• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Tramifying Marple - how might Strines and Chinley be served?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,335
Location
Greater Manchester
Surely it would be cheaper just to buy locotrol gear for the handful of freight formations and operate those trains push pull?
It appears that the trains that reverse at Woodley carry limestone from the Tunstead quarries to the Tilcon concrete works. As such I imagine that the wagon rakes and locos are from a common pool that also serve all the other destinations around the country.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,442
Insofar as TfGM's plans can be discerned from the published documents, the first phase would be tram-trains from Piccadilly to Rose Hill, with the Belle Vue line converted to light rail. The Hyde branch would remain heavy rail, with the New Mills and Hope Valley services diverted that way. Romiley Junction to Marple Wharf Junction would be shared double track. I believe parallel single lines have been ruled out because of the performance risk (it would be twice the length of the Navigation Road single line).

This would be dependent on successful implementation of the three proposed tram-train pilot projects - Altrincham to Hale, Manchester Airport to Wilmslow and Rochdale to Heywood.

Longer term TfGM also envisions tram-trains to Marple via Hyde, in conjunction with light rail conversion of the Glossop/Hadfield line. But this would be dependent on a city centre metro tunnel to provide increased cross-city capacity. The vehicles might be light rail metro, longer than tram-trains with no street running capability.

TfGM has no plans to extend tram-train/metro services to New Mills or Chinley.

We should bear in mind that there is substantial freight traffic on the Hyde branch. Through trains between Guide Bridge and Chinley, but also services to/from the Bredbury freight branch at Woodley (stub of the former CLC line to Tiviot Dale). This serves both Bredbury Tilcon and the Bredbury Refuse Treatment sidings.

No idea why tram trains to New Mills and Chinley keep getting proposed. I think the finances of extending into Derbyshire (Glossop) only stack up if dual volt tram trains use the existing wires.

Its very clear that any scheme in the near future will involve Piccadilly - Hyde - Romiley - New Mills - Chinley having a heavy rail passenger service and freight.

An alternative to tram trains would be rebuilding Romiley using platform 1 as a tram terminus and having a heavy rail island platform. It would be expensive but the land is available and it would be comparable to major infrastructure built for Metrolink. That would mean Rose Hill services and Hope Valley stoppers both running hourly via Hyde. It would tick fewer boxes but would allow complete separation of trams and trains without singling the railway line.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,760
Location
Nottingham
Surely it would be cheaper just to buy locotrol gear for the handful of freight formations and operate those trains push pull?
Not sure if you're referring to multiple working of remote locomotives or just remote control by someone on the ground, but the latter would probably be good enough. Maybe some kind of brake van they could ride in during the propelling move?

Even so, they are still freight trains and thay and others passing through come from the quarries which will be at odds with suggestions that the line from NMSJ be tram only.
I don't think anyone is suggesting the whole area would become tram only. TfGM has suggested in the past that Ashburys to Romiley via Bredbury could convert to Metrolink with the service continuing as tram-train to Marple and/or Rose Hill. The route via Hyde would remain heavy rail to allow the Sheffield stopper to continue as well as to provide for freight and diversions.

An alternative to tram trains would be rebuilding Romiley using platform 1 as a tram terminus and having a heavy rail island platform. It would be expensive but the land is available and it would be comparable to major infrastructure built for Metrolink. That would mean Rose Hill services and Hope Valley stoppers both running hourly via Hyde. It would tick fewer boxes but would allow complete separation of trams and trains without singling the railway line.
I think that would be very difficult, as the platforms at Romiley go over a bridge that is almost big enough to qualify as a viaduct. And I think reducing the Marple/Rose Hill frequencies would kill the demand, and only going as far as Romiley wouldn't generate enough passengers to justify Metrolink. What little parking there is at Romiley would need to be sacrificed for an extra platform, so people couldn't even drive there.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,442
I think that would be very difficult, as the platforms at Romiley go over a bridge that is almost big enough to qualify as a viaduct. And I think reducing the Marple/Rose Hill frequencies would kill the demand, and only going as far as Romiley wouldn't generate enough passengers to justify Metrolink. What little parking there is at Romiley would need to be sacrificed for an extra platform, so people couldn't even drive there.

TfGM propose 10tph to Rose Hill which only has 178,000 passengers per year, half of Romiley and less than both Bredbury and Reddish North. There would be more than sufficient demand for 5tph double trams to replace the existing service i.e. more than most Metrolink lines started with.

