Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: hatter76 on June 24, 2015, 08:13:43 AM
-
A recent report from by MPs has carried out Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) for the next phases of rail electrification in the North.
The Marple & Rose Hill lines (Chinley via Bredbury & Hyde) were included with the Hazel Grove- Sheffield line. The BCR was 79/100, the cut off for inclusion into the next phase is 80/100. This is mainly due to higher costs of wiring 3 of the longest tunnels in the network. Other lesser used routes such as Hazel Grove to Buxton scored higher as the engineering costs were less. (I am not against this line being electrified but using it as a comparison).
I have a couple of points to make about this
1 Why hasn’t separate analysis been carried out between the different routes such as Hazel Grove- Sheffield, Rose Hill via Hyde and New Mills/Chinley via Bredbury?
2 The reason the BCR is low is due to geography and not economic demand. What have local MPs and councillors done to put the case forward for electrifying local lines in the next funding phase?
Tram Trains
At the last election both the Lib Dems & Conservative candidates stated that they favoured Tram Trains for Marple.
I am not convinced.
There have been several statements of intentions but the plans as far as I am aware are still at a development stage.
This is what is being developed as far as I can gather along with my thoughts (very happy to take corrections).
1 Conversion of Rose Hill via Bredbury route to tram trains, possibly DC Electric which is not the same as the national AC electric. This is important, if the route from Marple Wharf Jnc to Romiley Jnc is DC electric it would not be compatible with the future Manchester – Sheffield electrification and could prevent electric trains running through Marple to Sheffield.
It is possible to have duel AC/DC trams which I think would be a better option. This would mean that the Rose Hill via Bredbury route would be AC electric with the tram train switching to DC power when it joins the Metrolink system.
2 The Bredbury tram trains will not join at Ashburys, but move into street running mode through to Manchester. This could lead to longer journey times than the present rail system.
3 Stations would leave Network Rail and become unstaffed Metrolink stations. This prevents through ticketing to the wider network (outside GM) and the purchase of cheap through tickets online.
4 Tram trains are only driver operated with no second staff member (guard) as with the trains. This hasn’t been clarified.
5 Connection times at Manchester will be longer as you will probably have to walk up the escalators to gain access to main station. At present I can connect from platform 1-14 in less than 2 minutes.
6 Less seats per tram train than with a conventional train. Currently a 2 car Sprinter has 151 seats, a tram has much less leading to more people standing.
7 Unable to travel with dogs and bikes
To offer some balance there are 3 main benefits
1 Every 12 minutes
2 Do not require a public subsidy
3 Electric & modern
-
An interesting and thoughtful post - thanks hatter.
It will be disappointing if our line is not electrified, but personally I'd regard the introduction of tram trains as a significant benefit, on the whole. Hatter lists three benefits: To offer some balance there are 3 main benefits
1 Every 12 minutes
2 Do not require a public subsidy
3 Electric & modern
To that I would add the much greater convenience of being able to get on a tram-train at Rose Hill or Romiley and get off in the middle of the city - i.e. where you actually want to go, as opposed to Piccadilly. Also, the smaller capacity of a two-car tram-train would be offset by the greater frequency, and you can always hope for double (four-car) units as seen on existing Metrolink routes at times.
The line as far as Hazel Grove is already electrified, of course, and it would make a lot of sense for that electrification to be continued via Chinley and Edale to Sheffield, so that electric Transpennine Express trains can use it.
-
Thanks for your post Dave
I take your point about being dropped off in the city centre.
I would like to come back on capacity. Done some research a 3 car electric train (323) has 284 seats. a 2 car Metrolink tram has 60 (4car 120). So if you run 3 trains an hour which is typical in the current peak period = 852 seats, if you run a 4 car tram x5 per hour = 600 seats.
If you consider Rose Hill usage is growing at 16% per year I am not convinced that Tram Trains are going to provide the capacity needed.
Also, you could probably run more trains than 3 per hour and increase up to 4 cars if there was demand.
-
To that I would add the much greater convenience of being able to get on a tram-train at Rose Hill or Romiley and get off in the middle of the city - i.e. where you actually want to go, as opposed to Piccadilly.
Why would I want to go to the middle of the city? For me and for a very great number of people, the place I want to go is Piccadilly station, to get a train elsewhere. I almost never want to go to Manchester itself. Personally, I always think of converting perfectly good lines into trams or tram-trains as a downgrade.
-
Why would I want to go to the middle of the city? For me and for a very great number of people, the place I want to go is Piccadilly station, to get a train elsewhere. I almost never want to go to Manchester itself. Personally, I always think of converting perfectly good lines into trams or tram-trains as a downgrade.
