Manchester Metrolink master thread

sheff'd victoria · 4 Jan 2013

gingerheid said:
Wonderful.

If only Edinburgh could do it like this...

If only Sheffield would do this !

Their was 2 new planned tram routes in Sheffield and for some reason the Labour government turned it down :-x

Their is the Tram-Train project to Rotherham but this has not gone down very well in Sheffield

All Credit to Manchester & GMPTE for opening all these new lines

RailUK Forums

Mcr Warrior · 4 Jan 2013

theblackwatch said:
I've dug out the 'bible' for October 1990-May 1991 (the line closed to BR services in December 1991), and it shows a 15 minute frequency service on weekdays and Saturdays, the general pattern being:
xx.10 to Alderley Edge (via Styal)
xx.25 to Alderley Edge (via Stockport)
xx.40 to Wilmslow (via Styal)
xx.55 to Crewe (via Stockport)

On Sundays it was roughly a 30 min service but not starting till the afternoon.

jcollins said:
Can you find a late 1980s timetable? I think the service on the Sale line started to be reduced from 1989 onwards when Chester services were diverted.

Agree with both TheBlackWatch and JCollins. The basic every 15 minutes off peak service in the 1980s that TheBlackWatch mentions was operated by the old Class 304 electric multiple units that ran all stops from Altrincham into Manchester Piccadilly (and onwards, very occasionally working as far as Wolverhampton) if I rightly recall. In addition, there was also an hourly DMU service from Chester General to Manchester Oxford Road (via Sale) that only stopped at a few stations along the line between Altrincham and Manchester Oxford Road (if any), usually Sale (only) and occasionally Brooklands as well, and it was this service that was diverted via Stockport in c. 1989.

pemma · 4 Jan 2013

Mcr Warrior said:
In addition, there was also an hourly DMU service from Chester General to Manchester Oxford Road (via Sale) that only stopped at a few stations along the line between Altrincham and Manchester Oxford Road (if any), usually Sale (only) and occasionally Brooklands as well, and it was this service that was diverted via Stockport in c. 1989.

Was hourly off-peak but had a 20 minute frequency at peak times, which was reduced to a 30 minute frequency at peak times.

The DMU services also made additional calls at Warwick Road (now Old Trafford Metrolink) when either Lancashire CC or Man United were playing. Some match day trains on the Sale line could be up to 8 carriages long.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

PR1Berske said:
And it's worth seeing this balanced front page from the MEN

From what the legal team have said it sounds like with the evidence that has been analysed so far TfGM are to blame but it sounds like there's a lot more evidence to analyse yet.

northernrail · 4 Jan 2013

I finaly have internet access again....ive not read this entire thread so i dont know if this has been posted, but training of the driver trainers has started on the East Manchester Line, i noted 3001, 17 and 38 yesterday, Il grab some pics tomorrow.

Xenophon PCDGS · 5 Jan 2013

familyguy99 said:
East Manchester line: Line to Droylsden should be opening in February 2013 or even on 11th which Metrolink confirm, Also line to Ashton Under Lyne could be opening too in 2013 but more likely by end of 2013 if that happens.

I have spoken to certain people who are quite high in authority at TfGM with regard to the matter of Ashton under Lyne terminal Metrolink station of the East Manchester line receiving service provision before the projected 2014 opening date. They would not be drawn on this matter and I feel the delayed openings so far on other Metrolink sections, for various reasons that are now well known, are ones that have caused their reticence to give any hope upon this matter. I cannot blame them for assuming this stance given the old adage of "Once bitten, twice shy".

familyguy99 · 5 Jan 2013

northernrail said:
I finaly have internet access again....ive not read this entire thread so i dont know if this has been posted, but training of the driver trainers has started on the East Manchester Line, i noted 3001, 17 and 38 yesterday, Il grab some pics tomorrow.

^^ Them trams have been out on EML again today for testing (u can found picture of testing on skyscrapercity forums) but I have hear they been no Tram testing on EML tomorrow (6th Jan) as they going to be Engineering Work at Piccadilly stop tomorrow (6th Jan)

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=866944&page=1346

http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pages/news.aspx?forthcomingID=19

ATW Alex 101 · 7 Jan 2013

I think that the trams are getting along quite nicely. When the Oldham Loop was converted to light rail, did they have to rip out the track and replace it or is the gauge the same so in that case they keep the existing track?

