Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport

[Melancholyflower]

Yes in the case of Rose Hill the poorer frequency urgently needs to be addressed, and the lack of a Sunday service.

[Dave]

Would greater frequency lead to greater capacity?   A quick perusal on the web reveals that Pacers have between 106 and 121 seats, with standing of around 40-60. So 180 passengers per 2 cars.  The M5000 tram has seating for around 60 and, apparently, 146 standing.
206?

We currently have two trains per hour from Rose Hill to Piccadilly.  That's up to 360 passengers.

The tram-trains are planned to run every 12 minutes, I believe - i.e. five per hour, accommodating up to 1,000 passengers - even more if they are double units.  But I agree with Melancholy that this number of standing passengers doesn't sound very comfortable!  But then, neither is the 08.10 from Marple!

[hatter76]

I'd be interested in Geoff's reply to this as well.  But I'm puzzled by hatter's references to a 'bus lane' and 'traffic free route'.

Read back Cllr Geoff's earlier reply. He says that he supports electrification but trams are only compatible with diesels. This suggests that they are planning DC tram electrification for the Rose Hill tram train line. As Ashburys is electrified with the UK system it will have to go into street mode to get to Piccadilly for the last few miles.

Is this the elephant in the room!
If I am wrong please correct me.
Around 2000 people use Marple's stations everyday, this will be a massive issue if I am correct!

I am waiting for Cllr Geoff's reply.

[Melancholyflower]

Would greater frequency lead to greater capacity?

A quick perusal on the web reveals that Pacers have between 106 and 121 seats, with standing of around 40-60. So 180 passengers per 2 cars.

The M5000 tram has seating for around 60 and, apparently, 146 standing.
206? Personally I find this unrealistic given their size, and when one factors in prams, wheelchairs etc.

Certainly we should all be in agreement that there would be an awful lot less seats on a tram-train, with the associate ramifications for the elderly, children etc.

Interested to hear if anyone knows whether we'd get 4-car trams? If there are more regular services I would guess not.  And what are the running costs for a 4-car tram against a 2-car diesel or electric multiple unit?

[Dave]

Surely 1 and 3 are equally possible and better using real trains

Possible - but highly unlikely, IMO.

I'm not sure the minor advantages outway the disadvantages.

I'm not aware that there are any significant disadvantages.  Certainly those put forward by marplerambler don't amount to very much.

[Condate]

The tram offers three 'new' features which we should welcome.

1.  Greater frequency and therefore capacity.
2.  Through running to the city centre and beyond, with 'same platform' connections to other tram routes.
3.   Electrification.

Surely 1 and 3 are equally possible and better using real trains, instead of the overgrown toy trains that are likely with tram-train. We have already suffered enough from inadequate rolling stock with the dreaded class 142.

I suppose 2 is an advantage for a few people, but I'm not sure the minor advantages outway the disadvantages.

[simonesaffron]

You are all starting to sound like a bunch of male train spotting anoraks.

[Dave]

Marple rambler's first paragraph, about the problems of running trams and trains together in other parts of the local network, is interesting but irrelevant.  The proposal for Piccadily to Rose Hill is not for trams, it is for tram- trains, which I understand are designed to run on the same tracks as trains. So those problems should not arise.

The line from Piccadilly to Marple/Rose Hill be it via Brinnington or Guide Bridge should remain as an integrated part of the Manchester rail system if the tram can offer nothing new.

The tram offers three 'new' features which we should welcome.

1.  Greater frequency and therefore capacity.
2.  Through running to the city centre and beyond, with 'same platform' connections to other tram routes.
3.   Electrification.

[marplerambler]

I support the idea of electrification (mentioned by MarpleRambler), but trams use a different voltage to Network Rail, so trams are only compatible with diesels.   

Why this almighty obsession with trams? If the introduction of trams provides nothing new to the system other than a change in voltage and operator why bother changing? Two systems are created and the fragmentation causes even more expense and problems.  Single track running on one track by tram (Metro) and one track by train (Network Rail) has been the source of problems between Navigation Road and Altrincham ever since the incorporation of this section of the railway network into the tramway system. Bury and Oldham trams travel all the way around the mulberry bush to escape Victoria. Single track running (trains in both directions on one track of the link between Romiley and the Rose Hill junction, trams on the other) is a recipe for mayhem and delay if not disaster especially should any problems arise with the viaduct.