I agree it would be an expensive undertaking but it would be only a small fraction of the length of the viaduct between Cornbrook and Pomona. Some demolitions would be necessary to get a third track in and out of the station e.g. the industrial unit to the north of the car park. This space combined with parking under the new viaduct would mean existing car parking capacity could be maintained. An alternative would be diving one Metrolink track under the heavy rail tracks and building a Metrolink stop in the car park (knocking down an industrial unit for space for replacement car park spaces).

Neither would be a desirable final outcome but it be better than making the entire project reliant on tram train technology. A phase 2 could be an additional 5tph tram train service to Rose Hill. I am skeptical that much heavy rail traffic could fit around 10tph tram trains. Having two joint platforms and a Metrolink platform would provide more flexibility than putting 10tph of tram trains through the existing station.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,335
Location
Greater Manchester
2013 tram train report. Summarised in TfGM committee minutes. Paragraph 3.9: 6 minute headways, alternating between Altrincham and Bury with 24 tram trains required.

PDF link:

https://www.transportforgreatermanc...FjADegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3NdmiMxs8Ef3OEFEPh6o1B
Hmm. That report is 6 years old now, and TfGM thinking has evidently moved on - see the strategy report I linked in post #29, which was published in 2019.

That old report did not consider tram-train Rochdale - Heywood/Bury or Airport - Wilmslow, and it discounted Altrincham - Hale as poor value for money. Yet these three routes are now the proposed "pathfinder" projects to prove the concept. Cornbrook - Manchester Airport via Timperley and Cornbrook - Warrington Central have also been added to the routes under consideration, along with a city centre tunnel.

I doubt that 6 minute tram-train headways would be practicable between Romiley and Marple Wharf Junctions, in between heavy rail services to New Mills/Hope Valley plus freight. The current timetable allows 3 minutes from Marple Wharf to Romiley station, including the station dwell. But the route would need to be set before the heavy rail train departed from Marple, another 2 minutes, then add another minute to clear Romiley Junction before the route would be clear for the next tram-train.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,734
Location
Manchester
If the tram-trains do end up going to Rose Hill, I wonder if this could lead to the reopening of the rest of the line to Bollington and Macclesfield, as light rail?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
If the tram-trains do end up going to Rose Hill, I wonder if this could lead to the reopening of the rest of the line to Bollington and Macclesfield, as light rail?

Unlikely - low population density and duplicates the existing rail corridor via Poynton.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,914
If the tram-trains do end up going to Rose Hill, I wonder if this could lead to the reopening of the rest of the line to Bollington and Macclesfield, as light rail?
Probably not, but I believe a short extension towards High Lane and its proposed new housing should be investigated.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,276
Can someone explain what the advantage of trams would be for this line - is it just a way of Manchester getting control of them?
Wouldn’t proper electric trains be easier and quicker, and keep the lines open for diversions?
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,603
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Can someone explain what the advantage of trams would be for this line - is it just a way of Manchester getting control of them?
Wouldn’t proper electric trains be easier and quicker, and keep the lines open for diversions?
Advantages of conversion of the line to Rose Hill from heavy rail to Metrolink include:
  • More frequent services (every 12 rather than every 30 minutes, plus Sunday service)
  • City centre penetration
  • Cheaper to operate, so less subsidy
  • Wholly within Greater M/c so can be locally controlled by TfGM and better integrated with other local transport (bus/tram)
  • Cheaper to electrify (750 V DC rather than 25 kV AC)
  • Taken out of the control of Northern Fail
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,375
Not sure if you're referring to multiple working of remote locomotives or just remote control by someone on the ground, but the latter would probably be good enough. Maybe some kind of brake van they could ride in during the propelling move?
Well it would probably be better to pull some random locomotive that is going for scrap and retrofit than build a brake van.

