2 miles 241 yards. The question that I raise is...has there ever been tram-train operation anywhere through a tunnel of this length? This is without raising the matter of the seepage in the tunnel and other water-related problems.

 

[142094]

I would barely say Pelaw Jn - Sunderland is heavily used by Network Rail services, it is used by an hourly Northern service in each direction and 4 GC's each way a day. It used to have 2 Northern services per hour but as punctuality figures were struggling on the line it was reduced to one, so hardly a major success of sharing if we are being honest.

This is not a dig at my hometown Tyne and Wear Metro as I think it is a good system including the Sunderland extension but to suggest the sharing has worked completely is inaccurate

The hourly Newcastle - Sunderland service was not dropped due to punctuality, but mainly due to the fact that Nexus could serve Brockley Whins, East Boldon and Seaburn better and more frequently with the Metro than a traditional heavy rail service. This also had the added benefit of saving Nexus the subsidy that was given to Northern for running the local stoppers, which enabled Nexus to apply to the DfT for funding for the redevelopment of Sunderland station (as the money would be recouped anyway within a few years). I'd agree that Pelaw Jct is not that well used, yet after Brockley Whins I'd say it is very well used, especially with the new Boldon East Chord allowing trains from Tyne Dock to go south straight along the Durham Coast line.

I don't think it is wise to compare the benefits of the Tyne and Wear Metro with a tram-train style system. They are two completely different systems and each have their own benefits/problems.

As for tram-trains on the Harrogate line, this has been shelved for some years and I very much doubt City of York Council will be wanting to have it started any time soon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On that route, between Horsforth and Weeton, lies Bramhope Tunnel, which has a length of 2 miles 241 yards. The question that I raise is...has there ever been tram-train operation anywhere through a tunnel of this length? This is without raising the matter of the seepage in the tunnel and other water-related problems.

Although most of the long tunnels on the TW Metro were contructed in the 70s/80s, some of the ones between North Shields and Tynemouth have been there for over 100 years. I know that they were having problems with them recently which is one of the reasons for the month-long possession. In short, yes there will be problems with water seeping but this can be overcome.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Although most of the long tunnels on the TW Metro were contructed in the 70s/80s, some of the ones between North Shields and Tynemouth have been there for over 100 years.

In short, yes there will be problems with water seeping but this can be overcome.

Thank you for your prompt reply. I thought that this may well have been the case, particularly with the tunnels that were constructed so many years ago, as these were the type of tunnels to which I referred.

I note your comments in your answer to the other poster concerning the matter of "tram-trains" on the Leeds-Harrogate-York line being "shelved" for the foreseeable future.

 

[Nym]

Leeds - Harrogate - York doesn't need tram-train, what benefit would it bring to be able to run the units on tram lines, when it run between two cities that don't have any?

I think it's been shown that converting to proper tram lines is very expensive already, so if the route needs improvements, whats wrong with just electrifying it?

Or if the Diesel Displaced per unit mile is less than other routes, wire the other routes and cascade some nicer stock onto the route from elsewhere so the posh folk of Harrogate don't need to moan about 150s and pacers any more...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Leeds - Harrogate - York doesn't need tram-train, what benefit would it bring to be able to run the units on tram lines, when it run between two cities that don't have any?

In that case, why were tentative plans put forward for discussion period at that time?

142094 in his reply says that these plans were "shelved" a few years ago.

 

[WatcherZero]

They were put forward when Leeds was promoting its own tram network.

 

[Anvil1984]

The hourly Newcastle - Sunderland service was not dropped due to punctuality, but mainly due to the fact that Nexus could serve Brockley Whins, East Boldon and Seaburn better and more frequently with the Metro than a traditional heavy rail service. This also had the added benefit of saving Nexus the subsidy that was given to Northern for running the local stoppers, which enabled Nexus to apply to the DfT for funding for the redevelopment of Sunderland station (as the money would be recouped anyway within a few years). I'd agree that Pelaw Jct is not that well used, yet after Brockley Whins I'd say it is very well used, especially with the new Boldon East Chord allowing trains from Tyne Dock to go south straight along the Durham Coast line.

I--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


.

