Merseyrail (Liverpool) vs Manchester Metrolink (Manchester)

[Altfish]

In what way does it defeat the idea?

Easy, stepless access is lost in tunnels; you get off a tram you are on the street.

 

[Altfish]

Where would a 3rd and/or 4th City Crossing be most useful on the Manchester Metrolink system?

North to South - Salford area to University area and beyond

 

[miami]

To me the best option would be a tunnel connecting the Altrincham and Bury lines

You could then continue them occasionally to Northwich, or even Middlewich

Labour transport minister Derek Twigg cancelled the Liverpool tram project in 2005, even after the rails had been delivered, and then expected everyone to vote Labour again!

Well to be fair they did (aside from Wirral West with the new boundaries)

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Where would a 3rd and/or 4th City Crossing be most useful on the Manchester Metrolink system?

North to South - Salford area to University area and beyond

Not a bad shout that. Which way through the City Centre?

 

[CHAPS2034]

This is partly the case because low floor trams weren't really a thing when it was being built (plus they already had the high platform stations and it was originally very much built on the cheap). I suspect that is now very much regretted.

At the time, there were two options. Build it on the cheap or don't build it. Whist I'm sure they would have liked to do the more expensive job, they at least took a decision to carry on and I'm sure they don't regret that decision in the least. Otherwise, there would be no trams in Manchester at all.

Extract from Manchester's 2040 Transport strategy para 291 below which shows tunneled options are being considered.

Link to the full document here

We have identified a phased approach to enhancing our Regional Centre rapid transit networks to meet the long-term needs of our rapidly growing economy as follows
:
• Short-term (to early 2020s): Completion of Metrolink Second City Centre Crossing; completion of Northern Hub works and introduction of enhanced, higher-capacity heavy rail services; delivery of Trafford Park Line; and increased capacity on the busiest Metrolink lines by running more double unit vehicles;

• Medium-term (to 2030): Develop and deliver tram-train to improve rapid transit connectivity into and across the Regional Centre and develop potential cross-city metro proposals; develop proposals for our suburban rail network to complement the Northern Powerhouse Rail network; and

• Long-term (from mid-2030s): Implement cross-city rapid transit capacity enhancements, potentially through tunneled metro services, and deliver suburban rail enhancements to complement Northern Powerhouse Rail.

 

[Jozhua]

Might be of interest, Manchester was planned to have an underground like the Merseyrail, linking lines north and south of the city but it got scrapped back in the 1970's, would have used Class 316 EMU's (which should have been another 'PEP' class), and I believe there was a 'station' box built under the Arndale in preparation.....here's a couple of links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picc-Vic_tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_316_(Picc-Vic) https://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-...und-trains-picc-vic-secret-telephone-exchange

HTH

Picc-Vic!

I can’t decide which one I prefer. I like both and they have plus points and negative points.

Metrolink:

• Easier to expand given that routes can be a combination of street running and traditional rail lines.
• Easier to access from the city centre. The platform is in front of you, no need to go down escalators and you can see the tram coming
• 100% accessible for wheelchair users
• Trams are a good image/symbol for the city.
• Greater frequency than Merseyrail
• It it is a pain when news comes through that a car has got stuck on the line somewhere.

Merseyrail:

• Faster to get through the city
• As a national rail network, the fact that it is segregated is a huge plus point.
• Each train can have greater capacity than a tram
• Hard to expand

I can see the Metrolink system partly developing in to a version of the Tyne & Wear Metro, once a tunnel has been built. It will likely be confined to the lines that were heavy rail lines, with the lines that involve street running continuing on the street-running lines in the centre.

Tram-train technology also offers it a good opportunity to expand, with a potential 3rd city crossing coming in from Salford Crescent down Chapel Street to Salford Central then along John Dalton Street and connecting to the existing network at Albert Square. This gives the chance to open up additional stops at Spinningfields with better access to Deansgate.

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.

A route out to Salford Crescent using this or other options has been looked at in connection with possible tram-train conversion of the Atherton line, but it's quite difficult to find destinations for the extra trams that would use it (considering that a lot of trams per hour terminate at Piccadilly or Etihad already).

To me the best option would be a tunnel connecting the Altrincham and Bury lines, which remain quite heavy-rail-like and tend to be the busiest. They could then run longer trams once freed of the constraints in the city centre. The Oldham/Rochdale, Didsbury and Airport routes would probably share track with Altrincham/Bury between the tunnel portals and where they branched off, but that wouldn't matter if they used common technical standards - or they could go in the tunnel too.

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.

