Metrolink Second City Crossing

[Altfish]

Having been out of the country for a while I'm only just starting to catch up, so apologies in advance if I've missed something in the process. However... what is the point in running trams beyond Victoria only as far as a station that is just around the corner? Is there an operational reason for it? Given that the journey is made on foot from Victoria to Exchange Square in two minutes flat, I don't really see that it's going to make any particular difference to passengers heading into the city centre.

There is no great advantage but it is a completed section of 2CC so why not use it?
Exchange Sq. station is right outside the entrance to the Arndale Centre and operationally it is easier to turn the trams back at Exchange Sq. than Victoria.

 

[freetoview33]

There is no great advantage but it is a completed section of 2CC so why not use it?
Exchange Sq. station is right outside the entrance to the Arndale Centre and operationally it is easier to turn the trams back at Exchange Sq. than Victoria.

And I guess to see if any operational issues do arise can be sorted before the full 2CC opens

 

[radamfi]

Having been out of the country for a while I'm only just starting to catch up, so apologies in advance if I've missed something in the process. However... what is the point in running trams beyond Victoria only as far as a station that is just around the corner? Is there an operational reason for it? Given that the journey is made on foot from Victoria to Exchange Square in two minutes flat, I don't really see that it's going to make any particular difference to passengers heading into the city centre.

I can also see passengers who want a seat in the evening peak or Saturday afternoon heading there instead of Market Street.

The extension is about 500 metres which may not sound like much, but compared to what they've just opened in Birmingham it is a lot. Midland Metro passengers have had their line extended for something that can't be much more than 200 metres from the previous terminus.

 

[Darren R]

Well, yes, if they can open it - then why not! I hadn't thought of it that way!

As for passengers realizing there is an oppportunity of a seat - that was inevitable, I suppose!

 

[Ianno87]

Having been out of the country for a while I'm only just starting to catch up, so apologies in advance if I've missed something in the process. However... what is the point in running trams beyond Victoria only as far as a station that is just around the corner? Is there an operational reason for it? Given that the journey is made on foot from Victoria to Exchange Square in two minutes flat, I don't really see that it's going to make any particular difference to passengers heading into the city centre.

The early construction of the Victoria-Exchange Square section was funded by some EU money. A condition of providing the funding was that trams had to be up and running on the first part by the end of the year. The end bonus is that the EU then pays for a part of the full 2CC cost.

 

[Bungle965]

The early construction of the Victoria-Exchange Square section was funded by some EU money. A condition of providing the funding was that trams had to be up and running on the first part by the end of the year. The end bonus is that the EU then pays for a part of the full 2CC cost.

Yes i believe that they had posts up at Exchange Square saying that it was funded by a EU grant i believe it was.
Sam

 

[Altfish]

According to Skyscraper City the new stop is being well patronised.

 

[Bungle965]

According to Skyscraper City the new stop is being well patronised.

When I was there a couple of days ago it was well used, contrary to what I thought which was it would only get used by a handful of people.
Sam

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Once the full 2cc line is complete has it yet been decided which services will run via Exchange Square and which will run via the original route?

 

[Bungle965]

Once the full 2cc line is complete has it yet been decided which services will run via Exchange Square and which will run via the original route?

I thought that it was going to be Shaw to Manchester Airport.
Sam

 

[snowball]

I thought that it was going to be Shaw to Manchester Airport.
Sam

I don't think there are any plans for Shaw to Manchester Airport by any route, though it's a persistent rumour for some reason. It will be Victoria to the Airport. I think trams from East Didsbury will be alternately to Rochdale and Shaw. In other words, every 6 minutes from East Didsbury to Shaw, with alternate ones continuing to Rochdale.

 

[Bungle965]

I don't think there are any plans for Shaw to Manchester Airport by any route. It will be Victoria to the Airport.

Hmmm thanks for clarifying that for some reason i though that it would be Shaw to Manchester Airport.
Sam

 

[radamfi]

So what will use the old and new route? I would guess from the above:

Old route:
Rochdale - East Didsbury
Bury - Altrincham

New route:
Shaw - East Didsbury
Victoria - Airport

 

[317 forever]

I rode from Rochdale to Exchange Square last Sunday, then back to Victoria. I found it significant that all trams on this line were newer higher-numbered examples. As if to make up for it, my tram from Victoria to East Didsbury was 3001!

 

[Bungle965]

I rode from Rochdale to Exchange Square last Sunday, then back to Victoria. I found it significant that all trams on this line were newer higher-numbered examples. As if to make up for it, my tram from Victoria to East Didsbury was 3001!

Anything and everything can work on them lines.
Sam

 

[61653 HTAFC]

So what will use the old and new route? I would guess from the above:

Old route:
Rochdale - East Didsbury
Bury - Altrincham

New route:
Shaw - East Didsbury
Victoria - Airport

Thanks. Didn't think any would move from the old to the new, as that'd leave the old route with a poorer service. Might be confusing for pax from the city side of Shaw, with trams alternating between the two routes though.

 

[radamfi]

Thanks. Didn't think any would move from the old to the new, as that'd leave the old route with a poorer service. Might be confusing for pax from the city side of Shaw, with trams alternating between the two routes though.

