Manchester Metrolink - Speculative ideas on how to improve it?

[JJmoogle]

Yeah when I suggested the 2cc should have been a tunnel earlier, I didn't mean you had to replace all the on street through the city centre, it'd just allow for some(the former heavy rail) routes to possibly have longer trams, and generally allow for many more of them.

Don't all underground stations have to be staffed due to fire regs?

Am I right in saying Picadilly isn't actually underground, it's at street level and it's the mainline station above that's actually above street level?

I believe that's the regulations, the idea of the stations being dark unstaffed hovels just doesn't wash with the reality of any underground station constructed here in the past 50 years.

Picadilly is at street level aye, it's built into the undercroft of the railway station.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Even Manchester had a proposal for a city-centre tunnel which would have went ahead if the money hadn’t dried up.

Proposals are one thing when the finance element is not real and committed. (A bit like a speculation posting). It is only when the actual project has been given permission to proceed when actual finance is needed to enable the works to commence. It is only in speculation dreamland that aspirational major projects proceed without real finance.

I was discussing the speculative underground Metrolink stations with a member of staff at Victoria Metrolink station last week on my way back from a hospital appointment and his view is the "rough sleepers" would see such places as hard to resist.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jun 2024 ==

Yeah when I suggested the 2cc should have been a tunnel earlier, I didn't mean you had to replace all the on street through the city centre, it'd just allow for some(the former heavy rail) routes to possibly have longer trams, and generally allow for many more of them.

Would the city council have had anything to say about such a 2CC tunnel passing next to the foundations of the side elevation of Manchester Town Hall, noting its listed status and the four-year current upgrading project currently in progress

 

[Transilien]

I was discussing the speculative underground Metrolink stations with a member of staff at Victoria Metrolink station last week on my way back from a hospital appointment and his view is the "rough sleepers" would see such places as hard to resist.

If the stations are staffed then that wouldn’t be an issue. Imagine if crossrail in London was rejected because of the issues that you are bringing up!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the stations are staffed then that wouldn’t be an issue. Imagine if crossrail in London was rejected because of the issues that you are bringing up!

In the final sentence of your posting #89 on the thread, you did use the matter of unstaffed stations as a comparison.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Don't all underground stations have to be staffed due to fire regs?

They do, but it doesn’t mean the staff have to be visible. They’re certainly not visible at the Newcastle city centre Metro stations.

The burial of Metrolink routes under the centre of Manchester would make the system more attractive as it would make journeys faster

The vast majority of Metrolink journeys are to and from the city centre. The street level stations are excellent for this- straight off the tram and straight into the shops. They are also perfect for people with reduced mobility, as they are always fully accessible at all times.

Compare it to the Tyne and Wear Metro. All those stations are accessible, through a lift. The lifts are small and there are long waits for a lift, especially at Monument. With the pram it could sometimes take me ten minutes or more to get out of the system and up to street level. Other older underground systems aren’t accessible at all.

None of that with a street level tram, you’re off and away.

There’s no way that something like the Brussels pre-metro would be preferable to what Manchester has now. Any marginal speeding up of the service is more than offset by the time it takes to get from the platform to the street.

Underground systems work where you are moving hundreds of people in one go. You couldn’t run a London Underground train at street level because a Victoria line train is 430ft long.

I crossed Manchester Picc to Vic and vv earlier this week and I thought the schematic maps and coloured routes were a boon, even though I have watched the network grow and know the geography from being nearby for 40 yrs.

Absolutely. The problem is the schematic map doesn’t translate into what the tram and platform displays show. I know Manchester and so I do know how it all fits together, but my wife doesn’t and explaining stuff to her is more wordy than it should be. First world problems and all that, but as we’re being speculative I think a quick win would be to show the line names on tram and platform displays as well as the destination.

 

[AndrewE]

You couldn’t run a London Underground train at street level because a Victoria line train is 430ft long.

but you could increase capacity significantly by using double deckers.

Absolutely. The problem is the schematic map doesn’t translate into what the tram and platform displays show. I know Manchester and so I do know how it all fits together, but my wife doesn’t and explaining stuff to her is more wordy than it should be. First world problems and all that, but as we’re being speculative I think a quick win would be to show the line names on tram and platform displays as well as the destination.