The Glossop & Marple lines would be at the eastern end of any tunnel, but I agree it should also include a Bury line too. If it was down to me, I would have a tunnel from east of Piccadilly to Salford Crescent for a Glossop-Atherton line and a tunnel from east of Victoria to Cornbrook for a Bury-Altrincham, however would require two lines in the centre.

Even if no tunnel was built, a route in from Salford Central and Glossop would balance out the network a bit more evenly. St. Peter’s Square is the central hub of the network, with 5 lines feeding in to it via Cornbrook, but only 3 lines on the other side to Bury, Ashton and Rochdale. The Atherton and Glossop line would create 5 lines either side of St. Peter’s Square.

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.

I've heard that tunneling under Manchester is significantly more expensive than tunnelling under Liverpool per mile due to the geology. I'm not sure the exact comparison with Liverpool but I've heard it's at least 50% more than London.

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.

As an irregular traveller on the Metrolink (I think I've only ever travelled on it once to make an actual journey rather than for fun), one thing I find quite offputting is the levels of crime and other antisocial behaviour. A not insignificant number of journeys I've made on the system has been marked by poor behaviour of other customers; not really something I've experienced as much on the Merseyrail system. The smaller numbers of staff and weaker enforcement of the rules that people are caught breaking are probably something to do with this. I would also note that single Metrolink fares are far higher than the rail fares in Merseyside for equivalent distances, although the subsidised nature of Merseyrail versus the Metrolink model combined with high levels of fare evasion (I would estimate every Tram that I did witness Inspectors checking had 5-10% of customers removed from it).

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!

There is one issue with the Metrolink which is between Cornbrook and St Peter's Square. Any problems on that stretch of track and virtually the entire network is paralysed. So I would say tunnel or otherwise there needs to be a second way to get round the City. Not venturing to say it is practical but a link from Cornbrook to Victoria would be a good option

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.

At the time, there were two options. Build it on the cheap or don't build it. Whist I'm sure they would have liked to do the more expensive job, they at least took a decision to carry on and I'm sure they don't regret that decision in the least. Otherwise, there would be no trams in Manchester at all.

Extract from Manchester's 2040 Transport strategy para 291 below which shows tunneled options are being considered.

Link to the full document here

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.

 

[py_megapixel]

Easy, stepless access is lost in tunnels; you get off a tram you are on the street.

That's not actually as big an issue as you might think. Plenty of existing stops are not at street level and so have lifts. The street track would be retained and still regularly used; the purpose of the tunnel would be for those who want to get quickly from one side of the city centre to the other.

 

[urbophile]

Of course in any sensible European city of the size of Liverpool or Manchester, there would be both a metro system and several tram lines. We were European once....

 

[edwin_m]

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.

If the route beyond Salford was a tram-train, for example sharing with other services between Crow Nest and Wigan, then you wouldn't want the other end of the route to be on a busy street corridor where the trams would be prone to delays. It might work in conjunction with a route up the A6 towards Bolton.

That's not actually as big an issue as you might think. Plenty of existing stops are not at street level and so have lifts. The street track would be retained and still regularly used; the purpose of the tunnel would be for those who want to get quickly from one side of the city centre to the other.

Most people want to go to and from the city centre so it would need a selection of underground stations, otherwise people would change onto, and overload, the shorter trams that still ran on street. With a cut and cover the stations would be shallow and much quicker to access than the sort of deep stations seen in London or Newcastle.

 

[Ianno87]

At the time, there were two options. Build it on the cheap or don't build it. Whist I'm sure they would have liked to do the more expensive job, they at least took a decision to carry on and I'm sure they don't regret that decision in the least. Otherwise, there would be no trams in Manchester at all.

Nor probably trams in some other UK cities following Manchester's example.

 

[Greybeard33]

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

Metrolink M5000 trams are actually limited to 50mph.

 

[tavistock]

To be fair, the polluting diesel buses will soon be able to be replaced with clean electric buses. But I still think a tram would be sensible.

Perhaps a single tram line up and down the Strand in front of the Liver building would be a decent tourist option. It's one of the few routes wide enough to accommodate trams and motor vehicles at the same time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps a single tram line up and down the Strand in front of the Liver building would be a decent tourist option. It's one of the few routes wide enough to accommodate trams and motor vehicles at the same time.

If you just want a tourist tramway there already is one in Birkenhead.

 

[DorkingMain]

Labour transport minister Derek Twigg cancelled the Liverpool tram project in 2005, even after the rails had been delivered, and then expected everyone to vote Labour again! Many of the major arterial roads still have tram-sized central reservations (eg Menlove Avenue) but there seems to be no serious political will to replace polluting diesel buses with clean electric trams.