Note I was only speculating with my earlier post. But my reasoning was the same as yours as I wouldn't have expected the old route to have a reduction in service.

 

[mic]

i think higher numbered trams are mainly used Ashton to Rochdale at the moment but the same happened when it was Ashton to Eccles

 

[Domh245]

i think higher numbered trams are mainly used Ashton to Rochdale at the moment but the same happened when it was Ashton to Eccles

FWIW, when I was sat in the Costa Coffee last Wednesday (30/12) by the new exchange square stop, I saw a few trams come and go, but saw 3105 and 3106 come one after another, followed by 3018

 

[Altfish]

i think higher numbered trams are mainly used Ashton to Rochdale at the moment but the same happened when it was Ashton to Eccles

IIRC trams numbered above 3060 are not allowed to operate the non-line of sight routes - i.e. Bury and Altrincham.
The new trams above 3100 seem to be confined to Queens Road depot, i.e. the Rochdale - Ashton and Shaw - Exchange Sq. routes.

 

[freetoview33]

IIRC trams numbered above 3060 are not allowed to operate the non-line of sight routes - i.e. Bury and Altrincham.
The new trams above 3100 seem to be confined to Queens Road depot, i.e. the Rochdale - Ashton and Shaw - Exchange Sq. routes.

Why is that the case?

 

[Domh245]

Why is that the case?

My understanding is that it is to do with the signalling equipment fitted to certain trams. I can't remember what or which way round it is though!

 

[Ianno87]

My understanding is that it is to do with the signalling equipment fitted to certain trams. I can't remember what or which way round it is though!

The older (lower numbered) trams are fitted with the original Automatic Tram Stop train protection system necessary for working over the original two-aspect block signalling on the original Altrincham and Bury lines.

Although these are gradually being converted to line of sight, the block signalling is still in use Brooklands-Altrincham (pending NR r-signalling of Deansgate Junction box, which controls this section over the Level Crossings through Navigation Road), and I believe is still in use at the northern end of the Bury line (somewhere north of Crumpsall-ish, I think)

 

[freetoview33]

So ultimately the situation will no longer exist and all trams could be on all lines?

 

[rebmcr]

This is correct, the higher-numbered trams have large notices in the cab reading "MUST NOT travel south of Timperley".

I do believe for this reason some of the lower-numbered M5000s are fitted with donor equipment from scrapped T68s, whereas some were delivered from the factory with replica gear.

 

[Greybeard33]

According to TfGM's Metrolink Capital Update report of 06 Nov 2015:

2.5 The remaining Bury Line conversion to TMS control between Abraham
Moss and Bury will be complete by Quarter 2 2016. The installation and
initial testing will take place in 2015, with final dynamic testing following
in early 2016.
2.6 Timperley to Altrincham will remain under Network Rail track circuit
control post final TMS commissioning. The Altrincham Line has
currently been migrated to TMS just south of Brooklands Station and the
final phase to commission Timperley sidings will take place in June
2016.

The Tram Management System (TMS) enables line of sight operation in place of the original colour light block signalling system. So, for the foreseeable future, only trams fitted with the legacy Automatic Tram Stop (ATS) and Vehicle Recognition System (VRS) equipment will be permitted on the Network Rail metals between Timperley and Altrincham (VRS provides the "Ready To Start" (RTS) signal to the signaller).

The initial batches of M5000s came with factory-fitted ATS/VRS. Due to the TMS migration taking much longer than originally planned, the ATS/VRS kit was salvaged from some of the scrapped T68 trams, as rebmcr said, to enable more M5000s to be retrofitted.

 

[snowball]

This was posted by Freel07 on Skyscrapercity on Monday:

The areas still under block signal control are Crumpsall to Bury, scheduled for conversion in the 2nd quarter of this year, and Brooklands to Altrincham. The Brooklands to Timperley Sidings buffers section is planned for conversion in June this year but the fate of the final section currently under Network Rail control is still unclear. There is a note in one of last year's Metrolink Capital updates stating 'Timperley to Altrincham will remain under Network Rail track circuit control post final TMS commissioning.' Just what that means isn't made clear. At present the TMS equipment to allow tram location right through to Altrincham seems to be in position, it would be technically possible to retain track circuits but provide line of sight signal heads controlled by the present NR Solid State Interlocking given Network Rail approval. That would probably allow removal of the ATS equipment. Only time will tell what the real meaning of the statement is.

 

[freetoview33]

So to me that sounds like the whole network will be converted by the end of this year (But mostly likely by the summer)

But that section to Altrincham Network rail need to make there mind up, but surely sooner or later they will have to give in!

 

[Altfish]

I don't know, but I suspect it may be forced to go over when Deansgate Lane signal box is closed in 2019(?).
I'm not sure what effect the two level crossings will have on line of sight working?

 

[snowball]

So to me that sounds like the whole network will be converted by the end of this year (But mostly likely by the summer)

But that section to Altrincham Network rail need to make there mind up, but surely sooner or later they will have to give in!

I don't think it's a question of anyone giving in. A bespoke design has to be agreed between Metrolink and NR just for that section, and it's natural for Metrolink to leave it to last.