Using a locomotive body would allow the air brake to operate from both ends of the train, so you would have better performance throughout the train's journey.
But ultimately you could just have the driver get out and walk beside the train with a control box.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,276
Advantages of conversion of the line to Rose Hill from heavy rail to Metrolink include:
  • More frequent services (every 12 rather than every 30 minutes, plus Sunday service)
  • City centre penetration
  • Cheaper to operate, so less subsidy
  • Wholly within Greater M/c so can be locally controlled by TfGM and better integrated with other local transport (bus/tram)
  • Cheaper to electrify (750 V DC rather than 25 kV AC)
  • Taken out of the control of Northern Fail
Trains could be more frequent if it was really necessary
True, but slower than a train
Transfer the train to TfGM with new, more tram-like working practices.
Same for trains
Cheaper but less output as doesn’t electrify longer distance services
Can do that with trains
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,603
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Trains could be more frequent if it was really necessary
True, but slower than a train
Transfer the train to TfGM with new, more tram-like working practices.
Same for trains
Cheaper but less output as doesn’t electrify longer distance services
Can do that with trains
Piccadilly-Rose Hill via Reddish is a relatively self-contained short distance route no longer shared significantly with other longer-distance rail services or freight. Heavy rail is inherently more expensive than light rail and a less efficient use of resources, resulting in a poorer service. Conversion of other decaying suburban rail routes to Metrolink in Greater Manchester has already been done very successfully, e.g. the line to Rochdale via Oldham.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,276
Piccadilly-Rose Hill via Reddish is a relatively self-contained short distance route no longer shared significantly with other longer-distance rail services or freight. Heavy rail is inherently more expensive than light rail and a less efficient use of resources, resulting in a poorer service. Conversion of other decaying suburban rail routes to Metrolink in Greater Manchester has already been done very successfully, e.g. the line to Rochdale via Oldham.
It isn’t self contained if trains continue to New Mills along the same line, and is tram train cheaper than heavy rail?
Oldham metro might be successful but that doesn’t mean heavy rail wouldn’t have been more successful (though Oldham Metrolink has the advantage of the diversion into the town centre, which isn’t relevant to Rose Hill)
This seems like a political power grab solution looking for a problem
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,603
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
It isn’t self contained if trains continue to New Mills along the same line, and is tram train cheaper than heavy rail?
Oldham metro might be successful but that doesn’t mean heavy rail wouldn’t have been more successful (though Oldham Metrolink has the advantage of the diversion into the town centre, which isn’t relevant to Rose Hill)
This seems like a political power grab solution looking for a problem
New Mills is a small town in Derbyshire (outwith Greater Manchester) and does NOT justify being served by Metrolink; in any case, it is not sited on an extension of the line from Rose Hill. It can continue to be served by conventional heavy rail services running from Piccadilly, albeit via Hyde.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,760
Location
Nottingham
Trains could be more frequent if it was really necessary
True, but slower than a train
Transfer the train to TfGM with new, more tram-like working practices.
Same for trains
Cheaper but less output as doesn’t electrify longer distance services
Can do that with trains
One potential advantage of a tram-train is that it avoids the congested approaches to Piccadilly which constrain frequencies on all routes. Once you get east of Ashburys (where the tram-trains are proposed to join/leave what is currently the railway) there are relatively few constraints on service frequency. The northern pair of tracks is probably relatively unconstrained today, but conversion of the Marple line provides an opportunity to transfer some of the platforms to serve the busier Stockport lines. As pointed out above, the services could be extensions of ones that currently terminate at Piccadilly so don't add extra trams in the centre.

A tram or tram-train may not be slower than a train if there are frequent stops. Light rail vehicles have better acceleration and shorter stop dwell times, and their lower top speed doesn't matter if the trains don't get the chance to run any faster. Alternatively the better performance can be used to add more stops without much journey time penalty - and if most people are going into the city centre their end-to-end journeys may be quicker anyway due to not having to walk so far.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,335
Location
Greater Manchester
New Mills is a small town in Derbyshire (outwith Greater Manchester) and does NOT justify being served by Metrolink; in any case, it is not sited on an extension of the line from Rose Hill. It can continue to be served by conventional heavy rail services running from Piccadilly via Hyde.
It should be remembered that the current services to New Mills and the Hope Valley use the direct line from Ashburys to Romiley via Reddish. The Rose Hill service goes the long way round via Guide Bridge and Hyde. Passengers for Marple, New Mills, Chinley and the Hope Valley would have their journey times increased by several minutes if their services were diverted via Hyde.

Within Greater Manchester, Marple Rose Hill station is not a direct alternative to Marple station - it is a half hour walk away up a steep hill. Marple has a larger car park and more than double the footfall.

