Manchester Metrolink (Non speculative discussion)

[Winthorpe]

Just on some of the temporary speed restrictions, surely proper funding would mean the work could be done overnight? The one on the approach to Cornbrook is a small length of track.

That’s how it happens on the heavy rail lines.

 

[HSTEd]

It doesn't. The 163 is 5bph, half the frequency of your suggested tram service.

It is high frequency compared to the half hour of the proposed heavy rail solution upthread!

That could be provided tomorrow, but historically TfGM do not really support express bus services.

I know of at least one that does exist - the X250 to the Trafford Centre.

 

[507 001]

Just on some of the temporary speed restrictions, surely proper funding would mean the work could be done overnight? The one on the approach to Cornbrook is a small length of track.

That’s how it happens on the heavy rail lines.

For segregated sections with ballasted track, or small repairs on street running that’s generally what happens.

The current works are to replace a substantial amount of track, not just a small repair.

The aforementioned Brooklands to Sale re-rail was done over a weekend.

 

[Starmill]

I know of at least one that does exist - the X250 to the Trafford Centre.

And X by name but that's pretty much it. The X92 is but runs a grand total of three trips a day.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2025 ==

It is high frequency compared to the half hour of the proposed heavy rail solution upthread!

The point is it's pretty clear that a high frequency solution for Castleton - Heywood would be a lot more successful than the 163 at actually getting people to use public transport, and because the time to beat is over an hour, the existing train taking 17 minutes could easily do the job. It doesn't need to be a tramway it could be a dedicated ordinary bus, with lifts and a new bus interchange at the station. Unfortunately none of the above options are likely to be materialising in reality.

As it happens the trains don't have any capacity available for more people to use Castleton for a start, not that the Bury line does either.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I know of at least one that does exist - the X250 to the Trafford Centre.

X250? If anything I'm suprised the X50 has survived after years with the tram now there, I guess that's proof as to how un-fast it is, it wasn't outclassed by the tram, Leigh's X34 and Wigan/Atherton's 32 got cut entirely after the guided busway opened.

Immediately off the top of my head the only* Bee Network express routes I can think of off the top of my head are the V1, V2, and the Saturday only X22.
The 126 and 132 deserve an honourable mention for going on the motorway intead of via Winton (however they do go that way occasionally if the motorway gets really busy).

* not very limited service few per day (e.g. X39).


Took a look at the maps to double check my work, and yep, I got all of them, the V1, V2, (V4), X22, (X39), X50, (X92) are the only Bee Network "Limited stop services", which is interesting since the X22 skips no stops (but is on a motoway 95% of the time)!

 

[158756]

And X by name but that's pretty much it. The X92 is but runs a grand total of three trips a day.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2025 ==


The point is it's pretty clear that a high frequency solution for Castleton - Heywood would be a lot more successful than the 163 at actually getting people to use public transport, and because the time to beat is over an hour, the existing train taking 17 minutes could easily do the job. It doesn't need to be a tramway it could be a dedicated ordinary bus, with lifts and a new bus interchange at the station. Unfortunately none of the above options are likely to be materialising in reality.

As it happens the trains don't have any capacity available for more people to use Castleton for a start, not that the Bury line does either.

High frequency for Castleton-Heywood is somewhat pointless if the trains aren't frequent. Guaranteed connections would be more useful, but if the shuttle, whatever form it takes, interacts with the road network that would be very difficult to achieve, never mind the reliability of the trains.

I can't believe there isn't space for more passengers on the trains at Castleton. The stations between Rochdale and Victoria are very poorly used for a major urban area, and the stopping trains usually depart a few minutes behind a faster train which you would expect to pick up most passengers to/from Rochdale.

 

[Donny85]

So again I ask what would you have us do? Let it fall apart and injure/kill someone? How about we try again to put an LRV through the window of the Cafe Nero in St Peter’s square? Maybe we’ll be successful this time…

How about we just add more and more TSRs, so that the journeys become impossibly slow, and the drivers get more and more stressed about finishing late and end up having more safety critical incidents?

Or do we just close the whole lot?

It is an aging network with a maintenance backlog caused by COVID. Even the new lines are the best part of 15 years old now.

The comparison to tramlink is an interesting one. M5000s are a few tons heavier than a CR4000 and we operate them as double units. Even discounting the doubles, the result is that we have more wear for a given frequency due to the higher axle loading. We also have considerably more route mileage and therefore more to maintain.

The currently affected section will have seen in excess of 12 million individual wheelsets passing over it since it was last replaced.

Tramway track always takes longer to renew than conventional ballasted track. Take Brooklands-Sale inbound which was rerailed earlier in the year in just a single weekend possession.

