Tram train and transport in Marple and Stockport

[Duke Fame]

Yes, I think that was the original plan, although I seem to recall seeing a more recent one which suggested that the tram-trains would leave the rail line at Ashburys and head north-west to Ashton Old Road, and then continue to Piccadilly along the road, which would obviously be slower.

Agreed - I don't know what Jimblob and Duke expect, but as far as I can see TfGM have been doing a pretty decent job - as rsh says, the spectacular growth of the Metrolink system, which operates without public subsidy, has been a real achievement. 

I understand the reservations that some people have have about tram-trains, but they are the only option on the table at the moment, or in the foreseeable future.  If hatter and others who oppose tram-trains think that we will ever get a modern electrified heavy rail service in Marple, all I can say is 'in your dreams'! If tram-trains don't happen, we will continue to suffer the present service, with gross overcrowding and some of the worst rolling stock on the entire UK rail network. And when the Class 142 'Pacers' are eventually retired in a couple of years time, don't imagine that we will get nice new trains - we are the lowest of the low in terms of the national rail hierarchy and priorities, and we will just get more Class 150 diesels - old, dirty clapped out ones, 'cascaded' from other parts of the UK because no-one else wants them.

I have little time for the public sector quagos like tfgm. the dickie leese retirement fund or 'gmTif'' as it was marketed still makes me wonder about their sanity.

The rolling stock is hardly an issue for a 20 minute journey, if the fleet is replaced with refurbished sprinters, there is not much to argue about. the issue is the frequency of service imho and that remains an issue of rail space at Piccadilly.

trains can go under the old goods depot at Piccadilly but they will still take up rail space and moreover cross the mainline. if we want to see an extra London train, 2 extra York trains and an extra Sheffield train out of Piccadilly, the likes of the Maple trains need to be out of the way.

[jimblob]

Have you used the existing Metrolink under Piccadilly? It runs through a former goods basement, no tunnelling needed. Marple tram-train would likely connect into this.

Considering the amount of tram extensions they've completed TfGM seem to be fairly competent compared to most other local transport authorities. The problem has always been lack of funding and lack of powers. And seemingly forgetting about the south-east corner of the conurbation, or thinking we won't mind waiting…

I live in the south east of the borough. My wife and I both travel due West-South-West for our commute and hit Hazel Grove, Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme etc, I'm usually on my way to the airport and it seems crazy that my easiest route there is to get the train to Piccadilly and back out to the airport. Easy to expand the metrolink in areas where there is plenty of free space but perhaps where it's not needed so much. Still we're getting half a SEMMS bypass, can't way to cross Hazel Grove when that baby is open. 

[Dave]

Have you used the existing Metrolink under Piccadilly? It runs through a former goods basement, no tunnelling needed. Marple tram-train would likely connect into this.

Yes, I think that was the original plan, although I seem to recall seeing a more recent one which suggested that the tram-trains would leave the rail line at Ashburys and head north-west to Ashton Old Road, and then continue to Piccadilly along the road, which would obviously be slower.

  Considering the amount of tram extensions they've completed TfGM seem to be fairly competent compared to most other local transport authorities.

Agreed - I don't know what Jimblob and Duke expect, but as far as I can see TfGM have been doing a pretty decent job - as rsh says, the spectacular growth of the Metrolink system, which operates without public subsidy, has been a real achievement. 

I understand the reservations that some people have have about tram-trains, but they are the only option on the table at the moment, or in the foreseeable future.  If hatter and others who oppose tram-trains think that we will ever get a modern electrified heavy rail service in Marple, all I can say is 'in your dreams'! If tram-trains don't happen, we will continue to suffer the present service, with gross overcrowding and some of the worst rolling stock on the entire UK rail network. And when the Class 142 'Pacers' are eventually retired in a couple of years time, don't imagine that we will get nice new trains - we are the lowest of the low in terms of the national rail hierarchy and priorities, and we will just get more Class 150 diesels - old, dirty clapped out ones, 'cascaded' from other parts of the UK because no-one else wants them. 

[rsh]

whilst running under Piccadilly is desirable, its awfully  expensive. whilst there is disused land and these include old sidings, why not make use of this rather than expensive tunnelling.

Have you used the existing Metrolink under Piccadilly? It runs through a former goods basement, no tunnelling needed. Marple tram-train would likely connect into this.

Considering the amount of tram extensions they've completed TfGM seem to be fairly competent compared to most other local transport authorities. The problem has always been lack of funding and lack of powers. And seemingly forgetting about the south-east corner of the conurbation, or thinking we won't mind waiting…

[Duke Fame]

In my experience of tfgm, they seem far more concerned about protecting their rather good pensions than providing viable transport solutions for us.

yes, it seems its an organisation design to rinse as much taxpayers money for its employees rather than provide a good service.

