Marple - Manchester tram-train case study

[ringi]

Depends what you mean by nice!  Some of our Class 142 trains are currently being fitted with new seating.  It looks OK, but once you sit down you find that the seats are so close together that your knees are rammed up against the back of the seat in front of you (and I am no more than average height).   

I would not expect any new trains or trams to be any better – passenger comfort does not seem to come into it these days, just fitting on more sardines.   When I was commuting into Manchester I would have been happy to pay 50% more to get first class if it was on offer, however being at the end of the line we have to put up with the seats for longer than anyone else.

[Barbara]

Dave I couldn't agree more!  The seating is appalling, and I am always relieved when I get off one of these trains.  Talk about packing sardines into a tin can!!!

[Dave]

There are plans to upgrade (rebuild) some old diesel trains before they are reused, the upgraded trains can be very nice.   

Depends what you mean by nice!  Some of our Class 142 trains are currently being fitted with new seating.  It looks OK, but once you sit down you find that the seats are so close together that your knees are rammed up against the back of the seat in front of you (and I am no more than average height).   

[ringi]

Given how many lines are being updated to allow electric trains, I would be amazed if many new diesel trains are built for any passage service.    There are plans to upgrade (rebuild) some old diesel trains before they are reused, the upgraded trains can be very nice.   

As I understand it the costs of running the current trains we get is very low, as the rental charges on them is so low.   So it is hard for any business case to be made for new trains unless the new trains will totally transform the service.

[Dave]

I believe that is the plan, but the problem with that is that the rubbish 30-year-old Class 142 trains which we currently put up with may not last until tram-train finally arrives.   However, if that happens we won't get new trains, we'll get old Class 150s and Class 156s etc, 'cascaded' (as the jargon has it) from other lines which are being electrified. 

[Melancholyflower]

I'm a regular commuter from Marple-Piccadilly and am following this thread with interest.

Currently commuter trains are poorly maintained, break down a lot, and have too few carriages.
Is it likely this tram-train thing is basically going to replace the existing system instead of new rolling stock being ordered?

[Victor M]

Londoners may pay more tax overall, but they don't pay twenty times more tax! 

Actually they pay less Tax when you take into account how low their Council tax is (as a result of Government subsidies)

[Dave]

What rsh writes makes good sense to me.  Even if it takes a bit longer around Ashburys, the other advantages of the tram-train clearly outweigh that small disadvantage.

As for this: 

Most taxes in the UK are pay by people the live in London [so] why should we not have to wait a lot longer than London to get transport upgrades?

Have a look at this:  http://www.govtoday.co.uk/transport-news/30-public-transport/16255-transport-spending-north-south-divide-2600-for-londoners-but-5-per-head-in-north-east

The government spends twenty times more money per head on public transport in London than they do in the North West.  Londoners may pay more tax overall, but they don't pay twenty times more tax! 

[rsh]

Perhaps you know more marplerambler, but I do have to doubt journey times would be increased by so much as 15 minutes. A new Ashburys link like the one previously proposed would surely only add around 5 minutes, even factoring in an extra stop somewhere near those new houses in East Manchester.

Then remember that electric trams have much faster acceleration from standing than diesel Pacers which slowly rumble out of stations. This would gain time all the way along the route or at least perhaps negate the fact that a tram would (more sensibly) stop at every station rather than skip-stop like some of the trains.

And at Manchester itself, a tram-train to Bury for example would then continue on the regular tram line through Piccadilly Gardens and Market Street, meaning you can get off there and not have to walk or get the free bus from Piccadilly, probably saving at least 10-15 minutes itself and making travel into the city centre so much more convenient. Plus if you ever missed a train, you'd know the next was only 6 or 12 minutes away! I'd happily trade a few extra minutes on the journey for that alone.

[Belly]

The comment from RSH that ‘since we're not in London it's always a longer struggle than it should be’ perhaps may have been added almost as an afterthought but it is incredibly perceptive.

