Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: lindavee on October 30, 2016, 05:33:11 PM
-
Since the TfGM recently published its 2040 transport strategy, I think its time to renew conversations about transport around Stockport and Marple - and more to the point, what's not happening.
Im sure most of us are aware about the 1.5 billion pound devolution deal and have noticed what seems like a rapid acceleration in the number of ambitious developments being announced in Greater Manchester. Where the Growth Fund investments are made will directly determine which areas are developed and where the economy will flourish.
Our Stockport councillors have been pushing for the Metrolink to Stockport for a number of years now- not surprising, given the general popularity of the Metrolink and how well it attracts people and businesses to those areas with the Metrolink. Given the recent growth deal, this ought to finally be Stockport's chance to be put on the Metrolink map. However, I read the 2040 transport strategy and although TfGM wrote about making the new Stockport interchange station and the Piccadilly Hub 'metrolink ready,' there was no specific mention of immediate plans to extend the Metrolink to the Stockport borough in amongst the transport plans and I find this very disappointing.
Furthermore, a few of us in the Marple area are aware that 4 years ago the TfGM was looking into extending the Metrolink map by tram-train technology. In the TfGM 2012-2024 report (http://www.tfgm.com/trains/Documents/12-0247-GM-Rail-Policy-2012.pdf), they had this to say about the potential of expanding the Metrolink via tram-train:
"A programme based on a longer-term vision of progressive conversion of rail routes to tram-train in Greater Manchester would combine Metrolink’s flexibility and availability with heavy rail’s greater speed, at a lower capital cost than heavy rail, creating a momentum and viable business case to overcome these issues associated with new technology. The potential gains to the City and the Region are significant. Greater Manchester will continue to examine the potential for tram-train technology to be implemented on rail routes into central Manchester as our analysis shows that on many routes investment in tram train have a positive business case and may result in a reduction in subsidy."
And in 2013, they published a study on several potential tram-train routes including Wigan, Knutsford, Glossop and Marple (file:///home/chronos/u-477b4e0cc6dd97baf728a278cf2525fef7bcd8da/Downloads/tramtraiTfgm.pdf) and determined that Marple was the most cost effective to convert and should form part of phase 1 of extending the metrolink. However 3 years on, there's still no announcement that tram train is coming to us as
dishearteningly, the publication of the most recent strategy plan did not mention this previous plan of extending the metrolink to the Stockport borough via tram-train. Despite being one of the most populated Greater Manchester boroughs, with one of the most populated towns within Greater Manchester and so close to the city centre, Stockport is one of the few Greater Manchester boroughs not yet on the Metrolink. Meanwhile, it has just been announced that Trafford borough is receiving its second line. I am not sure why Stockport borough continues to be shunned and I am awaiting TfGMs answer on this. I really think the marple area needs this - not just because being on the tram train means we're linked to multiple lines that the train isn't (a sorely needed marple-stockport line was also in the cards for the future, which would avoid unnecessary travel into the city centre) but also because it would help stimulate our local regeneration and economy.
I am urging others to also write to TfGM to ( if they feel the same as I do) express their disappointment with how, several years on, we are still awaiting our Stockport and Marple tram train line and are persistently being pushed down the queue. Its only with the publics actions that this will ever happen for our area!!
These are the email addresses for the main committee members:
cllr.a.fender@manchester.gov.uk
cllr.n.hassan@manchester.gov.uk
cllr.c.paul@manchester.gov.uk
Thanks, Linda
-
Tram-Train is waiting on the delayed trial of the technology in Rotherham. Until this is shown to work, tfgm can not bring it forward. However we can apply pressure to apply it asap if shown to work.
https://www.sypte.co.uk/tramtrain/
-
Battery power trams are also being testing at present, these can travel a short distance without being “under the wires”, hence allowing the most expensive overhead wiring to be avoided.
So for example the tunnel to Marple Station could take trams without having to be wired. The trams clearly cost more, but saves a lot of installation costs.
-
I think we really ought to be sharing our views now before TfGM allocates all of the budget - there have been so many delays on the Sheffield to Rotherham tram-train project that were in danger that the money will be gone by the time it is complete and there'll never be this kind of capital put aside for greater Manchester transport again.
Lets not forget that Stockport has been pushing for a regular tram line to be built for years, which they clearly can do, and there was no mention of it in the transport strategy whereas Trafford is having a second line!! We need to apply pressure - Stockport Borough clearly isn't enough of a priority for TfGM
-
I fail to see how a Tram link to Stockport form Manchester helps Marple, given that people who choose to live in Marple mostly don’t wish to travel to the center of Stockport before going anywhere worthwhile.
(Trafford does not have trains links that are as good as Stockport and also has a shopping center that lots of people wish to get to.)
Most local people that don’t work in Manchester have to commute round Manchester to somewhere like the airport area, or they are commute into Stockport but not the centre of Stockport (e.g. Stepping hill). It is very hard to get public transport to work unless you have a large flow of people going to the same location.
-
I fail to see how a Tram link to Stockport form Manchester helps Marple, given that people who choose to live in Marple mostly don’t wish to travel to the center of Stockport before going anywhere worthwhile.
(Trafford does not have trains links that are as good as Stockport and also has a shopping center that lots of people wish to get to.)
Most local people that don’t work in Manchester have to commute round Manchester to somewhere like the airport area, or they are commute into Stockport but not the centre of Stockport (e.g. Stepping hill). It is very hard to get public transport to work unless you have a large flow of people going to the same location.
I think these posts are advocating a Marple-Manchester and also a Marple-Stockport link, ringi. I can't see any reference to Stockport-Manchester metrolink - which though useful is probably not a priority, though it might help people living in South Manchester to get to Stockport more easily. At the end of the day it's hard to have too much public transport!