[jimblob]

In my experience of tfgm, they seem far more concerned about protecting their rather good pensions than providing viable transport solutions for us.

[Duke Fame]

And the third option is the more sensible, real one to divert local trains before they reach Piccadilly mainline platforms and run them underneath as tram-trains and straight through to St Peter's Square, etc.

For the record, even the small look we ever got at the earlier TfGM plans of a line diverting at Ashburys showed it would hardly run on-road at all - if at all - and any very slight increase in time would be mitigated by faster acceleration from every single stop en route (no thundering Pacer engine!) as well as the fact the line might take you closer to your ultimate destination in the city. With more frequent services, you'd also save time not waiting so long for the next one.

Re the Sheffield tram-trains: they really only seem to be delayed due to Network Rail dilly-dallying, nothing to do with the vehicles themselves. Ridiculous that TfGM can't (or can't be bothered to) lobby to start working properly on its own plans meanwhile.

whilst running under Piccadilly is desirable, its awfully  expensive. whilst there is disused land and these include old sidings, why not make use of this rather than expensive tunnelling.

the tfgm plans tend to be overblown and they don't have a record for proposing sensible solutions for transport across Manchester (congestion charge anyone)

[rsh]

The other option is for the mainline trains to Leeds, Newcastle, hull, Liverpool, Southampton and London terminate at ancoats and the commuters use Piccadilly.

And the third option is the more sensible, real one to divert local trains before they reach Piccadilly mainline platforms and run them underneath as tram-trains and straight through to St Peter's Square, etc.

For the record, even the small look we ever got at the earlier TfGM plans of a line diverting at Ashburys showed it would hardly run on-road at all - if at all - and any very slight increase in time would be mitigated by faster acceleration from every single stop en route (no thundering Pacer engine!) as well as the fact the line might take you closer to your ultimate destination in the city. With more frequent services, you'd also save time not waiting so long for the next one.

Re the Sheffield tram-trains: they really only seem to be delayed due to Network Rail dilly-dallying, nothing to do with the vehicles themselves. Ridiculous that TfGM can't (or can't be bothered to) lobby to start working properly on its own plans meanwhile.

[Duke Fame]

As someone who gets the train every morning from Marple in to Piccadilly, that idea will never work and would cause big delays. Also being a complete pain in the arse! Piccadilly is no different than every other major train terminal in that it was built in the victorian age and has so much more traffic coming in/out/through than 100+ years ago!

The New Mills line needs electrifying but costs are huge and wont happen for a long time to come!

You are disagreeing with the solution but re-stating the problem. Piccadilly is congested.

It may be a pain if the commuters finish at ancoats but perhaps not. You currently get to Piccadilly and walk to the office or to the metrolink for a connection, there is not much difference if that connection picks you up at ancoats and takes you closer to your destination. The other option is for the mainline trains to Leeds, Newcastle, hull, Liverpool, Southampton and London terminate at ancoats and the commuters use Piccadilly.

[hatter76]

.

I also agree with this, I'm afraid:
If/ when the Manchester - Sheffield route ever gets electrified, it will be done by extending the current electrified line from Hazel Grove.

What hatter needs to get his mind round is that for all its shortcomings, tram-train is the only game in town, and is the only realistic prospect of a modern and efficient rail service between Marple and Manchester in the foreseeable future. Yes, the Sheffield - Rotherham pilot is delayed, and of course we have to wait for the outcome of that before we can proceed. But tram-trains are working well in many cities in mainland Europe, and there is no reason, AFAIK, why they should not work here.

Dave they can't get it to work in Sheffield now until 2018 at the earliest and if it does ever run it will only be at 20 minute frequencies.

Unfortunately when it comes to infrastructure cheap and easy doesn't exist.

It is an absolute discrace that the railway lines to New Mills and Rose Hill are not fully electrified with fit for purpose modern rolling stock running every 15 minutes.  This metro frequency is being planned in many other similar cities such as Leeds.

If what we are being offered is that great why don't we hear of similar schemes in the South East? Indeed why spend £15 billion on crossrail that can deliver 1,500 people every 40 seconds at speeds of 90 mph across the most congested city in the UK when they could have 48 seater tram trains travelling at 5 to 20 mph in street mode?

[Dave]

Agreed - it completely negates one of the  main advantages of tram-trains, which is that they will carry passengers directly through the city centre to where they actually want to go. What you don't want is to get off on the edge of the city centre and change to another tram or bus or whatever - that's no better than what we've got at the moment.

I also agree with this, I'm afraid:

The New Mills line needs electrifying but costs are huge and wont happen for a long time to come!

If/ when the Manchester - Sheffield route ever gets electrified, it will be done by extending the current electrified line from Hazel Grove.