I fully agree with this. I would think it would be a minor software job to display simply colour and destination alternately, e.g. "Yellow" / "Bury"

 

[py_megapixel]

but you could increase capacity significantly by using double deckers.

I fully agree with this. I would think it would be a minor software job to display simply colour and destination alternately, e.g. "Yellow" / "Bury"

As mentioned above, using colours on their own doesn't really work for a system with more than a few lines. Ideally they'd allocate letters or numbers to each line (or just bring back the ones they got rid of a few years back and start actually using them!)

 

[Grimsby town]

The vast majority of Metrolink journeys are to and from the city centre. The street level stations are excellent for this- straight off the tram and straight into the shops. They are also perfect for people with reduced mobility, as they are always fully accessible at all times.

Compare it to the Tyne and Wear Metro. All those stations are accessible, through a lift. The lifts are small and there are long waits for a lift, especially at Monument. With the pram it could sometimes take me ten minutes or more to get out of the system and up to street level. Other older underground systems aren’t accessible at all.

None of that with a street level tram, you’re off and away.

There’s no way that something like the Brussels pre-metro would be preferable to what Manchester has now. Any marginal speeding up of the service is more than offset by the time it takes to get from the platform to the street.

Underground systems work where you are moving hundreds of people in one go. You couldn’t run a London Underground train at street level because a Victoria line train is 430ft long.

The city centre I'd expanding and should continue to do so. I live at Old Trafford and its essentially becoming part of the city centre with not far off a 1,000 homes being built around Old Trafford Metrolink Stop. In 20 years time they'll likely be dense development all the way from Media City to the Ethihad. That's a journey that takes around 40 minutes currently. Metrolink is simply too slow to properly intergrate all of that development.

Then you have to consider capacity. The Alty line is practically full already at peak times, although not all trams are doubles'. More capacity is going to be needed and the only realistic way to provide that is to go underground. Trying to get longer trams into the city centre is unrealistic unless all other vehicles are banned (probably including cross city buses). Longer platforms would be taking up more valuable pedestrian space too. There's already a few areas, like Market Street, where the tram leaves very little room for the large number of pedestrians. Going underground will have to happen in the next 20 years.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

but you could increase capacity significantly by using double deckers.

Would the existing OHLE need amendments to cope with double-decker trams....of which no mention is made of the cost of adding these double-decker trams to the existing fleet.

 

[AndrewE]

Would the existing OHLE need amendments to cope with double-decker trams....of which no mention is made of the cost of adding these double-decker trams to the existing fleet.

I suspect not, as you don't see height restrictions aimed at HGVs in areas where we have tram OLE... and some of these new artics are ridiculously high.

 

[LLivery]

The next fleet replacement should be double length - I was amazed the last order wasn't, tbh.

I don't understand push back against route identifications, seems like an obvious thing to do and would simplify the system more than any other thing could. I'd letter them to contrast the buses.

They should consider some ticket gates - they do it in Istanbul. It works on a seriously crowded system.

I wouldn't add the Guide Bridge routes to the Metrolink as tram-train, but I'd make it into a metro, with tunnel under the city centre, towards Leigh/Atherton route. Extend the Metrolink to Stockport, Middleton, down the Oxford Road to Followfield and then off street to St Werburgh's Road and extend Eccles to the Trafford Centre.

 

[py_megapixel]

I suspect not, as you don't see height restrictions aimed at HGVs in areas where we have tram OLE... and some of these new artics are ridiculously high.

In the city centre and potentially elsewhere, there are actually a few places where double decker buses pass under the OHLE, and this doesn't seem to cause any issues. However, the old railway infrastructure on the outer sections might pose an issue, and then of course there's the Piccadilly undercroft (and potentially the "birdcage" style bridge between Deansgate and Cornbrook)

I don't think double-decker trams would really be workable anyway. I'm not sure anyone builds them any more, I don't think long articulated ones even exist, and even if they did, dwell times at stops would be extended and it would make ticket inspections on trams difficult to carry out.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I suspect not, as you don't see height restrictions aimed at HGVs in areas where we have tram OLE... and some of these new artics are ridiculously high.