Amen to that. Even fairly senior members of the Cabinet agree.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25444981

Whilst this view might be a little self serving in the case of Mr Cable (what a politician, never) it has more than a ring of truth about it. Who's for grabbing their pitchfork and joining the march on those southern softies spending all our cash.

[Dave]

The proposed Manchester train/tram link will... take the passengers off the track at Ashburys thus increasing the journey time from 30 to 45 minutes

That's interesting, marplerambler.  We're all aware of the plan to re-route the tram-trains to connect with the Metrolink lines under Piccadilly, but what's your source for the information about the extended journey times?   

[ringi]

People living in London were sensible enough to have a congestion charge, as I understand it the people living the North West decided that sitting in traffic jams was good when they were give the choose.

Most taxes in the UK are pay by people the live in London.

Given the two above statements why should we not have to wait a lot longer than London to get transport upgrades?

[marplerambler]

The comment from RSH that ‘since we're not in London it's always a longer struggle than it should be’ perhaps may have been added almost as an afterthought but it is incredibly perceptive. The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive was created by the 1968 Transport Act. In addition to amalgamating the Corporation Transport Departments and the local bus operations of North Western, the PTE became responsible for local train operation. A primary aim of the PTE in the 1970s was the creation of a north-south rail link in a mile long tunnel from Manchester Piccadilly to Victoria to overcome the problem encountered by anyone travelling from Stockport or Marple intending to head north (and west and east) from Manchester. What happened? A second rate tram system on lines which were previously served by trains. The goal of a north-south service was partially achieved by creating the link from Deansgate to Salford Crescent at a much later stage but the fundamental principal of the mile long rail tunnel beneath Manchester was deemed to be too expensive. So what happens in London? Simple! Crossrail with its 26 miles of tunnels beneath the most densely populated area of Britain is constructed using £14.8 billion pounds from national coffers (NB this was not funded by Transport for London, this was paid for by the Marple commuter as well as by hippopotamus on the line at Croydon). The proposed Manchester train/tram link will cost the local taxpayers of the Manchester area £200m and will take the passengers off the track at Ashburys thus increasing the journey time from 30 to 45 minutes and lead to a very significant increase in fares. No thank you very much. As much as I would like an evening and Sunday train/tram to Rose Hill I am quite happy with what we have.

[rsh]

you can have as many trams as poss between marple / rose hill , when they come to the junctions at ashburys and hyde that is where the problems will be. new inferstructure will have to be built. the station i work at has just been rebuilt. the time it took was unbeliverble.this idea for the trams coming to marple has been around for ten years now.its a political policy thats bounded around by all parties. it would be nice if one commited to it,stuck by it and built it.

It's most likely that from Ashburys onwards there will be a dedicated Metrolink line into the lower level of Piccadilly, completely bypassing the rail junctions with some kind of flyover. It's this that's probably bumping up the £200m estimated cost. Here's the most recent proposal:



Planning documents for the new Network Rail signalling centre going up there (ugly black building that will swallow up our remaining signal boxes) show a "protected Metrolink alignment" north of the existing railway line.

In the 1987 Metrolink proposal Marple was indeed considered for the first line, linked to Bury. Good ideas like this tend to happen eventually (see the fight to get the current lines to Didsbury, etc finally built and now already huge successes), but since we're not in London it's always a longer struggle than it should be.

[marpleexile]

you can have as many trams as poss between marple / rose hill , when they come to the junctions at ashburys and hyde that is where the problems will be. new inferstructure will have to be built. the station i work at has just been rebuilt. the time it took was unbeliverble.this idea for the trams coming to marple has been around for ten years now.its a political policy thats bounded around by all parties. it would be nice if one commited to it,stuck by it and built it.

More than 10 years, going on for 25. I remember covering the then proposed Metrolink scheme in first year Humanities class at Marple Hall way back when. Marple was one of the places that was due to be connected during "phase two".