One failed Metrolink tram delays all services again

Status
Not open for further replies.

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
26/04/2012 - 13.40 Delays to all services
Metrolink Services

Due to an earlier failed tram passengers will experience delays to their journey.

Metrolink tickets are currently valid on the 135 and 98 bus services.

Passengers on the Altrincham line may use their tickets or passes on the 263 bus service.

Passengers on the South Manchester line between St Werburgh's road and Piccadilly station may use their Metrolink tickets and passes on bus services 85 & 86.

Metrolink apologise for any inconvenience caused to your journey this afternoon.


They really need to sort out the infrastructure for Metrolink to be able to cope with failures, as well as making it more reliable in the first place.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
26/04/2012 - 13.40 Delays to all services
Metrolink Services

Due to an earlier failed tram passengers will experience delays to their journey.

Metrolink tickets are currently valid on the 135 and 98 bus services.

Passengers on the Altrincham line may use their tickets or passes on the 263 bus service.

Passengers on the South Manchester line between St Werburgh's road and Piccadilly station may use their Metrolink tickets and passes on bus services 85 & 86.

Metrolink apologise for any inconvenience caused to your journey this afternoon.


They really need to sort out the infrastructure for Metrolink to be able to cope with failures, as well as making it more reliable in the first place.
They're spending £1bn that they've had to fight hard for to upgrade the network. Bit mean to have a go when the Government has cancelled funding a few times.

They are trying to replace the older trams which are causing these issues that's going to cost the £64m to do. (With £24m already committed).
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
They're spending £1bn that they've had to fight hard for to upgrade the network. Bit mean to have a go when the Government has cancelled funding a few times.

They are trying to replace the older trams which are causing these issues that's going to cost the £64m to do. (With £24m already committed).
This is about the 10th time this year the entire system has come to a halt because of one broken down tram - it's a complete joke and a lot of the regular users of it are completely fed up of the unreliability. Over 2 hours after the incident I posted the trams have still not returned to the scheduled service.

The T68s should not need replacing yet - the Germans still have trams in operation that they were using before West and East Germany became unified again without any reliability problems.

The whole Metrolink project is an expensive vanity project that was only introduced because there wasn't funding for a cross city heavy rail link at the time it was introduced, then everyone started seeing trams as a tourist attraction. There needs to be lines converted back to heavy rail not more lines converted to Metrolink.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Last edited:

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,428
It failed in Victoria station which of course means South Manchester line services were out of action and Bury/Altrincham service would be suffering gaps. Eccles and Mediacity would be operating normally other than delays from out of place trams.

Interestingly I dug up the London Underground failure rate and mileage between service affecting failures and after the massive improvement in the last couple of years their almost identical. Average 30 Metrolink failures a year and average 1,000 LU failures a year, time between service affecting failures on the LU improved from 5,000 a couple of years ago to 13,000 today. Metrolink 5,000 on unmodified T68's, 10,000 on those which have had the upgrade program and 20,000 on the M5000's.
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
The T68s should not need replacing yet - the Germans still have trams in operation that they were using before West and East Germany became unified again without any reliability problems.
The Germans didn't buy from AnsaldoBreda (see also Birmingham's T69, the Dutch Fyra, DSB IC4)
 

Mattmatt

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2011
Messages
173
Location
Neither here, nor there, but somewhere in-between!
Well if it failed at Victoria, surley it couldnt have taken too long to bring another tram down from Queens Rd to collect it and remove it out of traffic? Or did they dispatch fitters to try and fix it? (i don't know that much about the set up they have in place for fixing a failure in traffic)

It seems the M.E.N really have a bee in their bonnet about the system, as every little issue that happens gets reported in such a way that prompts some really negative reports from joe public.

I will admit i'm slightly biased, in liking the system, and 'almost' working for them. I do think that the sooner they bring in more of M5000's the better. But until they are all commissioned & delivered we'll still get the failures from the T68's.
 

futureA

Member
Joined
24 May 2010
Messages
103
This is about the 10th time this year the entire system has come to a halt because of one broken down tram - it's a complete joke and a lot of the regular users of it are completely fed up of the unreliability. Over 2 hours after the incident I posted the trams have still not returned to the scheduled service.

The T68s should not need replacing yet - the Germans still have trams in operation that they were using before West and East Germany became unified again without any reliability problems.

