Self Catering Holiday Cottages in
Marple, Stockport & Cheshire

Author Topic: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)  (Read 11618 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Steve Gribbon

  • Guest
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2018, 11:02:01 PM »
Good evening

Many thanks to so many who have contributed to this page so far, all opinions are welcome and there are some very good points that have been raised.

The first meeting isn't until mid June so please keep the comments coming and I will continue to make note of them. I will be seeing a couple more people before the meeting who have expertise in transport, I want to make sure I hit the ground running straight away for us.

Kind regards

Steve Gribbon

marplerambler

  • Guest
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2018, 10:19:28 PM »
The problem for TfGM is that they had the right idea in the 1970s with a cross rail type scheme that electrified all commuter lines with an underground section through the city centre with new central stations. It had the potential to deliver a frequent high capacity multi carriage trains that increasingly with the massive growth of the Manchester city region we now need. This was rejected by the then government as too ambitious with a backdrop of industrial decline and falling rail use. TfGM went back to the drawing board and came up with a lesser capacity, slower and much cheaper solution, Metrolink. They did the best that government would allow for Manchester at the time.


The real problem was the election of a Conservative government in 1970 which couldn't give a damn about anywhere north of the Watford Gap. The government was not prepared to contribute to a railway tunnel beneath Manchester that was not much more than a mile long to create a Greater Manchester north-south railway link with a tunnel from Piccadilly to Victoria. This was deemed by the Conservative government to present too many engineering problems and be too expensive. The response was very different when 26 miles of tunnelling and 14.8 billion pounds and rising was required for London Crossrail.    We didn't get a tramway system in Manchester, we simply got different rolling stock on the already existing Altrincham and Bury railway lines and a tramline across Central Manchester and this was supposed to be the answer to all of our public problems when the trains and buses were sold off. To be fair the tramway system has evolved: there was nothing wrong with the trains to Oldham other than a need for new rolling stock so trams were not needed there either but the tram links to Eccles, Didsbury and the Airport have been important additions to the Greater Manchester Transport network. The greatest problem that the train system in Manchester faces is the massive subsidisation of train networks in Europe that comes from the huge profits made by Northern trains and Trans-Pennine. Promises of reinvestment by these railway companies whose only aim is to milk the travelling public dry on clapped out trains are forgotten. There has been a massive hike in fares because the Conservative government state that the general taxpayer should not subsidise rail travel in an attempt to reduce the pressures on our crumbling roads which were turned into giant pot-holes by the Conservatives/LibDems cuts in maintenance. Marple does not need a tramway system to Manchester: we already have a railway for that! Marple needs a public transport link to Stockport that is an alternative to sitting on a 383/384 bus (or indeed in your car) for nearly an hour when the roads simply grind to a complete halt because the population of Marple will continue to increase and there are just too many cars and the only option I see other than a helicopter service is a tram that takes us across to the Buxton-Stockport- Manchester line or a tram that takes us to Stockport on the Guide Bridge to Stockport line at the other side of the Reddish Vale viaduct or a bit of lateral thinking and investment that takes a tram as far as the M60 on the existing railway line then a new link that uses the old railway track at the back of Brindale Road in Brinnington, under the Jack and Jill tunnel then the old railway track/TPT with a descent to a bridge across Tiviot Way, continue across the derelict land between the River Tame and Lancashire Hill flats to the bottom of Lancashire Hill then tram tracks on the Lancashire Hill bridge across the M60 and Princes St into Stockport. Unfortunately while we have a majority of people in Marple who have a democratic right to vote for a Conservative government to keep their taxes down by limiting public investment outside London and the South east I really don't see how we can have any hope of improvements in public transport and reduction of traffic problems in Marple.

hatter76

  • Guest
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2018, 07:27:33 AM »
The problem for TfGM is that they had the right idea in the 1970s with a cross rail type scheme that electrified all commuter lines with an underground section through the city centre with new central stations. It had the potential to deliver a frequent high capacity multi carriage trains that increasingly with the massive growth of the Manchester city region we now need. This was rejected by the then government as too ambitious with a backdrop of industrial decline and falling rail use. TfGM went back to the drawing board and came up with a lesser capacity, slower and much cheaper solution, Metrolink. They did the best that government would allow for Manchester at the time.