I think if they brought tram/train from Marple - Manchester and extended Rose Hill to Middlewood / Hazel Grove it would alleviate a lot of traffic congestion here. Even better would be to find a way to Stockport along the old Tiviot Dale line... somehow!
-
Adding Metrolink alongside the SEMMS bypass + segregated cycle lanes on the bypass, continuing the bypass to the M60 from Hazel Grove and extending Rose hill to Hazel grove would sure solve a lot of issues; but we only ever get half a job! I live in Marple and regularly go to the airport. To have an international airport with such poor transport links to it's surrounding (ever growing) affluent suburbs of travelling professionals seems crazy. As for getting into or out of the airport by car both in terms of traffic congestion but also the second mortgage required to even pick someone up from the airport, well that's criminal.
-
Adding Metrolink alongside the SEMMS bypass + segregated cycle lanes on the bypass, continuing the bypass to the M60 from Hazel Grove and extending Rose hill to Hazel grove would sure solve a lot of issues; but we only ever get half a job! I live in Marple and regularly go to the airport. To have an international airport with such poor transport links to it's surrounding (ever growing) affluent suburbs of travelling professionals seems crazy. As for getting into or out of the airport by car both in terms of traffic congestion but also the second mortgage required to even pick someone up from the airport, well that's criminal.
Thanks both. The line that Stockport councillors were aspiring to was an orbital line that went from the airport, through alot of the south lines and Stockport, to piccadilly. So if a marple tram train extension were to be built that would help alot of commuters moving across south Manchester.
Whatever your aspirations are for the metrolink or any other form of transport in the area we should be feeding this back to TfGM. Considering how much the councillors want the Stockport line and how pleased TfGM were with how well performing a marple tram train conversion would be, transport in the Stockport Borough is being seriously overlooked in their current strategy
-
We definately need a link from Marple to Stockport. Traffic this way is hideous.
-
We definately need a link from Marple to Stockport. Traffic this way is hideous.
they used to be one the tiviot dale line .good while ago o mr Beeching .
-
Thanks for the heads-up, lindavee. I have written to all three of the councillors you have named, and I hope others will do the same. We need to make sure we are not forgotten!
-
I have received a helpful reply from Councillor Chris Paul, one of those listed by lindavee.
He drew my attention to para 302 in the TfGM 2040 Strategy: 'Where there
is a high demand and a fast route can be identified linking to a very major trip attractor (i.e.
Manchester city centre or, in the future, Manchester Airport) it may be possible to develop new rapid
transit routes, using either Metrolink/tram-train (see section 159) or bus. However given the very high
cost, these are most likely to be justified where they can support significant new development. A
number of routes have been identified as having potential for tram-train, for example: Manchester to
Marple
So it seems we have not been forgotten!
-
Thanks for contacting the TfGM Dave, without feedback to the TfGM I feel that these projects are very unlikely to happen.
I wrote to the TfGM about the lack of mention of tram provision to Stockport in the transport strategy and I received the reply I've attached below.
Though they maintain that they're very committed to Stockports transport needs, they made it clear that they felt that, due to costs, Stockport tram provision should be a longer term project.
I found this a rather frustrating response given the millions of pounds being sunk into a number of projects around the region - the smart motorway, the second city crossing and, as recently announced, the trafford line. These projects all represent a huge investment and as they wrote in an earlier report, tram train is significantly cheaper than a new metrolink line as lines do not need to be built from scratch.
Clearly Stockport remains a low priority for them and a Stockport metrolink line just something to consider if they have the budget after all the other projects are completed. We are one of the few boroughs without metrolink access and when the population booms and car travel becomes impossible its our area that's really going to feel it- it already takes about an hour to reach the M60 and I waste so much of my life stuck in traffic. If rail services were every few minutes and you were connected to multiple lines across Manchester I think a lot of people in our area would switch to public transport.
It would be great if everyone could feed back their views to TfGM- its about time Stockport received the same transport access as the rest of Greater Manchester.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
A tram link to the metro at East Didsbury appears to me to have very few if any attractions. A line wandering out to Parrs Wood and then taking a further 30 mins to the city seems to me the sort of pup that the people of Shaw were sold.
There has as the letter states been massive support for transport developments in Stockport already but the metro should be a very low priority.
-
Agreed. Metrolink from Stockport to Manchester city centre via East Didsbury would be agonisingly slow!
However, tram-train from Marple or Rose Hill to Piccadilly via Bredbury is an entirely different route different and should work very well.
There has as the letter states been massive support for transport developments in Stockport already
Not in Marple there hasn't!
-
Agreed. Metrolink from Stockport to Manchester city centre via East Didsbury would be agonisingly slow!
However, tram-train from Marple or Rose Hill to Piccadilly via Bredbury is an entirely different route different and should work very well.
Not in Marple there hasn't!
Dave, I'm open to be convinced by you re train/tram but I have three fears I'd need y ou to address.
1. Would this result in longer journey times?
2. Would there be toilets?
3. Would cycles be carried?
If you give me a no for 2 and 3 then that seems to me to be a reduction in the quality of service for very little benefit.
As I'm sure you're aware the people of Shaw hate the tram service they now have and are calling for the return of the rail service.
So convince me Dave.
-
Like Dave I think the Marple -Manchester via Bredbury is a much more better option as I don't think many people from Stockport have Didsbury as their destination.
Wheels- Tram services on a tram-train line would be in addition to existing trains, not instead of, which is why our marple line was so favorable- they estimated they could run enough additional services around the existing trains to make it economically viable.
