Merseyrail (Liverpool) vs Manchester Metrolink (Manchester)

[Ianno87]

Hollinwood-Failsworth was ground to a different rail profile a few years ago. You can hear the change from new to old profile about a third of the way between the two on the inbound. It was hoped that the new profile would improve ride quality but it wasn’t taken forward for whatever reason.

The wheel profile was changed a few years ago, again to try and improve ride quality. This prevented the original low frequency hunt which manifested as the nose swinging from side to side at speed, but introduced a new high frequency hunt where the rail profile isn’t perfect.

The lively ride quality is mostly down to the fact that they have coil spring suspension rather than air. The almost identical K5000s in Köln have similar issues. Some of the newer vehicles have firmer dampers, but this just makes them harder.



Yes I fully agree with you. The biggest complaints when they were introduced were the lack of seats and the ride quality.
The only problem with longer vehicles is that both depots would need reconfiguring to handle them. Something like the single ended flexity vehicles operating in Frankfurt would have been perfect though.

I have always said that the M5000 is proof that an off the shelf design doesn’t work for Metrolink. The system is too varied in its operation.

The lack of seats does help dwell times at stops in the city centre with the relative ease of passenger circulation compared to the T68s.

If the city centre is the main bottleneck, is it worth considering building more platform capacity at Picc and Vic to allow some services to terminate there?

The current capacity of routes via Cornbrook is 40tph - 25 via 1CC and 15 via 2CC (North of St Peters Square being the constraint)

That divides as:
5 Eccles
5 MediaCity
5 Trafford Centre
10 Altrincham
10 East Didsbury
5 Airport

So it's effectively "full". Any more services from the South would require terminating at Deansgate-Castlefield or Cornbrook.

 

[Fokx]

If the city centre is the main bottleneck, is it worth considering building more platform capacity at Picc and Vic to allow some services to terminate there?

No space either side of Pic or Vic

Pic you have the taxi rank on one side and the staff car park on the other

Vic you’ve got platforms 1&2 and they’re building apartments on the old car park, you could potentially create another platform but it would involve demolition of one of the existing bay platforms, moving it along closer to the boundary wall, putting in a new stretch of line for a forth platform and complete rework of the entire points system, it’s not going to be a cheap job considering the existing platform was only recent remodelled

 

[Ianno87]

No space either side of Pic or Vic

Pic you have the taxi rank on one side and the staff car park on the other

Depends whether there's an opportunity with building of the HS2 Station at Piccadilly to remodel the Metrolink platforms.

Though tram-training from Marple to only end up at Piccadilly would seem largely pointless.

 

[507 001]

Assuming patronage recovers to something approaching Pre-Covid levels, the M5000 trams absolutely do not need more seats, because that would reduce crush loaded capacity.

Metrolink is a victim of its own success. On the Altrincham and Bury lines in particular, there was (pre-Covid) suppressed demand from the inner suburban stops, because of the difficulty boarding the already-rammed trams in the morning peak. There is very little scope for further increases in capacity, because the city centre lines are near their limit. Tram formation lengths cannot be increased beyond the current 56m doubles, because they would be too unwieldy for street running. And further reductions in headways would see road junctions and pedestrian crossings blocked by a continuous procession of trams.

Long term I think the solution is to convert the ex-BR lines to segregated operation, linked by metro tunnels, so that longer trains can be used. But meanwhile users are not too bothered about seats - they just want enough standing space to be able to force their way on board!

The interior layout of the later M5000s was modified to reduce the number of seats and increase standee capacity.

It was actually the other way round. Later M5000s have more seats.

 

[Jozhua]

Hollinwood-Failsworth was ground to a different rail profile a few years ago. You can hear the change from new to old profile about a third of the way between the two on the inbound. It was hoped that the new profile would improve ride quality but it wasn’t taken forward for whatever reason.

The wheel profile was changed a few years ago, again to try and improve ride quality. This prevented the original low frequency hunt which manifested as the nose swinging from side to side at speed, but introduced a new high frequency hunt where the rail profile isn’t perfect.