I'd be interested to hear from the 'very great number of people' you speak of, Condate. From my experience and that of hundreds of others who commute into Manchester city centre from Marple 5 days a week, a link to tram stops further into the city could only be regarded as a boon.
-
First of all thanks hatter for an excellent report.
I certainly have some concerns re Train/Trams based mainly on the possibility that we might not be able to take cycles on them but also about the increased journey times. Equally I am aware that might be a great boost for daily commuters and those who actually like going to the city. Thankfully I will never be on of the former again. But I do recognise that hundreds of Marple residents do like going to the city for a whole range of activities.
I do think however that Marple has a much more pressing transport issue and that's it's lack of a rail link to Stockport. Such a link could be easily and cheaply provided it would improve the quality of life of many residents and provide an economic boost to both town. Yet there is a real lack of will to address this.
-
First of all thanks hatter for an excellent report.
I certainly have some concerns re Train/Trams based mainly on the possibility that we might not be able to take cycles on them but also about the increased journey times. Equally I am aware that might be a great boost for daily commuters and those who actually like going to the city. Thankfully I will never be on of the former again. But I do recognise that hundreds of Marple residents do like going to the city for a whole range of activities.
I do think however that Marple has a much more pressing transport issue and that's it's lack of a rail link to Stockport. Such a link could be easily and cheaply provided it would improve the quality of life of many residents and provide an economic boost to both town. Yet there is a real lack of will to address this.
how do you provide link to Stockport from Marple .dont say tiviot dale that's gone .
-
I'd be interested to hear from the 'very great number of people' you speak of, Condate. From my experience and that of hundreds of others who commute into Manchester city centre from Marple 5 days a week, a link to tram stops further into the city could only be regarded as a boon.
I am one of the 'very great number of people' who is quite happy with a train to Piccadilly. I have commuted to Piccadilly station in the past to work over near to Salford station and at first sight the distance may seem daunting but in reality if you are reasonably fit it doesn't take all that long to walk across town: the Centreline buses don't take much longer than the tram anyway! Friends who live on both the Manchester - Altrincham and also the Manchester - Bury line always regarded the change to tram as being a retrograde action. I am not in the least concerned about having to change at Piccadilly but what does concern me is the faffing around the tram will do to get into the Piccadilly bowels platforms. If the line is to be electrified, electrify using standard rolling stock: the line is already electrified to the Hyde Junction anyway. The almost seat-less cattle trucks called trams should be used for routes which are not currently served by a train service. I know that the tram services may often be more frequent but I am happy with a train every 30 minutes if I know its times of departure: the tram times seem to be a much more arbitrary 'every twelve minutes' but the problem, even before the work on the tram lines in Central Manchester, was that because they were not scheduled to run to a specified timetable was that they seemed to run as and when they felt like it. The Eccles and Wythenshawe trams are a substantial improvement upon the previously lengthy and time-consuming bus journeys into Manchester - I am sure that there are many places which do not have a railway station which would benefit from connection to the tram network more than Marple.
Both Marple and Rose Hill stations are well away from the centre of Marple's population anyway so if the line is to be converted to tram then why not make a proper job of it and build tram lines from Rose Hill to Marple centre sharing the road with the traffic along Buxton Lane and Hibbert Lane? Such a solution would bring Hawk Green a lot nearer to public transport in the evenings and on Sundays.
-
how do you provide link to Stockport from Marple .dont say tiviot dale that's gone .
Existing track to Lingard Lane/M60 bridge, drop onto Lingard Lane, tram lines on Brinnington Road past Brinnington shops, drop onto the old railway line at Brinnington Rise Jack and Jill, descend into Tame Valley cross to northern side of river at Tiviot Way to bottom of Lancashire Hill then along Princes Street into Mersey Square. Bingo!
-
Oops! Just remembered that the old Brinnington shops are no longer there but you get the idea. The line of Brinnington Road has not changed and is fairly wide. One other thing - the trams feeding onto Lancashire Hill close to the old Nicholsons Arms would use the existing road bridge to get back over M60.
-
Existing track to Lingard Lane/M60 bridge, drop onto Lingard Lane, tram lines on Brinnington Road past Brinnington shops, drop onto the old railway line at Brinnington Rise Jack and Jill, descend into Tame Valley cross to northern side of river at Tiviot Way to bottom of Lancashire Hill then along Princes Street into Mersey Square. Bingo!
See easy 😊
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
See easy 😊
IF ONLY IT WAS /
-
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.
