Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Elections and Council Matters => Topic started by: hatter76 on November 29, 2015, 10:15:20 PM
-
In particular I am keen to push for the bypass to be built from the A6 to Bredbury and for the Tram/Train strategy to Marple and Marple to Stockport. I also wish to promote and increase the use of our wonderful parks.[/i]
Credit to you for coming on this forum and engaging with people.
I am in Marple South, but I have a question which is just a relevant to Marple North.
In terms of the tram train strategy for Marple to Stockport. Are you referring to the proposed curve at Reddish Vale which would link the Marple line to Stockport? I thought that this had been evaluated and failed to pass its business case assessment. If this is the case it has almost no chance of happening as it will not be funded, so why are you keen to promote something that won’t happen?
Although I will have to wait for the consultation documents on tram trains Marple-Manchester before making final judgement, I am very concerned about this proposal and believe it could lead to a much worse service. The seating capacity of a 4 carriage train running every 15 minutes is far higher than a 4 carriage tram train running every 12 minutes. It also could be much slower. I have made my thoughts known in previous posts on this forum so won’t repeat them. Maybe you could clarify, which of the Marple stations would you prefer to be linked to the tram trains, is it Marple or Rose Hill?
In fairness to you John, the other parties say similar statements about tram trains so if they are reading this feel free to also contribute?
-
In terms of the tram train strategy for Marple to Stockport. Are you referring to the proposed curve at Reddish Vale which would link the Marple line to Stockport? I thought that this had been evaluated and failed to pass its business case assessment. If this is the case it has almost no chance of happening as it will not be funded, so why are you keen to promote something that won’t happen?
By Marple to Stockport I mean the longer term aspiration for a direct route, probably via Bredbury and Brinnington. This is route 4 in the councils rail strategy published in January.
However the most likely route to be initiated is Marple to Manchester, with a possible later link as you describe via Reddish to Stockport, with or without the chord. I am keen to promote these options as I feel they will be beneficial to Marple. However I am under no illusions that it is likely to happen soon, and as you say may not occur. That does not mean we should not actively look at the options.
Although I will have to wait for the consultation documents on tram trains Marple-Manchester before making final judgement, I am very concerned about this proposal and believe it could lead to a much worse service. The seating capacity of a 4 carriage train running every 15 minutes is far higher than a 4 carriage tram train running every 12 minutes. It also could be much slower. I have made my thoughts known in previous posts on this forum so won’t repeat them. Maybe you could clarify, which of the Marple stations would you prefer to be linked to the tram trains, is it Marple or Rose Hill?
There are lots of issues to look at, including frequency, capacity etc. There are arguments for and against either station being linked to the tram trains. Personally I am minded to think Rosehill may be better option for a metrolink terminus, as it would have less impact on capacity constraints for through trains. It also partially answers your capacity queries as it is likely to provide much improved capacity over current Rosehill service. Other advantages of tram train are the penetration of the service into the City Centre, and freeing capacity constraints at Piccadilly Station throat. Against this of course are lower top speeds (but higher acceleration) of the units.
The wider picture is the vision to have Stockport as a central hub for Tram Train allowing flows into and out of the centre both into the City centre and radially to the airport, HS2, Altrincham and Tameside. The Airport and HS2 potential links could be very important in the future as if HS2 developed we are likely to have reduced train paths from Stockport to London
-
There are arguments for and against either station being linked to the tram trains. Personally I am minded to think Rosehill may be better option for a metrolink terminus, as it would have less impact on capacity constraints for through trains. It also partially answers your capacity queries as it is likely to provide much improved capacity over current Rosehill service. Other advantages of tram train are the penetration of the service into the City Centre, and freeing capacity constraints at Piccadilly Station throat. Against this of course are lower top speeds (but higher acceleration) of the units.
Tram-train is an important and exciting development, and JohnBates makes some very good points here. On balance, and with some regret, I can see that Rose Hill is likely to be the terminus for tram-train, especially because (a point not mentioned by John), it avoids the cost of electrifying the Marple North Tunnel. But the down side is the low car park capacity at Rose Hill. Marple station has much more parking, plus the possbility of even more if the car park across the road can be extended across the big grassy area at the back.
-
Tram-train is an important and exciting development, and JohnBates makes some very good points here. On balance, and with some regret, I can see that Rose Hill is likely to be the terminus for tram-train, especially because (a point not mentioned by John), it avoids the cost of electrifying the Marple North Tunnel. But the down side is the low car park capacity at Rose Hill. Marple station has much more parking, plus the possibility of even more if the car park across the road can be extended across the big grassy area at the back.
Very true @Dave re the parking. That is a definite downside to Rosehill, and I agree that expansion of the car park by Marple station would be beneficial.
-
I was also of the view that the tramtrain strategy for Marple was dead because of failure at business assessment, in simple terms money.
JohnBates, I hope that you don't mind me using your post in such a way but I notice that SMBC's rep on the TfGM Executive is Councillor Geoff Abell, who coincidentally happens to be our local Councillor. Perhaps this is a good time for Councillor Abell to step forward and give us, his constituents, an informed opinion on the situation.
-
I've broken this topic out from the John Bates: Marple North Candidate thread as it merits a separate one.
-
thanks for separating out the thread.
As far as I am aware the BCR for Marple to Manchester is very good, and is likely to go ahead if the Tram train trials in Sheffield are successful. The BCR on Marple Stockport is more of a problem, which is why we need to emphasise the need, both in terms of modal shift in commuting, and also getting transport infrastructure planned for the likely need for new housing.
-
This may be off topic but the train service is dreadful. Several times I have been worried I cannot get back to pick children up because trains have been cancelled or are too crammed to get on. Northern Rail say there is no limit to how many passengers can cram in standing. I find that shocking. Older people can really struggle. It really is a poorer service than the vast majority of countries.
I think we desperately need a link to Stockport. Surely that would get some of the traffic off the road? I have heard people that are wanting to work having to turn down job offers because they couldn't get out of Marple in time (especially if they also use childcare which doesn't usually start till 7:30/8am).
Any improvement in service would be welcome.
-
This may be off topic but the train service is dreadful. Several times I have been worried I cannot get back to pick children up because trains have been cancelled or are too crammed to get on. Northern Rail say there is no limit to how many passengers can cram in standing. I find that shocking. Older people can really struggle. It really is a poorer service than the vast majority of countries.
I think we desperately need a link to Stockport. Surely that would get some of the traffic off the road? I have heard people that are wanting to work having to turn down job offers because they couldn't get out of Marple in time (especially if they also use childcare which doesn't usually start till 7:30/8am).
Any improvement in service would be welcome.
So were would it go to stockport from marple .
-
This may be off topic but the train service is dreadful. Several times I have been worried I cannot get back to pick children up because trains have been cancelled or are too crammed to get on. Northern Rail say there is no limit to how many passengers can cram in standing. I find that shocking. Older people can really struggle. It really is a poorer service than the vast majority of countries.
Any improvement in service would be welcome.
We should find out in next week or so who is the new Franchisee from next year, and hopefully details on any improvements to service/rolling stock for the area are proposed.
-
The BCR on Marple Stockport is more of a problem, which is why we need to emphasise the need, both in terms of modal shift in commuting, and also getting transport infrastructure planned for the likely need for new housing.
New housing in Marple? Good Lord, the Nimbys successfully screamed their heads off at the prospect of a new supermarket on of the very few sites which was to become available but it is a fact of life that despite the fact that opposition is likely to be vociferous, we don't have anywhere to do our weekly shop and the traffic jams to Stockport are horrendous and will become even worse when the SEMMS link between Hazel Grove and the M60 eventually creates further problems at Offerton Green it is an indisputable fact that Marple is at or near to the top of the wish list for potential house buyers in Stockport so where do the houses go?
Well, without a new road bridge over the River Goyt, Town Street is the only way in and out for most who live east of the Goyt plus a few feeding onto the A626 via Bonnington Rise and Ley Lane. Longhurst Lane is already suffering very considerable problems coping with traffic in the morning and evening rush periods so leaving aside aesthetic arguments and protection of the countryside, major development to the east seems impractical.
The huge area of open space remaining for housing development on the scale of Bosden Farm is to the west of the Middlewood Way at Rose Hill, from Hawk Green across to Torkington and High Lane across to the Racecourse Estate. The centre point of all of this development will be the line of the old railway/ Middlewood Way. Extensive development may not take place in the near future but as land for housing becomes increasingly scarce and the golf courses and landowners find themselves perched upon land which is so valuable it might as well have a vein of gold running beneath it I have little doubt that the local authority, irregardless of political persuasion will eventually permit development.
Why not pre-empt this development by introducing train trams onto the Middlewood way line to create a link from Rose Hill to Hazel Grove and Stockport stations. New stops at the northern end of Winnington Road, Wood Lane, Torkington Road with an improvement in the road to serve car parks for people from Hawk Green and to the west of High Lane and then either drop to the Disley tunnel line or continue to Middlewood station.
If the above suggestion is considered to be too ambitious,I have said it before on the site but I will say it again, forget the Stockport - Guide Bridge line for a tram. It is so circuitous by the time you arrive at Stockport station it would have been quicker sitting on the bus. The best route for a tram from Marple to Stockport is railway line to Lingard Lane M60, along Brinnington Road to the Jack and Jill pub, drop into the old railway track cutting adjacent to St Bernadette's school, descend to use Tiviot Way to cross to the northern bank of the River Tame, cross the derelict fields below the Lancashire Hill flats, use Lancashire Hill Bridge across the M60 and then Princes St into Mersey Square and bus station.
-
Very true @Dave re the parking. That is a definite downside to Rosehill, and I agree that expansion of the car park by Marple station would be beneficial.
How could you make the car park at Marple station bigger .
-
How could you make the car park at Marple station bigger .
Its the car park by the station (opposite side of the road to be precise). Could be expanded over the grassy area behind.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Its the car park by the station (opposite side of the road to be precise). Could be expanded over the grassy area behind.
Build a multi storey car park. And charge a nominal amount for parking, to pay for the upkeep of the car park and possibly security.
-
As John Bates says, the area behind the 'Purple Pakora' car park is crying out to be surfaced and put to good use. I have written to our councillors quite recently about this, and I am told that 'We are presently considering the wider issues of car parking in Marple Bridge. When we have something that could be consulted on I will get back to you.'
Re this from marplerambler:
forget the Stockport - Guide Bridge line for a tram. It is so circuitous by the time you arrive at Stockport station it would have been quicker sitting on the bus.
Not so. Based on the current timetabled running times for trains between Marple/ Rose Hill and Brinnington, and Stockport and Reddish South, it would take no more than 20 Minutes at any time of day to go by train from Marple or Rose Hill to Stockport via a new 'chord' at Reddish Vale, compared with up to 40 minutes by bus at peak times.
-
Build a multi storey car park. And charge a nominal amount for parking, to pay for the upkeep of the car park and possibly security.
Isnt it in a conservaton area .
-
I am interested in the various forms of transport that affect Marple, including trains. As simonesaffron points out, I am one of the 3 Lib Dems on TfGM.
If you haven't seen already, Arriva have got the Northern Rail franchise. One of the conditions is that they must plan for extra capacity, something that was not in the last franchise. The way the privatisation was set up, some of the Train Operating Companies had no incentive to add more trains or carriages to existing trains and so they were often quite full (!) That's changed, so we need to see how that improves.
I also get to see that one of our trains (not in the rush hour I may add) Was one of the top 10 habitually late trains, so I've asked questions about it.
TfGM have an ambitious plan to get 10% of commuters as cyclists. Other cities have been very successful in doing this, notable Copenhagen. Even if it is not for you, it should remove some traffic fro the crowded Marple main roads.
And all Marple North councillors of both parties have got together to assess parking. Marple Station and Marple Bridge generally are difficult. Currently it is free but full. We'll have to look at options carefully. Perhaps another thread?
And tram-trains. Several successful schemes have started across Europe, but is it the best for Manchester? John Bates referred to the business case in the document we commissioned a while back: this concentrated on the potential Airport City expansion principally.
I am glad he also supports the final link in A6 MARR / SEMMS scheme, funding for the case study being released under the coalition government.
Comments on any of this would be interesting.
-
Excellent reply thank you. What does concern me is the lack of designated cycling space on trains and none at all on the metro. If we are to move to 10% of commuter journeys being by bike we need much more space for cycles on train, as in the rest of Europe as very often commuting by cycle involves the use of trains also.
-
For the record CllrGeoffAbell, I don't think the I actually mentioned " Lib Dems." What I said was that you were our Stockport TfGM representative and also a Marple local Councillor.
Nevertheless, as Wheels says, an excellent reply which is appreciated.
It's good to see local Councillors/Candidates posting on this website and engaging with their own electorate long may it continue.
-
And all Marple North councillors of both parties have got together to assess parking. Marple Station and Marple Bridge generally are difficult. Currently it is free but full. We'll have to look at options carefully.
