Rose Hill/ Marple Rail Electrification & Tram Trains

[ringi]

On a related thought…

Could Rose Hill be served by a shuttle from Romiley that met every train that called at Romiley?   This would then allow the tram etc, just to go to Marple and for both stations to have a full service?

I don't know if there is space at Romiley for a platform etc, or for sidings so the new train did not have to take up a current platform while waiting to do the return to Rosehill.

[Dave]

Abelio/Serco not only charge the passenger and the state more per mile than anywhere else in the country they provide Marple with a service using the clapped out rolling stock discarded from the rest of the country and at the same time react to increasing demand for transportation in the late afternoon by abolishing cheap day return fares rather than providing more trains on lines which have become popular as drivers and a rapidly increasing population attempt to escape from increasingly congested roads.

I have a lot of sympathy for what marplerambler writes, and he homes in on the nub of our problem here, and the reasons for the lack of investment in new rolling stock to replace the appalling 'Pacers'.  Northern Rail is by far the most heavily subsidised of the UK rail operators, at over 50p per passenger mile.  See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile

So with our local services relying on such a huge subsidy from the taxpayer, it's very hard to make the case for even more investment.  However, the case can be made, and marplerambler makes the key point: that with greater capacity and proper rolling stock, far more people will use the trains, so reducing the subsidy per passenger mile, and also reducing traffic congestion.

[marplerambler]

i see Richard Branson has called for the break up of national rail, quite right imho, the innovation in rail happened when the tocs owned the tracks too.

IMHO Richard Branson and his company has bled the system dry taking away a fortune in Virgin train profits which would previously have just been automatically been reinvested in a national rail system. His partnership on the West Coast main line very nearly lost the franchise last year and he said that he was pulling out if Virgin didn't have this franchise renewed. The rail franchises are an opportunity for companies (most of which are now foreign owned) to charge what they like and treat the customer as a very secondary commodity in their quest for profits from a captive market: Abelio/Serco not only charge the passenger and the state more per mile than anywhere else in the country they provide Marple with a service using the clapped out rolling stock discarded from the rest of the country and at the same time react to increasing demand for transportation in the late afternoon by abolishing cheap day return fares rather than providing more trains on lines which have become popular as drivers and a rapidly increasing population attempt to escape from increasingly congested roads.

It is very admirable to make a profit from succeeding in a competitive marketplace (as he did with sale of records at the start of his career): it is very different to obtain a monopoly on the West Coast main line and then add a margin to the fare to feather his own nest. A lot of individuals and shareholders have become rich at the expense of the train passengers and subsidies.

It was bad enough that the train operating system could have been fragmented. The Government, when it privatised the rail system washed its hands of maintaining the system. Lack of investment in Railtrack after denationalisation led to a chronic shortage of funding, the shedding of many of its experienced staff and a skills crisis. The consequence of this was spiralling of costs as a consequence of having to hire more the skilled staff through agencies but don't forget that these were often the very people who had been trained by British Rail but then made redundant by Railtrack. Lack of investment in the infrastructure after privatisation was a major contributory factor leading to track and signalling problems causing train disasters:  Clapham, Stafford, Hatfield, Potters Bar, Southall immediately come to mind tough I would think that these were the tip of an iceberg. Railtrack collapsed and proved to all that investment in the rail system could not be obtained through the private sector. Investment in a national network can only ever come through central government: that is the very reason why most of the other European countries had ensured that they continue to own their rail systems.

I have never previously doubted Richard Branson's brilliant business acumen but I really do wonder if splitting Network Rail into regional units offers any kind of a future to the train traveller or the taxpayer. Beeching attempted to turn Britain into a nation dependant upon motorways and roads, Thatcher attempted to convert the rail system into a cash cow for the train operating companies.

There is only one way forward for our public transport system and that is to return trains and bus services to public ownership!

[Dave]

One of the attractions of the tram-train scheme is that it will relieve congestion at Piccadilly by taking our local trains away from the main station altogether, and routing them down through the undercroft to connect with the existing Metrolink network. 

[Melancholyflower]

Piccadilly congestion certainly seems to be an obstacle. But why hasn't the extra capacity at the old Mayfield site been considered?

[Duke Fame]

i see Richard Branson has called for the break up of national rail, quite right imho, the innovation in rail happened when the tocs owned the tracks too.

