-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Manchester Metrolink - Airport line
- Thread starter neilmc
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
table38
Established Member
Maybe to deter the good folk of Wythenshawe from becoming as cable thieves 
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Maybe to deter the good folk of Wythenshawe from becoming as cable thieves
There are those unkind sorts who will say that the local cable thieves are delighted to have this ready source of income actually delivered to their own area, which will save them making long journeys to obtain their ill-gotten gains....
About 90% of the track is in place. The overhead wires have only begun to appear in the last week or two but some quite long lengths are up. The signs don't say the wires are live, they say they should be treated as live, which is not quite the same thing.
It has been suggested on SSC that the reason the work is so far ahead of schedule is that as other lines have been completed, the contractor has moved workers and equipment to the airport line instead of laying them off.
Even when the obvious physical works are finished, there will still be a lot to do before a service can start, but I think we can still expect it to be well ahead of schedule.
The general view on SSC is that the service will initially run between the airport and Deansgate-Castlefield until the full opening of the Second City Crossing in 2017 increases capacity through the centre.
It has been suggested on SSC that the reason the work is so far ahead of schedule is that as other lines have been completed, the contractor has moved workers and equipment to the airport line instead of laying them off.
Even when the obvious physical works are finished, there will still be a lot to do before a service can start, but I think we can still expect it to be well ahead of schedule.
The general view on SSC is that the service will initially run between the airport and Deansgate-Castlefield until the full opening of the Second City Crossing in 2017 increases capacity through the centre.
Last edited:
Batman
Member
But how will the airport line teams be able to run as far as Dransgate-Castlefield if the line is congested north of Cornbrook?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Maybe it's to impress all the politicians who've been turning up there on by-election duty?
The congestion problem is on the street-running sections in the city centre due to interactions with road traffic and road traffic lights. The Second City Crossing won't add capacity between Cornbrook and D-C and doesn't need to.
Line-of-sight working now extends from the city centre as far south as the junction between the Altrincham and Didsbury lines (and along the Didsbury line) and gives more capacity than block signalling.
Work has begun on a remodelling at D-C to create a third platform track, and this could be used to turn back trams from the airport.
Nothing official has been said so far to suggest the airport line will open earlier than summer 2016 but common sense suggests something will open early. It would be very bad PR to leave the line complete but unused, and in any case if they waited for 2CC to be completed they'd have to wait until 2017.
Last edited:
Batman
Member
Ok, so the section to Deansgate can handle a tram running every 2 minutes?
I seem to remember seeing somewhere a statement that its capacity would be 84 trams per hour in both directions combined, which would mean 42 each way, which is more than one every 1.5 minutes.
However that wouldn't be needed in the near future - as you say it would work out to 30 an hour at what Metrolink calls peak periods (most of the day on weekdays): 10 to Altrincham and 5 each to Eccles, Media City, East Didsbury and the airport.
The next line they are hoping to build is to Trafford Park and the Trafford Centre, which would also feed into this section!!
However that wouldn't be needed in the near future - as you say it would work out to 30 an hour at what Metrolink calls peak periods (most of the day on weekdays): 10 to Altrincham and 5 each to Eccles, Media City, East Didsbury and the airport.
The next line they are hoping to build is to Trafford Park and the Trafford Centre, which would also feed into this section!!
Last edited:
Batman
Member
Ok, so we should be safe for the foreseeable future. The Port Salford line and the extension from East Didsbury to Stockport are the only expansion projects likely to ever be built.
What is the source of your information that backs up this statement
Nym
Established Member
Has that 42tph figure taken into account, well, passengers 
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Common sense?
There isn't the capacity into the city for any more...
If you wanted more you'd be needing to change the line to alty back to Heavy Rail and re-opening Central for CLC and Mid Cheshire services...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Common sense?
There isn't the capacity into the city for any more...
If you wanted more you'd be needing to change the line to alty back to Heavy Rail and re-opening Central for CLC and Mid Cheshire services...
