TRANSPORT | Metrolink - Future Phases & Fantasy Extensions

[DiscoSteve]

one other thought - the creation of an A34 Metrolink line would free up the vast majority of Styal Line through the built up suburbs to be used for 'something else a little bit speedier' to link to an enlarged six tracked section of the WCML mainline up through Longsight towards Piccadilly...

[heatonparkincakes]

30 pages is a joke on my part.

When yer ould one rings you to say she is excited about that exhibition at the Cube, then it makes you think.

Pic Vic

Heliports.

Monorails from Middleton.

A future from the past.

Given the timeline for the Ashton/MIA/East Didsbury line, then any further Met extension will be at a time when the likes of say my nearly born nephew will be probably already getting (hopefully) sentimental about his "old" uni days.

It's a long way off. Anything could happen.

We can only speculate.

So I am for one not going to get upset by what is said on here.

And you never know that it might re-emerge in a cyber exhibition in 2052.

[link_road_17/7]

Originally Posted by heatonparkincakes

The Glossop and Hadfild line was the first casualty of the initial Metrolink scheme, then obviously became a tram train candidate and now seems to be remaining an electrified line.

The Marple loop and the Atherton have seemingly been the only real candidates for the tram train.

If it wasn't for the linespeed improvements taking place on the Glossop/Hadfield, I'd bet my house (and cars) on it being converted to LRT. Raising the linespeed to 90mph doesn't make sense for a service that has station stops every 2 minutes. There isn't any freight, bar Guide Bridge to Hyde North Junction, and its a 'dead end' since closure of Woodhead.

The main issue is the branch platform at Dinting (to/from Glossop), which is on a sharpe curve, preventing DOO. Conversion to tram-train could see a split service (2tph to Glossop, 2tph for Hadfield, for example, with cross-platform connection for Hadfield - Glossop pax). It'd enable closure of the ticket offices, saving on costs, and freeing up 90mph EMUs for better use elsewhere. Real McNulty stuff.

[link_road_17/7]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

Given we have seen nothing of this since the map in 01, why do people think out has gone quiet if it is not because TfGM looked at the route and quickly decided against progressing?

Probably because of the instability caused by Labour caving into the phoney 'war on the motorist', abolishing the SRA, drying up funding for LRT schemes, Network Rail being the bastard demon child of Railtrack.....

Building the Kingsway alignment would be a damn sight easier than the Oxford Road/Wilmslow Road corridor by a long shot, after all it was designed and built to accomodate a tramway, which never should have been removed.

[LNGCats]

I don't disagree.

I just think that the fact we've not heard anything from TfGM despite Stockport, Salford Reds and Tram/Train clearly being on the drawing board suggests to me that no matter what the benefits we may see from such a scheme that TfGM currently have different priorities that will tie them up for the next couple of decades.

[link_road_17/7]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

I don't disagree.

I just think that the fact we've not heard anything from TfGM despite Stockport, Salford Reds and Tram/Train clearly being on the drawing board suggests to me that no matter what the benefits we may see from such a scheme that TfGM currently have different priorities that will tie them up for the next couple of decades.

It'd have been on the radar sooner had Metrolink 2000 been funded/completed sooner, IMO. Had Stockport been funded, Peel coughed up earlier....we'd be much further on by now.

I imagine the Kingsway proposal would have come in the queue after Atherton, which would have come after the SEM (Marple/Rose Hill, Glossop/Hadfield) lines, given they've been under serious consideration far longer.

[LNGCats]

Maybe, if people really wanted to get a clearer idea of any work that TfGM are putting into this a FOI request for very general details of this plan and ask when the last time any work was done on it and why work stopped.

Anyone genuienly interested would get the answer within a couple of months.

[heatonparkincakes]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

I don't disagree.

I just think that the fact we've not heard anything from TfGM despite Stockport, Salford Reds and Tram/Train clearly being on the drawing board suggests to me that no matter what the benefits we may see from such a scheme that TfGM currently have different priorities that will tie them up for the next couple of decades.