The tram OLE goes lower down outside of where double decker busses/HGVs go.
Piccadilly station would likely make increasing height unworkable (or at least incredibly expencive).

Compare how high the OLE is at Deansgate (picture 1) compared to at Trafford (picture 2)

 

[py_megapixel]

The next fleet replacement should be double length - I was amazed the last order wasn't, tbh.

I don't understand push back against route identifications, seems like an obvious thing to do and would simplify the system more than any other thing could. I'd letter them to contrast the buses.

They should consider some ticket gates - they do it in Istanbul. It works on a seriously crowded system.

I wouldn't add the Guide Bridge routes to the Metrolink as tram-train, but I'd make it into a metro, with tunnel under the city centre, towards Leigh/Atherton route. Extend the Metrolink to Stockport, Middleton, down the Oxford Road to Followfield and then off street to St Werburgh's Road and extend Eccles to the Trafford Centre.

I think there's an argument that if you're going to do that, it would actually make sense to convert the predominantly segregated sections of Metrolink into a heavier metro with a tunnel (you could even start out with the same vehicles and then just gradually replace them), and then turn over the street running infrastructure to a new low-floor tramway.

This would give a lot more scope for on-street extensions - with the current high-floor system, putting platforms on the street is difficult (on the Ashton and Eccles lines, the trams can run on the road, but keep having to duck off to serve platforms off to the side) and the stops can't be shared with buses. A low-floor system would offer much more flexibility to run new tram routes through relatively contrained corridors like Oxford Road.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't understand push back against route identifications, seems like an obvious thing to do and would simplify the system more than any other thing could. I'd letter them to contrast the buses.

That matter does not exist on the Manchester Metrolink system nor does it feature in any officially recognised documentation. It only exists in the minds of certain individuals who favour such a matter.

 

[Transilien]

In the final sentence of your posting #89 on the thread, you did use the matter of unstaffed stations as a comparison.

I do admit having unstaffed underground stations would not be the best for safety as the regulations are. But it is not a problem employing staff for underground stations.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Could they convert some of the ex-rail routes into underground systems?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could they convert some of the ex-rail routes into underground systems?

I think that TfGM do have a wish-plan for eventual extensions to the current Metrolink network, but from what I am led to believe, it will be surface-based line extensions that will use the required finance, rather than having city-centre tunnelled new lines as a priority to them.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The retro-installation of tunnels through Manchester City Centre for use by the Metrolink tram system seems to be an extremely expensive solution in search of a problem.

 

[AndrewE]

The retro-installation of tunnels through Manchester City Centre for use by the Metrolink tram system seems to be an extremely expensive solution in search of a problem.

to be fair, when you have lots of intensively-used street-running trams which are getting choked by their own success - let alone taking the street space needed for pedestrians and whatever residual road traffic there is - then it is usual to progress to a tram tunnel/pre-metro. London did it before WW1, lots of others both before and after... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premetro

 

[pokemonsuper9]

How would you even get a tram from Cornbrook (above street level with canals and rivers around) to under the ground.

 

[AndrewE]

How would you even get a tram from Cornbrook (above street level with canals and rivers around) to under the ground.

Down a slope? Trams are better than trains at handling gradients. If you were rebuilding that end of the network - or picking a line or two to become your metro - then you might not be starting much above ground level anyway.

N.b. I do recognise that under Manchester there is a warren of tunnels of various sorts, plus abandoned shallow coal mines, all of which will need finding, filling with grout and then boring through very carefully!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I do recognise that under Manchester there is a warren of tunnels of various sorts, plus abandoned shallow coal mines, all of which will need finding, filling with grout and then boring through very carefully!

Would that be the same method that was used in the tunnels at Farnworth on the Manchester to Bolton heavy-rail line? I wonder what the costs were that were incurred by that project.

 

[Russel]

That matter does not exist on the Manchester Metrolink system nor does it feature in any officially recognised documentation. It only exists in the minds of certain individuals who favour such a matter.

You seem very against something that would be simple and relatively cheap to implement, it would really benefit plenty of people who aren't familiar with the network.

