Has anyone in Manchester proposed to have Metrolink tram-trains run on the line next to Man Us ground? It makes sense to use this station more by extending the platforms and getting Metolink to run on the tracks, into the mianline station's platforms and out onto the Metrolink network. It could also be used to serve Salford Quays better with direct segregated runs into the mainline stations.

This looks like a glaring opportunity awaiting, with all benefitting. Man U could help pay to update the station.

I feel I'm going to regret this, but I'm a charitable soul.

The Greater Manchester Strategic Rail Study published in 2001 mooted tram-trains for Manchester CC to Glazebrook along the CLC Liverpool route past MUFC. However compared to some of the other corridors it identified it was found to be less practicable as the line is heavily used for freight and would require a diversion of these services over new tracks onto the Chat Moss route to make running a regular service feasible. There were also more general operational issues that it would be expensive and impractical for services to reach Warrington (the natural end point of a line) meaning that the services would not produce as significant a benefit in terms of two way journeys as those to Wigan, Marple and Glossop.

Should the Trafford Centre line be built MUFC will have a dedicated Metrolink stop in addition to its proximity to the already extant Exchage Quay and Old Trafford stops, making an additional tram-train route redundant for the purposes of serving the stadium.

The throughput of the street running trams is far less than a tram-trains with extra cars coupled up. Man U is notorious for getting out of (76,000 is a lot of people), with far too much crowding - these tram-trains would shift far more people.

With such a large stadium and the Quays all together making sure tram-trains are incorporated makes sense. Manchester could miss a big opportunity.

The throughput of the street running trams is far less than a tram-trains with extra cars coupled up. Man U is notorious for getting out of (76,000 is a lot of people), with far too much crowding - these tram-trains would shift far more people.

With such a large stadium and the Quays all together making sure tram-trains are incorporated makes sense. Manchester could miss a big opportunity.

Metrolink run double units from Old Trafford on matchdays, which is as large as any tram-train configuration would be (as it would need to use the existing city centre platforms). Theoretically both the Eccles and planned Trafford lines could also use doubled up vehicles if they were available/it was felt neccessary. Presuming a six minute service on all three lines that gives the planned tram system a hypothetical maximum capacity of ([10services*3lines]*[200vehiclecapacity*2vehicles])*2for each direction=24000 passengers an hour. Adding a tram train line along the CLC route would raise this to at most 32000 (although more likely 28000 as 10 trams per hour on a heavy rail line is unlikely to be possible), which while a substantial increase, does not provide any more capacity than any one of the other three lines.

As for missing the opportunity, the fact is that there isn't currently an opportunity, as until freight can be diverted off the CLC route there isn't the capacity on the rail network to run this kind of service.

Stop already planned on a new line, its already accessible from two lines, extra trams are laid on for matches and it has heavy rail match day services too. This isnt some poorly served stadium like Anfield (2km from nearest station) or Goodison Park (3km)

The throughput of the street running trams is far less than a tram-trains with extra cars coupled up.

And then where do they go from MUFC? Onto the street in the city centre? What does that acheive? And what on earth would you do with a quad set on Metrolink (see below)? Or do you mean off down through Castlefield to Manchester Piccadilly under the 25kV?

I would have thought that the current aspiration to move the MUFC halt eastwards and onto the "main line" (allowing MUFC to re-build the southern stand and trains to run from there to Allerton, Piccadilly, Stockport and East Manchester) would do. Also Trafford Park FLT is there for the duration, as is the stopping CLC service, plus whatever gets chucked off the Chat Moss by TPE and Electrification. Not a good choice for a Tram-train. The only thing going for it is the easy connection to MML at Cornbrook.


Man U is notorious for getting out of (76,000 is a lot of people), with far too much crowding - these tram-trains would shift far more people.
MUFC Halt is 146 metres long, which is six-car or about 560 seats plus 25% (165) standing = 720 in one train (loosely based on 32x stock) wheres a 30m T68 holds 200, and you'd get four on the platform, so 800. Is it really worth all the work? I'd say not.

Anyway (inserts tongue in cheek) won't must MUFC attendees want to be getting Inter-city services from Piccadilly or the airport anyway? :lol:



With such a large stadium and the Quays all together making sure tram-trains are incorporated makes sense. Manchester could miss a big opportunity.

No it doesn't. Too much freight, too many nearby tram stops and aspirations to improve the existing heavy rail facilities anyway. Plus you'd need either electro-diesel or dual-voltage trams for full interoperability.

Anyway (inserts tongue in cheek) won't must MUFC attendees want to be getting Inter-city services from Piccadilly or the airport anyway? :lol:


That is why they need tram-trains to get them onto Mainline platforms quick.

How did Man U get PP to extend to 76,000 when it is clear the transport infrastrcuture cannot cope well enough? It is a nighmare getting away from that place.

Lords In London, Liverpool FC and Man U appear to do what the hell they like. Well LFC were told no stadium over 60,000 unless you put in a rapid-transit rail staion.

That is why they need tram-trains to get them onto Mainline platforms quick.

How did Man U get PP to extend to 76,000 when it is clear the transport infrastrcuture cannot cope well enough? It is a nighmare getting away from that place.

Lords In London, Liverpool FC and Man U appear to do what the hell they like. Well LFC were told no stadium over 60,000 unless you put in a rapid-transit rail staion.

Yah boo Liverpool Sucks!?

Stop already planned on a new line, its already accessible from two
lines, extra trams are laid on for matches and it has heavy rail match day services too. This isnt
some poorly served stadium like Anfield (2km from nearest station) or Goodison Park (3km)

You are wrong..

http://i55.tinypic.com/1zea815.jpg

The blue line is the freight only Canada Dock Branch Line which is being electrified. The black line is
a part of the Merseyrail Northern Line. Merseyrail's Kirkdale station (the blue square where the
Northern Line and the Canada Dock Line meet) is not far from EFC and the Canada Dock Branch Line
not far from LFC. LFC's new stadium will be over where is says "Anfield", nearer to the rail line, just
a little walk - as far as Wembley Park station is from Wembley stadium. LFC have been told to build
a station on the line if they want more than 60,000 in their new stadium - the round red dots are
proposed station locations. Then the line will run passengers and be on Merseyrail. The green
square to the bottom of the Canada Dock Branch Line is a proposed stadium site for EFC, who have
not taken it up. Having two clubs on the Canada Dock Branch Line makes it feasible for opening to
passengers. If LFC get 75,000 and EFC 60,000 and that is approx 60 days per year of events, and
maybe more if other summer events are staged, as well as serving densly populated districts in
normal circumstances.

The end of the blue line is Lime St station. Trains on the Canada Dock Branch Line can sweep east
at Edge Hill and onto St.Helens, Wigan, Manchester if need be. Trains can go north to Southport.
They can sweep south from Edge Hill and onto Liverpool South Parkway (mainline connecetions) and
the airport. If the Edge Hill Spur, using the 1829 Wapping tunnel, goes ahead after 35 years, the
trains on the Canada Dock Branch Line can access the underground section of the city centre from
Edge Hill.

Look at this, applicable to Manchester as well.
http://tinyurl.com/26rfyy6

cheers.

That is why they need tram-trains to get them onto Mainline platforms quick.

How did Man U get PP to extend to 76,000 when it is clear the transport infrastrcuture cannot cope well enough? It is a nighmare getting away from that place.

Lords In London, Liverpool FC and Man U appear to do what the hell they like. Well LFC were told no stadium over 60,000 unless you put in a rapid-transit rail staion.

Serving sports ground is not the primary function of public transport, and nor should it be. How many days a year to 76,000 people descend on Old Trafford? How many days a year do a far large number go to work in central Manchester? What is the contribution to the economy of each football fan versus each worker? An educated guess would be that the demand for access to the city centre is far higher, and improving it far more vaulable to the local economy than it would be to help football fans get home a bit quicker 30 times a year.

What would help improve transport around MUFC would be better park and ride facillities connected to the trams at strategic points on the M60, so that not everyone who drives needs to park on the stadium doorstep.

The answer to every transport problem isn't really expensive infrastructure.

Your fantasy Liverpool Underground ideas again......

Can we see a map of Old Trafford with all the existing Metrolink and NR stops marked up, at the same scale, please?

Serving sports ground is not the primary function of public transport, and nor should it be.


When such large volumes of people decend on a city it is a major consideration. Man U have about 30 days of games per year. Each day is gridlock. That is a lot of disruption. The evening games coincide with the rush hour. Ideally the transport for the stadia and general city usage should go hand in hand. Look at how Melbourne do it. Their loop line can cope with two stadia events simulaneously and serve the community at other times.


What would help improve transport around MUFC would be better park and ride facillities connected to the trams at strategic points on the M60, so that not everyone who drives needs to park on the stadium doorstep.


Park and ride is a great idea - a number of them. I doubt if the trams could shift enough people. They are street running and cannot hold approx 950 like the Merseyrail or London trains.


The answer to every transport problem isn't really expensive infrastructure.

It seems to help. :) But well thought out.

Your fantasy Liverpool Underground ideas again......

What the hell are you on about? The Canada Dock line is not underground, although in deep cutting in some parts.

The map does disprove the allegation by you that EFC and LFC are a long way from rail lines and stations. Liverpool is full of used and disused lines and tunnels.

Can we see a map of Old Trafford with all the existing Metrolink and NR stops marked up, at the same scale, please?

What about the throughput which is the most important aspect. Also what is happening with MCFC? Another place that is a pig to get away from.

What the hell are you on about? The Canada Dock line is not underground, although in deep cutting in some parts.

The map does disprove the allegation by you that EFC and LFC are a long way from rail lines and stations. Liverpool is full of used and disused lines and tunnels.

So your trying to disprove my assertion that these stadiums are poorly served by posting a map of line thats freight only?

When such large volumes of people decend on a city it is a major consideration. Man U have about 30 days of games per year. Each day is gridlock. That is a lot of disruption. The evening games coincide with the rush hour. Ideally the transport for the stadia and general city usage should go hand in hand. Look at how Melbourne do it. Their loop line can cope with two stadia events simulaneously and serve the community at other times.

Park and ride is a great idea - a number of them. I doubt if the trams could shift enough people. They are street running and cannot hold approx 950 like the Merseyrail or London trains.

It seems to help. :) But well thought out.

The trams as planned have a maximum capacity of 24,000 passengers per hour. At present it's probably only 10-12,000 because of single units on the Eccles line and no Trafford Park line but that's something that could be dealt with far more cheaply than your idea if it was required.

Trains carrying 950 people running at the best possible frequency on that line (imagining that all the barriers that John has pointed out to your suggestion could be dealt with) would serve (950passengers per train*5trains per hour)*2directions=9500 passengers per hour. So even if everything was as you want it, the trains would serve fewer passengers than Metrolink currently can, and less than half the maximum capacity of the three Metrolink lines.

Well thought out would be nice. Sadly as with all your suggestions, this is a solution in search of a problem.

Its also funny hes mentioning Melbourne, the largest tram network in the world (245 km (152.2 mi) of track, 500 trams, 28 routes, and 1,813 tram stops).

So your trying to disprove my assertion that these stadiums are poorly served by posting a map of line thats freight only?

Your assertion that right now they are poorly served is WRONG. They may be even better served once electrification comes about. The Canada Dock Branch line runs through heavily populated districts and is a favourite to run passengers. EFC may be out of the frame if they move to a site as yet unknown.

You brought up GP and Anfield.

So again, your trying to disprove my assertion that these stadiums are poorly served by posting a map of line thats electrified but freight only?

Well thought out would be nice. Sadly as with all your suggestions, this is a solution in search of a problem.

Manchester does have a big problem - getting away from Man U is a pig and it disrupts the normal city flow of matters. Even after the upgrades of the trams, 24,000 per hour is not hitting the to be 80,000 of Man U. Using the tram-trains to get people fast onto mainline platforms makes sense because of Man Us large out of town fanbase. It can also accommodate and promote Salford Quays, which Man U is in, so not such a lame idea.

So again, your trying to disprove my assertion that these stadiums are poorly served by posting a map of line thats electrified but freight only?

I have the impression you are not that bright or have an attitide, probably the latter. The post clearly showed that Merseyrail's Kirkdale station is near to EFC and a brisk walk from LFC. It also put accross that the sitution could be far better quite easily with an awaiting freight line that is scheduled to be electrified and earmarked for passengers - it did run passengers at one time, with a station quite near to EFC.

Kirkdale is not 3km from EFC as you stated. Face it. You were wrong. It is easier that way.

Manchester does have a big problem - getteing away from Man U is a pig and it disrupts the normal city flow of matters. Even after the upgrades of the trams, 24,000 per hour is not hitting the to be 80,000 of Man U. Using the tram-trains to get people fast onto mainline platforms makes sense because of Man Us large out of town fanbase. It can also accommodate and promote Salford Quays, which Man U is in, so not such a lame idea.

24,000 is not 80,000, but then neither is 9,000. But if you had to decide whether to invest to carry get 14,000 or 9,000 additional passengers off the roads then the higher number makes sense. Especially when taking into account that the cost is likely to be much lower for a tram based solution. But in the grand scheme of Manchester's transport problems 15 days of peak time congestion in an inner suburb is relatively small beer.

MUFC isn't in Salford Quays. It's near Salford Quays, but not as near as the tram line that already runs through them or the Trafford line that's planned to run next to them. There are longer terms plans for a new rail station at White City that will allow interchange onto the existing and planned tram lines, which is much more likely to promote the Quays than an isoltated station by the stadium, while still being near enough to serve football fans from further afield.

So I am right, whoo getting you to concede it like squeezing milk from a stone, but beating trolls at their own game is always enjoyable.

24,000 is not 80,000, but then neither is 9,000.


I am not saying do not expand the trams over a tram-train to the local mainlines and beyond.


MUFC isn't in Salford Quays. It's near Salford Quays,


It is near the southern quays of the basin. Effectively all the same complex. Any tram-trains that serve Man U can be extended to all the complex.

So I am right, whoo getting you to concede it like squeezing milk from a stone, but beating trolls at their own game is always enjoyable.

This one is some sort of.....:) :)

I am not saying do not expand the trams over a tram-train to the local mainlines and beyond.

It is near the southern quays of the basin. Effectively all the same complex. Any tram-trains that serve Man U can be extended to all the complex.

How? How can a five unit tram-train cross the Irwell, serve Salford Quays and then head to Piccadilly? You do realise that tram-trains are trams that run on train tracks, not trains that run on tram tracks don't you?

How? How can a five unit tram-train cross the Irwell, serve Salford Quays and then head to Piccadilly?


The same way it does it now, over that bridge. A line fro the Quays can skirt Man U, leaving a big station (I believe the existing station is difficult to expand). and peel onto the tracks to mainline.

One thing is clear, a direct link to mainline platforms is needed to serve the Quays and Man U. This would also be a mechanism to promote the Quays.

The same tram-trains could be used to served MCFC who would need direct mainline platform access.


You do realise that tram-trains are trams that run on train tracks, not trains that run on tram tracks don't you?

Uh! :)

That is why they need tram-trains to get them onto Mainline platforms quick.
Why would you connect one National Rail station to another National Rail station with tram-trains? You have two (possibly soon to become three) LRT lines and a bus corridor to also move people away from the stadium. It's not like the crowds have suddenly appeared from nowhere.

At least you aren't proposing they board ships and sail into Manchester. :bash:

The same way it does it now, over that bridge. A line fro the Quays can skirt Man U, leaving a big station (I believe the existing station is difficult to expand). and peel onto the tracks to mainline.

One thing is clear, a direct link to mainline platforms is needed to serve the Quays and Man U. This would also be a mechanism to promote the Quays.

The same tram-trains could be used to served MCFC who would need direct mainline platform access.



So a line from the Quays should cross the eastbound Metrolink bridge, make a sharp turn south west to MUFC and then pull a U turn and head back in the opposite direction along the existing rail line towards Piccaddilly? :lol:

I have the impression you are not that bright or have an attitide

Funny, thats exactly the opinion I have of you, not of WatcherZero..

Why would you connect one National Rail station to another National Rail station with tram-trains? You have two (possibly soon to become three) LRT lines and a bus corridor to also move people away from the stadium. It's not like the crowds have suddenly appeared from nowhere.

At least you aren't proposing they board ships and sail into Manchester. :bash:

Hey, here's an idea no-one's thought of*! Why not move the MUFC halt onto the CLC main line and then run EMUs between Manchester Piccadilly 13 and 14 (or even the 4th platform at the Airport**) and the turnback siding at Cornbrook on match days?

Longer term we could add some OLE as part of plans for a west exit from Trafford Park FLT*** and run the EMUs to Allerton.



*I know, honest, please don't spoil the joke
** Sshhh
*** Quiet at the back, or I'll keep all of you back after school

At least you aren't proposing they board ships and sail into Manchester.

You have the seeds of a good idea. Pile them onto a ship moored at the quays opposite Man U and take them down the canal to a rail station and park and ride stop. A ship carries many 1000s of people. The Mersey ferries can be brought up for Man U games to shift them as well. A ferry shuttle can shift many 1000s.

you dont need 80,000 an hour capacity on the trams anyway. despite what many city fans would have you believe, a lot of united fans live local enough to the ground to walk there. you should try going out running and negotiating your way around 10,000 salfordians making their way across the bridge near the lowry centre on match days.

and this comes down to cost vs benefits. why build a transport infrastructure that can handle 80,000 people an hour when that capacity is only required 30 hours a year?

with your understanding of economics romania you should apply for a job working for robert mugabe's government.

Funny, thats exactly the opinion I have of you, not of WatcherZero..



Its the sea air, frazzles his brain cells.

Its the sea air, frazzles his brain cells.

Doesn't he live in Milton Keyes?

Why would you connect one National Rail station to another National Rail station with tram-trains?

The trams can run on tram tracks as well.

The trams can run on tram tracks as well.

Not if they're configured as five tram long trains they can't.

Its the sea air, frazzles his brain cells.

Amazing. It is clear you do not know how long 3kms is, even after being given a map. It is proven fact that breathing salt air improves brain power. Look at the USA. Ever been to Kansas?

Not if they're configured as five tram long trains they can't.

The French manage that very well. Ever been to Strasburg? A train comes into the street.

you dont need 80,000 an hour capacity on the trams anyway. despite what many city fans would have you believe, a lot of united fans live local enough to the ground to walk there. you should try going out running and negotiating your way around 10,000 salfordians making their way across the bridge near the lowry centre on match days.

and this comes down to cost vs benefits. why build a transport infrastructure that can handle 80,000 people an hour when that capacity is only required 30 hours a year?

with your understanding of economics romania you should apply for a job working for robert mugabe's government.

You didn't get it. The improved tram-trains would benefit the Quays and Man U. And whoever gave Man U PP to go to 76,000 was irresponsible as the transport infrastructure can't cope. It can with some thought.

Man U does have a great outside fanbase - as does Liverpool. Ever been on the M6 at a Man U home game?

BTW, I did ecomonics at uni.

Romania1 - 511 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=74214354&postcount=511) violation, please desist.


BTW, I did ecomonics at uni.

I did Physics, what's your point?

The French manage that very well. Ever been to Strasburg? A train comes into the street.

Bully for them (although I suspect you are confusing Strasbourg , France with Strasburg, USA). Whichever you mean is irrelevant though, as Metrolink has not been designed to carry the weight of five car unit trains on its tracks or over its bridges, nor has it been designed for more than two tram units to stop at its stations.

Ultimately the point is that it isn't worth investing in something so expensive when it only benefits a few thousand people on 15 days of the year.

