Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle West & Gatley Learn more
by Lib Dem team on 14 November, 2013
For some time we’ve been campaigning for a station at Cheadle (once upon a time there were two stations on different lines in Cheaadle, but the last one closed nearly fifty years ago).
Our best chance relies on a new technology called tram-train – light trams running on heavy rail lines to provide a more frequent local service. We’ve worked hard to make sure the Stockport-Altrincham line stays on the agenda, so we were very pleased to see Transport for Greater Manchester list it as one of the lines they’d like to introduce.
Councillors have backed plans to develop a tram-train strategy in Greater Manchester.
A report outlining proposals for a network of specially-designed vehicles, running on both street tracks and sharing tracks with other trains on railway lines, was approved by members of the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee’s Capital Projects and Policy Sub-Committee today.
An initial study into the feasibility, cost and benefits of several potential routes identified Manchester to Marple via Bredbury as the most economically viable route to develop as the region’s first tram-train line.
The other routes that are under consideration as part of a potential tram-train network are:
Manchester – Glossop
Manchester – Atherton – Wigan
Manchester – Sale – Altrincham – Hale/Knutsford
Manchester – East Didsbury – Hazel Grove
Stockport – Altrincham
A tram-train system would make greater use of Greater Manchester’s local rail network, facilitating more frequent services. It would also provide better and more frequent access to the city centre and better connections with other public transport services there.It is also expected that the ongoing cost of most routes would be more than met by fare revenue, making those services financially self-sustaining.
It’s still some years off, but keeping the line on the agenda is very important if we’re to see a new Cheadle station open in the not-too-distant future.
32 Comments
Pathetic!!
Glossop, trains every 30 minutes.
Wigan, train at least every 30 minutes
Altrincham, already on the tram network.
E Didsbury, train, tram AND buses.
Stockport, trains every few minutes, 192 bus every 30 seconds.
BUT Cheadle MAY get something sometime. Lack of political will I suggest. Its like the Kingsway junction; something would happen if a councillor actually lived in Cheadle and had to put up with the daily round of queuing at the lights or waiting for buses that never turn up.
If only it were that easy, Alan. There are numerous lines that don’t currently have a service, or have a very poor one. They all want services – not unreasonably.
They only get them if there’s a good business case behind it – the money stacks up.
There are no new heavy rail stations being built at the moment. Even when there’s an existing station being used but with poor services, it’s a struggle to get the service improved (take a look at South Reddish).
So to get someone to spend tens of millions of pounds on building new stations along the Stockport-Altricham line, buying new rolling stock and putting on a regular service is not, I’m afraid, just a matter of having a councillor living in Cheadle!
Sorry Iain, but Alan is largely right on this one. It surprises me that this has made the news bulletin as there’s no positive news for Cheadle in it. Wiser speaking, I do not know why, with so many higher rate tax payers and many business rate payers in Cheadle, that Cheadle still perpetually appears to suffer with investment or much needed development when compared to our neighbours in Didsbury, Cheadle Hulme and so on. I did hear that Mark Hunter was strongly in favour of pushing for a station of some kind in Cheadle but this article steers clear of that, it this still the case?
Have already said this. Existing trains to Chester from
Piccadilly run via Stockport, through Cheadle to Altrincham. Altrincham already has a tram connection so doesn’t need another. No new rail rolling stock is required (other than to replace the existing Northern Rail junk) so all that’s needed at Cheadle is a cheapo pair of platforms, same as those already being built all over Manchester for the trams. I don’t believe that they’re so expensive.
Hi Jackie,
If people want a councillor who only report success stories then I may not be the right person to choose. For me, keeping people up-to-date on ongoing projects is important.
There are some projects that are quick wins, others take a lot longer. Plans for the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road started in the 1930s!
We’ve established that the best (and probably only) real chance of getting the line going again is via tram-train. That’s good, because it gives us the chance of actually making it happen, but we can’t change the realities of the situation: tram-train is currently being trialled in England and until we get the go-ahead from central Government, it can’t happen.
The Lib Dems – including local councillors and Mark Hunter – are strongly in favour of getting a station, which is why we see it as so important to keep up the argument with the (Labour-controlled) Transport for Greater Manchester – as you’ll see from the list in the article, we’re one of a number of places looking to get new services with tram-train.