Agree.

Completion of the "big bang ," electrification, northern hub, Victoria, local station up grades, BRTs, tram trains, High speed trains, SEMMS, City Region powers, bus regulations and electric eco buses.

Lots to do first.

[LNGCats]

The official reason they dropped it may be interesting though.

Something a FOI might explain.

[link_road_17/7]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

Maybe, if people really wanted to get a clearer idea of any work that TfGM are putting into this a FOI request for very general details of this plan and ask when the last time any work was done on it and why work stopped.

Anyone genuienly interested would get the answer within a couple of months.

Good idea. Truth is Prescott promised the 20 LRT schemes up to 2010. So this would have been funded post-2010, same time as introduction of national road pricing.

When Darling got the reins, it was clear DfT saw the future as Guided Bus, as costs for railway (both heavy and LRT) exploded post-Potters Bar, Great Heck, etc.

[scientist12]

Originally Posted by DiscoSteve

Any A34 tramway wouldn't be the first...
A very rural looking Kingsway in Burnage, 1930

http://images.manchester.gov.uk/Disp...a2794095c76e83
And look where it finished - by a certain clocktower at East Didsbury...

http://images.manchester.gov.uk/Disp...a2794095c76e83
This last image is taken facing northwards from where would now be directly under the footbridge at the Kingsway Parrs Wood complex - no Kingsway Extension at this point - the only route south is down Wilmslow/Manchester Road towards Cheadle High Street
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=parrs+...35.06,,0,-8.52

love the little tram stop at Parrswood. Great photos.

[scientist12]

Originally Posted by nicky2tu

First page HP:

I like the idea of a A34 tram way for a whole number of reasons

* You could replace the passenger stops on the Airport heavy rail line so that more paths (if that is the right jargon) to the airport would be possible. This would allow more Airport services to the region as a whole.
* To compensate the existing users you could have tram stops located on a line that runs down what is now the grassed part of the dual carriageway with stops roughly where the existing stops on the airport line are.
* I think the tramline should terminate at the airport. This is not as extravagant as it might first seem due to the build out of Airport City.
* It allows for some interesting further options such as a line down to Fallowfield before looping round Victoria Park (i.e. avoiding Rusholme) and on to the MRI/University corridor, picking up Oxford Station and joining the network at St Peter's Square; like using the old Fallowfield loop to join the network at Chorlton and then a junction near the Tram depot to allow trams to go south on the Alty line directly.

The economic case would be immense as it would allow access from a large part South Manchester easy access to three important economic (job) centers: Airport City, Universities/Hospital and City Centre on non conflicting (largely) passenger flows.

Folks from North and East Manchester could access the University/Hospital corridor more easily too. Losers would be Rusholme and Withington.

Agree. Would like the A34 route the most if it joined to St Werburghs via the FAllowfield route as well as going to town.

[LNGCats]

Originally Posted by scientist12

Agree. Would like the A34 route the most if it joined to St Werburghs via the FAllowfield route as well as going to town.

Shut chance you will raise an FOI as you are one of the bigger proponents of this?

Seriously, if you want to find the real reason why it had stalked and you really want to know if there is a hope in hell of this progressing any time soon that is the route to take.

[LNGCats]

Actually, neither Oxford Rd nor A34 ever appeared in an LTP did they?

[link_road_17/7]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

Actually, neither Oxford Rd nor A34 ever appeared in an LTP did they?

LTPs only have a five year period, the Kingsway route would be (or have been) a 10yr+ forward scenario.

[LNGCats]

Originally Posted by link_road_17/7

LTPs only have a five year period, the Kingsway route would be (or have been) a 10yr+ forward scenario.

Yep, but we are now up to 2016 and no sign of it.

[Nathan Dawz]

Originally Posted by link_road_17/7

Extract from the SRA Greater Manchester Strategic Rail Study, showing the original 2CC (now 3CC) and Oxford Road/Kingsway to East Didsbury, then Tram-Train on Styal Line south thereof.