Batman
Member
I don't think there's any political will for any more large scale light rail expansions, especially considering how expensive it can be.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Has that 42tph figure taken into account, well, passengers
Kaiserstrasse in Karlsruhe used to (10 years plus ago, but may still) carry 40 trams per hour which was regarded as a few too many. However none of the stops had level boarding which probably extended dwell times.
Presumably the statement about turning back at Deansgate/Castlefield refers to the future remodelling when I think trams can reverse in a platform loop, not the current situation when they have to turn back on the main line.
Nym
Established Member
Well, the nearest system to Metrolink outside the core IMO with anything near 40tph would be the DLR that uses ATP very close to line of sight with similar size trains.
(The Jubilee and Northern line use these but are much bigger and only manage 33tph tops).
I'd honestly say anyone shooting above 30tph on a segregated network needs to think very carefully about how they'll manage it, with something as unpredictable as Metrolink I really dowbt it will manage a reliable regular service, in part as to it doesn't manage one now at 20/25tph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Why? There's a perfectly good heavy rail link...
In fact the same argument applies to the Bury and Alty lines to be honest...
(The Jubilee and Northern line use these but are much bigger and only manage 33tph tops).
I'd honestly say anyone shooting above 30tph on a segregated network needs to think very carefully about how they'll manage it, with something as unpredictable as Metrolink I really dowbt it will manage a reliable regular service, in part as to it doesn't manage one now at 20/25tph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Why? There's a perfectly good heavy rail link...
In fact the same argument applies to the Bury and Alty lines to be honest...
Yes - as I said in #6 the remodelling has started.
Manchester77
Established Member
It was posted on SCC that the line could begin testing in June with service in the autumn however this was not an official statement and looks more likely to be testing in late summer / early autumn with service around this time next year.
If capacity gets to constricted they can cut the media city services back to Cornbrook which is what was paid for, it'll also save 5 paths over 1CC and stop the turnbacks at Velopark which require wrong road running.
Batman
Member
That's a perfectly sensible argument as to why the Metrolink network should be stabilised at its current size once the 2CC has been completed. The only expansion beyond that which I'd support would be extended the South Manchester line to Stockport. If the service frequency stays at 5tph it'll have no impact on capacity in the city centre at all.
And I'm becoming more sceptical towards light rail expansion in general. When it comes to big projects, I don't think the capital costs can be justified when the gains are roughly equivalent to those you'd get from investing in local bus services. And light rail can actually have a negative effect on towns that lose their heavy rail services because of it. Bury, Altrincham and Oldham are clear examples of that.
The only expansions I'd support are those which improve the connectivity of existing networks. I'd support extending the South Manchester line to Stockport town centre as mentioned above and extending the NET to Toton HS2 station when phase 2 of HS2 opens. And on the Midland Metro I'd support competing the city centre extension through to Five Ways, the Wolverhampton loop and possibly part of the '5W's line from Wolverhampton to Walsall via Wednesfield and Willenhall as an alternative to reopening the Walsall-Wolverhampton heavy rail line.
But I am open to done blue sky thinking about local transport. I'm like the idea of bringing back trolly buses to our cities as a cheaper alternative to light rail. In my own local area I think NXWM routes 33 & 51 from Birmingham to Pheasey and Walsall would be a good pilot project for that.
Isn't East Didders going to be getting 10tph though? And I'm frankly amazed that the ridiculous MediaCity - Velopark thing is still ongoing I would have thought this would have ended by now if the Cornbrook turnback is in full working order.
I don't think the Stockport extension is all that high on the priority list at present. I can't remember why TfGM cooled off on it so much: possibly because I wouldn't generate much traffic for the City Centre or because Stockport Council didn't like the idea. Certainly Port Salford has the best shot by the looks of it. I personally think that if more money for Metrolink does become available it's best use will be for more trams (although rising demand may well see that become an inevitability before then), for re-evaluating the case for new stops (Drake Street!!) and of course, tram-train Personally I quite like the idea of extending to Stalybride, but what do I know 
I don't think the Stockport extension is all that high on the priority list at present. I can't remember why TfGM cooled off on it so much: possibly because I wouldn't generate much traffic for the City Centre or because Stockport Council didn't like the idea. Certainly Port Salford has the best shot by the looks of it. I personally think that if more money for Metrolink does become available it's best use will be for more trams (although rising demand may well see that become an inevitability before then), for re-evaluating the case for new stops (Drake Street!!) and of course, tram-train
Personally I quite like the idea of extending to Stalybride, but what do I know Are they still not turning back at Piccadilly even now that TMS is online?