John – that’s certainly not the view of any of the rail experts I’ve spoken to about the issue (I don’t count myself as one, I have to say).
We would certainly need a lot of new rolling stock, plus new stations along the line and we need to persuade TfGM that they should fund this line ahead of the many others who also want a service.
I find that very hard the believe Iain, you telling us that the A34, recent tram line extensions and M60 each took 70 years in the making! Let’s not bother with any train/tram presence in Cheadle then as none of us will be here to use it! I just wonder how other area of Greater MCR get these type of projects through with funding though, like the other people on here, your voters, are saying, Cheadle always is at the back of the queue. Is this a case for a stronger councillor presence, or MP, or is there any evidence of partnerships with private organisations to deliver value added projects for Cheadle folk?!
Hi Joseph,
No, I’m not telling you that!
I’m saying the relief road proposals have been around since the 1930s (there are maps from the time showing the proposed line of the road).
Cheadle certainly isn’t at the back of the queue – we’re currently due to benefit from £300 million on the Relief Road which will take traffic out of the village centre, over £2 million on cycling improvements, several hundred thousand improving the pavements and High Street in the centre, tens of millions to improve the M60 nearby (following on from over £6 million improvements to the Sharston by-pass section).
We fight for Cheadle and Gatley and keep on at it – some things take longer to secure than others, but the investment in roads and transport around Cheadle over the last few years and the next few shows what we’re achieving – I doubt there are many places in Greater Manchester getting as much as we are.
I wish Cheadle had of joined part of Manchester all those years ago, being part of the Manchester suburb would surely of giving us more than we current seem to get, not much! At least we’re on a TV advert though, that’s nice!
I would admit to being a cynic if I had voiced my fears of years ago but now I am sorry to have to claim clear foresight (along with many other residents). The only planning that gets approved is that which gives immediate profit i.e. building something. That more housing and more industry in an area will result in more traffic congestion (and deteriorating environment) is never included in the so-called planning! Who in the local governing bodies have said no to building expansion until after its effects are provided for?
I agree with John Bodicoat.
Surely using the existing ‘station’ near the Ashlea, (which would also make use of GM’s local rail network) would be cheaper and quicker solution than waiting for plans to develop a strategy, followed by implementation (and of course building a station at Cheadle!)
I’d like to see a report buy one of your rail experts saying which solution is quickest and cheapest.
David – interesting question. Like every other council, we have a set of planning rules based on national planning policy. Since it was introduced in about 1947, national planning policy has always had a presumption in favour of development (i.e. any application gets approved unless there’s a good reason not to). We can, and do, require applicants to mitigate against the negative effects. That doesn’t mean improving the situationn but it does mean – within reason – not making it much worse. Hence, for example, traffic was slow moving through Cheadle back in the 1960s and its still slow-moving today: there’s been lots of development which bring us money and jobs locally, and there’s also been improvements to road, rail etc.
John – This is the debate we have with TfGM and the rail companies. What they certainly won’t do is just build a station in Cheadle and do nothing else. The proposal is to have a line with regular services (several an hour) to Adswood, Cheadle, Gatley and Baguley.
I agree with John Bodicoat. Please advise why a pair of simple platforms with lighting, would not be acceptable. New rolling stock need not be provided until the existing stock is replaced. The journey time between Stockport and Altrincham would be marginally increased but I doubt that any other traffic would be affected on that line.
Similar stations at, say, Gatley/Northenden, Southmoor Road and Baguley could be considered although they may be located in other civic areas.
I do not believe suitable platforms would cost the earth and waiting for tram/train developments will delay it interminably. There are plenty of examples of unmanned halts throughout Britain’s railway history. Has anyone invited tenders for suitable platforms, etc?
TfGM and the railway companies certainly won’t consider a single station at Cheadle without a proper strategic approach to the line.
For a large commuter population such as Cheadle, it is shocking that there is such a lack of public transport options into Manchester. Currently we can choose from the Bus and erm……
What is more, the 3 buses that run into Manchester are all operated by different companies so because of costs you are limited to choose just one of them.