My uncle who is a very highly professional engineer believe it or not designed the power and electrification for the metrolink in both the original part when it first came out and the part they are currently building now including the OHLE and all the substations. Other things he has done is the ELL extensions and conversion and designed crossrail and is in the process of starting the design for the new trains

scandal · 7 Jan 2013

sheff'd victoria said:
If only Sheffield would do this !

Their was 2 new planned tram routes in Sheffield and for some reason the Labour government turned it down :-x

Their is the Tram-Train project to Rotherham but this has not gone down very well in Sheffield

In fairness the poor passenger levels leading to a concession taking over operation haven't helped Sheffield's image for light rail efficiency, nor did the poor regeneration effects and lack of coherent planning across stakeholders, equally some of the original route choices were questionable as housing estates were regenerated. In contrast you are now getting a Rotherham extension in the form of tram-trains which could leap frog reopening eventually into the town centre and who knows Dore.

One of my main criticisms of Manchester's expansion has been the decision not to convert the entire system over to Low Floor operation, considering a new fleet of trams is in service (although I expect some will remain from the Eccles extension) surely the original argument for high floors (ie. a cheap conversion to light rail to avoid the costly upgrade and conversion from 1500v DC) can and should of been put to bed?

Xenophon PCDGS · 7 Jan 2013

scandal said:
One of my main criticisms of Manchester's expansion has been the decision not to convert the entire system over to Low Floor operation, considering a new fleet of trams is in service (although I expect some will remain from the Eccles extension) surely the original argument for high floors (ie. a cheap conversion to light rail to avoid the costly upgrade and conversion from 1500v DC) can and should of been put to bed?

The Manchester Metrolink system is based upon the use of railway station platforms that were there in place on the original line conversions on both the Manchester to Bury and the Manchester to Altrincham lines.

What cost to TfGM do you imagine would ensue by completely taking away all existing railway station-type platforms in order to allow the use of Low Floor operation of the Manchester Metrolink system and all the existing services on the existing platforms....notwithstanding the cost of buying a completely new fleet of Low Floor vehicles in addition to all the other associated costs that would ensue,

si404 · 7 Jan 2013

high floor also allows easy tram-train conversion of existing rail lines, bringing Metrolink to Wigan, Knutsford, Marple, Glossop, etc easier.

Nym · 7 Jan 2013

si404 said:
high floor also allows easy tram-train conversion of existing rail lines, bringing Metrolink to Wigan, Knutsford, Marple, Glossop, etc easier.

Using WHAT spare capacity in Manchester???

We're already realistically looking at 40tph into Deansgate when 2CC comes in, this being the upper limit of any implemented signalling system in the world, the highest implemented in the UK is 33tph (On the Jubilee Line and Victoria Line on London Underground, using DTG-R Signalling)...

The only way we can have more services through Deansgate is with Four Tracking between Cornbrook Jcns and Deansgate and by putting in 3CC / OR Terminus

3CC being Deansgate to Piccadilly via Whitworth Street, placing Metrolink platforms in the current Short Stay car park and Taxi areas, short stay would move and Taxis would be compressed up, but I dowbt we could have through running to the E Manchester Line from here.
OR Terminus being similar to this, but remaining on viaduct and terminating as part of a re-built Oxford Road station (stealing Platform 5 but also allowing extentions of Platforms 1 and 4 to 8 car while cutting 2 and 3 to 4 car.

Manchester77 · 7 Jan 2013

Once TMS is fully implemented the cornbrook junction - St. Peter's square section is being signalled for 84 tph

si404 · 7 Jan 2013

Nym said:
Using WHAT spare capacity in Manchester???

Well, perhaps the 20 trams-per-hour terminating at Victoria or the 10tph terminating at Piccadilly, or the 10tph terminating at Bury, Alti or wherever you want to join the main rail network. All you are doing then is extending tram routes that have already crossed the city centre. Or you could do Wigan/Leigh - Hadfield/Glossop/Rose Hill using capacity that would exist on the Pic-Vic axis...