-
Well I will make The Leader, who never comes here, aware of this thread.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Piccadilly congestion certainly seems to be an obstacle. But why hasn't the extra capacity at the old Mayfield site been considered?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
AFAIK the only reason for the tram-trains serving Rose Hill rather than Marple is the cost of electrifying the Marple North Tunnel. But there are real drawbacks to this solution, in adding to the already serious traffic congestion around Rose Hill at peak times, and of course, the car park at Rose Hill is much smaller than the one at Marple.
-
AFAIK the only reason for the tram-trains serving Rose Hill rather than Marple is the cost of electrifying the Marple North Tunnel. But there are real drawbacks to this solution, in adding to the already serious traffic congestion around Rose Hill at peak times, and of course, the car park at Rose Hill is much smaller than the one at Marple.
As far as road congestion goes, you ain't seen nothing yet. The construction of the entry to the new Hazel Grove car park at the rear of the Rising Sun has already been problematic. Once the SEMMS work starts in earnest at the A6 intersection and the A6 seizes up, traffic from Buxton to Stockport will be attempting to rat-run, either from Furness Vale, the New Mills A6 Albion Road traffic lights, Andrew lane, Windlehurst Lane and Threaphurst Lane and this traffic will ultimately end up in Marple in a solid jam past Rose Hill station. When SEMMS to Hazel Grove has been completed there will be an increased volume of traffic from the south (assuming the A6 doesn't just block up completely) to use this new link to the airport so there is a danger of additional longer distance traffic to Stockport attempting to avoid Hazel Grove (invariably via Marple). When the work to the Simpsons corner on the A6 has been completed, the next link through to Offerton Green and the M60 at Bredbury will be little more than a formality and the consequence will be a new additional intersection at Offerton Green on Marple Road with all of its attendant problems. We have a years of traffic chaos ahead of us! If the roads seize up, the economy seizes up!
The railway line is there, it is underutilised, it is suffering from lack of investment but development be it train or train or tram/tram in the short rather than the long term will be beneficial to the people and the economy of Marple and Stockport and a more urgent approach and then investment should go into creating a rail or tram route to Stockport even though this may be costly.
-
The traffic congestion around Rose Hill, coursed by users of Rose Hill station would not be hard to sort out by making a few changes to road junctions. Unless the car park is expanded greatly the issue will be parking, and the lack of parking will limit the congestion.
However I rather expect that the station does not contribute much to the congestion anyway.
If the train from Marple, become a “none stopping” service, so it was a lot faster than the tram, that would stop most users of Marple station defecting.
Shame it will be too costly to take a tram/train var Hawk Green to High Lane, then onto the line into Stockport with a new station at Stepping Hill.
-
Traffic congestion around Rose Hill has very little to do with Rose Hill station. Heading towards Stockport it is due to the tail back from the Dan Bank traffic lights. Heading towards Marple it is the queue from the lights at the Station Rd/ Stockport Road (Co-op petrol station) lights. Not all that much traffic comes in or out of the Rose Hill car park or from the tip or Middlewood Way parking. The pedestrian crossing lights enable right-turning traffic from Railway Road to nudge its way out.
Even if there were to be a tram line from Rose Hill to Manchester (or even Stockport) I think that most car users who are coming from the Marple Bridge or from the Strines direction to Marple station would continue to use Marple to utilise the large car park and to avoid the Stockport Road crawl through Marple centre. The big passenger shift would be of passengers who walk to the station who are roughly equidistant from both stations. Marple trains to Manchester are much preferable to Rose Hill trains because they are quicker and because they are more frequent (my particular personal gripe is that I live in Rose Hill and if I miss the 1720 from Piccadilly I have to wait until 1805 or catch the 1732 to Marple and then have a 25 minute walk). A more frequent service from Rose Hill (especially if it went through Bredbury) could make Rose Hill more attractive to many people who currently use Marple station.
As for your final point WHY? should the cost of linking Rose Hill to the Stepping Hill/Stockport line be considered to be too expensive when millions of pounds are being spent on the SEMMS link? Every motorist travelling to Stockport has to park his car somewhere - would it not be better for all, both the existing motorists and the passenger if money were to be invested in a new train/tram service which would mean that there would be no car to park in Stockport?
-
Regarding parking at Rose Hill, this could be a massive issue! It depends on the level of service left at Marple as to how many will switch. If large numbers do come over they may have to build a multi storey car park and reinstate the long gone second platform.
