New Metrolink routes after second city crossing.

[Greybeard33]

Thinking further on this;

- if we assume that restricted capacity westwards from Piccadilly will be sorted - one way or another - in association with HS2.

Then the issue of restricted cross-town capacity for tram-train services really only arises due to TfGM's aspiration to link tram-train from Wigan/Atherton to Glossop/Hadfield.

But otherwise, tram-train from Glossop/Hadfield could link into existing lines; one being ther Trafford Park line (as you say above). But another might be to run tram-train from Piccadilly through Market Street and on to Shaw. Which would satisfy Oldham's expressed desire for a direct link into Piccadilly, and would increase capacity on the busier bits of the Oldham/Rochdale line. Maybe split five and five?

It was not my intention to suggest that tram-trains should run to the Trafford centre, or indeed any other specific cross-city service pattern. Just that, arithmetically, if there are to be an additional 5tph into St Peter's Square from the east, there must also be 5tph more from the west. Current plans are for only 5tph to the Trafford Centre, whereas the Didsbury, Airport, Altrincham and MCUK/Eccles lines are all planned to have 10tph. So the Trafford Park line seems to be the obvious candidate for a future increase in frequency, should it prove successful.

I should think tram-trains would be best suited to the ex-heavy rail lines, so I would envisage a change in cross-city patterns such that the tram-trains from Piccadilly maybe form both Altrincham services or one Altrincham and one E Didsbury, with the additional Trafford Centre service taking over Bury or Rochdale.

I agree it would be attractive instead to increase the Picc-Vic frequency to 10tph (although if the Bury-Picc service changes from a single M5000 to a tram-train, that will double capacity). However, I doubt that the Shaw turnback could reliably cope with 10tph (tram-train plus the existing E Didsbury service), with a 5tph through service to Rochdale. And this would double the current capacity between Vic and Shaw - is traffic growth likely to be enough to justify that?

I also doubt that the Newton Heath single line section could reliably handle 15tph each way (unless the GMWDA depot is relocated to enable the line to be redoubled). The Bury line will already have 15tph once the Trafford Centre to Crumpsall service is added.

Regarding the Atherton line, it may be more realistic to increase capacity by means of longer, electric, metro-style trains running on the existing surface lines through Salford Central to Victoria (and on to Rochdale or Stalybridge), rather than by constructing a costly "3CC" tunnel from Salford Crescent to Piccadilly to enable increased frequency. Underground metros inevitably incur higher operating costs than surface light rail, because of the safety and security systems and station staffing requirements. So it might be hard to demonstrate that the capital cost of a tunnel could be funded from future savings in operating subsidy.

 

[edwin_m]

If there are tram-train routes both east and west of the city, then the number of more expensive tram-trains needed is minimised if they are through-routed. So for example if tram-train is used to allow Metrolink access to both tracks through Navigation Road, the Altrincham line could be through-routed to Marple.

The tunnel is envisaged as a long-term option when heavy rail is saturated in terms of the number and length of trains that can be operated, and the city centre Metrolink is similarly saturated with trams and tram-trains. There's not much scope for another city centre tramway (at least in the part of the city centre most people want to go to) so if passenger numbers grow to that extent, there's no real alternative. A heavy rail tunnel would allow the longest trains but a light rail tunnel would be a bit cheaper and probably allow a higher frequency. A compromise would be to build the tunnel for light rail vehicles that are significantly longer than the 60m maximum, to serve tram-train routes or former railway routes such as Altrincham, Bury, East Didsbury or Shaw where these could be accommodated with only modest infrastructure works.

 

[nerd]

I should think tram-trains would be best suited to the ex-heavy rail lines, so I would envisage a change in cross-city patterns such that the tram-trains from Piccadilly maybe form both Altrincham services or one Altrincham and one E Didsbury, with the additional Trafford Centre service taking over Bury or Rochdale.

I agree it would be attractive instead to increase the Picc-Vic frequency to 10tph (although if the Bury-Picc service changes from a single M5000 to a tram-train, that will double capacity). However, I doubt that the Shaw turnback could reliably cope with 10tph (tram-train plus the existing E Didsbury service), with a 5tph through service to Rochdale. And this would double the current capacity between Vic and Shaw - is traffic growth likely to be enough to justify that?

I also doubt that the Newton Heath single line section could reliably handle 15tph each way (unless the GMWDA depot is relocated to enable the line to be redoubled). The Bury line will already have 15tph once the Trafford Centre to Crumpsall service is added.