We're already realistically looking at 40tph into Deansgate when 2CC comes in, this being the upper limit of any implemented signalling system in the world, the highest implemented in the UK is 33tph (On the Jubilee Line and Victoria Line on London Underground, using DTG-R Signalling)...

Yes, but these are trams running line-of-sight (like as if they were buses) through that area, not tube trains, and you can run a maximum of 86tph using line of sight according to TfGM. Which sounds rather precise, and seems weird that they didn't just say 90 (ie one every 40 seconds) - so perhaps they have done the modelling, rather than pluck a number out of thin air.

Oh, and with all the branches, the current limiting factor of the Jubilee and Victoria lines isn't there - turnarounds at ends of lines take time - you might not get that much more, but you can get some more out of them. Though branches bring in reliability issues, but with effectively 86 'paths', there's enough flexibility for 60tph through Cornbrook and Deansgate.

Certainly the Moscow metro runs a line at 40tph, and the District line used to run at that frequency.

scandal · 7 Jan 2013

Paul Sidorczuk said:
What cost to TfGM do you imagine would ensue by completely taking away all existing railway station-type platforms in order to allow the use of Low Floor operation of the Manchester Metrolink system and all the existing services on the existing platforms....notwithstanding the cost of buying a completely new fleet of Low Floor vehicles in addition to all the other associated costs that would ensue

Very little cost for a 33mm high platform at about 50m long, you could do as they are doing on the tram-train trials and place it at the end of the already existing platform to reduce removal costs.

You seem to have missed my point with your comments of bold, TFGM have purchased a brand new fleet of trams for Metrolink, the Flexity Swift and are retiring the T-68s by 2014, hence my point they are already spending a considerable sum to replace the fleet of trams and massivley increasing the size of the network, if there was ever an optimal time for conversion it is, or was, now.

Xenophon PCDGS · 8 Jan 2013

scandal said:
Very little cost for a 33mm high platform at about 50m long, you could do as they are doing on the tram-train trials and place it at the end of the already existing platform to reduce removal costs.

You seem to have missed my point with your comments of bold, TfGM have purchased a brand new fleet of trams for Metrolink, the Flexity Swift and are retiring the T-68s by 2014, hence my point they are already spending a considerable sum to replace the fleet of trams and massively increasing the size of the network, if there was ever an optimal time for conversion it is, or was, now.

I still cannot understand your reasoning for wanting to introduce Low Floor tram operation in the TfGM administered area, but leave that aside for the moment. What I wish to take issue with you is your statement concerning the construction of 33mm high platforms of 50m in length at the end of the existing platforms. How on earth are you to achieve this in the city centre noting the positions of the stations there such as Shudehill, Market Street, Piccadilly Gardens and St Peters Square.

There is the matter to which is alluded to in an earlier posting with concern to the former heavy rail stations on the Bury and the Altrincham lines that were those first converted from heavy rail to Manchester Metrolink, to which I ask you if you have actually seen the length of the platforms which were originally constructed by the railway companies in those far-off days. Some of these still retain their original lengths and have a barrier construction to deter the use of the section no longer required for Manchester Metrolink usage. Your proposal to add your 33mm high platform at the end of these unused sections seems rather incredulous to me.

Why can you not accept the fact that "what is now" will continue to be so and if you have the results of your discussions with TfGM and their response to your proposals, I am sure that the forum members will be only too pleased to read of them on this thread.

scandal · 8 Jan 2013

Paul Sidorczuk said:
I still cannot understand your reasoning for wanting to introduce Low Floor tram operation in the TfGM administered area, but leave that aside for the moment.

Low floor tram infrastructure merges into the public realm far easier creating better aesthetics and also low floor trams have numerous benefits for those with heavy shopping, push chairs or those who suffer from disabilities. Low floor trams also allow a far larger tram within the clearence profile often resulting in bigger windows. From a safety point of view the driver is positioned lower to the ground and therefore closer to the surroundings.

