TRANSPORT | Metrolink - Future Phases & Fantasy Extensions

[iheartthenew]

Edited as the significantly greater knowledge of Freel an Nerd makes my post completely redundant

Back to the shallow end with my arm bands for me

[Freel07]

Originally Posted by nerd

I hadn't thought of running a bi-mode tram-type vehicle all the way from Ramsbottom to Victoria along the existing Metrolink link; rather creating an interchange stop on the Metrolink south of Bury, where passengers could swap from a dedicted ELR Ultra-light unit onto an adjoining Metrolink platform.

The article does refer to the study having looked at the extension of Metrolink, quote 'My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen referred to the 2008 Greater Manchester passenger transport executive study, which investigated the scope for using the east Lancashire railway to provide a commuter service from towns in the Rossendale valley to Manchester. The study looked at a number of options, including an extension of Metrolink and a new heavy rail service.'

[/QUOTE]Of course simply running a Pacer (or equivalent DMU) from Victoria to Castleton Junction, Heywood, Bury Bolton St, Ramsbottom; would be simpler, but I suspect also slower and at rather higher operating cost. And if the service doesn't run without continuing subsidy, it is much less likely to happen. In particular, I suspect that a DMU operated service all the way to Victoria would be limited to 1 tph on this single-track line, while an Ultra-light operated service, just doing the Bury-Ramsbottom section, could provide 2 tph over the peak period 7:30 to 9:30.[/QUOTE]

There are at least 3 passing places between Rawtenstall and Castleton, at Ramsbottom, Bury Bolton Street and Heywood so it may be possible to improve on 1 train per hour but the need for subsidy would as you say be a barrier.

[scientist12]

Originally Posted by nerd

I hadn't thought of running a bi-mode tram-type vehicle all the way from Ramsbottom to Victoria along the existing Metrolink link; rather creating an interchange stop on the Metrolink south of Bury, where passengers could swap from a dedicted ELR Ultra-light unit onto an adjoining Metrolink platform.

Of course simply running a Pacer (or equivalent DMU) from Victoria to Castleton Junction, Heywood, Bury Bolton St, Ramsbottom; would be simpler, but I suspect also slower and at rather higher operating cost. And if the service doesn't run without continuing subsidy, it is much less likely to happen. In particular, I suspect that a DMU operated service all the way to Victoria would be limited to 1 tph on this single-track line, while an Ultra-light operated service, just doing the Bury-Ramsbottom section, could provide 2 tph over the peak period 7:30 to 9:30.

Ok, I need some help here, there appears to be a railway line marked on the map from Bury to Ramsbottom all the way to Rawtenstall but not to Rossendale. Am I to understand that this railway is not really in passenger use, apart from heritage, from Bury to Ramsbottom to Rawtenstall or is it not in use from Rawtenstall to Rossendale?

[Owd Lanky]

Actual debate on hansard

http://www.publications.parliament.u...12030628000333

From J Berry statement "Returning to the ELWRAS report, the local authority’s view is that that developing piece of work has never properly addressed the demand potential, the socio-economic issues and the wider transport benefits. The report has not been finalised, and we hope that when it comes out, it will give regard to our desire for a rail link." I would suggest the ongoing study is not producing the desired results.

Unlike the todmorden curve and to a lesser degree Bolton-Blackburn this is a lot of money for little benefit (Rawtenstall gaining 5-10minutes saving compared to bus off peak, obviously greater saving in peak hours. However rail based service will only be for a few hours each day)

It will be interesting to see the impact of the todmorden curve and any bolton improvements as they are both likely to take through road and bus traffic away from the valley to different degrees, leaving the Valley to justify any investment based on its own transport flows alone.

[VoldemortBlack]

Originally Posted by Freel07

I may be wrong but I think Mr Locke is referring to the fact that Castleton Station is the wrong side of the triangle for a service from Heywood to run via there into Victoria without a reversal.

Waits to be proved wrong

Ohh yes you're right! My bad. I also missed out Mills Hill station, so replace Cassy with Mills Hill in my original post

[VoldemortBlack]

Originally Posted by iheartthenew

I'm confused now. Are we talking of running a service from Rawtenstall to Bury and a mode change onto Metrolink or running trains (pacers???) all the way to Victoria. If it's the former then Castleton junction isn't involved, if it's the latter that's quite a diversion via Heywood etc?