In simple terms the strategy that they recently produced and subsequently Stockport builds on the 1980's thinking. I believe it is wrong considering that rail growth is predicted to increase in the coming decades. Existing rail lines into Manchester should never be considered for Metrolink tram-trains, they simply will not cope with the predicted demand and on routes such as Marple/Rose Hill will be running at much lower frequencies to allow for normal rail traffic, I believe that they will be slower than the existing service. What is good about Metrolink is that it is better than the bus, so routes to Eccles, Ashton etc. open up new rail corridors that would never be viable using heavy rail. This is the case with Marple to Stockport, however, the business case will be difficult if not almost impossible to justify.



andrewbowden

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2018, 04:24:05 PM »
Dave, Andrews summary says nothing about how uncomfortable trams are and how much longer journeys take.

You never been on an uncomfortable train then?  There are Pacers running down the line to Marple and Rose Hill that give me backache - horrible backache - on the 25 minute journey to Manchester.

And then there's the washboard seats of Thameslink...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43131060

I'm not clear how you can rule out an entire mode of transport on the basis of comfort of one particular type of vehicle.  Metrolink will buy more trams at some point.  They may have different seats...


Speed?  Depends on the journey.  How much longer the journey takes?  Again the stopping trains are hardly high speed...  Yes some journeys can be slower.  The train is faster between Ashton and Manchester than the tram.  It's faster because between Ashton and Victoria there are no stops.  Yet the tram's amazingly popular...  Arguably that's because it's far more useful to people because it has more stops.  The train between Ashton and Manchester is useless if you want to go to Audenshaw or Droylsden.

wheels

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2018, 03:50:02 PM »
Dave, Andrews summary says nothing about how uncomfortable trams are and how much longer journeys take.

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2018, 02:45:43 PM »
Well actually I have got a right to chose Dave

In your dreams, wheels! Tfgm will do the choosing, not you or me! 

Andrewbowden's summary of pros and cons is very good, but as he says, there is one critical factor which trumps all others: a tram or tram-train route stands a chance of being built. The prospect of a heavy rail route being built between Marple and Stockport is so remote that we can safely forget about it.

andrewbowden

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2018, 01:25:27 PM »
Having worked for a number of US owned multinationals, can I respectfully suggest we're better off NOT taking a Health and Safety lead from them!

The prototype one you put a link to folded up as well. It was just as much a hazard up as it was down. That's still a "No" from me.... However if you have a link to a US one I'm happy to review it from a UK perspective.

RH.

This is King County Metro's bike rack page.  It contains a video that shows the bike racks in operation.
https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/travel-options/bike/loading-unloading.aspx#bike-loading-video-1

King County Metro is the main bus operator in the Seattle area and covers the King County area of Washington state - population around 2.1m.  King County Metro is the local state transit authority and runs its own services.

Similarly, this is the Translink page for Vancouver's buses.  They show similar racks to King County.
https://www.translink.ca/Rider-Guide/Bikes-on-Transit/Bikes-on-Buses.aspx

Translink organises the Greater Vancouver bus network and again is a government organisation.  It directly operates most of the buses.  Some are subcontracted to another municipality.


Both videos show bike racks on single decker buses.  This video from Community Transit shows them on one of their "double tall" buses
https://www.communitytransit.org/busservice/bikes

Community Transit are another transit authority and run some express services into Seattle.

Rudolph Hucker

  • Guest
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2018, 12:53:29 PM »
Apparently 50% of the bus fleet in the US has bike racks.  That's a huge amount of learning that can be gleaned on whether they're a hazard or not.

Incidentally the ones I saw in Seattle and Vancouver fold up when not in use, thus meaning they're not particularly hazardous.
Having worked for a number of US owned multinationals, can I respectfully suggest we're better off NOT taking a Health and Safety lead from them!

The prototype one you put a link to folded up as well. It was just as much a hazard up as it was down. That's still a "No" from me.... However if you have a link to a US one I'm happy to review it from a UK perspective.

RH.

andrewbowden

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2018, 09:13:38 AM »
Well actually I have got a right to chose Dave and I would definitely chose not to have light rail or train/tram and I'm at liberty to express that choice to our new representative.

You are perfectly in your right to have your views.  However I'm curious to know what you think the cons are of a light rail approach are, given they are - to you - so bad that you consider that we'd be better off with no rail link at all rather than use them.

For the record here are my pros and cons of a Metrolink approach vs heavy rail.