What Cheadle needs is a Metrolink extension from Parrs Wood, not a completely diffent mode of tram train which puts us at odds with the rest of the Greater Manchester transport infrastructure, also what would the point of a link with Altricham and Stockport be? Cheadle is already well served by a frequent bus service. It is Manchester we would like to get to.
But hey so long as Cheadle Hulme is OK, all is well with the world.
Hi Richard,
One of the big benefits of tram-train is that it runs on tramlines and also heavy rail lines, so it would be able to connect into Manchester services.
It mat very well connect with Manchester, but I would wager it will not be very quick, in fact I would suggest it would still be quicker on the Bus.
I welcome any initiative that increases the amount of public transport for Cheadle, but I cannot see any breast benefit to the long hard done by Cheadle Commuter.
It may very well connect with Manchester, but I would wager it will not be very quick, in fact I would suggest it would still be quicker on the Bus.
I welcome any initiative that increases the amount of public transport for Cheadle, but I cannot see any benefit to the long hard done by Cheadle Commuter.
Iain, I ‘ll bet you £10 that the relief road makes little or no difference to the traffic round here and as to the tens of millions to be spent on the M60, so what? do the powers that be actually consult taxpayers / voters on their preferences? I know we can’t always govern by committee, but the M60 has never brought benefits to the High St that, as a bypass, it was supposed to, so spending more on it only benefits those that pass through our area like the A34 traffic. I think the frustration in this feed is obvious (Yes, quite often from me); a lack of benefit FOR US.
Cheadle has arguably the best local centre in the area and is the worst connected.
Cheadle could be transformed by a decent rail link, and tram-train running with the frequent services typical of a tram system would be ideal. I am told that the former coal yard land adjacent to the railway near Cheadle Green was bought by the Alexandra Hospital. Rather than use it for car parking, it could be much more productive for getting patients,staff and visitors to and from the hospital if it were used to built a railway halt. Poor transport connections and overcrowded parking can be a real headache to hospital administrators.. Hospitals without such problems can get on with their core business which is healthcare. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham is situated adjacent to the University railway station and is a good example of a hospital whose activities are not restricted by the lack of good transport facilities. Those Cheadle residents who live near to the line suffer greatly from the current level of road traffic in the centre of the village and those I have spoken to favour re-opening the station.
We must be ambitious our plans for Cheadle station. It could be far more than a link into Manchester Piccadilly. A proportion of the trains should be routed through Reddish South to Victoria, thereby improving Cheadle and Stockport’s links to the main shopping and business areas of central Manchester. This link was used for a few weeks several years ago while the Stockport to Piccadilly line was restricted while extensive refurbishment was in progress. I used this service to Stockport at the time and was impressed by how pleasant and efficient it was. I travelled with people who had used that route about 50 years ago and they all felt that restoring the link would be a great improvement on the present situation. Though it took rather longer than the journey to Piccadilly, the extra few minutes required were less than the time taken to cross Manchester from Piccadilly to Victoria by foot, bus, or Metrolink.
Another alternative is to reinstate the Stockport to Stalybridge service. Not only would it cut journey times from Stockport to Yorkshire, it would help to ease the congestion caused by increasing traffic at Piccadilly. The ability to avoid Piccadilly when travelling to Yorkshire from Chester, Crewe Stoke or Macclesfield could be a popular option. I see from my 1910 Bradshaw that there used to be almost 20 trains a day in each direction.
Using a tram-train system, it would not be necessary for all trains to Victoria or Stalybridge to travel via the existing rail route. A proportion of services could travel through the streets like traditional trams, perhaps linking Stockport station to the centre of Edgeley in one direction, and in the other, passing close to the Merseyway shopping centre and either rejoining the rail system in or near Reddish or linking into the proposed tram-train route to Bredbury or Marple.
If the Stalybridge link were renewed, it would be attractive to link this with the present Metrolink terminus in Ashton, and form a new link to join up with Metrolink in Oldham. We should then be well on the way to removing substantial amount of traffic from central Manchester that has final destinations elsewhere, i.e. we would have a route consisting entirely tram-train and/or Metrolink from Altrincham (and perhaps Northwich or Knutsford in due course) that travelled via Stockport,Stalybridge and Oldham to Rochdale. The possiblity of travelling via the private East Lancashire Railway from Castleton to Bury leaves only the section from Bury to Bolton to be completed before we have a substantial portion of an orbital tram-train route in operation. Why not? We need it just as much as the North London railway that was upgraded and extended through Stratford in anticipation of the recent London Olympics.