The additional trams would likely be just like the existing metro trams - i.e. not have toilets or cycle storage facilities but you would still have the option of waiting for the regular train. However for those who can hold their bladder for half an hour, don't have a bike and just want to get into Manchester, having additional trams running every few minutes would mean getting into town faster, and when orbital routes are later put in, getting across Manchester more directly too.
Dave, I'm open to be convinced by you re train/tram but I have three fears I'd need y ou to address.
1. Would this result in longer journey times?
2. Would there be toilets?
3. Would cycles be carried?
If you give me a no for 2 and 3 then that seems to me to be a reduction in the quality of service for very little benefit.
As I'm sure you're aware the people of Shaw hate the tram service they now have and are calling for the return of the rail service.
So convince me Dave.
-
Dave, I'm open to be convinced by you re train/tram but I have three fears I'd need y ou to address.
1. Would this result in longer journey times?
2. Would there be toilets?
3. Would cycles be carried?
So convince me Dave.
1 - No. Journey times will be faster.
2 - No. There are no toilets on trams, and probably not on tram-trains
3 - No. Bikes are not carried
So tram-train is not without its drawbacks. However, as anyone will know who travels by bus or on the London tube or any other urban rail or tram system around the world, most people can cope with a short journey on public transport without using the loo. And offsetting the drawback of not carrying bikes, there are major plus factors: a faster more frequent service using modern environmentally-friendly electric vehicles with greater capacity, and direct services to where people are actually going in the city centre, all of which should attract more people to use the service rather than clogging up the roads in their cars.
Lindavee writes:
Tram services on a tram-train line would be in addition to existing trains, not instead of, which is why our marple line was so favorable- they estimated they could run enough additional services around the existing trains to make it economically viable.
The plans are far from finalised at present, but AFAIK the current thinking envisages Rose Hill as the tram-train terminus, with its route to Piccadilly being via Bredbury. It seems that Marple station may still be served by conventional trains from New Mills and Sheffield, which will be routed to Piccadilly via Hyde. So wheels will still be able to take his bike on a train to Manchester! But anyone catching a train from Marple would of course have the option of getting off at Romiley and taking the next tram-train in to town from the same platform.
-
If the tram from Rose Hill was timed so you could change to the express (none stop) train at Romiley as for a lot of jobs it is quicker to walk from Manchester station then mess about with slow trams…..
-
Faster service? I assume by that you mean better braking and acceleration by trams than clapped out old diesel trains. Fair enough. But I remain to be convinced tram-trains would carry greater capacity. And if they did a lot more people would be standing up than is the case now. Progress? You decide.
assuming overhead electrification is too expensive, surely third rail electrification could be considered? People in the south east would speak up for it I am sure.
-
Faster service?
If a train runs every half hour, I have to get to the station at least 5 minutes before it is due to leave, or I have to leave when I am ready to leave and add on average 15 minutes to my travel time.
If a tram runs every 10 minutes, leaving when I am ready to leave adds on average 5 minutes to my travel time. However Marple being on the end of the line gets the least benefit from this, as we have the highest travel time.
-
I don't know if the trains hold more people than a regular train but having additional trains running certainly increases the overall capacity.
And I'm not sure what you mean Ringi. They certainly aren't slower trains than the old diesel trains so having additional services could only mean getting to your destination sooner as if you miss your train the next one is only a few minutes later?
I'm not sure what it is about forums that generate alot of negativity. Surely additional services which can connect with the metrolink network could only mean good things for both transport and the local economy?
Faster service? I assume by that you mean better braking and acceleration by trams than clapped out old diesel trains. Fair enough. But I remain to be convinced tram-trains would carry greater capacity. And if they did a lot more people would be standing up than is the case now. Progress? You decide.
assuming overhead electrification is too expensive, surely third rail electrification could be considered? People in the south east would speak up for it I am sure.
-
The tram trains will provide greater capacity because there will be one every 12 minutes throughout the day.
-
One of the few good things to come out of the potential massive development in High Lane is the guarantee that TfGM will be engaged to provide the trainsport infrastructure. However any tram/train/tram-train build will be likely to be at least 10 years from inception to completion.
This could be in the form of a line from Rose Hill to High Lane and a possible link to the Buxton line or the Hazel Grove Chord line into Hazel Grove. Maybe even a rail link from Marple to Stockport! Speculation on my part. But it certainly won't cost the billions that Crossrail and Thameslink have. At least planners see rail for urban transport as a development prospect now.
But officers have been approached. And tram-train technology is out there. It's been in the Netherlands and Germany for decades now. And dual wattage trams can be employed so Romiley/Marple could still be electrified at 25kV for main line services. However anything new does take extra time, as Sheffield are finding out. And no, 3rd rail electrification (as suggested below) is not a viable option.
-
That means then that it will be at least 10 years before the High lane development can start?
-
One of the few good things to come out of the potential massive development in High Lane is the guarantee that TfGM will be engaged to provide the trainsport infrastructure. However any tram/train/tram-train build will be likely to be at least 10 years from inception to completion.
This could be in the form of a line from Rose Hill to High Lane and a possible link to the Buxton line or the Hazel Grove Chord line into Hazel Grove. Maybe even a rail link from Marple to Stockport! Speculation on my part. But it certainly won't cost the billions that Crossrail and Thameslink have. At least planners see rail for urban transport as a development prospect now.
But officers have been approached. And tram-train technology is out there. It's been in the Netherlands and Germany for decades now. And dual wattage trams can be employed so Romiley/Marple could still be electrified at 25kV for main line services. However anything new does take extra time, as Sheffield are finding out. And no, 3rd rail electrification (as suggested below) is not a viable option.
Would that mean the loss of the Middlewood Way from Rose Hill to High Lane? Personally I wouldn't see that as a positive!