Tram-train does have a viable future in Manchester (presuming the Sheffield trial goes ahead and is judged a success) but more likely not on this corridor and certainly not in the form of the scheme you propose.

Romania1 - 511 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=74214354&postcount=511) violation, please desist.

I did Physics, what's your point?

I did psychology. It's very helpful in threads like this.

BTW, I did ecomonics at uni.

Looks like you failed on the first line, writing the name of the subject.

You didn't get it. The improved tram-trains would benefit the Quays and Man U. And whoever gave Man U PP to go to 76,000 was irresponsible as the transport infrastructure can't cope. It can with some thought.

Man U does have a great outside fanbase - as does Liverpool. Ever been on the M6 at a Man U home game?

BTW, I did ecomonics at uni.


The quays are home to about 7 Metrolink stops already, all of which lead to Manchester Piccadilly, one of the biggest/busiest mainline heavy rail stations outside London. How would tram-trains from Old Trafford significantly improve on this other than provide extra capacity on match days?

If you really studied economics (at Universty of Harare? Narnia?), why do you consistantly fail to understand that your proposals will cost millions, if not billions, with little scope for any net benefit or return on investment?

Are you the chap who advised the goverment on the national ID card scheme, the NHS computerisation etc etc....?

oh, and I have a degree too....

The quays are home to about 7 Metrolink stops already, all of which lead to Manchester Piccadilly,


Small capaity trundling rams makes sod all impact on 76,000. Have you been there after a game?


one of the biggest/busiest mainline heavy rail stations outside London. How would tram-trains from Old Trafford significantly improve on this other than provide extra capacity on match days?


You must focus. The words The Quays.


If you really studied economics (at Universty of Harare? Narnia?), why do you consistantly fail to understand that your proposals will cost millions,


No one is talking money. It is idenifying the need, which is there. And then a solution which is desparately needed. The money comes after.


with little scope for any net benefit or return on investment?


Urban rail does not return profits from ticket sales. It creates economic growth that needs to be captured to keep them running.


oh, and I have a degree too....

In woodwork?

Looks like

You obviously did not do geography at skool. Or is it the maths you did not do? Kirdale station is 3kms from EFC? Wow! some maths.

I did Physics, what's your point?

Keep up now.

Metrolink has not been designed to carry the weight of five car unit trains on its tracks or over its bridges, nor has it been designed for more than two tram units to stop at its stations.


What a bummer. It looks like using the heavy rail tracks is the only way.


Ultimately the point is that it isn't worth investing in something so expensive when it only benefits a few thousand people on 15 days of the year.


Keep up. The words The Quays


Tram-train does have a viable future in Manchester (presuming the Sheffield trial goes ahead and is judged a success) but more likely not on this corridor and certainly not in the form of the scheme you propose.

What uses are they talking about?

What a bummer. It looks like using the heavy rail tracks is the only way.

Keep up. The words The Quays



It's hardly surprising is it; light rail system built to light rail standards? But since The Quays are doing perfectly well without heavy rail tracks cutting through them I think we'll leave them as they are thanks. They could do with a better interchange onto the CLC line, but as Joseph pointed out, that's something that's been proposed before as part of closing MUFC halt and building a replacement on the main line nearby.

What uses are they talking about?

The scheme that seems most likely is the conversion of local rail services to Marple to tram-train and routing it into Metrolink east of Piccadilly, to allow more frequent services on this suburban line. Other suggestions have included the Mid Cheshire line to Northwich, the Altrincham-Stockport route and the Wigan via Atherton line. These are all quiet and semi-isolated stretches of the local network where tram-trains would allow increased frequency, but that aren't suitable for full Metrolink conversion. Less likely are the Bolton, Rochdale via Castleton and Glossop lines as they are busier and used by regional services that might interfere with increased local frequency.

Small capaity trundling rams makes sod all impact on 76,000. Have you been there after a game?



You must focus. The words The Quays.



No one is talking money. It is idenifying the need, which is there. And then a solution which is desparately needed. The money comes after.



Urban rail does not return profits from ticket sales. It creates economic growth that needs to be captured to keep them running.



In woodwork?

1. I live in Salford and work in Trafford Park, go figure. I think I should know better than someone who lives in Liverpool or Milton Keynes ;) What impact will a few more train-trams be on 76,000 people, and that only happens twice a month.... both government and MUFC have better ways to spend millions from more and more limited pot of money...

2. The Quays... umm focusing on them, in fact will be there in about 20mins... I mean we are talking about Salford Quay? or Romania Quays?

3. Umm, kinda always comes down to money, as any good economist will tell you... no one was talking about profit.

4. Actually not far off... :)

Keep up. The words The Quays





so not the 76,000 coming out of old trafford?

THE QUAYS, has 7 Metrolink stations - keep up!

It's hardly surprising is it; light rail system built to light rail standards? But since The Quays are doing perfectly well without heavy rail tracks cutting through them I think we'll leave them as they are thanks.


The Quays are far from complete. There is a hell of lot to do. The need to improve the trams will come as they just will not cope.


The scheme that seems most likely is the conversion of local rail services to Marple to tram-train and routing it into Metrolink east of Piccadilly, to allow more frequent services on this suburban line. Other suggestions have included the Mid Cheshire line to Northwich, the Altrincham-Stockport route and the Wigan via Atherton line. These are all quiet and semi-isolated stretches of the local network where tram-trains would allow increased frequency, but that aren't suitable for full Metrolink conversion. Less likely are the Bolton, Rochdale via Castleton and Glossop lines as they are busier and used by regional services that might interfere with increased local frequency.

Fequency of service is very important in off-peak hours. People will not wait 1/2 for a train. Doubling the tram-trains at peak hours can then get the throughput.

The Quays are far from complete. There is a hell of lot to do. Not that much. A bit of infilling here and there and it should be finished. Too much water if you ask me.

:ohno:utterly farcical

Romania1, you're not Sloynes grandchild from Milton Keynes by any chance are you?

Only you really love the sound of your own voice an'all...

Or the sound of other people screaming with the rage of incomprehension

I was on the M62 on Saturday travelling to Leeds and a new style tram was on the back of a truck heading towards Manchester. Was a bit strange to see, assume it was a delivery of a new tram????

:ohno:utterly farcical

I know what you mean. :(

THE QUAYS, has 7 Metrolink stations - keep up!

Correction. 7 tram stops. Metros are rapid-transit, trams are not. Trams are electric buses on rails.

Correction. 7 tram stops. Metros are rapid-transit, trams are not. Trams are electric buses on rails.

He didn't say 'metro' though; he said 'Metrolink', which is the brand name of the system. Besides which, you are actually wrong (again).

Metrolink is a hybrid (neither tram nor heavy rail) but it was quickly christened by the public and has since become affectionately known as a tram.

(http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pdf/past_present_future.pdf)

He didn't say 'metro' though; he said 'Metrolink', which is the brand name of the system. Besides which, you are actually wrong (again).

(http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pdf/past_present_future.pdf)

It is a tram. It runs on streets. You even said it was a tram. It is clearly not a metro in the sense of London Underground, Meresyrail, Tyne & Waer Metro, etc. It carries far too few and goes at far too slow a speed.

as the network currently stands, most of its routes run on old railway lines, completely segregated from roads, as per light rail. It also uses high-floor units requiring high platforms which again much like a light rail... so is a Hybrid

It carries far too few and goes at far too slow a speed.Irrelevant. 'Metro' services are defined by frequency, not speed. It is the number of passengers per hour that count.

It's not good to start changing definitions when you are losing the argument.

its not just the definitions, its the whole arguement he's changing... :D :D :D
the loon...

if trams are piddly trundling electric buses, they wont be much good running into the halt at MUFC :D

They are Trams
They stop at tram stops.
Other statements are void.

its not just the definitions, its the whole arguement he's changing... :D :D :D
the loon...

if trams are piddly trundling electric buses, they wont be much good running into the halt at MUFC :D

Tram-trains are more substantial.

I was looking at a map and the Mersey ferries could be used to shuttle many thousands down the canal, before the first lock, to rail and park & ride points. There are three ferries and two could be used for the day. A partial solution to congestion it under your noses - use the water. Those ferry boats hold a hell of a lot when most are standing.

what is your business case for your latest ground breaking proposal then oh transport minister for the peoples republic of zimbabwe? i assume you have one dont you?

It is a tram. It runs on streets. You even said it was a tram. It is clearly not a metro in the sense of London Underground, Meresyrail, Tyne & Waer Metro, etc. It carries far too few and goes at far too slow a speed.

Why you've mentioned those sytems, I have no idea. Are you now changing your argument? Are you now saying that Manchester needs an underground system to cope with demand? It's very clear to me and everyone else reading this that there is simply nowhere near the kind of demand required to justify a system akin to LU. As for Merseyrail and T&W Metro, from my experience I doubt very much that the capacites and frequencies available on those sytems are significantly greater than those offered by Metrolink.

Interesting that you now acknowledge that Metrolink operates on the street (on relatively small sections of the network); do you now accept that the whole concept of a tram-train with longer muliple unit vehicles would not be possible in that case? Do you now admit that this entire thread is nothing more than another example of you satisfying your passive aggressive tendencies in a bid to pass the vast amounts of free time that you have?

Tram-trains are more substantial.

I was looking at a map and the Mersey ferries could be used to shuttle many thousands down the canal, before the first lock, to rail and park & ride points. There are three ferries and two could be used for the day. A partial solution to congestion it under your noses - use the water. Those ferry boats hold a hell of a lot when most are standing.

No they aren't. They are trams that run on train tracks. Any vehicle operated in manchester as a tram-train would have to be compatible with the existing infrastructure, so larger vehicles are not feasible.

Tram-trains are more substantial.

I was looking at a map and the Mersey ferries could be used to shuttle many thousands down the canal, before the first lock, to rail and park & ride points. There are three ferries and two could be used for the day. A partial solution to congestion it under your noses - use the water. Those ferry boats hold a hell of a lot when most are standing.

I stopped reading this thread after page one and skipped straight to the end. This comment has F*** all to do with this thread at all! (a thread you started btw) Jog on please, I suggest everyone just leave him be otherwise it could be a long and tedious process resulting in a pointless thread full of stuff that isn't worth reading.

Talking of odd smells and feeling the need to go underground.

Free time.

I am off today. I had kippers this morning and they have erm "smoked" the house out.

Doors and windows are now wide open.

Any suggestions Priscilla or any other domesticated forumista on how I can remove this fishy smell before the 1.5 metres of feminine fun returns home at 5?

Have you tried Febreeze? I believe it is available from both major superstore operators which happen to be situated at opposite sides of Heaton Park?

Clearly I'm not domesticated enough to know of how to get rid of the smell, but I do know that proper extraction is an often overlooked must in the kitchen, something this scenario illustrates. At least the weather is nice enough for you to have your windows open.

A bit late I know, but Lakeland Plastics do a nice (manly) pongy-candle-in-a-tin...

Why you've mentioned those sytems, I have no idea. Are you now changing your argument? Are you now saying that Manchester needs an underground system to cope with demand?


You hit on a good point. Mcr needs an undergound system for sure. Thyy can fund it as Hong Kong did.

How Hong Kong approaches land value tax ideal. FT.. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5e123b0a-4dd9-11e0-85e4-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GZszhLIP)

Rosen says (clips from FT, not all article)..

"Government should be financed from land rents."

"Mr Pilling writes, for example: “By this means, Hong Kong has conjured a cheap and gleaming transport system seemingly out of nothing.” Precisely. A transport system makes land more valuable so, if it is worth building, it can and should be paid for out of the increased land rents it creates."

"A classic statement of the case for land value taxation is – instead of paying rent to a landlord and tax to the state, why not pay rent to the state, and no taxes? Hong Kong comes closer to this ideal than most places."

So Hong Kong, has conjured a cheap and gleaming transport system seemingly out of nothing. By using the correct taxation method, taxing the values of land.

45% of the HK governments expenditure comes from land. Top income tax rate is 17%. No wonder Hong Kong a financial steam roller.


It's very clear to me and everyone else reading this that there is simply nowhere near the kind of demand required to justify a system akin to LU.


Underground systems create economic growth. The economy would get larger. In short they create the demand. You are putting the cart before the horse.


As for Merseyrail and T&W Metro, from my experience I doubt very much that the capacites and frequencies available on those sytems are significantly greater than those offered by Metrolink.


The trams cannot compete with the likes of Merseyrail. Merseyrail shifts many thousands very fast under a wide river and under town and city centres. You are deluded if you think a tram system can outdo an urban rapid-transit network like Merseyrail or T&W Metro.


Interesting that you now acknowledge that Metrolink operates on the street (on relatively small sections of the network); do you now accept that the whole concept of a tram-train with longer muliple unit vehicles would not be possible in that case? Do you now admit that this entire thread is nothing more than another example of you satisfying your passive aggressive tendencies in a bid to pass the vast amounts of free time that you have?

The great thing about tram-trains is that they run on existing fast tracks and have the flexibility at both ends to get to the hot points. Use the existing rail tracks, because they are there.

My time is precious. You can hire it, but I am not cheap. :)

I stopped reading this thread after page one and skipped straight to the end.

Read it all and pay attention.

a pointless thread full of stuff that isn't worth reading.I think we could have guessed that from Post No. 1 ;)

A bit late I know, but Lakeland Plastics do a nice (manly) pongy-candle-in-a-tin...

Candles. I would need to go on a hunting tour of Siberia if I bought a candle and I consider myself a metrosexual type as well. Grrrl!!!!

Well kids, despite freezing my bollix off with an afternoon of open doors and windows, I found a rogue cheap "masculine" deodorant in one of those obscure places in the bedroom that only amazingly comes accessible when you are in a pickle.

Or more accurately a kipper.

So it instantly changed from smelling like a tramp's ring piece gone wrong to being like a 15 year old lad on his first date. Well the start of the evening that is.

She didn't notice anyway.

Success. Back of the net!!!

Where's the nearest Lakeland?

I think we could have guessed that from Post No. 1 ;)

NOT TRUE.

I have learnt that Lakeland Plastics do a candle of a manly nature.


Which sort of makes me (erm) wonder.


:llama::llama:

Candles. I would need to go on a hunting tour of Siberia if I bought a candle and I consider myself a metrosexual type as well. Grrrl!!!!

Well kids, despite freezing my bollix off with an afternoon of open doors and windows, I found a rogue cheap "masculine" deodorant in one of those obscure places in the bedroom that only amazingly comes accessible when you are in a pickle.

Or more accurately a kipper.

So it instantly changed from smelling like a tramp's ring piece gone wrong to being like a 15 year old lad on his first date. Well the start of the evening that is.

She didn't notice anyway.

Success. Back of the net!!!

Where's the nearest Lakeland?

Handforth:-

http://www.lakeland.co.uk/L?content=stores/handforth.htm

:nuts:

Cheers.


Is there an underground monorail paid for by lego value tax that changed Harpurhey into a financial steam roller that goes from Heaton Park to Handforth?

Funny isn't it but a mere s changes Handforth from sounding posh to Handsforth and it suddenly becomes all innah citeeh bro.



Am I talking bollix again on my own. Oh yeah, it's not just me then........

Cheers.


Is there an underground monorail paid for by lego value tax that changed Harpurhey into a financial steam roller that goes from Heaton Park to Handforth?

Funny isn't it but a mere s changes Handforth from sounding posh to Handsforth and it suddenly becomes all innah citeeh bro.



Am I talking bollix again on my own. Oh yeah, it's not just me then........

Does Handforth sound posh though? Or is it because it's next to Wilmslow and that's what people think when they here the name. It's a nice place to live but not posh. It's quite mixed with lots of council estates in/nearby - Spath Lane, Knowle Park and Colshaw Farm and Lacey Green. Wilmslow North is one of the most deprived areas of England!

http://menmedia.co.uk/wilmslowexpress/news/s/1185513_deprivation_in_wilmslow_shock

No monorail though.

So not posh then? It has a rail way though. Cool. I am on my way.

We need this in Wilmslow. Paid by a levy on chewing gum, the excessive froth of lattes and chinese lanterns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulg8A1tGbuE

And you were wondering what John's auntie was doing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbp25GXf4rQg.

No monorail though.
Shhh! Maglev is the one type of transport he hasn't mentioned yet. (Drat)

Shhh! Maglev is the one type of transport he hasn't mentioned yet. (Drat)

Oh yes he has...! (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=407723&page=15)

there is a lakeland store in liverpool1. maybe if romania1 had been paying attention (at the back) he could have pointed that out and helped you obtain those candles. is kipper smoking a big thing for scousers so they get a dedicated candle-in-a-tin lakeland store?

Cheers.


Is there an underground monorail paid for by lego value tax that changed Harpurhey into a financial steam roller that goes from Heaton Park to Handforth?

Funny isn't it but a mere s changes Handforth from sounding posh to Handsforth and it suddenly becomes all innah citeeh bro.



Am I talking bollix again on my own. Oh yeah, it's not just me then........

Thats a legacy of Alistair "badger brows" darling's H-Plan, where undergroung monorail, coupled with an injection of £3bn of government grant to towns and suburbs, connected and reviatilsed towns with names starting with H. Only worked for the town at the epicentre of the plan, Heaton Park. Heaton, Newcastle-upon-Tyne was upset by this, more so after learning they onlyhad a 'metro' system that no matter how many pointless arguements may happen, it'll only be a meteo system, never a 'hybrid' or a 'tram', the monorail connecting them with Haslemere being the only good news since 1872 and the invention of the meat pie.

Excellant Heart.

I am sure that Darling would have used the term "incentivized" somewhere in his address on the H Plan.

H was also for HYBRID.

Secret plans only revealed this morning by our local transport correspondent David Otterwail, could have seen a hybrid heritage tram cum monorail cum meteor metro cum translohr cum rickshaw that would have been 5 kilometres below Manchester with stops at Hyde, Heaton Park, Harpurhey, Horwich and Hale Barns.

It would have been paid for by a special lyrca value tax, despite opposition from the spandex (Real rockers wear plastic) society in Wigan.

Sadly due to economic cutbacks, this scheme was dropped.

Meanwhile more news on the airship service to be run on all the hot air from Skyscrapercity that will solve Leigh's transport problems.

And celebrity Big Red Terry Buddhist asks: "WHERE IS GODZILLA WHEN WE NEED YOu."

Shhh! Maglev is the one type of transport he hasn't mentioned yet. (Drat)

But anything is better than trams.

Good stuff :lol:

I thought the secret plan was to shift the Paranoid Delusion department of GMPTE out of the Guardian tunnel and use cast-off London Post Office underground trains, powered by bio-methane from a secret plant in the Lakes Estate area of Milton Keynes, to provide a 100,000 mph rapid transit system between Crescent and Ardwick?

You forgot the Maglev Joseph.

An upside down Maglev. Nay Rotating Maglev from The Diddyman Quarter, Milton Keynes to the museum of petrolheads in Dumplington.

To be powered by the dead cyber souls of former Skyscraper forumistas.

Have I mentioned wikipedia has entries on LVT in different languages?

But anything is better than trams.
(I'll regret this but here goes...)
Please explain then why you were the one that started a thread on how good trams would be?

powered by bio-methane from a secret plant in the Lakes Estate area of Milton Keynes

That wouldn't be using reprocessed bullshit would it?

Madferret. Civilisation will regret it.

That wouldn't be using reprocessed bullshit would it?

Talking of ill judged smells. You may be pleased to know that on my second day off this week, I played it safe with porridge. Odlums of course. Ping and no fishy odour, which gets me back to this thread.

Supermoon this Saturday I believe. Can't wait for the posts that night.

That wouldn't be using reprocessed bullshit would it?