Paul Sidorczuk said:
What I wish to take issue with you is your statement concerning the construction of 33mm high platforms of 50m in length at the end of the existing platforms. How on earth are you to achieve this in the city centre noting the positions of the stations there such as Shudehill, Market Street, Piccadilly Gardens and St Peters Square.

If you read my previous posts you would see I suggested this to previous national rail assets only, in order to reduce cost if required, considering the whole network would be converted to low floor the city centre stops would of been rebuilt. The point remains considering the significant capital investment into the network, the previous paradigms of cheap conversion of life-expired BR infrastructure to light rail no longer apply (before you start all the stations on the Oldham Loop have been rebuilt) since it is a highly popular mass transit system gaining significant capital investment in its own right.

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Why can you not accept the fact that "what is now"

Thank god most transport planners appear to have more ambition.

Xenophon PCDGS · 8 Jan 2013

scandal said:
Thank god most transport planners appear to have more ambition.

You may very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment....:roll:

I have just telephoned my contacts at the higher level at TfGM who think you have absolutely no grasp whatsoever on the reality of the past, present and future plans of the Manchester Metrolink system. They wonder where your idea for Low Floor trams on the Manchester Metrolink system first emanated and assured me that such a system has never been on any agenda of either GMPTE in past days or TfGM now. They suggest that you acquaint yourself with the history of the Manchester Metrolink system and the reasons why the existing system is of the type that currently exists.

Anyone on an internet forum can make any proposals, such as those that you espouse, which you are free to air, but do not expect your enthusiastic vision to receive universal acceptance. I have been referred to as "The Angel of Death" when I have responded to some of what I have regarded as unrealistic internet project proposals in the past and have pointed out the shortcomings of what I see. Please note that my postings are not made from the unfettered flights of fancy so well displayed by schoolboys, but from over 40 years in senior managerial roles where project costs are a hard and fast fact of financial life. Whilst,at the age of 67, I am in my third year of retirement from the position of Head of Projects at the Consultancy, I have lost none of my keenness of incisive thought.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

scandal said:
If you read my previous posts you would see I suggested this to previous national rail assets only, in order to reduce cost if required, considering the whole network would be converted to low floor the city centre stops would of been rebuilt. The point remains considering the significant capital investment into the network, the previous paradigms of cheap conversion of life-expired BR infrastructure to light rail no longer apply (before you start all the stations on the Oldham Loop have been rebuilt) since it is a highly popular mass transit system gaining significant capital investment in its own right.

I note that you have selectively chosen to ignore the comments that I made with concern to the unused and fenced-off sections of the originally built railway stations on both the Manchester to Bury line and the Manchester to Altrincham line.

The reason that I made no comment whatsoever on the former railway stations on the Oldham Loop Line is that I was already aware of the rebuilding of the former heavy rail platforms. Please credit me with the intelligence to have already been aware of that fact.

radamfi · 8 Jan 2013

If it was known that the T68s would be withdrawn in their entirety in the near future then there could have been a case for rebuilding the network for low floor trams. However, that wasn't the case. The imminent total withdrawal of T68s was only decided once many of the M5000 had been delivered.

Xenophon PCDGS · 8 Jan 2013

radamfi said:
If it was known that the T68s would be withdrawn in their entirety in the near future then there could have been a case for rebuilding the network for low floor trams. However, that wasn't the case. The imminent total withdrawal of T68s was only decided once many of the M5000 had been delivered.

I thank you for making this posting as you well understand how matters exist in the real world and in the cold light of day. Perhaps others are unaware of these facts.

Manchester77 · 8 Jan 2013

Plus it would be costly. There'd have to be Phase One and Two stations all rebuilt, the Phase Three stations rebuilt as many were under construction way before opening. The first stops were being fitted with platform furniture in 2010 so that's a lot. I just don't really think there will be. A case for the low-flooring of metrolink

Xenophon PCDGS · 8 Jan 2013

Manchester77 said:
Plus it would be costly. There'd have to be Phase One and Two stations all rebuilt, the Phase Three stations rebuilt as many were under construction way before opening. The first stops were being fitted with platform furniture in 2010 so that's a lot. I just don't really think there will be a case for the low-flooring of Metrolink

Realism again surfaces upon this thread...

scandal · 8 Jan 2013

radamfi said:
If it was known that the T68s would be withdrawn in their entirety in the near future then there could have been a case for rebuilding the network for low floor trams. However, that wasn't the case. The imminent total withdrawal of T68s was only decided once many of the M5000 had been delivered.