The lively ride quality is mostly down to the fact that they have coil spring suspension rather than air. The almost identical K5000s in Köln have similar issues. Some of the newer vehicles have firmer dampers, but this just makes them harder.



Yes I fully agree with you. The biggest complaints when they were introduced were the lack of seats and the ride quality.
The only problem with longer vehicles is that both depots would need reconfiguring to handle them. Something like the single ended flexity vehicles operating in Frankfurt would have been perfect though.

I have always said that the M5000 is proof that an off the shelf design doesn’t work for Metrolink. The system is too varied in its operation.

That explains it! Thanks. I mean the noise isn't too bad riding it, and the ride is smooth enough. I do feel sorry for the neighbours though, no idea how noisy it is outside the tram.

It's interesting looking at the veriaty of the flexity-swift family. There's some which are pretty close to heavy rail vehicles (even 3rd rail variants!)

I do wonder if it's possible to get a model with a higher operating speed than 50mph, for some of the more captive routes, with less tight curves?

If the city centre is the main bottleneck, is it worth considering building more platform capacity at Picc and Vic to allow some services to terminate there?

I feel like the big selling point of the system is that it can take you closer to your destination than otherwise. Although, crossing a platform and waiting maybe a couple of minutes at most for a city centre tram may not be too bad.

Depends whether there's an opportunity with building of the HS2 Station at Piccadilly to remodel the Metrolink platforms.

Though tram-training from Marple to only end up at Piccadilly would seem largely pointless.

HS2 is paying for four platforms buried under Piccadilly. I responded to the proposals on their public consultation for HS2 in the Manchester area. It's then up to the local leaders to source funding from HM Treasury (LOL), or from other sources??? to connect it up westwards.

 

[frodshamfella]

Would that be a more conventional Blackpool-style low-speed street tramway, I guess, rather than what might be termed a hybrid "supertram" as most of the new ones are?

I note the extension and all-week operation of the Birkenhead "toy tramway" is proposed as the "Wirral Street Car": https://www.wirralwaters.co.uk/projects/wirral-street-car/

One of the modes mentioned was a ' trackless' tram, its a bit complex for me but apparently such things do exist.

 

[Greybeard33]

The current capacity of routes via Cornbrook is 40tph - 25 via 1CC and 15 via 2CC (North of St Peters Square being the constraint)

That divides as:
5 Eccles
5 MediaCity
5 Trafford Centre
10 Altrincham
10 East Didsbury
5 Airport

So it's effectively "full". Any more services from the South would require terminating at Deansgate-Castlefield or Cornbrook.

I believe the maximum capacity through St Peters Square has been stated to be 45tph, 25 via 1CC and 20 via 2CC. That allows for the Airport frequency to be increased to 10tph if there is sufficient future demand.

TfGM also has an ambition to increase the Pic - Vic frequency from 5tph to 10tph. But this would require a third platform at Piccadilly, which I understand is only feasible as part of the HS2/NPR station redevelopment.

It was actually the other way round. Later M5000s have more seats.

I stand corrected.

 

[urbophile]

One of the modes mentioned was a ' trackless' tram, its a bit complex for me but apparently such things do exist.

That used to be what trolleybuses were called, but I imagine these are more high-tech.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the modes mentioned was a ' trackless' tram, its a bit complex for me but apparently such things do exist.

"A guided bus with a bodykit", basically. A similar stupid idea is proposed for MK.

 

[frodshamfella]

The Paddington Line Consultation​

Initially known as the Lime Line, this initiative was launched by Mayor Anderson at MIPIM UK in London in 2017. Following this we completed an in-depth demand study, carried out with consultants WSP, which concluded that as the University’s Masterplans, new Health Campus and Paddington Village developments continue to progress there could be in excess of 1,000 extra trips per hour required during peak times.
The Paddington Line has been designed to provide ‘last mile’ connectivity, joining Knowledge Quarter Liverpool to the places people commute to and travel in from, but with the scope to work across the entire city region. Using a carbon neutral, rapid transit, trackless tram system, the Paddington Line would ultimately build on the success of the City Council, its Knowledge Quarter Mayoral Development Zone partners and the Metro Mayor’s City Region Combined Authority funding at Paddington Village.
In order to take the Paddington Line from proposal to reality, in partnership with the City and City Region, we are looking to gather feedback and obtain letters of support from key stakeholders, prior to meeting with the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Transport Committee to further explore the potential delivery and funding options.

