Metrolink Second City Crossing

[nerd]

Transpennine services could run permanently via Golborne if the capacity was needed. Salford Cresant is nearly full in terms of frequency but there is plenty of capacity for growth through platform extensions and longer rolling stock. The planned frequency post electrification does not need increasing. Stockport viaduct is a bottleneck that prevents new services. The mid Cheshire line could support new stations and electrification between Altrincham and Stockport, the Middlewich freight line could be used for passenger services and a limited stop fast service from at least Northwich to Manchester would be popular. In addition a Stockport-Victoria service would be via Denton would be plausible if there were spare paths. I think Northern Hub squeezes in extra Manchester-Sheffield/Hazel Grove paths but nothing else.

I would like to see a third city crossing but I doubt that funding would be likely, especially if HS3 / NPR happens.

That's as maybe Chester1 - but TfGM are not thinking in terms of incemental changes applied to the current network to be able to maintian historic trends in passenger growth; but radical transformations:

- firstly so that commuter rail services are able to run without opeartaing subsidy;
- secondly so as to be able to support commuter flows into the regional centre 50% or 100% greater than now.

Comparing the city centre with five years ago; daily peak period commuting has increased by around 15,000 (from around 130,000, including the Education Precincts; to around 145,000). None of this additional commuting has been achieved by increased bus or private car use; there has been a fair degree of expansion in cycling and walking (which is possibly disguised car use); but essentially the growith in demand has been met from Metrolink (7,000) and rail (8,000). But while Metrolink is poised for a radical step increase in capacity; rail (especially on the lines in from Bolton) is straining at the seams.

Project that growth in demand for city-centre peak commuting 20 years into the future, and you may well be looking to accommodate an additional 60,000 daily peak period travellers. It is generally accepted that constraints on capacity of the road system inhibit any increase in car-user commuting. Rapid bus routes could well provide some scope for increased capacity - but wil still be restricted by the road network. So realistically, such growth would still mainly have to come in trams and trains.

The post-2CC tram system could well support an extra 30,000 peak period commuters per day (especially if the Marple line is coverted to tram-train); but does not look physically capable of going much beyond that. Which could imply additional capacity for 30,000 rail commuters - which would double the current total of all rail trips into central Manchester at peak periods. In context, the conversion of the Oldham/Rochdale line to tram operation has tripled former rail patronage, and it could well double again. Similar needs to be achievable across the commuter rail network.

To attract those extra rail commuters, services would need to be transformed to run at higher frequency, and to penetrate through the city centre. That appears to offer a business model for commuter rail to operate without revenue support - which is what the trams achieve, and which would be a minimum requirement as far as TfGM are concerned. TfGM will not be interested in replicating operating models that don't run at a profit. But the existing cross-city routes are clearly insufficient for this purpose - even with platform extensions and longer rolling stock. Hence, it seems, the conclusion that a metro-style service through a city centre tunnel is the way to go.

 

[rebmcr]

A conclusion already reached by Crossrail.

 

[edwin_m]

I would like to see a third city crossing but I doubt that funding would be likely, especially if HS3 / NPR happens.

Hmm.

I wonder if an east-west tunnel with appropriate connections each end could carry a mixture of say 4TPH fast Liverpool-Leeds and beyond, with 8TPH fast outer-suburban linking one or two corridors on each side of the city? Could be do-able if both train types make the same stops on the shared section, but it depends where the portals are and how easy to connect to existing railways that generate enough demand.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would like to see a third city crossing but I doubt that funding would be likely, especially if HS3 / NPR happens.

Hmm.

I wonder if an east-west tunnel with appropriate connections each end could carry a mixture of say 4TPH fast Liverpool-Leeds and beyond, with 8TPH fast outer-suburban linking one or two corridors on each side of the city? Could be do-able if both train types make the same stops on the shared section, but it depends where the portals are and how easy to connect to existing railways that generate enough demand.

 

[nerd]

Hmm.

I wonder if an east-west tunnel with appropriate connections each end could carry a mixture of say 4TPH fast Liverpool-Leeds and beyond, with 8TPH fast outer-suburban linking one or two corridors on each side of the city? Could be do-able if both train types make the same stops on the shared section, but it depends where the portals are and how easy to connect to existing railways that generate enough demand.

I don't think 8 tph would provide enough capacity for a metro-type service - even if it were possible to interleave them with fast intercity services. Moreover, I would expect the a light-rail specification tunnel as being alogether cheaper to build.