The whole Metrolink project is an expensive vanity project that was only introduced because there wasn't funding for a cross city heavy rail link at the time it was introduced, then everyone started seeing trams as a tourist attraction. There needs to be lines converted back to heavy rail not more lines converted to Metrolink.
When metrolink works, it works perfectly well. The well publicised service failures are for a variety of issues but non stemming from the fact that it is a tram system (apart from RTA's), but instead many coming from the fact that it was built on a shoestring.

The main issue seems to be vehicle reliability which can happen on any system and can be solved overnight by new vehicles. I don't see how converting the ex heavy rail parts back to heavy rail will be anything other than a massive waste of money and make the system less accessible as well as more expensive to run.

Metrolink's problems are solvable and in the process of being solved.
 
Last edited:

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
3,852
System-wide stoppage caused by failed trams is one that will not be resolved by the 2CC (Second City Crossing) plan. There will still be two bottlenecks from Cornbrook Jn-St Peter Sq and from Irk Valley Jn-Victora. Squeezing all services through these two tracks doesn't work.


To make the second city crossing effective, it needs to be 4-track from Cornbrook Junction over the disused viaducts, and a different route down into street level. Then, beyond Cross St's second city crossing, at Victoria Station use the disused Red Bank viaduct, which runs 1.5km through via the side of the Metrolink depot to Irk Valley Jn (start of the Oldham line)
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
2,737
Location
Greater Manchester
Metrolink is never likely to provide a reliable service even when all the T68s have been replaced. As well as the Cornbrook bottleneck, the single track sections at Navigation Road and (in future) Newton Heath, both of which have a stop that increases dwell time, can only cope with the 10tph (both ways) schedule if the 6 minute spacing is precisely maintained - unrealistic on the overloaded city centre sections. There are also too few crossovers/turnbacks to mitigate the effects of vehicle or infrastructure failures.

The system is being spatchcocked together from a mixture of ex-heavy rail lines (Altrincham, Bury, Oldham/Rochdale, Didsbury) and new street running routes (Eccles, Ashton, Airport) that have conflicting operational requirements. The street running routes should have low floor trams to avoid the need for raised platforms and so enable more closely spaced stops. On the other hand, the new M5000 trams are too slow and uncomfortable for the ex-heavy rail lines and cannot match the capacity of an EMU service.

IMO the result is an unhappy combination of the worst features of railway and tramway.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,428
Are you aware Network Rail did a speed comparison and in a drag race on a straight line of linespeed 75mph a tram would beat a class 350 to 3km and a class 150 to 6km. The stops are an average of 800m apart.
 

martin2345uk

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2011
Messages
1,533
Location
Essex
Yes low floor trams would be desirable but we have what we have. It all came down to money at the end of the day and I for one like what we've got. And despite the pinch points that will exist still, reliability WILL improve once the worst offending t68s are no more. Will it be perfect? No. Do I choose it over the bus? Every time.
 

Mattmatt

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2011
Messages
173
Location
Neither here, nor there, but somewhere in-between!
Yes low floor trams would be desirable but we have what we have. It all came down to money at the end of the day and I for one like what we've got. And despite the pinch points that will exist still, reliability WILL improve once the worst offending t68s are no more. Will it be perfect? No. Do I choose it over the bus? Every time.
I absolutely agree! :D
 

Rail Bus

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2012
Messages
84
Metrolink is never likely to provide a reliable service even when all the T68s have been replaced. As well as the Cornbrook bottleneck, the single track sections at Navigation Road and (in future) Newton Heath, both of which have a stop that increases dwell time, can only cope with the 10tph (both ways) schedule if the 6 minute spacing is precisely maintained - unrealistic on the overloaded city centre sections. There are also too few crossovers/turnbacks to mitigate the effects of vehicle or infrastructure failures.

The system is being spatchcocked together from a mixture of ex-heavy rail lines (Altrincham, Bury, Oldham/Rochdale, Didsbury) and new street running routes (Eccles, Ashton, Airport) that have conflicting operational requirements. The street running routes should have low floor trams to avoid the need for raised platforms and so enable more closely spaced stops. On the other hand, the new M5000 trams are too slow and uncomfortable for the ex-heavy rail lines and cannot match the capacity of an EMU service.

IMO the result is an unhappy combination of the worst features of railway and tramway.
To be fair the metrolink service now is a disgrace

I say this as someone who uses the system everyday to commute into Manchester from Altrincham, and has done every day since the system started and before!