Concrete* cows don't produce bullsh*t.

*Actually scrap skinned with fibre glass reinforced concrete.

Since we can't seem to decide where these ideas fit, have a new thread for all things tram-train in the North West.

The NR trial in Sheffield has just been put out to tender for ouline design, so I suspect Manchester will start looking at the results from Sheffield about the time that Phase 3 has bedded in and the Northern Hub plan has clarified slightly.

How long would you expect to be between the tender being issues and TTs actually running in South Yorkshire?

2014 was expected start date I believe.

Since we can't seem to decide where these ideas fit, have a new thread for all things tram-train in the North West.

The NR trial in Sheffield has just been put out to tender for ouline design, so I suspect Manchester will start looking at the results from Sheffield about the time that Phase 3 has bedded in and the Northern Hub plan has clarified slightly.

Is this in anyway related to the GRIP process - in which case what stage at is it at?
If this is some type of proof of concept trial there must be by definition some base line concept criteria, for example, the route runs from where in Sheffield to where in Rotherham? Is there a requirement to use COTS equipment (although I must concede everybody seems to have differing definitions of where COTS ends and bespoke begins? Are basic traction assumptions being made -diesel,electric, bi-mode etc?

Is this in anyway related to the GRIP process - in which case what stage at is it at?
If this is some type of proof of concept trial there must be by definition some base line concept criteria, for example, the route runs from where in Sheffield to where in Rotherham? Is there a requirement to use COTS equipment (although I must concede everybody seems to have differing definitions of where COTS ends and bespoke begins? Are basic traction assumptions being made -diesel,electric, bi-mode etc?

GRIP3 is done, GRIP4 is out to tender.

It runs from just east of Meadowhall (Tinsley) to an out of town shopping park beyond Rotherham Central (Parkgate).

COTS-ish, as the joint running places some restrictions on the vehicles (and there's no such thing as a standard LRV).

All electric operation, as an extension of SST.

Although there has been a lot of speculation as to the ease of a western Metrolink extension from the airport to the Altrincham Chester line - has any planning been done? If so is there a preferred alignment through the airport ? Where would the connection to the CLC be? Would there be a triangular junction enabling trams from both Chester and Altrincham to connect with the Airport?

The so-called western link ran out of the back of the southern two platforms, ran alongside the M56 and then turned south west to join the mid-cheshire just north of Mobberley. At 90mph. It the Metrolink did this the route would be radically different, as to start with the hole in GTI basement points the wrong way!

I don't see this happening first, as the patronage from Middlewich and Northwich would be largely be heading for the city, wouldn't it? Building the WL as heavy rail doesn't preclude later shared operation though.

Basically the scheme now is electrification of a line at 750v, four 'tram-trains' two new stations and a short stretch of track to connect it to the Sheffield tram network. They were still open to the vehicles being dual voltage (if supplier offered a good deal) last I heard.

Ok, is anyone willing to do a quick resume of what COTS tram trains are currently on offer in the market place, and from who?
EG power source (Diesel/DC/AC/combination(s)), collection method (OHL/3rd rail/etc)HighFloor/Low Floor etc.

What is Manchester likely to learn from the sheffield trial?
eg will the UK ever approve trams (lrv) for main line running? what are the wear rates for different track designs?

From my simple perspective the plan, as described above, just seems to require a standard tram with improved crash design, and few other learning oppertunities. It certainly wont provide a design for the mid cheshire line or NW-SE cross city service.

Always willing to be educated from the experiance available on this forum!

Ok, is anyone willing to do a quick resume of what COTS tram trains are currently on offer in the market place, and from who?
EG power source (Diesel/DC/AC/combination(s)), collection method (OHL/3rd rail/etc)HighFloor/Low Floor etc.

Not my field, sorry
What is Manchester likely to learn from the sheffield trial?
eg will the UK ever approve trams (lrv) for main line running? what are the wear rates for different track designs?
Exactly that - how to get a light rail vehicle safety case approved for operation on a heavy rail line, and what implications that has for the heavy rail system.

Virtually every rail-based system uses a different rail and tyre profile combination, optimised for different aims. How this plays out in practice is a key question, and WRI modelling will only go so far to answer it.

Bigger questions for SRTT (but not for Metrolink) is the platform / vehicle interface, as acheiving NR passing clearances and LRV threshold compatibility and NR stepping distances and LRV clearance all at the same time is "challenging".
From my simple perspective the plan, as described above, just seems to require a standard tram with improved crash design, and few other learning oppertunities. It certainly wont provide a design for the mid cheshire line or NW-SE cross city service.
Why not? Why do you think crash-worthiness is an issue? Trams are designed to withstand them colliding with another vehicle, so that's OK. There is no tram on earth that can be made to withstand being hit by a 1600 tonne coal train without ending up being a train anyway (remember when that WCML express over-ran a Pacer? Crashworthy? I think not) so why not cut the issue off at source and fit TPWS to every signal and let the trams run LOS? That's where the safety case issues become the big items.

Other engineering issues (like trams that are good at street running are lousy at high speed) are not specific to Tram train.
Always willing to be educated from the experiance available on this forum!

Hear hear!

The so-called western link ran out of the back of the southern two platforms, ran alongside the M56 and then turned south west to join the mid-cheshire just north of Mobberley. At 90mph. It the Metrolink did this the route would be radically different, as to start with the hole in GTI basement points the wrong way!

I don't see this happening first, as the patronage from Middlewich and Northwich would be largely be heading for the city, wouldn't it? Building the WL as heavy rail doesn't preclude later shared operation though.

As a GM Council taxpayer this should never get off the ground whilst there is no metrolink in Stockport (or Bolton or even Wigan) - if TT becomes an option then the Marple line should be added back into the plan (as it was on the original metrolink plans of the late 80's) first before any hair-brained schemes to hook in West Cheshire....

As a GM Council taxpayer this should never get off the ground whilst there is no metrolink in Stockport (or Bolton or even Wigan) - if TT becomes an option then the Marple line should be added back into the plan (as it was on the original metrolink plans of the late 80's) first before any hair-brained schemes to hook in West Cheshire....

I don't think Marple or Atherton have been out of the plan. Bolton would be via Bury, which might be unattractive, but we shall see.

Ok, is anyone willing to do a quick resume of what COTS tram trains are currently on offer in the market place, and from who?
EG power source (Diesel/DC/AC/combination(s)), collection method (OHL/3rd rail/etc)HighFloor/Low Floor etc.

What is Manchester likely to learn from the sheffield trial?
eg will the UK ever approve trams (lrv) for main line running? what are the wear rates for different track designs?

From my simple perspective the plan, as described above, just seems to require a standard tram with improved crash design, and few other learning oppertunities. It certainly wont provide a design for the mid cheshire line or NW-SE cross city service.

Always willing to be educated from the experience available on this forum!

For reasons given above about system optimisation a complete off the shelf tram train would a stretch but the reuse of major subsystems is common practice as can be seen for example in the current proposal to repackage TRAXX locomotives with a UK loading gauge

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/traxx-uk-aimed-at-two-uk-franchises.html

There is NO NEED for tram-train trials, as LRVs have already operating, succesfully, on the heavy rail network (without incident) for nearly a decade. On the Newcastle - Sunderland route, heavy freights, normal passenger rolling stock, and the LRVs exist quite happily.

It just a stand off from DfT from either procuring heavy rail rolling stock (which it doesn't want to do) or authorising full conversion to LRT (which it doesn't want to do either). Northern Rail just want to play lap-dog and 'seen' to be doing 'something' rather than nothing, just like DfT.

Even though Railtrack had a bad reputation, at least they got something done, rather than constant studies and pilot projects. Excuse to go on foreign jollies and have numerous meetings while dragging the whole debacle out for years, while consultants make a packet.

There is NO NEED for tram-train trials, as LRVs have already operating, succesfully, on the heavy rail network (without incident) for nearly a decade. On the Newcastle - Sunderland route, heavy freights, normal passenger rolling stock, and the LRVs exist quite happily.Street running? Platform height and clearances? To name but two, errm, three.

Issues more the other way round, trams operating on heavy rail networks where things like standard point design could derail a trams smaller wheels.

Street running? Platform height and clearances? To name but two, errm, three.

These are liable to be a greater issue for Sheffield with its low floor/low platform running than for Greater Manchester where the Tyne and Wear Metro analogy holds true.

I take the point about compatible wheel profiles, track and point work - but hopefully one of the good things to come out of this trial is an engineering solution to the obvious problem of different train suspension requirements for in town and inter urban running - the solution could lie in either the suspension or the track or both..

The reconciliation of the Tunstead Northwich hoppers into the traffic stream on the route from Navigation Road south will be interesting - How does that work on Tyne and Wear? Is it time segregated by running freight trains only at night or does mixed mode running occur?

In terms of other current examples of "true" as opposed to pseudo tram trains see
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/mulhouse-tram-train-enters-service.html
also
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hhhumber/5818613203/

Issues more the other way round, trams operating on heavy rail networks where things like standard point design could derail a trams smaller wheels.

So how come it has to be 'proven' again? There are numerous points and crossovers along the Newcastle - Sunderland route, and have been operating safely for years. I don't buy the argument, and never have. Proof is out there, both at home and abroad. Despite different signalling systems on heavy and LRVs, it works because of sufficient layovers (or safety buffers) between different paths.

Apologies if this has been answered before - I think I've asked it before but I can't seem to find it - but why can't an 'active' suspension system be developed for trams or tram/trains? A system that adapts, very much like on a sport/supercar, that when the tram goes fast it firms up, and when its trundling round the CC slowly it softens up?

Apologies if this has been answered before - I think I've asked it before but I can't seem to find it - but why can't an 'active' suspension system be developed for trams or tram/trains? A system that adapts, very much like on a sport/supercar, that when the tram goes fast it firms up, and when its trundling round the CC slowly it softens up?

In the days of the Railway Technical Centre it probably could have done so.
http://www.railwaybritain.co.uk/railway%20technical%20centre%20derby.html
Mind you these were the chaps who bought us the bow and curtsey suspension
underneath every Pacer.

Since we can't seem to decide where these ideas fit, have a new thread for all things tram-train in the North West.


In the North West? Then why put it in the Manchester forum?

Liverpool talked about these to run off Merseyrail to South Parkway and then via the centres of dual carriageways to John Lennon Airport. A dumb idea to me when lines are quite close to the airport anyhow. Lines that can take direct trains form all major towns in the North West, inc central Manchester, and Liverpool city centre.

Do not respond to MarineMan - it is trolly John from Milton Keynes who is doing his best to ruin all the threads in the Liverpool subforum.

Mwmbwls The derby rail shed was something else. Thanks to our delightful Whitehall-Westminster-city of London elite British manufacturing and technical might now resides on all shores from California to India.

In those salad days spent in the east midlands, I meet some very sharp but rem curious fellas at Brel.

No chance now sadly, but we have a superb banking (croaks) sector now.

Before some nob begins to rattle on about monorails and land value tax, tram-trains are the final ingredient in the mancunian transport mix. Where heavy electric rail and tram cannot go,the tram-train will.

I was think exactly the same - what a loss :(

But I can't help thinking tram-trains are a bit half-@r$ed stop-gappy and compromised. By the time the trial has been done we could have coverted the Marple line to proper Metrolink...

A Mancunian tram-train would have to be a curious creature given the variety of challenges that the rails of Mancunia would present to it.

And what a variety show it would have to be.

A unique suspension that embraces street running and the good bad and ugly tracks south of altrincham and west of swinton.
Would it need to be powered by a diesel engine and Ohl at 7500dc and 25kv.
Needs perhaps ERTMS and automatic warning system.
Will have to be timetabled into the existing metro link system if it goes along the altrincham line.
A new cross city line if it initially enters the mother city at either Salford crescent or victoria et al.
And will the fine citizenry of Cheshire require a toilet facility?

I know what you mean heart, but once a line has been converted to light rail, it seriously limits it's use. The marple line hosts various freight operations, the Sheffield heavy rail stopper as well as acts as a heritage line and an occasional alternative for Sheffield-Manchester trains.

Tram-trains should theoretically allow for broader usage than trams. Plus we are really only thing of four tph than the ten you see on a met line.

MarneMan = John from Milton Keynes.

I can't understand why the Ashburys - Romiley section be 'fully' converted, there is no freight origin/destined, and all other services could be diverted via Stockport or Guide Bridge.

A small amount of shared running between Romiley Junction and Marple Wharf Junction, where the Rose Hill route branches off, would reduce costs and simplify matters.

IIRC, it was proposed under TIF that the Hope Valley stopper would be diverted via Stockport. However, since then, Northern Hub has mooted diverting all Sheffield services via the Bredbury route.

I'd divert existing heavy (stopping and express) services via the Hyde Central route. This would give a reinstated Tameside - South Yorkshire service, and give a vast improvement on Manchester - Hyde journey times, compared to by bus.

This would leave the Bredbury route freed up for intensive frequency, all-stops, tram-style service. Far more useful than the current skip-stop pattern that carries fresh air most of the day.

Do not respond to MarineMan - it is trolly John from Milton Keynes who is doing his best to ruin all the threads in the Liverpool subforum.

So you can't answer then.

{looks round}

Did somebody say something?

With further thought on this issue, how about this.

I can see the merit of west Cheshire commuters eyeing a new link into the city centre. The dilemma is this. If say this tram train was to proceed up the altrincham tram line, somehow it has to find a space. So.....

Option a. We have the normal 10 trams per hour, plus one cheshire tram train. (probably stuck in the way, and being irritating like an unwelcomed scouse friend.)

Option b. Cheshire tram train replaces one of the ten scheduled trams and runs onto bury/Ashton.

With further thought on this issue, how about this.

I can see the merit of west Cheshire commuters eyeing a new link into the city centre. The dilemma is this. If say this tram train was to proceed up the altrincham tram line, somehow it has to find a space. So.....

Option a. We have the normal 10 trams per hour, plus one cheshire tram train. (probably stuck in the way, and being irritating like an unwelcomed scouse friend.)

Option b. Cheshire tram train replaces one of the ten scheduled trams and runs onto bury/Ashton.

I've always thought that this should be done in conjunction with improvements to the Altrincham-Stockport line. So you could have 2tph from the Mid-Cheshire line (one Chester and one reopened Middlewich) taking two Metrolink paths into town, and 2 Altrincham terminating trams diverted to Stockport with intermediate stops.

I've always thought that this should be done in conjunction with improvements to the Altrincham-Stockport line. So you could have 2tph from the Mid-Cheshire line (one Chester and one reopened Middlewich) taking two Metrolink paths into town, and 2 Altrincham terminating trams diverted to Stockport with intermediate stops.

Three routes to Manchester via Warrington, Altrincham/Sale and Stockport seems a tad ambitious.

Three routes to Manchester via Warrington, Altrincham/Sale and Stockport seems a tad ambitious.

The Stockport route wouldn't be to connect Altrincham (or Chester) to Manchester but to Stockport (and the Airport Met line, Gatley and Cheadle). Chester would have a fast line via Warrington and a slow TT route via Alty.

http://www.chesterfirst.co.uk/news/98061/grand-plan-to-bring-tram-system-to-chester.aspx
quote

Grand plan to bring tram system to Chester
Published date: 24 January 2011 |
Published by: Laura Jones

MAJOR plans to extend a tram network from Manchester to Chester will be presented to the government tomorrow.
Think tank Trams UK will recommend at the House of Commons that the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) light rail system, the Manchester Metrolink, should reach all the way to the city.
The organisation hope that the government will give the green light to local plans to extend the light rail network throughout Cheshire and Warrington, creating a web to link between businesses and residents.
The Leader announced on Thursday that Cheshire East Council had aspirations for light rail links, which were supported by Cheshire West and Chester Council.
The light rails, which are different to trams, can run across both light rail and existing heavy rail lines and are powered by and also generate electricity.
James Harkins, managing director of Light Rail UK, said that the “greener more efficient” mode of transport would be of “huge benefit” to both the environment and people’s pockets.
He added that light rail would cut the fastest train time from Manchester to Chester from an hour an seven minutes on Northern Rail, by about 10 minutes.
Mr Harkins said: “It is a lot greener than heavy rail and it certainly ticks all the boxes environmentally. The prices depend on policy set by the operator and the local authority. But like tram and light rail systems across Europe, passengers can have one card to use across all networks. In theory it should be a lot cheaper and quicker."
The proposals have been backed by the All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group, who aim to push for sustainable transport.
In the House of Commons tomorrow, MPs who help to form the group will give their representations on the plans, which have been created after a study by think tank UK trams.
Mr Harkins said: “The main aim is to target car users who travel between the areas. We hope that by putting in a light rail network we can get about 30 to 35 per cent of people out of their cars. We are not competing with heavy rail trains, we see it as a service enhancement."
If given the go-ahead a light rail system could be implemented across western Cheshire and run as far as Daresbury, St Helens, Stockport and Warrington.
Like other parts of the network, the trams would run on a railway line between Altrincham and Chester.
Outline plans to transform the Runcorn Bus Way into a light rail line, running over a double deck underneath the Runcorn Bridge across the Mersey, will also be presented.
Following in the footsteps of European cities such as Vienna, Stockholm and Dresden, the system could eventually be used for cargo trams.
unquote

I can't understand why the Ashburys - Romiley section be 'fully' converted, there is no freight origin/destined, and all other services could be diverted via Stockport or Guide Bridge.

A small amount of shared running between Romiley Junction and Marple Wharf Junction, where the Rose Hill route branches off, would reduce costs and simplify matters.

IIRC, it was proposed under TIF that the Hope Valley stopper would be diverted via Stockport. However, since then, Northern Hub has mooted diverting all Sheffield services via the Bredbury route.

I'd divert existing heavy (stopping and express) services via the Hyde Central route. This would give a reinstated Tameside - South Yorkshire service, and give a vast improvement on Manchester - Hyde journey times, compared to by bus.

This would leave the Bredbury route freed up for intensive frequency, all-stops, tram-style service. Far more useful than the current skip-stop pattern that carries fresh air most of the day.

I like your thinking LinkRoad!

I can't understand why the Ashburys - Romiley section be 'fully' converted, there is no freight origin/destined, and all other services could be diverted via Stockport or Guide Bridge.

A small amount of shared running between Romiley Junction and Marple Wharf Junction, where the Rose Hill route branches off, would reduce costs and simplify matters.

I would have thought this model of partial conversion would be the most sensible for most of the proposed TT routes within GM itself. I can see the same principle working on the Wigan via Atherton line with only a short section of joint running needed from Hindley to Wigan.

The other advantage is that building parts of these routes to full Metrolink standard makes future branches off these sections to towns like Leigh, Bolton and Stockport more viable.

A unique suspension that embraces street running and the good bad and ugly tracks south of altrincham and west of swinton.
Agree

Would it need to be powered by a diesel engine and Ohl at 7500dc and 25kv.
At some point in the future, but hydrocarbon/ fuel cell and DC to start with, yes
Needs perhaps ERTMS and automatic warning system.
No, not necessarily, and this is one of the key debates. One view is that provided NRs signalling system can "see" the LRVs (using, say, axle counters) the LRVs can run line of sight

Will have to be timetabled into the existing metro link system if it goes along the altrincham line.
Agree, but it's not at capacity now, until you get to Trafford Bar
A new cross city line if it initially enters the mother city at either Salford crescent or victoria et al.
Check.
And will the fine citizenry of Cheshire require a toilet facility?
Isn't some of the Southern commuter stock sans bogs already?

Tram-trains should theoretically allow for broader usage than trams. Plus we are really only thin(kin)g of four tph (rather) than the ten you see on a met line.
Quite.