Incorrect as the Northern Rail half hourly express Middlesborough service (calling only at the Heworth Rail station) ran until December 2005 timetable and the Tyne and Wear Metro extension opened in 2002. Prior to Metro it was quarter hourly (2 stoppers and 2 Middlesborugh semi fasts) with a occasional TPE. It was the same timetable change which saw half the South Hylton services chopped back which was reinstated recently

 

[142094]

Incorrect as the Northern Rail half hourly express Middlesborough service (calling only at the Heworth Rail station) ran until December 2005 timetable and the Tyne and Wear Metro extension opened in 2002. Prior to Metro it was quarter hourly (2 stoppers and 2 Middlesborugh semi fasts) with a occasional TPE. It was the same timetable change which saw half the South Hylton services chopped back which was reinstated recently

If you ahve the timetables I'd very much like to see them. From memory there were only two services per hour from Newcastle to Sunderland - the one to the Boro and the other which called at each station between Newcastle and Sunderland. When the Sunderland extension opened the stopping service between Newcastle and Sunderland was removed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Leeds - Harrogate - York doesn't need tram-train, what benefit would it bring to be able to run the units on tram lines, when it run between two cities that don't have any?

Was designed to run in as a link to Leeds-Bradford International Airport on one end and York city centre and York Hospital on the other end. Since it was shelved a few years back nearly every document online about it has magically disappeared.

 

[Anvil1984]

If you ahve the timetables I'd very much like to see them. From memory there were only two services per hour from Newcastle to Sunderland - the one to the Boro and the other which called at each station between Newcastle and Sunderland. When the Sunderland extension opened the stopping service between Newcastle and Sunderland was removed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Was designed to run in as a link to Leeds-Bradford International Airport on one end and York city centre and York Hospital on the other end. Since it was shelved a few years back nearly every document online about it has magically disappeared.

No Timetable but you might find this interesting, its a long link but as Nexus have decided to make you request the older stuff you may or may not be able to access it http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:MHgE3zToNJEJ:www.twpta.gov.uk/wps/wcm/resources/archivehtml/PTA%2520(html)%25202004-05/May%25202005/DECEMBER%2520TIMETABLE%2520CHANGES.pdf+%22regional%2Brailways%22+sunderland&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgEMN17-ETbNs9jIH3Hsatt_l2B930oEm2dYooU2JtDqKuSYTOpeE7eR2_K2n5Tgfo3jIjMzMcYAXCFX_SEdqiyaLP9VZY-nfuO-qGR4ALPxl6tTlrKFWNx2wnMTksHaMwHjiLf&sig=AHIEtbRcXXYRDclaV7z4bLtvqtyJ_25O4Q

A few key points if you cant


Summary of Key Issues

Performance of Metro across the network has suffered since the opening of the Sunderland extension due to the track sharing and timetabling of services from Pelaw to South Hylton.

Re-routing the train service and changing the regularity of trains across the
Sunderland line will improve train performance and efficiency across the whole
network.

Sunderland Station is in need of substantial investment. Hopefully this
proposal will produce savings to re-invest in the station infrastructure.

Prior to the extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro to Sunderland, British
Rail/Regional Railways/Arriva Trains Northern operated four plus journeys an
hour between Sunderland and Newcastle throughout most of the day; at their
peak in the 1990s were achieving patronage of 2.3 million journeys a year.

Currently Northern Rail, who took over the franchise from Arriva Trains
Northern at the end of 2004, operate 2 trains an hour or 36 trains a day, with
just more than half of those trains being through trains from Teesside to the
Tyne Valley. Metro operates 5 trains an hour from South Hylton.

Because there are 2 heavy rail trains an hour, usually half an hour apart and
because Network Rail's rules require Metro and Northern Rail trains to be
scheduled at least 3 minutes apart both at Pelaw and at Sunderland it is
impossible to schedule the Metro service to a regular pattern. This means that
the gaps between Metro trains vary considerably during the hour which has
knock on effects on the rest of the Metro service in Tyneside. It is believed that
this is a contributing factor to the overall performance of the service which has
not been as good across the Metro as it was before the Metro was extended to
Sunderland.

Sunderland Station has long been considered to be of extremely poor quality
both in terms of an advertisement for public transport and as a gateway to the
City of Sunderland. While some improvements were made as part of the
Sunderland Metro extension project - wider platforms, new northern exit,
complete cover from the elements and better lighting - it still falls far short of the
standards Nexus has employed in all other subsurface stations on the Metro.
There has been no indication from the rail industry that any investment is likely
to materialise for Sunderland Station in either the short or medium term.

Accordingly the Director General has had discussions with both the Strategic
Rail Authority and the Department for Transport over the last 18 months to see
whether it would be possible to utilise any savings made by reducing the heavy
rail service between Sunderland and Newcastle to improve Sunderland Station
while at the same time enabling a more regular service to be operated by the
Metro.