Marple is a through route Manchester-Sheffield. It carries significant freight, local services and increasingly in the future long distance Trans Pennine expresses as the extra services planned for Nottingham & Doncaster will probably be routed this way as there are no paths at Stockport, (they are upgrading the Manchester- Sheffield line at the moment to allow for 4 fast trains an hour). A heavy rail line to Manchester from Marple will have to be maintained. You cant have freight and express paths behind a tram that keeps stopping. As they are every 12 minutes there would be no gaps to allow for fast paths. With a 20 or 30 minute service pattern there are sufficient gaps behind a stopping train for faster services.
Assuming that tram trains are given the go ahead for Rose Hill via Bedbury the remaining New Mills/ Marple services will be routed via the Hyde line which will be heavy rail. The local services left on the Marple line will probably be a mix of all station stoppers from New Mills and an occasional limited stop from Sheffield.
What I am arguing is by electrifying Hyde to New Mills which is not a great distance and with no significant engineering issues you will provide a decent service to both Marple routes. This should be looked at as one scheme! The funding bid to the government should be for both routes. 2 systems but 1 bid. But no one appears to be pushing for it.
Also, I have looked at Google earth and I am not convinced that they will find a traffic free route off the Bredbury line to underneath Manchester Picc.. You could end up on a tram train coming off at Belle Vue and going down the bus lanes on the Hyde Road, stopping at lights and waiting at bus stops etc. If this is the case it will not be a fast tram train service!
-
Marple is a through route Manchester-Sheffield. It carries significant freight, local services and increasingly in the future long distance Trans Pennine expresses as the extra services planned for Nottingham & Doncaster will probably be routed this way as there are no paths at Stockport, (they are upgrading the Manchester- Sheffield line at the moment to allow for 4 fast trains an hour). A heavy rail line to Manchester from Marple will have to be maintained. You cant have freight and express paths behind a tram that keeps stopping. As they are every 12 minutes there would be no gaps to allow for fast paths. With a 20 or 30 minute service pattern there are sufficient gaps behind a stopping train for faster services.
Interesting that through express trains from Manchester to Sheffield via Marple should be suggested. Prior to the construction of the Hazel Grove link allowing the Sheffield trains to come from Manchester via Hazel Grove the line from Manchester to Sheffield via Marple was, to the best of my knowledge, single track in each direction with no passing places. If you travelled to Sheffield from Marple in the 1980s, the stopping train would terminate at New Mills Central and pull into the old tunnel, the stopping train from Sheffield arrived on the opposite platform at about the same time then pulled into a siding to leave the tracks through New Mills Central empty. Express trains in each direction would then pass through. The stopping train which had come from Sheffield would then transport you to Sheffield and the stopping train you arrived on would return to Manchester. How has the problem of the express trains overtaking the stopping trains been alleviated?
-
How has the problem of the express trains overtaking the stopping trains been alleviated?
Not 100% sure maybe others can answer?
In route utilisation document for 4 fast trains an hour Man-Sheff.
I guess they have passing loops It is all double track except for a small section at Dore
-
Traffic congestion around Rose Hill has very little to do with Rose Hill station.
Indeed - but it certainly will if Rose Hill becomes the tram-train terminus!
If the train from Marple, become a “none stopping” service, so it was a lot faster than the tram, that would stop most users of Marple station defecting.
Good point, although what I suspect what will actually happen is that people from Marple and beyond will have a choice: commuters and shoppers (and in the evening, clubbers) heading for somewhere in the city centre will be able to get off at Romiley and wait on the same platform for a tram-train from Rose Hill, while passengers heading for Piccadilly to take another train to somewhere else will stay on the train and get to Piccadilly more quickly.
I have looked at Google earth and I am not convinced that they will find a traffic free route off the Bredbury line to underneath Manchester Picc.. You could end up on a tram train coming off at Belle Vue and going down the bus lanes on the Hyde Road, stopping at lights and waiting at bus stops etc. If this is the case it will not be a fast tram train service!
My understanding is that the new line taking the tram-trains down to the Piccadilly undercroft will be built immediately to the right (north east) side of the existing approach to Piccadilly platforms 1 and 2, where the current Network Rail car parking and portakabins are.
What I am arguing is by electrifying Hyde to New Mills which is not a great distance and with no significant engineering issues you will provide a decent service to both Marple routes. This should be looked at as one scheme! The funding bid to the government should be for both routes. 2 systems but 1 bid. But no one appears to be pushing for it.
Hear hear. Who should be pushing for it? The Friends of Marple Station seem to be mainly interested in cosmetic improvements to the station, and in celebrating its anniversary, not in improving the service. What about the Goyt Valley Rail Users Association. Does it still exist? The chairman used to be (ex-councillor) Craig Wright, as I recall. Perhaps they should be encouraged to take up this issue?