-
Would that mean the loss of the Middlewood Way from Rose Hill to High Lane? Personally I wouldn't see that as a positive!
The GMSF also states that Middlewood way must be maintained. I presume it may be moved alongside re instated tracks.
"Ensuring the integrity and continued use-ability of the Middlewood Way as a walking, cycling and
bridle route is of paramount importance to the development’s delivery."
No one would want to lose it now
-
That means then that it will be at least 10 years before the High lane development can start?
This would seem to be correct.
-
That means then that it will be at least 10 years before the High lane development can start?
No firm plans @Franz . GMSF just gives a commitment to infrastructure (including rail which takes time.) They could be done at the same time time. I personally see the Middlewood Way plus a line with 2 stations (like the former line had stations at the A6 and Middlewood Upper) - only at more convenient locations.
But I'd still rather not have 4,000 homes dumped on our green belt with no alternative.
-
Would that mean the loss of the Middlewood Way from Rose Hill to High Lane? Personally I wouldn't see that as a positive!
Don't forget that the Middlewood Way does not have the legal status of public footpath/public bridleway. This is made clear at a number of points on the East Cheshire section although there are no notices pointing out this fact in the Stockport MBC area. It was the situation five years ago that this land was owned by Network Rail and the Middlewood Way route maintained as a 'permissive route' i.e. a route on which pedestrian/horse/cycle rights can be removed by the landowner Network Rail and to the best of my knowledge this is still the case.
-
The GMSF also states that Middlewood way must be maintained. I presume it may be moved alongside re instated tracks.
"Ensuring the integrity and continued use-ability of the Middlewood Way as a walking, cycling and
bridle route is of paramount importance to the development’s delivery."
No one would want to lose it now
There are plenty of other places one can walk, cycle or ride. Surely an improved transport system on a pre-existing route would be far more beneficial.
-
There are plenty of other places one can walk, cycle or ride. Surely an improved transport system on a pre-existing route would be far more beneficial.
Should there be a development at high lane, there would be an increase in A6 traffic. The biggest problem for the A6 (apart from far too many traffic lights - get roundabouts installed) is the 192. It seems to me, the simple replacement of buses with a mono-rail is the answer from hazel grove's ridiculous park and ride. Elevating the public transport means bus lanes can be removed and the A6 will run better.
-
Should there be a development at high lane, there would be an increase in A6 traffic. The biggest problem for the A6 (apart from far too many traffic lights - get roundabouts installed) is the 192. It seems to me, the simple replacement of buses with a mono-rail is the answer from hazel grove's ridiculous park and ride. Elevating the public transport means bus lanes can be removed and the A6 will run better.
Should there be a development at high lane, there would be an increase in A6 traffic. The biggest problem for the A6 (apart from far too many traffic lights - get roundabouts installed) is the excessive number of HGVs and cars using the route. It seems to me, the simple introduction of congestion charges north of Hazel Grove is the answer for hazel grove's park and ride. Elevating the status of public transport means that the ridiculously large number of cars can be reduced, the ridiculously large number of HGVs making through journeys to the M60 be banned from the A6 and the A6 will run better. Marple would be a wonderful place to live if it we had a bus service with the frequency of the 192 or a train or tram link to Stockport rather than the horrendous traffic jam to Stockport at busy periods
-
Should there be a development at high lane, there would be an increase in A6 traffic. The biggest problem for the A6 (apart from far too many traffic lights - get roundabouts installed) is the excessive number of HGVs and cars using the route. It seems to me, the simple introduction of congestion charges north of Hazel Grove is the answer for hazel grove's park and ride. Elevating the status of public transport means that the ridiculously large number of cars can be reduced, the ridiculously large number of HGVs making through journeys to the M60 be banned from the A6 and the A6 will run better. Marple would be a wonderful place to live if it we had a bus service with the frequency of the 192 or a train or tram link to Stockport rather than the horrendous traffic jam to Stockport at busy periods
Hmmm, yep, why not tax the businesses, the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the employers so that we can help the jobless get to wetherspoons a little earlier.
-
Hmmm, yep, why not tax the businesses, the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the employers so that we can help the jobless get to wetherspoons a little earlier.
The sooner the better. Britain's main problem at the moment is that taxes are too low. The sick are being left to wait, rot and die if they cannot afford to pay for medical care. The country was on its knees at the end of the Second World War but money was found for the creation of a cradle to grave care system. As for transport in Marple, if you do not have a car, there are no problems travelling to, nor is there any shame holding down and keeping a job at Weatherspoons in Stockport : not everyone has the ability to be a professional or an entrepreneur who can afford to be so patronising towards the unemployed. I wouldn't mind betting that there are a few working there who have degrees who are fighting to get their foot into a more promising career. The real problem is travelling home at the end of the shift after the buses stop running and a taxi costs two hours earnings if you are on national minimum wage.
Oh! Silly me! Just before I pressed the send button I realised that you refer to people who drink at Weatherspoons rather than work at Weatherspoons. It looks as if my glass is half full and yours is half empty. Can you get the next round in please?
-
The sooner the better. Britain's main problem at the moment is that taxes are too low. The sick are being left to wait, rot and die if they cannot afford to pay for medical care. The country was on its knees at the end of the Second World War but money was found for the creation of a cradle to grave care system. As for transport in Marple, if you do not have a car, there are no problems travelling to, nor is there any shame holding down and keeping a job at Weatherspoons in Stockport : not everyone has the ability to be a professional or an entrepreneur who can afford to be so patronising towards the unemployed. I wouldn't mind betting that there are a few working there who have degrees who are fighting to get their foot into a more promising career. The real problem is travelling home at the end of the shift after the buses stop running and a taxi costs two hours earnings if you are on national minimum wage.
