Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport

[andrewbowden]

Manchester was in the running for the train-tram trial, however the Department of Transport wanted to test low floor trams which Metrolink doesn't have.

Although given other countries have had train-trams for years, you wonder why they need to bother...

[Dave]

Do you see the link now?

No

The modern tram/rapid transit systems in England ie. Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield, Tyne and wear and the West Midlands are all in what are traditionally Labour strongholds.

Most big cities in the UK are traditionally Labour strongholds, but their urban transit systems exist because big cities are where such systems are always built, not because they are Labour.  At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, rural areas don't have tram systems, but that's because they are rural, not because they are Tory (although they are!).

Austerity didn't prevent the construction of Crossrail but it resulted in the scrapping of the plans of investment in the proposed tram link to Marple.

 
No it didn't. AFAIK the tram/train is still part of the plan, subject to the trial in Sheffield.

[andrewbowden]

Having lived in London for 16 years until last year, I can safely say that London needed Crossrail when it was first mooted about 20 years ago.  Crossrail will pretty much be at capacity not long after it starts running a full service.  London needs Crossrail 2 right now to unlock capacity, especially at London Waterloo, the busiest railway station in the country.  Indeed the need for Crossrail 2 was first spotted in the 1970s.

None of that should ever stop public transport improvements happening outside London at all.  Nor should it ever be the case that anyone ever says "Well London you can't have this thing you need, because you had the last thing to be built." It just shouldn't.  That's just a stupid way of running things. 

But the way the government looks at new developments is on the basis of a business case with a cost benefit ratio.  And that system is fundamentally flawed because a scheme in London always has a greater cost benefit ratio than anywhere else due to the population size and land values. 

Personally I believe passionately that the whole system needs shaking up.  For starters, London should be able to issue bonds to fund improvements it needs.  That's how cities like New York do it.  It would allow London to just get on with it, and keep the costs within itself.   But no government will allow it for the woeful reason that the bond gets added onto the national borrowing levels.  Equally there's potential for conurbations like Greater Manchester to do the same.  Just think what they could do here if there wasn't a requirement to go and beg for scraps from the Treasury.

Allowing London to just get on with things would then force the government to look outside the capital.  To actually think properly at the rest of the nation.  But frankly until the Treasury stop seeing every tiny cost as a burden, we'll get nowhere.

Incidentally I'm not sure how London Tramlink is proof that the Conservatives only look beyond Watford.  It's a lot closer to Westminster than Watford, and like Metrolink, has been a huge success.

[andrewbowden]

Having lived in London for 16 years until last year, I can safely say that London needed Crossrail when it was first mooted about 20 years ago.  Crossrail will pretty much be at capacity not long after it starts running a full service.  London needs Crossrail 2 right now to unlock capacity, especially at London Waterloo, the busiest railway station in the country.  Indeed the need for Crossrail 2 was first spotted in the 1970s.

None of that should ever stop public transport improvements happening outside London at all.  Nor should it ever be the case that anyone ever says "Well London you can't have this thing you need, because you had the last thing to be built." It just shouldn't.  That's just a stupid way of running things. 

But the way the government looks at new developments is on the basis of a business case with a cost benefit ratio.  And that system is fundamentally flawed because a scheme in London always has a greater cost benefit ratio than anywhere else due to the population size and land values. 

Personally I believe passionately that the whole system needs shaking up.  For starters, London should be able to issue bonds to fund improvements it needs.  That's how cities like New York do it.  It would allow London to just get on with it, and keep the costs within itself.   But no government will allow it for the woeful reason that the bond gets added onto the national borrowing levels. 

Allowing London to just get on with things would then force the government to look outside the capital.  To actually think properly at the rest of the nation. 

Incidentally I'm not sure how London Tramlink is proof that the Conservatives only look beyond Watford.  It's a lot closer to Westminster than Watford, and like Metrolink, has been a huge success.

[marplerambler]

A characteristically thoughtful response from amazon.....

However, I too struggle to make a link between how I cast my vote next Thursday and whether tram-trains are introduced between Rose Hill and Piccadilly. ;-)

The modern tram/rapid transit systems in England ie. Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield, Tyne and wear and the West Midlands are all in what are traditionally Labour strongholds. Yes, the Docklands tram/light railway system is an exception to the rule but the London Tramlink is further proof that the Conservative government's concerns about public transport ends at Watford. A colossal amount may well be wasted on a completely unnecessary HS2 but London thinks only about itself. Notice how the Northern Hub transport was dropped by the Tories once they were re-elected. Austerity didn't prevent the construction of Crossrail but it resulted in the scrapping of the plans of investment in the proposed tram link to Marple.

Do you see the link now?

