Ideas for solving the current shortage of Metrolink trams once the new Trafford Centre line opens

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/manchester-metrolink-trafford-centre-extension.171586/

Could the new Trafford Centre line use any of the existing M5000 tram units before the arrival of any new trams, by having single tram units running the service in the way that the Airport line always has had, by reducing the number of double units on other lines?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Indeed. They're starting to feel their age now though.

I think this needs further discussion on another thread.

Could the new Trafford Centre line use any of the existing M5000 tram units before the arrival of any new trams, by having single tram units running the service in the way that the Airport line always has had, by reducing the number of double units on other lines?

"Sorry there's less Trams for your commutes, some people want to go shopping"

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

"Sorry there's less Trams for your commutes, some people want to go shopping"

Why then build the Trafford Centre line?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Why then build the Trafford Centre line?

Why not wait until there are sufficent trams?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why not wait until there are sufficent trams?

You do seem quite knowledgeable on Metrolink matters, so can I ask if that be the case that you state above, what will be the time period differential when the line is fully completed ready for service and the time that there will be enough new trams to operate the service to its normally expected timetable frequency?

 

[LOL The Irony]

You do seem quite knowledgeable on Metrolink matters, so can I ask if that be the case that you state above, what will be the time period differential when the line is fully completed ready for service and the time that there will be enough new trams to operate the service to its normally expected timetable frequency?

Well it's supposed to be operational early next year so it's pretty obvious they'll have to take trams from elsewheres (like you said) despite the fact they are needed elsewheres. So this is another case of Metrolink expanding too fast for it's own good again. Why they couldn't time completing the line with the first new trams being delivered is anyones guess.

 

[507 001]

Well it's supposed to be operational early next year so it's pretty obvious they'll have to take trams from elsewheres (like you said) despite the fact they are needed elsewheres. So this is another case of Metrolink expanding too fast for it's own good again. Why they couldn't time completing the line with the first new trams being delivered is anyones guess.

The Trafford centre line trams have already been delivered and are in service as extra doubles on the Bury, Alt and Rochdale lines.

The new trams were intended as capacity improvement (I.e. to release the existing TPL trams and then some).

They were originally intended to arrive, as you said, around the time the line opened, however they have been delayed by the manufacturer.

It is completely out of Metrolink and TFGM’s control. The only thing they probably would have done differently had the delay been known about earlier is give a later time frame for TPL opening.

It’s also worth noting that a huge number of people work in Trafford park. The line hasn’t just been built to serve the Trafford centre, so the ‘some people want to go shopping’ post from earlier is somewhat exaggerated. The suspicion is that during day to day operations, the Trafford Centre will account for a tiny fraction of the people using it.

 

[rebmcr]

It’s also worth noting that a huge number of people work in Trafford park. The line hasn’t just been built to serve the Trafford centre, so the ‘some people want to go shopping’ post from earlier is somewhat exaggerated. The suspicion is that during day to day operations, the Trafford Centre will account for a tiny fraction of the people using it.

Plus the large exhibition/convention venue right across the road!

 

[LOL The Irony]

The Trafford centre line trams have already been delivered and are in service as extra doubles on the Bury, Alt and Rochdale lines.

But would they be happy to lose their extra trams?

They were originally intended to arrive, as you said, around the time the line opened, however they have been delayed by the manufacturer.

It is completely out of Metrolink and TFGM’s control. The only thing they probably would have done differently had the delay been known about earlier is give a later time frame for TPL opening.

Fair enough.

It’s also worth noting that a huge number of people work in Trafford park. The line hasn’t just been built to serve the Trafford centre, so the ‘some people want to go shopping’ post from earlier is somewhat exaggerated.

It was a generalisation and how people on the effected lines would see it.

 

[507 001]

Plus the large exhibition/convention venue right across the road!

That has actually moved (or is moving) to another site away from the line!

But would they be happy to lose their extra trams?

Fair enough.

It was a generalisation and how people on the effected lines would see it.

Probably not, and being front-line staff I’m not sure I’d like to experience the fallout from that decision if it were made. However, the point I was trying to make was that the trams were intended to be, and actually were ready for service as soon as the line opens. Other things got in the way however.