I think I recall TfTN's envisaging the NPR services as being 200m standard units. A metro-style service would likely have trains of not much more than 100m; with accordingly much lower construction costs for stations.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think 8 tph would provide enough capacity for a metro-type service - even if it were possible to interleave them with fast intercity services. Moreover, I would expect the a light-rail specification tunnel as being alogether cheaper to build.

I think I recall TfTN's envisaging the NPR services as being 200m standard units. A metro-style service would likely have trains of not much more than 100m; with accordingly much lower construction costs for stations.

Thinking out loud - how about a portal somewhere in the Ordsall area with connections to the Bolton and Chat Moss lines, connecting to one somewhere near Ashburys to run out to Glossop and Hyde. 4TPH each of relatively long trains would be a great improvement on the existing service. They would be to heavy rail standard and use the same platforms as NPR so the main cost would be extra connections to the existing lines. These could well be cheaper than a light rail tunnel.

 

[nerd]

Thinking out loud - how about a portal somewhere in the Ordsall area with connections to the Bolton and Chat Moss lines, connecting to one somewhere near Ashburys to run out to Glossop and Hyde. 4TPH each of relatively long trains would be a great improvement on the existing service. They would be to heavy rail standard and use the same platforms as NPR so the main cost would be extra connections to the existing lines. These could well be cheaper than a light rail tunnel.

There's not a great deal of potential for commuter services along the Chat Moss line; were it possible to connect CLC line commuter services into a common tunnel, that would be much more valuable; but the geometry looks tricky. Otherwise, the key requirements for services from the west will be for greatly increased capacity from the Bolton and Atherton/Wigan lines. So a portal west of Salford Crescent seems to be implied.

As I understand TfGM's formulation of the issue; they now realise that - even with a big-bang expansion of Metrolink - there are possible scenarios for the growth of activity in Manchester city centre that will exceed the capacity of the post 2CC public transport network. Their preference would have been for an additional surface cross-city tram route - 3CC; but failing that, they are looking at tunnel solutions. But if they have to run services through a tunnel, they only want one of them; and they want to be able to run services along it that pay their way. Not only would a shared NPR/metro tunnel inherently magnify the sub-optimal features of tunnelled commuter rail services; they would also be inherently restricted in potential for further capacity growth - while no doubt also being sub-optimal for NPR too. If both NPR and Metro need tunnels, better for each to be optimised for their own purposes. Two tunnels.

 

[Greybeard33]

TfGM anticipate taking over franchising of all commuter rail services into Greater Manchester; and converting them into one of three general models of operation:

- tram/train: likely Rose Hill Marple and orbital routes into the Airport from Stockport. Probably run using light rail units similar in length to current doubled M5000s, and run on surface at a frequency of 5 or 10 services per hour throughout the day

- metro-style; likely Atherton/Wigan and Hadfield/Glossop plus others. Likely run using similar units to tram-train, but in longer trains and hence requiring a tunnel to traverse the city centre. Frequency at least 4 services per hour throughout the day.

- regional rail services; likely commuter stoppers along main regional intercity routes - Macclesfield, Crewe, Warrington, St Helens, Preston, Calder Valley, Huddersfield, New Mills. Likely frequency at least 2 services per hour; with much longer (and faster) trains than for the metro-style services.

The proposal for a metro-style conversion of commuter lines appears to have arisen once it became apparent that there was unlikely to be room to fit an additonal cross-city line street-level line specifically for linking tram-train services from Wigan through the Glossop (which had been envisaged in the original tram-train strategy); while the Oxford Road viaduct had insufficient capacity to carry through services at the required higher frequency. But then, if such a tunnel were to be built, it would be logical to use it as a common tunnel for all metro-style services.

Underlying this is the realisation that Metrolink could eventually run up against strict physical limitations; doubled services cannot exceed 56m in length; and there can be no more than 50 paths per hour running east-west through the city centre (25 each on 1CC and 2CC). Overall that possibly limits total patronage to around 75m per year (or maybe 50,000 commuters per day). If the city centre grows beyond that; extra capacity will have to come from vastly increasing frequency along cross-city rail routes - which in turn cannot be achieved within the limitations of the Oxford Road viaduct.