The SRA eventually accepted that some of the savings made could be utilised
for improvements to Sunderland Station. However this was overtaken by
events with the publication of the Railways Bill and the Secretary of State's
"Future for Rail" paper in which the Secretary of State proposed that all savings
achieved by any reductions in local rail services could be ploughed into local
public transport (at the PTE's discretion).

It is therefore proposed that from the December timetable change the Northern
Rail service between Sunderland and Newcastle is reduced and that the Metro
service between Park Lane/Sunderland and Newcastle be evenly spaced at
every 12 minutes. This would be enabled by reducing the Northern Rail service
from 36 trains a day to 22 (still allowing all services coming from
Middlesbrough, Stockton and Hartlepool to continue to Newcastle and beyond).
It is also proposed that the savings accrued by the reduction in the heavy rail
services be ploughed back into the upgrade of Sunderland Station.
Passengers would therefore still be able to access six trains per hour between
Sunderland and Newcastle in each direction.

These changes would ensure that Metro operates a 'regular' service from
Sunderland (every 12 minutes throughout most of the day) which would be
particularly much more attractive than the current service which has gaps
between trains varying from 7 minutes to 16 minutes. As most rail passengers
using Sunderland Station prefer to use the Metro we expect number of Metro
passengers on this corridor to continue to increase.

However the patronage of the service between University and South Hylton has
been very disappointing. Not only has it failed to reach even half the original

2

predictions but numbers in 2004/05 actually fell compared to 2003/04. Hence it
is proposed that the services on this section be halved. This will allow more
resources to go into the Metro service on the busier sections of the network in
order to improve the efficiency of the timetable and the performance of the
Metro service. Overall the service in Metro will be enhanced particularly
between Pelaw and Regent Centre.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This was the report about the 2005 Metro / Rail Changes where the Metro routes changed to the current routings (it was Airport - South Shields, St James to South Hylton prior to this) and cut the South Hylton services.

Pre Metro the service was (ex Newcastle)

xx00 and xx30 Heworth, Sunderland extending to Boro
xx15 and xx45 all shacks

When Metro was introduced the stopping services were cut to the Boro expresses and in 2005 cut to hourly.

And a bit of trivia for you just prior to the Metro opening the service terminated at St Peters Metro in parts 2001 whilst Sunderland station was being prepared for Metro usage. The only one of the new Metro stations on the extension (not ex BR) to see heavy rail units call at it

 

[142094]

I'll have to find some old timetables as I can't remember there being 4 services per hour each way between Newcastle and Sunderland. I always thought it was 2 per hour each way, one terminating and one going through to Middlesbrough.

 

[Anvil1984]

Ok I'll let you find them, then I'll await you telling me I was correct. Ive produced documents stating it was 4 an hour but yet you still dont believe me. Ah well.

 

[142094]

Ok I'll let you find them, then I'll await you telling me I was correct. Ive produced documents stating it was 4 an hour but yet you still dont believe me. Ah well.

It is not that I don't believe you, more that I can't remember what the workings used to be. However I don't see where your original point comes from - that one of the Northern services was dropped due to punctuality.

 

[sprinterguy]

I’ve got an old Regional Railways Sunderland to Carlisle timetable from 1994 that I would like to look out for this topic: Unfortunately its’ in Sunderland and I’m in Birmingham, so that precludes me from hastily digging it out. Anvil1984 is definitely right with the fifteen minute frequency from Sunderland: I can remember the 09:00 fast service bombing through Seaburn while waiting for the 09:18 stopper (09:15 from Sunderland). I have to say though that I’m incredibly surprised that the service used to be half hourly between Middlesbrough and Sunderland: I could have sworn that it has only ever been hourly in my lifetime. I can certainly remember some Hartlepool terminators though, I assume these were the “stoppers”.

I remember the use of St. Peters station for heavy rail use while Metro extension work was taking place in Sunderland station in 2001: Caught a 156 from there heading to Newcastle at least once.

I also remembered a little while ago that the Transpennine services from Sunderland didn’t stop as soon as the Metro service started up: I can remember being held at the signal at Seaburn station on a Sunderland bound TPE service after the station had been “Metro-ised”, and of seeing 158s passing through Stadium of Light station.

 

[Anvil1984]

It is not that I don't believe you, more that I can't remember what the workings used to be. However I don't see where your original point comes from - that one of the Northern services was dropped due to punctuality.

Read the other bit i forgot to highlight

Performance of Metro across the network has suffered since the opening of the Sunderland extension due to the track sharing and timetabling of services from Pelaw to South Hylton.

