New Metrolink routes after second city crossing.

[ValleyLines142]

How long would it now take to cover the whole Metrolink network at a reasonable pace - ie stop every now again for a bite to eat and a comfort break or two!

I did it in roughly 9 hours, although I did cheat a little and catch a train from the airport to East Didsbury!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well, the last announced Metrolink line is constructionally under way and TfGM have announced a temporary diversionary route for Warren Bruce Road in Trafford Park from Monday, 13th March. The four bus routes 24, 291, 294 and X50 will be affected by this.

 

[shredder1]

What are the plans for using the middle line at Victoria now 2CC is open?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, the last announced Metrolink line is constructionally under way and TfGM have announced a temporary diversionary route for Warren Bruce Road in Trafford Park from Monday, 13th March. The four bus routes 24, 291, 294 and X50 will be affected by this.

Took 'em long enough! Much as Stagey won't like it, it is good to see this.

Manchester is really getting towards a German style level of provision these days - and some of Metrolink does have the feel of a proper Stadtbahn. A city centre tram tunnel would be the next thing I guess

 

[Chester1]

What are the plans for using the middle line at Victoria now 2CC is open?

Once the middle lines and platform into Victoria are signalled the Manchester Airport line services will be extended from Deansgate-Castlefield (where they were extended to on Sunday), via Market Street and terminate at Victoria. Trafford Park services will terminate at Crumpsall where the old signalling system starts because only half of Metrolink trams can run between Crumpsall and Bury. Trafford Park services will therefore use the current through platforms not the middle one.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Trafford Park services will terminate at Crumpsall where the old signalling system starts because only half of Metrolink trams can run between Crumpsall and Bury.

Will the Trafford Park line trams terminate at a platform face at Crumpsall that once was used in the past when there were more lines there?

 

[WatcherZero]

Will be a new platform face built at Crumpsall, Its also to be the start point of a potential future branch to Middleton.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Will be a new platform face built at Crumpsall, Its also to be the start point of a potential future branch to Middleton.

Have you any idea of what the route of this potential future Metrolink branch from Crumpsall to Middleton might look like and where it will cross over the M60?

Where in the TfGM forward Metrolink planning records does this potential new line appear and what time period is envisaged for both starting and completing this line?

 

[edwin_m]

The new Crumpsall platform is the back face of the current inbound platform - I think there was a bay there at some time in the past. The station will also be re-built with a track crossing instead of the footbridge.

Looking at the map/aerial it looks very difficult to head for Middleton due to the amount of housing in the way. Rather than using the bay it would be better to ramp up the bank to the east of the station and take off eastwards on Crumpsall Lane, but I've no idea how it would get to Middleton after that.

 

[higthomas]

Are there any firm proposals for new lines after the Trafford Park line opens?

 

[WatcherZero]

Extension of the Airport line one more stop to the expanded airport terminal and in principle to complete the western loop as part of HS2 airport station works.

 

[shredder1]

Once the middle lines and platform into Victoria are signalled the Manchester Airport line services will be extended from Deansgate-Castlefield (where they were extended to on Sunday), via Market Street and terminate at Victoria. Trafford Park services will terminate at Crumpsall where the old signalling system starts because only half of Metrolink trams can run between Crumpsall and Bury. Trafford Park services will therefore use the current through platforms not the middle one.

OK thanks very much

 

[Greybeard33]

Once the middle lines and platform into Victoria are signalled the Manchester Airport line services will be extended from Deansgate-Castlefield (where they were extended to on Sunday), via Market Street and terminate at Victoria. Trafford Park services will terminate at Crumpsall where the old signalling system starts because only half of Metrolink trams can run between Crumpsall and Bury. Trafford Park services will therefore use the current through platforms not the middle one.

The Manchester Airport service is to be doubled in frequency during the "core" period, so there will be 10tph reversing at Victoria.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Manchester Airport service is to be doubled in frequency during the "core" period, so there will be 10tph reversing at Victoria.

That is what I definitely call good news.