If they're talking about running trains Rossendale/Rawtenstall to Manchester, which they are, then they'll mean running all through the ELR tracks via Heywood, joining the main line at Castleton

[Owd Lanky]

Originally Posted by scientist12

Ok, I need some help here, there appears to be a railway line marked on the map from Bury to Ramsbottom all the way to Rawtenstall but not to Rossendale. Am I to understand that this railway is not really in passenger use, apart from heritage, from Bury to Ramsbottom to Rawtenstall or is it not in use from Rawtenstall to Rossendale?

Rossendale is a Lancashire Borough. Rawtenstall is its main urban area.
The line Rawtenstall - Ramsbottom - Bury - Heywood is heritage use only.
There is a link Bury to Metrolink (used in metro refurb) and Heywood to Castleton (for heritage loco transfers and occasional rail tours). There was a link Heywood to Victoria but it apparently expensive to reinstate.

The heritage railway wish to extend to Castleton as part of a tourism redevelopment of the town. The heritage railway development plans are non commital about commuter use by others.

[heatonparkincakes]

Question.

I am only familiar with the Parry People pusher as used in Stourbridge when it comes to what maybe be described as ultra light.

Is this what you refer to, as I have long believed from my conversations inside Bury Metro that it was always going to be a DMU weekday rush hours traveling from Rawtenstall to Victoria via Heywood.

[Tony_H1]

Nobody wants to ride a Parry People mover all the way to Manchester thats for sure. Its bad enough on the 5 minute journey in Stourbridge!

You can run none stop from Manchester to Castleton junction in 15 mins add on 5 mins to Heywood nothing is going to beat that.

Not bothered about calling at Castleton either, just to Heywood is fine lol

[WatcherZero]

While bi-mode was orginally looked at current plans are just the ELR itself with an interchange, possibly you could add a bay platform to Metrolink in the area and have a tram waiting to make the connection ala matchdays. The significant costs involved are mainly in upgrading the ELR from Heritage standard to Mainline standard and raising the permissable line speed. This would mean a lot of track refurbishment and signals improvement, higher maintenence standards (including formal documentation of works and certification), you would also have to upgrade level crossing safety (which I believe there are a couple of on the ELR).

[andysimo123]

Originally Posted by iheartthenew

Well post-electrification, we know where the Pacers can be cascaded to then LOL.

Cascaded to the scrap yard.

[nerd]

duplicate post

[nerd]

Originally Posted by heatonparkincakes

Question.

I am only familiar with the Parry People pusher as used in Stourbridge when it comes to what maybe be described as ultra light.

Is this what you refer to, as I have long believed from my conversations inside Bury Metro that it was always going to be a DMU weekday rush hours traveling from Rawtenstall to Victoria via Heywood.

A class 142 Pacer DMU weighs in at about 48 tons,
an M5000 tram weighs in at about 40 tons,

The PPM weighs in at about 12 tons.

If you scaled up the PPM technology to the same length as a Pacer or M5000 (both of which are around 30m long), it would weigh in at a bit over 33 tons - and would be consist essentially of two powered PPM type units, articulated with an equivalent unpowered section between them.

The key point is survivability. The Pacer has to be able to run on the mainlline, and hence provide sufficeint protection for its passengers if it collides with a mainline freight or passenger train. That implies that it must be heavy, and hence have slow acceleration and high axle weight. The tram has to run on the street, and hence may potentially have to survive collision with a bus or truck. The Ultra-light is intended for self-contained lines, where the only vehicle they could collide with would be another Ultra-light.

In principle that makes the Ultra-light considerably cheaper to run than a standard DMU - an advantage that is further confirmed if you use something like the Parry flywheel stored energy power system, as this captures braking energy (as a conventional diesel does not), and runs its diesel power unit much more efficiently. Moreover, if the line is self-contained, the drivers need not receive training or accreditation for mainline working.