In respect of commuter services, the big bottleneck is not so much the Stockport Viaduct and Airport line as Salford Crescent. Greater Manchester is likely to need greatly enhanced capacity for rail services into Bolton and Wigan (both of which are realistically a bit far from Manchester centre for Metrolink). But with regional and international rail services into the Airport also running through Salford Crescent (which is itself a major travel generator), expansion of Wigan and Bolton commuter services to metro frequency is currently precluded. Unless TfGM build a tunnel for them.

Once the Bolton line electrification is complete and Northern's new trains are delivered, the current Northern franchise agreement specifies 7tph all day from each of Bolton and Wigan to Manchester, with Bolton also getting 2 morning peak extras and 3 evening peak extras (these figures exclude the hourly TPE service, which may be drop off/pick up only at Bolton). Walkden, Atherton, Daisy Hill and Hindley will each get 4tph all day.

These will all be cross-city services, either to Manchester Airport or Hazel Grove via the Oxford Road viaduct, or to Stalybridge or Rochdale and beyond via Salford Central and Victoria.

The frequencies appear to meet the requirement for "metro-style" services and there will be scope for substantial further capacity increases through train lengthening, at a small fraction of the cost of an east-west tunnel.

I don't think 8 tph would provide enough capacity for a metro-type service - even if it were possible to interleave them with fast intercity services. Moreover, I would expect the a light-rail specification tunnel as being altogether cheaper to build.

I think I recall TfTN's envisaging the NPR services as being 200m standard units. A metro-style service would likely have trains of not much more than 100m; with accordingly much lower construction costs for stations.

If the justification for the tunnel is projected future growth in commuter flows, it would seem to be a false economy to restrict capacity by building platforms only 100m long. Even Salford Crescent, Salford Central and Deansgate can already accommodate 6-car (140m) trains.

 

[Chester1]

I agree with Greybeard, a metro tunnel is a long time from being neccessary. When Bolton and Wigan services are all 8-12 coaches then its neccessary. Glossop/New Mills/Rose Hill are much smaller flows and there is capacity for tram trains or tram conversion through extending services that terminate at Piccadilly.

A third city crossing is plausible. There are two roads that go under the metrolink between St Peters Square and Deansgate, either could be used to prevent the nèed for a flat crossing or fly over in the city centre. Should passengers numbers allow it is possible to connect the Atherton line near Salford Cresant with Piccadilly and convert the line to metro from Hindley (to connect with Wigan to Manchester via Westhoughton services). Tunnel is approximately 10 times as expensive as ground level tram lines. It should only be built as a last resort.

 

[Boysteve]

Hazel Grove services already interworked with Bolton services. Atherton is not on the electrification shortlist and so will be interworked with other diesel services. The Glossop/New Mills/Rose Hill routes have spare capacity for more frequent services. The big bottlenecks are Stockport viaduct and the Airport line.

I disagree with your assessment that Stockport viaduct is one of the big bottlenecks. At 4 tracks wide surely it offers the same capacity as the whole Slade Lane to Stockport section. The real bottlenecks are
1) The junction at Cheadle Hulme including the two track section to Adswood
2) Slade Lane to Ardwick.

If Stockport Viaduct operated at full capacity there would be nowhere for the airport services North of Slade Lane surely?

 

[Chester1]

I disagree with your assessment that Stockport viaduct is one of the big bottlenecks. At 4 tracks wide surely it offers the same capacity as the whole Slade Lane to Stockport section. The real bottlenecks are
1) The junction at Cheadle Hulme including the two track section to Adswood
2) Slade Lane to Ardwick.

If Stockport Viaduct operated at full capacity there would be nowhere for the airport services North of Slade Lane surely?

No for two reasons, firstly Slade Lane to Ardwick has no stations while Stockport to Slade Lane has two which makes it trickier to time table stopping, non stoping local, regional and inter city services. Secondly it depends on frequency of services on the Denton Line. There is a businness case for a Stockport to Victoria service (probably not always stopping) and it is already used by freight. Cheadle Hulme junction is an issue but it has significantly less services because none of the Sheffield or Buxton line services use it and because it has no stations.

Although I will admit that I was probably too specific. The whole corridor is congested and limits new services being introduced and new stations between Stockport and Altrincham. Salford Cresent has sufficient services and longer trains could massively increase capacity. The HS2 station at Manchester Airport would help to reduce train congestion in the south of Greater Manchester but it is 16 years away. The airport tunnel proposal would also help and could happen quicker.