Thanks to Geoff for his post. The above issue is, a critical one, IMO. As we all know, traffic congestion is a major problem round here. Encouraging drivers to take the train instead of driving is a key strategy in reducing traffic, and it's important that everything is done to support that.
Imposing car park charges at (or near) Marple station, as hinted at in Geoff's post, would be a very bad idea, as it would deter commuters from doing exactly what we are trying to get them to do - park their cars and take the train! What is needed is simply more car park space, and the obvious solution is to expand the car park which is across the road from the station, by extending it across the grassed and wooded areas at the back and to the sides.
-
We all need to be careful what we wish for. Is our priority commuters, or supporting the local businesses in Marple Bridge or both e.g. if Marple Station Car park is expanded will more spaces in Brabyns brow be converted to short term spaces thus partially negating any expansion? Expansion of the Rose Hill car park might be an option but how long before someone looks at the space currently occupied by the allotments...or even the builders yard beyond the tip? In terms of increasing parking capacity that is where the space is. I suspect taken as a whole neither option will be particularly palatable.
I understand a lot of the Marple station problems started when Hazel Grove residents started using it - will expanding the provision just suck more people in from further afield?
I think whatever happens the area as a whole needs to be thought about, not individual locations
ON a slightly separate topic how about some decent street lights near Marple station given most commuters seem to want to dress in black and run randomly across the road!
-
If Rose Hill is chosen as the terminus for tram-train, and I fear it will be, despite the disastrous effect that it will have on traffic congestion in that part of Marple (as if it isn't bad enough already), then there will have to be a lot more car parking there, and that will not be easy, as Corium points out.
Re short term parking in Marple Bridge, is there actually a problem? The shops and cafes seem to be thriving. I frequently stop there for a quick bit of shopping, and I can almost always find a space easily. As long as the time limits continue to be enforced, I doubt whether expanding the car park opposite Marple station will have any effect on the Bridge.
-
Dave
Whilst there are times when there are spaces overall there is a problem during the day. I know the doctors has regular problems with people not able to park anywhere including Brabyns (perversely, unless you have a blue badge - these spaces tend to be less than full though even this is not true all the time), some of the shops know they lose business as people are telling them and the traffic congestion due to parked cars is stretching further & further up Longhurst Lane. On occasions this is due to poor parking but overall the volume of cars has simply & noticeably gone up over the last 12/18 months.
-
I guess it just depends whether you are any good at parking, corium. ;)
-
If you haven't seen already, Arriva have got the Northern Rail franchise. One of the conditions is that they must plan for extra capacity, something that was not in the last franchise.
Geoff
One thing I am particularly keen to see is both the Rose Hill & Marple lines electrified. This would solve the capacity issue over night as there are plenty of 4 carriage electric trains being cascaded from the London area over the coming years. They are also around 30 % cheaper to operate and maintain with faster pick up/ braking.
Whether you then have tram trains over part of the route is almost a separate argument. I believe that after a well publicised temporary shelving of the previously announced schemes the DFT will be producing a report looking at future options in 2016. It concerns me that this doesn't appear to have been taken up by any local politicians or by the GM transport body who seem overly focused on trams.
The lines around Cardiff a much smaller city and with lower usage are being electrified because the Welsh government pushed for it. Why is the heavy rail electrification option not being pursued for Marple?
On a visit to Cologne I noticed that the light rail system runs underground, its a far faster than the street running we have in Manchester. Again, this doesn't appear to be pushed by GM Transport, why?
-
Re short term parking in Marple Bridge, is there actually a problem? The shops and cafes seem to be thriving. I frequently stop there for a quick bit of shopping, and I can almost always find a space easily. As long as the time limits continue to be enforced, I doubt whether expanding the car park opposite Marple station will have any effect on the Bridge.
Unfortunately not every one is as lucky/good at parking as you @Dave :)
As Geoff says above the local councillors are looking at a number of parking issues in the area particularly at Marple Bridge and the station. Unfortunately solutions are not easy, and not everyone will agree on best way forward. Should charges be made? if not can more parking space be afforded? Do we want more displacement of parking to Longhurst Lane, Winnington Road etc. Do we want to encourage rail use? How can we increase availability in short stay car parks and bays?
This is likely to be discussed at a future Marple Area Committee meeting with interested parties to see if workable solutions can be found that upset as few people as possible.
-
Do we want to encourage rail use?
I'm astonished that anyone would even ask the question! Whether it's easing traffic congestion in Marple (at one extreme) or saving the planet (at the other) it's surely a no brainer!
-
Ah but Dave he's a Tory. As you said a no brainer!
-
Good point, wheels. On the other hand, I believe Tories love driving around in their Beemers and Mercs, so you'd think they'd be keen to find a way of clearing us lesser mortals in our Nissans and Vauxhall Corsas out of their way. ;-)
-
Thanks John Bates for organising your leaflet to fall through our letterbox. But can I ask for a box full please?
We will need something to keep our fire roaring through winter.
ta.
-
Re short term parking in Marple Bridge, is there actually a problem? The shops and cafes seem to be thriving. I frequently stop there for a quick bit of shopping, and I can almost always find a space easily. As long as the time limits continue to be enforced, I doubt whether expanding the car park opposite Marple station will have any effect on the Bridge.
The risk of not finding parking space is enough to put a lot of people off. Hence our shopping coming up to Christmas is unlikely to be in Marple, due to parking problems in past years.
My wife is disabled and someone we need a space close to where we are going, but there a too few disabled parking spaces on the rd outside the cafes in Marple Bridge.
-
If only it was just a risk of being unable to park at the station! But it isn't - after about 9.00 on a weekday it's a dead cert. I went to catch the 10.36 to Piccadilly this morning. The station car park was full; the car park across the road was full; Brabyns Brow was full, and Brabyns Park was full. I ended up parking somewhere I shouldn't have done in the park. That's the problem councillors should be addressing - parking at or near the station is hopelessly inadequate.
-
I'm astonished that anyone would even ask the question! Whether it's easing traffic congestion in Marple (at one extreme) or saving the planet (at the other) it's surely a no brainer!
Exactly @Dave I am just pointing out the things that need considering. So if we want to promote rail travel, the parking charges may not be wanted, but who then pays for the car park?
-
Thanks John Bates for organising your leaflet to fall through our letterbox. But can I ask for a box full please?
We will need something to keep our fire roaring through winter.
ta.
Not got a box full, but have a few spares if you want them...
-
So if we want to promote rail travel, the parking charges may not be wanted, but who then pays for the car park?
Isn't it obvious? The car park should either be provided by the local authority, and funded through taxation, or by Northern Rail, and funded from ticket income and through the subsidy which they receive from taxpayers.
-
Either way land has a rental value and parking spaces have to be paid for either buy you the car driver or the rest of us via increased ticket prices or Council Tax. You could of course just walk to the station. I would have thought Marple stations within walking distance of the majority of addresses in Marple
-
From time to time I have to be at Didsbury by 8.15 a.m. It's not a journey that can be done sensibly by public transport at that time of day, so I have to drive, and that means leaving home at 7.15 - an hour to drive just eight miles!
I would gladly pay a bit more council tax if it helped to cut traffic congestion in this area.
-
Either way land has a rental value and parking spaces have to be paid for either buy you the car driver or the rest of us via increased ticket prices or Council Tax. You could of course just walk to the station. I would have thought Marple stations within walking distance of the majority of addresses in Marple
Half an hours walk for us (top end of Ridge Road) which is fine, but not if the Mrs has hair-spray on and doesn't want the wind & rain to affect it before a night out at the theatre :o
-
From time to time I have to be at Didsbury by 8.15 a.m. It's not a journey that can be done sensibly by public transport at that time of day, so I have to drive, and that means leaving home at 7.15 - an hour to drive just eight miles!
I would gladly pay a bit more council tax if it helped to cut traffic congestion in this area.
Dave, I thought you were more a man of the world than that. I often go to Didsbury at that time. Bus to Stockport then the 42 every 20 minutes. It's all an easy journey. Join me next Tuesday 😊 the point I'm really making is that it's a easier to get about by bus/train than people suggest it is.
-
An interesting idea from wheels - so I've just looked up the timetables: I would have to leave home just after 06.30 to get to Didsbury by bus (384 and 42) by 08.15! Proves my point really!
-
Oh I thought you'd just made my point Dave.
-
I think I may have lost track of my point, wheels, so I'll get back to it: that local authorities should take steps to reduce traffic congestion, both for the benefit of their residents and for the sake of reducing atmospheric pollution. This should include measures to get people out of their cars and on to the train (e.g. having sufficient parking at stations), and this should be paid for out of taxation because:
a) it benefits everyone, not just the train passengers, and
b) if train passengers are charged for parking they may go back to using their cars.
-
Some interesting & relevant data here
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/most-least-used-train-stations-10616190
-
A relative of mine travels to Manchester City Centre every day. He regularly travels to Didsbury. He uses the train and the tram.
He lives a ten minute walk from Marple Station. He's 51 yrs of age and fit and able, he could easily walk to the station.
Wheels has a point. Maybe instead of finding him a parking space, we should encourage him to walk to the station. As I am sure you would say Dave, better for him (bit of light exercise) and all around him - no traffic pollution.
-
That's a very interesting link from corium - so Marple is the 19th busiest station in Greater Manchester! Considering what rubbish trains we've got, that quite impressive.
Thanks for the suggestion, Simone. I've just looked up timings for Marple to Didsbury by train and tram, arriving by 8.15. I would have to catch the 06.37 train from Marple. I live much more than ten minutes walk from the station, so I'd be leaving home at about 6.15. No thanks!
-
That's a very interesting link from corium - so Marple is the 19th busiest station in Greater Manchester! Considering what rubbish trains we've got, that quite impressive.
Another important point is that every other station in Manchester above Rose Hill is served by both evening and Sunday trains (or put another way Rose Hill is the busiest station in Greater Manchester which doesn't have an evening service and Sunday service). Just how much farther up the list would Rose Hill be if it had more than one train in the evening and a Sunday service?
The Sunday Glossop trains did not run for many years but reintroduction has been successful.
It is shameful that Rose Hill should have no Sunday service, that the first Sunday train to Manchester from Marple is not until 1010 and that the frequency of this service is only every two hours when the rolling stock will be sitting unused in the railway sheds. We are being badly let down by TfGM and Northern.
-
One thing I am particularly keen to see is both the Rose Hill & Marple lines electrified. This would solve the capacity issue over night as there are plenty of 4 carriage electric trains being cascaded from the London area over the coming years. They are also around 30 % cheaper to operate and maintain with faster pick up/ braking.
Hatter has hit the nail on the head when he makes a reference to defunct London rolling stock is now being cascaded to other areas: past governments, both left and right, in the early 1970s did not have the political will to invest in the public transport infrastructure of the North West of England. Back in the 1970s Manchester needed a north-south rail link/Picc-Vic tunnel to connect Piccadilly to Victoria to establish Manchester at the centre of the rail network in the North West. A search on Wiki tells me that a two and three quarter mile tunnel was needed (though the true distance on foot or on the Metro cannot be more than a mile) but this tunnel was deemed to be too expensive and was scrapped. Westminster could not care less about the rail network in Manchester in the 1970s and in 2015 one of the new government's very first statements was that despite electoral promises, it was withdrawing all funding for the Northern Hub (though we did see a later about turn). All Westminster seems to be interested in is a questionable HS2 project which will give Londoners an even faster escape from Manchester or quick access to Heathrow's new runway in the Cheshire countryside.
Crossrail incorporates 26 miles of tunnel beneath London, it tunnels through a geologically fragile beds of rock and a labyrinth of pre-existing Underground lines. Cost does not seem to be a consideration in London.
At the same time we are being left to rot by Cameron in exactly the same way as Thatcher destroyed the North West for more than a decade yet the Conservative Party are the political choice of the Marple electorate.
-
Are you sure you've got your timetable right Dave? There is a train from Marple @ 7.22 arrives a Piccadilly 7.47. Don't know tram times but they are fairly frequent, every 6 minutes I THINK. Piccadilly to Didsbury on the tram (15 minutes ?) surely you can improve on leaving your house at 6.15 ?
-
Are you sure you've got your timetable right Dave? There is a train from Marple @ 7.22 arrives a Piccadilly 7.47. Don't know tram times but they are fairly frequent, every 6 minutes I THINK. Piccadilly to Didsbury on the tram (15 minutes ?) surely you can improve on leaving your house at 6.15 ?