 

[Jozhua]

Well it's supposed to be operational early next year so it's pretty obvious they'll have to take trams from elsewheres (like you said) despite the fact they are needed elsewheres. So this is another case of Metrolink expanding too fast for it's own good again. Why they couldn't time completing the line with the first new trams being delivered is anyones guess.

I don't really see your point to be honest, Metrolink is expanding at a decent speed but frankly Manchester is in desperate need of a better transport network. Considering the Trafford line project is running early and the manufacturer of the trams is running late, it's not really their fault. Bit glass half empty anyway isn't it, shouldn't we be excited that the line is opening so soon, even if it doesn't reach its full potential until the new vehicles arrive?

It’s also worth noting that a huge number of people work in Trafford park. The line hasn’t just been built to serve the Trafford centre, so the ‘some people want to go shopping’ post from earlier is somewhat exaggerated. The suspicion is that during day to day operations, the Trafford Centre will account for a tiny fraction of the people using it.

I was about to mention all the people who work at the Trafford Centre too!

I wonder wether the old T68's could be redeployed on other routes to free up some M5000's to run on the Trafford Line? If that was combined with a reduced timetable on the Trafford route to begin with, no capacity should have to be nicked from other parts of the network?

If there are some turnback points in central Manchester, the line could just run as a shuttle from there as well?

A bit of planning over passenger flows could help to, the Trafford Centre will probably be busiest at the weekends, so trams that would be used to reinforce rush hour flows could be deployed on a more frequent or doubled up Trafford Centre service.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't really see your point to be honest, Metrolink is expanding at a decent speed but frankly Manchester is in desperate need of a better transport network. Considering the Trafford line project is running early and the manufacturer of the trams is running late, it's not really their fault. Bit glass half empty anyway isn't it, shouldn't we be excited that the line is opening so soon, even if it doesn't reach its full potential until the new vehicles arrive?


I was about to mention all the people who work at the Trafford Centre too!

I wonder wether the old T68's could be redeployed on other routes to free up some M5000's to run on the Trafford Line? If that was combined with a reduced timetable on the Trafford route to begin with, no capacity should have to be nicked from other parts of the network?

If there are some turnback points in central Manchester, the line could just run as a shuttle from there as well?

A bit of planning over passenger flows could help to, the Trafford Centre will probably be busiest at the weekends, so trams that would be used to reinforce rush hour flows could be deployed on a more frequent or doubled up Trafford Centre service.

-No chance of T68s coming back, surely

-I reckon (as I said upthread), as soon as there's bare minimum vehicles for a Cornbrook-Trafford Centre shuttle, it'll launch

-Your idea of releasing extra units at weekends for strengthening when TC demand is highest is far too sensible a contribution to this debate - you are hereby banished Sundays won't be a problem as reduced frequencies operate anyway.

 

[507 001]

I don't really see your point to be honest, Metrolink is expanding at a decent speed but frankly Manchester is in desperate need of a better transport network. Considering the Trafford line project is running early and the manufacturer of the trams is running late, it's not really their fault. Bit glass half empty anyway isn't it, shouldn't we be excited that the line is opening so soon, even if it doesn't reach its full potential until the new vehicles arrive?


I was about to mention all the people who work at the Trafford Centre too!

I wonder wether the old T68's could be redeployed on other routes to free up some M5000's to run on the Trafford Line? If that was combined with a reduced timetable on the Trafford route to begin with, no capacity should have to be nicked from other parts of the network?

If there are some turnback points in central Manchester, the line could just run as a shuttle from there as well?

A bit of planning over passenger flows could help to, the Trafford Centre will probably be busiest at the weekends, so trams that would be used to reinforce rush hour flows could be deployed on a more frequent or doubled up Trafford Centre service.

There’s about as much chance of Nigel Farage becoming an ardent remainer as T68s being used.
The remaining ones are a mixture of T68 and T68a, making maintenance difficult, Nobody signs them any more and the ones outside are little more than scrap metal on wheels.

As I’ve said upthread, the main business for the line will be the workers, so it’ll probably be busier through the week. It’ll actually provide a much better link to Media City for starters.