Our journey times will be increased if we have trams which will be shuttled by a more circuitous route to join an ever increasing queue to join the Piccadilly Metro line so perhaps our councillors and MPs should be saying 'Why should it be the Marple/Rose line passengers who are forced into and out of the bowels of Piccadilly and instead fight to hold on to Piccadilly Station platforms 1 and 2 for our trains? Fast turn around times at Piccadilly are essential to ensure that time spent by rolling stock on the platform at Piccadilly is minimised. London Underground Northern Line has had to solve a problem of ever increasing demand on finite platform space by introducing a new signalling system which reduces times between trains thus allowing even more frequent trains. Could an answer to capacity at Piccadilly be an upgrading of the signalling system enabling the commuter trains to get in and out of Piccadilly more quickly thus increasing capacity?

The line from Piccadilly to Marple/Rose Hill be it via Brinnington or Guide Bridge should remain as an integrated part of the Manchester rail system if the tram can offer nothing new. Manchester to Sheffield trains via Marple and Edale serve rural communities once east of New Mills: their function is very different to that of express trains envisioned in the Northern Powerhouse and Network Rail tracks from Chinley to Piccadilly via Marple are a vital escape route should there be a problem or engineering works between Chinley and Manchester via Stockport.

Perhaps tram proponents should be looking to offer new transport solutions similar to the much desired new links to Eccles, Ashton and Manchester Airport via Wythenshawe rather than just appropriating existing train lines and stating that is progress!

[hollins]

We may find that electric trains are made with a small diesel generator so they can cope with a short length of track, (e.g. a small tunnel) that is not wired.

You can run electrically-powered trains without full track electrification - see
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/13/low-carbon-battery-powered-train-carries-first-passengers

The battery will apparently give it 43 miles at 50 mph (and that's likely to improve with lighter rolling stock): enough for Piccadilly to Marple and back.

[Dave]

Rose Hill will have tram trains that will stop at every station and then potentially travel down a bus lane to get under Piccadilly.

Have you identified a traffic free route for tram trains into Piccadilly?

I'd be interested in Geoff's reply to this as well.  But I'm puzzled by hatter's references to a 'bus lane' and 'traffic free route'. The last I read about the plan was that a new line would be constructed alongside and to the north of the existing tracks which lead in to platforms 1 and 2 (where the Network Rail cabins and parking currently are), and that this would slope down to connect with the existing Metrolink lines in the Piccadilly undercroft.  So the tram-trains would not run on any roads until they have been through Piccadilly

[hatter76]

And if you want to know what goes on at the regular TfGM meetings I can tell you.  Are there any specific questions?

Geoff you asked for questions to TfGM, here are mine
Have you identified a traffic free route for tram trains into Piccadilly?
If not what is the estimated increase in travel time?
Can the electrification from Rose Hill be AC electric using dual voltage tram trains rather than DC, to allow for future integration?
What level of service will be maintained for passengers from Marple?

What is being done by TfGM to lobby the government to get Manchester to Sheffield, including via Marple, electrified ?

[ringi]

We may find that electric trains are made with a small diesel generator so they can cope with a short length of track, (e.g. a small tunnel) that is not wired.

Once “phase 1” has been done and the wiring is up to Rose Hill, along with wiring on the Hazel Grove to Sheffield line – the case can then be looked at for joining it all up.    Trying to get it all jointed up from the start will just delay it so much that it never gets done!

[Dave]

The Marple route is a designated diversion route and is used by a handful of through services each day. This will increase in the future as higher frequencies are planned. As such it should be included.

Maybe it should be, in an ideal world.  But here in the real world, will it be?  I am not aware that there is any plan to do it. 

The problem as I see it is we have local politicians and prospective ones that have have completly endorsed the tram train plans of TFGM. This will leave the other Marple route using outdated diesel trains and using the slower Hyde route.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that we get local diesel trains running from Piccadilly to Chinley (and no further) via Hyde, Marple and New Mills Central, with connections to Sheffield at Chinley.  For us locals who use Marple and don't want to join the notorious Stockport Road traffic jam in order to get to Rose Hill, we will be able to get on a train at Marple, get off at Romiley and change to a tram-train at the same platform.  The tram train will then take us right through the city centre to where we actually want to go, with no faffing around at Piccadilly.  Bring it on, I say!

I can't see the link to Stockport happening which is only 5 miles by car, so to me that is not relevant.

Agreed

[ringi]

So, I support the idea of electrification (mentioned by MarpleRambler), but trams use a different voltage to Network Rail, so trams are only compatible with diesels.   

The trams will be built to work on both voltages, the are "trainTram" not the current design of trams.   They also have to work with railway type signal and train protection systems.