Yes that's exactly the one I was thinking of - well done for finding it!

[link_road_17/7]

Originally Posted by Nathan Dawz

Yes that's exactly the one I was thinking of - well done for finding it!

Your welcome, Nathan. I was tempted *not* to post it given your previous attitude towards me, but I'm not that kind of person!

[Cherguevara]

LGN/Links/everyone - As far as I'm aware the Kingsway route wasn't a GMPTE proposal at all, but a Strategic Rail Authority one whose primary purpose was freeing up paths on the the rail line to the airport. I think that map is inaccurate, as the text that accompanied it referred to the line being part tram-train (if the east and west airport links were built this would be from the top of Kingsway, if not then from East Didsbury). The map was also only meant to be indicative of the broad route rather than being a specific Kingsway line (i.e. the text referred to the University/Oxford Road route).

The other thing worth remembering with TfGM is that they are working (understandably) within the political reality of Greater Manchester as it stands. Their priorities are cross-county and as such it would be difficult for them to propose a very expensive Manchester only scheme, never mind get the political buy in to fund it. They may have done no work on rail transit for this corridor, not because it's a bad idea per se, but because in the current reality it's a non-starter. However if that reality were to change so might their priorities. I might try and do a FOI if I get a chance though, see what has been done.

As I've said though, political reality can shift remarkably quickly. I think my HSR point still stands. Until 10 years ago no one was even considering north on London HSR. It took the failure of the WCML programme and pressure from various sources to change the political reality. Is it feasible that this will happen for local transport; who knows? Maybe mayoral government will take off leading to a host of civic leaders wanting to put their stamp on the city? Maybe the raising expense of private transport will push public transport up the political agenda?

[link_road_17/7]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

LGN/Links/everyone - As far as I'm aware the Kingsway route wasn't a GMPTE proposal at all, but a Strategic Rail Authority one whose primary purpose was freeing up paths on the the rail line to the airport. I think that map is inaccurate, as the text that accompanied it referred to the line being part tram-train (if the east and west airport links were built this would be from the top of Kingsway, if not then from East Didsbury). The map was also only meant to be indicative of the broad route rather than being a specific Kingsway line (i.e. the text referred to the University/Oxford Road route).

The other thing worth remembering with TfGM is that they are working (understandably) within the political reality of Greater Manchester as it stands. Their priorities are cross-county and as such it would be difficult for them to propose a very expensive Manchester only scheme, never mind get the political buy in to fund it. They may have done no work on rail transit for this corridor, not because it's a bad idea per se, but because in the current reality it's a non-starter. However if that reality were to change so might their priorities. I might try and do a FOI if I get a chance though, see what has been done.

As I've said though, political reality can shift remarkably quickly. I think my HSR point still stands. Until 10 years ago no one was even considering north on London HSR. It took the failure of the WCML programme and pressure from various sources to change the political reality. Is it feasible that this will happen for local transport; who knows? Maybe mayoral government will take off leading to a host of civic leaders wanting to put their stamp on the city? Maybe the raising expense of private transport will push public transport up the political agenda?

When the SRA was wound up into the DfT I believe no one would take it forward. I hope that someone, somewhere, in TfGM/GMPTE would, I only ever dealt with heavy (local) rail. Alistair Morton (who headed the SRA) had grand plans for the TransPennine franchise, a much bigger company, with proper Inter-City rolling stock, with a massive emphasis on Manchester Airport.

Until politicians realise transport is a major part of peoples' everyday lives, affecting their wellbeing, health, happiness, access to jobs, social interaction, wealth creation, etc., the country will suffer. In Milton Keynes, we are fortunate to have the Grid Road Network, so transport isn't an issue, hence the immediate 'bounceback' from recession and continued increase in GVA per person. Investment and choice needs implementation nationwide.

I hope the big bang completion will provide the explosion/sparks effect to roll on even further funding.