What hatter needs to get his mind round is that for all its shortcomings, tram-train is the only game in town, and is the only realistic prospect of a modern and efficient rail service between Marple and Manchester in the foreseeable future. Yes, the Sheffield - Rotherham pilot is delayed, and of course we have to wait for the outcome of that before we can proceed. But tram-trains are working well in many cities in mainland Europe, and there is no reason, AFAIK, why they should not work here.

.

[Google]

I think the problem is touched on in your piece, Piccadilly is congested. the answer is to terminate commuter trains at an interchange near the Apollo where trams or even airport style shuttles can shuttle commuters into Piccadilly for connections on the mainline or onto Piccadilly gardens for trams and the town.

As someone who gets the train every morning from Marple in to Piccadilly, that idea will never work and would cause big delays. Also being a complete pain in the arse! Piccadilly is no different than every other major train terminal in that it was built in the victorian age and has so much more traffic coming in/out/through than 100+ years ago!

The New Mills line needs electrifying but costs are huge and wont happen for a long time to come!

[Duke Fame]

The problem there is that just south of Bollington more than a mile of the old railway track was used for the construction of the Tytherington by-pass on the A523 Hazel Grove to Macclesfield Road. I find it quite infuriating when travelling to West Yorkshire that the Rose Hill train stops at Guide Bridge then waits outside Piccadilly waiting for the Leeds train to depart to create platform space. The Leeds train then thunders through Guide Bridge and Network Rail made it very clear that there will never be a connection for Yorkshire at Guide Bridge by demolishing the footbridge connecting the Guide Bridge platforms a few years ago.

I'm not sure what commuters and travellers making connections at Leeds and York will think of their 'express' service shopping at places like Guide Bridge.

I think the problem is touched on in your piece, Piccadilly is congested. the answer is to terminate commuter trains at an interchange near the Apollo where trams or even airport style shuttles can shuttle commuters into Piccadilly for connections on the mainline or onto Piccadilly gardens for trams and the town.

as for a Rose Hill - Mac service, its possible but I'm not sure of the demand. Yes, a light rail link into Stockport station is needed and using the rail bed to get to the Buxton line would be good but its a long way round and unless it could get decent speeds up, it would be a slow service.

whilst you are right, the Tytherington by-pass does cross the old line, its not impossible to put a light rail on the route into Mac station via Bollington. I can see a demand from the Bollington folk for a link to the mainline at Mac, I can't see many wanting to go to Rose Hill

[marplerambler]

If High Lane is on the cards, why not reinstate the railway all the way to Macclesfield giving faster connection a for journeys south such as London and Birmingham and reconnecting Higher Poynton and Bollington?

The problem there is that just south of Bollington more than a mile of the old railway track was used for the construction of the Tytherington by-pass on the A523 Hazel Grove to Macclesfield Road. I find it quite infuriating when travelling to West Yorkshire that the Rose Hill train stops at Guide Bridge then waits outside Piccadilly waiting for the Leeds train to depart to create platform space. The Leeds train then thunders through Guide Bridge and Network Rail made it very clear that there will never be a connection for Yorkshire at Guide Bridge by demolishing the footbridge connecting the Guide Bridge platforms a few years ago.

[hatter76]

Getting back to the subject, are tram trains to Rose Hill Marple the best option?
We will have to wait for the proper proposal for all the details but at the moment the following is of concern to me as a user of both Marple and Rose Hill stations.

_Tram trains are an unproven technology in the UK
_The Sheffield pilot scheme was meant to open in 2015, this has experienced delays and complications and now will not open until April 2017
_The Sheffield system will only be able to operate at a much reduced capacity compared to existing tram systems with a frequency of 20/ 30 minutes being typical
_In street mode trams typically operate at speeds of 5/20 mph and subject to traffic light and sometimes road traffic delays. It appears that the Rose Hill system will leave the establish rail route at Ashburys and proceed in street mode for several miles at a reduced speed compared to existing trains.
_Only 48 seats in a tram compared to 150 on a sprinter train ( this will be the usual local train in a few years)
_No semi fast services, trams stop at every station increasing journey time
_no bikes or dogs
_no through ticketing outside Greater Manchester
_increased connection times at Piccadilly as the trams will not access the main station platforms
_unclear if Marple trains will still be able to access the Bredbury line, they may have to use the much slower line through Woodley
_Will Marple frequencies be maintained?
_50 mph top speed compared with 75 mph for a Sprinter train
_Engineering work could lead to long periods of bus replacements

In terms of the connection from High Lane to Stockport and creating a circle line,  not sure this is even an option considering how busy Hazel Grove is with existing trains. If it is why not use electric trains with greater seating capacity?

If High Lane is on the cards, why not reinstate the railway all the way to Macclesfield giving faster connection a for journeys south such as London and Birmingham and reconnecting Higher Poynton and Bollington?