GMTS Draft Plan 2020-2025 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > Manchester Metro Area > Greater Manchester Transport Projects

Greater Manchester Transport Projects Transport Matters For Greater Manchester and Surrounding Areas


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 9th, 2019, 11:38 AM   #1
MarkO
Registered User
 
MarkO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,061
Likes (Received): 702

GMTS Draft Plan 2020-2025

As this is still a draft and not yet finalised, might be helpful to have a separate thread, until at least it all gets confirmed and work starts on delivery when things might naturally migrate to the other Metrolink Extension thread (https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showp...72&postcount=1)?.

So we have the known issues here as published by TfGM/GMCA:
https://assets.ctfassets.net/nv7y93i...ec_Summary.pdf

The most exciting and tantalising item is "MAP 3", which various forummers like VDB and others are already attempting to diagramaticize for us.

And the very esteemed forummer Johnny de Rivative has already looked at some of these potential routes in great detail. For example, here's a reminder of his excellently documented amble along what might form the Stalybridge Metrolink extension from current terminus at Ashton. https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showt...&page=101#2001

Perhaps we can use this thread to examine the other proposals and discuss our own ideas for how best to achieve them?


Or we can just keep it all in the Metrolink & Tram Train Future thread??? https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showp...87&postcount=1 What do people think??? (Mods: do please delete thread if deemed unnecessary!)
__________________

Last edited by MarkO; January 9th, 2019 at 11:45 AM. Reason: Question added
MarkO no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 9th, 2019, 11:41 AM   #2
MarkO
Registered User
 
MarkO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,061
Likes (Received): 702



Map 3 for those who can’t see it in the report
MarkO no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2019, 04:21 PM   #3
LM93
Registered User
 
LM93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Salford
Posts: 842
Likes (Received): 581

I don't like the way they wanna take back Heywood to Bury from the ELR...
LM93 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 9th, 2019, 09:49 PM   #4
bogblaster
Registered User
 
bogblaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,858
Likes (Received): 1341

Quote:
Originally Posted by LM93 View Post
I don't like the way they wanna take back Heywood to Bury from the ELR...

Is it not the idea to share with the ELR? If so, it would possibly mean a very welcome upgrade for the ELR infrastructure.
__________________

AJD1984 liked this post
bogblaster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2019, 09:59 PM   #5
Rip the Mancunian
Sir Lord Baltimore
 
Rip the Mancunian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Manchester
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 115

Back in May I believe the ELR were investigating extending the line to Castleton to link with the Network Rail station there, after continuing on from Heywood, where the line is largely there and needs little work to get it back up.

I understand this wouldn't be mentioned in the GMTS plan as it's completely separate, but if they can bring the two systems into closer alignment, it might pave the way for sharing of other parts of the ELR with mainline trains.
__________________
"I have never felt salvation in nature. I love cities above all." - Michaelangelo
Rip the Mancunian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2019, 10:10 PM   #6
WatcherZero
Registered User
 
WatcherZero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,341

Theres been several studies, four I can think of in the last decade. One from TfGM, one from local councils that saw it as a way to relief traffic around Burnley, a more limited version from the ELR where they would operate passenger services themselves using heritage stock (1st generation DMU) and passengers would have to change trains and the present one that seems to be gaining traction has been proposed by Lancashire Council and seems to be more favoured as diesel bi-modes are a lot more common now than when TfGM first mooted it.
__________________

sw9wj, MarkO, bogblaster liked this post

Last edited by WatcherZero; January 9th, 2019 at 10:16 PM.
WatcherZero no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2019, 11:32 PM   #7
Heatonparkincake
Registered User
 
Heatonparkincake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 146
Likes (Received): 193

The ELR thread��

The GMTS cartoon map gives us sort of an optimistic view which i am guessing sees a branch off the existing tram station at Bury through the so called Pyramid Park and onto the ELR.

I see trouble ahead. First how do heritage trains and tram trains co exist? I mean the Flying Scotsman was hauling up here a few months ago?

Second much of the track till Heywood is single tracked, especially the bridge over the M66.

Possible but lots of engineering feat to be achieved
Heatonparkincake no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2019, 11:33 PM   #8
VDB
Strong and Stable
 
VDB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Strong and Stable
Posts: 22,485
Likes (Received): 34096

The Metro Map Creator I used to use no longer exists! does anyone have any suggestions for other map creators I could use? Preferably free and easy to use

Thanks
__________________
VDB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2019, 11:37 PM   #9
Mwmbwls
Registered User
 
Mwmbwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Close to the new East West Railway
Posts: 2,094
Likes (Received): 1344

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkO View Post


Map 3 for those who can’t see it in the report

I note a number of rail studies mentioned - Are these the pre-opening of the Ordsall Chord studies - or are they new studies to be done taking into account the new TfGM strategy, or broader studies allowing for the arrival of HS2 or NPR etc?
Mwmbwls no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 12:06 AM   #10
WatcherZero
Registered User
 
WatcherZero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,341

Newer local studies into gaps in the commuter network.
WatcherZero no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 12:08 AM   #11
rob2910
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 182
Likes (Received): 332

Not sure i'm a fan of all these tram-train routes. Sounds like it's going to be a confusing mess of different routes. A good transports network needs colours, i mean they tried with the Metrolink but does anyone actually refer to any of the lines by their colour?