Re-routing the train service and changing the regularity of trains across the
Sunderland line will improve train performance and efficiency across the whole
network.

Because there are 2 heavy rail trains an hour, usually half an hour apart and
because Network Rail's rules require Metro and Northern Rail trains to be
scheduled at least 3 minutes apart both at Pelaw and at Sunderland it is
impossible to schedule the Metro service to a regular pattern. This means that
the gaps between Metro trains vary considerably during the hour which has
knock on effects on the rest of the Metro service in Tyneside. It is believed that
this is a contributing factor to the overall performance of the service which has
not been as good across the Metro as it was before the Metro was extended to
Sunderland.

Accordingly the Director General has had discussions with both the Strategic
Rail Authority and the Department for Transport over the last 18 months to see
whether it would be possible to utilise any savings made by reducing the heavy
rail service between Sunderland and Newcastle to improve Sunderland Station
while at the same time enabling a more regular service to be operated by the
Metro.

 

[142094]

I have to say though that I’m incredibly surprised that the service used to be half hourly between Middlesbrough and Sunderland: I could have sworn that it has only ever been hourly in my lifetime. I can certainly remember some Hartlepool terminators though, I assume these were the “stoppers”.

That is the bit that is causing me the confusion - I too would have said that Middlesbrough only got an hourly service. We used to travel quite extensively to Hartlepool and always got on the xx.30 off Newcastle.

Read the other bit i forgot to highlight

Sorry, I originally thought you meant the punctuality of the Northern/NS/ATN services when I read one of your previous posts.

 

[Anvil1984]

Nope sorry for the confusion, the Metros were suffering really badly on punctuality and reliability when they first ran on the entension so they had to make a load of changes on the report so Nexus basically lobbied for one of the heavy rail services to be removed so there was more room for Metros to run, then obviously that would cost less money as well so you were partially right in the fact they could use the money on revamping Sunderland but that wasnt the main reason behind the reduction it was because their Metros were late.

If you read the whole memo thingy it makes interesting reading, hard to come by as well now you have to apply to Nexus / TWITA for things pre 2008

 

[142094]

Was having a look last night, but there is hardly anything to find apart from the LTP documents. Would be good to find out how much Nexus is actually saving from the reduction in heavy rail services.

 

[Nym]

Considering there is near zero chance of getting anything onto the Mid Cheshire line running through any time soon.

Tram Train...

It could work on this route, but it would need to be a 4 car unit ie, the limit of what can be put on the Metrolink Lines.

It would need Metrolink Signalling fitted, aswell as AWS, TWPS and ERTMS Provision.

The suspension would need to be built to heavy rail standards, to allow for bad track conditions west of Alt'ham.

Two engines at 700hp each should be sufficent, in each driving car, to keep axle weights down, and distributed traction. Maximum speed of 75mph.

This would also need to be used ONLY on the likes of the Mid Cheshire Line, Bury Bolton St North etc. and would be a special build for Greater Manchester.

After traversing the Mid Cheshire Line, or East Lancs Rlwy. These units should run limited stop into Manchester. And a turnback siding or additional platform should be provided at Deansgate and Victoria. Or the 2CC so they could run Rawthenstall - Chester / Crewe.

I'd also look at possibly fitting them with dual power capabilities, so they could run on 750V OHL or 25KV OHL, with a diferent power system in each centre coach.

The Fleet...

4 Car Tram/Train
1500hp
Can run on Diesel, 750DC OHL or 25KV OHL.
How many would be needed for 4tph between Chester and Manchester and up the East Lancs?

Chester - Manchester is about 1hr 30 via the Mid Cheshire and metrolink into Piccadilly...

So, at 4tph, you'd need 12 diagrams, so a fleet of 16?

Include the East Lancs and you could see a fleet of 30 of these, big enough for a specialised order.

What I wouldn't want to see though, is these replacing pacers... ever. Only ever to be used if working somwhere on Tram lines.

The limited stop from Alt'ham to Manchester is to reduce the stations it would call at, hopfully speed it up as it would have slightly worse accelaration than a normal tram.

Finally, these would be operated by a TOC that is a member of ATOC!

It would run as a TRAIN service, not a TRAM service.

If it only called at Alt'ham, Nav Road, Sale, Stretford, and Cornbrook, or less then this even.

The above stations would join the ATOC stations list, and would have tickets valid via Northern Rail ONLY, it would mean that through ticketing would be valid, and any station where this 'tram train' operated would be classed under the Manchester STNS flag, or Manchester CTRLZ as is now.