 

[Clarky]

Taking trams off already overpacked existing lines will not go well, I commute on the Bury line and its sardine'd any time before 9am in the morning (dont get me started on the push to make people commute earlier then providing a single tram every 12 mins for the early trams!) any time after 15:30 right through to past 6 is also packed on the way out of Victoria. I would definitely consider a 2nd car and sitting in traffic if they reduce capacity and I'm sure there are plenty of others paying a fair whack to be squashed onto a tram who would do the same

 

[Kite159]

[

-No chance of T68s coming back, surely

-I reckon (as I said upthread), as soon as there's bare minimum vehicles for a Cornbrook-Trafford Centre shuttle, it'll launch

-Your idea of releasing extra units at weekends for strengthening when TC demand is highest is far too sensible a contribution to this debate - you are hereby banished Sundays won't be a problem as reduced frequencies operate anyway.

Wouldn't it be more sensible sending the shuttle to Deansgate where they can use the centre platform and not block the platform at Cornbrook when it gets emptied out?

 

[507 001]

Taking trams off already overpacked existing lines will not go well, I commute on the Bury line and its sardine'd any time before 9am in the morning (dont get me started on the push to make people commute earlier then providing a single tram every 12 mins for the early trams!) any time after 15:30 right through to past 6 is also packed on the way out of Victoria. I would definitely consider a 2nd car and sitting in traffic if they reduce capacity and I'm sure there are plenty of others paying a fair whack to be squashed onto a tram who would do the same

Whilst that is a very valid point, and is exactly what we’re afraid of, it’s worth noting that the TPL will provide a fair bit of relief on the southern section of the Bury Line where commuting has become a real struggle in recent years. In theory (and yes I know the trams can be full and standing by Radcliffe) that should make up for the lack of the extra doubles in a small way.

Once the 27 new ones are in service, it wouldn’t surprise me if nearly all Bury and Alti sets are doubles. It’s needed.

 

[507 001]

[


Wouldn't it be more sensible sending the shuttle to Deansgate where they can use the centre platform and not block the platform at Cornbrook when it gets emptied out?

Not necessarily.

DCF struggles to cope with just a single Inbound Platform. If you start turning the TPL sets there you lose a lot of capacity and flexibility.
It takes 30 seconds to detrain a single unit, and it can then go and sit in the siding for it’s turnaround out of the way. Cornbrook siding is much quicker since the Cornbrook upgrade works a few weeks ago.

Turn at DCF, and you block an important running line for what? 7/8 minutes at a time?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not necessarily. DCF struggles to cope with just a single Inbound Platform. If you start turning the TPL sets there you lose a lot of capacity and flexibility. It takes 30 seconds to detrain a single unit, and it can then go and sit in the siding for it’s turnaround out of the way. Cornbrook siding is much quicker since the Cornbrook upgrade works a few weeks ago.

Cornbrook and its siding were the first terminal section on the Airport line when it commenced, so there is a precedent.

 

[507 001]

Cornbrook and its siding were the first terminal section on the Airport line when it commenced, so there is a precedent.

Indeed, however things have changed considerably since those services moved to DCF.

 

[Jozhua]

Whilst that is a very valid point, and is exactly what we’re afraid of, it’s worth noting that the TPL will provide a fair bit of relief on the southern section of the Bury Line where commuting has become a real struggle in recent years. In theory (and yes I know the trams can be full and standing by Radcliffe) that should make up for the lack of the extra doubles in a small way.

Once the 27 new ones are in service, it wouldn’t surprise me if nearly all Bury and Alti sets are doubles. It’s needed.

Let's hope some more capacity comes! I don't commute on Metrolink, or into the centre of the city, so I don't really experience the trams when they're absolutely rammed, however from the outside they look pretty busy!

I wonder if 27 will be enough to tide the network by for another few years. The Trafford Park line will probably cause people to ride on others more and change onto it, which is fantastic for reducing car traffic and increasing Metrolink revenue but some planning in regards to future demand is definitely needed.