Manchester77
Established Member
While they terminate at Piccadilly they run to Velopark siding to turn back because of how the Sheffield street junction is. If reverses 10tph which are interspersed with 5tph through services. Trying to turn 15tph at Sheffield Street would not be practice and would cause conflicts with the main line.
Boysteve
Member
Well I get;
Alty (10)
E Dids (10)
Eccles (5)
Media City (5)
Port Salford (5)
Airport Line (5)
So 40 in total through Cornbrook platforms, although the MCUK may eventually terminate at Cornbrook meaning only 35 go forward to D/C.
With regards to the EML it is ridiculous. Why did they design it so that the reversal takes park in Velo Park stop? There is plenty of room for point work to connect the outbound line to what could become the turnback siding in the middle of the running lines, ala Timperley. Before the EML opened 20 services per hour used to turn back at Piccadilly (Bury, Alty, Eccles, MCUK) but there were to terminating 'sidings'. It is shame that such capacity could not be built in to the new Sheffield Street turnback.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Bury is one of the most sucessful town centres and the most sucessful market in the north west! Altrincham has declined though you could argue the nearby Trafford Centre had more to do with it, Oldham and Rochdale have amongst the highest retail vacancy rates in the country and already were when they still had heavy rail (and of course Rochdale never lost it).
Manchester77
Established Member
Because it was only really designed for special trams to reverse there during events at the Etihad during which velopark would be closed so it wouldn't really matter. However MediaCity trams run to Piccadilly so need to reverse somewhere, with Sheffield Street not built for the extra 5tph the nearest turnback was Veloppark. I still don't understand why it's used and not cornbrook as advertised afterall it is where peal paid for them o terminate.
richardio123
Member
Didn't Metrolink say there weren't terminating the MediaCity trams at Cornbrook anymore ? Sure I remember someone mentioning it.. maybe thats while the current expansion is built then they will then change it so they do terminate them at Cornbrook
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Can I remind everyone that this is the Manchester Metrolink Airport line thread and that the forum staff decided to end all light rail master threads.
If discussion on another line of the Manchester Metrolink system needs a new home, I think that the idea was that another thread was to be opened.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
See the item at the head of the index to this section...Forum Changes Light Rail....where a moderator has made a posting to explain matters.
If discussion on another line of the Manchester Metrolink system needs a new home, I think that the idea was that another thread was to be opened.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
See the item at the head of the index to this section...Forum Changes Light Rail....where a moderator has made a posting to explain matters.
Firstly, trying to get a tram full of people from media city onto one of the city bound trams during the peaks would be nigh on impossible.
Secondly, the fact that they have been running through to Piccadilly would mean there would be a few angry people if we suddenly caped them at cornbrook.
The second reason is actually why they need to get on and turn them there asap. The longer they leave it the worse it will be when it eventually has to happen! That level of service is the one enough trams were ordered for, the infrastructure was built to cater for and the developers paid for in their agreement with Salford Council! And it would save all that mileage on doing Cornbrook - Velopark and back however many times a day.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Bringing us back on topic, aren't the Media City trams using the paths through the city centre that will eventually be taken by Airport trams? And if so does this mean that the opening of the first part of the Airport line is the time when the Media City trams will be cut back to Cornbrook?
As I said, TfGM already believe that it's too late. Hence why all the maps have now been updated.
We apparently have enough trams to run the airport and continue the velopark turn backs.
Turning at the velopark also gives us an easy way of maintaining route knowledge as the actual turn back isn't included with Ashton line route learning.
Thing is though is that it's been proved a number of times that it is possible to turn the medias in Sheffield street.
Last edited:
- Status