Would need to do somthing about intergrated local ticketing though, and have a 150/153 shuttle run between Stockport and Alt'ham, and some more tracks from the NR platforms to tram platforms. (Re-open some stations?) it would mean shared use of all platforms at Alt'ham, and proberbly at Nav Road aswell.

Opinions?

EDIT: Would re-opening the line through Middlewitch and running 2ttph to Crewe or Sandbatch that way be out of the question?

 

[tbtc]

4tph between Chester and Manchester and up the East Lancs

limited stop from Alt'ham to Manchester

Opinions?

One opinion; if this is to run alongside the current ten trams per hour from Altricham to central Manchester then running "limited stop" is just going to mean sitting behind the tram in front for 95% of that journey (with no scope to overtake)

And, seriously, four "four coach" services an hour (to replace the hourly Pacer/ Sprinter on the Cheshire line)?

 

[northwichcat]

One opinion; if this is to run alongside the current ten trams per hour from Altricham to central Manchester then running "limited stop" is just going to mean sitting behind the tram in front for 95% of that journey (with no scope to overtake)

And, seriously, four "four coach" services an hour (to replace the hourly Pacer/ Sprinter on the Cheshire line)?

A T68 (2 car) tram holds 82 seating, a M5000 (2 car) holds up to 58 seating. The trains used on the Mid-Cheshire line vary from a 2 car 142 to a 4 car 150 so that's 102-260 seats per service, plus there's extra peak time extra services and the Altrincham-Knutsford section could do with extra capacity both peak and off-peak.

Assuming the tram-train is given toilets and luggage space I imagine it would have a similar seating capacity to the M5000, which in 4 car formation would be around 120 (the same as a Pacer with bus seats.)

so they could run Rawthenstall - Chester / Crewe.

I'm not sure if you can build a tram-train suitable for a distance of that length. Maybe Chester-Victoria and Deansgate-Rawtenstall would work best.

Chester - Manchester is about 1hr 30 via the Mid Cheshire and metrolink into Piccadilly...

Pre-Metrolink conversion Knutsford-Oxford Road was 33 minutes running semi-fast Altrincham-Manchester. Knutsford-Chester takes 40 minutes. Therefore assuming that not all tram-trains would call at stations like Mobberley and Ashley and allowing a few minutes extra recovery time over BR times, I think 75 minutes is realistic.

Would re-opening the line through Middlewitch and running 2ttph to Crewe or Sandbatch that way be out of the question?

It's Middlewich not Middlewitch even though Cheshire CC once got that wrong on a signpost on the A50.

The benefit:cost ratio of reopening that line was found to be much better than the average closed line.

MCRUA have suggested putting a temporary structure at Middlewich (like Workington North) and then replacing it with a permanent structure in due course to speed up the reopening process but Network Rail said no.

Would need to do somthing about intergrated local ticketing though, and have a 150/153 shuttle run between Stockport and Alt'ham

Not a good idea. Chester, Northwich and Knutsford all lose their direct link to Stockport, which is well utilised.

Maybe have a hourly pattern like:
1 x Chester-Stockport-Manchester (2 car DMU - all stops)
2 x Chester-Manchester Victoria via Sale (tram-train - with calls at Greenbank, Northwich, Knutsford, Hale, Altrincham, Old Trafford, Cornbrook, Deansgate-Castlefield and Shudehill)
1 x Crewe-Manchester Victoria via Sale (tram-train - with calls at Sandbach, Middlewich, Northwich, Lostock Gralam, Knutsford, Hale, Altrincham, Navigation Road, Stretford, Old Trafford, Cornbrook, Deansgate-Castlefield and Shudehill)

Example timings at Knutsford:
Manchester via Sale: xx:15, xx:45
Manchester via Stockport: xx:00
Manchester via Sale (from Crewe): xx:30

Making the xx:15 and xx:45 fast services to Manchester and the xx:00 and xx:30 slower services.

 

[tbtc]

the Altrincham-Knutsford section could do with extra capacity both peak and off-peak

Like a lot of lines in "the north" which are stuck with an hourly Pacer service.

However, increasing that to four services an hour seems quite a jump.

 

[Nym]

Yeah, but the seating would still only fit 150 seated passengers as the coaches are only 15m long for trams and the units would only be 60m long. Possibly with some cabin space taken up by engines, maybe using the same drive systems as Hybrid buses with vertically mounted engines. In a soundproof compartment.