The journey planner suggests this :- http://www.traveline-northwest.co.uk/journeyplanner/showJourneyDetailsPage.do?rid=1450436161732&hss=GJcJS425628698
07:22 Marple Rail Station Provider Northern Rail RouteNEW MILLS CENTRAL - MANCHESTER PICCADILLY
Arrive07:34 Reddish North Rail Station
(4m)
Leave07:34 Reddish North Rail Station
Arrive07:38 North Reddish, Gorton Road/Ashbrook Lane
(31m)
Leave07:43 North Reddish, Gorton Road/Ashbrook Lane Service Number42AProvider Stagecoach Manchester RouteReddish - E Didsbury - Rusholme - Manchester
Arrive08:14 East Didsbury, East Didsbury Metrolink Stop
(<1m)
Leave08:14 East Didsbury, East Didsbury Metrolink Stop
Arrive08:14 East Didsbury, East Didsbury Metrolink Stop
-
Hatter has hit the nail on the head when he makes a reference to defunct London rolling stock is now being cascaded to other areas:
The new franchise will use some cascaded stock for a while, but we will be getting brand new diesel and electric units as soon as they are ordered and built, from 2019
Crossrail incorporates 26 miles of tunnel beneath London, it tunnels through a geologically fragile beds of rock and a labyrinth of pre-existing Underground lines. Cost does not seem to be a consideration in London.
You are correct that lots has been invested in London.We certainly need to play catch up. However the Nothern Powerhouse iniative is starting to bear fruit. The interim report on improving cross pennine connectivity is favourable to tunnelling rail and road links. With the 7 mile HS2 Manchester tunnel and possible eastwards extension for the Pennine link we may finally get substantial investment locally.
We also have the A6 MARR being built, Poynton bypass likely to be started soon, funding for study for A6 to Bredbury, Metrolink to Trafford Park, Port Salford etc So being left to rot seems inaccurate.
-
Piccadilly to Didsbury on the tram (15 minutes ?)
Simone it's 37 minutes! You need to get out more........ ;)
-
I've been saying that all along Dave, but most of my "friends" seem to think that I should stay in more.
Anyway, even though maths was never my strong point, surely ( upon review ) you can improve upon having to leave your house at daft -o- clock?
-
Thanks to Dave, wheels, simonesaffron, etc. for their kind words after my last post on this thread.
We seemed to have moved off tram-trains onto related topics that are equally valid. 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. To be fair to the current government, they have started planning work on trans-pennine electrification again after the Hendy review.
We have here more cars on the road, more people using trains and (whisper it quietly) more cyclists. (Although not enough of the latter.)
It is hard to get out of Marple, using a car, between 7:30 and 9, certainly quicker by bike or train. But yes, we do need to do something about the parking around the station and around the Bridge. Please note that parking is free in these areas, unlike most places in Stockport. I would like to get all interested parties together to see what we can do. But be warned; there will be no quick solution that will please everyone! Even the Rose Hill car park is approaching capacity.
Yes, I WOULD like to see evening and Sunday trains at Rose Hill. And ultimately a rail service of some sort from Marple to Stockport.
If you have any opinions on this or car parking you've not said, please let me know, here or by email (cllr.geoff.abell@stockport.gov.uk)
I am an active member of Friends of Marple Station. One of the things we've done is to count the passengers on a particular day, useful in requesting more services. I can tell you that on that day in Nov, the busiest train was the 7:45 with 142 getting on at Marple to go to Manchester. If you get that train , now you know why it's so packed!
At then to the least busy stations. I read the MEN article and I know that lady who heads up the Friends of Reddish South Station. That is a triumph of hope as they only have 1 train a week, going towards Stalybridge.
If anyone wants to help with Friends groups, please join us. For ideas, the odd working day or just a social at the Norfolk Arms. You'd be very welcome.
http://www.friendsofmarplestation.co.uk/ (http://www.friendsofmarplestation.co.uk/)
And if you want to know what goes on at the regular TfGM meetings I can tell you. Are there any specific questions?
-
Thanks Geoff - interesting post, and it's good that we have a councillor who is taking a close interest in these issues, and is keeping people informed via this excellent forum.
Geoff writes: we do need to do something about the parking around the station and around the Bridge. Please note that parking is free in these areas, unlike most places in Stockport.
I think it's very important to distinguish between different types of parking. When I go shopping in Marple or Marple Bridge I am happy to pay a small charge for the convenience of parking near the shops, and contrary to what Geoff says, the two small car parks in Marple Bridge do have charges.
But when people park at stations to use the train, it is not just for their own convenience - it is just as much for the convenience of others, because it means they are taking their car off the congested roads. That's why 'park and ride' schemes exist all over the place in subsurban areas, and that is what we should be dong here, because we suffer such severe traffic congestion.
-
We seemed to have moved off tram-trains onto related topics that are equally valid. 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. To be fair to the current government, they have started planning work on trans-pennine electrification again after the Hendy review.
And if you want to know what goes on at the regular TfGM meetings I can tell you. Are there any specific questions?
Geoff
I am not sure who in TFGM is advising you but I think you will find that electrification of Manchester to Sheffield is firmly on the radar in the next round of government announcements. This should include both of the Marple routes.
The problem is we are up against lines such as Manchester to Bradford or Leeds to Harrogate who are far more organised and are actively pushing for it to take place. I don't hear any local or national politicians trying to influence the agenda in this respect. In my opinion you should be forming alliances with groups and members right across the whole route including the High Peak and South Yorkshire.
I am sure you are aware the tram trains in Sheffield are dual voltage and can run on either system. To press ahead with a DC electric tram train electrification solution could effectively cut the Marple line off to through traffic once the rest of the route is finally electrified. In my view this would be an error.
-
I think you will find that electrification of Manchester to Sheffield is firmly on the radar in the next round of government announcements. This should include both of the Marple routes.
My understanding is that the planned electrification of the Manchester to Sheffield line would be an extension of the overhead wires from Hazel Grove through the Hope Valley, and would not involve electrification of the Marple or Rose Hill lines.
-
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.
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. The other line, probably Rose Hill will have tram trains that will stop at every station and then potentially travel down a bus lane to get under Piccadilly. This will increase journey times. To me this is not progress, we need a integrated approach which only elctrification of both routes to the national system will give us.
I can't see the link to Stockport happening which is only 5 miles by car, so to me that is not relevant.
-
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.
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. The other line, probably Rose Hill will have tram trains that will stop at every station and then potentially travel down a bus lane to get under Piccadilly. This will increase journey times. To me this is not progress, we need a integrated approach which only elctrification of both routes to the national system will give us.
I can't see the link to Stockport happening which is only 5 miles by car, so to me that is not relevant.
Enjoying reading all this interesting .
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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 ?
-
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
-
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 (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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
You are all starting to sound like a bunch of male train spotting anoraks.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
Yes in the case of Rose Hill the poorer frequency urgently needs to be addressed, and the lack of a Sunday service.
-
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.
If we are to get tram/trains rather than the trams currently in service or something very similar does this mean:
i) that the new rolling stock will be of a similar design to existing railway carriages (though hopefully not Pacers) and incorporate more seats and therefore fewer standing passengers than the existing trams?
ii) that the train/tram will be more like existing electrical multiple unit trains making them considerably heavier than existing trams and therefore be unsuitable for usage on the streets of Central Manchester and therefore not be able to use the Piccadilly street level platforms, and
iii) if the train/tram is superior to the existing trams and is suitable for usage on the tram lines crossing the streets of Central Manchester then users of other Metro lines will say 'cattle trucks are used on all of the other Metro lines in Manchester, why should it be that Marple gets preferential treatment? The new tram/train can be used on our line as well so should the new superior tram/trains not be distributed throughout the entire network rather than just on the Marple line?'
Why should Marple users seem to receive preferential treatment? Is it possible for us to have our cake and eat it?
-
The tram/trains are likely to be similar to those being used in the trials in Sheffield.
These have interiors similar to the Sheffield Trams, but with slightly larger seats.
They are equipped to run on 750v DC Tram electrification and 25Kv AC National rail electrification with dual safety systems etc.
The trial is to assess modifications to wheels etc needed to run on Rail lines and Tram lines, as well as integration of the separate systems.
So in terms of use will seem like trams, will be able to run under rail electrification, so do not have to be alongside just diesels, so would be futureproofed if Marple line electrified in future.
more info on trial here http://www.sypte.co.uk/tramtrain/
see photo of Tramtrain attached
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
For those who like lots more detail I attach a brochure with lots of technical details and an idea of internal layout.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
They are equipped to run on 750v DC Tram electrification and 25Kv AC National rail electrification with dual safety systems etc.
So in terms of use will seem like trams, will be able to run under rail electrification, so do not have to be alongside just diesels, so would be futureproofed if Marple line electrified in future
John i understand your comments but Cllr Geoff who is on the GM transport body stated earlier that the trams electrification was not compatible with the UK system and we would have to stick to diesels. This suggests to me that we are getting DC tram trains for the Rose Hill route. To me this is crazy as it would prevent the other Marple route from using electric trains at some point in the future.
Will the Conservatives in Marple push for Rose Hill tram trains to be to the UK electrification system and oppose the DC scheme?
Also regarding street running, what is your understanding of the proposal. If it involves a long stretch along the Hyde Road for example stopping at lights etc. would the Conservatives still support it?
-
John i understand your comments but Cllr Geoff who is on the GM transport body stated earlier that the trams electrification was not compatible with the UK system and we would have to stick to diesels. This suggests to me that we are getting DC tram trains for the Rose Hill route. To me this is crazy as it would prevent the other Marple route from using electric trains at some point in the future.
Will the Conservatives in Marple push for Rose Hill tram trains to be to the UK electrification system and oppose the DC scheme?
Hatter76, not sure what Cllr Abell has stated is correct, although he may be privy to more information than I have. However, according to Network Rail, 64% of the electrified network is 25kvAC with 36% being the 750V DC. The current Metrolink network runs on 750V DC, but the tram trains being trialled in Sheffield run on both. So the sensible thing to do would be to electrify the Marple - Piccadily line to AC and where it joins the Metrolink line it changes to DC. This is what I believe is happening in Sheffield.
-
Hatter76, not sure what Cllr Abell has stated is correct, although he may be privy to more information than I have. However, according to Network Rail, 64% of the electrified network is 25kvAC with 36% being the 750V DC. The current Metrolink network runs on 750V DC, but the tram trains being trialled in Sheffield run on both. So the sensible thing to do would be to electrify the Marple - Piccadily line to AC and where it joins the Metrolink line it changes to DC. This is what I believe is happening in Sheffield.
Firstly can I thank you for your reply Cllr Blair
The Network Rail DC system you refer to is a 3rd rail system that only operates in the South East and Merseyside. The problem is that both the tram DC system and main UK system use overhead wires so you either have one or the other. I note your comments favouring the UK system for tram trains to Marple. However, I am not sure that this is what GM Transport and Cllr Able is proposing, in your capacity as councillor is it possible to find out? As I stated earlier to go ahead with the tram DC system would prevent future electric trains from running from the other Marple line. I hope that yourselves locally and the MP are putting the case for Marple to be included in any future Manchester to Sheffield electrification to the Department of Transport.
Also are you able to find out what route GM Transport are planning to use for tram trains to get to Piccadilly. Street running would add considerably to journey times?
-
I will certainly do my best to find out and let you know.
Merry Christmas.
-
The problem is that both the tram DC system and main UK system use overhead wires so you either have one or the other.
John i understand your comments but Cllr Geoff who is on the GM transport body stated earlier that the trams electrification was not compatible with the UK system and we would have to stick to diesels. This suggests to me that we are getting DC tram trains for the Rose Hill route. To me this is crazy as it would prevent the other Marple route from using electric trains at some point in the future.
Will the Conservatives in Marple push for Rose Hill tram trains to be to the UK electrification system and oppose the DC scheme?
Also regarding street running, what is your understanding of the proposal. If it involves a long stretch along the Hyde Road for example stopping at lights etc. would the Conservatives still support it?
I think there is some misunderstanding. Cllr Abell is correct re Trams, but if Tram train trial successful then Marple would be tram/train with dual standard working. Therefore as I stated above, the idea would be to have the dual electric standard tram/trains that would be able to run on both National Rail AC and Metrolink DC overhead lines. If you look at links in my previous post you will see that this is exactly what the class 399 tram/trains are able to do :)
I don't think any finalised route has been worked out yet (to my knowledge) but the fairly certain bit would be to come off current rail lines at Ashburys and run along side Gorton road to Ashton old road, after that could be along Ashton old road or possibly across to Holt st.
To link in to metrolink it will need to join existing line, hopefully without to much hindrance from any on road running/ traffic lights. Obviously would not be able to comment till plans are in the offing, but yes the local Conservatives and MP support the tram/train in principle.
-
One very valuable lesson which could be learnt from Sheffield trams is the way the guards do the job of old fashioned bus conductors - no hiding in the cab at the back, they watch everyone getting on and race up and down the tram ensuring that everyone has a ticket and have ticket machines which issue tickets quickly. Such a system would have a big impact on the fair evasion, evasion which will grow considerably if there is free access to the tram platforms in Manchester, especially by passengers on the afternoon rush-hour trains to Rose Hill and especially by passengers who disembark prior to Hyde who realise that even if the guard does check tickets starting at the rear of the train he is unlikely to have time to reach passengers at the front : just every now and then the train guard will immediately head for the front of the train to check tickets and it is hilarious to see all of the fare dodgers unsuccessfully trying to stampede into an already full back carriage.
