Drama Classes for Children and Young People in Marple

Author Topic: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport  (Read 44326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2741
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #103 on: January 25, 2016, 05:21:52 PM »
Welcome back Duke - we've missed you!   8)    Hope you had a good sabbatical (still as bonkers as ever, I see   ;).

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #102 on: January 25, 2016, 12:48:39 PM »
The best value solution would be to have trams running from Marple to rose hill, along Middlewood way joining the rarely used Buxton line, it should drop to the ill-thought out bus park & ride and then head to Stockport station, the tam should then head to the Airport via Cheadle. This would mainly utilise exiting (under-used) track, relieve cogestion on Stockport / Marple road as well as the A6 PLUS give Stockport a link to the Airport. Those wanting to get to Manchester just change at Stockpot where there are fast services.

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #101 on: January 24, 2016, 09:56:22 PM »
How could  you make the car park at Marple station bigger .

multi story parking, the  is how to get to Stockport station, that's the hub, the jewel in the crown but its not accessible. the answer is to tram link rose hill to Stockport and perhaps macc

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2741
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #100 on: January 24, 2016, 09:52:27 AM »
Hatter can speak for himself on this, but I suspect that the route shown by rsh is the one hatter meant when he referred to 'the Etihad Line' - i.e. the Metrolink line that goes out to Etihad.

But otherwise I heartily agreed with everything rsh writes - a sensible and rational post. 

rsh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #99 on: January 22, 2016, 09:58:56 PM »
I am not against a rail metro system, I am against the tram system which is just too slow in street mode, frankly its not good enough. It is looking like we going to get street mode from Ashburys to Piccadilly via the Etihad line. This involves replacing a dedicated rail line used by Marple trains for 150 years that takes 5 minutes. Replacing this will involve crossing traffic junctions and probably extra stops. For me I will have the added inconvenience of having to walk up escalators to access my mainline connection further adding to my journey. My 5 minute journey will probably be extended by another 5 to 10 minutes depending on traffic. The idea of progress is that things are meant to speed up. Would you build a new road that took a longer route and had a lower speed limit.No. Well why do this to the rail system?
I've never seen anything in writing to suggest that a tram-train from Ashburys would go north to join the Etihad line, it would be an incredibly circuitous route and more importantly would miss out the chance to serve a wider area of the East Manchester regeneration with a stop.

By contrast, this plan from several years ago does show an indicative route, via Ashton Old Road and Fairfield St.



Notice the one extra stop where there's a lot of new housing going up. Of course at this stage it's impossible to say whether this would be on road or alongside the road, so it seems silly to be so against such an idea before genuinely any facts are actually known. I think this shows, though, that the actual new street running would be very minimal, considering the entire rest of the line would remain as it does today (only speeded up with faster acceleration, etc).

At the same time, it may be all well and good wanting to keep the train service into the main Piccadilly platforms, but Network Rail doesn't feel the same way. Marple and Rose Hill take up four platform movements an hour between them for relatively short, local services that would be much better used for bigger and longer distance trains with more people on them. Note the often absurd train-stacking of several services into one platform, leaving only minutes apart, with no room for future growth. Moving our services down onto their own Metrolink platform, making them much more frequent, with more pleasant rolling stock and better connections and street running right into the city seems a good trade-off to free up that platform space.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2741
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #98 on: January 16, 2016, 12:39:42 PM »
Dave I don't think that we are going to agree on this one,

Well at least we can agree on that!   ;D

hatter76

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #97 on: January 16, 2016, 10:47:36 AM »
However, I think hatter is missing a trick here:  Not necessarily.  Hatter will also have the option of getting off the tram-train at Romiley and having a same-platform change to a conventional train, which will get him via Hyde to the main Piccadilly station in 25 minutes.

Dave I don't think that we are going to agree on this one, the current Rose Hill via Hyde takes 30-34 minutes depending on stops. This is a big jump from the 24 minutes Marple to Manchester. Why would I want to get off at Romiley and connect? The wait would add further delay.

Another point from the Manchester Evening News
Serious questions about how reliable the street running section from Ashburys to Piccadilly would be. This project would remove the dedicated 5 minute connection Asburys to Piccadilly and replace it with street running.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tram-delays-after-car-drives-10740151



Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2741
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #96 on: January 16, 2016, 10:06:18 AM »
I don't think we yet know for sure what route the tram-trains will take into the Piccadilly undercroft, but I accept hatter's point that if the tram-trains leave the current rail track shortly after Ashburys, and then head north-west to join the existing Metrolink line on Ashton Old Road, then that may possibly add a few minutes to the existing journey time, although we should remember that the current 25-minute journey time includes a few minutes waiting at a red signal outside Piccadilly!   And if the new route does take a few minutes longer, that should be offset by the time saved through faster acceleration between Rose Hill and Ashburys.  So overall, swings and roundabouts, it seems likely that it will still end up being 25-minute journey from Rose Hill to Piccadilly.