[Dave]

Although this is an interesting discussion comparing the relative merits and demerits of 'heavy rail' and tram-trains, marplerambler reminds us (see post 18 above) that in the real world, it all looks rather theoretical now.   The shambles at Network Rail and the DfT suggests that all bets are now off regarding electrification, or even regarding the prospects of the ridiculous class 142 'Pacer' units being replaced with proper trains.

So it seems at the moment that a Metrolink tram-train service from Rose Hill and Romiley into the city represents the most likely way we will get any improvement to our local rail service in the foreseeable future. 

[Duke Fame]

I've not had time to look into the figures for this but to me, it would be sensible to change the way the line works.


From observation:

The highest demand for the line is at the Manchester and Sheffield end, both of which have a tram network.

There is a huge bottleneck into picadilly.

It's clearly not worth upgrading the complete line to Sheffield, the Manchester - Stockport - Sheffield line is the fast line and would make a lot more sense.

To me, it makes sense to terminate the overground train at somewhere like Marple and Dore at the Sheffield end and run Trams into the city.  Then run trams along the lines and at the Manchester end, branching off to avoid bottlenecking Ardwick and Picadilly. A tram stop at      Ardwick with an additional light rail shuttle into Picadilly will alleviate the pressure and allow more trans-pennine and mainline services.

The additional infrastructure cost would not be so high, it would take less staffing as the stations would not need staff, just a driver on the trams and the frequency of service can be improved.

[marplerambler]

A recent report from by MPs has carried out Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) for the next phases of rail electrification in the North.

Was the report worth the paper it was written on?

The news from 20th March 2015 in the run-up to the General Election was:

Strategy launched to connect up the great cities of the north to build a northern powerhouse.
 
Plans to revolutionise travel in the north, including a new ‘TransNorth’ rail system and new road investments, will today be set out by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin and northern city leaders.
As part of building a northern powerhouse, the Chancellor established Transport for the North (TfN) to bring together northern transport authorities, and tasked it with working with government to create the first ever comprehensive transport strategy for the region, covering roads, rail, freight, airports and smart ticketing. TfN and the government are publishing the first ‘Northern transport strategy’ report today (20 March 2015), following Network Rail work on rail improvement options.
The report sets out a long term strategy to connect up the north, create a single economy and allow northern towns and cities to pool their strengths. Plans set out in the report include:
•   slashing journey times between major northern cities with investment in high speed rail
•   developing new east-west road connections including a road tunnel under the Peak District
•   introducing Oyster-style smart travel cards and simpler fares across the north
The Chancellor and Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin will be in the north west today to launch the report. The Transport Secretary will meet with northern leaders at the Port of Liverpool’s container terminal L2 and then join the Chancellor on a visit to Stockport to discuss the ‘Northern transport strategy’ and announce the go-ahead of the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road.
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said:
Connecting up the great cities of the north is at the heart of our plan to build a northern powerhouse. This report has the potential to revolutionise transport in the north and we will work closely with TfN to help make it a reality.
From backing high speed rail to introducing simpler fares right across the north, our ambitious plans for transport means we will deliver a truly national recovery where every part of the country will share in Britain’s prosperity.
Proposed new routes in the strategy include:
?   Leeds to Newcastle, with new travel times of about 50 minutes - estimated cost £8.5bn to £14bn
?   Sheffield to Manchester, and Manchester to Leeds in about 30 minutes - estimated cost £12bn to £19bn
?   Liverpool to Manchester, travel times of about 20 minutes (down from 32) - estimated cost £8bn to £13bn

BBC News website on 25/06/2015 states ‘Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin says rising costs and missed targets make the £38.5bn plan untenable’.

Today’s (25/06/2015) Telegraph reports that, by completion, the cost of Crossrail will be £14,800,000,000.

How fortunate that our new Conservative MP was able to make his first speech to the Commons prior to the Conservative Transport Minister told us that he will be reneging on one of the Conservative Government’s fundamental pledges to the north-west and that   the train network in the north-west will be left to rot indefinitely (and at the same time making a a pathetic attempt to lay the blame upon Network Rail.

Three months between a promise of a Northern Powerhouse for your cross in the blue box and two fingers from Westminster. Any comment about First or Second Class (either tickets to London or treatment of the electorate of the North West) Mr Wragg?

[wheels]

Well I will make The Leader, who never comes here, aware of this thread.