 

[ValleyLines142]

So because of the system on board trams, only the following trams can run on certain routes:

Bury: 3001-3060
Rochdale: all
Eccles to Ashton: all but usually 3061-3120
Airport: 3061-3120
East Didsbury: all
Altrincham: 3001-3060
MediaCity: all but usually 3061-3120

 

[Altfish]

So because of the system on board trams, only the following trams can run on certain routes:

Bury: 3001-3060
Rochdale: all
Eccles to Ashton: all but usually 3061-3120
Airport: 3061-3120
East Didsbury: all
Altrincham: 3001-3060
MediaCity: all but usually 3061-3120

I thought Airport was all too.
I understood that only Bury and Altrincham were limited to 3001 to 3060

 

[Greybeard33]

I thought Airport was all too.
I understood that only Bury and Altrincham were limited to 3001 to 3060

The only system difference is that only 3001-3060 have Automatic Tram Stop (ATS) and Vehicle Recognition System (VRS) equipment. ATS/VRS is needed for operation on the block signalled lines between Crumpsall and Bury and between Timperley and Altrincham.

The ATS/VRS equipped vehicles can go anywhere on the network, but are most often seen on the Bury and Altrincham lines, for obvious reasons.

TfGM intends to complete migration of the Bury line to Line of Sight operation later this year, but the Network Rail line between Timperley and Altrincham is to remain block signalled for an indefinite period.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The only system difference is that only 3001-3060 have Automatic Tram Stop (ATS) and Vehicle Recognition System (VRS) equipment. ATS/VRS is needed for operation on the block signalled lines between Crumpsall and Bury and between Timperley and Altrincham.

The ATS/VRS equipped vehicles can go anywhere on the network, but are most often seen on the Bury and Altrincham lines, for obvious reasons.

TfGM intends to complete migration of the Bury line to Line of Sight operation later this year, but the Network Rail line between Timperley and Altrincham is to remain block signalled for an indefinite period.

Is that because the Navigation Road to Altrincham section of that line is shared with heavy-rail passenger and freight train services?

 

[Ianno87]

Is that because the Navigation Road to Altrincham section of that line is shared with heavy-rail passenger and freight train services?

None of the infrastructure is shared.
South of Timperley (and north of Crumpsall) still have the old block signalling in place, with ATS equipment attached.

South of Timperley is controlled by the NR box at Deansgate Jn - I understand the block signalling will remain until the area is re-signalled/re-controlled into Ashburys ROC. Although an adequate line of sight solution for the two level crossings (on the parallel section with NR) will be problematic.

 

[edwin_m]

Although an adequate line of sight solution for the two level crossings (on the parallel section with NR) will be problematic.

This is true and probably also the reason for keeping things as they are for the time being. Nottingham also has crossings on railway-tram routes. On one of them both tracks are within the same set of barriers that descend for either. On the other the trams are outside the barriers and when a tram comes with no train nearby the road traffic is halted by traffic signals only and the barriers stay up. When there is a train the traffic lights, flashing red lights and barriers all operate.

Probably the solution for Deansgate Junction will be to keep both tracks within the barriers, but there will need to be some kind of interlocking between the tram signals and the level crossing as well as a means of initiating crossing closure and opening for a tram. Being a non-standard interface to a safety-vital system that will take a lot of expensive design and safety management expertise, and would be even more costly if interfacing to an existing system than if the whole lot was being re-signalled and the crossing renewed.

 

[Ianno87]

This is true and probably also the reason for keeping things as they are for the time being. Nottingham also has crossings on railway-tram routes. On one of them both tracks are within the same set of barriers that descend for either. On the other the trams are outside the barriers and when a tram comes with no train nearby the road traffic is halted by traffic signals only and the barriers stay up. When there is a train the traffic lights, flashing red lights and barriers all operate.

Probably the solution for Deansgate Junction will be to keep both tracks within the barriers, but there will need to be some kind of interlocking between the tram signals and the level crossing as well as a means of initiating crossing closure and opening for a tram. Being a non-standard interface to a safety-vital system that will take a lot of expensive design and safety management expertise, and would be even more costly if interfacing to an existing system than if the whole lot was being re-signalled and the crossing renewed.

Yes, the "Nottingham solution" of keeping the trams outside the barriers wouldn't work too well at Navigation Rd - the available railway corridor would be far too narrow to provide the physical separation necessary betweem the two running lines.

 

[Greybeard33]

Yes, the "Nottingham solution" of keeping the trams outside the barriers wouldn't work too well at Navigation Rd - the available railway corridor would be far too narrow to provide the physical separation necessary betweem the two running lines.

As edwin_m described, the St Alban's Road, Bulwell Forest, crossing has both the tram and heavy rail lines within the barriers, which are lowered when trams cross, unlike the arrangement at David Lane, Basford. The tramway signals are presumably interlocked with the barrier controls.