I also accept his point about the slow speed of street running in the city centre - for obvious safety reasons, it's the same everywhere when trams, vehicles and pedestrians share city streets. 

However, I think hatter is missing a trick here: 
I will have the added inconvenience of having to walk up escalators to access my mainline connection further adding to my journey
Not necessarily.  Hatter will also have the option of getting off the tram-train at Romiley and having a same-platform change to a conventional train, which will get him via Hyde to the main Piccadilly station in 25 minutes.

Also here:
Marple passengers will see their 24 minute journey replaced by all stations via Hyde.

Here again, not necessarily.  As a frequent user of Marple station (I never use Rose Hill because it's at the wrong end of Marple for me),  I will have the option of getting a train to Romiley (we can assume there will still be one every 30 minutes), and changing there on the same platform to a tram-train which will take me through to the city centre.  Or if I am planning to change trains at Piccadilly and go on by train to London or Leeds or wherever, I can stay on the train and go straight into the main Piccadilly platforms. 

I accept that the tram-train is not a perfect solution, and has its drawbacks, but the advantages are clear:
1.   A tram-train every 12 minutes, significantly increasing capacity.
2.   Similar journey times into Piccadilly to those we have at present.
3.   Direct services into and through the city centre, with same-platform connections to other parts of Greater Manchester.
4.   Modern, quieter, more efficient and less polluting vehicles
5.   A reduction in traffic congestion as increased capacity and a better service will attract more people off the roads and on to Metrolink.

And it's important to be realistic, and accept that things like this: 
  If it went underground in the city centre, I would be more supportive, it would become like the tube or Merseyrail system with 6 or 8 carriage trains able to run every minute or so.
...... just ain't gonna happen! 

hatter76

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #95 on: January 15, 2016, 08:32:08 PM »

However there is a bigger issue. Newcastle, Glasgow and Liverpool have already used tunnels to create integrated underground rail systems out of most of their suburban lines. Manchester is now the largest city in Europe without a proper Metro. Of course Metrolink is useful, but essentially a street running tram. Our suburban rail network is congested and trains infrequent. Local trains are still essentially split into two confusing networks based on Piccadilly and Victoria. Trans-Pennine electrification is splitting regional services further, making interchange and integration and even more difficult.
Now, more than ever Manchester needs to join the modern world with a proper rail link underneath the city rather than just the cheapskate and circuitous but still expensive ‘Castlefield Curve’ and yet more platforms in the air at Piccadilly. Of course current appraisal methods will never justify a cross-city tunnel at any given date, but just think what a regional economic powerhouse Greater Manchester could be with a proper Metro. It would even release space for HS2 platforms at Piccadilly without needing to build a new station. Time for some ambition.

Excellent post Blackfryers, couldn't agree more.
I am not against a rail metro system, I am against the tram system which is just too slow in street mode, frankly its not good enough. It is looking like we going to get street mode from Ashburys to Piccadilly via the Etihad line. This involves replacing a dedicated rail line used by Marple trains for 150 years that takes 5 minutes. Replacing this will involve crossing traffic junctions and probably extra stops. For me I will have the added inconvenience of having to walk up escalators to access my mainline connection further adding to my journey. My 5 minute journey will probably be extended by another 5 to 10 minutes depending on traffic. The idea of progress is that things are meant to speed up. Would you build a new road that took a longer route and had a lower speed limit.No. Well why do this to the rail system?

The replacement of the old rail route with considerable street running is a major difference between this project and the other Metrolink rail replacement schemes. The Bury, Oldham and Altrincham lines follow the same formation until they get into the city centre. This is different and more controversial.

If it went underground in the city centre, I would be more supportive, it would become like the tube or Merseyrail system with 6 or 8 carriage trains able to run every minute or so. This is where we should be heading, like you say we need someone with ambition. I travelled on the Metrolink last week from Piccadilly to Victoria, it was a typical run no major delays, it took 11 minutes. On the way back I walked, it took 15 minutes. The tram is only 4 minutes faster than walking speed!

I will make 2 predictions about the Marple tram train
1 The more people realise the details of what is being proposed the more opposition will grow especially from Marple passengers who will see their 24 minute journey replaced by all stations via Hyde.
2 The Marple tram train will be a turning point in the Manchester Metro system and will be first to attract serious opposition

There is an alternative which is full electrification of both lines, improvements to the timetable and extra platforms beside platform 1 at Manchester. Extra paths will be created by the new Castlefield curve, reducing conflicting movements.