I believe it is still planned to introduce a third fast service through the Hope Valley, once the Capacity Scheme is eventually completed. In view of the lack of paths through Stockport, the Marple - Reddish route might be one option for this service to reach Piccadilly - but not if the line is converted to light rail.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,061
Location
Reston City Centre
Trains could be more frequent if it was really necessary

At the moment, trains from New Mills/ Marple/ Glossop are constrained by lack of paths through Guide Bridge, lack of paths at the Piccadilly throat, a finite amount of platform space at Piccadilly (that comes at the opportunity cost of using it for other services, e.g. Stockport ones)

Trams (using "line of sight" rather than long blocks of signalling) can run much more often and can be free to change timetables to suit demand (rather than, as at the moment, many "Northern" services being at the back of the queue when the big boy TOCs want to change timetables.

You'd struggle to squeeze more New Mills/ Marple/ Glossop trains into the platforms at Piccadilly, given layover times (and TPE services from Stalybridge etc)

Transfer the train to TfGM with new, more tram-like working practices

The staff went on strike every Saturday for a year because they didn't like the fact that the new trains were capable of running as DOO (not that Northern were insisting on DOO, just that the capability would be there). I can't see the current Northern staff accepting "tram-like" working practices.

(instead, I wouldn't be surprised if Northern had a freeze on recruitment whilst staff currently on New Mills/ Marple/ Glossop services were redeployed to fill vacancies caused by staff turnover around Manchester, i.e. no need to make anyone redundant)
​

Heavy rail is inherently more expensive than light rail and a less efficient use of resources, resulting in a poorer service. Conversion of other decaying suburban rail routes to Metrolink in Greater Manchester has already been done very successfully, e.g. the line to Rochdale via Oldham.

True - the Oldham line has been an amazing transformation - it'd have taken significantly longer and been much more expensive if we'd tried to convert the "loop" to a fifteen minute EMU service (given the lack of additional paths through Victoria for heavy rail)… meanwhile, we have trams running every six minutes that are able to serve the heart of Oldham and the heart of Rochdale. Transformative.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Converting Glossop/Hadfield to tram or tram-train would be a huge mistake IMO. It's a high quality electrified suburban railway with relatively modern rolling stock and equipment that still has plenty of life left in it, so any conversion would be viewed as a downgrade. The Bury and Altrincham lines had elderly units and in Bury's case non-standard equipment, so conversion made sense. The Rose Hill line, being a diesel stub, would make sense to be converted... particularly as the route previously ran through to Stockport and possibly could do so again as a tram line.


Sensible thinking.

The financial advantages of Metrolink to a parsimonious central government, and relatively cash-strapped local authorities, have led to swathes of the heavy rail network being torn up, regardless of the reduction in per-vehicle capacity (and speed), and the effects on the wider network (in particular, the loss of the direct line via Sale to mid-Cheshire, and the impediment to re-opening a line to east Lancashire via Bury), exacerbated by cretinous and unnecessary features such as the single tracks between Altrincham and Timperley (which, if the line via Sale had to be stratified, should have had some form of track sharing between heavy and light rail from the outset). While someone will remind me that the trams run more frequently and cheaply, and avoid the chronic and acute capacity problems of the central Manchester network, this underlines the extent to which they are an inadequate substitute for the heavy rail suburban / metro system a conurbation the size of Manchester should have (albeit it now seems we need a city centre underground anyway due to tram numbers, negating much of the advantage of light rail conversion). I hope that we will eventually see many of the Metrolink lines being converted into that sort of system when the heavy rail network finally receives the investment it should have.

Anyone who has been at Romiley at the morning peak, watching 4 car DMUs at 10-20 minute intervals leaving passengers behind, would seriously question whether 6 trams per hour could deal with even existing demand on these lines. This is before we even consider the wisdom of closing off 1 if the 2 lines between Manchester and Sheffield to heavy rail.

This is not to say that Metrolink does not have some very useful roles. Some of the lines (eg Salford Quays, Traffird Park) penetrate areas unreachable by heavy rail. Rise Hill Marple is another example of a potential use, a stub end (though still fairly busy) diesel service which could usefully be extended further along the old trackbed and beyond eg to Hazel Grove, providing the aort of link between peripheral areas which is badly missing in Manchester (and virtually all our other cities). Perhaps in the other direction it could connect to the Ashton line, rather than taking up any capacity on the Guide Bridge formation.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I don't know, but I do wonder if the 192 bus could be replaced by a tram. I don't imagine putting tram rails branching off from St Peter's Square onto the Oxford Road Bus Corridor would be too difficult, as it's a largely straight wide road which realistically could cope with only one lane of traffic now that it's just buses, especially with the 192s gone. I don't know if the rest of the route (on the A6) is tram able in any way.