-
I lot of interesting posts over Christmas, and a level of detail that I applaud!
TfGM and trams
The only project currently under construction is the second Manchester crossing (incidentally partially funded with the EU regional development fund) and the associated revamp of Victoria Station. There are plans for a line to Trafford Centre and beyond. Anything else has not got to the planning stage. This includes tram-train to Marple/Rose Hill. Stockport MBC is one of the few boroughs of GM not to have trams. Anyone know who else?
Technically speaking it is possible to run trams on rail lines and vice versa. Karlsruhe were the first to do this in modern times, and places in Germany and the Netherlands followed suit. In the UK there are issues with different voltage, loading gauge and signalling but they are not insurmountable. Indeed in Essen, if memory serves, there was a bus that turned into a railcar!
And vehicles can use a dual voltage system (I think there was a loco in Belgium that handled3 different systems and a loco in Southern Region that could use 3rd rail DC or overhead AC) and Sheffield are the first UK city to develop this.
The question is do we want it? The advantage is the flexibility of using heavy rail systems that can access street-running networks. In answer to one of hatter76 questions, yes, we could take a feed off the line near Ashburys and run it into the Ashton tramline that uses Piccadilly Undercroft. Trams are quicker and 4-car units are easily joinable. They are also cheaper to run than heavy rail units.
Here come some of the downsides. If we had trams, then why not driver-only operation? That will require a lot of negotiation with train crews and TOCs like Arriva. And train modification. And infrastructure would need changing. And has been pointed out, it's difficult to run 2 systems of overhead electrification. (I have a dream of riding an electric train from Manchester via Marple to Sheffield one day. Northern Powerhouse is a great concept that Osbourne fronted. But even that ran into difficulties at the design planning stages.)
All these things cost. Would we get a much better service? E.g. you wouldn't be able to take your bike or your dog on a tram under present regulations. We don't have a rapid urban transport "metro" style system, but we do have something close with tram + electrified urban routes. Like Marple. I haven't seen a business case that is definitive either way.
Northern
On the heavy rail side, Arriva have arrived. And with their franchise, there is a contract to make trains more frequent and longer. This should include Marple. The 142 Pacers will be phased out of the whole UK by 2020 (or it’ll have to be modified but I don't see that coming).
We are building a chord from Victoria to Piccadilly, adding platforms 15 and 16 to Piccadilly and then much later getting HS2/3. Unlike in the 60s, we get trains and their use now.
Friends of Marple / Friends of Rose Hill
If you are interested in railways and in making the train trip and stations locally more pleasant, may I tactfully suggest that you come to one of our meetings? In the past we've had Annette Finney (now Cllr) and then John (of this blog) too. And of course, more people of other political opinions! We've recently had passenger counts, got children singing at Christmas at Marple, and Father C came to Rose Hill. By train of course.
http://www.friendsofmarplestation.co.uk/news.html (http://www.friendsofmarplestation.co.uk/news.html)
http://www.forhs.org.uk/ (http://www.forhs.org.uk/)
A bit of a long post, but I hope that I've answered some of the questions above. And if you want a Manchester-Sheffield electrification, perhaps lobby your MP?
-
No one will start to spend any real money looking at design issues etc, until the Sheffield Train/Tram system has been completed, and hence can be learned from.
“Something” will have to be done with the platforms at the Manchester end of the line, as there are not enough platforms for the predicted long term growth in train usage and length. This could be train/tram, a new platform 0, or freeing up platforms by building a new station for HS2/3.
I expect that a lot of commuters on the Rose Hill trains will be retired by the time anything much is done apart from new trains.
-
Thanks to Geoff for his long and informative post. He asks:
The question is do we want it? The advantage is the flexibility of using heavy rail systems that can access street-running networks. In answer to one of hatter76 questions, yes, we could take a feed off the line near Ashburys and run it into the Ashton tramline that uses Piccadilly Undercroft. Trams are quicker and 4-car units are easily joinable. They are also cheaper to run than heavy rail units.
Here come some of the downsides. If we had trams, then why not driver-only operation? That will require a lot of negotiation with train crews and TOCs like Arriva. And train modification. And infrastructure would need changing. And has been pointed out, it's difficult to run 2 systems of overhead electrification.
Yes, of course we want it. A tram-train every 12 minutes from Rose Hill to Piccadilly and through the station direct to the city centre would be a vast improvement on what we have at the moment. And Geoff's 'downsides' don't seem too negative to me - surely driver-only operation is a plus, not a minus, in saving staff costs? The only major problem I can foresee is the shortage of car parking at Rose Hill, and the prospect of even more traffic congestion in that area in the morning and evening peaks. :(
-
Oh yes we definitley want it, standing all the way to Manchester, no toilets, no cycle space, sounds a real improvement to me.
-
I was genuinely asking the question about what we want and how to get the best service. There was something else - although trams have better acceleration, all trams currently stop at all tramstops, so you wouldn't get express to or semi-express services.
And I misspelt Cllr Finnie's name above. Many apologies.
-
standing all the way to Manchester, no toilets
Those of us who board a tram-train at Rose Hill terminus will almost always get a seat. It's passengers getting on at later stops who may have to stand - but their journeys are shorter, of course.
Urban rail and tram systems don't normally have toilets. London Underground trains don't, for example, also many suburban London overground lines. They are not normally needed on short journeys. Just cross your legs, wheels ;)
-
Those of us who board a tram-train at Rose Hill terminus will almost always get a seat. It's passengers getting on at later stops who may have to stand - but their journeys are shorter, of course.
Urban rail and tram systems don't normally have toilets. London Underground trains don't, for example, also many suburban London overground lines. They are not normally needed on short journeys. Just cross your legs, wheels ;)
so what century is this going to start.
-
Don't hold your breath, amazon! 8)
-
Don't hold your breath, amazon! 8)
I Wont. like the Bredbury bypass i will be lucky if i see this built in my lifetime .
-
For those who like lots more detail I attach a brochure with lots of technical details and an idea of internal layout.
Sad to see that there's even less room for bicycles on the trams than on the trains - not everyone lives or works right within walking distance of the station. Whatever happened to the old days of a guards van with loads of room? Oh yes, we got an "integrated transport strategy" which doesn't really integrate...
-
Essentially trams (and tram-trains) are suited to shorter journeys - with higher frequencies but more stops and slower journeys (Metrolink to the airport is around an hour for ten miles, so expect about 50 minutes from Rose Hill to Piccadilly, a similar distance), plus walking pace for journeys in the city centre. There will also, as has been pointed out be no toilets, no bike spaces, probably less comfortable seats (yes, current trams are even less comfortable than a Pacer) and probably neither station staff nor a second rail employee on the tram. Tram-trains will benefit the inner suburbs of Manchester (and do not discount this, it is a significant benefit), but the experience of converting Altrincham-Bury to Metrolink suggests there will be no benefit for people living in Marple using Rose Hill. As pointed out it will leave Marple/New Mills as an island of diesel operation, probably with a much slower service via the Hyde Loop.
However there is a bigger issue. Newcastle, Glasgow and Liverpool have already used tunnels to create integrated underground rail systems out of most of their suburban lines. Manchester is now the largest city in Europe without a proper Metro. Of course Metrolink is useful, but essentially a street running tram. Our suburban rail network is congested and trains infrequent. Local trains are still essentially split into two confusing networks based on Piccadilly and Victoria. Trans-Pennine electrification is splitting regional services further, making interchange and integration and even more difficult.
Now, more than ever Manchester needs to join the modern world with a proper rail link underneath the city rather than just the cheapskate and circuitous but still expensive ‘Castlefield Curve’ and yet more platforms in the air at Piccadilly. Of course current appraisal methods will never justify a cross-city tunnel at any given date, but just think what a regional economic powerhouse Greater Manchester could be with a proper Metro. It would even release space for HS2 platforms at Piccadilly without needing to build a new station. Time for some ambition.
-
Metrolink to the airport is around an hour for ten miles
The tram to the airport takes 41 minutes, not an hour. It has nineteen stops! Piccadilly to Rose Hill is probably a similar distance but it only has eight stops. Currently trains between Marple or Rose Hill and Piccadilly that stop at all stations except Ardwick take about 25 minutes. The tram-trains will have significantly faster acceleration, of course, so they will take less time than that, not more.
current trams are even less comfortable than a Pacer
As a frequent flier on both Pacers and Metrolink trams, I couldn't agree less. Only yesterday I travelled back from Piccadilly on the 18.49, and the seating (five abreast, as if designed for midgets!), was packed, and there were many passengers standing, even though there isn't really space to stand. Cattle-truck conditions - the tram-trains can't be any worse than that!
expect about 50 minutes from Rose Hill to Piccadilly...... it will leave Marple/New Mills as an island of diesel operation, probably with a much slower service via the Hyde Loop.
Come on Blackfryers, you can do better than that! Even if Rose Hill to Piccadilly by tram train did take 50 minutes (and as I have explained above, it won't), the train via Hyde could surely not take even longer, as it only takes 30 minutes at present!
However, after the dodgy facts and unconvincing arguments of his first paragraph, Blackfryers writes a lot of sense in the second, about the woeful shortcomings of the transport system across Greater Manchester. It beggars belief that the Government can afford to spend £16 billion on Crossrail in London, and yet can't build the Picc- Vic tunnel.
-
However there is a bigger issue. Newcastle, Glasgow and Liverpool have already used tunnels to create integrated underground rail systems out of most of their suburban lines. Manchester is now the largest city in Europe without a proper Metro. Of course Metrolink is useful, but essentially a street running tram. Our suburban rail network is congested and trains infrequent. Local trains are still essentially split into two confusing networks based on Piccadilly and Victoria. Trans-Pennine electrification is splitting regional services further, making interchange and integration and even more difficult.
Now, more than ever Manchester needs to join the modern world with a proper rail link underneath the city rather than just the cheapskate and circuitous but still expensive ‘Castlefield Curve’ and yet more platforms in the air at Piccadilly. Of course current appraisal methods will never justify a cross-city tunnel at any given date, but just think what a regional economic powerhouse Greater Manchester could be with a proper Metro. It would even release space for HS2 platforms at Piccadilly without needing to build a new station. Time for some ambition.
Excellent post Blackfryers, couldn't agree more.
I am not against a rail metro system, I am against the tram system which is just too slow in street mode, frankly its not good enough. It is looking like we going to get street mode from Ashburys to Piccadilly via the Etihad line. This involves replacing a dedicated rail line used by Marple trains for 150 years that takes 5 minutes. Replacing this will involve crossing traffic junctions and probably extra stops. For me I will have the added inconvenience of having to walk up escalators to access my mainline connection further adding to my journey. My 5 minute journey will probably be extended by another 5 to 10 minutes depending on traffic. The idea of progress is that things are meant to speed up. Would you build a new road that took a longer route and had a lower speed limit.No. Well why do this to the rail system?
The replacement of the old rail route with considerable street running is a major difference between this project and the other Metrolink rail replacement schemes. The Bury, Oldham and Altrincham lines follow the same formation until they get into the city centre. This is different and more controversial.
If it went underground in the city centre, I would be more supportive, it would become like the tube or Merseyrail system with 6 or 8 carriage trains able to run every minute or so. This is where we should be heading, like you say we need someone with ambition. I travelled on the Metrolink last week from Piccadilly to Victoria, it was a typical run no major delays, it took 11 minutes. On the way back I walked, it took 15 minutes. The tram is only 4 minutes faster than walking speed!
I will make 2 predictions about the Marple tram train
1 The more people realise the details of what is being proposed the more opposition will grow especially from Marple passengers who will see their 24 minute journey replaced by all stations via Hyde.
2 The Marple tram train will be a turning point in the Manchester Metro system and will be first to attract serious opposition
There is an alternative which is full electrification of both lines, improvements to the timetable and extra platforms beside platform 1 at Manchester. Extra paths will be created by the new Castlefield curve, reducing conflicting movements.
I respect other posters views who favour the frequency and Market Street drop off but to me the increased journey time and other disadvantages is not a price worth paying.
It is a no from me.
-
I don't think we yet know for sure what route the tram-trains will take into the Piccadilly undercroft, but I accept hatter's point that if the tram-trains leave the current rail track shortly after Ashburys, and then head north-west to join the existing Metrolink line on Ashton Old Road, then that may possibly add a few minutes to the existing journey time, although we should remember that the current 25-minute journey time includes a few minutes waiting at a red signal outside Piccadilly! And if the new route does take a few minutes longer, that should be offset by the time saved through faster acceleration between Rose Hill and Ashburys. So overall, swings and roundabouts, it seems likely that it will still end up being 25-minute journey from Rose Hill to Piccadilly.
I also accept his point about the slow speed of street running in the city centre - for obvious safety reasons, it's the same everywhere when trams, vehicles and pedestrians share city streets.