Oh! Silly me! Just before I pressed the send button I realised that you refer to people who drink at Weatherspoons rather than work at Weatherspoons. It looks as if my glass is half full and yours is half empty. Can you get the next round in please?
Silly you indeed, I meant those who are drinking.
It's utterly daft to complain of HGV's clogging up the A6. For starters, HGVs are on the roads because of business. Business are the only true employers and providers of wealth (and by which I include employment). THe problem on the A6 is that it's a busy road cut in half with bus lanes and traffic lights every 100 yds - traffic lights are environmentally unfriendly and been proven to adversely affect traffic flows. The 192 invariably runs in groups of 4 or 5 and very often empty but for the daytime drunk. An overhead monorail running the route will remove the need for bus lanes and be far quicker than the current service. The park and ride scheme is totally impracticable as a relief for the A6 - it may not be the white elephant it currently is as the Airport road is finished as it will no doubt be useful long term airport parking solution for Stagecoach.
Secondly, if you tax the use of the A6 , those HGV's are going to use an alternative route, maybe take a right at High Lane and route down to the M60 through Hibbert lane and so on.
I don't doubt we have many degree holders working at Wetherspoons, we are seeing too many graduates coming through with the 'wrong' degrees but any visit to the states will show you that the bar and restaurant industry is littered with wannabe actors and luvvie darlings and the govt try to get them employed by giving tax loopholes for these industries / very well paid individuals to enjoy and I'd be far happier to see these tax allowances to be used by heavier industry (and more HGVs)
-
...I'd be far happier to see these tax allowances to be used by heavier industry ...
Its great to see that we agree on something! In Manchester there are about 120 trams currently in service built by Bombardier at Bautzen in Germany and Vienna in Austria costing more than £2m each. There could be many more if the Metro comes to Marple. More expensive three carriage Supertrams manufactured by Siemens-Duewag in Dusseldorf Germany similar to those used in Sheffield were initially proposed for Rose Hill by TfGM before the Tories came to power and demanded cuts (though the £15billion Crossrail track and tunnel beneath Cenral London went ahead). Not to worry, trains to Rose Hill and Marple operated by Northern Rail, owned now by Arriva a subsidiary of Deutche Bahn of, you've guessed it - Germany, are replacing our beloved Pacers with £490 million worth of rolling stock from CAF of Spain (although the poor exchange rate which is the consequence of Cameron's insane decision to have a referendum about EU membership will undoubtedly push this figure upwards).
Duke's no-doubt beloved Blessed Margaret sold Britain's public transport system and train manufacturing industry for a song. Other European countries have been a great deal wiser.
Will Duke give the nod for his 'tax allowances to be used by heavier industry' to be allocated to the formation of a company constructing trains/trams used in this country before Scotland becomes independent to remain part of the EU resulting in Stagecoach's profits going to Perth and leaving High Peak Buses as the only English owned bus or train company carrying passengers in and out of Marple ? It would be reassuring to see at least some of the fares and grants paid by the people of Marple and of Greater Manchester being transformed into profits for manufacturing industry in Britain and wages for British workers.
-
@marplerambler as I am sure you know, part of the investment in the recent tram expansions came from the European investment Bank in the form of loans or grants.
@Duke Fame - I am really interested. Why a monorail? Wouldn't that cost more to erect? Do you mean like the one in Wuppertal?
Also - do you dislike subsidising transport?
-
Its great to see that we agree on something! In Manchester there are about 120 trams currently in service built by Bombardier at Bautzen in Germany and Vienna in Austria costing more than £2m each. There could be many more if the Metro comes to Marple. More expensive three carriage Supertrams manufactured by Siemens-Duewag in Dusseldorf Germany similar to those used in Sheffield were initially proposed for Rose Hill by TfGM before the Tories came to power and demanded cuts (though the £15billion Crossrail track and tunnel beneath Cenral London went ahead). Not to worry, trains to Rose Hill and Marple operated by Northern Rail, owned now by Arriva a subsidiary of Deutche Bahn of, you've guessed it - Germany, are replacing our beloved Pacers with £490 million worth of rolling stock from CAF of Spain (although the poor exchange rate which is the consequence of Cameron's insane decision to have a referendum about EU membership will undoubtedly push this figure upwards).
Duke's no-doubt beloved Blessed Margaret sold Britain's public transport system and train manufacturing industry for a song. Other European countries have been a great deal wiser.
Will Duke give the nod for his 'tax allowances to be used by heavier industry' to be allocated to the formation of a company constructing trains/trams used in this country before Scotland becomes independent to remain part of the EU resulting in Stagecoach's profits going to Perth and leaving High Peak Buses as the only English owned bus or train company carrying passengers in and out of Marple ? It would be reassuring to see at least some of the fares and grants paid by the people of Marple and of Greater Manchester being transformed into profits for manufacturing industry in Britain and wages for British workers.
As we leave the Eu, the opportunity to subsidise UK industry becomes an option once again. I'm not a fan of subsidies at all and to be honest, I raised the issue because we seem to have so many media related graduates that we have to give tax breaks to hypocrites like Ken Loach so that we can keep some of these guys employed.
I went to a political debate in Manchester at the time when British steel was in the media where it was facing problems of cost. One of the debators was some Manchester Labour scucouncillor who was talking of how Labour would save the day yet this guy selected to use NOT ONE OUNCE OR GRAM of British steel in their Metrolink system, the hypocrisy of these types is pretty hypocritical sometimes.
Now, with a lower sterling value, we're seeing an advantage in labour costs where, should this continue, will bring manufacturing back to these shores. I just hope the unions can be kept in check so that production along with effciency improves, The trade Union movement ruined this country in the 60's and 70's, let's hope they don't mess up opportunity.