Another possibility from Cheadle is to build a station or halt where the existing line crosses the Airport Metrolink line at Southmoor Road. By providing lift access between the two levels, easy access from Cheadle to the Airport would become available for all, whether mobility-impaired or with heavy luggage. This should prove attractive both to Airport staff as well as passengers. Perhaps we don’t need to sacrifice so much green space for airport car-parking after all. The cost-benefits of this, and a large captive market of potential tram-train passengers makes it a no-brainer.
These tram-train developments could ease the pressure of road traffic on the Kingsway-A560 junction. Other correspondents have recognised that only a very substantial civil engineering project could solve this. If we lived South of Watford, no doubt we should already have underpasses here and at East Didsbury, but we live in the real world of London-centred politics where we need cheaper solutions, and I am certain that the tram-train answer for Cheadle would be far more cost-effective than spending megabucks on underpasses.
Others have mentioned extending Metrolink from East Didsbury to Cheadle or even beyond. However I feel that the Geography of the place, with its different levels, plus roads, M60, river and railways to cross would make it extremely expensive, in fact far more expensive than modifying the existing Stockport-Altrincham rail line. Unfortunately, the East Didsbury Metrolink park and ride has been a victim of its own success. Driving from Cheadle to the park and ride at many times of the day can be a slow process, impeded by the right turn on to Kingsway by the Gateway, and shortly after by the right turn onto Didsbury road. A cheaper and surely environmentally more friendly solution would be to have regular shuttle service(s) at an inclusive fare to the East Didsbury Metrolink station from Cheadle, and perhaps Cheadle Hulme and Adswood. Some of the passengers on the shuttle might even walk across to the East Didsbury station on the Airport line as they might find it preferable to get a regular train for longer journeys; alternatively they might prefer to use the much improved 50 bus route to access the University and MRI area or Salford.
I apologise for the length of this post and hope that someone (e.g. Councillors, or local Civic Society) will be motivated to hold one or two informal meetings in Church Halls, pubs or social clubs, etc. so that people with little or no technical knowledge of the situation can debate with persons who know rather more (either keen amateurs or those who have spent a lifetime working in transport). Good brainstorming needs people with open minds and the ability to question whether entrenched positions or sacred cows cannot be challenged. Also, we need to be aware of how things are done in other countries, e.g. the Karlsruhe area of Germany, parts of Germany where a taxi can be booked at short notice via the bus company to meet a bus for a journey that does not normally justify sending the bus any further; also the Swiss have innovative solution. Please excuse my spelling – I’m not sure whether I can check this message before I submit it, and I don’t want to lose it – it took me more than a few minutes to compose.
It’s funny how many folk mention lack of councillor/MP living in Cheadle.
Funny that? Maybe one day!
Councillor Iain Roberts lives in the Ward, in Gatley, and has done for several years. His colleague Keith Holloway lives lives a similar distance from Cheadle,just over the border in Cheadle Hulme.I often see him around our village, i.e. Cheadle. It is more important to have Councillors like these who are dedicated and hardworking rather than worry about the niceties of Geography when a decision by the Boundaries Commission can move them into, or out of, an area at the stroke of a bureaucrats pen – isn’t that right Sir Humphrey? (with apologies to the TV programme “Yes Minister”)
Iain, I am guessing this is the report you are referring to
Transport for Greater Manchester Committee
Capital Projects and Policy Sub Committee 8th Nov. ?
http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/capital_projects_and_policy_agenda_papers_8_11_13.pdf
The section on Tram-Train is p41 to 51, if anyone is interested. Yes the line is still on the list of possible projects, but sadly that is the end of the good news, as far as I can see. The conclusion is that it provides poor value for money and is towards the bottom of the list of possible lines. Knowing how long the tram lines have taken to realise, I think we will be holding our breath until at least the end of the decade.
There is study partly funded by the TfGMC and Cheshire council into the Mid-Cheshire line, which is the one that goes through Cheadle ( Manchester to Chester ), which is underway. I am trying to find some more information about this and will post what I find.