Heh if they want to run into the wirral and Mersyside then the tts would be 3mode diesel, 750v dc overhead and 750v dc third rail (not that difficult really, certinaly easier than 750dc/25kv ac

I can't understand why the Ashburys - Romiley section be 'fully' converted, there is no freight origin/destined, and all other services could be diverted via Stockport or Guide Bridge.

A small amount of shared running between Romiley Junction and Marple Wharf Junction, where the Rose Hill route branches off, would reduce costs and simplify matters.

IIRC, it was proposed under TIF that the Hope Valley stopper would be diverted via Stockport. However, since then, Northern Hub has mooted diverting all Sheffield services via the Bredbury route.

I'd divert existing heavy (stopping and express) services via the Hyde Central route. This would give a reinstated Tameside - South Yorkshire service, and give a vast improvement on Manchester - Hyde journey times, compared to by bus.

This would leave the Bredbury route freed up for intensive frequency, all-stops, tram-style service. Far more useful than the current skip-stop pattern that carries fresh air most of the day.

Simply singling a 2000 yard stretch of the line is all that is required to fully segregate the heavy stuff entirely from any tram-related traffic - about double what you have around Navigation Road and a bout three times whats being done up at Newton Heath

Just for information - How it works on Wearside Pictures of Sunderland St.Peters

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikealaska/5321086549/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikealaska/5322292129/in/photostream/

http://www.vossloh-espana.com/cms/media/downloads/pdfs/flyer/Vossloh_TramLink_us.pdf

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

As generally predicted

It says those have a service speed of 70kph instead of 80 - is that standard for tram-trains and would it affect other services on the sections shared with normal trams? I was under the impression standard for trams was 80.

Standard for trams is usually 43mph, we have faster trams capable of 50mph, some tram trains do upto 70/80mph.

The proposed re-routing of the Sheffield trains would I think, worsen what is already an inadequate rail link between the two cities. What fools they were that closed Woodhead! (Which would now cost megabucks to rebuild.)

It's a pity because metrolink or tram trains to Marple would be a huge improvement to local transport - and even more so if a link to Stockport could somehow be achieved.

It's a pity because metrolink or tram trains to Marple would be a huge improvement to local transport - and even more so if a link to Stockport could somehow be achieved.
Much as I love the M60, I despise the fact it sliced the old CLC track bed forever between Bredbury and Portwood leaving Bredbury, Romiley & Marple isolated (by rail) from Stockport :-( I have posted some options elsewhere (on the 2CC thread I think) on how to get around that and link them up with the Metrolink in Stockport, whenever, if ever, it gets there ....

I can't keep up with which thread to post on! I put his post on the 2cc thread but it seems more relevant to the posts above -
Wasn't there a plan a few years ago to extend the Rose Hill service a little way along Middlewood Way then build a curve to connect to the Hope Valley line near Simpson's Corner on the A6 (opening a Park and Ride station there too) thus connecting via the Hazel Grove chord onto the Buxton line and then into Stockport? I can't remember when it was published, I can't find any trace on the internet, but it sounded a feasable idea at the time. It seems an easy solution to connecting Marple and Stockport.

Tommy. You make a very valid point. Perhaps some of the transport threads need tidying up.

As for the middle wood way plan. It's the first I have heard of it.

Curiously Stockport council have publically spoken about connecting the town centre to the suburban rail network. The only suggestion had been a restored line to either brinnington or woodley via that freight line. But middle wood is new to me.

Checked the Stockport Council UDP documents I have on the lap top and the only mention of middle wood way is to retain it for cyclists and horse riders.

With regard to the Middlewood Way plan I found this in the Stockport Unitary Development Plan 1998 -

Loss of the original direct rail link between Marple
and Stockport is regretted by many, and traffic
conditions along Marple Road are now such that
there is good reason to examine ways of re*
establishing a rail link. Studies will be carried out
to examine the possibilities of creating new rail
links (see the map on page 130) - one going south
from Rose Hill to Stockport by reinstating part of
the former line to link into the Sheffield line or into
the Buxton line to the east of Hazel Grove; the
other by linking the Bredbury/Marple line to the
Stockport/Stalybridge line to enable trains to be
routed from Marple, Bredbury and Brinnington
through South Reddish to Stockport. The two
links together offer the opportunity of a circular
route passing through Stockport Station.

Well I don't have that far back Tommy. Tremendous find.

A lot hinges on the Rotherham tram train experiment. If it's successful then some clear dynamics will come into force in the next decade.

A. The economy improves and investment grows. Or maybe not!
B. Local government will have more flexibility and power in transport decision making. Maybe only in Gtr. Manchester.
C. The revived economy will increase ridership and increase pressure and demand on the
transport network. Probably but only because it is so poor outside London.

I could then imagine schemes like tommys being revived.



And if you are reading from Paris. Another one to add to the list of future plans Mark.

The proposed re-routing of the Sheffield trains would I think, worsen what is already an inadequate rail link between the two cities. What fools they were that closed Woodhead! (Which would now cost megabucks to rebuild.)

I know this isn't the right thread, but there are significant technical issues with re-opening Woodhead (even if the bores weren't full of National Grid cables). These include structure gauge (you'd want 23kVAC electrified W12 or better, and this is tricky as Woodhead 3 was built for 1500DC electified W6A), emergency management and egress provision, and the three-mile-long signal section it introduces (assuming you don't have tunnel signals).

All things considered, it is likely that new tunnel(s) would be a more cost-effective option at about £800M, compared with shifting the grid cables to pylons and slab tracking bore 3 or stabilising and refurbishing 1 and 2.

Let's call that a billion Joseph. Personally it's the northern crossrail or the east west hst. What ever I think what will be more problematic isn't re opening the wood head tunnel, but increasing track capacity from Dewsnap "sidings" to Hadfield to accommodate it.

Anyway this is way off topic. I doubt it, but does the transfer of the metrolink contract to RAPT mean it is more likely that tram train would be considered then less likely?

Let's call that a billion Joseph. Personally it's the northern crossrail or the east west hst.
I was excluding my fees ...
What ever I think what will be more problematic isn't re opening the wood head tunnel, but increasing track capacity from Dewsnap "sidings" to Hadfield to accommodate it.
You miss out the strength and integrity of various bridges and viaducts (lack thereof, and presence of long timbers), sorting the signalling and junctions at Dinting (retaining the link to Glossop) and connectivity / journey times / wires at the east end of the route....

That as well Joseph Locke. You being the rail engineer and me not.

That as well Joseph Locke. You being the rail engineer and me not.

Recognition at last! It's only taken 23 years. Do I get a badge? :lol:

Will the proposed routing of all Sheffield - Manchester services via Marple and Ashburys to Victoria as part of the Northern Hub have any impact on the proposed tram train to Marple?

Will the proposed routing of all Sheffield - Manchester services via Marple and Ashburys to Victoria as part of the Northern Hub have any impact on the proposed tram train to Marple?

What proposed re-routing is that? It's the first I've heard of it.

If you did that then there would need to be massive spend on Ashurys Junction(s), the line up to Philips Park and resolution of the conflicts with the newly re-routed Leeds - Stalybridge - Manchester (electric) services between PP West and Vic. East. You'd also need some more platforms at Victoria ...

If Marple Tram-Train happened, then the existing every-lamp-post-to-Marple service would disappear anyway, and other services could shift to go via Stockport. So, no detrimental effect I think.

I haven't heard that neither. Tomorrow is work, I will enquiry. Would find it hard to believe as it robs Stockport station of it's sole airport train.

I ave to disagree Herr Locke. A Marple bound tram/train would not absorb all services on that line. That is the beauty of the Karlsruhe system in that is the half way point between light and heavy rail.

I would hope Dft (erm adjusts his glasses and considers what he might saying) Are erm sensible in adopted proven technology than Dickinson about and try to re invent the wheel when it comes to tram/trains. Theoretically it should be able to share the tracks with allsorts of heavy rail vehicles.

I read it on a few articles about the Northern Hub, as a way of routing more conflicting services away from Piccadilly. I think the plan is they would still run to the Airport but around the Castlefield Curve so a bit of a circuitious route from Stockport.

Any idea on what it would do to Sheffield - Manchester journey times.

Believe the plan also mentioned an increase in Sheffield - Manchester services from 4 per hour to 6 of which 4 were express.

I haven't heard that neither. Tomorrow is work, I will enquiry. Would find it hard to believe as it robs Stockport station of it's sole airport train.IIRC, the proposal is to increase the frequency of Sheffield trains by track improvements at Dore and other places. One fast service could then go via Victoria and on to Liverpool, saving capacity through Piccadilly. So it is additional to the Stockport trains, not instead of them.

EDIT: Found it! (See Manchester Hub Rail Study (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/6485_ManchesterHubRailStudy.pdf), p.65)

Journeys from the Sheffield corridor to Manchester are
quicker in Option 1. This is because the journey times
from Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield are two minutes
quicker than from Manchester Victoria and in Option 1
all Sheffield trains operate from Manchester Piccadilly.
It has therefore been concluded that Sheffield to
Manchester and Manchester Airport journeys must be
via Manchester Piccadilly; in Option 2 this sees the
Manchester and Manchester Airport train running at 30
minute intervals to Manchester Piccadilly with the
journeys beyond Manchester running via Manchester
Victoria on the alternate pair of services also at 30
minute intervals.

Option 1 = Ardwick flyover, etc.
Option 2 = Victoria, etc.
(see p.51 of report)

Well had I not to the gym and then got distracted by the faux revolution in London, then I would ave informed you of what's is on page 65 as well.

It was explained to me at work as akin to the long standing Liverpool to hull service, but the south Pennine version of that. Take out Huddersfield and Leeds and replace it with Sheffield and Doncaster.

So it's not replacing but supplementing it.

Is there any issue with the crashworthiness of the tram trains? Presumably they have to be built to a similar standard to trains, yet as this will potentially make them heavier and 'stronger'. Does this then create issues if there would be a collision between a tram-train and a tram?

They are built to withstand larger crashs, they are usually around the midpoint in the weight difference between a normal tram and a train.

Just curious. When I lived in Manchester, all trans-Pennine trains used to route via Victoria and Stalybridge. This was the days before Metrolink. Travellers from the south wanting to connect to a trans-pennine train, or visa versa, would then use the hourly Stockport to Guide Bridge shuttle (via Reddish South and Denton).

So given the capacity issues on the Oxford Rd to Piccadilly and the conflicting movements required at Piccadilly to get the trains onto the Guide Bridge line, I guess I was surprised when British Rail rerouted the Trans-Pennine trains via Piccadilly. But it did make the Stockport to Stalybridge connection redundant and allowed removal of all but a once a week parliamentary service on that line.

Seems that with the Ordsall Curve and rerouting of trains, I expect this willt hen provide the connections from Piccadilly and south to trans-Pennine, so still no need for the Reddish South line?

Just curious. When I lived in Manchester, all trans-Pennine trains used to route via Victoria and Stalybridge. This was the days before Metrolink. Travellers from the south wanting to connect to a trans-pennine train, or visa versa, would then use the hourly Stockport to Guide Bridge shuttle (via Reddish South and Denton).

So given the capacity issues on the Oxford Rd to Piccadilly and the conflicting movements required at Piccadilly to get the trains onto the Guide Bridge line, I guess I was surprised when British Rail rerouted the Trans-Pennine trains via Piccadilly. But it did make the Stockport to Stalybridge connection redundant and allowed removal of all but a once a week parliamentary service on that line.

Seems that with the Ordsall Curve and rerouting of trains, I expect this willt hen provide the connections from Piccadilly and south to trans-Pennine, so still no need for the Reddish South line?

Good point lightrail.

- as I understand it, the key connecting link would in the future be the regular airport shuttle service, which would run from Victoria rather than Piccadilly. The northern section of this service would then also serve as a fast Picc-Deansgate-Salford-Vic shuttle, allowing passengers to make cross-Manc connections, and also facilitiating movement across the city centre.

So given the capacity issues on the Oxford Rd to Piccadilly and the conflicting movements required at Piccadilly to get the trains onto the Guide Bridge line, I guess I was surprised when British Rail rerouted the Trans-Pennine trains via Piccadilly.

It was part of a longer term plan by BR to concentrate services on Piccadilly, leading to the run-down of Victoria. When the Altrincham route was closed for conversion to Metrolink/LRT, it freed up numerous paths on the Deansgate - Piccadilly section, and tied in with Windsor Link and Hazel Grove Chord, combined routes and traincrew diagrams to provide better efficiencies, as well as new journey opportunities. The real sparks effect came post-1993 when the Manchester Airport Rail Link opened.

It was part of a longer term plan by BR to concentrate services on Piccadilly, leading to the run-down of Victoria. When the Altrincham route was closed for conversion to Metrolink/LRT, it freed up numerous paths on the Deansgate - Piccadilly section, and tied in with Windsor Link and Hazel Grove Chord, combined routes and traincrew diagrams to provide better efficiencies, as well as new journey opportunities. The real sparks effect came post-1993 when the Manchester Airport Rail Link opened.

The problem as I see it is that since then, Piccadilly to Castlefield has become extremely congested. Surely adding the new curve will just compound the problem?

The problem as I see it is that since then, Piccadilly to Castlefield has become extremely congested. Surely adding the new curve will just compound the problem?

Liverpool - Scarborough (FTPE) services consume a huge chunk of capacity across the Piccadilly throat, as do Yorkshire/NE - Airport services reversing. Instead the Liverpool service will avoid Piccadilly (routed via Victoria), and Airport services will avoid reversal by using the Ordsall Curve/Chord.

This will mean less conflict between different movements approaching the station, which are known as 'East' (Platforms 1-4), 'West' (Platforms 5-12) and 'Junction' (Platforms 13 & 14). Effectively unthreading the knot.

Indeed, the conflicting movements will move to the Ordsall Lane area, but I believe grade separation is proposed, which will be better equipped, and a cheaper, less disruptive solution that enhancements at Slade Lane or Ardwick.

It does, however, put to rest any plans for a long-mooted 'Guide Bridge Parkway'.

Liverpool - Scarborough (FTPE) services consume a huge chunk of capacity across the Piccadilly throat, as do Yorkshire/NE - Airport services reversing. Instead the Liverpool service will avoid Piccadilly (routed via Victoria), and Airport services will avoid reversal by using the Ordsall Curve/Chord.

This will mean less conflict between different movements approaching the station, which are known as 'East' (Platforms 1-4), 'West' (Platforms 5-12) and 'Junction' (Platforms 13 & 14). Effectively unthreading the knot.

Indeed, the conflicting movements will move to the Ordsall Lane area, but I believe grade separation is proposed, which will be better equipped, and a cheaper, less disruptive solution that enhancements at Slade Lane or Ardwick.

It does, however, put to rest any plans for a long-mooted 'Guide Bridge Parkway'.

Thank you: penny has now dropped.

Indeed, the conflicting movements will move to the Ordsall Lane area, but I believe grade separation is proposed, which will be better equipped, and a cheaper, less disruptive solution that enhancements at Slade Lane or Ardwick.

Indeed; Ordsall Lane becomes a very tangled knot, with Ordsall Chord South, Ordsall Chord North, Castlefield, Deal Street and Windsor Bridge South junctions all at or within two signal sections of it.

Grade seperating Ordsall Lane is an option, but not a cheap one. Personally, I don't think grade seperation will win, as a route from Eccles to Castlefield Jn. has to be maintained, as well as the capability to run freight through the area.

Manchester Lit and Phil doing a talk on Tram trains at the University dental school on Monday 14th November.

http://www.manlitphil.co.uk/7.html

Best,
Slip

Nothing new, but marginally interesting.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/transport/public_transport/s/1459975_trams-in-line-to-run-on-train-tracks-to-ease-crowding-on-greater-manchester-railways

Trams in line to run on train tracks to ease crowding on Greater Manchester railways
Dean Kirby
September 28, 2011

Congestion could be eased at Manchester Piccadilly and other stations if trams were allowed to run on rail lines, a minister says.

A report by transport minister Norman Baker says running so-called ‘tram-trains’ – trams on railway tracks – could also cut costs.

Transport chiefs in Greater Manchester already say they would like Metrolink services to use the rail network to reach more towns and suburbs.

No firm plans are yet in place, but the region will be monitoring the results of a proposed pilot scheme in Sheffield.

Mr Baker has been reviewing how trams – which run on the same gauge tracks as trains – can be made more cost-effective. He claims in his report that tram-trains have ‘significant future potential’.

He said: "If successful, the tram-train concept will enable cities with trams to extend their existing systems onto adjacent main lines at minimum additional costs when compared with a new tramway."

Tram-trains would make it easier for passengers to travel from their home into city centres, the report says.

Mr Baker added: "Another advantage could be helping to ease congestion at mainline train stations, such as Manchester Piccadilly, as some local services could be transferred onto the tram-trains, thereby improving the capacity for through services."

Trams run more frequently than trains and could benefit towns such as Stockport, which missed out on getting traditional tram services in the ‘big bang’ Metrolink expansion.

Metrolink is being expanded to Oldham and Rochdale by replacing rail lines with tram tracks as part of the £1.4bn project. But a report last year said there were ‘no significant further routes’ where rail lines could be converted to Metrolink.

Jonathan Bray, director of the Passenger Transport Executive Group, said: "It’s now a matter of when, and not if, tram-trains come to Britain’s major cities so let’s make the ‘when’ as soon as possible."

Trams run more frequently than trains and could benefit towns such as Stockport, which missed out on getting traditional tram services in the ‘big bang’ Metrolink expansion.

Err - how does that work? The whole problem is of finding paths across the Stockport viaduct and into Manchester. Changing the name of trains to Tram-Trains doesn't miraculously produce more paths. The only way to get more trains, trams or Tram-Trains into Stockport is to build more lines. That takes a commitment to spend money, this sounds like a politician trying to do things on the cheap.
What Stockport needs is connecting to the tram network, lines spreading through to the west, east and south, with a stop adjacent to the station and the bus station so that passengers can easily shift from one mode to another. And it needs connecting NOW!

Trams run more frequently than trains and could benefit towns such as Stockport, which missed out on getting traditional tram services in the ‘big bang’ Metrolink expansion.

Err - how does that work? The whole problem is of finding paths across the Stockport viaduct and into Manchester. Changing the name of trains to Tram-Trains doesn't miraculously produce more paths. The only way to get more trains, trams or Tram-Trains into Stockport is to build more lines. That takes a commitment to spend money, this sounds like a politician trying to do things on the cheap.
What Stockport needs is connecting to the tram network, lines spreading through to the west, east and south, with a stop adjacent to the station and the bus station so that passengers can easily shift from one mode to another. And it needs connecting NOW!

I think that its referring to Stockport Borough, the Marple/Rose Hill line and possibly branching from it into Stockport Town Centre via Bredbury..

Does anywhere in the World have diesel or bi-mode trams or will we be seeing a lot of wires needing to go up for this to work (as is happening in Sheffield for their tram-train)? And if the latter do our trams run on DC or AC overhead power because if it's the former that'll severely affect the number of routes available won't it?

I think that its referring to Stockport Borough, the Marple/Rose Hill line and possibly branching from it into Stockport Town Centre via Bredbury..

Exactly, the Marple/Rose Hill and Glossop/Hadfield lines were previously candidates for full Metrolink conversion. Stock on these routes could be redeployed elsewhere and significant costs saved through closure of booking offices, elimination of traincrew, area management, etc.

Does anywhere in the World have diesel or bi-mode trams or will we be seeing a lot of wires needing to go up for this to work (as is happening in Sheffield for their tram-train)? And if the latter do our trams run on DC or AC overhead power because if it's the former that'll severely affect the number of routes available won't it?