If you add toilets in two of the coaches with the engines mounted next to it (to reduce space taken up in the coaches).

May I also refer you to the idea of sending some trams into MCO onto the platform 5/6 area on a new 'open viaduct'.

Also, that when routes get new trains, and more frequent service, they invariably become more popular.

 

[northwichcat]

Like a lot of lines in "the north" which are stuck with an hourly Pacer service.

In 2007 it was recommended that one unit could be allocated to run a Northwich-Altrincham shuttle in addition to the current service. MCRUA pointed out it could go to Greenbank if it was Sprinter operated (as Network Rail found that the line speed over the Leftwich viaduct could be raised from 20mph to 50mph for Sprinters without any additional work but Pacers would have to remain at 20mph so couldn't run an hourly Greenbank-Altrincham shuttle unless 2 units were used) - that suggestion got laughed off.

The proposed new service didn't go ahead not because passenger numbers didn't justify it or because of not being able to source a unit but because Northern were concerned about losing passengers on the Altrincham-Stockport-Manchester section, so it was decided that it would only go ahead if GMPTE sorted out interchangeable tickets for stations between Northwich and Hale - which they didn't and still haven't.

However, increasing that to four services an hour seems quite a jump.

Increased services are usually phased in. For instance, the report in to reopening the Middlewich line found that a Northwich-Middlewich-Crewe service has a very high benefit to cost ratio, Altrincham-Crewe has a good benefit to cost ratio but Stockport-Middlewich-Crewe has a 1:1 ratio. Therefore the report has recommended reopening the line with a Northwich-Crewe service connecting to the Chester-Manchester service at Northwich. Then at a later stage, subject to no revisions in demand, extending the service to Altrincham. The report concluded that a Stockport extension would only really be viable if stations were opened at Baguley and Cheadle which is outside the scope of the report and for GMPTE to look in to.

The Chester-Sale-Manchester semi-fasts as I suggested would compete with the hourly Chester-Warrington-Manchester service. I imagine some people using the service via Warrington change on to the Metrolink in Manchester.

The direct service from Sale and other Metrolink stops to stations to Chester would likely attract extra leisure trips. Some letters in the local press in the Sale area bemoan the lack of a direct Chester service.

Cheshire West & Chester Council have suggested having tram-trains running on the street in the city centre - possibly to replace the current rail link bus service. If that happened and the tram-trains continued to Manchester I imagine more people would transfer from the service via Warrington for convenience.

If the line reopened through Middlewich then people from Middlewich who catch the bus to Sandbach station could use their new rail service instead.

 

[Nym]

Yeah, if the tram trains could be made to fit into all metrolink platforms, it could be a simple extention of the existing services to alt'ham. Then it could have up to 6 running through Alty (the piccadilly terminators) without too many issues on the Manchester end.

 

[exile]

There is no way the Mid Cheshire line could come anywhere near justiying a service of 4 x 150 seat "trains" per hour, except perhaps in the morning and evening peak hours. 4 2 car tram-trains? or 2 x 4 cars?

However something like the modern single-unit diesels you can see on rural German lines might be the thing.

 

[WatcherZero]

Vossloh to supply Rotherham tram-trains
UK: Vossloh has been selected as 'lead bidder' for the supply of rolling stock for the Sheffield - Rotherham tram-train pilot project, Transport Minister Norman Baker told the All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group event on July 12.

The business case is still being developed to ensure best value for money, but the Department for Transport is supportive and train operator Northern Rail, which is procuring the vehicles on behalf of DfT, anticipates that services will begin in 2014.

The project includes a connection between Sheffield's Supertram network and a Network Rail freight line which will be electrified at 750 V DC. There will be an initial 20 min headway service to Parkgate in Rotherham, where the tram stop will be integrated with a brown field development.

Interspersing freight and tram-train services is seen as an essential part of the pilot scheme, which Baker said provides 'a good microcosm of what is needed' for tram-train operation in the UK.

However Robert Whyte, Commercial Manager at Alstom Transport, pointed out to APPLRG that tram-train is already established in France and Germany, and the UK is 'still quite a long way behind our continental cousins' and 'seems to be forever trying to reinvent the wheel'.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/.../vossloh-to-supply-rotherham-tram-trains.html

Product will be something like this, tailored to local conditions naturally.
http://www.vossloh-espana.com/cms/media/downloads/pdfs/flyer/Vossloh_Tram-Train_us.pdf

 

[Class172]

Here's another tram-train proposal that was mooted a couple of years ago, but has now gone quiet: Worcester Tram-trains