I really don’t see how defending them for spending money to renew and upgrade the network is defending the indefensible. Sure the disruption is less than ideal, but it is a necessary evil and actually doing it this way keeps that disruption to a minimum.

I do wonder if there’s room to consider whether the network has grown too large to maintain sustainably in its current form. Just as many cities reduced or removed tram lines decades ago when the costs and practicalities started to outweigh the benefits, might there now be a case — even temporarily — for scaling back some sections in order to concentrate investment where it’s most impactful?

A smaller network might not only be more manageable from a maintenance perspective, but it could also open the door to using more robust, longer-lasting track systems and materials that are better suited to the demands of operating heavy double units like the M5000s.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Just as many cities reduced or removed tram lines decades ago when the costs and practicalities started to outweigh the benefits, might there now be a case — even temporarily — for scaling back some sections in order to concentrate investment where it’s most impactful?

People are complaining that parts of the network are temporarily closed and the solution is to permanently close the network.

Hmm.

Anyway, this isn't the thread for speculative discussion.

It is an aging network with a maintenance backlog caused by COVID. Even the new lines are the best part of 15 years old now.

The network expanded in a big bang and so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone that all the bits require replacing at the same time. I don't see what the issue is. Engineering works are annoying, they're annoying to everyone, but they need doing.

 

[507 001]

I do wonder if there’s room to consider whether the network has grown too large to maintain sustainably in its current form. Just as many cities reduced or removed tram lines decades ago when the costs and practicalities started to outweigh the benefits, might there now be a case — even temporarily — for scaling back some sections in order to concentrate investment where it’s most impactful?

A smaller network might not only be more manageable from a maintenance perspective, but it could also open the door to using more robust, longer-lasting track systems and materials that are better suited to the demands of operating heavy double units like the M5000s.

Let’s not be silly.

The network expanded in a big bang and so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone that all the bits require replacing at the same time. I don't see what the issue is. Engineering works are annoying, they're annoying to everyone, but they need doing.

Correct! The last time the city centre track was replaced it was all done at the same time too.

 

[py_megapixel]

I do wonder if there’s room to consider whether the network has grown too large to maintain sustainably in its current form. Just as many cities reduced or removed tram lines decades ago when the costs and practicalities started to outweigh the benefits, might there now be a case — even temporarily — for scaling back some sections in order to concentrate investment where it’s most impactful?

A smaller network might not only be more manageable from a maintenance perspective, but it could also open the door to using more robust, longer-lasting track systems and materials that are better suited to the demands of operating heavy double units like the M5000s.

Even if that were desirable - which I don't think it is - it would be politically impossible. Metrolink is generally very popular with locals and just as there is significant public support for expanding it all over the place, there would be significant public resistance to closing bits.

That's not to say it doesn't have its shortcomings - it surely does - but efforts to solve them need to build on what is there already, not sacrifice it.

 

[The exile]

I do wonder if there’s room to consider whether the network has grown too large to maintain sustainably in its current form.

I would agree but come to a completely different conclusion. The network is too large to be feeding into a tiny central core with only two route options.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I do wonder if there’s room to consider whether the network has grown too large to maintain sustainably in its current form. Just as many cities reduced or removed tram lines decades ago when the costs and practicalities started to outweigh the benefits, might there now be a case — even temporarily — for scaling back some sections in order to concentrate investment where it’s most impactful?

A smaller network might not only be more manageable from a maintenance perspective, but it could also open the door to using more robust, longer-lasting track systems and materials that are better suited to the demands of operating heavy double units like the M5000s.

The solution isn’t to close parts of the network, frankly that would be absolutely ridiculous and a huge waste of investment. The solution is for future investment to be in better contingency. For example, an alternative route to Piccadilly. More capacity in the city centre and an alternative to St Peters-Deansgate-Cornbrook. Not axing important peak services like MCUK Etihad. Etc.

I would agree but come to a completely different conclusion. The network is too large to be feeding into a tiny central core with only two route options.

One route option, effectively, as while you can go from St Peters to Victoria via Exchange or Market Street (although Exchange capacity is limited by buses crossing the turn off to St Mary’s Parsonage), it all comes from the overcrowded single corridor through Deansgate and Cornbrook, and if that’s blocked for whatever reason there just IS no way for trams to get from the branches to the city.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let us not forget that how much the Metrolink seems to mean to many website members, all it is in fact is merely a mode of transport for the general public to use, not something handed down from Heaven for the greater glory of certain political classes.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Let us not forget that how much the Metrolink seems to mean to many website members, all it is in fact is merely a mode of transport for the general public to use, not something handed down from Heaven for the greater glory of certain political classes.