Metrolink
Pros

  • assuming local buy-in (council, TfGM), stands a good chance of being built.  Metrolink has a very high success rate for getting its extensions built.  They're building one right now.
  • will offer a fantastic frequency of service - Metrolink runs during the day with a least a 12 minute frequency.  Five trams an hour is game changing and is a key reason why Metrolink has been the success it has.  It gets people out of cars
  • easier to enhance service if it proves to be succesfull.  Just double the trams (n.b. may need to buy more trams but that's a LOT easier than buying new trains
  • completely accessible service - no problems with wheelchairs boarding.
  • integrated ticketing with National Rail
  • locally accountable for its successes and failures
  • Metrolink offers great Sunday, Bank Holiday and evening services - far beyond National Rail.  They even run Boxing Day

Cons

  • If street running is involved, traffic can cause problems.  This is an if because we don't know if a route would be mixed in with traffic
  • no on-board toilets.  Given the average journey on light rail is 4.3 miles in England, probably not that big a deal
  • no bikes currently allowed
  • no guaranteed staff at stations

Heavy rail
Pros

  • Allows two bikes per train to be carried - currently.  Not guaranteed for ever - some rail companies do not take cycles in peak hours.  Northern may one day take the same policy
  • All trails currently have toilets.  Again, not guaranteed for ever.  Some trains do not have toilets.
  • National rail ticketing
  • Guaranteed to have NO street running.  Only congestion is caused by other trains
  • Remote chance some stations may have some limited staffing!

Cons

  • requires buy-in from national government.  The same national government who don't even want to fully electrify our local train lines
  • lack of any real support for opening completely new train lines from national government
  • at best would most likely offer two trains an hour - frequency is not a game changer and is unlikely to take many people out of their cars
  • poor accessibility.  Whilst new stations would be accessible, most of the existing network has poor accessibility.
  • limited capacity to increase services if successful.  As we see with the current services in Marple and Rose Hill, extending services is extremely difficult
  • limited ability to increase train lengths as national government seems to hate spending money on the north
  • no local accountability.  Just look at the state of Northern Railway right now and all anyone can do here is moan whilst National Government sits there going "This is fine!"
  • likely to get a poor bank holiday, Sunday and weekend service based on the precedent of what already happens with national rail


Incidentally from both lists I have ignored things that could be boiled down to operational difficulties (strikes, signal failures etc) as both modes can have those problems.

andrewbowden

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2018, 08:51:07 AM »
I'm with the DVSA. It looks like a hazard on any number of levels, whether empty or loaded. Thankfully it would seem we have more sense than Canada and the US.

Just no....

:)

RH

Apparently 50% of the bus fleet in the US has bike racks.  That's a huge amount of learning that can be gleaned on whether they're a hazard or not.

Incidentally the ones I saw in Seattle and Vancouver fold up when not in use, thus meaning they're not particularly hazardous.

Rudolph Hucker

  • Guest
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2018, 08:13:25 AM »
I have seen such bus bike racks in Seattle and Vancouver.  They look fantastic.  Unfortunately the Driver and Vehicle Safety Agency seem completely anti the idea according to this article
https://cyclebath.org.uk/2015/06/04/front-of-bus-cycle-racks-the-dvsa-says-no/

I'm with the DVSA. It looks like a hazard on any number of levels, whether empty or loaded. Thankfully it would seem we have more sense than Canada and the US.

Just no....

:)

RH

wheels

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2018, 05:24:33 AM »
Heavy rail - light rail - who cares? Beggars can’t be choosers and any rail link will be a godsend!

Well actually I have got a right to chose Dave and I would definitely chose not to have light rail or train/tram and I'm at liberty to express that choice to our new representative.

andrewbowden

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2018, 09:35:26 PM »
The key thing that as in most other European cities the trams should carry cycles. Indeed our buses should have a fitment on them to allow you to fit your cycle to the front of the bus.

I have seen such bus bike racks in Seattle and Vancouver.  They look fantastic.  Unfortunately the Driver and Vehicle Safety Agency seem completely anti the idea according to this article
https://cyclebath.org.uk/2015/06/04/front-of-bus-cycle-racks-the-dvsa-says-no/

andrewbowden

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2018, 09:30:30 PM »
Steve,  Dave has always been a consistent supporter of train tram but jim certainly less than convinced.  Journey times would be longer, there would be no toilets and cycles current would not be carried. A heavy rail link to Stockport must be the priority.

A heavy rail link will never, ever happen.  You'd be better off campaigning for Metrolink to take bikes.

As for toilets, we're talking commuter services.  Toilets are not a priority.  The London Underground runs some very long durations without a single toilet on its trains quite happily.

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2018, 09:03:29 PM »
Heavy rail - light rail - who cares? Beggars can’t be choosers and any rail link will be a godsend!