I wouldn't expect Liverpool to vote for anyone else, to be honest.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't expect Liverpool to vote for anyone else, to be honest.

There are pockets of Lib Dem though much reduced.

 

[frodshamfella]

I believe there are plans for a tram link from the Lime Street area to the New School of surgeons building known as The Giraffe and to serve that whole Knowledge Quater area.

 

[tavistock]

If you just want a tourist tramway there already is one in Birkenhead.

true; just thought it would work in Liverpool as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe there are plans for a tram link from the Lime Street area to the New School of surgeons building known as The Giraffe and to serve that whole Knowledge Quater area.

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/

 

[tavistock]

Of course in any sensible European city of the size of Liverpool or Manchester, there would be both a metro system and several tram lines. We were European once....

still are. We haven't floated off into the Atlantic

 

[Fokx]

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.

That’s probably the worst place to put a tram line, specifically “The curry mile”. Since MCC reduced the road size, added a central reservation, on-street parking and Dutch cycle lanes the road is an absolute nightmare to get down as it is currently.

Having used to live down there as a student, the road was frequently closed as it was taking buses up to 45 minutes to go down a stretch of road that is 3/4 of a mile. I personally remember when Pakistan won a cricket tournament and several customers and staff of the shisha bars decided to play a round of cricket in the road in the middle of the traffic until the police arrived and moved them on. It’s a hotbed for anti-social behaviour with grown men showing off in rented cards and remember that the road is frequently closed for around a week during Eid celebrations also.

There is absolutely no way a reliable tram service could operate unless it partially went up Hathersage Road and along the A34 for that section, but that then begs the question of what would this route be serving? You’ve already got tram stops in East Didsbury, a really good low-emission bus service, and a railway line serving the likes of Burnage .

There are many places that would better suit a tram line, such as Manchester to Middleton and down the A6

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s probably the worst place to put a tram line, specifically “The curry mile”. Since MCC reduced the road size, added a central reservation, on-street parking and Dutch cycle lanes the road is an absolute nightmare to get down as it is currently.

Cars should be banned from it completely, with it for pedestrians, cycles and trams only. That would solve that issue. There's rear access to most of the businesses, and deliveries to the others could be out of hours like in parts of London.

Then yes, get the tramway in, it's been needed for years. Buses are not the correct solution for such huge passenger numbers as that.

 

[507 001]

The M5000s are excellent vehicles for what they do. The fact that TfGM keep ordering new batches of the same model is a testament to that. They ride well, accelerate quickly, are spacious, modern-feeling and accessible. They also aren't horribly built on the cheap and unreliable, unlike the T68s...

Now as some of you know I drive (and instruct on) M5000s for a living...


I could not disagree with you more.

The M5000 was a terrible choice for Metrolink, and the only reason they have become so numerous is that there are very few other options!

The ride can best be described as lively. Even on the slower sections they aren’t a patch on a T68 which had air suspension. They are much improved from when they were first delivered, but they pick up every little defect and at speed (especially up front) throw you around something ruthless.

They are actually slower point to point than the T68s, thanks to the frustratingly slow door cycle times.

They’ve never worked particularly well as double units as they don’t like talking to one another.

The ridiculously snappy parking brake makes coming to a smooth stop on anything other than perfectly level track impossible.

The build quality (in particular the fit and finish in the cabs) is woeful. They rattle like crazy on the sharper bends.

They are reliable (thanks to the Vossloh Kiepe/TSSA traction pack), and as you say the interiors are bright, but that’s about the only positive thing I can say about them.

 

[Jozhua]

Of course in any sensible European city of the size of Liverpool or Manchester, there would be both a metro system and several tram lines. We were European once....

Budapest is a city of almost identical size as Manchester (counting urban and metro area measurements). It has four metro lines, 36 tram routes (and 15 trolleybus lines!).

The UK is lagging behind significantly in public transportation. I feel Metrolink has established a good tram-backbone, but trams aren't suitable for every job. I think there is a case to be made for creating a proper metro system, especially in areas where getting at-grade running is going to be difficult anyway.

Indeed, I have a map of what I think would work as a good first line/s of an automated metro system (similar to DLR/Skytrain)
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=11u5nuQgv4IAlbOCzg_HpayS0xIoYJD77&usp=sharing

The problem is, that Metrolink relies on a lot of sharp curves and street-running to get the lines in cheaply. This means that the trams themselves have to make certain comprimises on wheel geometry (top speed), length, no automation potential, etc.
There are lines that don't include either of these things, so actually an ATC or fully automated system, with heavy rail vehicles, could deliver better service.