-
@Duke Fame - whilst it was true that there was a lot of wildcat strikes and industrial action in the 70s (and indeed the Heath government was effectively brought down on the back of it), I respectfully suggest that the wealth is not being as fairly distributed these days: the rich are getting proportionately richer, some firms regularly pay less than minimum wage and pension schemes are being sucked dry.
-
@Duke Fame - I am really interested. Why a monorail? Wouldn't that cost more to erect? Do you mean like the one in Wuppertal?
Also - do you dislike subsidising transport?
I don't like subsidy full stop(do you put a full stop after full stop, if so should I have put a '.' after full stop in hte bracket in which case the 'after' should have had a capital 'A'). Subsidies breed inefficiency but I do see some need for state direction where there is market failure.
As for a monorail, the problem with the A6 (and the Marple - Stockport rd for that matter) is that tarmac is at a premium. It simply isn't easy or desirable to widen the road to increase capacity so, stick the public transport up-a-height on stilts. It can be like Wuppertal, North Haverbrook, Monte Bianco, Alton Towers, Somerwest World, Sydney, Shonan or Disneyland - they all work pretty well. A modern one can be operated centrally, you don't need drivers (no strikes) and you can ensure they are spaced regularly. Buses (even the 383) bunch up in traffic and you get the leading bus being full with buses following being empty. buses get in the way, I've noticed especially here in the North west, bus lay-by's seem to have been filled in or never there and get in the way of the traffic. Bus lanes are highly inefficient use of tarmac (as are tram-lines) as they remain vacant when other lanes are full.
in short, monorail reduces congestion, removes the need for drivers, better service, faster and far more fun than a bus.
-
@Duke Fame - whilst it was true that there was a lot of wildcat strikes and industrial action in the 70s (and indeed the Heath government was effectively brought down on the back of it), I respectfully suggest that the wealth is not being as fairly distributed these days: the rich are getting proportionately richer, some firms regularly pay less than minimum wage and pension schemes are being sucked dry.
Firms do not pay under the minimum wage, if they do, report them or name them. I'm personally against the minimum wage, it makes no economic sense.
Pension schemes are nearly all kept independent, individual pensions have been around for years. Pensions need further overhaul, final salary schemes are unaffordable and everyone needs to work longer. Public sector pensions need to be privatised (I'd even suggest the unions run them) so they are not political footballs. We have the ridiculous situation with teacher's pension schemes or ponsi schemes as they should be called, where the terms are so favorable, they all take out more than they put in unless they die within 18 months of retirement.
The rich are getting richer because we're a knowledge economy, I was told when I was 5 that I must work hard at school because it will be impossible to earn a living without a skill, that was 40 years ago so it's hardly new news. Globalisation has proven this to be true and in any case, we have exported our sub-minimum wage jobs to low wage economies. Government has forced employment overseas, a lighter touch government that leaves it to the market may help but I fear it's too late.
-
Getting back to the subject, are tram trains to Rose Hill Marple the best option?
We will have to wait for the proper proposal for all the details but at the moment the following is of concern to me as a user of both Marple and Rose Hill stations.
_Tram trains are an unproven technology in the UK
_The Sheffield pilot scheme was meant to open in 2015, this has experienced delays and complications and now will not open until April 2017
_The Sheffield system will only be able to operate at a much reduced capacity compared to existing tram systems with a frequency of 20/ 30 minutes being typical
_In street mode trams typically operate at speeds of 5/20 mph and subject to traffic light and sometimes road traffic delays. It appears that the Rose Hill system will leave the establish rail route at Ashburys and proceed in street mode for several miles at a reduced speed compared to existing trains.
_Only 48 seats in a tram compared to 150 on a sprinter train ( this will be the usual local train in a few years)
_No semi fast services, trams stop at every station increasing journey time
_no bikes or dogs
_no through ticketing outside Greater Manchester
_increased connection times at Piccadilly as the trams will not access the main station platforms
_unclear if Marple trains will still be able to access the Bredbury line, they may have to use the much slower line through Woodley
_Will Marple frequencies be maintained?
_50 mph top speed compared with 75 mph for a Sprinter train
_Engineering work could lead to long periods of bus replacements
In terms of the connection from High Lane to Stockport and creating a circle line, not sure this is even an option considering how busy Hazel Grove is with existing trains. If it is why not use electric trains with greater seating capacity?
If High Lane is on the cards, why not reinstate the railway all the way to Macclesfield giving faster connection a for journeys south such as London and Birmingham and reconnecting Higher Poynton and Bollington?
-
If High Lane is on the cards, why not reinstate the railway all the way to Macclesfield giving faster connection a for journeys south such as London and Birmingham and reconnecting Higher Poynton and Bollington?
The problem there is that just south of Bollington more than a mile of the old railway track was used for the construction of the Tytherington by-pass on the A523 Hazel Grove to Macclesfield Road. I find it quite infuriating when travelling to West Yorkshire that the Rose Hill train stops at Guide Bridge then waits outside Piccadilly waiting for the Leeds train to depart to create platform space. The Leeds train then thunders through Guide Bridge and Network Rail made it very clear that there will never be a connection for Yorkshire at Guide Bridge by demolishing the footbridge connecting the Guide Bridge platforms a few years ago.
-
The problem there is that just south of Bollington more than a mile of the old railway track was used for the construction of the Tytherington by-pass on the A523 Hazel Grove to Macclesfield Road. I find it quite infuriating when travelling to West Yorkshire that the Rose Hill train stops at Guide Bridge then waits outside Piccadilly waiting for the Leeds train to depart to create platform space. The Leeds train then thunders through Guide Bridge and Network Rail made it very clear that there will never be a connection for Yorkshire at Guide Bridge by demolishing the footbridge connecting the Guide Bridge platforms a few years ago.