Yes, Diesel and dual-voltage tram-trains are quite common. I dont think diesel tram-trains would be approved in this country though, keep the streets clean of fumes and go green and all that...

Yes, Diesel and dual-voltage tram-trains are quite common. I dont think diesel tram-trains would be approved in this country though, keep the streets clean of fumes and go green and all that...

You could adapt the 'hybrid' tech used in cars such as the Toyota Prius, giving you an advanced DEMU with batteries. Use the diesel engine for propulsion/charging the batteries out of town/at speed, run on batteries in town?

Its done in a few places where they have short sections without wires because of conservation areas.

Munich - English Garens - good article in last months TW&UT.

Their battery powered tram went 16km with no use of the pantograph to set a new world record.

The downside naturally is batteries and supercapacitors are very heavy and bulky and would increase track wear while needing replacement every 5 years or so.

The downside naturally is batteries and supercapacitors are very heavy and bulky and would increase track wear while needing replacement every 5 years or so.

Careful, if John sees that word he'll be over from the Liverpool forum pasting huge posts and images of his grand plans for sending electric buses quicker than you can say MarineMan :cheers:

Careful, if John sees that word he'll be over from the Liverpool forum pasting huge posts and images of his grand plans for sending electric buses quicker than you can say MarineMan :cheers:

:lol:

Does he ever venture over this neck of the woods?

Just to clarify for me, from anyone who has been following this discussion more closely.

TfGM are still making noises about wanting to convert the Marple line to tram-train operation. Can anyone confirm which services are intended to be replaced?

I have always tended to assume that the whole of the Bredbury-Brinnington-North Reddish line would become tram-train operation only; with all current Hope Valley, New Mills and Marple services being redirected via Hyde and Guide Bridge; commuter, regional rail, freight. If the tram-trains terminate at Rose Hill, that would imply that there would be dual heavy-rail/tram-train running only along the section of the line through Romiley, and that Marple itself would not receive tram-train.

But I don't think I have ever seen this stated explicitly in any of the papers referring to the Marple tram-train. Nor do I know whether it is feasible (Northern Hub and all) for the Hope Valley services to run through Guide Bridge,

Can anyone enlighten me?

Nerd it has remained a GM aspiration for getting on for a decade now.

What restrains it, is the lack of progress regarding Whitehall's reluctance to test and approve tram-train, despite the long standing existence of compatible system on the continent.

The facts as we know are this.

1. TfM and GMPTA have a long term aspiration to convert the Wigan/Swinton and Brinnington/Marple heavy rail lines to tram-trains.Indeed in Tif they suggested "a metro style" service from Marple of 4tph, which openly aspired to be converted to tram train in the future.

2. The details of this plan are pre natal. Vague suggestions exists in GMPTA plans for Chapel
Street, Salford and Temperance Street, back Piccadilly to be used. No mention of what power unit,
operator or integration.

3. The aspiration is that tram-trains (unlike trams) can operate alongside existing heavy rail
services, timetabled of course. I have not seen any suggestion of grade separation. If so, they might as well convert it to Metrolink.

4. Tram-trains aspire to replace existing commuter services and to run them through the
city centre, rather than terminate on their outskirts. They primary seem to be to replace crumbling Pacer and Sprinters.

5. We await the Sheffield tram train trial, that will answer some of our questions.

Nerd it has remained a GM aspiration for getting on for a decade now.

What restrains it, is the lack of progress regarding Whitehall's reluctance to test and approve tram-train, despite the long standing existence of compatible system on the continent.

The facts as we know are this.

1. TfM and GMPTA have a long term aspiration to convert the Wigan/Swinton and Brinnington/Marple heavy rail lines to tram-trains.

2. The details of this plan are pre natal. Vague suggestions exists in GMPTA plans for Chapel Street, Salford and Temperance Street, back Piccadilly to be used. No mention of what power unit,
operator or integration.

3. The aspiration is that tram-trains (unlike trams) can operate alongside existing heavy rail services, timetabled of course.

4. Tram-trains aspire to replace existing commuter services and to run them through the
city centre, rather than terminate on their outskirts. They primary seem to be to replace crumbling Pacer and Sprinters.

5. We await the Sheffield tram train trial, that will answer some of our questions.

thanks for that HPC, very helpful.

- but when TfGM talks of introducing tram-trains along the Marple line, do we know which commuter rail services would be replaced; which would be re-routed, and which might be discontinued altogether?

thanks for that HPC, very helpful.

- but when TfGM talks of introducing tram-trains along the Marple line, do we know which commuter rail services would be replaced; which would be re-routed, and which might be discontinued altogether?

I suspect that all the stopping services to New Mills Central would become Trams, and all through (as in Chinley and beyond) would be diverted via Stockport and Edgeley.

Running any Hope Valley services via Guide Bridge is not, I suspect, a very attractive proposition.

Therefore Romiley - Marple Wharf would be shared, but only if the heavy rail service via Hyde (to Rose Hill Marple) remained.

Northern Hub is examining journey time improvements on the Ashburys - New Mills South section, but previous work didn't find much benefit...

A scheme does exist to connect the Marple line to Piccadilly (Metrolink) bypassing Ashburys East Jn, but the need for this is predicated by the current TPE traffic to Stalybridge, all of which will shift to Victoria and may allow Metrolink to cross Ashburys at grade.

A lot of this will, as Mr Cakes says, depend on the detail of some of the outcomes from Sheffield - Rotherham; importantly those concerning infrastructure capability with trams and trains together.

Well it actually works down wards from HS2.

HS2 mitigates the removal of the existing LDN trains from Manchester, so releases those slots to Stockport and should in theory be re allocated to provincial or commuter services.

This is followed by electrification, the Northern Hub and the Ordsall curve. All these will determine specific routes into Mnachester. At first glance, it would appear Victoria will gain through traffic for the east coast-MIA routes, whilst the Piccadilly shed will be freed of the turnaround MIA bound trains, thus releasing capacity.

And then you Decide where thE cross city provincial trains (Liverpool to Nottingham/Hull, Buxton-Blackpool, Edinburgh-Bournemouth) go and whether you want various electrified commuter routes to terminate in the city centre and where. And if you want them to be connected. Ie Crewe to say Blackpool as like a NW Thameslink.

AND THEN, you can think about tram trains.

See the dilemma. It is very complicated, with various competing agencies and needs.

I think that when tram-trains were first mooted it was to allow the conversion of all three of the GM east suburban lines (Rose Hill, Marple and Glossop) and the Wigan via Swinton line to tram train operation. However I don't know whether that would be possible or desirable with the rail developments that have been implemented/planned since.

I think that when tram-trains were first mooted it was to allow the conversion of all three of the GM east suburban lines (Rose Hill, Marple and Glossop) and the Wigan via Swinton line to tram train operation. However I don't know whether that would be possible or desirable with the rail developments that have been implemented/planned since.

Can I ask why you feel that? Not being hostile, just curious.

I suspect that all the stopping services to New Mills Central would become Trams, and all through (as in Chinley and beyond) would be diverted via Stockport and Edgeley.

Running any Hope Valley services via Guide Bridge is not, I suspect, a very attractive proposition.

Therefore Romiley - Marple Wharf would be shared, but only if the heavy rail service via Hyde (to Rose Hill Marple) remained.

Northern Hub is examining journey time improvements on the Ashburys - New Mills South section, but previous work didn't find much benefit...

A scheme does exist to connect the Marple line to Piccadilly (Metrolink) bypassing Ashburys East Jn, but the need for this is predicated by the current TPE traffic to Stalybridge, all of which will shift to Victoria and may allow Metrolink to cross Ashburys at grade.

A lot of this will, as Mr Cakes says, depend on the detail of some of the outcomes from Sheffield - Rotherham; importantly those concerning infrastructure capability with trams and trains together.

Thanks for that, JL, just what I was after; if the through services could indeed all through the Disley Tunnel to Stockport, that would leave the current line to New Mills available for Metrolink use.

But then I cannot see the logic of retaining the heavy rail service from Hyde Central to Rose Hill - since any passengers from Rose Hill to Manchester would surely switch onto the Metrolink at Romiley anyway. Much more likely to convert the Rose Hill spur to Metrolink operation too.

In which case, would there be any dual running needed at all; or would there be continued freight business that could require continued access to parts of the line betweeen Ashbury's and New Mills?

Is this really a tram-train proposal; or rather a dual-power tram proposal?

Can I ask why you feel that? Not being hostile, just curious.

Feel what? I don't have a view either way at the moment.

Those four routes were mooted as being most suitable 10 years ago (by the SRA I recall), and as things have changed they may no longer be the optimum choice. The reason for this is that converting these routes to TT was part of a package of proposed rail improvements some of which may not be possible or necessary in the light of the improvements that the local rail network is currently receiving (NW/TP electrification, Ordsall Curve etc.).

For example I recall that the northern hub proposed more of the Sheffield expresses would use the route via Ashburys, which might make it more difficult to put TT on both of the Marple lines.

Cheers. My feelings too Che.

Electrification might provide greater capacity. The decision will be whether there is a need, desire and capacity to connect these commuter lines across the city.

My uninformed preference is for the tram-train proposals for several reasons. They allow more intensive service at a lower cost, they allow suburban services straight into the regional centre and they allow local control of local services. However I can't know that it'd be a better solution without more evidence.

More generally I think Greater Manchester needs single ticket metro-frequency services to all parts of the city region as soon as possible, by whatever mode is going to achieve that goal.

Now you see I'm not that happy about Tram-Train on the Marple line since Romiley is my
station and the train service is good enough (except the earliness of the last train) - and so it offers nothing really - in fact it makes things worse because I can get a train to Sheffield fairly easily too from Romiley - and that will probably stop.

Its that other Metrolink possibility to Romiley/Marple I want - the one that allows me to get to Stockport and Didssbury

Now you see I'm not that happy about Tram-Train on the Marple line since Romiley is my
station and the train service is good enough (except the earliness of the last train) - and so it offers nothing really - in fact it makes things worse because I can get a train to Sheffield fairly easily too from Romiley - and that will probably stop.

Its that other Metrolink possibility to Romiley/Marple I want - the one that allows me to get to Stockport and Didssbury

Madly I used to use the Sheffield stopper to commute to the east midlands some time ago. I know it's a hugely patronized service that is unique and essential. Any changes would be dubious, unhelpful and counter productive.

However if it changed, it wouldn't be because of tram-trains, as if an it's a big if full stop, they adopt the Karlsruhe model, then those chugging bus trains should be replaced in their entirety. The advantage, aside from not being on a pacer, is the new trains can use on road tracks in the city centre and perhaps even Stockport.

To be blunt, as far as I see it tram trains are just modern pacers that can use metro link tracks in cities and can share the same tracks as other heavy rail users.

Metro link trams can only exist on separate tracks or in exceptional cases like the junction between Navigation Road and Altrincham.

I see their merits, but I am unsure if they will ever happen in the UK.

see posting from the General Thread

Well I sent a moaning email and they apologised and added a link to the press release though they also had a moan at me calling it a 'first draft' they insist it be called a 'scoping document'.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=5468

Here we go, Marple tram train proposal.

Service: a 12 minute headway extension of the Eccles service through Piccadilly to Marple calling at all stops. Existing Piccadilly-Marple via Bredbury heavy rail service is withdrawn, Piccadilly-Marple via Guide Bridge retained. Manchester Piccadilly to Chinley and the Hope Valley (one train per hour) serving Ashburys and Maple are diverted to call at Guide Bridge and Hyde Central, continuing to Romiley, Marple, Strines, New Mills etc.

Infrastructure: Tram Train rolling stock, connection to Metrolink, electrification of Ashburys to Marple, new bay platform at Marple for Metrolink services to terminate. Electrification undecided but probably dual voltage 25kv AC for future proofing

Impact: Metrolink fares and ticketing rolled out, improved journey times, more demand responsive capacity (more off-peak usage of line), additional destinations, predicted 60% increase in patronage (mostly taken from competition with buses), elimination of subsidy requirement for Marple line and a small return to partially offset capital costs, lower wear, lower operating costs.

Basically the draft rus concludes tram-train is feasible as a cost reduction but most of the benefits would be local (local transport planning, local service definition) rather than national cost cutting program. It suggests a national standardised project rolled out in several areas to offset development costs. On electrification its not really taken with battery power, likes small neutral sections in wires (where 30-40% of costs could be saved by not gauge clearing structures) doesnt like large gaps in the wires. Rather unfairly it doesnt seem to like tram-trains capacity noting it carries fewer passengers than a 12 car EMU (well duh!) notes a tram-train would significantly out perform a DMU in line timings and would give an EMU a run for its money. .

Good find WZ

So: the tram-train only goes as far as Marple, and would not go on to Strines and New Mills. Which in turn means that the Hope Valley trains have to take the Hyde Central route, rather than going along Disley tunnel to Stockport. And the tram-train does not serve Rose Hill, whose service via Hyde Central and Guide Bridge continues.

Not a dual diesel-electric vehicle but dual voltage Overhead Lines. One advantage would be that providing tram-train vehicles over the Eccles line releases 6 T68s that no longer require replacement with M5000s.

There is no mention of a flyover at Ashburys, so I presume that the tram-train would merge with the existing Piccadilly-bound line from Guide Bridge; but then divert off towards the Ashton Metrolink line along the line behind the City of Manchester Stadium.

The big traffic growth seems to have been modelled as coming along the stretches of line closer into the City Centre; Ryder Brow, Reddish North etc; (with no doubt additonal stops), taking passengers off current bus services.

looking at the Marple tram-train proposal again; some further observations:

- I presume that this is TfGM's bid for the national tram-train pilot. It may not necessarily be how the Marple tram-train service would be presented in an overall tram-train strategy for Greater Manc (in respect of which I believe from WZ and other posters on this forum that a document is due later this year).

- there is no mention here of 3CC, or of linking the Marple tram-train with the Wigan/Atherton service.

- the tram-train will offer roughly twice the freqency of the current service; 5tph compared to 4tph(peak) and 2tph(off peak). Running the service at an operational break-even (that is ending the current subsidy) implies doubling passenger levels, and especially increasing off-peak travel (esp. weekends and evenings). That is unlikely to be achievable on the more distant stretches, so the business case rests on building up traffic from Bredbury, Brinnington, Reddish and Gorton. Which is the reason, I suspect, why the extra cost of electrifying the line beyond Marple to New Mills is not being proposed.

- there is however, a relatively small gain in overall rail policy terms from this single proposal. The Rose Hill and New Mills services will still be terminating at Piccadilly, so there is little opportunity for releasing platform capacity. Moreover, although the tram-train element will be expected to operate without subsidy, the continuing hourly Hope Valley services may potentially require a higher subsidy (as they no longer pick up Marple passengers.

- there remains a problematic issue of what to do with the continuing services, in so far as the rolling stock will have to be replaced. On the one hand, if passengers ride the tram-train instead, services from Rose Hill might become uneconomic even with subsidy. On the other hand, it may be that passengers will reckon to change modes at Romiley, so as to ride the tram-train into the town centre, and that could increase use of associated commuter rail services.

All very interesting.

- there is however, a relatively small gain in overall rail policy terms from this single proposal. The Rose Hill and New Mills services will still be terminating at Piccadilly, so there is little opportunity for releasing platform capacity. Moreover, although the tram-train element will be expected to operate without subsidy, the continuing hourly Hope Valley services may potentially require a higher subsidy (as they no longer pick up Marple passengers.

- there remains a problematic issue of what to do with the continuing services, in so far as the rolling stock will have to be replaced. On the one hand, if passengers ride the tram-train instead, services from Rose Hill might become uneconomic even with subsidy. On the other hand, it may be that passengers will reckon to change modes at Romiley, so as to ride the tram-train into the town centre, and that could increase use of associated commuter rail services.

All very interesting.

If I'm remembering correctly, the previous local transport plan future schemes diagram indicated that following a Marple tram-train it would also be considered for Rose Hill via Hyde (among other routes), suggesting that GMPTE (as was) did not forsee the Rose Hill heavy rail service surviving far beyond the medium term following a Marple TT. That might be wrong though. This diagram also showed a full conversion of the Marple line to full Metrolink service at some point in the future.

I also remember a document produced by New East Manchester a few years ago that indicated that there was a detailed route plan for the tram-train to pass from Ashbury's to Chancellor Lane (roughly parallel to the freight viaduct and Gorton Lane), and would only join up with the Ashton line immediately behind Piccadilly station.

If I'm remembering correctly, the previous local transport plan future schemes diagram indicated that following a Marple tram-train it would also be considered for Rose Hill via Hyde (among other routes), suggesting that GMPTE (as was) did not forsee the Rose Hill heavy rail service surviving far beyond the medium term following a Marple TT. That might be wrong though. This diagram also showed a full conversion of the Marple line to full Metrolink service at some point in the future.

I also remember a document produced by New East Manchester a few years ago that indicated that there was a detailed route plan for the tram-train to pass from Ashbury's to Chancellor Lane (roughly parallel to the freight viaduct and Gorton Lane), and would only join up with the Ashton line immediately behind Piccadilly station.

These?

http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu267/smartcma1/Map_124.png

http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu267/smartcma1/SRF_Map_6.png

AFAIK the objective was to have a Marple/Rose Hill split service. Marple hasn't enough parking to cope with demand, nor a bus turnaround for potential feeder buses, hence the retention of Rose Hill, which can do both. I personally find Rose Hill more convenient than Marple (Bridge) for the centre.

Yes links those are them.

These?

http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu267/smartcma1/Map_124.png

http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu267/smartcma1/SRF_Map_6.png

AFAIK the objective was to have a Marple/Rose Hill split service. Marple hasn't enough parking to cope with demand, nor a bus turnaround for potential feeder buses, hence the retention of Rose Hill, which can do both. I personally find Rose Hill more convenient than Marple (Bridge) for the centre.

thanks for those maps links - they look to make a lot of sense. If I read them correctly, they show the tram-train route continuing along the freight viaduct as far as Ashton Old Road, and then capitalising on the absence of buildings along the road alignment to find a way into the back of Piccadilly. That is the shorter route, and also has the advantage of remaining at high level in order to cross the Inner Ring Road.

As to Rose Hill though, I am less sure. The Network Rail document is not necessarily accurate in reporting TfGM's intentions (they have misunderstood the number of trams on Metrolink for a start). But they would be less likely to slip up on this. Most likely they are picking out one of a number of modelling exercises that TfGM produced as a for-instance. Certainly they do say;

The Manchester – Marple route is one of a number of potential tram train schemes in Greater Manchester and the relevant local planning authorities will need to consider the route along with other tram train possibilities in an appropriate strategic context.

Which I take to be a caveat imposed by TfGM to avoid giving the impression that this particular scheme stands on its own.

But splitting a 5tph service sounds a little unlikely to me - it would mean there being an interval of 24 minutes between services at each of the Marple stations - which is too long for a Light Rail system in my view. Marple carries over four times the peak passenger traffic that Rose Hill does (340 boarders, compared to 75). Which surprised me, as I would have thought Rose Hill would be more convenient for a lot of people.

What I do know is that all the recent references in TfGM documentation are explicit in denoting Marple. There is no suggestion that the Rose Hill and/or Hadfield services would be part of the same package.

Though if the game is one of marrying a tram-train line on the eastern side of town with a Metrolink line on the western side; perhaps we might look for an alternative candidate. The Salford Reds/Trafford Centre line for example might carry through to the Rose Hill service?