However, the lines of sight from the tramway to the highway are better at St Alban's Road than at either the Deansgate Lane or the Navigation Road crossings.

 

[ValleyLines142]

I thought Airport was all too.
I understood that only Bury and Altrincham were limited to 3001 to 3060

Actually yes you are right, as I had 3053 on the airport line once. But i almost always see 3061 upwards.

 

[edwin_m]

However, the lines of sight from the tramway to the highway are better at St Alban's Road than at either the Deansgate Lane or the Navigation Road crossings.

Not sure this matters too much, as when the barriers are down the tram driver is, at least in theory, guaranteed that no conflicting road vehicle or pedestrian can arrive on the crossing. This is unlike normal tramway road junctions where they prefer to have some intervisibility to deter or at least detect red light jumpers. In any case the trams have better intervisibility than the trains, because at Navigation Road they are going slowly and at Deansgate Junction the signal box is more of a view blocker for the trains (though this will disappear of course).

 

[Greybeard33]

Not sure this matters too much, as when the barriers are down the tram driver is, at least in theory, guaranteed that no conflicting road vehicle or pedestrian can arrive on the crossing. This is unlike normal tramway road junctions where they prefer to have some intervisibility to deter or at least detect red light jumpers. In any case the trams have better intervisibility than the trains, because at Navigation Road they are going slowly and at Deansgate Junction the signal box is more of a view blocker for the trains (though this will disappear of course).

At Deansgate Jn there is a property opposite the signal box that blocks the view from an outbound tram to the right down Deansgate Lane. The PSR here is 50mph. At present the block signalling ensures that a tram cannot approach the crossing until the barriers are down.

If converted to TMS signalling with no ATS, there must be a risk that an inattentive driver might pass the signal at Stop and approach the crossing before the barriers are lowered. As a "second line of defence", would it be necessary to impose a low speed restriction, so that the tram could stop if the driver suddenly saw a conflicting road vehicle?

 

[edwin_m]

At Deansgate Jn there is a property opposite the signal box that blocks the view from an outbound tram to the right down Deansgate Lane. The PSR here is 50mph. At present the block signalling ensures that a tram cannot approach the crossing until the barriers are down.

If converted to TMS signalling with no ATS, there must be a risk that an inattentive driver might pass the signal at Stop and approach the crossing before the barriers are lowered. As a "second line of defence", would it be necessary to impose a low speed restriction, so that the tram could stop if the driver suddenly saw a conflicting road vehicle?

It would depend on site assessment by the operators. However the same risk of an inattentive driver exists at all the simple tramway junctions too. If they fail to act on the signal there must be a risk they would also fail to pay attention to conflicting road traffic - especially in a location inside the barriers where they would be habituated to expect no traffic would ever be when they were approaching.

But yes, it is possible a lower speed would be imposed here.

 

[Chester1]

Its possible that within the life time of the current trams the level crossings will be replaced with bridges. It wouldn't be worth it just for Metrolink signalling but there is a potential future saving if the line has a major upgrade with more regular services from Altrincham and new stations serving Timperley, Baguley and Cheadle. The maintenance costs would be lower, it would be easier to implement on a route without level crossings and road traffic would be less of an issue with bridges.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its possible that within the life time of the current trams the level crossings will be replaced with bridges. It wouldn't be worth it just for Metrolink signalling but there is a potential future saving if the line has a major upgrade with more regular services from Altrincham and new stations serving Timperley, Baguley and Cheadle. The maintenance costs would be lower, it would be easier to implement on a route without level crossings and road traffic would be less of an issue with bridges.

I very much doubt that, it is after all a tram system.

Indeed, minus the parallel NR line, it needs nothing more than regular traffic lights.

 

[edwin_m]

The line runs very close to housing, and I don't think the residents would take kindly to it being lifted several metres into the air. As to tunnelling, the presence of nearby "mosses" suggests the water table is pretty high.

 

[Chester1]

I very much doubt that, it is after all a tram system.

Indeed, minus the parallel NR line, it needs nothing more than regular traffic lights.

The line runs very close to housing, and I don't think the residents would take kindly to it being lifted several metres into the air. As to tunnelling, the presence of nearby "mosses" suggests the water table is pretty high.

I was suggesting that it might be worth replacing the train crossing with a bridge, which due to proximity would also mean the tram crossing being replaced as a bonus. Fortunately neighbour objections rarely stop railway projects. There are advantages to removing the level crossing if the railway line ever gets a long over due upgrade.