However, I think hatter is missing a trick here:
I will have the added inconvenience of having to walk up escalators to access my mainline connection further adding to my journey
Not necessarily. Hatter will also have the option of getting off the tram-train at Romiley and having a same-platform change to a conventional train, which will get him via Hyde to the main Piccadilly station in 25 minutes.
Also here:Marple passengers will see their 24 minute journey replaced by all stations via Hyde.
Here again, not necessarily. As a frequent user of Marple station (I never use Rose Hill because it's at the wrong end of Marple for me), I will have the option of getting a train to Romiley (we can assume there will still be one every 30 minutes), and changing there on the same platform to a tram-train which will take me through to the city centre. Or if I am planning to change trains at Piccadilly and go on by train to London or Leeds or wherever, I can stay on the train and go straight into the main Piccadilly platforms.
I accept that the tram-train is not a perfect solution, and has its drawbacks, but the advantages are clear:
1. A tram-train every 12 minutes, significantly increasing capacity.
2. Similar journey times into Piccadilly to those we have at present.
3. Direct services into and through the city centre, with same-platform connections to other parts of Greater Manchester.
4. Modern, quieter, more efficient and less polluting vehicles
5. A reduction in traffic congestion as increased capacity and a better service will attract more people off the roads and on to Metrolink.
And it's important to be realistic, and accept that things like this: If it went underground in the city centre, I would be more supportive, it would become like the tube or Merseyrail system with 6 or 8 carriage trains able to run every minute or so.
...... just ain't gonna happen!
-
However, I think hatter is missing a trick here: Not necessarily. Hatter will also have the option of getting off the tram-train at Romiley and having a same-platform change to a conventional train, which will get him via Hyde to the main Piccadilly station in 25 minutes.
Dave I don't think that we are going to agree on this one, the current Rose Hill via Hyde takes 30-34 minutes depending on stops. This is a big jump from the 24 minutes Marple to Manchester. Why would I want to get off at Romiley and connect? The wait would add further delay.
Another point from the Manchester Evening News
Serious questions about how reliable the street running section from Ashburys to Piccadilly would be. This project would remove the dedicated 5 minute connection Asburys to Piccadilly and replace it with street running.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tram-delays-after-car-drives-10740151
-
Dave I don't think that we are going to agree on this one,
Well at least we can agree on that! ;D
-
I am not against a rail metro system, I am against the tram system which is just too slow in street mode, frankly its not good enough. It is looking like we going to get street mode from Ashburys to Piccadilly via the Etihad line. This involves replacing a dedicated rail line used by Marple trains for 150 years that takes 5 minutes. Replacing this will involve crossing traffic junctions and probably extra stops. For me I will have the added inconvenience of having to walk up escalators to access my mainline connection further adding to my journey. My 5 minute journey will probably be extended by another 5 to 10 minutes depending on traffic. The idea of progress is that things are meant to speed up. Would you build a new road that took a longer route and had a lower speed limit.No. Well why do this to the rail system?
I've never seen anything in writing to suggest that a tram-train from Ashburys would go north to join the Etihad line, it would be an incredibly circuitous route and more importantly would miss out the chance to serve a wider area of the East Manchester regeneration with a stop.
By contrast, this plan from several years ago does show an indicative route, via Ashton Old Road and Fairfield St.
(http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu267/smartcma1/Map_124.png)
Notice the one extra stop where there's a lot of new housing going up. Of course at this stage it's impossible to say whether this would be on road or alongside the road, so it seems silly to be so against such an idea before genuinely any facts are actually known. I think this shows, though, that the actual new street running would be very minimal, considering the entire rest of the line would remain as it does today (only speeded up with faster acceleration, etc).
At the same time, it may be all well and good wanting to keep the train service into the main Piccadilly platforms, but Network Rail doesn't feel the same way. Marple and Rose Hill take up four platform movements an hour between them for relatively short, local services that would be much better used for bigger and longer distance trains with more people on them. Note the often absurd train-stacking of several services into one platform, leaving only minutes apart, with no room for future growth. Moving our services down onto their own Metrolink platform, making them much more frequent, with more pleasant rolling stock and better connections and street running right into the city seems a good trade-off to free up that platform space.
-
Hatter can speak for himself on this, but I suspect that the route shown by rsh is the one hatter meant when he referred to 'the Etihad Line' - i.e. the Metrolink line that goes out to Etihad.
But otherwise I heartily agreed with everything rsh writes - a sensible and rational post.
-
How could you make the car park at Marple station bigger .
multi story parking, the is how to get to Stockport station, that's the hub, the jewel in the crown but its not accessible. the answer is to tram link rose hill to Stockport and perhaps macc
-
The best value solution would be to have trams running from Marple to rose hill, along Middlewood way joining the rarely used Buxton line, it should drop to the ill-thought out bus park & ride and then head to Stockport station, the tam should then head to the Airport via Cheadle. This would mainly utilise exiting (under-used) track, relieve cogestion on Stockport / Marple road as well as the A6 PLUS give Stockport a link to the Airport. Those wanting to get to Manchester just change at Stockpot where there are fast services.
-
Welcome back Duke - we've missed you! 8) Hope you had a good sabbatical (still as bonkers as ever, I see ;).
-
(tram) should drop to the ill-thought out bus park & ride
Nice one! I didn't think of that one! good to have you back - does this mean that you actually intend to pay to travel on the tram??
The million dollar question is 'is that because you have been in prison for the last year or because you have been born again? http://www.marple-uk.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif
Just don't give us a fright by complaining that you can't take a bike on the tram or that you are setting up a Marple Momentum group!
-
I'm not that sure it matters if someone has been in the Labour party before, people change their politics / see the light or get thoroughly appalled by the direction their party is going (which is fairly likely in this case).
Good grief! Curiouser and curiouser! I just found this as well!!! Not only 'welcome back but 'Welcome Aboard Comrade'.
-
I've never seen anything in writing to suggest that a tram-train from Ashburys would go north to join the Etihad line, it would be an incredibly circuitous route and more importantly would miss out the chance to serve a wider area of the East Manchester regeneration with a stop.
By contrast, this plan from several years ago does show an indicative route, via Ashton Old Road and Fairfield St.
At the same time, it may be all well and good wanting to keep the train service into the main Piccadilly platforms, but Network Rail doesn't feel the same way. Marple and Rose Hill take up four platform movements an hour between them for relatively short, local services that would be much better used for bigger and longer distance trains with more people on them. Note the often absurd train-stacking of several services into one platform, leaving only minutes apart, with no room for future growth. Moving our services down onto their own Metrolink platform, making them much more frequent, with more pleasant rolling stock and better connections and street running right into the city seems a good trade-off to free up that platform space.
I have never claimed to know the route. In fact If you scroll back you will see that I have asked the councillors if they could clarify what is being developed by TfGM. It is key to this project. I don't believe they will find a traffic free route.
The route you copied in appears to have several issues. Firstly it would require a double crossing of the Manchester to Gorton line involving both Ashburys East and West junctions. Considering the frequency of trams and the high volume of trains going towards Gorton its going to cause long waits. It then goes off towards Victoria in the direction of the Etihad and looks like going down an access ramp to get to street level. I think it will have to stop here to change electric systems. It then stops again for an unnamed new station.Crosses several road junctions with traffic lights and then presumably goes down a bus lane or even a normal traffic lane down Fairfield Street. I stand by my prediction of an increase in journey times of 5 to 10 minutes getting to Piccadilly. Forget Marple to Piccadilly in 21 minutes as the quickest scheduled train now takes.
How many millions is going to be spent on this tram project, digging roads, moving utilities, altering road layouts, building ramps etc.? Why not spend the money on electrifying the other Marple line at the same time as the upgrading the Bredbury route. Its not a great distance from Hyde to New Mills. What about the disruption to businesses and road users?
Regarding your second point about Piccadilly. I wasn't under the impression that Network Rail had the authority to dictate policy, I thought that was the role of government and devolved transport groups, elected mayors etc.
Yes I accept it is full in terms of movements during the peak, but not for long. The Northern Hub project will do 2 things that are relevant. Firstly trains from Yorkshire to the Airport will not go into the main station and will use the new platform 15 and 16, freeing up space. Secondly platforms 11and 12 which are not often used will be brought back into main usage, freeing up platforms.
There was a report on line that was written about 10 years ago which stated that there was sufficient capacity for 4 trains per hour via Bredbury and the same via Woodley. If I find it I will post it on here. We could have a metro system using heavy rail without the problems already discusses. In fact this is what transport for London is proposing for all of their rail stations. We should do the same in Greater Manchester.
I have also read on here that Piccadilly is full, rubbish. London Liverpool Street has 80 million passengers and only 1 more platform than Piccadilly with 28 million. With longer trains you could triple the throughput of the station and keep the easy interchange benefits.
I suspect that this project is shovel ready and at some point in the next year it will be announced that funding has been secured. It will then go to consultation. The time to discuss is now. When its proposed very little can be done to influence it.
-
Nice one! I didn't think of that one! good to have you back - does this mean that you actually intend to pay to travel on the tram??
The million dollar question is 'is that because you have been in prison for the last year or because you have been born again? http://www.marple-uk.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif
Just don't give us a fright by complaining that you can't take a bike on the tram or that you are setting up a Marple Momentum group!
I've actually moved beyond the Marple city limits and felt I shouldn't poke my nose into Marple matters anymore, but then again, I didn't want tl let the socialist movement have a free reign to infiltrate the area east of the A6.
As for paying on the tram, since the revelation that the train ticket doubles up, I've kept the right side of the tram police.
I've taken to using the park and ride at Hazel Grove but the ride bit is getting my bike out and riding the busy bit of the A6. When I first spotted the Park and ride thing, I assumed the point was to park up & get on one of the train lines but no, the ride bit is to pay though the nose to get on a 192 which managed to take twice as long as driving. Given all the advantages of driving over using this ridiculous white elephant, it was not surprising to find nobody actually uses it. This combination of inconvenience, cost and lack of speed made me realise that they just need to adapt what is already there a bit and they had a solution. The Buxton line doesn't have much traffic and could surely be adapted to share trams and trains whilst giving relief to the A6 as well as giving Marple the quick link to Stockport
-
The best value solution would be to have trams running from Marple to rose hill, along Middlewood way joining the rarely used Buxton line, it should drop to the ill-thought out bus park & ride and then head to Stockport station, the tam should then head to the Airport via Cheadle. This would mainly utilise exiting (under-used) track, relieve cogestion on Stockport / Marple road as well as the A6 PLUS give Stockport a link to the Airport. Those wanting to get to Manchester just change at Stockpot where there are fast services.
This would also provide a link to Stepping Hill Hospital. If we had the alternative route to Stockport via Brinnington as well, we could even have a full Stockport Marple circular Metrolink line :)
(still as bonkers as ever, I see ;).
Perhaps not totally bonkers. It may be a possible alternative, or even eventual circular route.
-
The Park and ride becomes useful when you have to pay for parking at the other end and can't park close to where you are going. I expect it will also become useful for the airport when the new road open.
I don't know what plans there are to extend the bus lanes on the A6 once the new road open.
-
This would also provide a link to Stepping Hill Hospital. If we had the alternative route to Stockport via Brinnington as well, we could even have a full Stockport Marple circular Metrolink line :)
Perhaps not totally bonkers. It may be a possible alternative, or even eventual circular route.
The other part of my bonkers plan is to link Stockport to the Airport, again, mainly using existing rails, linking up with the existing tram line beween Heald Green and Wythenshawe.
-
The Park and ride becomes useful when you have to pay for parking at the other end and can't park close to where you are going. I expect it will also become useful for the airport when the new road open.
I don't know what plans there are to extend the bus lanes on the A6 once the new road open.
I'd hope Stockport did away with the bus lanes completely, they cause congestion.
If the A6 was two lanes with a roundabout at Stepping hill, St Mary's way and the Town hall, the road would not be the stuttering pain that it currently is.
The park and ride idea was a typical councillor's muddle. Worked out by someone who had some ideological 'green' agenda without understanding what people actually want. A bit like Dicky Leese's stupid TIF plan a few years ago.
-
I have never claimed to know the route. In fact If you scroll back you will see that I have asked the councillors if they could clarify what is being developed by TfGM. It is key to this project. I don't believe they will find a traffic free route.
The route you copied in appears to have several issues. Firstly it would require a double crossing of the Manchester to Gorton line involving both Ashburys East and West junctions. Considering the frequency of trams and the high volume of trains going towards Gorton its going to cause long waits. It then goes off towards Victoria in the direction of the Etihad and looks like going down an access ramp to get to street level. I think it will have to stop here to change electric systems. It then stops again for an unnamed new station.Crosses several road junctions with traffic lights and then presumably goes down a bus lane or even a normal traffic lane down Fairfield Street. I stand by my prediction of an increase in journey times of 5 to 10 minutes getting to Piccadilly. Forget Marple to Piccadilly in 21 minutes as the quickest scheduled train now takes.