But splitting a 5tph service sounds a little unlikely to me - it would mean there being an interval of 24 minutes between services at each of the Marple stations - which is too long for a Light Rail system in my view. Marple carries over four times the peak passenger traffic that Rose Hill does (340 boarders, compared to 75). Which surprised me, as I would have thought Rose Hill would be more convenient for a lot of people.

Marple would no doubt retain 2tph heavy rail service, as you'd need a hourly Piccadilly - Guide Bridge - Hyde Central - Woodley - Romiley - Marple - New Mills - Hope Valley - Sheffield, as well as a hourly Piccadilly - New Mills/Chinley stopper.

So Marple would get 3tph Tram-Train, 2tph heavy rail. However, it would be slightly off-clockface, as path conflicts would occur between Marple Wharf Junction and Romiley Junction.

Not related to this thread, but Hyde North has long been a prime candidate for closure. Flowery Field is less than 5 minutes walk, and it would ease the single lead junction movements to/from the 'Hadfield' (former 'Main') route.

Marple would no doubt retain 2tph heavy rail service, as you'd need a hourly Piccadilly - Guide Bridge - Hyde Central - Woodley - Romiley - Marple - New Mills - Hope Valley - Sheffield, as well as a hourly Piccadilly - New Mills/Chinley stopper.

So Marple would get 3tph Tram-Train, 2tph heavy rail. However, it would be slightly off-clockface, as path conflicts would occur between Marple Wharf Junction and Romiley Junction.

Not related to this thread, but Hyde North has long been a prime candidate for closure. Flowery Field is less than 5 minutes walk, and it would ease the single lead junction movements to/from the 'Hadfield' (former 'Main') route.

Could be, I had overlooked the continuing rail services; and I see I misread my notes; the average boarders at Rose Hill were 104, not 75. However; just checking on Google Earth, there were well over four times as many cars parked at Marple station - the main car park was full at 72, and the overflow carpark across the road nearly so at 62. Rose Hill had only 20 cars visible in 48 spaces.

There is another car park just down the road from the station by the bridge, but from the air, that looks to be for the Country Park.

There was a proposal once to put park-and-ride parking adjacent to Romiley station; though I think it may have been lost with the TIF bid. Aat any rate, that might well be a better location overall for a bus interchange, if it could be fitted in.

If we assume that the proposals modelled by TfGM and reported in the Network Rail scoping doucment represent the Marple proposals.

Currently there are 2,600 peak period Manchester bound commuters using the Marple/Hadfield corridor (up from 2,000 twenty years ago).

this splits roughly:

1,200 on the Hadfield/Glossop services
1,000 on the Marple/New Mills services on the 'new line ' via Bredbury (including Hope Valley commuters)
400 on the Rose Hill services (mainly via Hyde Central on the 'old line').

If we look at the regular off-peak services into Piccadilly,

- there are 2 tph on the 'new' line from Marple and New Mills (of which one every two hours comes from Sheffield).
- there is 1 tph on the 'new' line from Rose Hill,
- there is 1 tph on the 'old' line from Rose Hill via Hyde Central,
- there are 2 tph from Hadifeld and Glossop.

As set out in the document, the TfGM Marple tram-train would remove 2 tph into Piccadilly high level (one from Rose Hill and one from New Mills), but 1 tph from New Mills would carry on, (now going via Hyde Central) and all would now serve the Hope Valley. New Mills and Rose Hill would lose one service per hour, but Hyde Central would gain 1 tph (At least that is how I read it). Piccadilly would gain 5 tph at low level.


o all Manchester Piccadilly– Marple / New Mills via Bredbury services are
withdrawn.

o existing local services from Manchester Piccadilly – Marple Rose Hill via Guide
Bridge service are retained.

o existing local services from Manchester Piccadilly to Chinley and the Hope
Valley (one train per hour) serving Ashburys and Maple are diverted to call at
Guide Bridge and Hyde Central, continuing to Romiley, Marple, Strines, New
Mills etc.

But the key gain for Network Rail would be if the Hadfield and Glossop services could be converted to tram-train. Logically, it makes poor economic sense to build an eastern link from Piccadilly low level up to the Ashburys viaduct, if there are only going to be 5 tph going along it.

So, (for all those with a much better grasp of the interaction of the various services);

. once the Huiddersfield Leeds TPE services are relocated to run via Victoria(and hence no longer go through Guide Bridge), does that open the way for tthe Hadfield/Glossop services to be converted to 5tph tram-train? If so, that would remove a further 2 tph off-peak services from Piccadilly high level, and would also convert the line that - on current numbers - is generating the biggest tranche of business.

- and if so, where would the tram-trains go after Piccadilly? Could they carry on to Trafford Park and Salford Reds?

Correct me if I am wrong then, please......

Metrolink Tram-train.
Eccles to Marple via Cornbrook/Piccadilly/Brinnington. 5 tph.

Northern Heavy rail
Piccadilly main shed to Rose Hill 2 tph
Piccadilly ms to Sheffield 1tph
Piccadilly ms to Marple 2tph
All via Guide Bridge.

Implications.
Metro level services for both eastern suburban lines.
A new combine vehicle on the Metrolink system.
Increased patronage
No turn round complications at Piccadilly Undercroft for the Eccles tram. But what about the 5tph Mediacity trams?
Branded service advantages
Increased local control
Increase capacity at Piccadilly main shed.

Disadvantages
Cost
Untried system. Note trial in West Yorkshire

Future implications
Expansion of Metrolink trams trains for Hyde, Glossop, Atherton and Rawtenstall lines.
Stockport MBC aspirations for a circular borough line achievable.
Greater local control
Increase unitary of branding.

Thoughts and corrects brothers.

The whole Eccles line was built with only 5tph originally. One ramp should be affordable if it frees up capacity at Piccadilly.

Correct me if I am wrong then, please......

Metrolink Tram-train.
Eccles to Marple via Cornbrook/Piccadilly/Brinnington. 5 tph.

Northern Heavy rail
Piccadilly main shed to Rose Hill 2 tph
Piccadilly ms to Sheffield 1tph
Piccadilly ms to Marple 2tph
All via Guide Bridge.

Thoughts and corrects brothers.

I think

future services:

Metrolink Tram-train.
Eccles to Marple via Cornbrook/Piccadilly/Brinnington. 5 tph.

Northern Heavy rail
Piccadilly main shed to Rose Hill 1 tph
Piccadilly ms to Sheffield via Marple and New Mills central 1tph
All via Guide Bridge.

The object (from Network Rail's ) perspective, is to remove services from the main shed in Piccadilly, and obviate the need to replace the current heavy rail DMUs.

The latter is key; if he purchase of tram-trains can be set against non-purchase of DMU replacements, then (in budgeting terms) they can be treated as a free good. That is the whole basis of the Network Rail of the Network Rail scoping document; 'Can we save money on replacing commuter heavy rail vehicles by converting to tram-train?'

Plus - of course - 'Can we replace a subsisided heavy rail service, with a self-sufficient (in operational terms) tram-train?' Currently, there are six subsidised services per hour along this corridor. That should reduce to four with tram-train conversion. It isn't quite that simple of course, as the degree of subsidy on the remaining heavy rail services may have to be increased, now that they will no longer be picking up business at Marple and Romiley.

So there has to be a reduction in heavy rail services to free up funds for tram-trains.

The whole Eccles line was built with only 5tph originally. One ramp should be affordable if it frees up capacity at Piccadilly.


Indeed, but the Eccles line lost money hand-over-fist. Admittedly, that was mainly because buying out the original build-maintain-operate contract for the whole system was set against the capital cost of the Eccles line. But the traffic generated still wasn't enough to operate at a profit with 5 tph.

Mainly because of a price war with buses lowering ticket prices to undercut.

First post - be kind! - I'm daring the press the Reply button after lurking here for who knows how many years, particularly the transport threads, with little to add thanks to living in Pacerland. Exciting to finally see some details of what TfGM might have planned for the eastern lines...

- I presume that this is TfGM's bid for the national tram-train pilot. It may not necessarily be how the Marple tram-train service would be presented in an overall tram-train strategy for Greater Manc (in respect of which I believe from WZ and other posters on this forum that a document is due later this year).

This would explain a lot. I couldn't understand at first why this case study only suggested converting Marple, and not Rose Hill. There's already a big imbalance between the two stations, and changing only Marple to Metrolink ticketing, amongst other headaches, would cause problems for lots of people who use tickets between the two interchangeably (departing from Rose Hill but returning to Marple). Perhaps Marple could be a Phase 1 and Rose Hill following closely behind, but I think the only way to make this user-friendly is to convert the lot.

Could be, I had overlooked the continuing rail services; and I see I misread my notes; the average boarders at Rose Hill were 104, not 75. However; just checking on Google Earth, there were well over four times as many cars parked at Marple station - the main car park was full at 72, and the overflow carpark across the road nearly so at 62. Rose Hill had only 20 cars visible in 48 spaces.

There is another car park just down the road from the station by the bridge, but from the air, that looks to be for the Country Park.
The main reason I believe why Marple attracts so much more park and ride custom is that people actually drive in from New Mills and all around for the lower PTE fares. There's also the fact that it's halfway down a steep hill from the town itself, and that Rose Hill has always had the poorer service. Driving to Rose Hill also means joining the traffic queuing down Stockport Rd each morning and afternoon (check out Google Streetview). The service when you get there is still patchy, with no train back from Manchester between the 18.36 and 20.36 services, for example. Some people see it as a poor relation and just go to Marple instead, but it is actually far better placed for the town and residential areas. There's a lot of potential for growth if or when it gets a better service.

I'm wondering if the report pre-dates the increased 2tph services to New Mills and Rose Hill. Marple previously had 3tph but one of those was switched to Rose Hill and another extended to New Mills. I believe from December both hourly daytime services from Rose Hill will go via Hyde/Guide Bridge and call additionally at Gorton, which will give the old line a 2tph service (1tph currently goes via Ryder Brow and Belle Vue, running express back stopping only at Romiley, which is a waste). That possibly adds in a lot more heavy rail conflicts for the 5 tram-trains to contend with, if only the Marple service were converted, and I don't think either Rose Hill or New Mills would be happy to go back to 1tph.

However, converting both Rose Hill and Marple you'd have the problem of providing metro-style frequencies to both stations without overcrowding the line at Romiley, which could turn into quite a bottleneck, especially if in the future we have to add more services to Stockport from both stations into the mix. I'm not sure 5tph are even needed (every 15 or 20 mins would still be a revelation, especially if continued into the evenings and weekends), but imagine 5tph from both Marple stations to Piccadilly, then another 5tph to Stockport, and Romiley would be seeing a tram every 3 minutes. It's doable, but where would you fit the heavy rail?

The simple (but perhaps not very simple) answer would be to convert both the Bredbury and Hyde lines and extend the wires right out to a terminus at New Mills or Chinley, with the remaining heavy rail Sheffield stopper diverted via Hazel Grove.

What I expect might happen (from a totally uninformed viewpoint) is that both Marple and Rose Hill are converted but run at first only via Bredbury, with through heavy rail from Sheffield and New Mills making up the 2tph Hyde "old line" services into Piccadilly mainline. And although a connection to Eccles and the quays would be great, it'd seem a weird service for tram-trains to connect onto, being actually the most tram-like (and un-train-like) service on the whole network. Bury might make more sense, with Eccles/MediaCity switching to Ashton. I'd suggest the long-mooted Atherton link-up, but then again, I don't want to suggest we wait until 3CC for Metrolink to head out south east...! ;)

Good to have you onboard Metropacer. The more the merrier.

Thanks for posting Metropacer

this blog provides a bit more background information for the case-study in the Network rail scoping document:

http://www.marple-uk.com/smf/index.php?topic=4136.0

TfGM’s input to the RUS

Network Rail proposes to include a brief case-study of tram-train on the Manchester – Marple via Bredbury rail line in the report of the RUS, based on TfGM’s analysis. The case-study will include a general description of the proposed service change; a map of the existing and programmed Metrolink network and GM rail network; a very general description of the basic infrastructure required; and a high-level table of the results from the modelling and appraisal. The report is due to be published for consultation at the end of February 2012.

It is important that the report of the RUS is clear that the Manchester – Marple line is only one of a number of potential tram-train schemes in Greater Manchester. Officers will ensure all potential schemes are fully appraised as part of a future analysis.

Any future decisions on the relative priorities of potential tram-train routes should be based upon the development of a tram-train strategy for Greater Manchester, which it is proposed is developed over the next 12 months.

So the case-study was solicited especially from TfGM last year. There are, apparently, further tram-train proposals in the pipeline; but the Marple case-study is the one that Network Rail and TfGM think is the most advanced in planning terms, and which perhaps shows the best net benefit.

That said, I am not sure that converting Rose Hill to tram-train is likely to be that high a priority for the next stage, there isn't enough potential business in it. I suspect that the Glossop/Hadfield service will be next in line on the Eastern side; and possibly the Mid Cheshire service on the western. The Wigan/Atherton proposals, I think, are still a long way off; as they will require sorting out Salford Crescent first.

But the name of the game is reducing heavy rail costs (at least from Network Rail's perspective; and on tram-train, they seem to be the gatekeepers). That means taking services away from mainline Piccadilly platforms, reducing the requirement for replacement DMUs and EMUs, and - most of all - enabling withdrawal from highly subsidised commuter services. If a tram-train proposal ticks all three boxes, then it is much more likely to be funded. And if it ticks none, it won't get done at all.

Which is why, I suspect, that it is likely that at least 2 tph heavy rail services into Piccadilly will have to be withdrawn, once the Marple tram-train is introduced. Realistically, once the Marple/Romiley passengers are taken away onto the tram-train there won't be enough travellers to justify more than 1 tph each from Rose Hill and New Mills.

As for the tram-train, it needs to find a 60% increase in customers in order to pay its way without subsidy. Currently the line from Marple inbound picks up around 800 peak period borders per day. That needs to increase to nearer 1,300, while off-peak borders need to increase from around 400 to around 800. That won't be done by attracting more passengers from Marple, Romiley and Bredbury, but rather by increasing boarders from the stations closer into Manchester; Brinnington, Reddish, Ryder Brow. This is where the increased frequency offered by a tram-train is crucial. If the trams run every 12 minutes, and run all the way into the centre of town, then potential passengers in Reddish will walk pass the bus stop to get to the tram stop - which currently they do not. Which, I suspect, is why we are unlikely to see the tram-train extended to New Mills; the big investment is lilkely to go closer in, because that is where the unserved demand is.

the thing is metropacer, living in Romiley, i see almost zero benefit in converting my line to tram-train when the train service is not that bad - at least it exists. what i really want to see is the marple/romiley/bredbury/stockport link restored - it is slightly insane that this large corner of the Stockport area has been unable to reach its town centre for 40 odd years by rail.

There are actually four ways to do this:
- metrolink roughly down the old CLC alignment dodging he motorway to meet up with the line from East Didsbury - super expensive
- extend Rose Hill line down the Middlewood Way and put a S-To-W chord to the Disley Line
- place a NW to SE chord between Brinnington and Ryder Brow onto the Lightly Used Stockport to Guide Bridge line
- the cheapest because it ALREADY EXISTS - run a service up through Hyde to Guide Bridge ad back down the Guide Bridge to Stockport line - its a bit of a long way round..

the thing is metropacer, living in Romiley, i see almost zero benefit in converting my line to tram-train when the train service is not that bad - at least it exists. what i really want to see is the marple/romiley/bredbury/stockport link restored - it is slightly insane that this large corner of the Stockport area has been unable to reach its town centre for 40 odd years by rail.

There are actually four ways to do this:
- metrolink roughly down the old CLC alignment dodging he motorway to meet up with the line from East Didsbury - super expensive
- extend Rose Hill line down the Middlewood Way and put a S-To-W chord to the Disley Line
- place a NW to SE chord between Brinnington and Ryder Brow onto the Lightly Used Stockport to Guide Bridge line
- the cheapest because it ALREADY EXISTS - run a service up through Hyde to Guide Bridge ad back down the Guide Bridge to Stockport line - its a bit of a long way round..

You're presuming that heavy rail would be cheaper because there are already tracks on the ground, but when you include the cost of new signalling, new infrastructure to accommodate these services on congested parts of the network and buying new rolling stock suitable for these journeys I suspect that Metrolink would come out much more cost-effective.

As nerd has pointed out though, tram-train isn't really for you anyway, but for people in the poorly served inner city districts.

Can I be moderately controversial and suggest that the only tram trains likely to occur will be within the GM boundaries as it them who are essentially driving this novel idea through.

So don't hold your horses for the next tram leaving platform A at Bury Interchange to Chester.

Wrong of me to do so, but if tram trains ere to happen and if it was successful, then I could see this.

Metrolink
Eccles to Marple 5 tph
Media city to Glossop 5 tph
Port Salford to Wigan 5 tph

Northern Rail
Piccadilly to Rose Hill 2 tph
Piccadilly to Sheffield 1tph
Victoria to Southport 1tph

Wigan and Port Salford seems a bit of a silly paring, forming a 'U' on its side. I suggest Glossop - Wigan, which boosts Pic-Vic frequency, which - while obviously Northern Hub gives 'direct' heavy rail services - is the weakest service on the city-centre 'triangle' post 2CC.

I also don't get why Marple and not Rose Hill - but then it's a case of terminate the tram-trains at one and you end up having to terminate heavy rail at the other anyway.

Aren't Cheshire East the lead authority for tram-train to Chester and Crewe, in which case they would appear to be actively pushing it forward. It's also a very cheap scheme to implement (relative to Marple and Wigan anyway) as pretty much all the track exists already. The weakness of this scheme is not political will, so much as whether diesel-electric hybrid vehicles can be sourced that meet acceptable emissions/cost criteria, as there's almost no way that the mid-Cheshire line will be being electrified any time soon.

It's probably best to think of tram-trains as two different kinds of scheme. The Marple type is a cheap urban-metro solution; the Northwich type a Pacer replacement/rural rail optimisation scheme. It would appear from the Marple case study given above that there are potential benefits for the former types, however these have not yet been demonstrated for the latter.

the thing is metropacer, living in Romiley, i see almost zero benefit in converting my line to tram-train when the train service is not that bad - at least it exists. what i really want to see is the marple/romiley/bredbury/stockport link restored - it is slightly insane that this large corner of the Stockport area has been unable to reach its town centre for 40 odd years by rail.

Romiley is lucky to have its station right in the middle of the town with that 15 minute frequency. I also want to see the Stockport link, but perhaps tram-training the route to Piccadilly is the precursor to that. Once you've got an electrified and prepared route for it to connect onto, the super expensive M60/Tiviot route through Portwood into the bus station (which SMBC seem to be pushing - or I should say, gently and politely prodding every few years) might not look so far fetched.

That said, I am not sure that converting Rose Hill to tram-train is likely to be that high a priority for the next stage, there isn't enough potential business in it. I suspect that the Glossop/Hadfield service will be next in line on the Eastern side; and possibly the Mid Cheshire service on the western. The Wigan/Atherton proposals, I think, are still a long way off; as they will require sorting out Salford Crescent first.

But the name of the game is reducing heavy rail costs (at least from Network Rail's perspective; and on tram-train, they seem to be the gatekeepers). That means taking services away from mainline Piccadilly platforms, reducing the requirement for replacement DMUs and EMUs, and - most of all - enabling withdrawal from highly subsidised commuter services. If a tram-train proposal ticks all three boxes, then it is much more likely to be funded. And if it ticks none, it won't get done at all.

Which is why, I suspect, that it is likely that at least 2 tph heavy rail services into Piccadilly will have to be withdrawn, once the Marple tram-train is introduced. Realistically, once the Marple/Romiley passengers are taken away onto the tram-train there won't be enough travellers to justify more than 1 tph each from Rose Hill and New Mills.

