Metrolink Second City Crossing

[PermitToTravel]

I get that on many sites (including this one sometimes). I think ads that redirects mobiles are being sent by Google AdSense, the *******s who submit them safe in the knowledge that the page doesn't appear for long enough for the report button to be usable

 

[Railsigns]

Driver's view video of the new route on the BBC News website.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Driver's view video of the new route on the BBC News website.

Thanks for submitting this.

 

[familyguy99]

Here link of photo's that I took yesterday along Cross st of opening of 2CC route.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/metrolink_work/albums/72157651543861307

Probably deserve to be in Metrolink fleet thread but here picture of 3111 tram with advert telling passengers that final piece of jigsaw is now in place.

 

[shredder1]

Well done Metrolink, great shame however that the Deansgate option wasnt taken, another missed opportunity.

 

[Ianno87]

Well done Metrolink, great shame however that the Deansgate option wasnt taken, another missed opportunity.

I think the problem would be the carnage that would have ensued on the road network as a result - Deansgate being a pretty major thoroughfare.

What we got was lower cost and solves most of the problem anyway.

 

[shredder1]

I think the problem would be the carnage that would have ensued on the road network as a result - Deansgate being a pretty major thoroughfare.

What we got was lower cost and solves most of the problem anyway.

I understand what you say, but feel it would have helped with the future city planning, the biggest missed opportunity by far was the platform heights on the original Manchester Bury, Altrincham lines, had they all been dropped to standard tram running heights, new tram stops would have been much cheaper to build in the future, with less specialised vehicles. They should have looked to Europe more.

 

[Altfish]

I understand what you say, but feel it would have helped with the future city planning, the biggest missed opportunity by far was the platform heights on the original Manchester Bury, Altrincham lines, had they all been dropped to standard tram running heights, new tram stops would have been much cheaper to build in the future, with less specialised vehicles. They should have looked to Europe more.

Altrincham to Bury wouldn't have been converted to tram for cost reasons if they had had to rebuild all the 20(?) stations. The high platforms will also help keep costs down if/when tram train arrives.

 

[shredder1]

Altrincham to Bury wouldn't have been converted to tram for cost reasons if they had had to rebuild all the 20(?) stations. The high platforms will also help keep costs down if/when tram train arrives.

Well maybe, but I`ve always thought it was a false economy and look how many stations they have built now at that height, surely the low platform design as used on all other LRT in the UK is a cheaper long term option.

 

[nerd]

Well maybe, but I`ve always thought it was a false economy and look how many stations they have built now at that height, surely the low platform design as used on all other LRT in the UK is a cheaper long term option.

Not in 1992 it wasn't; there would not be low-floor LRVs readily available for another five years. Neither the Tyne & Wear Metro nor the DLR, which were the only Light Rail networks in the UK at the time, are low-floor.

 

[shredder1]

Not in 1992 it wasn't; there would not be low-floor LRVs readily available for another five years. Neither the Tyne & Wear Metro nor the DLR, which were the only Light Rail networks in the UK at the time, are low-floor.

They should have waited then, we managed without it for 150 years, lol, but seriously I still feel they should have looked closely into Europe, who had street running low floor trams well before 1992 and the vision at the time was for some street running on Metrolink.

 

[WatcherZero]

They wernt light rail trams, they were streetcars. Low Floor LRV's developed gradually over the 90's and until the mid 2000's were still only partially low floor with higher floors over the axles (70% low floor) or just having lower floor level around the doors (30% low floor).

 

[shredder1]

They wernt light rail trams, they were streetcars. Low Floor LRV's developed gradually over the 90's and until the mid 2000's were still only partially low floor with higher floors over the axles (70% low floor) or just having lower floor level around the doors (30% low floor).

Light Rapid Transit, Street Cars, call it what you will, typical of this country and transport planning, I can`t help feeling we could do better.

 

[Altfish]

To be honest the new platforms are now precast and arrive in sections and 'fly up', they are hollow and allow for electric cables, telemetry etc. to be easily threaded through.

 

[shredder1]

To be honest the new platforms are now precast and arrive in sections and 'fly up', they are hollow and allow for electric cables, telemetry etc. to be easily threaded through.

That sounds a lot cheaper and easier to install, still cumbersome for an integrated on street network though, but still we have what we have, I`d be lost without it now, it use to be a fair old walk from Exchange and Victoria over to London Road back in the day,

 

[rebmcr]

They should have waited then, we managed without it for 150 years, lol, but seriously I still feel they should have looked closely into Europe, who had street running low floor trams well before 1992 and the vision at the time was for some street running on Metrolink.

It was high floor or closure. No debate just hard facts.

 

[shredder1]

It was high floor or closure. No debate just hard facts.