I think there is totally a place for both in the transport system, given the resources. Although at the moment, I understand the "Metrolink everything" ethos, because there is economies of scale, expanding the existing fleet, expertise and technology, even if it may not 100% fit with the needs of the project.

If the route beyond Salford was a tram-train, for example sharing with other services between Crow Nest and Wigan, then you wouldn't want the other end of the route to be on a busy street corridor where the trams would be prone to delays. It might work in conjunction with a route up the A6 towards Bolton.

Most people want to go to and from the city centre so it would need a selection of underground stations, otherwise people would change onto, and overload, the shorter trams that still ran on street. With a cut and cover the stations would be shallow and much quicker to access than the sort of deep stations seen in London or Newcastle.

I'm still unsure if tram-train is the best solution for Manchester. The rail corridors are already pretty busy, even when you get beyond Castlefield and the like. I don't think putting trams on them is going to help that much. What we need more of is redundancy and coverage. I think most of the alignments suitable for conversion to light rail have now been done, and the focus should be on new alignments that perhaps better reflect the needs of the city today (e.g. Trafford Park extension)

For places like Glossop and Wigan, they are ideal journeys for a strong commuter-rail system. If they wanted to run brand new lines out there sure, but I can't see running light rail vehicles on these longer-distance routes as really improving service all that much, especially where they are already electrified. I doubt an M5000 is all that much different to a 323 when it comes to acceleration. The 323 benefits in that it can run beyond 50mph without beginning to roll from side to side!

Metrolink M5000 trams are actually limited to 50mph.

I stand corrected. Still a bit faster than some of the low floor stuff, but clearly light rail is limited in that department!

That’s probably the worst place to put a tram line, specifically “The curry mile”. Since MCC reduced the road size, added a central reservation, on-street parking and Dutch cycle lanes the road is an absolute nightmare to get down as it is currently.

Having used to live down there as a student, the road was frequently closed as it was taking buses up to 45 minutes to go down a stretch of road that is 3/4 of a mile. I personally remember when Pakistan won a cricket tournament and several customers and staff of the shisha bars decided to play a round of cricket in the road in the middle of the traffic until the police arrived and moved them on. It’s a hotbed for anti-social behaviour with grown men showing off in rented cards and remember that the road is frequently closed for around a week during Eid celebrations also.

There is absolutely no way a reliable tram service could operate unless it partially went up Hathersage Road and along the A34 for that section, but that then begs the question of what would this route be serving? You’ve already got tram stops in East Didsbury, a really good low-emission bus service, and a railway line serving the likes of Burnage .

There are many places that would better suit a tram line, such as Manchester to Middleton and down the A6

I get what you mean, but the buses are even more susceptible to disruption by traffic on the road. As it is, they don't go at a perticularly fast rate.

I think trying to remove as much through traffic from the street as possible would be good. It's a busy area. It's got a lot of energy, which I like, but obviously where that energy spills out into outright danger, is less good!

Cars should be banned from it completely, with it for pedestrians, cycles and trams only. That would solve that issue. There's rear access to most of the businesses, and deliveries to the others could be out of hours like in parts of London.

Then yes, get the tramway in, it's been needed for years. Buses are not the correct solution for such huge passenger numbers as that.

Yeah, I agree. It would be much better as a pedestrianised area. Indeed, Oxford Road works very well further up near the university, now buses are only allowed there. That area would work absolutely fine with a tram/limited acess for some buses, emergency vehicles/deliveries.

Now as some of you know I drive (and instruct on) M5000s for a living...


I could not disagree with you more.

The M5000 was a terrible choice for Metrolink, and the only reason they have become so numerous is that there are very few other options!

The ride can best be described as lively. Even on the slower sections they aren’t a patch on a T68 which had air suspension. They are much improved from when they were first delivered, but they pick up every little defect and at speed (especially up front) throw you around something ruthless.

They are actually slower point to point than the T68s, thanks to the frustratingly slow door cycle times.

They’ve never worked particularly well as double units as they don’t like talking to one another.

The ridiculously snappy parking brake makes coming to a smooth stop on anything other than perfectly level track impossible.

The build quality (in particular the fit and finish in the cabs) is woeful. They rattle like crazy on the sharper bends.

They are reliable (thanks to the Vossloh Kiepe/TSSA traction pack), and as you say the interiors are bright, but that’s about the only positive thing I can say about them.

It's always interesting to hear the perspectives of people who actually work with them!

I've noticed the section between Failsworth and Hollinwood is very noisy once it gets up to speed. I don't know if you work on that section and have any insights into why that is?