DOWNLOAD THE PADDINGTON LINE CONSULTATION DRAFT​

BIT MORE ABOUT IT ABOVE

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cheers. Definitely the same "guided bus with a bodykit" as proposed for MK, and a rubbish idea.

 

[frodshamfella]

The Paddington Line Consultation​

Initially known as the Lime Line, this initiative was launched by Mayor Anderson at MIPIM UK in London in 2017. Following this we completed an in-depth demand study, carried out with consultants WSP, which concluded that as the University’s Masterplans, new Health Campus and Paddington Village developments continue to progress there could be in excess of 1,000 extra trips per hour required during peak times.
The Paddington Line has been designed to provide ‘last mile’ connectivity, joining Knowledge Quarter Liverpool to the places people commute to and travel in from, but with the scope to work across the entire city region. Using a carbon neutral, rapid transit, trackless tram system, the Paddington Line would ultimately build on the success of the City Council, its Knowledge Quarter Mayoral Development Zone partners and the Metro Mayor’s City Region Combined Authority funding at Paddington Village.
In order to take the Paddington Line from proposal to reality, in partnership with the City and City Region, we are looking to gather feedback and obtain letters of support from key stakeholders, prior to meeting with the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Transport Committee to further explore the potential delivery and funding options.

DOWNLOAD THE PADDINGTON LINE CONSULTATION DRAFT​

BIT MORE ABOUT IT ABOVE

If it improves public transport im for it, this isn't London, things don't happen fast or frequent . However id like to see enhancements and expansion to the Merseyrail network. Its a good system and has often been acknowledged as such, even using knackered stock which admittedly are at last going.

I understand a new station for The Baltic Triangle has moved a stage further, which is at the site of the old St James Station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I understand a new station for The Baltic Triangle has moved a stage further, which is at the site of the old St James Station.

Yep, that one is a good plan. Also a good plan not to call it "St James", as having both that and James St really would confuse people!

 

[Vespa]

Yep, that one is a good plan. Also a good plan not to call it "St James", as having both that and James St really would confuse people!

Baltic Triangle would be a much better name, the area has changed considerably since the original station closed.

 

[Purple Orange]

Picc-Vic!

I think it could make sense to have a "captive" non-street running fleet, for more Metro-style services. But the at that point, you may as well just make a seperate system. You could do an automated metro, like the DLR/Skytrain and get much faster speeds, increased frequencies and simplified operations.

The most obvious destination would be to go down Oxford Road and serve Rusholme, Fallowfield and Stockport. Extending the existing east-Didsbury line would likely result in a circuitous and inefficient route, plus Cornbrook is very congested as it is. The Oxford Road corridor is very busy bus-wise. It seems logical you could do a lot to speed up journeys and reduce congestion/pollution by tramming it. It is clear the demand for public transport is there.

I think having orbital lines outside of Zone 1 is a good idea. Ultimately, only a certain number of trips are to/from the city centre, or to opposite sides of the city. The majority will be moving between neighbourhoods by a few stops.

The lines don't have to make a full loop, but just connecting the peripheries up a bit better should definitely be in the plans. Having a line going from Salford Quays into Crescent/Central areas would definitely improve journeys in the area and provide relief for heavy rail, buses and roads.

Glossop is served quite well by heavy rail as is, but I can see it working as a Metrolink route. Trains seem to get up to about 60mph on it between stops, so not much higher than what the trams can do with some wind behind them.

Personally, I think Metrolink would probably be best focusing on reopening old alignments, or building new ones to increase rail coverage within 5-10 miles of the city centre. Further than that is probably still best served by heavy rail.