What is not clear yet, it how many rural and semi-rural services, currently served by Pacers or equivalent, could be run using Ultra-light vehicles - that is how many are potentially configuarable as fully self-contained lines, with no need to share space with other rail vehicles. Given that all the Pacers will need retiring in the next few years, that potentially amounts to a big opportunity to someone who can come up with a suitable vehicle.

The Class 139 vehicle is not compliant to
Railway Group Standards for compatibility with
other Network Rail infrastructure and is not
compliant with standards for interoperability
with other heavy rail vehicles. The personnel
who operate the service are not required to
have national network competence
requirements.

(Moreover, as Che has pointed out, there would be good reasons to build an extra Metrolink stop around the point where the Bolton St and Bury Interchange lines diverge. The gap from Radcliffe to Bury is - at 3km - too long for a tram system anyway, and a stop here would be roughly half-way between, adjoining a residential area, and not too far from the Gigg Lane stadium.)

[Motortownman]

Originally Posted by Tony_H1

Nobody wants to ride a Parry People mover all the way to Manchester thats for sure. Its bad enough on the 5 minute journey in Stourbridge!

You can run none stop from Manchester to Castleton junction in 15 mins add on 5 mins to Heywood nothing is going to beat that.

Not bothered about calling at Castleton either, just to Heywood is fine lol

Have you been on it Tony? I went on it last year. It's a dreadful ride, probably due to the bad track, but very slow and extremely noisy. 5 mins was enough as you say. It makes a pacer look like a mercedes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-E2hq8fyL4

[Johnny de Rivative]

Originally Posted by scientist12

Ok, I need some help here, there appears to be a railway line marked on the map from Bury to Ramsbottom all the way to Rawtenstall but not to Rossendale. Am I to understand that this railway is not really in passenger use, apart from heritage, from Bury to Ramsbottom to Rawtenstall or is it not in use from Rawtenstall to Rossendale?

Hi science. 'Rossendale' is the generic name of the whole non-metropolitan Borough, encompassing the towns of Rawtenstall, Bacup, Haslingden, Edenfield, etc. - all generally known as the Rossendale Valley. There is no specific town called Rossendale.

Rossendale Borough is part of Lancashire County, and therefore outside the area of TFGM, the boundary on the ELR being at Stubbins. Ramsbottom is the last station on the line still within Greater Mcr, which may be why some people have referred to it as a possible terminus?

The ELR is currently a heritage line (steam, diesel etc), run by volunteers between Heywood, Bury, Ramsbottom, Rawtenstall.

http://www.eastlancsrailway.org.uk/

[heatonparkincakes]

Thank you nerd.

So if the line is Rawtenstall to some as yet unknown stop at Bury or Heywood then it could be a Parry.

If it's to go on towards Victoria, then it's a DMU and hopefully not a Pacer.

So après electrification and maybe tram-trainification of the Wigan/Atherton, Marple and Glossop lines we will be left with a smattering of DMU commuter routes.

Victoria to Blackburn via Burnley or Bolton and Rawtenstall.

Piccadilly to Chester, Rose Hill, Sheffield stopper, Buxton and Warrington..

I wonder if any clever soul on here has any ideas for these forlorn souls.

[VoldemortBlack]

Pretty interesting that, within GM, by 2020 Victoria could have more electrified routes than Piccadilly.

I'm starting to really love Vic!

[Gerbil]

Originally Posted by Motortownman

Have you been on it Tony? I went on it last year. It's a dreadful ride, probably due to the bad track, but very slow and extremely noisy. 5 mins was enough as you say. It makes a pacer look like a mercedes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-E2hq8fyL4

The unfortunate thing about these ultralight vehicles is that, while there is a gap in the market for them, they are designed and built very cheaply and, dare I say it, incompetently. The PPM could be significantly improved in terms of fuel consumption, reliability and operational lifetime by simply detaching the flywheel from the drive chain.

[DiscoSteve]

odious little machine...

[kriis101]

Originally Posted by Motortownman

Have you been on it Tony? I went on it last year. It's a dreadful ride, probably due to the bad track, but very slow and extremely noisy. 5 mins was enough as you say. It makes a pacer look like a mercedes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-E2hq8fyL4

Just watched the video, that thing both looks hideous aesthetically and looks even worse comfort-wise! BTW, what the hell are those constant beeps for in the cab? Would be annoying!!