It is probably the most reliable form of public transport in Greater Manchester, so it shouldn't be a surprise that people like it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is probably the most reliable form of public transport in Greater Manchester, so it shouldn't be a surprise that people like it.

Looking at the tram disruption matters recently mentioned on this thread, to say that the Metrolink "probably" in the most reliable form of public transport in Greater Manchester, that does speak well of the buses and trains and the Bee Network as an entity.

 

[Rail Ranger]

As a user I find Metrolink reliable. It has a high media profile so any disruption tends to be reported, often long after services have returned to normal.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Looking at the tram disruption matters recently mentioned on this thread, to say that the Metrolink "probably" in the most reliable form of public transport in Greater Manchester, that does speak well of the buses and trains and the Bee Network as an entity.

Yes, I'd agree that the buses have greatly improved since the Bee Network has been introduced, not sure I could say that for Northern Rail and most of the other heavy rail operators in GM!

As a user I find Metrolink reliable. It has a high media profile so any disruption tends to be reported, often long after services have returned to normal.

Indeed, the MEN always latches onto any problems as it seems to be an easy headline.

 

[Class 466]

Everyone’s favourite festival (not) Parklife is on this weekend with a host of changes to the revised tram service as with every year.

Bury Line gets its 6 minute frequency Bury to Victoria service, Altrinchams are terminating at Exchange Square with the Rochdale Line running via Market Street.

As a side, They’re celebrating 15 years in Manchester this year - maybe a good time to find somewhere else?

 

[Tim33160]

Despite 4 or 5 weeks of advanced notice for Parklife service changes on Saturday and Sunday, these service changes were additionally implemented on Friday due to an evening event at Heaton Park.

Unhappy commuters queried where their trams where, with no direct trams from Altrincham – Bury; Airport to Victoria, Eccles / Media City to Victoria. Complaints abounded on “X” with passengers advised that the changes were published on Tuesday on the website - but you had to know which buttons to press to find them!!

On Friday 13 June, there will be a change to Metrolink services across the network due to events taking place. Service changes will be in place with the following lines operating on a 15-min frequency throughout the day with additional double trams: Eccles via Media City, Manchester Airport, Trafford Park, Rochdale Town Centre. The frequency of services between the city centre and Shaw & Crompton, East Didsbury will increaee to every 7.5 minutes during peak period. Trams between Etihad Campus - Piccadilly and Ashton-under-Lyne - Piccadilly will operate every 12 minutes, and trams on the Bury line will operate every 6 minutes. Please check your journey before travelling.

This doesn’t mention Altrincham trams operating to Exchange Square only, Rochdale and Shaw trams operating via Market St; Eccles via Media City trams operating to Cornbrook with Airport trams operating to Deansgate Castlefield.

So passengers from Altrincham wanting the Bury line had to change at St Peters Sq for a Rochdale tram, and again at Victoria -or walk from Exchange Sq to Victoria.

Customer services said:
If you click more information, and click under tram service pattern, it'll provide more information. However, we appreciate your feedback and we'll get this updated. Thank you.

Classic operational needs over passenger focus?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Fairly sure on Saturday mid-morning that Metrolink staff were advising fans heading for the 'Parklife' event, at Heaton Park, to alight at Shudehill and (presumably) then get a bus to the gig.

 

[Tim33160]

Fairly sure on Saturday mid-morning that Metrolink staff were advising fans heading for the 'Parklife' event, at Heaton Park, to alight at Shudehill and (presumably) then get a bus to the gig.

Tram staff at St Peters Sq were advising people off the Rochdale service and onto the Altrincham - Exchange Square service then walk to Victoria
Tram staff at Shudehill were advising people off the Rochdale service and walk to Victoria

At Victoria there was queuing from the front to station - then into holding pen (first access into station) to check tickets / remove alcohol etc, then let in batches to cross the station concourse and the tram tracks onto the Bury bound platform to pick up terminating trams from the centre tracks

Shuttle buses ran from Lever St direct to Heaton Park with a similar queueing system from ticket checks in Stevenson Square then via Spear Street to the rank of buses on load-and-go. Buses double ranking up in the closed section of Lever St from Dale Street

The problem came during the Saturday afternoon as Exchange Square terminators became stuck in road traffic on Cross Street thus causing delays and bunching of trams on the Altrincham line

 

[BlitzFan87]

Hopefully during the oasis concert next month we should see a through service to Altrincham from bury every 12 minutes

 

[Class 466]

Hopefully during the oasis concert next month we should see a through service to Altrincham from bury every 12 minutes

TFGM have posted details on their site here: Getting to Oasis|Bee Network

(I'm not quoting an entire travel webpage on here)