Regarding the Atherton line, it may be more realistic to increase capacity by means of longer, electric, metro-style trains running on the existing surface lines through Salford Central to Victoria (and on to Rochdale or Stalybridge), rather than by constructing a costly "3CC" tunnel from Salford Crescent to Piccadilly to enable increased frequency. Underground metros inevitably incur higher operating costs than surface light rail, because of the safety and security systems and station staffing requirements. So it might be hard to demonstrate that the capital cost of a tunnel could be funded from future savings in operating subsidy.

I agree that tram-train units make most sense on the former heavy rail line routes; and it could well make sense to run from East Didsbury. And I think you may well be right in respect of the Atherton line running into Victoria.

My raising the possibility of operating tram-train units towards Oldham arises simply from the fact that, while it appears that all potential east-west tram paths through the city centre are now taken (or nearly so); there is still scope for additional north-south paths from Piccadilly to Victoria. Consequently, while it does not appear possible to add further Metrolink capacity in radial routes from the south, there is scope for additonal radial capacity running into Metrolink from the north. In the same way - to go outside the tram-train discussion for a moment - the 10 services per hour from the airport to Victoria could be extended northwards towards Middleton.

The same argument could support a tram-train route from Oldham/Shaw towards Piccadilly, and then out either to Hadfield or Glossop. Of course there are still issues along the route - as to where to turn-back, and what to do with the single line through Newton Heath (not to mention the need for major investment on the Network Rail route east of Gorton).

But these issues are all resolvable with sufficient investment, assuming the levels of demand are there to pay for them. The east-sest capacity issue is likely (so far as I can see) to be an absolute constraint; only resolvable if a 3CC tunnel is built - which, whatever TfGM are saying, I agree with you is still only a remote possibility.

 

[Greybeard33]

I agree that tram-train units make most sense on the former heavy rail line routes; and it could well make sense to run from East Didsbury. And I think you may well be right in respect of the Atherton line running into Victoria.

My raising the possibility of operating tram-train units towards Oldham arises simply from the fact that, while it appears that all potential east-west tram paths through the city centre are now taken (or nearly so); there is still scope for additional north-south paths from Piccadilly to Victoria. Consequently, while it does not appear possible to add further Metrolink capacity in radial routes from the south, there is scope for additonal radial capacity running into Metrolink from the north. In the same way - to go outside the tram-train discussion for a moment - the 10 services per hour from the airport to Victoria could be extended northwards towards Middleton.

The same argument could support a tram-train route from Oldham/Shaw towards Piccadilly, and then out either to Hadfield or Glossop. Of course there are still issues along the route - as to where to turn-back, and what to do with the single line through Newton Heath (not to mention the need for major investment on the Network Rail route east of Gorton).

But these issues are all resolvable with sufficient investment, assuming the levels of demand are there to pay for them. The east-sest capacity issue is likely (so far as I can see) to be an absolute constraint; only resolvable if a 3CC tunnel is built - which, whatever TfGM are saying, I agree with you is still only a remote possibility.

A second thought about Newton Heath is that tram-trains could (if a couple of crossovers were installed) share the freight line bi-directionally, leaving the existing Metrolink single track to the "ordinary" trams. Probably best if the tram-trains ran through non-stop. A second platform on the freight line would have to be accessed by a separate ramp from Dean Lane, and, with services in both directions from both platforms, passengers might be tempted to dash across the tracks in front of a freight train!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A second thought about Newton Heath is that tram-trains could (if a couple of crossovers were installed) share the freight line bi-directionally, leaving the existing Metrolink single track to the "ordinary" trams. Probably best if the tram-trains ran through non-stop. A second platform on the freight line would have to be accessed by a separate ramp from Dean Lane, and, with services in both directions from both platforms, passengers might be tempted to dash across the tracks in front of a freight train!

Is there any information on the length of time that the refuse processing unit that is served by the single track heavy rail track through Newton Heath and Moston is likely to remain open and being served by the existing services?

 

[Greybeard33]

Is there any information on the length of time that the refuse processing unit that is served by the single track heavy rail track through Newton Heath and Moston is likely to remain open and being served by the existing services?

I understand GMWDA's Newton Heath facility features a state of the art Mechanical Biological Treatment plant for recycling organic waste, completed only a few years ago. Viridor has a 25 year contract to operate this and the other GMWDA recycling facilities until at least 2034.

I believe there are restrictions on the number of heavy lorry movements to and from the site, so the daily "binliner" workings from Brindle Heath (Salford) to Dean Lane and back will be required for the foreseeable future.