Closure??? Fact, we have what we have, but we can still give opinions and debate these things,

 

[Altfish]

I don't think closure of two of Manchester's busiest commuter lines was ever a serious option but the conversion to trams would not have happened.
After many years unsuccessfully trying to get the Picc-Vic Line built, Manchester was desperate to have a line connecting its main stations.
As usual successive Governments declined to give Manchester enough money to build this essential infrastructure. So, there was an element of 'get it done at any cost' with phase 1.

 

[shredder1]

I don't think closure of two of Manchester's busiest commuter lines was ever a serious option but the conversion to trams would not have happened.
After many years unsuccessfully trying to get the Picc-Vic Line built, Manchester was desperate to have a line connecting its main stations.
As usual successive Governments declined to give Manchester enough money to build this essential infrastructure. So, there was an element of 'get it done at any cost' with phase 1.

Yes sadly that`s exactly what happened, I still have the original Picc-Vic link material, and a picture of the provision for the Royal Exchange station, under what was the then new Manchester Arndale Centre, so many options were mooting around that time, one was a line from Langley to the Airport, I always thought that was a strange choice??

 

[edwin_m]

Remember that in typical British fashion Metrolink sat around for some years waiting for funding. The main design decisions such as floor height would have been taken in the late 80s when the state of the art was high floor and high platform such as on the German Stadtbahn networks.

 

[futureA]

They should have waited then, we managed without it for 150 years, lol, but seriously I still feel they should have looked closely into Europe, who had street running low floor trams well before 1992 and the vision at the time was for some street running on Metrolink.

They certainly did not have low floor accessible to the disabled trams in Europe in 1992.

 

[martinsh]

They certainly did not have low floor accessible to the disabled trams in Europe in 1992.

Yes they did ! The first prototype low floor tram ran in Geneva in 1984, followed by series production in 1987.

 

[Ianno87]

Closure??? Fact, we have what we have, but we can still give opinions and debate these things,

Had Metrolink not happened, the Bury line would almost certainly have been de-electrified (the 1200v DC side contact electrification - and Class 504s - being non-standard and life-expired) and converted to standard DMU operation.

The Altrincham line would have lumbered on as-was (albeit with possibly a bigger batch of 323s, but the Windsor Link would be very underutilised and we certainly wouldn't have an Ordsall Chord.

 

[Altfish]

Had Metrolink not happened, the Bury line would almost certainly have been de-electrified (the 1200v DC side contact electrification - and Class 504s - being non-standard and life-expired) and converted to standard DMU operation.

The Altrincham line would have lumbered on as-was (albeit with possibly a bigger batch of 323s, but the Windsor Link would be very underutilised and we certainly wouldn't have an Ordsall Chord.

I think that is a reasonable assumption, you never know the Altrincham line may have had those 'brand new' class 319's by now. And Bury would be looking forward to the final Pacer being scrapped.

 

[shredder1]

They certainly did not have low floor accessible to the disabled trams in Europe in 1992.

They did actually, the technology was available. I did my Bsc dissertation on Metrolink at Manchester University, one of my suggestions based on my research was for low floors and low platforms, but it was down to money and what funding was available at the time, I later went on to complete an Msc a comparative on selected European networks. I`m no expert, far from it, but do have some limited knowledge.

 

[shredder1]

Had Metrolink not happened, the Bury line would almost certainly have been de-electrified (the 1200v DC side contact electrification - and Class 504s - being non-standard and life-expired) and converted to standard DMU operation.

The Altrincham line would have lumbered on as-was (albeit with possibly a bigger batch of 323s, but the Windsor Link would be very underutilised and we certainly wouldn't have an Ordsall Chord.

Yes I expect that`s what would have happened, Metrolink has certainly improved things.

 

[Chester1]

Yes I expect that`s what would have happened, Metrolink has certainly improved things.

When the Trafford Park line is finished it will be basically full in the west and centre of the city with 45tph going through Cornbrook to St Peters Square. It will be interesting to see if a 3CC gets enough support. After the completion of the Ordsall chord there are few affordable options for extra city centre rail capacity.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes they did ! The first prototype low floor tram ran in Geneva in 1984, followed by series production in 1987.

The Duewag Be 4/6 tram had low doors but internal steps in the doorway up to saloon floor height. It wasn't level boarding.

 

[edwin_m]

Many of the early low floor trams used unusual configurations of motors and wheels and weren't particularly successful. Given the cost-driven nature of the original Metrolink DBOM, had they gone for low floor at the time they might have ended up with something even less reliable and shorter-lived than the T68s.

 

[futureA]

They did actually, the technology was available. I did my Bsc dissertation on Metrolink at Manchester University, one of my suggestions based on my research was for low floors and low platforms, but it was down to money and what funding was available at the time, I later went on to complete an Msc a comparative on selected European networks. I`m no expert, far from it, but do have some limited knowledge.

Well clearly the technology was in it's infancy so it was probably for the best.