Yeah, I think with the amount of infrastructure already built for Metrolink outside of the city centre, it would probably be very well utilised.

Headways likely as low as 3 mins, especially if they added ATC.

I haven't had many experiences with antisocial behaviour from what I've seen, but fare inspection can be a bit hit and miss. A lot of my Metrolink travel has been during covid though, as I've been exploring a bit more locally, I think they have reduced the number of inspections they do at this time.

Metrolink prices are higher than rail, but for the most part cheaper and simpler than the buses. (plus free transfers!) If you asked people how much value they perceive as getting, it probably ranks quite highly as the system fare structure is easy to navigate and understand.

Plus, if you're travelling from one zone 4 area, to one on the opposite side of town (e.g Rochdale to Ashton, or Bury to the Airport), you're probably getting a pretty decent deal!

It's the busiest section of light rail in the world.

Not suprising really, at Cornbrook is it common to see trams pulling into the platform, while the one in front is still leaving.

I think high floor ends up working better in the end to be honest.

The low level trams (like on NET) seem to top out at 43mph, vs 55mph for the Metrolink.

Plus, low floor trams are actually less accessible & efficient in many respects. Due to the need for space for the wheels, you lose a lot of floor space, often with it being too narrow for people to pass through.

Ultimately, if you can provide level boarding, it doesn't really matter. And this is something Metrolink does very very well.

Yes Glosdop gets a decent service by provincial heavy rail standards, but it’s rubbish for a small town or suburb on the edge of a large metropolis. Metro link can provide 5-10 tph, which Northern never will, while it also frees up capacity in Piccadilly station too.

 

[Ianno87]

One of the modes mentioned was a ' trackless' tram, its a bit complex for me but apparently such things do exist.

Not sure if that's the same thing as the Cambridge Autonomous Metro?

 

[geoffk]

What does anyone think is the maximum desirable time for a non-enthusiast to spend on a tram? Wythenshawe and Milnrow to Manchester are both around 40 minutes and are probably the longest journeys you would make, as several of the outer destinations have a heavy rail alternative. Altrincham, Bury and Oldham are around 30 minutes. The proposal for tram-trains in South Wales, using vehicles similar to the class 399 in Sheffield, has them running from Aberdare, Merthyr and Treherbert, currently 55 to 60 minutes away from Cardiff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes Glosdop gets a decent service by provincial heavy rail standards, but it’s rubbish for a small town or suburb on the edge of a large metropolis. Metro link can provide 5-10 tph, which Northern never will, while it also frees up capacity in Piccadilly station too.

It has been increased to 3tph but the passengers weren't forthcoming.

 

[Ianno87]

It has been increased to 3tph but the passengers weren't forthcoming.

In fairness that was over 20 years ago now!

 

[Bletchleyite]

In fairness that was over 20 years ago now!

I feel old

 

[Llandudno]

What does anyone think is the maximum desirable time for a non-enthusiast to spend on a tram? Wythenshawe and Milnrow to Manchester are both around 40 minutes and are probably the longest journeys you would make, as several of the outer destinations have a heavy rail alternative. Altrincham, Bury and Oldham are around 30 minutes. The proposal for tram-trains in South Wales, using vehicles similar to the class 399 in Sheffield, has them running from Aberdare, Merthyr and Treherbert, currently 55 to 60 minutes away from Cardiff.

I agree it is quite a long time on a tram from the extremities of the network, but huge frequency and capacity increases and better access to the City Centre are a vast improvement on clapped out Pacers!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

What does anyone think is the maximum desirable time for a non-enthusiast to spend on a tram?

50 minutes is probably long enough. Most journeys from an outer Zone 4 origin tram station are probably to either a local station or the City Centre, but a longer journey such as Altrincham to Oldham/Rochdale (or Bury to Droylsden/Ashton-under-Lyne) seems to take an eternity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

50 minutes is probably long enough. Most journeys from an outer Zone 4 origin tram station are probably to either a local station or the City Centre, but a longer journey such as Altrincham to Oldham/Rochdale (or Bury to Droylsden/Ashton-under-Lyne) seems to take an eternity.