I'm not sure what commuters and travellers making connections at Leeds and York will think of their 'express' service shopping at places like Guide Bridge.
I think the problem is touched on in your piece, Piccadilly is congested. the answer is to terminate commuter trains at an interchange near the Apollo where trams or even airport style shuttles can shuttle commuters into Piccadilly for connections on the mainline or onto Piccadilly gardens for trams and the town.
as for a Rose Hill - Mac service, its possible but I'm not sure of the demand. Yes, a light rail link into Stockport station is needed and using the rail bed to get to the Buxton line would be good but its a long way round and unless it could get decent speeds up, it would be a slow service.
whilst you are right, the Tytherington by-pass does cross the old line, its not impossible to put a light rail on the route into Mac station via Bollington. I can see a demand from the Bollington folk for a link to the mainline at Mac, I can't see many wanting to go to Rose Hill
-
I think the problem is touched on in your piece, Piccadilly is congested. the answer is to terminate commuter trains at an interchange near the Apollo where trams or even airport style shuttles can shuttle commuters into Piccadilly for connections on the mainline or onto Piccadilly gardens for trams and the town.
As someone who gets the train every morning from Marple in to Piccadilly, that idea will never work and would cause big delays. Also being a complete pain in the arse! Piccadilly is no different than every other major train terminal in that it was built in the victorian age and has so much more traffic coming in/out/through than 100+ years ago!
The New Mills line needs electrifying but costs are huge and wont happen for a long time to come!
-
Agreed - it completely negates one of the main advantages of tram-trains, which is that they will carry passengers directly through the city centre to where they actually want to go. What you don't want is to get off on the edge of the city centre and change to another tram or bus or whatever - that's no better than what we've got at the moment.
I also agree with this, I'm afraid:The New Mills line needs electrifying but costs are huge and wont happen for a long time to come!
If/ when the Manchester - Sheffield route ever gets electrified, it will be done by extending the current electrified line from Hazel Grove.
What hatter needs to get his mind round is that for all its shortcomings, tram-train is the only game in town, and is the only realistic prospect of a modern and efficient rail service between Marple and Manchester in the foreseeable future. Yes, the Sheffield - Rotherham pilot is delayed, and of course we have to wait for the outcome of that before we can proceed. But tram-trains are working well in many cities in mainland Europe, and there is no reason, AFAIK, why they should not work here.
.
-
.
I also agree with this, I'm afraid:
If/ when the Manchester - Sheffield route ever gets electrified, it will be done by extending the current electrified line from Hazel Grove.
What hatter needs to get his mind round is that for all its shortcomings, tram-train is the only game in town, and is the only realistic prospect of a modern and efficient rail service between Marple and Manchester in the foreseeable future. Yes, the Sheffield - Rotherham pilot is delayed, and of course we have to wait for the outcome of that before we can proceed. But tram-trains are working well in many cities in mainland Europe, and there is no reason, AFAIK, why they should not work here.
Dave they can't get it to work in Sheffield now until 2018 at the earliest and if it does ever run it will only be at 20 minute frequencies.
Unfortunately when it comes to infrastructure cheap and easy doesn't exist.
It is an absolute discrace that the railway lines to New Mills and Rose Hill are not fully electrified with fit for purpose modern rolling stock running every 15 minutes. This metro frequency is being planned in many other similar cities such as Leeds.
If what we are being offered is that great why don't we hear of similar schemes in the South East? Indeed why spend £15 billion on crossrail that can deliver 1,500 people every 40 seconds at speeds of 90 mph across the most congested city in the UK when they could have 48 seater tram trains travelling at 5 to 20 mph in street mode?
-
As someone who gets the train every morning from Marple in to Piccadilly, that idea will never work and would cause big delays. Also being a complete pain in the arse! Piccadilly is no different than every other major train terminal in that it was built in the victorian age and has so much more traffic coming in/out/through than 100+ years ago!
The New Mills line needs electrifying but costs are huge and wont happen for a long time to come!
You are disagreeing with the solution but re-stating the problem. Piccadilly is congested.
It may be a pain if the commuters finish at ancoats but perhaps not. You currently get to Piccadilly and walk to the office or to the metrolink for a connection, there is not much difference if that connection picks you up at ancoats and takes you closer to your destination. The other option is for the mainline trains to Leeds, Newcastle, hull, Liverpool, Southampton and London terminate at ancoats and the commuters use Piccadilly.
-
The other option is for the mainline trains to Leeds, Newcastle, hull, Liverpool, Southampton and London terminate at ancoats and the commuters use Piccadilly.
And the third option is the more sensible, real one to divert local trains before they reach Piccadilly mainline platforms and run them underneath as tram-trains and straight through to St Peter's Square, etc.
For the record, even the small look we ever got at the earlier TfGM plans of a line diverting at Ashburys showed it would hardly run on-road at all - if at all - and any very slight increase in time would be mitigated by faster acceleration from every single stop en route (no thundering Pacer engine!) as well as the fact the line might take you closer to your ultimate destination in the city. With more frequent services, you'd also save time not waiting so long for the next one.
Re the Sheffield tram-trains: they really only seem to be delayed due to Network Rail dilly-dallying, nothing to do with the vehicles themselves. Ridiculous that TfGM can't (or can't be bothered to) lobby to start working properly on its own plans meanwhile.
-
And the third option is the more sensible, real one to divert local trains before they reach Piccadilly mainline platforms and run them underneath as tram-trains and straight through to St Peter's Square, etc.