I think a lot of the issues with bouncing around at speed is because the wheels have a geometry more geared towards keeping them in place on tight curves, vs at higher speeds?

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are reliable (thanks to the Vossloh Kiepe/TSSA traction pack), and as you say the interiors are bright, but that’s about the only positive thing I can say about them.

They also suffer the same problem most modern low-floor trams do in having insufficient seats. Standee trams are all very well for very short journeys, but for longer ones they aren't suitable.

If I was designing from scratch I'd go for a 4-"car" unit with a similar layout to the Sheffield trams - end vehicles laid out for accessibility with few seats and 2 sets of doors, middle vehicles laid out for maximised seating with 1 set of doors each (or vice versa). I wonder if the Welsh tram-trains may be more like this? This basically replicates the low-floor double-decker bus, which is well-designed in this regard with accessibility features downstairs and lots of seats for longer journeys upstairs.

I mean I'd not pick Fainsa Sophias myself, but this is what TfW seem to see as suitable for a vehicle operating services very similar in concept to Metrolink. I can't link the photos for some reason but there are plenty here: https://tfwrail.wales/metro/trains

 

[edwin_m]

They also suffer the same problem most modern low-floor trams do in having insufficient seats. Standee trams are all very well for very short journeys, but for longer ones they aren't suitable.

If I was designing from scratch I'd go for a 4-"car" unit with a similar layout to the Sheffield trams - end vehicles laid out for accessibility with few seats and 2 sets of doors, middle vehicles laid out for maximised seating with 1 set of doors each (or vice versa). I wonder if the Welsh tram-trains may be more like this? This basically replicates the low-floor double-decker bus, which is well-designed in this regard with accessibility features downstairs and lots of seats for longer journeys upstairs.

I mean I'd not pick Fainsa Sophias myself, but this is what TfW seem to see as suitable for a vehicle operating services very similar in concept to Metrolink. I can't link the photos for some reason but there are plenty here: https://tfwrail.wales/metro/trains

The tram-trains in Karlsruhe have a similar layout.

Last time I looked TfGM was proposing a 60m vehicle for their tram-train projects so as to maximise the capacity in the city centre. A dual-voltage tram-train can't be any shorter than about 38m because of the equipment that has to be fitted in, and at that length they are too long to run in pairs. With the number of double trams they now operate, it wouldn't surprise me if the next order was for 60m vehicles even if they weren't equipped to be tram-trains.

 

[507 001]

It's always interesting to hear the perspectives of people who actually work with them!

I've noticed the section between Failsworth and Hollinwood is very noisy once it gets up to speed. I don't know if you work on that section and have any insights into why that is?

I think a lot of the issues with bouncing around at speed is because the wheels have a geometry more geared towards keeping them in place on tight curves, vs at higher speeds?

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.

They also suffer the same problem most modern low-floor trams do in having insufficient seats. Standee trams are all very well for very short journeys, but for longer ones they aren't suitable.

If I was designing from scratch I'd go for a 4-"car" unit with a similar layout to the Sheffield trams - end vehicles laid out for accessibility with few seats and 2 sets of doors, middle vehicles laid out for maximised seating with 1 set of doors each (or vice versa). I wonder if the Welsh tram-trains may be more like this? This basically replicates the low-floor double-decker bus, which is well-designed in this regard with accessibility features downstairs and lots of seats for longer journeys upstairs.

I mean I'd not pick Fainsa Sophias myself, but this is what TfW seem to see as suitable for a vehicle operating services very similar in concept to Metrolink. I can't link the photos for some reason but there are plenty here: https://tfwrail.wales/metro/trains

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Thinking on, while the Stadler Metro is a heavy rail EMU (basically an adapted version of the FLIRT platform, near enough) and not a tram, Merseyrail seem to have gone for basically that concept - one door in the end vehicles with more seats, two doors in the middle ones with fewer. I know the reason for that is different (maximising train length for platform lengths) but it does sort of prove the concept.

 

[Greybeard33]

They also suffer the same problem most modern low-floor trams do in having insufficient seats. Standee trams are all very well for very short journeys, but for longer ones they aren't suitable.

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

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?

 

[SoccerHQ]

Would be interesting to see where people ranked things if you added the actual 2nd city into the mix.

Snail pace work on the trams up to five ways/ Broad Street continues and saw on Central last night there's 20m funding gap for re-opening of Camp Hill line although Andy Street still expects it to be open in 2023.

Would certainly rank Manchester as number 1 with all they've achieved in last 25 years and then Liverpool and Birmingham is pretty level pegging.