There are similar Merseyrail journeys (e.g. Southport to Chester), but at least the interchange stations have toilets.

While the present 507s and 508s have an InterCity-like quality of seating (albeit minus armrests) the original seating was no better than a tram, and nor is the new seating on the Stadlers - indeed they might well be the same seats as the Metrolink trams, give or take the headrest, they look similar at least. So I'm not sure there's a considerable difference there.

 

[Jozhua]

One of the modes mentioned was a ' trackless' tram, its a bit complex for me but apparently such things do exist.

I don't see much of a use.

I don't think we need more modes than we have now, the primary difficulty with building a transport system is right of way, stations, all the ancillary stuff.

If course some modes are more adept to some tasks than others. But there are very few gaps left by the current offerings. Buses, BRT, Busways, Streetcars/Trams, Light Rail (segregated or street or both), Heavy Rail (Metro/Mainline), and then you've got some automated stuff available for segregated rail systems (a la DLR, tube, Skytrain, etc)Metrolink definitely sits firmly in LRT, having dedicated rights of way, high platforms, etc.

I believe the maximum capacity through St Peters Square has been stated to be 45tph, 25 via 1CC and 20 via 2CC. That allows for the Airport frequency to be increased to 10tph if there is sufficient future demand.

TfGM also has an ambition to increase the Pic - Vic frequency from 5tph to 10tph. But this would require a third platform at Piccadilly, which I understand is only feasible as part of the HS2/NPR station redevelopment.

I stand corrected.

I have no idea how they plan to fit another 5tph from Pic-Vic when they can't even run the existing 2/3 properly.

St Peter's Square has a decent amount of capacity, but its Deansgate and Cornbrook that will most likely need beefing up.

That used to be what trolleybuses were called, but I imagine these are more high-tech.

Eh, I'd actually say trollies are better, considering they can get power from overhead, making the vehicles lighter, cheaper and more efficient.

Yes Glosdop gets a decent service by provincial heavy rail standards, but it’s rubbish for a small town or suburb on the edge of a large metropolis. Metro link can provide 5-10 tph, which Northern never will, while it also frees up capacity in Piccadilly station too.

True, although I guess it would have to be further investigated I.e potential compromises, such as journey time increases.

I think 60mph should be the minimum for anything replacing existing heavy rail operations. The 323's handily get up to that speed (and maintain it) even if there is only a mile or two between the stations.

What does anyone think is the maximum desirable time for a non-enthusiast to spend on a tram? Wythenshawe and Milnrow to Manchester are both around 40 minutes and are probably the longest journeys you would make, as several of the outer destinations have a heavy rail alternative. Altrincham, Bury and Oldham are around 30 minutes. The proposal for tram-trains in South Wales, using vehicles similar to the class 399 in Sheffield, has them running from Aberdare, Merthyr and Treherbert, currently 55 to 60 minutes away from Cardiff.

Rochdale is a long trip on Metrolink from Victoria. I think it's pushing 50mins-1hr.

I've travelled up to Shaw on the tram and the journey time is longer than going North of Rochdale on the mainline network, despite that being a pretty average Northern stopper.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rochdale is a long trip on Metrolink from Victoria. I think it's pushing 50mins-1hr.

To be fair I don't think it's really intended for that use (just like before it was a tram the intention wasn't that you went the "wrong way" round the Oldham Loop), though no doubt some people do.

 

[Jozhua]

To be fair I don't think it's really intended for that use (just like before it was a tram the intention wasn't that you went the "wrong way" round the Oldham Loop), though no doubt some people do.

Unfortunately, the lack of integrated ticketing in the GM region probably pushes people to. Although, the train is probably cheaper if only making that journey.

What we really need is a system that reflects the distance, rather than punishing for changing modes.