 

[Chester1]

The city centre I'd expanding and should continue to do so. I live at Old Trafford and its essentially becoming part of the city centre with not far off a 1,000 homes being built around Old Trafford Metrolink Stop. In 20 years time they'll likely be dense development all the way from Media City to the Ethihad. That's a journey that takes around 40 minutes currently. Metrolink is simply too slow to properly intergrate all of that development.

Then you have to consider capacity. The Alty line is practically full already at peak times, although not all trams are doubles'. More capacity is going to be needed and the only realistic way to provide that is to go underground. Trying to get longer trams into the city centre is unrealistic unless all other vehicles are banned (probably including cross city buses). Longer platforms would be taking up more valuable pedestrian space too. There's already a few areas, like Market Street, where the tram leaves very little room for the large number of pedestrians. Going underground will have to happen in the next 20 years.

The target for that is 2034! 2044 would require a significant reduction in construction, which is currently over 5000 new flats in the "regional centre" each year. Although to put that into perspective the population of Stockport Borough will still be nearly twice that of the expanded city centre.

I don't think there is a need for major work in city centre just yet. There is still significant capacity spare through longer trams and extending the Trafford Park service to Crumpsall. I have said for a few years that Altrincham line should recieve purpose built 60m tram train units when more rolling stock is required. An extra 3 metres and no wasted space for two spare cabs and coupling would increase seating capacity by about 15% compared with double sets.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Down a slope? Trams are better than trains at handling gradients. If you were rebuilding that end of the network - or picking a line or two to become your metro - then you might not be starting much above ground level anyway.

I was more thinking about location of the entrance. If using current Cornbrook as the last station before tunnel entry I'm not super sure where a tunnel could be dug that wouldn't need demolition of at least something.

 

[cool110]

Might be easier to keep Deansgate elevated and continue that slope down.

 

[AndrewE]

I was more thinking about location of the entrance. If using current Cornbrook as the last station before tunnel entry I'm not super sure where a tunnel could be dug that wouldn't need demolition of at least something.

Yes, but I was thinking that maybe you would go for the low-hanging fruit first. (I.e. just design the new system to take account of the geography.) Instead of trying to put high level lines into your central tunnel, take the ones from the S and SW before they climb and maybe have Cornbrook as the first deep/high level connecting point. Leave difficult ones for later or build in provision for them to join up - like the tunnels for a grade separated junction just south of Liverpool central which are still waiting to play their role!

 

[Grimsby town]

The target for that is 2034! 2044 would require a significant reduction in construction, which is currently over 5000 new flats in the "regional centre" each year. Although to put that into perspective the population of Stockport Borough will still be nearly twice that of the expanded city centre.

I don't think there is a need for major work in city centre just yet. There is still significant capacity spare through longer trams and extending the Trafford Park service to Crumpsall. I have said for a few years that Altrincham line should recieve purpose built 60m tram train units when more rolling stock is required. An extra 3 metres and no wasted space for two spare cabs and coupling would increase seating capacity by about 15% compared with double sets.

Yep I was being fairly conservative with 20 years. I can see thr development creeping towards where I live.

No I think Metrolink should be able to cope for now but given the tame fram for a tunnel project is likely to be close to a decade, it needs to be looked at soon. Full walk through units for Altrincham would be sensible. Having all Altrincham trams as doubles is needed ASAP for Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.

 

[LLivery]

I think there's an argument that if you're going to do that, it would actually make sense to convert the predominantly segregated sections of Metrolink into a heavier metro with a tunnel (you could even start out with the same vehicles and then just gradually replace them), and then turn over the street running infrastructure to a new low-floor tramway.

This would give a lot more scope for on-street extensions - with the current high-floor system, putting platforms on the street is difficult (on the Ashton and Eccles lines, the trams can run on the road, but keep having to duck off to serve platforms off to the side) and the stops can't be shared with buses. A low-floor system would offer much more flexibility to run new tram routes through relatively contrained corridors like Oxford Road.

Hard to tell which tunnelled alignment to take and routes to take over existing Metrolinks to do this with.

Converting to low floor would be great in principle - would be interesting to see how it'd be done.

That matter does not exist on the Manchester Metrolink system nor does it feature in any officially recognised documentation. It only exists in the minds of certain individuals who favour such a matter.

Things can change. We all know route/service identification is the universally conventional way to make a system simpler.