How many millions is going to be spent on this tram project, digging roads, moving utilities, altering road layouts, building ramps etc.? Why not spend the money on electrifying the other Marple line at the same time as the upgrading the Bredbury route. Its not a great distance from Hyde to New Mills. What about the disruption to businesses and road users?
I imagine the line would cross by some kind of flyover, like the one near Central Park on the Oldham line? There's enough space for the Guide Bridge line to continue alongside as it does now. That Metrolink line is also a good example of how they're willing to spend on such fanciful infrastructure, and given the success - how worthwhile it is.
Again don't underestimate the time savings from electric acceleration and things like having more doors to let people on and off quicker, not to mention not having to wait for the guard to run back down the train from selling tickets to open said doors - I'd think more like 5 mins extra journey time max. Not a bad trade off for a vastly more frequent service and again, if you're continuing further into the city than Piccadilly, door to door times could be much quicker than having to walk from there.
The questions are all good ones to me too, I just wish we were hearing more about this to understand how it would really work and whether it'd be the step-change we want.
Regarding your second point about Piccadilly. I wasn't under the impression that Network Rail had the authority to dictate policy, I thought that was the role of government and devolved transport groups, elected mayors etc.
No you're right there, shouldn't have said Network Rail. But we can agree there's a general desire to get short, frequent local services like Marple out of those long platforms. Though even if the Northern Hub might free up capacity, I think the powers that be would still rather those new gaps not be taken just by more short services. Underground trains don't take up the platforms at Euston.
As I understand it from various documents available here and there, the idea is far from shovel ready and really we're waiting on the "results" of Sheffield's tram-train trial. Unfortunately they seem determined over there to make that happen as slowly as possible. ::)
-
This would also provide a link to Stepping Hill Hospital.
That really would be an advantage though not good news for those of us who use the 394. I am sometimes the only person on the 394 and even when there are a handful on the bus everyone seems to have a bus pass other than the students going to/from Ridge Danyers. A tram from Marple to Stepping Hill would be the last straw for the 394. I am sure I read somewhere that signalling prevented both a Stepping Hill Hospital and also a Woodsmoor station. Surely conventional rolling stock/signaling cannot be so prohibitive?
-
Dabbling my toes here as I haven't the detailed knowledge many have but one or two things strike me:
1 - Are we making the best use of what it already there/ being constructed? We assume Piccadilly is the end of the Marple line but once the Ordsall loop is completed are through trains being considered? To give a hypothetical example run trains to Leeds via Manchester & the stopping Hebden Bridge line then you can have many more trains "stored" in transit rather than stopped somewhere at a platform. This is essentially how the London cross rail project works.
2 - Some years ago I seem to recall an idea to run trains from Rosehill into Victoria which suggests there is still some infrastrucuture that could be brought back into play, which is what the current OS map suggests. I recall howls of protest but are we all so fixated on Piccadilly as the destination? Could this - lets call it the Ashbury chord - be constructed far more easily than any tram system?
-
Some years ago I seem to recall an idea to run trains from Rosehill into Victoria
That will make the time to catch a London train so bad that a bus to Stockport station will start to look like a good option. But with HS2, it will not go var Stockport!
Victoria is of no use apart from to people that work at the CoOp head office.
-
That really would be an advantage though not good news for those of us who use the 394. I am sometimes the only person on the 394 and even when there are a handful on the bus everyone seems to have a bus pass other than the students going to/from Ridge Danyers. A tram from Marple to Stepping Hill would be the last straw for the 394. I am sure I read somewhere that signalling prevented both a Stepping Hill Hospital and also a Woodsmoor station. Surely conventional rolling stock/signaling cannot be so prohibitive?
I've always thought for rural areas, buses are not the answer, give local taxi firms the funding to shuttle to transport hubs (in this case tram stops)
-
Dabbling my toes here as I haven't the detailed knowledge many have but one or two things strike me:
1 - Are we making the best use of what it already there/ being constructed? We assume Piccadilly is the end of the Marple line but once the Ordsall loop is completed are through trains being considered? To give a hypothetical example run trains to Leeds via Manchester & the stopping Hebden Bridge line then you can have many more trains "stored" in transit rather than stopped somewhere at a platform. This is essentially how the London cross rail project works.
2 - Some years ago I seem to recall an idea to run trains from Rosehill into Victoria which suggests there is still some infrastrucuture that could be brought back into play, which is what the current OS map suggests. I recall howls of protest but are we all so fixated on Piccadilly as the destination? Could this - lets call it the Ashbury chord - be constructed far more easily than any tram system?
I suggested a similar idea with Ardwick but was laughed out of town. My view is that either commuter trains or express trains can terminate at Ardwick with a continuous shuttle running to Picadilly in a similar way as airport departures / arrivals are dealt with at Gatwick. This would relieve the congestion at Picadilly.
-
A tram from Marple to Stepping Hill would be the last straw for the 394.
Don't worry rambler - it ain't gonna happen. And neither are some of the other more wacky ideas that have recently popped up on this thread. All that's going to happen to our local train services in the foreseeable future is that the dreadful 'Pacers' will be scrapped, as per the recent Northern Rail franchise agreement. And then many years later (don't hold your breath) tram-train just might come along to Rose Hill. That's it.
-
The problem with a Stockport link is short distance, slow and long rail route (either Reddish Vale or the A6) and low levels of town centre demand. You would need around 2 million passengers a year to make it viable and rail doesn't have the same advantages over the car going to Stockport as it does Manchester. Unfortunately it will never pass a value for money check or a serious business case assessment. For example, what comparative advantages would a tram have over buses going down the A6, very few but it would cost millions to build.
Unfortunately the people in power in the early 1980s decided to close the old Cheshire Lines freight line that connected Romiley/Woodley with Stockport and Warrington. It should have been retained, but its been built on by Morrison's at Bredbury, M60, Tescos etc. The other facing North link link that comes out at Reddish viaduct is still there until Tescos at Portwood, but you would have to stop on the viaduct and reverse to access the old alignment, so its not really practical.
About 80 posts ago Marple Rambler suggested a route via Brinnington but again what advantages would a tram have against the much cheaper buses when its sat in traffic jams. To me trams only work when they are in traffic free environments, this is why they were scrapped 60 years ago.
-
Dabbling my toes here as I haven't the detailed knowledge many have but one or two things strike me:
1 - Are we making the best use of what it already there/ being constructed? We assume Piccadilly is the end of the Marple line but once the Ordsall loop is completed are through trains being considered? To give a hypothetical example run trains to Leeds via Manchester & the stopping Hebden Bridge line then you can have many more trains "stored" in transit rather than stopped somewhere at a platform. This is essentially how the London cross rail project works.
2 - Some years ago I seem to recall an idea to run trains from Rosehill into Victoria which suggests there is still some infrastrucuture that could be brought back into play, which is what the current OS map suggests. I recall howls of protest but are we all so fixated on Piccadilly as the destination? Could this - lets call it the Ashbury chord - be constructed far more easily than any tram system?
Yes Corium, the line that bends off to the right as you leave Ashburys going towards Manchester goes to Victoria, it is being electrified gas part of the Northern Hub scheme in the coming few years. You could run trains from Marple there if you wanted and it would be far cheaper than the tram project. However, I believe as outlined in previous posts that there will be sufficient capacity at Piccadilly.
-
Hatter, thanks. Just to take up Ringi's point, I know Piccadilly is useful for those who work at the University but Victoria being no use to those who work in Spinningfields, the main shopping area? I just pose the question based on those on the Marple train that head straight for the shuttle buses to go to the other side of town.
-
The problem with a Stockport link is short distance, slow and long rail route (either Reddish Vale or the A6) and low levels of town centre demand. You would need around 2 million passengers a year to make it viable and rail doesn't have the same advantages over the car going to Stockport as it does Manchester. Unfortunately it will never pass a value for money check or a serious business case assessment. For example, what comparative advantages would a tram have over buses going down the A6, very few but it would cost millions to build.
Unfortunately the people in power in the early 1980s decided to close the old Cheshire Lines freight line that connected Romiley/Woodley with Stockport and Warrington. It should have been retained, but its been built on by Morrison's at Bredbury, M60, Tescos etc. The other facing North link link that comes out at Reddish viaduct is still there until Tescos at Portwood, but you would have to stop on the viaduct and reverse to access the old alignment, so its not really practical.
About 80 posts ago Marple Rambler suggested a route via Brinnington but again what advantages would a tram have against the much cheaper buses when its sat in traffic jams. To me trams only work when they are in traffic free environments, this is why they were scrapped 60 years ago.
The A6 route would not be so slow. I agree that the most expensive part would be re-laying the track on Middlewood way and that particular area serves the fewest passengers but the real advantage is lifting traffic from the A6 and it would give Marple commuters access to mainline routes within 15 mins
-
Yesterday the A6 was not moving at all! Therefore a tram would need its own lane. But if we had bus lines “end to end” on the A6, then buses would be fast enough.
For a lot less than the cost of a railway, the Middlewood way can be made into a bus way allowing the flexibility for buses to run though Marple on normal roads, then onto it.
Public transport is a BIG issue, as so many new jobs are being created “out of town” for example near the airport, yet the only way for most people to get to them is by car. Buses don’t work if they go double the distance then the direct route by car.
-
Unfortunately the people in power in the early 1980s decided to close the old Cheshire Lines freight line that connected Romiley/Woodley with Stockport and Warrington. It should have been retained, but its been built on by Morrison's at Bredbury, M60, Tescos etc.
It would still be possible to route a tram roughly along this alignment without too much trouble (and I personally think, too much cost compared to other Metrolink projects).
In fact parts of the possible alignment have been protected and marked out in several neighbouring planning applications, such as the now-cancelled bigger Sainsburys across the river and very recently in plans for houses at Bredbury, which show the possible line curving off after Bredbury station and running towards the junction for McDonald's (where it would presumably cross and then run through the land opposite roughly following the M60). I'll try to find an image of the plans...
It's a shame none of our councillors are really calling out for this to go ahead, it would have a massive positive impact on local traffic levels and would get people out of cars who'd never be convinced by a bus. I imagine having tram-trains already running out to us from Manchester would be a prerequisite however, otherwise it would be an oddly isolated line, so perhaps that's where we should really be putting the demand for investment first.
-
Here's the planning application showing space to be reserved at Bredbury for a "potential future tram link", posted as a link because it's rather big:
http://stevenicklin.com/images/metrolink/DC060009-bredburycurve.jpg
Thanks to the excellent SkyscraperCity forums, the Manchester transport section of which I highly recommended for staying abreast of current and future developments.
As said above, having tram-trains already using the Marple-Manchester line would suddenly make this link to Stockport a lot more feasible, and in my opinion would be justification alone for not simply electrifying the line for heavy rail trains. Of course a chord further up onto the existing line through Reddish South would be possible, but would there be capacity for those trains to then cross the viaduct and use Stockport station? And wouldn't it be better to run at "ground level", into the actual town, serving areas like Portwood directly too?
In all the cries for the A6-Bredbury relief road it's disappointing no one is championing this way of genuinely removing congestion, not just moving it to a new road (and creating more...)
-
I think a tram link from Stockport into Dibsbury may be needed first, then a Marple link to Stockport as an extension of the train/tram.
Even then it will not be quick to get to the airport, or MediaCity. Not many people work near Stockport station, so a link that just goes to Stockport does not help much with commuting.
We are hitting the old issue that where employment and housing is on the edges of a city and public transport links into the city, the car is very hard to beat! (I keep coming back to failing to understand why people in Marple wish to travel to Stockport….)
The A6-Bredbury relief road is a separate issue and may allow bus lanes to be installed on more of the A6, if so, we just need a way for a bus to get from Marple to the A6 in a reasonable and predictable time.
The only way to remove congestion is to have road charging, as whenever a car is removed from a road, travel times speed up, so people start working further from where they live.
-
Here's the planning application showing space to be reserved at Bredbury for a "potential future tram link", posted as a link because it's rather big:
http://stevenicklin.com/images/metrolink/DC060009-bredburycurve.jpg
Thanks for posting this link rsh, I didn't know this was still possible. It would definitely add value and be a much shorter route than the Reddish Vale curve then down the A6 option. If it goes through the centre of Stockport and joined up with the East Didsbury tram line it would connect a large number of people.
This poses 2 questions. 1 Why have Stockport Council in their tram train strategy favoured the longer Reddish Vale curve route? If the Reddish Vale curve was the favoured route how has this land on a different route managed to be ring fenced from development? It doesn't make sense? Do any councillors know?
-
This poses 2 questions. 1 Why have Stockport Council in their tram train strategy favoured the longer Reddish Vale curve route? If the Reddish Vale curve was the favoured route how has this land on a different route managed to be ring fenced from development? It doesn't make sense? Do any councillors know?