 

[Purple Orange]

What does anyone think is the maximum desirable time for a non-enthusiast to spend on a tram? Wythenshawe and Milnrow to Manchester are both around 40 minutes and are probably the longest journeys you would make, as several of the outer destinations have a heavy rail alternative. Altrincham, Bury and Oldham are around 30 minutes. The proposal for tram-trains in South Wales, using vehicles similar to the class 399 in Sheffield, has them running from Aberdare, Merthyr and Treherbert, currently 55 to 60 minutes away from Cardiff.

Commuting on a metro network shouldn’t be more than 30-40 mins in my view.

Rochdale is a treck, but from Rochdale commuting should be on the train if you want speed. Running metrolink in to the far-flung places like Rochdale and Wythenshawe, or building tram-train to Wilmslow is more about connecting the nearby communities together.

 

[Ianno87]

Commuting on a metro network shouldn’t be more than 30-40 mins in my view.

Rochdale is a treck, but from Rochdale commuting should be on the train if you want speed. Running metrolink in to the far-flung places like Rochdale and Wythenshawe, or building tram-train to Wilmslow is more about connecting the nearby communities together.

In Rochdale's case, one might argue that the railway between Shaw and Rochdale was lucky to survive at all - Metrolink is merely a replacement for it.

Wythenshawe is probably about getting it "on the map" for regeneration purposes with less reliance on relatively slow buses.

 

[edwin_m]

In Rochdale's case, one might argue that the railway between Shaw and Rochdale was lucky to survive at all - Metrolink is merely a replacement for it.

Wythenshawe is probably about getting it "on the map" for regeneration purposes with less reliance on relatively slow buses.

Somewhere between Oldham and Rochdale it must become quicker to get to Manchester by changing onto a train at Rochdale than by staying on the tram all the way through Oldham. Although of course this depends on making a connection into a much more frequent train, and as mentioned above the fares system discourages this sort of journey.

A lot of the reason for the Airport Metrolink route was to connect deprived communities like Wythenshawe to employment in and around the airport. In the fullness of time it should also connect them to the HS2 station.

 

[Jozhua]

Commuting on a metro network shouldn’t be more than 30-40 mins in my view.

Rochdale is a treck, but from Rochdale commuting should be on the train if you want speed. Running metrolink in to the far-flung places like Rochdale and Wythenshawe, or building tram-train to Wilmslow is more about connecting the nearby communities together.

Yeah, and to be fair, connecting nearby communities together is important. There's a lot more to public transport than city-centre to city centre, or suburb to city centre. Hopefully as we begin to get a bit better at connecting the large central business districts, we can start to connect some of the satellite towns, smaller communities and suburbs. An area which is important to focus on if we want to reduce congestion and car dependence (especially as people in these areas typically travel longer distances to access amenities.)

In Rochdale's case, one might argue that the railway between Shaw and Rochdale was lucky to survive at all - Metrolink is merely a replacement for it.

Wythenshawe is probably about getting it "on the map" for regeneration purposes with less reliance on relatively slow buses.

Fortunately, with a relatively frequent and easy to use service, it does seem to be getting pretty decent ridership. Although I've only used the line post-covid, it seems about the same loading as everywhere else.

Somewhere between Oldham and Rochdale it must become quicker to get to Manchester by changing onto a train at Rochdale than by staying on the tram all the way through Oldham. Although of course this depends on making a connection into a much more frequent train, and as mentioned above the fares system discourages this sort of journey.

A lot of the reason for the Airport Metrolink route was to connect deprived communities like Wythenshawe to employment in and around the airport. In the fullness of time it should also connect them to the HS2 station.

Yeah, the fares system is broken to be honest. Passengers are actively punished for making connections, which are already more inconvenient than a faster, direct route. No wonder that ridership on the bus network (one of the worst modes for this), is declining.

Fares should be mode-blind. Instead focusing on offering people a good overall public-transport experience. For those without cars, it will help them choose the best journey for them, without the headaches of fares. For those with cars, it will make the experience more appealing and convince them to make more use of public transport, helping to relieve congestion and pollution (and get them there quicker and less stressed!)