Thanks for all the analysis nerd, very interesting. The trouble is that I'm not sure TfGM reducing Rose Hill back to 1tph will wash, not with its users and perhaps not with TfGM/local councillors unless I'm being naive, as they seem to always be pushing for better service to the station in rail meeting documents.

In fact, with that station now taking up 2tph slots into Piccadilly and presumably attracting a large subsidy for the privilege, it almost looks to me like the route TfGM should be converting first, with the inner city stops providing the revenue boost as you say. Rather than Marple which, while having higher custom that could be sucked up by tram-trains, could more happily saunter along as a pure heavy rail station for longer, with its trains running via Hyde instead.

But I think their ultimate solution will be to tram-train both stations. Looking at what a short and easy branch it is, it'd surely be cost-ineffective (I think that's the right buzzword) to leave the Rose Hill spur out of any larger conversion/electrification project.

And even though Glossop/Hadfield being already electrified would be a relatively easy route for tram-train, I suspect the need to replace the DMUs on the Marple lines means it's actually a little further down the list and these will take priority. There's more immediate benefit from tram-trains on Marple/Rose Hill than there is Glossop, which already has good rolling stock, good service and good passenger numbers.

It's probably best to think of tram-trains as two different kinds of scheme. The Marple type is a cheap urban-metro solution; the Northwich type a Pacer replacement/rural rail optimisation scheme. It would appear from the Marple case study given above that there are potential benefits for the former types, however these have not yet been demonstrated for the latter.The test in Yorkshire was to be the latter - a long, rural line to Huddersfield plugged into the tram network. It will now simply be a one-stop extension from Meadowhall to Rotherham as the Penistone line option was going to be too expensive.

Such longer routes might be able to make use of the lots of trams terminating at Victoria problem with the current planned network: Burnley via that new curve they plan on building, Rawenstall via the East Lancs, or Clitheroe via Bolton if you can squeeze the tram-trains on the routes... They are a bit more urban than the Penistone Line, but similar to the Wigan line (perhaps a bit longer, but not by much).

Given that there would be (under the heatonparkincakes service pattern of tram trains) 0tph terminating at Piccadilly, and 20tph terminating at Victoria, getting that down to 5tph at Victoria and removing some commuter services that would terminate in the mainline station would be a worth-while goal - though some effort would be required. Certainly ought to be a long-term aim, though leaving the PTE area would cause some trouble in getting it done.

It will now simply be a one-stop extension from Meadowhall to Rotherham as the Penistone line option was going to be too expensive.


Er, three stops (new platforms at Meadowhall, extended low platforms at Rotherham Central and a new stop at Parkgate)

Romiley is lucky to have its station right in the middle of the town with that 15 minute frequency. I also want to see the Stockport link, but perhaps tram-training the route to Piccadilly is the precursor to that. Once you've got an electrified and prepared route for it to connect onto, the super expensive M60/Tiviot route through Portwood into the bus station (which SMBC seem to be pushing - or I should say, gently and politely prodding every few years) might not look so far fetched.

Thanks for all the analysis nerd, very interesting. The trouble is that I'm not sure TfGM reducing Rose Hill back to 1tph will wash, not with its users and perhaps not with TfGM/local councillors unless I'm being naive, as they seem to always be pushing for better service to the station in rail meeting documents.

In fact, with that station now taking up 2tph slots into Piccadilly and presumably attracting a large subsidy for the privilege, it almost looks to me like the route TfGM should be converting first, with the inner city stops providing the revenue boost as you say. Rather than Marple which, while having higher custom that could be sucked up by tram-trains, could more happily saunter along as a pure heavy rail station for longer, with its trains running via Hyde instead.

But I think their ultimate solution will be to tram-train both stations. Looking at what a short and easy branch it is, it'd surely be cost-ineffective (I think that's the right buzzword) to leave the Rose Hill spur out of any larger conversion/electrification project.

And even though Glossop/Hadfield being already electrified would be a relatively easy route for tram-train, I suspect the need to replace the DMUs on the Marple lines means it's actually a little further down the list and these will take priority. There's more immediate benefit from tram-trains on Marple/Rose Hill than there is Glossop, which already has good rolling stock, good service and good passenger numbers.

On balance, I think I agree with you Metropacer.

Running the tram-train lines into Rose Hill, rather than Marple, would allow Marple to continue to have 2 tph (plus 1 tph at peak) running through to New Mills central. So Piccadilly would still free up 2 tph slots in the main shed; and no station would suffer a loss of service. And there would be no need to build an extra platform at Marple.

The Stockport-Bredbury link is pie-in-the-sky I'm afraid; or at least it certainly will not hitch to the tram-train wagon. If it happens, it is much more likely to be a rapid bus.

But I still suspect that conversion of the Hadfield/Glossop line is likely to prove quite attractive as an early option. It isn't simply that it grabs platform space at Piccadilly, it is also the fact that platforms 1, 2 and 3 (the ones that have to be used for these services, being on the north-side) are also the longest; and hence most likely the ones that Network Rail will be seeking to convert for the classic-compatible services into Piccadilly when HS2 Phase 1 opens.

Tram-train as a concept works best along lines where there are frequent stops, which takes advantage of their good acceleration. But they will still likely have a considerably lower top speed than standard EMUs; so they are going to be less attractive alternative on lines where current services are able to pick up speed inbetween stations. Bombardier produce a 'Flexity Swift' tram-train LRT for Karlsruhe, which has a top speed of 100kph, more than the 80kph top speed of the M5000s, but a lot less than the class 323s used on the Hadfield service currently. There are a lot of stops on the Hadfield/Glossop line though, many more than on others put forwards as potential candidates for conversion.

There is also a general issue of configuration. The M5000s have only 52 seats - so that they can fit in sufficent standing passengers to reach a total capactiy of 200+. It may be suggested that a tram-train would need more seats - even if this resulted in a rather lower capacity, perhaps 62 seats and a total capacity of 177 as in the identially sized K5000 trams in Cologne. If it is intended that the tram-trains should function as normal trams on one side of the service, it may be tricky balancing the preference for seating in those on the tram-train leg, against the preference for standing in those on the other leg.

I imagine they would be fixed formations equivalent to a double tram (either one long tram with multiple articulations or two unidirectional trams permanently coupled) with a mixed seating/standing layout, due to length less proportionally would need to be put aside for wheelchair spaces which are the main things causing loss of seats.

Tram-train as a concept works best along lines where there are frequent stops, which takes advantage of their good acceleration. But they will still likely have a considerably lower top speed than standard EMUs; so they are going to be less attractive alternative on lines where current services are able to pick up speed inbetween stations. Bombardier produce a 'Flexity Swift' tram-train LRT for Karlsruhe, which has a top speed of 100kph, more than the 80kph top speed of the M5000s, but a lot less than the class 323s used on the Hadfield service currently. There are a lot of stops on the Hadfield/Glossop line though, many more than on others put forwards as potential candidates for conversion.

There is also a general issue of configuration. The M5000s have only 52 seats - so that they can fit in sufficent standing passengers to reach a total capactiy of 200+. It may be suggested that a tram-train would need more seats - even if this resulted in a rather lower capacity, perhaps 62 seats and a total capacity of 177 as in the identially sized K5000 trams in Cologne. If it is intended that the tram-trains should function as normal trams on one side of the service, it may be tricky balancing the preference for seating in those on the tram-train leg, against the preference for standing in those on the other leg.

Considering how hard it is to build new stations on national rail lines, does it follow that building new stations on tram-train converted lines (in order to take advantage of the more rapid acceleration) will be equally complex and expensive?

Considering how hard it is to build new stations on national rail lines, does it follow that building new stations on tram-train converted lines (in order to take advantage of the more rapid acceleration) will be equally complex and expensive?

A tram-train line would still be a national rail line!

Completely new stations aren't normally that complex (NR has off-the shelf designs and components for new stations), but the extra-over costs include land, planning consent, provision of step-free access, CCTV, water and electrical supplies, car parking and the enhanced programme caused by trying to build things next to running lines.

Its likely that a tram-train only platform would not need to be as long as NR would normmlly aspire to, but this won't cheapen them by much (you still have to build car parks, bridges, install CCTV, etc.).

I hear that Chorley Buckshaw Parkway (or whatever the correct name is) cost about £5.5m all-in, and that is pretty much state of the art, bar full-length canopies.

New stations.

The latest GM Rail Policy document states the only places TfGM are looking at presently are are Leigh, Baguley and Diggle.

As you should know the previous GM new station plan fell between Darling 's transport cuts to fund the illegal Blair wars and failing it's business plan.

On the tram train line as suggested I think the only place without a station is around the White Bridge in Dukinfield, which would probably facilitate the closure of Hyde North. A moribund station whose raison d'être long disappeared when the big engineering factories closed in the 70/80s around that part of Tameside.

Thus I would say new station are not the main issue. Re modeling a rag gaggle collection of the existing stations is. Like new sports stadia, new facilities by default increase patronage.

It won't be cheap, but in the long run investment in electrification, combined tram-trains and stations will worth it.

How are they going about building a new station in Leigh? I can't see how that would be possible unless they build a station on the Chat Moss Line and have a shuttle bus to the town centre.

(unless you're talking about the rebuilding of the Tyldesley Loopline, which I thought was up for a guided busway?)

With regards to Baguley, there's tonnes of places along that line from Stockport to Navigation Road which could also be served. Obviously Baguley is being built as an interchange with Metrolink airport line, but Sharston and Cheadle could also benefit.

It's probably the only way for the Chester Line to reinvent itself. It's currently disgracefully served mainly by Pacers and for people in Altrincham and Hale the Metrolink wins hands down (I know cause I have friends down there). If more stations were provided along the Stockport stretch (as well as the two Met interchanges at Baguley and Navi Road), there could be a case for electrification/extension of trains/increased frequency


EDIT: in fact, wouldn't tram-train to Chester work better here as opposed to an extension of the Alty line?

I hear that Chorley Buckshaw Parkway (or whatever the correct name is) cost about £5.5m all-in, and that is pretty much state of the art, bar full-length canopies.

Delaying the project over many years must have also escalated costs. What annoys me is that the land may have been owned by the HCA (given it was a redevelopment of the ROS) so should be given over for a peppercorn sum as it is a scheme for the public benefit. Milton Keynes (and various places like Warrington, Runcorn, etc.) suffer as a result of undeveloped HCA land.

On the tram train line as suggested I think the only place without a station is around the White Bridge in Dukinfield, which would probably facilitate the closure of Hyde North. A moribund station whose raison d'être long disappeared when the big engineering factories closed in the 70/80s around that part of Tameside.

It should have been closed when Flowery Field opened, but closure was never sought. It was probably cheaper to keep it open than the expensive procedure, hence the odd 'parly' trains that keeps Ardwick, Denton and Reddish South alive.

How are they going about building a new station in Leigh? I can't see how that would be possible unless they build a station on the Chat Moss Line and have a shuttle bus to the town centre.

For 'Leigh' read Kenyon Junction/Parkway.

If more stations were provided along the Stockport stretch (as well as the two Met interchanges at Baguley and Navi Road), there could be a case for electrification/extension of trains/increased frequency

Altrincham - Stockport reminds me of Wimbledon - Croydon, an orbital suburban crying out for conversion.

Musing over this proposal is good fun, but seriously looking at it brings up some questions.

The proposal being to extend the Eccles tram line onto the Marple heavy rail line.

From Eccles to Piccadilly there are few issues.

Q1. How and where to elevate from Piccadilly Undercroft to the northern side of the viaduct into Piccadilly main shed.

Q2. Which vehicle, signalling and power source will be compatible on both systems?

Q3. Station re modeling from Piccadilly east onwards.

Q4. who pays for this?

Musing over this proposal is good fun, but seriously looking at it brings up some questions.

The proposal being to extend the Eccles tram line onto the Marple heavy rail line.

From Eccles to Piccadilly there are few issues.

Q1. How and where to elevate from Piccadilly Undercroft to the northern side of the viaduct into Piccadilly main shed.

Q2. Which vehicle, signalling and power source will be compatible on both systems?

Q3. Station re modeling from Piccadilly east onwards.

Q4. who pays for this?

A1. You don't; you like the Marple line to the Metrolink east of Piccadilly.

A2. You need a hybrid vehicle, with track brakes, TMS/AWS/TPWS and possibly dual voltage 25kVAC / DC

A3. Not required - Metrolink and NR are both high-floor systems. That said, the relationship between track and platform is more stringent on Metrolink, but nothing is insurmountable!

A4. Metrolink. There is little to do from an NR point of view, possibly some new check rails and track renewal through stations.

q.v. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=89129096&postcount=3281

With regards to Baguley, there's tonnes of places along that line from Stockport to Navigation Road which could also be served. Obviously Baguley is being built as an interchange with Metrolink airport line, but Sharston and Cheadle could also benefit.

It's probably the only way for the Chester Line to reinvent itself. It's currently disgracefully served mainly by Pacers and for people in Altrincham and Hale the Metrolink wins hands down (I know cause I have friends down there). If more stations were provided along the Stockport stretch (as well as the two Met interchanges at Baguley and Navi Road), there could be a case for electrification/extension of trains/increased frequency

Cheadle has been badly missing a rail link for a long long time - the old station on Manchester Road - now the Cheshire Lines (sic) Pub was too far away from the village centre even when it was open and the original better placed station opposite George & Dragon was shut in 1917


EDIT: in fact, wouldn't tram-train to Chester work better here as opposed to an extension of the Alty line?
This line IS part of the route of the Chester to Manchester line - if tram-train came up from Chester to Alty then it should continue thru Alti and turn right at Navi Road and go this way all the way up to Stockport

A4. Metrolink. There is little to do from an NR point of view, possibly some new check rails and track renewal through stations.



That is the big question Joe; but I'm not sure you have got it right.

Of course, neither Metrolink nor Network Rail have the funds themselves to pay for all this; the ultimate source for investment funds is always the Department for Transport (and behind them, the Treasury); the question is not 'who pays?' but 'whose budget allocation does the cost fall against?"

The main issue here is that of the operating subsidy consumed by the train services. This currently runs at approx £80m per year for passengers boarding in Greater Manchester. Metrolink, on the other hand, is required to run without operating subsidy. There is an underlying assumption that once services are converted to tram-train, they will no longer need to be subsidised. (All this is, of course, hypothetical; one original purpose of the tram-train pilot was to test this hypothesis, though the actual scheme adopted is unlikely to do so).

So, it has long been suggested that it ought to be possible to broker a reduction in future annual operating subsidy into capital investment funds to create a tram-train system. So, if the Hadfield/Marple corridor currently consumes around £15m-£20m per year in operting subsidy (I don't know the exact figures, maybe someone on here does) and that sum could be released as a capital fund, then it would easily fund borrowings of £200m or more - which could be used to pay for the electrification of the Marple line (Hadfield is under wires already); plus the link into the station.

And then, on top of that, there is the question of the rolling stock. The tram-train saves DfT from haveing the fund replacements for the DMUs currently providing the service to Marple.

And, in so far as the conversion takes services away from the prime-site platforms 1-4 of Piccadilly, it saves a considerable sum in potential expenditure associated with HS2 Phase 1.

But that assumes the money saved would be available to TfGM to pay for tram-train Metrolink. I am sure that Network Rail would regard any sums saved as better directed towards reducing its own deficit. And HS2 would appreciate it as being a reduction in its capital requirements. Or the Treasury may simply reduce its revenue settlement to DfT.

Of course, neither Metrolink nor Network Rail have the funds themselves to pay for all this; the ultimate source for investment funds is always the Department for Transport (and behind them, the Treasury); the question is not 'who pays?' but 'whose budget allocation does the cost fall against?"

Don't forget ERDF and EIB monies which have already been used to pay/borrow for Phases 1, 2 & 3.

I should know this but don't.

But no doubt there are plenty on here that do?

How far does the overhead electrification extend on the Trafford Park/Urmston line? In case it might be possible to convert the stopper services along here to tram-train, once the direct Airport-Picc-Liverpool services switch over to the electrified Chat Moss line.

Only to the United football ground station as far as passenger trains are concerned. They extend a fair way towards Trafford Park station but only the sidings and FLT are wired.

Not so sure that a tram train with at least a 5tph capacity would be credible on the Warrington line.

Reasons being that it would have to find pathways alongside the Nottingham-Liverpool, Llandudno-MIA trains, the various goods trains to Trafford Park, Fiddlers Ferry and in future Porto Salfordo. And then of course the United trains.

That it's split between authorities, it isn't electrified all the way and whether do you connect it to the greater Metrolink network? And of course, bar this forum, it has not been suggested in either public nor private at political or strategic level.

Lots of complicating issues I am sure you would agree.

Essentially the basic minimum for a commuter service is 4tph with suitable reliable and correct capacity train sets.

This doesn't need to be a tram train on any route.




Nothing certain about this. But starting with what we know is this.

:)Tram train trials intended for Sheffield, that integrates a tram train with the greater tram network

:)The Dft, Treasury and Network Rail are looking at reducing costs and budgets. Tram trains are argued to be a cheaper option.

:)TfGM have been encouraged to sponsor ideas for so called Alternatives by the Dft and Network Rail and thus have suggested tram trains.

:)The lines to Glossop/Hadfield, Marple and Wigan have been at times been suggested at a strategic level to be converted to some form of light rail or rapid transit.

:)And lastly there is a long term desire by TfGM and GM politicos to grasp increased command over the local transport network and make better use of the County Rail Subsidy. Arguably tram trains provide this.

Not so sure that a tram train with at least a 5tph capacity would be credible on the Warrington line.

Reasons being that it would have to find pathways alongside the Nottingham-Liverpool, Llandudno-MIA trains, the various goods trains to Trafford Park, Fiddlers Ferry and in future Porto Salfordo. And then of course the United trains.North Wales trains have to, and do today, run via Eccles (else they can't get to Chester). United trains are specials, so we can ignore them somewhat, or group them with the freight.

With the move of TPX to the Eccles line post-Northern hub (which you've assumed), then there's no reason why the Nottingham - Liverpool service can't do likewise, other than a desire to have fast trains on that route between Manchester and Warrington, though at 1tph, would it really get in the way?

You propose a 4tph stopping train service on the route - a 5tph tram-train isn't much harder to fit, surely? OK, there's all sorts of electrification and other issues (eg performance pollution, especially given it would be the 10th service through Cornbrook) with tram-trains that means that it is a long term goal at best (the only reason I see for it is that it's a similar sort of service to the other rail lines metrolinked/tram-trained, so would fit in for continuities sake)

I like the idea of a Warrington via Urmston tram train.

BUT.

Using the old railway coming off the Altrincham metrolink line, it would be possibile to route a line out to Warrington via Lymm. You wouldn't have to stop it in Warrington town centre either. It could go on using the road-side cuttings.

From Timperley;

(HUGE gap, biggest on the system, then...)

Lymm
Thelwall
Thellwall-Quayside
Park Avenue
Wilderspool Expressway
Union Street
Warrington Central
Halliwell Jones Stadium
Bewsey Park
Gulliver's World (OH YES)
Westbrook
Boston-Sankey
Great Sankey
Barrow Hall
Lingley Green


The Warrington section would be very similar to the Airport line, running on roadside grassy bits.

North Wales trains have to, and do today, run via Eccles (else they can't get to Chester). United trains are specials, so we can ignore them somewhat, or group them with the freight.

With the move of TPX to the Eccles line post-Northern hub (which you've assumed), then there's no reason why the Nottingham - Liverpool service can't do likewise, other than a desire to have fast trains on that route between Manchester and Warrington, though at 1tph, would it really get in the way?