For the record, even the small look we ever got at the earlier TfGM plans of a line diverting at Ashburys showed it would hardly run on-road at all - if at all - and any very slight increase in time would be mitigated by faster acceleration from every single stop en route (no thundering Pacer engine!) as well as the fact the line might take you closer to your ultimate destination in the city. With more frequent services, you'd also save time not waiting so long for the next one.
Re the Sheffield tram-trains: they really only seem to be delayed due to Network Rail dilly-dallying, nothing to do with the vehicles themselves. Ridiculous that TfGM can't (or can't be bothered to) lobby to start working properly on its own plans meanwhile.
whilst running under Piccadilly is desirable, its awfully expensive. whilst there is disused land and these include old sidings, why not make use of this rather than expensive tunnelling.
the tfgm plans tend to be overblown and they don't have a record for proposing sensible solutions for transport across Manchester (congestion charge anyone)
-
In my experience of tfgm, they seem far more concerned about protecting their rather good pensions than providing viable transport solutions for us.
-
In my experience of tfgm, they seem far more concerned about protecting their rather good pensions than providing viable transport solutions for us.
yes, it seems its an organisation design to rinse as much taxpayers money for its employees rather than provide a good service.
-
whilst running under Piccadilly is desirable, its awfully expensive. whilst there is disused land and these include old sidings, why not make use of this rather than expensive tunnelling.
Have you used the existing Metrolink under Piccadilly? It runs through a former goods basement, no tunnelling needed. Marple tram-train would likely connect into this.
Considering the amount of tram extensions they've completed TfGM seem to be fairly competent compared to most other local transport authorities. The problem has always been lack of funding and lack of powers. And seemingly forgetting about the south-east corner of the conurbation, or thinking we won't mind waiting…
-
Have you used the existing Metrolink under Piccadilly? It runs through a former goods basement, no tunnelling needed. Marple tram-train would likely connect into this.
Yes, I think that was the original plan, although I seem to recall seeing a more recent one which suggested that the tram-trains would leave the rail line at Ashburys and head north-west to Ashton Old Road, and then continue to Piccadilly along the road, which would obviously be slower.
Considering the amount of tram extensions they've completed TfGM seem to be fairly competent compared to most other local transport authorities.
Agreed - I don't know what Jimblob and Duke expect, but as far as I can see TfGM have been doing a pretty decent job - as rsh says, the spectacular growth of the Metrolink system, which operates without public subsidy, has been a real achievement.
I understand the reservations that some people have have about tram-trains, but they are the only option on the table at the moment, or in the foreseeable future. If hatter and others who oppose tram-trains think that we will ever get a modern electrified heavy rail service in Marple, all I can say is 'in your dreams'! If tram-trains don't happen, we will continue to suffer the present service, with gross overcrowding and some of the worst rolling stock on the entire UK rail network. And when the Class 142 'Pacers' are eventually retired in a couple of years time, don't imagine that we will get nice new trains - we are the lowest of the low in terms of the national rail hierarchy and priorities, and we will just get more Class 150 diesels - old, dirty clapped out ones, 'cascaded' from other parts of the UK because no-one else wants them.
-
Have you used the existing Metrolink under Piccadilly? It runs through a former goods basement, no tunnelling needed. Marple tram-train would likely connect into this.
Considering the amount of tram extensions they've completed TfGM seem to be fairly competent compared to most other local transport authorities. The problem has always been lack of funding and lack of powers. And seemingly forgetting about the south-east corner of the conurbation, or thinking we won't mind waiting…
I live in the south east of the borough. My wife and I both travel due West-South-West for our commute and hit Hazel Grove, Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme etc, I'm usually on my way to the airport and it seems crazy that my easiest route there is to get the train to Piccadilly and back out to the airport. Easy to expand the metrolink in areas where there is plenty of free space but perhaps where it's not needed so much. Still we're getting half a SEMMS bypass, can't way to cross Hazel Grove when that baby is open. ;D
-
Yes, I think that was the original plan, although I seem to recall seeing a more recent one which suggested that the tram-trains would leave the rail line at Ashburys and head north-west to Ashton Old Road, and then continue to Piccadilly along the road, which would obviously be slower.
Agreed - I don't know what Jimblob and Duke expect, but as far as I can see TfGM have been doing a pretty decent job - as rsh says, the spectacular growth of the Metrolink system, which operates without public subsidy, has been a real achievement.
I understand the reservations that some people have have about tram-trains, but they are the only option on the table at the moment, or in the foreseeable future. If hatter and others who oppose tram-trains think that we will ever get a modern electrified heavy rail service in Marple, all I can say is 'in your dreams'! If tram-trains don't happen, we will continue to suffer the present service, with gross overcrowding and some of the worst rolling stock on the entire UK rail network. And when the Class 142 'Pacers' are eventually retired in a couple of years time, don't imagine that we will get nice new trains - we are the lowest of the low in terms of the national rail hierarchy and priorities, and we will just get more Class 150 diesels - old, dirty clapped out ones, 'cascaded' from other parts of the UK because no-one else wants them.
I have little time for the public sector quagos like tfgm. the dickie leese retirement fund or 'gmTif'' as it was marketed still makes me wonder about their sanity.
The rolling stock is hardly an issue for a 20 minute journey, if the fleet is replaced with refurbished sprinters, there is not much to argue about. the issue is the frequency of service imho and that remains an issue of rail space at Piccadilly.
trains can go under the old goods depot at Piccadilly but they will still take up rail space and moreover cross the mainline. if we want to see an extra London train, 2 extra York trains and an extra Sheffield train out of Piccadilly, the likes of the Maple trains need to be out of the way.