I respect other posters views who favour the frequency and Market Street drop off but to me the increased journey time and other disadvantages is not a price worth paying.
It is a no from me.


Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2741
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #94 on: January 15, 2016, 06:40:55 PM »
Metrolink to the airport is around an hour for ten miles

The tram to the airport takes 41 minutes, not an hour.  It has nineteen stops!  Piccadilly to Rose Hill is probably a similar distance but it only has eight stops.  Currently trains between Marple or Rose Hill and Piccadilly that stop at all stations except Ardwick  take about 25 minutes.  The tram-trains will have significantly faster acceleration, of course, so they will take less time than that, not more. 

current trams are even less comfortable than a Pacer

As a frequent flier on both Pacers and Metrolink trams, I couldn't agree less.  Only yesterday I travelled back from Piccadilly on the 18.49, and the seating (five abreast, as if designed for midgets!), was packed, and there were many passengers standing, even though there isn't really space to stand.   Cattle-truck conditions - the tram-trains can't be any worse than that! 

expect about 50 minutes from Rose Hill to Piccadilly...... it will leave Marple/New Mills as an island of diesel operation, probably with a much slower service via the Hyde Loop.

Come on Blackfryers, you can do better than that!  Even if Rose Hill to Piccadilly by tram train did take 50 minutes (and as I have explained above, it won't), the train via Hyde could surely not take even longer, as it only takes 30 minutes at present! 

However, after the dodgy facts and unconvincing arguments of his first paragraph, Blackfryers writes a lot of sense in the second, about the woeful shortcomings of the transport system across Greater Manchester.  It beggars belief that the Government can afford to spend £16 billion on Crossrail in London, and yet can't build the Picc- Vic tunnel.

Blackfryers

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #93 on: January 15, 2016, 04:03:14 PM »
Essentially trams (and tram-trains) are suited to shorter journeys - with higher frequencies but more stops and slower journeys (Metrolink to the airport is around an hour for ten miles, so expect about 50 minutes from Rose Hill to Piccadilly, a similar distance), plus walking pace for journeys in the city centre. There will also, as has been pointed out be no toilets, no bike spaces, probably less comfortable seats (yes, current trams are even less comfortable than a Pacer) and probably neither station staff nor a second rail employee on the tram. Tram-trains will benefit the inner suburbs of Manchester (and do not discount this, it is a significant benefit), but the experience of converting Altrincham-Bury to Metrolink suggests there will be no benefit for people living in Marple using Rose Hill. As pointed out it will leave Marple/New Mills as an island of diesel operation, probably with a much slower service via the Hyde Loop.

However there is a bigger issue. Newcastle, Glasgow and Liverpool have already used tunnels to create integrated underground rail systems out of most of their suburban lines. Manchester is now the largest city in Europe without a proper Metro. Of course Metrolink is useful, but essentially a street running tram. Our suburban rail network is congested and trains infrequent. Local trains are still essentially split into two confusing networks based on Piccadilly and Victoria. Trans-Pennine electrification is splitting regional services further, making interchange and integration and even more difficult.
Now, more than ever Manchester needs to join the modern world with a proper rail link underneath the city rather than just the cheapskate and circuitous but still expensive ‘Castlefield Curve’ and yet more platforms in the air at Piccadilly. Of course current appraisal methods will never justify a cross-city tunnel at any given date, but just think what a regional economic powerhouse Greater Manchester could be with a proper Metro. It would even release space for HS2 platforms at Piccadilly without needing to build a new station. Time for some ambition.

nbt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #92 on: January 12, 2016, 11:54:50 AM »
For those who like lots more detail I attach a brochure with lots of technical details and an idea of internal layout.

Sad to see that there's even less room for bicycles on the trams than on the trains - not everyone lives or works right within walking distance of the station. Whatever happened to the old days of a guards van with loads of room? Oh yes, we got an "integrated transport strategy" which doesn't really integrate...
NBT: Notoriously Bad Typist

amazon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3050
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #91 on: January 11, 2016, 08:38:43 PM »
Don't hold your breath, amazon!   8)
I Wont. like the Bredbury bypass i will be lucky if i see this built in my lifetime .

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2741
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #90 on: January 11, 2016, 05:14:59 PM »
Don't hold your breath, amazon!   8)

amazon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3050
Re: Tram Train Strategy for Marple to Stockport
« Reply #89 on: January 11, 2016, 02:46:57 PM »
Those of us who board a tram-train at Rose Hill terminus will almost always get a seat.  It's passengers getting on at later stops who may have to stand - but their journeys are shorter, of course.

Urban rail and tram systems don't normally have toilets.  London Underground trains don't, for example, also many suburban London overground lines.  They are not normally needed on short journeys.  Just cross your legs, wheels  ;)

so what century is this going to start.