 

[nerd]

Once the Bolton line electrification is complete and Northern's new trains are delivered, the current Northern franchise agreement specifies 7tph all day from each of Bolton and Wigan to Manchester, with Bolton also getting 2 morning peak extras and 3 evening peak extras (these figures exclude the hourly TPE service, which may be drop off/pick up only at Bolton). Walkden, Atherton, Daisy Hill and Hindley will each get 4tph all day.

These will all be cross-city services, either to Manchester Airport or Hazel Grove via the Oxford Road viaduct, or to Stalybridge or Rochdale and beyond via Salford Central and Victoria.

The frequencies appear to meet the requirement for "metro-style" services and there will be scope for substantial further capacity increases through train lengthening, at a small fraction of the cost of an east-west tunnel.

I'm sure you're right GB; it is possible - indeed probable - that TfGM will be able to achieve their aspirations for metro-style operation of the commuter lines to Hadfield/Glossop and Atherton/Wigan, for quite a while at least, without having to built a tunnel at all. The tunnel option is a fall-back; an answer to the question "how will you achieve expanded capacity if upgrading to metro-style (while retaining the existing city centre infrastructure) turns out not to be enough?"

If the justification for the tunnel is projected future growth in commuter flows, it would seem to be a false economy to restrict capacity by building platforms only 100m long. Even Salford Crescent, Salford Central and Deansgate can already accommodate 6-car (140m) trains.

Not sure why it would be a false economy GB; a metro-only platform only needs to be as long as the metro train units that run along it. And city centre underground stations are expensive things - the less you have to excavate the better.

 

[WatcherZero]

Testing will be occurring overnight tonight according to a driver.

 

[Altfish]

Testing will be occurring overnight tonight according to a driver.

It was cancelled at the last minute

 

[Chester1]

I'm sure you're right GB; it is possible - indeed probable - that TfGM will be able to achieve their aspirations for metro-style operation of the commuter lines to Hadfield/Glossop and Atherton/Wigan, for quite a while at least, without having to built a tunnel at all. The tunnel option is a fall-back; an answer to the question "how will you achieve expanded capacity if upgrading to metro-style (while retaining the existing city centre infrastructure) turns out not to be enough?"

Agreed. I believe the TfGM suggested a tunnel in 2040. Currently 10 trams per hour terminate at Piccadilly and 5 at Etihad. There are plenty of options for switching train services from Glossop/Hadfield/New Mills/Rose Hill to Metrolink that don't require any work in the city centre.

 

[Jamesrob637]

It was cancelled at the last minute

My work is literally just off Cross Street so I'll be able to give an exact idea of the testing as and when I see it

 

[snowball]

My work is literally just off Cross Street so I'll be able to give an exact idea of the testing as and when I see it

Do you work nights?

Testing likely tonight according to SSC.

 

[Altfish]

Plenty of photos of last night's testing on here...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=866944&page=2291

 

[Jamesrob637]

Do you work nights?

Testing likely tonight according to SSC.

I don't but I'm often in town early so not sure when the testing takes place exactly

 

[Altfish]

I don't but I'm often in town early so not sure when the testing takes place exactly

Initial testing usually starts about 30-minutes after the last service. But once that is completed they then run a 'ghost' service for a week or two. ie regular service with no passengers.

 

[snowball]

Daylight testing has started today. Pictures (by mikemcniven) start on page 2294 of the Metrolink Extension thread on Skyscrapercity.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=866944&page=2294

 

[familyguy99]

TFGM have announced today that 2CC (Exchange square to St Peter Square) will be opening to passengers on Sunday 26th Feb. Didsbury to Shaw/Rochdale will be only service serving 2CC as Altrincham to Bury will still use 1CC via Market St line. Airport trams will go one stop further and terminate at Deansgate-Castlefield from 26th Feb and this will continue until TMS at Victoria have fully operating.

Metrolink’s new Second City Crossing opens Sunday 26 February

(Published:15/02/2017)

Manchester’s transformational new tram line is on track to open to passengers later this month, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) announced today.

Subject to final testing and commissioning, the first passenger services will run on the new Second City Crossing on Sunday 26 February.

The new line will offer new links and more frequent trams through Manchester city centre, as well as improved service reliability and greater operational flexibility.

This city crossing runs from a major new stop at St Peter’s Square along Cross Street to stops at Exchange Square and Victoria, and will allow more trams to run through the city centre and across the 93-stop network.

When the new line opens, Manchester Airport services will run to the city centre Deansgate-Castlefield stop and, later this year, will continue to Victoria.