Average journey time now Altrincham - St Peters Square 35 minutes, this can include up to 5 min wait just before Navigation Road and up to 10 min wait just before Trafford Bar or Cornbrook (or both)

The new M5000 trams are slow and uncomfortable - totally unsuitable for what is essentially a busy commuter line (full and standing before leaving Altrincham)

Also the 6 min frequency is a myth - 20 min waits between trams is common and many turnback at Timperely

I know many fellow commuters who have had enough and now drive into Manchester, and I can understand why.

The real shame of it is that the Altrincham - Oxford Road service used to be one of the most reliable services in the country with the old 304's and express DMU

I honestly feel the only way forward for this line is to re-engineer back to heavy rail - before the current infrastructure totally falls apart

Incidentally if the T68's had been properly maintained in the first place they wouldn't need replacing now! - disgraceful
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
When metrolink works, it works perfectly well. The well publicised service failures are for a variety of issues but non stemming from the fact that it is a tram system (apart from RTA's), but instead many coming from the fact that it was built on a shoestring.
"Built on a shoestring" Sorry I can't stop laughing. Considering much of the Metrolink existed as working heavy rail lines and were simply converted, it has cost a fortune to implement.

The main issue seems to be vehicle reliability which can happen on any system and can be solved overnight by new vehicles.
Which then creates the problems of the new vehicles ordered being less suited to the non-street sections and taking longer and consequently causing more minor delays than the old trams.

Metrolink recently extended estimated journey times by 3 minutes on Altrincham-Piccadilly, 3 minutes on Bury-Piccadilly and 6 minutes on Bury-Altrincham. So they seem to be solving problems like the privatised railway is solving them - get better reliability by extending journey times.

In reality the main issue is not the T68s but the lack of overtaking loops to use during disruption.

I don't see how converting the ex heavy rail parts back to heavy rail will be anything other than a massive waste of money and make the system less accessible as well as more expensive to run.
You said before it was built on a shoestring. Now you're saying it would cost a lot of money to convert back - one of your statement's contradicts the other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Are you aware Network Rail did a speed comparison and in a drag race on a straight line of linespeed 75mph a tram would beat a class 350 to 3km and a class 150 to 6km. The stops are an average of 800m apart.
That's a disadvantage of Metrolink - the lack of semi-fast and express services.

The pre-nationalisation timetable for the Altrincham-Sale-Manchester line was:
07:45 Altrincham-Manchester (all stops)
07:49 Altrincham-Manchester (all stops)
07:54 Altrincham-Manchester (most stops)
08:00 Sale-Manchester (all stops)
07:58 Altrincham-Manchester (express)
08:00 Altrincham-Manchester (all stops)
08:07 Altrincham-Manchester (all stops)

All operated by much larger vehicles than Metrolink trams.
http://www.timetableworld.com/image_viewer.php?id=7&section_id=1505

In comparison Metrolink runs to the following (plus or minus two minutes to allow trams to be evenly spaced out.)
07:42 Altrincham-Bury
07:48 Altrincham-Piccadilly
07:54 Altrincham-Bury
08:00 Altrincham-Piccadilly
08:06 Altrincham-Bury
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
3,852
Are you aware Network Rail did a speed comparison and in a drag race on a straight line of linespeed 75mph a tram would beat a class 350 to 3km and a class 150 to 6km. The stops are an average of 800m apart.
Wacky races with an empty tram last month. T68 Tram, Northern 158 and a TPE 185 running side-by-side coming out of Victoria at 1am.

Tram won! Sailed past the other two, don't know how. Got to Collyhurst tunnel first ;)
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Wacky races with an empty tram last month. T68 Tram, Northern 158 and a TPE 185 running side-by-side coming out of Victoria at 1am.

Tram won! Sailed past the other two, don't know how. Got to Collyhurst tunnel first ;)
Maybe next time they should do it with an average load on board and use the new type of tram.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
2,737
Location
Greater Manchester
Are you aware Network Rail did a speed comparison and in a drag race on a straight line of linespeed 75mph a tram would beat a class 350 to 3km and a class 150 to 6km. The stops are an average of 800m apart.
I presume you are referring to the "Network RUS: Alternative Solutions Scoping Document". In fact this states that in a "drag race" a Class 350 would overtake a Sheffield Supertram at 1.6km - 3km is the stop spacing at which the theoretical minimum stop-stop time becomes less for the EMU. 800m stop spacing may be the Metrolink average including the on-street sections, but on the ex-heavy rail lines it is more like the minimum.