You propose a 4tph stopping train service on the route - a 5tph tram-train isn't much harder to fit, surely? OK, there's all sorts of electrification and other issues (eg performance pollution, especially given it would be the 10th service through Cornbrook) with tram-trains that means that it is a long term goal at best (the only reason I see for it is that it's a similar sort of service to the other rail lines metrolinked/tram-trained, so would fit in for continuities sake)

The big problem that I see is the breaking of services at Warrington and the problems that might cause in that town. It's very easy for those in Manchester (and Liverpool) to characterise the line through Warrington as a commuter route for our city, but the people of Widnes or Glazebrooke might not see it that way. One option would be to build a diversion Glazebrook to Port Salford, although that would be very expensive.

As for the Cornbrook viaduct, my suspicion is that this would be too many services for decent running (even if it is theoretically feasible with TMS). If Airport services could be diverted away from Chorlton via Moss Side and Hulme that would free up some paths, although again it's expensive.

I'd see this as more of a long term idea because the knock on problems it would cause would be substantial enough to require expensive solutions. I do however see it as a reasonable end point.

reason why I'm interested in Urmston/Flixton as an tram train option; is that I think it could be the obverse of a Hadfield/Glossop tram train; since I suspect both lines would be best served with doubles running at 5 tph.

As you say, there seems no need to have any Liverpool services on this line once Chat Moss is electrified; so the residual passenger services would be Oxford Road - Warrington, 2 tph at most.

Plus all the Trafford Park container traffic of course.

I tend to feel the Warrington line will be eventually electrified and will be considered the alternative route from Liverpool.

I also feel that whilst the Eccles tram might process onwards from Piccadilly to Marple, then if Glossop/Hadfield became Metrolinkified, then the most obvious western destination would be onwards from Cornbrook to Port Salford.

No need for silly turnabouts at either Victoria or Piccadilly then.

Volty can I point out that Warrington RL ground is a short walk from the Central station.

That route would be better served by a dedicated high quality bus service ala Trent.

As a point of advice, with such enthusiasm for transport, perhaps you should consider a degree in transport planning. Go and visit some existing different forms of transport, so you will be better informed on here and amongst your peers.

I tend to feel the Warrington line will be eventually electrified and will be considered the alternative route from Liverpool.

I also feel that whilst the Eccles tram might process onwards from Piccadilly to Marple, then if Glossop/Hadfield became Metrolinkified, then the most obvious western destination would be onwards from Cornbrook to Port Salford.

No need for silly turnabouts at either Victoria or Piccadilly then.

That was my preferred alternative; but I rather feel we may have to wait quite a time to see the Trafford Centre line happen, and I think that the Hadfield/Glossop conversion may come sooner rather than later (though obviously only after the Trans Pennine service no longer route through Guide Bridge).

I don't think that a general electrification of the Warrington route would create much in the way of problems for a tram-train - if anything it just makes it cheaper. Even if there was one Liverpool service per hour along this route - rather than along the Chat Moss route - I dount it would conflict that much.

The key question to me is just how capable each alternative counterpart route would be of expanding patronage. There are many more people living along the Urmston route, so much so that I think they would justify running doubles (as the Hadfield service is most likely to do too).

But we shall see when the TfGM strategy comes out, which should now be less than a year.

Volty can I point out that Warrington RL ground is a short walk from the Central station.

That route would be better served by a dedicated high quality bus service ala Trent.

As a point of advice, with such enthusiasm for transport, perhaps you should consider a degree in transport planning. Go and visit some existing different forms of transport, so you will be better informed on here and amongst your peers.

I'm more looking at town planning/landscaping. Now that I think about it, a guided busway would be better for this route to Warrington.

But as for the other route, Liverpool via Urmston, why not just maximise local services down there? Most, if not all, of the express routes will be diverted via Eccles, so we could get some pretty high frequency commuter services Liverpool-Manchester down the Urmson line. The line goes through some pretty dense Mancunian and Liverpudlian suburbia. I don't think it would be a good idea to terminate trains at Warrington.

Having said that, I think it's important Warrington gets Metrolink. Sooner or much later, it's possible.

...........
Ultimate dream would be working for Peel..........
.

I'd keep quiet about that, if I were you!

Jeepers I would seriousy delete that Volty.

That's a lack of ambition there son.

Consider this. Would you work for the Department of Transport in Whitehall or as a middle manager at Stagecoach?

At the Treasury or at Begbie Traynors on Deansgate.

You chose kid.

I don't understand? Why should I delete it? You've got me dead worried now :L

Peel seems like a pretty exciting place to work, to me anyway. Why wouldn't it be?

I like the idea of a Warrington via Urmston tram train.

BUT.

Using the old railway coming off the Altrincham metrolink line, it would be possibile to route a line out to Warrington via Lymm. You wouldn't have to stop it in Warrington town centre either. It could go on using the road-side cuttings.

From Timperley;

(HUGE gap, biggest on the system, then...)

Lymm
Thelwall
Thellwall-Quayside
Park Avenue
Wilderspool Expressway
Union Street
Warrington Central
Halliwell Jones Stadium
Bewsey Park
Gulliver's World (OH YES)
Westbrook
Boston-Sankey
Great Sankey
Barrow Hall
Lingley Green


The Warrington section would be very similar to the Airport line, running on roadside grassy bits.


Ah, the old Timperley and Garston line. Sadly you'll meet the Sustrans Mafia head on with that: most of it is a cycle way and there is a huge gap in the former viaduct in Broadheath, so you'd have to go onto the street throuhg the Atlantic St. business park. Irrespective of all that, it defeats the prime reason for UK tram train - it uses existing under-utilised existing lines.

Going on (or back, I'm confused) from other points, the transfer of TPE to the Chat Moss is pre-hub (e.g. 2013).

I don't understand? Why should I delete it? You've got me dead worried now :L

Peel seems like a pretty exciting place to work, to me anyway. Why wouldn't it be?

You need to do some research Voldy! Here's an example:

http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1007

(Apologies for drifting off-topic).

PEEL HOLDINGS MEDIACITYUK PINEWOOD AND MONOPOLIES


Star date: 17th June 2011

OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AND PEEL HOLDINGS

Salford's MediaCityUK has become embroiled in a huge row with the future of the British film industry at stake.

At the centre of it, the Office of Fair Trading is looking into Peel's proposed takeover of Pinewood and Shepperton Studios and whether, with MediaCityUK already in its ownership, Peel would have too large a share in the tv production business.

But behind this there's green belt destruction, property speculation, media democracy and, as always, John Whittaker…

SALFORD'S PART IN THE BIG PICTURE

Peel Holdings is a profit making company. And it doesn't matter what area of business the company is in – be it shopping malls, airports, ports, property or the media – it's always looking at the bottom line. How to make more and more money.

Now campaigners and people in the media are concerned that Peel Holdings is aiming to get too large a share of film and tv production facilities, and will be able to push rents so high as to be restrictive for small and middle sized production companies.

That's what's at the heart of a current investigation by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), which is looking into Peel's proposed £96million takeover of Pinewood and Shepperton Studios.

So far the takeover, under the name of Peel Acquisitions (Peel Pegasus), has been confined mainly to the financial pages – the concerns of shareholders, the offer of a buy out by Mohamed Al Fayed, Lord Michael Grade the chairman of Pinewood Shepperton kicking the press out of the company's Annual General Meeting etc etc… (see here for further details)

…But beyond this, people are questioning the motives of Peel – is the takeover about trashing green belt land to build 1400 houses, which would more than pay for the cost of the buyout? Is it about trying to gain a monopoly in tv and film production facilities? Is it about shifting the British film industry to Salford? And where is democracy, accountability and transparency in all this?

The Office of Fair Trading is primarily concerned with whether Peel will have a share over 20% of the `provision of studio facilities for the production of television programmes', if the takeover goes ahead. If Peel does have over 20% of the market the OFT can instigate a thorough forty day investigation. And following that, the Government could refer the deal to the Competition Commission, as media companies may suffer by the lessening of competition in tv studio provision.
.
We understand that Peel is claiming it will have a share of just under 20% but others beg to differ…

"It is a stretch to believe that the company post-takeover will be below 20% of UK tv studio provision" argues Jonathan Stuart-Brown of the Film Industry Lobby Group "They seem on course by 2014 to house Coronation Street, Eastenders, Emmerdale, primetime shows such as Jonathan Creek, Waking The Dead, New Tricks, Dragon's Den, The Apprentice, Ricky Gervais sitcoms, many Ant and Dec and BBC Saturday night Light Entertainment shows, Robin Hood, Match of The Day, BBC Sport, BBC Children, BBC and ITV North-West News, BBC Documentaries, BBC and SIS global leadership post-production facilities…"

The list goes on and on, and if Peel own production facilities at Pinewood, Shepperton and Teddington studios, as well as MediaCityUK in Salford, there are concerns that once a large share of the market is established, rental for studios and production facilities will start rising.

Already, the high rents at MediaCityUK have seen media companies locate either at the alternative Manchester Sharp Project or, in Salford, outside of MediaCityUK itself at the Digital World Centre.

At one point, MediaCityUK was empty of large media companies, except for the BBC and Salford University, although ITV has now taken space. Smaller scale companies are based at MediaCity's Pie Factory and the Greenhouse although, as yet, there's no word on whether independent production companies can afford to use Peel's studio and production facilities.

While the OFT is looking at Peel's share of tv production facilities, strangely, it is not looking at the company's share of film production facilities should the Pinewood Shepperton takeover happen.

"Peel alleged that there was nearly an issue with tv studios provision but none at all with film industry studio provision because MediaCityUK has made no films, and you have to presume they said they were going to make none there in the future" says Jonathan Stuart-Brown "This seems a remarkable claim given their Vision document from about three years ago where they stated that film making was planned separate to tv production and the digital creative industries."

The actual wording was "mediacity:uk makes room for all whether digital media, TV and film production, broadcasting or publishing…mediacity:uk can provide new business opportunities."

And this under another paragraph which stated "it won't take long for all 200 acres of mediacity:uk to rise up by the banks of the Manchester Ship Canal". (see here)

Phase 1 of MediaCityUK, which includes the BBC, only takes up around one sixth of the total site. Should the takeover go ahead, is Peel planning to run down the famous Pinewood and Shepperton film studios and re-locate them in Salford, or elsewhere for that matter?

The Salford Star asked Peel Media if it intended to house film production on the remaining portion of the undeveloped MediaCityUK site but the company has so far failed to respond.

Residents who live near Pinewood Studios fear that the Peel takeover bid is about running down Pinewood – and more to do with property development and green belt destruction than the British film industry.

Pinewood Studios (of which Peel currently has a 30% stake) has submitted `Project Pinewood' (see here) plans to South Bucks Council to develop 100 acres of green belt land next to its studios, including the construction of 1400 houses. It's been at the centre of a Public Inquiry which only finished last month, with the results expected soon.

As the Stop Project Pinewood website (see here) states, "Many people in the film industry believe that if this scheme were to get the go-ahead Pinewood Group's primary profit-centre would shift from being a film production facility to one of land developers which would seriously damage the British film Industry and destroy jobs in the area"

It adds: "Pinewood Group has let their last remaining section of back-lot for gravel extraction and there is concern at the spiralling cost of hiring stages at Pinewood Group Studios, which may be part of a plan to price film companies to stay away, prior to redevelopment."

If you do the maths, the profit on 1400 houses in leafy South Bucks well outweighs the £96million price that Peel is planning to pay for the Pinewood Group, which also includes Shepperton and Teddington studios as well as a Los Angeles sales office and a sales agency for studios in Malaysia, Canada, two in Germany and one in the Dominican Republic.

"Pinewood's directors recommended that the Peel bid was a good offer because much of Pinewood's land was greenbelt!" says A Gears, a local resident "No mention of their massive PR campaign to overturn 100 acres of that land into a housing development…

"When uncertainty over who will eventually own Pinewood Shepperton and other shareholder dissatisfaction is taken into account, one thing is clear - this project was never about the screen industry or the national interest" he adds "It was always a perceived opportunity for property investors to exploit a loophole in planning law and in that process, it will be those working in the screen industries who will suffer."

While there's absolutely no word from Peel on what its long term intentions are should it succeed with the takeover, people seem to be convinced that it's about moving film production to Salford's MediaCityUK and cashing in on the Pinewood land values.

"It is possible, given Peel's existing relationships with the BBC through ... MediaCityUK, that the acquisition of Pinewood is part of a mosaic of more significant development potential involving the BBC and its London assets" finance analyst Malcolm Morgan of Peel Hunt told the Financial Times "We cannot speculate on the overall value to Peel of Pinewood in this scenario."

Jonathan Stuart-Brown of the Film Industry Lobby Group takes it further…

"My best guess, based on many sources, is that Peel will, post-takeover, cash in quickly on the very expensive Pinewood, Shepperton and Teddington land values going into an Olympic 2012 property bubble" he says "We could be talking £2 billion to £3 billion which is not bad as they are buying at under £100 million, so a twenty to thirty fold profit.

"They will rebuild step by step the sound stages, and underwater tanks and backlots, post-production facilities on the Peel portfolio of North West lands" he adds "This will gentrify their holdings in accommodation, retail, hotels, and bless their self proclaimed £50 billion investment in ports, transport, energy and water provision.

"However, the 320 film industry companies which own the cameras, costumes, post-production equipment and skills at Pinewood and Shepperton may have to get ready to find Media City, Salford, on their sat-navs and hope the rents are not too high…"

At the moment this is all speculation. And many people in Salford might think it a good thing if big movie production comes to MediaCityUK. But at the heart of the argument is the ethics of one company having too much control and power over a whole industry – and, almost a whole region, if ports and canals and Wirral Waters and Atlantic Gateways and everything else that Peel does is included.

Behind Peel Holdings stands Isle of Man tax exile, John Whittaker, who, according to the Sunday Times Rich List, has seen his personal wealth double over the last year to over £2billion.

If the Pinewood Shepperton takeover goes ahead, Whittaker and Peel will have huge control over the means of mainstream media production – so who will be bold enough to investigate Peel Holding's dealings in the wider world? Will the BBC's Panorama or Newsnight or ITV's News At Ten take on their MediaCityUK landlords?

In a previous exposea few years ago, Peel Holdings likened people getting into bed with them as `dancing with the devil' (see here). And in the same feature, John Merry, Leader of Salford City Council accused the company of "an abuse of democracy…trying to buy an election".

The Office of Fair Trading has just a few days to decide whether Peel's takeover of Pinewood Shepperton will give them a monopoly of studio facilities for tv which might adversely affect the industry. If the OFT decide that there is a case and do a more thorough investigation of Peel Holdings, this might just be the thin edge of the wedge.


Anyone in the media industry concerned about Peel Holdings' takeover of Pinewood Shepperton is urged to contact the OFT as soon as possible, and before June 21st. All submissions by phone, letter or email are strictly confidential.

The reference is Peel Acquisitions (Pegasus) Limited of Pinewood Shepperton plc.

Okay it's been deleted :)

Salford Stars a socialist paper though, they have an anti-tycoon agenda.

I like the idea of a Warrington via Urmston tram train.

BUT.

Using the old railway coming off the Altrincham metrolink line, it would be possibile to route a line out to Warrington via Lymm. You wouldn't have to stop it in Warrington town centre either. It could go on using the road-side cuttings.

From Timperley;

(HUGE gap, biggest on the system, then...)

Lymm
Thelwall
Thellwall-Quayside
Park Avenue
Wilderspool Expressway
Union Street
Warrington Central
Halliwell Jones Stadium
Bewsey Park
Gulliver's World (OH YES)
Westbrook
Boston-Sankey
Great Sankey
Barrow Hall
Lingley Green

The Warrington section would be very similar to the Airport line, running on roadside grassy bits.

I like this one, knowing the area well. Lymm has an ever growing population of extremely affluent people, many of them working in Manchester, Warrington or Liverpool. Loads of pupils move on loads of school buses between, Warrington, thelwall and Lymm. I would predict traffic would get busier year on year. My preference is always for tram but a guided busway might be the thing only because off peak it would be a lot less busy.

Salford Stars a socialist paper though, they have an anti-tycoon agenda.

And your point is?

I like this one, knowing the area well. Lymm has an ever growing population of extremely affluent people, many of them working in Manchester, Warrington or Liverpool. Loads of pupils move on loads of school buses between, Warrington, thelwall and Lymm. I would predict traffic would get busier year on year. My preference is always for tram but a guided busway might be the thing only because off peak it would be a lot less busy.

Connecting Partington would also make a huge difference to the perception and employment prospects of that overspill estate. Takes an hour (or thereabouts) by bus to the city centre.

IMO, Lymm and Stockton Heath, despite being 'Warrington' are definitely Manchester commuter belt, particularly for those working at Ringway.

And your point is?

That they have an agenda when a merger which would result in slightly less or slightly more than 20% market share is described as the end of British civilisation.

Connecting Partington would also make a huge difference to the perception and employment prospects of that overspill estate. Takes an hour (or thereabouts) by bus to the city centre.

IMO, Lymm and Stockton Heath, despite being 'Warrington' are definitely Manchester commuter belt, particularly for those working at Ringway.

I thought Partington folk would do what Lymm folk do which is take a bus to Altrincham and catch the tram or in their case Irlam to catch a train, or does that logical solution not work for them. In my more negative moments I would think that perhaps the good folk of Lymm and Stockton Heath are too posh to ever leave their cars for any public transport neither do they want to give up their fancy old railway line and lose their cycle tracks. Why should I care - I don't know just the thought of the banana whizzing through the cheshire / warrington countryside full of people cheers me up. At least they could afford the high ticket prices. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

I thought Partington folk would do what Lymm folk do which is take a bus to Altrincham and catch the tram or in their case Irlam to catch a train, or does that logical solution not work for them. In my more negative moments I would think that perhaps the good folk of Lymm and Stockton Heath are too posh to ever leave their cars for any public transport neither do they want to give up their fancy old railway line and lose their cycle tracks. Why should I care - I don't know just the thought of the banana whizzing through the cheshire / warrington countryside full of people cheers me up. At least they could afford the high ticket prices. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

For Partington there are various options:

Slow, but direct buses to the city via Stretford

Demand responsive bus service to Irlam/Glazebrook (with limited, overcrowded trains)

Drive (if you can afford a car) down the A6144(M).

or long-term unemployment, as shift work or work outside the area involving multiple transport changes means being an 'unsuitable' candidate.

I went sniffing around Ashton Old Road and Gorton Road before the match last night.

(yes I know its sad)

I was struck that the extensive recent housing development in the South of Beswick has left a couple of early 20th century buildings along Ashton Old Road - a disused Joey Holt's pub, and a commercial block. The space they occupy looks about the right shape and size for a Metrolink stop.

So, putting two and two together, I am inclined to suspect that this plot of land is being reserved for the link into Metrolink east by possible Marple and Hadfield tram-trains.

Would imply that the tram-trains leaving Ashburys would either continue along the goods viaduct, or possible at ground level alongside Gorton Road. Whaterver, they would need to drop down to grade to cross Ashton Old Road west of Gorton Road. Then, after the Beswick tram stop, the line would need to cut under the viaduct, and behind the existing Mercedes dealership to link up with the alignment of the old goods line over the Medlock valley and the inner ring road to the foremer Ancoats goods depot (which is now short-life warehousing). From the Ancoats goods depot it is an easy route - crossing Travis Street at grade - to link up with Metrolink east line inbetween the Piccadilly undercroft and the Piccadilly turnback siding.