-
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.
It would be far more sensible to simply have a shuttle bus and just use the main Marple station, having two stations in Marple seems to me a bit of an indulgence
-
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!
Gosh, no!!
We had proper innovation when rail lines were owned by the train companies.
I think your assumption of a monopoly is wrong, we choose transport now on the basis of road / rail/ bus / air it's not the monopoly of 1945.
Mr Branson's trains are fast & punctual and he runs more of them than the BR days. When I book, I also know it will turn up, I know that the train will run and not be held to ransom because of some irrelevant dispute that a station clerk has in Aberdeen. I also know that the divers will not go on strike because the train runs at more than 90mph nor will the driver insist that he can only drive the train with a co-diver and a relief team which dates back to a union arrangement from the days of steam.
-
Piccadilly congestion certainly seems to be an obstacle. But why hasn't the extra capacity at the old Mayfield site been considered?
Mayfield is being taken down as we speak but it would not solve the bottleneck getting in and out. I agree with Dave, utilising the tram network solves this relatively cheaply by removing local traffic.
-
Mr Branson's trains are fast & punctual and he runs more of them than the BR days. When I book, I also know it will turn up,
Obviously you have more luck with Virgin trains than when I'm using them! if it's not mine that's cancelled there is all to often an announcement that one of the others is.
-
Gosh, no!!
We had proper innovation when rail lines were owned by the train companies.
I think your assumption of a monopoly is wrong, we choose transport now on the basis of road / rail/ bus / air it's not the monopoly of 1945.
Mr Branson's trains are fast & punctual and he runs more of them than the BR days. When I book, I also know it will turn up, I know that the train will run and not be held to ransom because of some irrelevant dispute that a station clerk has in Aberdeen. I also know that the divers will not go on strike because the train runs at more than 90mph nor will the driver insist that he can only drive the train with a co-diver and a relief team which dates back to a union arrangement from the days of steam.
The union issues are well argued, but Mr Branson's trains are also very expensive to the people who need to use them the most. £160 a pop to Euston at peak times. I'll bet that's some way above inflationary rises since BR days, and few can argue that it represents value for money.
-
The union issues are well argued, but Mr Branson's trains are also very expensive to the people who need to use them the most. £160 a pop to Euston at peak times. I'll bet that's some way above inflationary rises since BR days, and few can argue that it represents value for money.
Indeed. Even allowing for inflation and rising wages, it's vastly more expensive to travel to London on many trains than it was in BR days. Furthermore, Virgin trains have ceases stopping at quite a few stations. Although I now live in Marple, as my username suggests I used to live in Northwich. Intercity trains in BR days used to stop at Hartford station, on the Liverpool - Euston route. These trains were well used, including by a few commuters to London. The Virgin trains don't stop there any more.
It's a pity the services are rather poor these days; at least on some lines. I prefer the idea of the railways being run by private companies rather than the government (although they had a lot of regulation of fares and conditions etc even in Victorian days). However, some at least of the companies don't seem to be making a particularly good job of it.
-
Indeed. Even allowing for inflation and rising wages, it's vastly more expensive to travel to London on many trains than it was in BR days. Furthermore, Virgin trains have ceases stopping at quite a few stations. Although I now live in Marple, as my username suggests I used to live in Northwich. Intercity trains in BR days used to stop at Hartford station, on the Liverpool - Euston route. These trains were well used, including by a few commuters to London. The Virgin trains don't stop there any more.
It's a pity the services are rather poor these days; at least on some lines. I prefer the idea of the railways being run by private companies rather than the government (although they had a lot of regulation of fares and conditions etc even in Victorian days). However, some at least of the companies don't seem to be making a particularly good job of it.
The prices have gone up but really not by as much as you may think:
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77042000/gif/_77042379_rail_fares_624.gif)
Personally i think the TOCS should have more flexibility in changing the routes. On the East Coast the trains run to the timetable of the days of the Mallard and silver streaks and we still have a train going to Newcastle on the hour and 1/2 hour. At five past & 35mins, there are trains to Leeds, all go through Doncaster. GNER wanted to change so there would be trains every 10-15 mins which allowed North East passengers meet trains at Doncaster but was blocked. IF they owned the lines, this could be changed.
as for Expresses stopping at the likes of Hartford, I think most passengers would be frustrated to see so many stops adding time to the journey. Far better to have regular shuttle services to Mainline hubs.