Services that currently terminate at Deansgate-Castlefield and Exchange Square will continue across the city centre to Shaw and Crompton and East Didsbury.

http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pages/news.aspx?newsID=461

 

[HowMuch?]

That blurb almost makes it sound like there is no stop between St Peter Square and Exchange Square. It will leave a lot of people not in the know wondering what the fuss is about.

 

[TC60054]

That blurb almost makes it sound like there is no stop between St Peter Square and Exchange Square. It will leave a lot of people not in the know wondering what the fuss is about.

Probably because there isn't a stop, so why bother advertising something that is knowingly false?

 

[HowMuch?]

Probably because there isn't a stop, so why bother advertising something that is knowingly false?

You sound a little sarcastic.

My mistake, then. I have always believed there was going to be a stop on Cross St. I can't see why I would have made it up, so WAS there going to be one and it was dropped?

 

[Altfish]

You sound a little sarcastic.

My mistake, then. I have always believed there was going to be a stop on Cross St. I can't see why I would have made it up, so WAS there going to be one and it was dropped?

If there ever was a plan it was dropped as soon as the Royal Exchange Theatre got involved; they didn't want a stop near them. So it was at least 10-years ago.

 

[HowMuch?]

If there ever was a plan it was dropped as soon as the Royal Exchange Theatre got involved; they didn't want a stop near them. So it was at least 10-years ago.

I am genuinely taken aback. Shows how difficult misconceptions can be to get rid of. All this diiscussion for so long and I never realised my mistake and never noticed that no-one was mentioning a Cross Street stop. I don't live in Manchester or I might have noticed they weren't building one!

2CC suddenly seems a bit underwhelming. It hardly opens up a new bit of Town to the tram does it? Exchange Square is practically at Victoria. Are the locals (apart from tram rail enthusuasts) loiking forward to using it, or just glad the disruption is over?

Anyway, sorry for being dim.

 

[Altfish]

I am genuinely taken aback. Shows how difficult misconceptions can be to get rid of. All this diiscussion for so long and I never realised my mistake and never noticed that no-one was mentioning a Cross Street stop. I don't live in Manchester or I might have noticed they weren't building one!

2CC suddenly seems a bit underwhelming. It hardly opens up a new bit of Town to the tram does it? Exchange Square is practically at Victoria. Are the locals (apart from tram rail enthusuasts) loiking forward to using it, or just glad the disruption is over?

Anyway, sorry for being dim.

Although it is only about 1/4 mile to Victoria from Exchange Square it is only about 1/2 mile to St Peter's Square.
The ideal location for a stop would have been outside the Royal Exchange Theatre but that was a non-starter.
The main reason for 2CC is capacity in the city centre and the chosen route is one solution and probably the cheapest solution.
Exchange Square already sees good patronage, the opening of 2CC will also allow the Airport line to run immediately to Deansgate Castlefield which is a lot better than Cornbrook.

 

[yorkie]

2CC suddenly seems a bit underwhelming. It hardly opens up a new bit of Town to the tram does it? Exchange Square is practically at Victoria. Are the locals (apart from tram rail enthusuasts) loiking forward to using it, or just glad the disruption is over?

Anyway, sorry for being dim.

What do you think the aims of it are? I thought it was to boost capacity and increase resilience.

Could they have increased the service so much without it?

 

[miami]

Why does opening it allow airport to reverse at deansgate rather than cornbrook? What changes?

 

[HowMuch?]

What do you think the aims of it are? I thought it was to boost capacity and increase resilience.

Could they have increased the service so much without it?

I understand the capacity issue and I'm not questioning it In fact I hope I'm one of the good guys when it comes to supporting public transport upgrades. But it's an "insider's" reason for building it. As more of a tram user than a tram expert, I can sympathise if, without an exciting new stop to get on at, more locals will just be glad that the building work is finished than will be excited to have some new rails to look at the scenery from. And shops will see it as something to carry shoppers past them rather than *to* them.

People are naturally cynical. We can all think of an area of life we are NOT particularly knowledgeable about, and remember all the times we've rolled our eyes when the council/government/school/university/big company has said "You might not be able to see the benefit, but we aren't just doing this improvement/change/disruption/annoyance for the sake of spending money. This is for everyone's benefit, honest".

No flames, please. I'm enough of an insider (mainly just from lurking on here) to see that 2CC is a good thing.