It appears at least someone can give me an answer without having a need to get personal. Bold and ambitious ideas of thinking outside the box are the reason Metrolink exists, luckily it wasn't suggested on an internet forum with the purpose of encouraging debate.

Nym · 8 Jan 2013

scandal said:
It appears at least someone can give me an answer without having a need to get personal. Bold and ambitious ideas of thinking outside the box are the reason Metrolink exists, luckily it wasn't suggested on an internet forum with the purpose of encouraging debate.

I'm sorry, what?

Trams are pretty much as old hat as trains...

Manchester77 · 8 Jan 2013

There isn't going to be any financial benefit for metrolink/TfGM. It would require the entire network to shut down for weeks while every platform had it's furniture removed, then demolished, rebuilt to lower height and furniture put back. Of you think of it, the national rail network is high floor. Many local routes around here could be tram trained easily but with low floor the platforms would have to be demolished causing more disruption than necessary. The stops and infrastructure on ORL was rebuilt because it was so poor quality with stops on the northern section having only one platform. At the most a Harringdon Hump can be installed if the platforms aren't at the right height but that probably won't be the case.
High floor allows wider range for expansions - low floor costly conversions and no running say metrolink and northern service at the same platform.
High floor is perfect for metrolink. For those who may say about step free access the ENTIRE metrolink is step free the only thing is that it's just a small ledge in comparison to a large, standard platform.
It's not needed at all
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

scandal said:
It appears at least someone can give me an answer without having a need to get personal. Bold and ambitious ideas of thinking outside the box are the reason Metrolink exists, luckily it wasn't suggested on an internet forum with the purpose of encouraging debate.

Erm just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that they're rude :roll:

Xenophon PCDGS · 8 Jan 2013

TfGM are hosting a public information event tomorrow, Wednesday 9th January with regard to the proposed new Manchester Metrolink stop at Queens Road.

This is being held from 1500 to 1900 in the premises of the Irish World Heritage Centre in Cheetham Hill and staff from TfGM will be present to answer any queries

Manchester77 · 8 Jan 2013

Nym said:
I'm sorry, what?

Trams are pretty much as old hat as trains...

Yep, the first electric trams in the UK started in 1885, hardly modern and radical

Metroland · 9 Jan 2013

Manchester77 said:
Erm just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that they're rude :roll:

Really, this forum is one of the worst? Low levels of debate, poor fact checking, vested interests and rudeness abounds from rail staff and spotters mob mentality.

Manchester77 · 9 Jan 2013

Metroland said:
Really, this forum is one of the worst? Low levels of debate, poor fact checking, vested interests and rudeness abounds from rail staff and spotters mob mentality.

Not everyone is. And I'm only on skyscraper city and other than that it's just twitter and Facebook so I can't really compare. It does seem sometimes when people present the facts people who have no idea take them and disregard them as if they'd been plucked out of thin air but that's life brush it off and take it as banter!

Regarding Queens Road:-
I suspect metrolink want it built so there are two replacements for woodlands road that's what rumour of SCC says

**ALSO**
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=98994906&postcount=26975
Off SCC trams been going up to Rochdale and metrolink doing crowns testing at Eithad Campus want volunteers. Details provided in link along with link to applications

Xenophon PCDGS · 9 Jan 2013

scandal said:
Bold and ambitious ideas of thinking outside the box are the reason Metrolink exists, luckily it wasn't suggested on an internet forum with the purpose of encouraging debate.

I feel that we have just entered an area of chicken and egg sydromical hyperbole.

Nym · 9 Jan 2013

Manchester77 said:
Yep, the first electric trams in the UK started in 1885, hardly modern and radical

Thanks for the date that I really couldn't be bothered looking up.
So by that logic, the outside the box modern thinking is an AC OHL Electrified railway like what used to run to Altrincham via Sale and connected to the national network that was thought of some 60 years after trams; hang on a minute......

Manchester Metrolink master thread

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member