However, theoretical maximum acceleration has only limited relevance to real-world operations - for instance, DMUs often beat trams between Altrincham and Navigation Rd (about 1km), because of signal checks and speed restrictions. The 1963 timetable at timetableworld.com shows that the all stations stoppers were then scheduled to take 20mn from Altrincham to Oxford Rd, using 1931-built Class 505s. There were 8tph peak, 3tph off peak, plus 3tph peak, 2tph off peak semi-fasts from Chester to Central. The current MET1 timetable on the Traveline website shows the trams are now scheduled to take 24mn from Altrincham to St Peters Square, with 10tph.

Table 3.3 in the above NR document gives the max passenger capacity, including standing, of double trams at 10tph as approx 2000/hr, compared with 4800/hr for 6 car EMUs at 8tph.
 

futureA

Member
Joined
24 May 2010
Messages
103
"Built on a shoestring" Sorry I can't stop laughing. Considering much of the Metrolink existed as working heavy rail lines and were simply converted, it has cost a fortune to implement.
Depends what you mean by 'a fortune'. Cast your mind back to 1992 - bare minimum number of trams ordered, high platforms retained, minimum refurbishment of stations, worn out track not replaced. Some of these decisions such as the decision to keep the high platforms is not something which other tram systems in the UK have followed making metrolink an odd one out which will be a disadvantage when the next round of vehicle replacements comes up. Not to mention the ambiance of the city centre stations being less than ideal.

Which then creates the problems of the new vehicles ordered being less suited to the non-street sections and taking longer and consequently causing more minor delays than the old trams.
The problems with the ride quality are mainly due to wear on the track caused by years of running t68's. The new vehicles on the DLR have the similar issues. Ride the south manchester line and it is smooth as silk.

Metrolink recently extended estimated journey times by 3 minutes on Altrincham-Piccadilly, 3 minutes on Bury-Piccadilly and 6 minutes on Bury-Altrincham. So they seem to be solving problems like the privatised railway is solving them - get better reliability by extending journey times.
As I said, the main issue seems to be the track.

In reality the main issue is not the T68s but the lack of overtaking loops to use during disruption.
Agreed. But if it metrolink had never happened we would be having the same issue. I would say that the T68's breaking down evey five minutes is less than ideal.

You said before it was built on a shoestring. Now you're saying it would cost a lot of money to convert back - one of your statement's contradicts the other.
Of course it would cost a fortune to bring back into mainline use. The overhead line is just one of the things you would have to rebuild. What benefit would it bring? Is there enough spare capacity to run services to Oxford Road/ Piccadilly again? Metrolinks issues can be and are being solved.


That's a disadvantage of Metrolink - the lack of semi-fast and express services.

The pre-nationalisation timetable for the Altrincham-Sale-Manchester line was:
07:45 Altrincham-Manchester (all stops)
07:49 Altrincham-Manchester (all stops)
07:54 Altrincham-Manchester (most stops)
08:00 Sale-Manchester (all stops)
07:58 Altrincham-Manchester (express)
08:00 Altrincham-Manchester (all stops)
08:07 Altrincham-Manchester (all stops)
Presumably this was when the line had a 4 track sections. This was removed in the 1960's well before metrolink was even thought of and if it had stayed a heavy rail line I doubt it would be reinstated.

By the way, I use the service every day to get too and from work in the city centre and moving my alighting point from St Peters Square or Market Street to Piccadilly, Deansgate or Oxford Road would most likely add on at least 10 minutes to my journey to work negating any improvements in the journey time of the actual train. I'd probably get to work later than I do now.

That is the big advantage of Trams. Once in the city centre they get you closer to where you want to go.

Incidentally if the T68's had been properly maintained in the first place they wouldn't need replacing now! - disgraceful
It is widely acknowledged that the T68's where crap to start with and according to people who work there they have been maintained in line with the manufacturers guidelines.

Recently they have had difficulty in obtaining spare parts, especially electronic components. Since it is such a small fleet they have trouble finding people willing to make them.

Have a look at Midland Metro. Their original fleet is from the same manufacturer and is of a similar vintage and are even called T69's. They have similar issues with their network and the T69 fleet will alos be replaced in the near future.
 