Tram-train just adds yet more endless possibilities of routes that they could swap and change whenever they like.

Better to keep metro and tram separate systems imo. Simpler and more straightforward.
rob2910 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 01:56 AM   #12
GetBetter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 93
Likes (Received): 59

The problem with so much dependence on tram trains is it'll be postponed forever. Just seize the means of transportation, comrades. Wigan to Marple metrolink, then Warrington to Glossop, and so forth. No half measures. Forwards!
GetBetter no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 02:27 AM   #13
mileymc1
Registered User
 
mileymc1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Manchester/Liverpool
Posts: 1,106
Likes (Received): 1672

Good to see ambition and future planning for extensions though. Brum has not long introduced it's metro into the city and Leeds is still messing about. Manchester has been expanding it's metro for 29 years, always ahead of the game!
__________________

MarkO, bogblaster, Johnny de Rivative liked this post
mileymc1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 10:34 AM   #14
Handinglove
Registered User
 
Handinglove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 619
Likes (Received): 866

It's great to see Wigan and Warrington potentially joining the Metrolink. I imagine Bolton will be feeling pretty left out though. For someone completely ignorant about these things, how much work is required to convert existing rail lines to Metrolines? As I understand, if funding is granted, these lines could be operational by 2025?
Handinglove no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 10:39 AM   #15
VDB
Strong and Stable
 
VDB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Strong and Stable
Posts: 22,485
Likes (Received): 34096

Bolton Council don't deserve to have Metrolink. They should see this as punishment for stupidly allowing housing developments on former railway lines. Both the Radcliffe branch and the Little Hulton branch have housing developments on them. It's their fault. If they start whinging about it in future (which they will) then TfGM should tell them to pay to have the houses cleared away
__________________

Bricos, Whodouc13 liked this post
VDB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 11:11 AM   #16
CdBrux
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 956
Likes (Received): 430

I have not read the full document yet. Is there any indication of funding and to what extent GM believe they could fund all these ideas from their own money as per devolution deal?
__________________

paulw3726 liked this post
CdBrux no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 11:11 AM   #17
Mwmbwls
Registered User
 
Mwmbwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Close to the new East West Railway
Posts: 2,094
Likes (Received): 1344

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDB View Post
The fact that they're orientating the city centre tunnel towards the Warrington line makes me think they intend to isolate that line from the National Rail network altogether and run it is a frequent metro line, potentially alongside the Altrincham branch, creating a two-portal tunnel with one portal at White City, and another south of Trafford Bar.

This creates more capacity through Trafford Bar to run Airport/East Didsbury/Hazel Grove/Stockport trams - while also allowing the Altrincham line to increase capacity substantially.

Having said that, the proposal to run trams to the Airport via Timperley probably means the Altrincham line won't go "full metro", but will share with trams/tram-trains as far as Timperley. Unless the intention is for Metro services to run to the Airport via Timperley?


So many questions!
The Strategy Plan is vague to say the least about the integration of railways within TfGM control but so is the TfTN and GNRP strategy at this point. The problems are twofold - there is a difference of opinion between GMCA lead by Mr Burnham and the DfT about how much delegation of rail services should be delegated to Manchester. Manchester is not an island and has integral links with other communities. it is hard to see Merseytravel condoning a break point at Warrington - I suspect there will be a desire to run trains through from Lime Street to the Airport by both the CLC and Chat Moss Routes - although this view might change once the Liverpool link to HS2/NPR is completed.

Manchester is not alone in aspiring for more local rail control - The Mayor's of London from Boris Johnson onwards have wanted to extend their heavy rail influence, beyond the highly effective London Overground services they operate, to other services. This runs counter to the DfT's espoused franchising model which is reinforced by strong political opposition from commuters beyond the London boundary towards a body controlling their trains that they cannot influence on the running of their trains. Untangling this Gordian knot is supposed to be handled by TfTN - but as yet they are engaged in the ethereal general concept stage. However the fact that we are coming up to halfway in the existing franchising process means that, on the basis of how long the planning took last time, the next Train Service Requirement must be starting to be defined - hence my question about the rail studies indicated on Map 3. Who is going to manage the next franchise process and how will they feed into the TfGM planning process? One of the most interesting comments to the ORR on their report on the timetable melt down was made by TfGM's Amanda White, to Stephen Glaister, who suggested that the "ad hoc" team who put together the draft TSR last time managed to deliver an undeliverable one. That is now spilt milk - the trick is going to be not spilling it again.