[Dave]

Rubish Rubish Rubish .......

A characteristically thoughtful response from amazon.....

However, I too struggle to make a link between how I cast my vote next Thursday and whether tram-trains are introduced between Rose Hill and Piccadilly. ;-)

[marplerambler]

Rubish Rubish Rubish .......

A comment from one of the many of hundreds of people in Marple who are too ashamed to put a 'Vote Conservative' sign in their window/garden but who will gobble up all the rubbish about Labour being pumped out by Murdoch and vote for Wragg next week? My strategy for transport in Marple was to put a 'Save the 394 Service' flier on every bus stop in Marple/High Lane and setting up a very successful and popular 38 degrees on-line petition to save the 394 last year after visiting William Wragg's Constituency office and speaking to two members of staff who had not the slightest idea that there was, at that time an hourly bus service from Glossop to Stepping Hill bus service which stopped almost right outside his office. The Labour transport manifesto also states it will protect bus routes such as the 394 from the less densely populated areas such as Glossop Road and Hawk Green to Stepping Hill Hospital.

I think a decent bus, train service and possible tram link to Stockport is worth an extra few quid on the rates but you won't get it from the Conservatives. Their interest in public transport ends at the northernmost station of the London Underground and at the terminal points of the new Crossrail/Elizabeth Line.

[amazon]

The solution for Marple is quite simple - we need a change of government. Vote to ensure that the Conservatives do not form the next government. It may mean that you have to vote tactically by electing the LibDem candidate (though God knows they do not deserve a vote after swearing in 2010 that a vote for the LibDems was the only way to ensure that a Conservative government would not be elected and then immediately after the election supported them in a coalition). If the Conservatives are removed from power by tactical voting in Marple, the Labour Party state in their manifesto that if they form the new government:

Labour will prioritise public service over private profit and we will start by bringing our railways back into public ownership, as franchises expire or, in other cases, with franchise reviews or break clauses. We will introduce a Public Ownership of the Railways Bill to repeal the Railways Act 1993 under which the Conservatives privatised our railways. In public ownership, we will deliver real improvements for passengers  by capping fares, introducing free Wi-Fi across   the   network,   ensuring safe staffing levels, ending   the expansion of driver only operations, and introducing legal duties to improve accessibility for people  with disabilities. Across the country we will enable councils   to   provide   first-class bus services by extending the powers to re-regulate local bus services to all areas that want them, and we will support the creation of municipal bus companies that are publicly run for passengers not   profit. Under the Conservatives, bus fares have risen and services have been cut. Labour will introduce regulations to designate and protect routes of critical community value, including those that serve local schools, hospitals and isolated settlements in rural areas. A publicly owned railway system can be the backbone of our plans for integrated transport. It will be built on the platform of Network Rail, which we will retain whole, working with the devolved administrations. We will ensure new rolling stock is publicly owned and will encourage expansion of public freight services in a publicly owned railway that will leave our roads freer   of traffic and our air cleaner. We will facilitate British procurements, including  steel, whenever possible.'

Political rhetoric perhaps but you have it there in black and white and you can kick them out if they don't deliver. they may even assuage some of your fears about the destruction and sale of the NHS!

Rubish Rubish Rubish .......

[marplerambler]

Apropos to nothing, but the state of the trains is entirely the government's fault. 

The solution for Marple is quite simple - we need a change of government. Vote to ensure that the Conservatives do not form the next government. It may mean that you have to vote tactically by electing the LibDem candidate (though God knows they do not deserve a vote after swearing in 2010 that a vote for the LibDems was the only way to ensure that a Conservative government would not be elected and then immediately after the election supported them in a coalition). If the Conservatives are removed from power by tactical voting in Marple, the Labour Party state in their manifesto that if they form the new government:

Labour will prioritise public service over private profit and we will start by bringing our railways back into public ownership, as franchises expire or, in other cases, with franchise reviews or break clauses. We will introduce a Public Ownership of the Railways Bill to repeal the Railways Act 1993 under which the Conservatives privatised our railways. In public ownership, we will deliver real improvements for passengers  by capping fares, introducing free Wi-Fi across   the   network,   ensuring safe staffing levels, ending   the expansion of driver only operations, and introducing legal duties to improve accessibility for people  with disabilities. Across the country we will enable councils   to   provide   first-class bus services by extending the powers to re-regulate local bus services to all areas that want them, and we will support the creation of municipal bus companies that are publicly run for passengers not   profit. Under the Conservatives, bus fares have risen and services have been cut. Labour will introduce regulations to designate and protect routes of critical community value, including those that serve local schools, hospitals and isolated settlements in rural areas. A publicly owned railway system can be the backbone of our plans for integrated transport. It will be built on the platform of Network Rail, which we will retain whole, working with the devolved administrations. We will ensure new rolling stock is publicly owned and will encourage expansion of public freight services in a publicly owned railway that will leave our roads freer   of traffic and our air cleaner. We will facilitate British procurements, including  steel, whenever possible.'