How about the following hypothesis -
There is one road in and out of a Brinnington estate which jams up every morning but the go ahead has been given for the construction of 200 new houses in an area above Reddish Vale with a 1950s/1960s road infrastructure which cannot cope with existing levels of traffic. The addition of 200 homes will cause total gridlock.The road to the M60 and the road from Brinnington to Stockport via Portwood roundabout will seize up completely with the extra traffic and the only solution will eventually have to be a tram link to Stockport.
A tram link to Stockport via Brinnington is the only way that councillors can prevent a three mile plus solid wall of traffic all the way from the streets adjacent to Reddish Vale to Portwood roundabout.
-
Yesterday the A6 was not moving at all! Therefore a tram would need its own lane. But if we had bus lines “end to end” on the A6, then buses would be fast enough.
For a lot less than the cost of a railway, the Middlewood way can be made into a bus way allowing the flexibility for buses to run though Marple on normal roads, then onto it.
Public transport is a BIG issue, as so many new jobs are being created “out of town” for example near the airport, yet the only way for most people to get to them is by car. Buses don’t work if they go double the distance then the direct route by car.
can the line not drop down middlewood way and link to the existing Buxton line that is already there but only used once an hour. surely it can just share the line until stockport
-
It's fair to point out that the Buxton line is used much more than once an hour at peak times, and it's a very popular commuter route in itself - except for Middlewood station which has no car park, a really poor access road / path for walkers, and is a fair distance from the A6 and major housing in High Lane.
I suppose the idea of an interchange with the old Rose Hill line being extended to Upper Middlewood and transferring to the Buxton Line isn't the worst for linking to Stockport, especially if you introduced a terminus service from Middlewood which stopped at Hazel Grove only and left Davenport and Woodsmoor for the Buxton services.
Shame the SEMMS road thing didn't cater for trams side by side to the airport. My feeling is that the new road won't relieve that much congestion.
-
Here's the planning application showing space to be reserved at Bredbury for a "potential future tram link", posted as a link because it's rather big:
http://stevenicklin.com/images/metrolink/DC060009-bredburycurve.jpg
Thanks to the excellent SkyscraperCity forums, the Manchester transport section of which I highly recommended for staying abreast of current and future developments.
As said above, having tram-trains already using the Marple-Manchester line would suddenly make this link to Stockport a lot more feasible, and in my opinion would be justification alone for not simply electrifying the line for heavy rail trains. Of course a chord further up onto the existing line through Reddish South would be possible, but would there be capacity for those trains to then cross the viaduct and use Stockport station? And wouldn't it be better to run at "ground level", into the actual town, serving areas like Portwood directly too?
In all the cries for the A6-Bredbury relief road it's disappointing no one is championing this way of genuinely removing congestion, not just moving it to a new road (and creating more...)
Thanks for that, rsh - really interesting. And as hatter points out, converting the Rose Hill line to tram-trains reopens the whole issue of a link off the line to Stockport, whether it is at Bredbury or via the Reddish Vale curve and the Guide Bridge to Stockport line. Bring it on!
-
I am starting to think we need a quality cycle track, (with a good surface and lights, so someone could use on a commuting bike while wearing work cloths) from Marple to the park and ride in Hazel Grove along with lots of bike lockers at the park and ride.
Also what about a single track guided bus way or bus only road with passing places? There would be no need for tropic lights (signals) if the line of sight was good between the passing places. Then a bus running every 15 minutes, so we had a good link into the 192 and a bus to the airport. (Buses are a LOT cheaper then trains or trams to run!)
-
It's fair to point out that the Buxton line is used much more than once an hour at peak times, and it's a very popular commuter route in itself - except for Middlewood station which has no car park, a really poor access road / path for walkers, and is a fair distance from the A6 and major housing in High Lane.
I suppose the idea of an interchange with the old Rose Hill line being extended to Upper Middlewood and transferring to the Buxton Line isn't the worst for linking to Stockport, especially if you introduced a terminus service from Middlewood which stopped at Hazel Grove only and left Davenport and Woodsmoor for the Buxton services.
Shame the SEMMS road thing didn't cater for trams side by side to the airport. My feeling is that the new road won't relieve that much congestion.
I think the link road will be useful but wherever practical, I'd have thought a rail provision would be sensible to any new road proposal.
The Buxton line is used at peak hours, 2x an hour. I'm sure a tram could work around this.
Certainly, there is no point putting trams on the A6, Trams are not an efficient use of tarmac space (neither are bus lanes)
-
I am starting to think we need a quality cycle track, (with a good surface and lights, so someone could use on a commuting bike while wearing work cloths) from Marple to the park and ride in Hazel Grove along with lots of bike lockers at the park and ride.
Also what about a single track guided bus way or bus only road with passing places? There would be no need for tropic lights (signals) if the line of sight was good between the passing places. Then a bus running every 15 minutes, so we had a good link into the 192 and a bus to the airport. (Buses are a LOT cheaper then trains or trams to run!)
Why would you do that? If I'm cycling to Stockport or even Manc, I'm not going to get off my bike to jump on a slow bus that stops every 4 mins and then waits to catch up with the timetable. I'm especially not going to do that at precisely the point where the bike comes into it's own as a jam-buster.
-
Why would you do that? If I'm cycling to Stockport or even Manc, I'm not going to get off my bike to jump on a slow bus that stops every 4 mins and then waits to catch up with the timetable. I'm especially not going to do that at precisely the point where the bike comes into it's own as a jam-buster.
Firstly think about people that work at the airport.
Then think about people that DON'T cycle at present, as they are not happy on the current roads. Current cycle users by definition are not representative of the people we need to get cycling.
-
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s57207/Appendix%201Stockport%20Rail%20Strategy.pdf
Two Points from reading this
1. The Marple to Manchester Tram-Train will only go ahead if a designated route can be found.
2 The Marple to Stockport is rated as the lowest priority i.e. 4 out of 4 and is classed as aspirational. They don't appear to have carried out any serious analysis of the route and refer to previous analysis reports; whereas the other routes have had fresh benefit reports conducted. The Marple-Stockport if it ever was to be built would come off at Bredbury and take the more direct route to Stockport; the Reddish Vale curve is for Stockport to Manchester Tram- Trains.
-
Firstly think about people that work at the airport.
Then think about people that DON'T cycle at present, as they are not happy on the current roads. Current cycle users by definition are not representative of the people we need to get cycling.
If you are going to the airport and the link road is available, would we not just drive along it? We really only need to encourage people off the roads where there is/ a risk of congestion.
-
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s57207/Appendix%201Stockport%20Rail%20Strategy.pdf
Two Points from reading this
1. The Marple to Manchester Tram-Train will only go ahead if a designated route can be found.
2 The Marple to Stockport is rated as the lowest priority i.e. 4 out of 4 and is classed as aspirational. They don't appear to have carried out any serious analysis of the route and refer to previous analysis reports; whereas the other routes have had fresh benefit reports conducted. The Marple-Stockport if it ever was to be built would come off at Bredbury and take the more direct route to Stockport; the Reddish Vale curve is for Stockport to Manchester Tram- Trains.
Tram trains to Stockport is not even on the agenda for at least five years ,so what chance does Marple have .
-
the draft masterplan for Stockport Station is now out here http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/s87313/Enc.%201%20for%20Stockport%20Rail%20Station%20Masterplan.pdf
This shows two possible alignments for potential Metrolink tram train from new interchange to the station. (see attached)
I also attach some views of proposed concept for station, also showing Metrolink. (thanks to posts on aforementioned skyscraper thread)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thank you for the Stockport Station Masterplan. The authors of this report have produced a map of proposed tram routes in Stockport which I believe to be the opening test in the first stage in procuring a job at GCHQ. Even as a lifelong Stopfordian I had to look hard to make any sense of it and place it in context so for the benefit of those who may be struggling the very first thing is that the lines and platforms lie almost north to south but the map does not follow the convention of having North at the 'top'.
There are absolutely no street names on the map, there is no symbol showing grid north and the map scale is so large it does not incorporate Wellington Road North to make the map comprehensible.
So for those who may have struggled, things become a long clearer when you identify the Armoury/ Castle Street roundabout at the extreme right and the parallel lanes of the bus station at the extreme left. The yellow tram station is sited on the sidings opposite platform 4. The green route drops down King St West from the Armoury roundabout but the tram doesn't stay on the road for very long - Shield Street forks to the right in front of the Ironsides Lubricants factory, which drops down behind the back of the Stagecoach garage as a footpath/cycleway to Daw Bank between the Stagecoach Offices and the viaduct.
The yellow route would be a very steep descent from the station as anyone knows who uses the steps and ascent from the back of the bus station to ascend to the station approach. There is a great curve in this path to reduce the gradient. There used to be an entrance adjacent to the viaduct which went straight up parallel to the railway line and I do mean straight up (it is still shown on the map just to the right of the junction of yellow and green routes). Heaven knows how the tram could follow the line on the map without the demolition of several of the arches of the viaduct.
First thing is that this route came as an absolute shock to me quite simply because I had never imagined that the tram would approach from the Castle St pedestrian precinct as seems to be indicated by this map (though it could possibly be from Mercian Way).
The map prompts many more questions. Just where has the tram come from if it is approaching the Armoury roundabout from the Edgeley (western) side? Also the Bus station tram stop seems to be on the line of where all of the buses from the A6 (including the 384) enter the bus station from Exchange Street and the line seems to continue possibly northwards to cross the River Mersey. Where next? I have glanced through the report but perhaps didn't look close enough.
I will be fascinated by the full details of the proposed route into and out of Stockport. If anyone can elaborate upon this I would most grateful.
-
Figure 19 page 26 shows the tram descending all of the way down King st West to Chestergate but the detailed plan shows the tram using Shield St. I am becoming more confused by the minute!
-
Figure 19 page 26 shows the tram descending all of the way down King st West to Chestergate but the detailed plan shows the tram using Shield St. I am becoming more confused by the minute!
Yes agree very confusing maps.
Page 15 is very telling, talks about Marple to Manchester and Stockport to Manchester tram trains but no mention of a possible Marple to Stockport link. More evidence that this is not being taken seriously is the The Stockport Rail Strategy January 2015 which appeared to simply draw a line from Bredbury to Stockport for the Marple to Stockport tram trains with no detailed analysis. It also cuts Marple off the map. Has any serious analysis been done? Timeframe?
The Stockport station master plan talks about possible delivery date of mid 2020s for Manchester to Stockport. From what I can gather this involves tram trains traveling from Piccadilly via Reddish North and curving off to to join the Reddish South line. It then comes off before the main Stockport line and goes down roads, possibly the A6 into Mersey Way, then up to Stockport stations Edgeley approach and then eventually joins with the Altrincham line.
Still want Marple to Manchester to remain as heavy rail with eventual electrification but fully supportive of the Marple to Stockport tram train project as it will be so much better than existing prevision. With proper signalling this is possible.
-
First thing is that this route came as an absolute shock to me quite simply because I had never imagined that the tram would approach from the Castle St pedestrian precinct as seems to be indicated by this map (though it could possibly be from Mercian Way).
The map prompts many more questions. Just where has the tram come from if it is approaching the Armoury roundabout from the Edgeley (western) side? Also the Bus station tram stop seems to be on the line of where all of the buses from the A6 (including the 384) enter the bus station from Exchange Street and the line seems to continue possibly northwards to cross the River Mersey. Where next? I have glanced through the report but perhaps didn't look close enough.
I will be fascinated by the full details of the proposed route into and out of Stockport. If anyone can elaborate upon this I would most grateful.
The trams approaching from Armoury will be coming from Altrincham/AirportCity using Stockport Altrincham line, and possibly from East Didsbury as well eventually. From the south will be coming from Piccadilly via Reddish. Not sure of alignment from Belmont way to new interchange but does come across proposed new bridge over Mersey at Astley street into Interchange.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just to note that as part of the Stockport town centre redevelopment, a corridor is being left for a possible future tram line.
Incidentally John, last week's Full Council had a Tory motion on train re-enfranchisement that was friendly and all supported in principle.
For those interested it's about 2:08 in, on the following link.
http://www.stockport.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/205237 (http://www.stockport.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/205237)
-
The trams approaching from Armoury will be coming from Altrincham/AirportCity using Stockport Altrincham line, and possibly from East Didsbury as well eventually. From the south will be coming from Piccadilly via Reddish. Not sure of alignment from Belmont way to new interchange but does come across proposed new bridge over Mersey at Astley street into Interchange.
John
Am I right in thinking that the red route from Bredbury to East Didsbury will not go through Stockport station?
Also, the green route has Marple tram trains going the long route through Brinnington and Reddish South. I understand there are issues around connecting Brinnington but this is going to add distance and time for passengers from Marple. For this to work it will have to be quicker than the bus which takes around 25 minutes outside the rush hour. Do you have a view on this?