The most obvious route for a lengthy on-street tramway in this part of Manchester would be along Oxford and Wilmslow Roads to Didsbury, and perhaps a connection to the existing airport line
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
When the Manchester-Crewe electrification was completed in 1960, the ex-LNW suburban stations south of Manchester gained a frequent regular interval service. This has now been slashed, and the irregular infrequent service now provided at stations such as Fog Lane (Burnage) and Levenshulme is hardly conducive to the retention of custom when there are frequent parallel bus services.


Another example of why Manchester really needs new capacity for long-distance trains and a vastly.imporved suburban heavy rail service, rather than sticking plaster light rail solutions
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
7,519
Location
Northern England
The most obvious route for a lengthy on-street tramway in this part of Manchester would be along Oxford and Wilmslow Roads to Didsbury, and perhaps a connection to the existing airport line
Possibly. But those roads become very congested at peak times, especially through Rusholme and Fallowfield.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
4,311
Possibly. But those roads become very congested at peak times, especially through Rusholme and Fallowfield.

Absolutely. The roads are too narrow for most of it to be a sensible tram route. When I've heard it suggested in the past it's usually been from fellow former Manchester universities students who, with the best will in the world, tend to have a rather blinkered and romanticised view of that section of Manchester and what you could realistically do with its public transport. Few, if any, have ever needed to drive there or use it for real world commuting!
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Possibly. But those roads become very congested at peak times, especially through Rusholme and Fallowfield.


They do, but if we ever want British cities to become environmentally sustainable, perhaps we need to end the vice like grip that the private car has over so much of them.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,603
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Another example of why Manchester really needs new capacity for long-distance trains and a vastly.imporved suburban heavy rail service, rather than sticking plaster light rail solutions

IMO, as many suburban heavy rail services should be converted to light rail as possible, but on main line heavy rail corridors this is difficult, and decent frequent (minimum every 30 minutes within Greater Manchestger) local heavy rail services need to be provided on these routes. In Greater Manchester, these comprise:
  • to Moston, Rochdale and thence via Summit
  • to Ashton, Stalybridge and thence via Standedge
  • to Stockport, Hazel Grove and thence via Chinley, and to Buxton
  • to Stockport, Bramhall and thence via Macclesfield
  • to Stockport, Wilmslow and thence via Sandbach
  • to Newton-le-Willows and beyond (Chester/North Wales), Liverpool and WCML
  • to Bolton and beyond (Wigan/Southport, Preston/Blackpool and Blackburn/Clitheroe)
The Styal line should also remain heavy rail to permit NW regional services to the Airport and as a bypass for Stockport. It is also reasonable to leave services via Guide Bridge (currently to Hadfield, New Mills/Chinley and Stalybridge/Standedge and beyond) as heavy rail, at least for the medium-term, although the line to Hadfield could be converted to Metrolink in the longer term. The CLC line via Northenden to Northwich and beyond needs to remain heavy rail for freight, and any retained passenger service would need to be heavy rail.

That leaves the CLC line to Warrington Central and the line to Rose Hill via Reddish as suitable for conversion to light rail. The line via Atherton to Wigan would be appropriate for light rail, with a branch to Leigh and a separate light rail route from Hindley to Wigan, but a suitable alignment through inner Salford to join the rest of Metrolink is problematic. There should also be a new light rail route from Crumpsall via Middleton, Langley and Heywood to Rochdale.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
7,519
Location
Northern England
They do, but if we ever want British cities to become environmentally sustainable, perhaps we need to end the vice like grip that the private car has over so much of them.
I could not agree more. What's really needed is a congestion charge, and ultimately a ban on vehicles in the City Centre. Unfortunately I have little hope that this will happen, because it's politically unpopular.

The only way to encourage passengers out of their cars is to provide a competitive alternative solution. Sitting in a different vehicle on the same congested roads, which may not take then directly to their home or their workplace and which offers less privacy, is simply not competitive with the private car for a less environmentally conscious driver.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top