Well said Stuart ! And lets keep this on subject.
Absolutely right, John – and a good explanation of why, sadly, it isn’t just a case of asking for some cash.
There are always many more transport projects than there’s money to fund them. The Lib Dems always fight hard for our area, and work to get our projects to the top of the list.
In this case, where the value for money as they currently calculate it isn’t great, the important thing is to keep it on the list.
What we’re seeing at the moment is a recognition that an improved light rail service along the Stockport-Altrincham line could link in to the new Metrolink through Wythenshawe and provide an important public transport link to Airport City – which will be a major employment zone over the coming years.
As that starts being taken into account in the calculations, we will be working to push the line up the list for funding; but I won’t mislead anyone into thinking that there’s a quick solution.
Stuart – you mention reinstating the Stockport-Stalybridge line. That’s something currently supported by Stockport and Tameside Councils along with the local MP for that area, but has been opposed by TfGM.
There are technical issues with having it as a through line from Altrincham (as I understand it, the problem would be getting the train to cross all the Stockport tracks without causing major disruption/scheduling issues to the existing services along those lines). However, it’s possible and we certainly shouldn’t discount the option at this stage.
Great to see and read so many comments about Cheadle. Yes it is a good place to be and is situated in a prime location for city, airport etc. Only trouble is we are always last on the list! I’ve lived her for over 36 years and we have ONLY ever had a bus link – everywhere else have jumped at the opportunity of progressing with transport facilities EXCEPT us, WHY? come on – lets see some action……. MPs, councillors do your job and put Cheadle first for a change.
Over the last 36 years there’s been very little significant new transport development in Stockport beyond changes to bus services. (That’s true of most other places in the country too – the rail network hasn’t been expanded significantly and Greater Manchester has more in the way of trams than anywhere else).
As far as I know, no new train stations have been opened, Metrolink is only just reaching out towards us and bus services have been mostly maintained.
So it’s certainly not true that Cheadle has missed out on improvements or that it’s last on the list; and I can certainly confirm that the local councillors and MP fight Cheadle’s corner hard – by for example keeping Cheadle Station on the agenda.
I couldn’t agree more with the comments above regarding the public transport from Cheadle in to town, it really is dreadful, I mean look at what Didsbury has! Firstly, the x57 takes roughly the same amount of time (45 mins) to get into town as the horse drawn ‘coach’ did from the White Hart in 1876!(source: Chronicles of Cheadle). Isn’t that shameful when there’s barely an alternative? Stagecoach even have the nerve to plaster ‘fast to the city’ on the x57…. Secondly, the bus companies should run more frequent buses down the 130 route, as loss leaders if necessary to make up for the appalling journey we have to suffer down Wilmslow Rd. The 130 takes only 25 mins on a good day, why not make that bus or add a similar service and make it more frequent? Isn’t that the very least Cheadle deserves given the public transport riches our neighbours have? Finally, If I choose to go into town during the day but return in the evening, I cannot even take advantage of a daily saver ticket as it’s 2 different bus operators – unbelievable!
I agree that the councillors we have are hard working and generally do a good job. I just gripe because I can’t get any headway with the thing that concerns me. I won’t mention it again because they know what it is.
Looking again at the report, I see that a tram station at Cheadle Heath (Stockport Road nr Morrison’s ?) is recommended as part of an extension of the East Didsbury tram line. It would continue to follow the old abandoned trackbed to the sewage works, where it would share the track with an existing freight only line. Critically there is a bridge in situ over the M60. The line would then go through Adswood to Hazel Grove. This is recommended as part of phase2 after Marple. This is something, but is of course about the same distance as Gatley station from the site of Cheadle station in the other direction. As one someone said above, geography is not on our side.
i can not understand why they can not develop the Altrincham to Stockport line ,piece meal,first build a station at Cheadle at Mill lane ,platforms and adequate parking and hopefully as funds come available ,more stations down the line ,and eventually electrify the line and a connection via metro line to the airport with tram/train system.
There is a track already in use with a train operated by a rail company ,so i am sure they would welcome extra passengers with more revenue ,a new station will provide.
The growing population of Cheadle need a station to ease the increasing traffic congestion .
i am sure some of the spare land next to mill lane could be sold off for housing development which will fund for the building of the station .