-
Also, the green route has Marple tram trains going the long route through Brinnington and Reddish South. I understand there are issues around connecting Brinnington but this is going to add distance and time for passengers from Marple. For this to work it will have to be quicker than the bus which takes around 25 minutes outside the rush hour.
It may add distance, but it won't add time. Adding together the time taken by our present trains between Marple and Brinnington, and between Stockport and Reddish South, and adding on five minutes for the Reddish Vale Curve, produces an estimated journey time of 20 minutes from Rose Hill to Stockport Station. That compares with between 25 and 35 minutes by bus, depending on the time of day. And tram-trains, with their much better acceleration, will be faster than our existing trains, of course.
Crucially, I suspect the Reddish Vale route, though longer than a direct line from Bredbury would be, is much more likely to actually be built. This is because the planners are obviously very interested in a Manchester - Stockport route via Reddish North and Reddish South. That would entail building a 'north-facing' curve off the existing rail line between Reddish North and Brinnington, so it makes it that much more likely that a 'south-facing' curve might get built as well.
-
It may add distance, but it won't add time. Adding together the time taken by our present trains between Marple and Brinnington, and between Stockport and Reddish South, and adding on five minutes for the Reddish Vale Curve, produces an estimated journey time of 20 minutes from Rose Hill to Stockport Station. That compares with between 25 and 35 minutes by bus, depending on the time of day.
I think it is important to remember that for a project like this to proceed if will have to produce significant mode shift I.e. attract large number of people that currently use the car. Current times Rose Hill to Bredbury 8 minutes, Bredbury to Portwood guessing at 5 minutes. That would give you a 13 minute journey time to central Stockport, which is probably better than the car at anytime of the day. I am not sure that the longer route would deliver the same results.
Agree to your second point about there being a will to connect Reddish South and it would involve less construction
-
John
Am I right in thinking that the red route from Bredbury to East Didsbury will not go through Stockport station?
Also, the green route has Marple tram trains going the long route through Brinnington and Reddish South. I understand there are issues around connecting Brinnington but this is going to add distance and time for passengers from Marple. For this to work it will have to be quicker than the bus which takes around 25 minutes outside the rush hour. Do you have a view on this?
As drawn on the diagram you are correct. The bit from Stockport to Didsbury is an older idea which will almost certainly not happen. More likely is on reaching Stockport to take the green route through station and then curve north to Didsbury.
There is also a less direct route from Bredbury to Stockport that may be possible via Brinnington. This will mean more on road running, but would help with access for Brinnington. see Orange route.
I would anticipate that:
1) First route Piccadilly to Marple/Rose Hill
2) Second Piccadilly to Stockport via Reddish
2)a possible Chord for Marple to Stockport via Reddish
3) Stockport to Airport
4) Marple to Stockport :)
I would much prefer getting the Marple to Stockport option than chord at Reddish. This may be if in future we can get a "Big Bang" approach to Tram Train centred on Stockport. My worry is if we get more likely gradual development, we will get the Reddish Chord, and as a "direct link" in place we then never get the Marple Stockport route.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I would anticipate that:
1) First route Piccadilly to Marple/Rose Hill
2) Second Piccadilly to Stockport via Reddish
2)a possible Chord for Marple to Stockport via Reddish
3) Stockport to Airport
4) Marple to Stockport :)
I would much prefer getting the Marple to Stockport option than chord at Reddish. This may be if in future we can get a "Big Bang" approach to Tram Train centred on Stockport. My worry is if we get more likely gradual development, we will get the Reddish Chord, and as a "direct link" in place we then never get the Marple Stockport route.
That all makes sense as a realistic forecast of how things may pan out, though whether 3 and 4 will happen in the foreseeable future is open to doubt. And let's remember it's all going to take years!
But hey, before we get too negative because the dream scheme is not on the cards, let's remember what we've got at the moment: a third rate service by noisy, uncomfortable overcrowded class 142 'Pacers', a very poor evening and Sunday service to Marple, no Sunday service and virtually no evening service to Rose Hill, no rail service to Stockport, and dreadful traffic congestion at peak times between Marple and Stockport. Even if we only get John's priorities 1, 2 and 2a, that will give us greatly increased frequency (and therefore capacity) in modern faster tram-trains running through directly to the city centre and beyond, and a direct service to Stockport. And hopefully this may have some beneficial impact on traffic congestion in persuading people back off the road and on to the rails. However, we need to remember that this last benefit won't happen unless we do something about car parking at Marple and Rose Hill. We badly need a Hazel Grove-style park-and ride scheme.
-
Was on the 2035 Picc to Rose Hill tonight for the first time in about 10 years. Couldn't believe how busy it was, almost every seat taken leaving Manchester. I used to get it regularly in the past and there was typically less then 10 on it. It just shows how much passenger growth there has been in the past decade. There is definitely demand for more evening trains.
I am not sure that the statistics are showing the true extent of the demand as there is no ticket barriers at this time, which leads to ticket less travel.
In terms of the closure of Marple in early April, it will be a good test of Rose Hills capacity to be the main Marple station as looks likely with tram trains.
-
Apropos to nothing, but the train trams are now in testing in Sheffield. They'll be running on the tram network first, and then tested on the rail network afterwards.
I strongly suspect that tram-ing the Rose Hill line would be a big success. It's well known that if you run a good service in an urban area, people will use it. Metrolink was a prime example of that, and in London, the London Overground service took an unloved service and made it into a big success. What these things need is a push - having a Mayor of Manchester should help in that respect.
-
Apropos to nothing, but the train trams are now in testing in Sheffield. They'll be running on the tram network first, and then tested on the rail network afterwards.
I strongly suspect that tram-ing the Rose Hill line would be a big success. It's well known that if you run a good service in an urban area, people will use it. Metrolink was a prime example of that, and in London, the London Overground service took an unloved service and made it into a big success. What these things need is a push - having a Mayor of Manchester should help in that respect.
London overground is a frequent metro rail service using proper trains, no trams or street running, yes its a great success but were not being offered that.
-
London overground is a frequent metro rail service using proper trains, no trams or street running, yes its a great success but were not being offered that.
London Overground was a run down delipidated, unloved service with a low frequency. I know. I used to use it. It was horrendous. Now it is excellent. That's the point.
Frankly the type of vehicle, and whether it's Street running or not. It's about the level of service. High frequency, reliability and modern vehicles get people to use services.
The original Metrolink's lines were heavy rail. Within months of conversion they accounted for more than half of all rail usage in Manchester.
Still not sold? Head to London again. The core of the London Tramlink network was a series of unloved, barely used railway lines going "nowhere useful". I used to live near the Wimbledon line. That line now runs every few minutes until 1am. The system has plenty of street running. It hasn't held it back.
Trams Vs trains. Heavy Vs light. Street Vs off street. It's irrelevant. It is all about the service. Nothing else matters. Get the service right and it will work.
-
It is all about the service. Nothing else matters. Get the service right and it will work.
Andrew is spot on. If the Sheffield trials are successful, a frequent, reliable service from Rose Hill to Piccadilly using modern tram-train vehicles will be a huge success. All the evidence from elsewhere points to that.
But something will have to be done about parking at Rose Hill. Either that, or use Marple and expand the car park behind the Purple Pakora.
-
London Overground was a run down delipidated, unloved service with a low frequency. I know. I used to use it. It was horrendous. Now it is excellent. That's the point.
Frankly the type of vehicle, and whether it's Street running or not. It's about the level of service. High frequency, reliability and modern vehicles get people to use services.
The original Metrolink's lines were heavy rail. Within months of conversion they accounted for more than half of all rail usage in Manchester.
Still not sold? Head to London again. The core of the London Tramlink network was a series of unloved, barely used railway lines going "nowhere useful". I used to live near the Wimbledon line. That line now runs every few minutes until 1am. The system has plenty of street running. It hasn't held it back.
Trams Vs trains. Heavy Vs light. Street Vs off street. It's irrelevant. It is all about the service. Nothing else matters. Get the service right and it will work.
Journey time and seating capacity is also important.
Your examples are not like for like.
The Wimbledon tram opened up a new rail connection with secondary destinations such as Croydon, the main link to London remains heavy rail. The equivalent in Marple would be a tram link to Stockport.
London overground is an excellent system that improves journey times and frequency using existing rail routes. It does not diverge off the rails and mix with traffic. This is what we should be getting here in Marple.
The Sheffield tram train will not be running to metro frequencies and has been delayed by several years. It will also have to be closed down again at some point in the future to alter the electric system which it not compatible with network rail.
-
Andrew is spot on. If the Sheffield trials are successful, a frequent, reliable service from Rose Hill to Piccadilly using modern tram-train vehicles will be a huge success. All the evidence from elsewhere points to that.
But something will have to be done about parking at Rose Hill. Either that, or use Marple and expand the car park behind the Purple Pakora.
Still wont be big enough .
-
Trams Vs trains. Heavy Vs light. Street Vs off street. It's irrelevant. It is all about the service. Nothing else matters. Get the service right and it will work.
I don't think so. The old Altrincham to Manchester trains were far superior to Metrolink in that they were much faster, which in many ways and for many purposes is the most important thing; certainly preferable to slow, more frequent services. Of course it depends on where you are going and coming from. The original Metrolink for example, seriously degraded the services from Mid-Cheshire to Manchester, increasing journey times to 1930 levels. For some people, trams are better, but for many people, conversion of real rail lines to trams is a substantial reduction in service. What really matters is the fastest, most comfortable service with the plenty of seats for the number of people travelling and good connections to trains elsewhere, with a reasonable frequency. However, no setup is going to please everyone.
-
The old Altrincham to Manchester trains were far superior to Metrolink in that they were much faster, which in many ways and for many purposes is the most important thing; certainly preferable to slow, more frequent services.
I'm old enough to remember that train service, and it was a good one, as I recall - a train every 20 minutes between Altrincham and Oxford Road, which took 20 minutes. But then you had to walk to wherever you were actually going. Now there is a tram every 6 minutes between Altrincham and St Peters Square (closest place to Oxford Road), and it takes 25 minutes. And it then continues through the city centre and will drop you where you actually want to go. That is a far better service.
-
I'm old enough to remember that train service, and it was a good one, as I recall - a train every 20 minutes between Altrincham and Oxford Road, which took 20 minutes. But then you had to walk to wherever you were actually going. Now there is a tram every 6 minutes between Altrincham and St Peters Square (closest place to Oxford Road), and it takes 25 minutes. And it then continues through the city centre and will drop you where you actually want to go. That is a far better service.
Difference is the Altrincham and Bury routes maintain their dedicated non street running formation until they get into the city, the plans for Rose Hill tram trains involve leaving at Ashburys. Secondly I will be very surprised if we get anything like 6 minute frequencies, the Rose Hill tram trains will have to fit in with ordinary trains from Marple and Sheffield. The Sheffield pilot tram train is typically running every 30 minutes.
-
the plans for Rose Hill tram trains involve leaving at Ashburys.
Yes, that's one of the plans, but I've seen others - I don't think the route is fixed yet.
I will be very surprised if we get anything like 6 minute frequencies,
When the Metrolink service to Altrincham started in 1992, it was every 12 minutes, and we know that that will be the initial frequency to Rose Hill as well. The Altrincham service was so popular and well used that the frequency was increased to cope with the demand, and no doubt that will happen here too, if the demand warrants it. And as there is unlikely to be more than two trains an hour going through Romiley from Marple and on to Guide Bridge, I can't see that being a problem.
You need to be more positive, hatter - it's good news for all of us! ;D
-
I'm old enough to remember that train service, and it was a good one, as I recall - a train every 20 minutes between Altrincham and Oxford Road, which took 20 minutes. But then you had to walk to wherever you were actually going. Now there is a tram every 6 minutes between Altrincham and St Peters Square (closest place to Oxford Road), and it takes 25 minutes. And it then continues through the city centre and will drop you where you actually want to go. That is a far better service.
Actually the Altrincham service used to run to Piccadilly, calling at Knott Mill and Oxford Road. So an excellent service with stops across the city centre. I used to get this service to work, changing at Piccadilly for the Stockport train, from 1971. It used to be a 40 minute journey. Not too bad at all.
-
Journey time and seating capacity is also important.
Your examples are not like for like.
The Wimbledon tram opened up a new rail connection with secondary destinations such as Croydon, the main link to London remains heavy rail. The equivalent in Marple would be a tram link to Stockport.
London overground is an excellent system that improves journey times and frequency using existing rail routes. It does not diverge off the rails and mix with traffic. This is what we should be getting here in Marple.
The Sheffield tram train will not be running to metro frequencies and has been delayed by several years. It will also have to be closed down again at some point in the future to alter the electric system which it not compatible with network rail.
Wimbledon had a connection to Croydon before the tram. It was provided by British Rail. That service was replaced by the tram. There was nothing new about that connection. What was new was the level of service.
As for what we should get in Marple, we should get something that works, that provides high quality public transport and that gets people out of their cars. That's what matters.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 .......
-
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.
-
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. ;-)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...