Political rhetoric perhaps but you have it there in black and white and you can kick them out if they don't deliver. they may even assuage some of your fears about the destruction and sale of the NHS!

[andrewbowden]

The previous and the current franchise holders operating Northern Rail services have imposed massive increases in fares. The very last thing Northern Rail want is a stakeholder group of users screaming that we have one of the most expensive train services in Europe but have trains which are clapped out cattle trucks which need pushers with bars to get passengers at Woodley and Hyde Central in through the doors in the morning rush hour. It is now almost impossible to get a seat on the Sunday morning train to Edale! Surely the stakeholders are the shareholders in the German company which operates the trains and pockets the profits abroad?

Apropos to nothing, but the state of the trains is entirely the government's fault.  The last Northern franchise was let on the assumption that there would be zero - absolutely NO - passenger growth during the franchise.  It was hopelessly, utterly and stupidly wrong. 

But because all the finances were done on the assumption that there would be no growth, that meant no money for investing in trains.  And even if you did have the money, you can't just invest in trains as you need government approval to do so.  When you combine that with the fact previous Northern was the most heavily subsidised rail franchise in the country (despite serving several major cities), you get governments who don't want to invest in anything.  And lo, you get an even worse situation. 

Passengers blame the rail companies for their profiteering, but the level of profits are only about 3-4%.  Yes, that's 3-4% that could be going back in investment, but ultimately we need governments who see public transport investment as a good thing rather than a nuisance.  We need investment in capacity before its needed, not - as happens now - a decade or so after it was needed.

At least we will be getting new trains in the next few years.  And there may be some timetable improvements.  But the timetables for Marple and Rose Hill are a mess.  Frequencies should be higher.  And why on earth doesn't Rose Hill have a Sunday service?  The difference in service levels between national rail and Metrolink is enormous.

Rant over.

[Dave]

An interesting development.  The Friends of Marple Station are presumably the 'stakeholder' to be consulted.  I have just left them a voicemail message and I'll update this forum if/ when I hear anything.

[marplerambler]

Who are stakeholders if not the people who actually use the service

That's a slightly facetious comment I know.  But for comparison, in London a consultation is very open.  Transport for London even have a detailed consultations website, open to all.  Want to have your say on a re-routing bus route?  No need to find any stakeholder groups - you just do it online.

It's a bit sad that the public elsewhere aren't given that same level of trust.

The previous and the current franchise holders operating Northern Rail services have imposed massive increases in fares. The very last thing Northern Rail want is a stakeholder group of users screaming that we have one of the most expensive train services in Europe but have trains which are clapped out cattle trucks which need pushers with bars to get passengers at Woodley and Hyde Central in through the doors in the morning rush hour. It is now almost impossible to get a seat on the Sunday morning train to Edale! Surely the stakeholders are the shareholders in the German company which operates the trains and pockets the profits abroad?

[andrewbowden]

Apparently they are consulting with stakeholders but it appears to be leaking out. The proposed Davenport timetable and many other stations is online with a simple Google search. I am sure stakeholders reading this will be in the know.

Who are stakeholders if not the people who actually use the service

That's a slightly facetious comment I know.  But for comparison, in London a consultation is very open.  Transport for London even have a detailed consultations website, open to all.  Want to have your say on a re-routing bus route?  No need to find any stakeholder groups - you just do it online.

It's a bit sad that the public elsewhere aren't given that same level of trust.

[hatter76]

Do you know how/where they are consulting?  As there's next to no information anywhere!  Indeed I saw very little information on the specifics of what was going on - just that the Sheffield line would be moving to hourly, and that there would be "more Sunday services" without giving a clue where they'd be.

Apparently they are consulting with stakeholders but it appears to be leaking out. The proposed Davenport timetable and many other stations is online with a simple Google search. I am sure stakeholders reading this will be in the know.

[andrewbowden]

Northern Rail is consulting on its proposed timetable improvements from May 2018. I have read plenty online about increases on the Hazel Grove line but can't find any info on Marple. We were meant to be getting 30 minute evening and Sunday frequencies as part of the franchise agreement. Can anyone advise?

Do you know how/where they are consulting?  As there's next to no information anywhere!  Indeed I saw very little information on the specifics of what was going on - just that the Sheffield line would be moving to hourly, and that there would be "more Sunday services" without giving a clue where they'd be.