 

[HSTEd]

If we are at the point where we have diagrams running entirely as doubles, isn't it time to consider ordering double length units?
They lose some flexibility but they gain capacity due to the elimination of two cabs etc.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does anyone know if the Airport Line will ever have double units upon it?

 

[507 001]

Let's hope some more capacity comes! I don't commute on Metrolink, or into the centre of the city, so I don't really experience the trams when they're absolutely rammed, however from the outside they look pretty busy!

I wonder if 27 will be enough to tide the network by for another few years. The Trafford Park line will probably cause people to ride on others more and change onto it, which is fantastic for reducing car traffic and increasing Metrolink revenue but some planning in regards to future demand is definitely needed.

There’s likely to be an order for tram trains in a few years time which will free up bananas for use else where.

If we are at the point where we have diagrams running entirely as doubles, isn't it time to consider ordering double length units?
They lose some flexibility but they gain capacity due to the elimination of two cabs etc.

Not necessarily. Both depots would need extensive rebuilding to be able to deal with permanent double length vehicles.

I’d be very surprised if tram trains, when they happen, weren’t double length though.

Does anyone know if the Airport Line will ever have double units upon it?

Extremely unlikely. It’ll be getting a 6 minute service at some point in the next few years so shouldn’t need them.
Having taken a double up there on one occasion I can confirm that I would never ever want to again. I swear a little bit of me died inside that day.

 

[markymark2000]

How easy is it for Metrolink Trams to couple and uncouple? As a short term solution, could they get the Bury to Altrincham services (as they are normally doubles) to uncouple at Cornbrook with 1 portion to Alt and another to Trafford Centre.

This does use the 'shuttle' which has been mentioned above but also ensures the doubles to Bury are kept and if all Bury-Alt trams are doubles, then it would use no extra trams.

 

[507 001]

How easy is it for Metrolink Trams to couple and uncouple? As a short term solution, could they get the Bury to Altrincham services (as they are normally doubles) to uncouple at Cornbrook with 1 portion to Alt and another to Trafford Centre.

This does use the 'shuttle' which has been mentioned above but also ensures the doubles to Bury are kept and if all Bury-Alt trams are doubles, then it would use no extra trams.

Despite being fitted with Scharfenberg couplers, the coupling process is slow and unreliable. They quite often fail to extend, requiring manual intervention, and can be quite temperamental when actually joining. As a result it’s generally done by technicians.

Even if it was reliable, I wouldn’t want to be splitting and joining on such a busy stretch.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How easy is it for Metrolink Trams to couple and uncouple? As a short term solution, could they get the Bury to Altrincham services (as they are normally doubles) to uncouple at Cornbrook with 1 portion to Alt and another to Trafford Centre.

Have you ever stood on Cornbrook station, noting the frequency at which trams pass through there?

 

[markymark2000]

Have you ever stood on Cornbrook station, noting the frequency at which trams pass through there?

It would be blinking tough to do but it could be the only short term solution if the new trams are delayed.
Unless you pull services off other routes and as has been said above, capacity can be tight at the best of times. Either couple/uncouple at Cornbrook or divert the Shaw - East Dids service to Trafford Centre.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Unless you pull services off other routes and as has been said above, capacity can be tight at the best of times. Either couple/uncouple at Cornbrook or divert the Shaw - East Dids service to Trafford Centre.

I am sure that the Chorlton commuters will be none too pleased to learn that as a result of that second option above, their service will be cut down in capacity terms. Also, where will that leave the new platform at Crumpsall?

 

[markymark2000]

I am sure that the Chorlton commuters will be none too pleased to learn that as a result of that second option above, their service will be cut down in capacity terms. Also, where will that leave the new platform at Crumpsall?

This is the short term. In the long run, the Trafford Centre to Crumpsall will be fine but without reducing the capacity somewhere how do you think the Trafford Centre line will run?
These new trams are delayed, there is a line almost ready to be used for passenger service. Delay the opening of the line or reduce capacity somewhere to put a basic service on the Trafford Centre line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

These new trams are delayed, there is a line almost ready to be used for passenger service. Delay the opening of the line or reduce capacity somewhere to put a basic service on the Trafford Centre line.

Which is basically re-stating the point I made in the very first posting of this thread.