The strategy document is a compelling read and clearly indicates the desired and desirable direction of travel but it is through no fault of the Mayor or TfGM that they cannot nail the jelly to the wall with regards to rail issues.
__________________

VDB, PJH2015, MarkO, bogblaster liked this post

Last edited by Mwmbwls; January 10th, 2019 at 11:18 AM.
Mwmbwls no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 03:46 PM   #18
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,508
Likes (Received): 736

I do worry about the signalling, performance pollution and complexity of the Metrolink network. It is good as an alternative, exactly because it is distinct from the railway ecosystem. But it could well become its own convoluted plate of spaghetti.

Where it makes sense, there should be full segregated takeovers of rail lines but only if operationally sensible - for example the Piccadilly Met terminators could extend eastwards.

Better would be to focus on uplifting some of the suburban lines - frequency and stock, e.g. on the Marple lines. Both are appalling.
__________________

LM93, Bricos liked this post
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 06:35 PM   #19
VDB
Strong and Stable
 
VDB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Strong and Stable
Posts: 22,485
Likes (Received): 34096

Probably one of the crappest maps I've ever cobbed together, but here is Metrolink 2025. Pathfinders and the two new stations at Cop Road and Elton Reservoir

__________________

Heatonparkincake liked this post

Last edited by AJD1984; January 22nd, 2019 at 04:47 AM.
VDB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 08:41 PM   #20
WatcherZero
Registered User
 
WatcherZero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,341

Quote:
Originally Posted by CdBrux View Post
I have not read the full document yet. Is there any indication of funding and to what extent GM believe they could fund all these ideas from their own money as per devolution deal?
There are several existing sources of revenue funding:
Councils
Developer Levy
Profits from TfGM operations such as Metrolink
GMCA Savings
Revenue grants from government
The Earnback Deal

Existing Capital funding between now and 2021
*The Greater Manchester Transport Fund 1, including Earn Back, which has funded the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road and Trafford Park Metrolink line.
 The Growth Deal, which is delivering c. £400m of improvements through schemes such as Stockport Town Centre Accessibility Improvements, Salford Bolton Network Improvements and Tameside interchange.

*Transforming Cities Fund and Cycle City Ambition Grant, which are together delivering £200m of major walking and cycling improvements across Greater Manchester.

 *Transforming Cities Fund is also funding £83m towards 27 new Metrolink trams and supporting infrastructure, which will come into service between 2020 and 2021.

 *The Government’s Clean Air Early Measures Fund, from which Greater Manchester has secured c. £3m to deliver additional electric vehicle charging points.

 *In February 2018, Greater Manchester, was awarded £3m from the national Clean Bus Technology Fund to help reduce harmful emissions from the region’s bus fleet.

 *Highways Maintenance capital improvements, with the ten local authorities spending approximately £90m between them over the next three years20.

 *The Greater Manchester Housing Package included commitment from Government to progress key Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bids through to co-development stage. Initial funding is being used to develop transport infrastructure schemes that will aid the delivery of housing in Wigan/Bolton, Salford/Manchester, and Stockport/Cheshire East.

 *In March 2018 GMCA successfully secured £23.8m from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to deliver full fibre broadband to 1,500 public sector sites across Greater Manchester.

This all amounts to £324m of capital for improvements over the next three years.

* Beyond 2021 already agreed funding includes two years of the 5 year £69.5m Transforming Cities Fund

2020-2025 Road investment Strategy 2 (£25.3bn nationally) of which they will be looking to secure a couple of billion for North West Quadrant improvements (Roads and motorway junctions and funding for rail on the Atherton, Chat Moss and Bolton lines). As well as a slice of £3.5bn allocated to Transport for The North for road improvements in 2020-2025.

The 2018 budget also created national funding pots of £420m for local roads maintenance, £150m for improvements and £675m for improving High Streets.

Additional Housing Infrastructure Funding for the delivery of Transport schemes to support house building in Wigan/Bolton, Salford/Manchester and Stockport/Cheshire East.

Greater Manchester is due a long term funding settlement for Transport from the governments spending review in 2019 (and have received small interim allocations).

Working with the National Infrastructure Commission to secure development funding for long term integrated strategies (for example possible development loans).



Greater Manchester is looking to pool these into creating Greater Manchester Transport Fund 2, a 20 year programme twice the size and length of the first Transport Fund that delivered the Big Bang and other transport improvements.

Finally devolution offers opportunities to create new revenue streams and the possibility of GMTF2 being a long term devolved funding settlement (ala the 30 year rail funding settlement for Merseyside that allowed them to finance rolling stock replacement).
__________________

Heatonparkincake, Mwmbwls, CdBrux liked this post

Last edited by WatcherZero; January 10th, 2019 at 08:46 PM.
WatcherZero no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us