[hatter76]

Hi Wheels

Yes the high costs are probably linked to the engineering of the 3 long tunnels Hazel Grove- Sheffield. However, New Mills/ Rose Hill to Manchester does not have the long tunnels which is why if assessed separately could come out above 80. We are only talking approx 7 miles Hyde to Rose Hill and 13 miles New Mills to Ashburys via Bredbury. The costs can’t be that great. There are electric units being cascaded from the South of England, so again older but perfectly good eclectic trains can’t cost that much to lease and they have much lower maintenance and running costs?

The other side of the equation is benefits. As rail use continues to rise, places like Marple grow and congestion on the roads increases so will be the benefits of electrification.

How do we get this to happen?
There needs to be political will to influence the Dept. of Transport and the GM Transport body.  In my view our new MP and others along the route should be asking for this to be done. I am not hearing any voices of support from the Council or MPs. We just get statements about Tram Trains which will only cover one of the Marple routes as far as I can tell (see first post). What about the other Marple route?
   
If the data is there why not publish it?
Why does it appear that no one lobbying for this politically?
Other areas are demanding that this be done.  The next cycle of funding will probably be announced at some point after they sort out the Manchester -Leeds issues. If we don’t get the funding for Marple other areas will. Sometimes those that shout the most are those that are successful.

[amazon]

See easy 😊

IF ONLY IT WAS /

[wheels]

Forgive me if I am dim but what can we as individuals do to get to 80%. I thought the calculation was based on engineering costs?

[hatter76]

UPDATE The Leeds- Manchester electrification is reported in the MEN as being put on hold until project management issues are sorted out. This means that the awarding of funding for next phase of electrification will be delayed for a time.

I hope people and local politicians will use this period to get the Manchester - Sheffield including Marple/ Rose Hill above the 80% threshold required (79% at present).

A fully integrated electrified railway with newer, larger, quicker and cleaner trains would be a great benefit.

[marplerambler]

I agree that the lack of a rail route to Stockport is a big drawback, and a huge factor in the awful traffic problems in and around Marple. Interesting re the alternative route via brinnington, is it really viable?? Has there been a serious feasibility study on it?

I don't think there has been a feasibility study of this route. A lot was said about the possibility of a link from the Manchester side of the Reddish Vale viaduct to the Stockport to Guide Bridge line but as for my suggestion the problems to be considered would be:

1. Is it feasible to get a turning circle at the Lingard Lane bridge? I would say yes though a new curved incline would have to be built above the M60.

2. Is Brinnington Road wide enough to take trams? It is wide enough to take HGVs and buses and there is space for the road to be widened by the junction with Northumberland Road though whether there is enough space for platforms I am not sure. The trams share the road with the traffic at Eccles so I don't see why they shouldn't here. A problem could be that resident's parking on the road would be lost.

3. Link from Brinnington Rise to old railway line? A curve could be built using part of the large Jack & Jill pub car park (the pub is not very well patronised now I don't think) and a bit of the corner of St Bernadette's school fields. The road swerves to the left, the tram line would continue in a straight line or veer a little to the right. There is then a steep descent to the old railway line though the gradient is no steeper than that on the steep ascent/descent in Salford on the Eccles line. The land which is in the V between the two old lines has not been used for the last 50 years: I don't know if it belongs to Network Rail or SMBC. A new track could not remain on the existing line for too long a distance because it needs to descend toward the river basin to cross Tiviot Way. All of the land is SMBC owned, part of Reddish Vale Country Park, but because it would be descending the side of the hill it would cross land that is not currently much utilised by users of the park and perhaps a new entry to the car park drive may be needed

4. Crossing the River Tame requires some thought. Either use the existing Tiviot Way road bridge just east of Tesco or new bridge.

5. The northern bank of the River Tame is totally free of obstructions/ properties but there are National Grid powerlines nearby: I don't know if that would be problematic. The Trans Pennine Trail horse/cycle/pedestrian route would need to be reconstructed along an alternative route but the area is a neglected wasteland anyway.

6. I have not seen the bottom of Lancashire Hill for a few years but I suspect that if the Nicholsons Arms has been demolished and nothing has been built on this spot there will be room for the tram lines between Penny Lane and the M60. Over the Lancashire Bridge assuming that the weight of the tram is not prohibitive (juggernauts use it).

7. At bottom of Lancashire Hill cross Great Edgerton St past the Kings Head pub to the corner of Princes St, right along Princes St (probably single track) into Mersey Square and if the A6 Wellington Road arches are high enough into the Bus Station.