Last edited:

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
2,737
Location
Greater Manchester
The problems with the ride quality are mainly due to wear on the track caused by years of running t68's.
Metrolink completely replaced the track on the Alty and Bury lines in 2007, closing sections for weeks at a time all through the summer. All rail vehicles cause track wear, heavy ones more than light, but Network Rail manages to maintain its network with much less disruption than Metrolink.
Ride the south manchester line and it is smooth as silk.
It's brand new track!
As I said, the main issue seems to be the track.
AFAIK there are no differential speed restrictions on the M5000s vs the T68s due to track condition. The increase in journey times is due to the M5000s' lower top speed and the increased congestion caused by the additional services through the city centre.
But if it metrolink had never happened we would be having the same issue. I would say that the T68's breaking down evey five minutes is less than ideal.
Northern Rail manages to provide reliable commuter services with Class 142 Pacers, which are 10 years older than the T68s and (being diesel powered) need more maintenance.The Class 505 Alty electrics were 40 years old when withdrawn in 1971, but were renowned for providing a reliable service.
That is the big advantage of Trams. Once in the city centre they get you closer to where you want to go.
Depends where you want to go surely? And I don't think anyone here is arguing against a frequent tram service in the city centre, linking Central, Piccadilly and Victoria.
 

Samtron2000

Member
Joined
10 May 2011
Messages
81
Have a read of the metrolink forums on Skyscrapercity. They are a hell of a lot more knowledgeable then these threads.

The M5000 ride so poorly on the Alt bury line due to the wear patterns that the T68s put on the track. As the T68s have a different suspension, they compensate for it better than the M5000s.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
are you an expert in the rail industry, or are you just a Internet expert that spouts bollocks?
Bollocks? Sounds like you can't handle the truth. Consult the past and previous timetables for both Metrolink and heavy rail for yourself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Depends what you mean by 'a fortune'. Cast your mind back to 1992 - bare minimum number of trams ordered, high platforms retained, minimum refurbishment of stations, worn out track not replaced. Some of these decisions such as the decision to keep the high platforms is not something which other tram systems in the UK have followed making metrolink an odd one out which will be a disadvantage when the next round of vehicle replacements comes up. Not to mention the ambiance of the city centre stations being less than ideal.
They spent 2-3 years converting two lines and building a new city centre section. Either they had very lazy workmen or they spent a lot of money converting it.

Agreed. But if it metrolink had never happened we would be having the same issue. I would say that the T68's breaking down evey five minutes is less than ideal.
Not quite the same issue as if the Sale route hadn't been converted there would have been 2 available heavy rail routes between Navigation Road and Deansgate, even though one route would be available to DMUs only.

Of course it would cost a fortune to bring back into mainline use. The overhead line is just one of the things you would have to rebuild.
Why would it need rebuilding? For around 15 years Metrolink used the BR lines with a DC voltage passing through them instead of an AC voltage.

What benefit would it bring?
* EMUs providing more capacity than trams - very much needed at times.
* Faster journeys between Altrincham and Manchester.
* Sale regaining direct services to places beyond Altrincham.
* Freeing up of paths on the congested Stockport-Manchester line.
* Better through ticketing.

Is there enough spare capacity to run services to Oxford Road/ Piccadilly again?
Post Ordsall Chord and platforms 15/16 at Piccadilly there would probably be enough capacity. Services could continue beyond Manchester eastbound to enable more services.


Presumably this was when the line had a 4 track sections. This was removed in the 1960's well before metrolink was even thought of and if it had stayed a heavy rail line I doubt it would be reinstated.
A 4 track section still exists around the Timperley area but it's not used effectively due to Metrolink only having one line though Navigation Road.

By the way, I use the service every day to get too and from work in the city centre and moving my alighting point from St Peters Square or Market Street to Piccadilly, Deansgate or Oxford Road would most likely add on at least 10 minutes to my journey to work negating any improvements in the journey time of the actual train. I'd probably get to work later than I do now.
Which is why Metrolink was not the preferred option in the 1970s and a city centre tunnel was. A new underground station in the Market Street area could have been included as part of the proposal.

It is widely acknowledged that the T68's where crap to start with and according to people who work there they have been maintained in line with the manufacturers guidelines.

Recently they have had difficulty in obtaining spare parts, especially electronic components. Since it is such a small fleet they have trouble finding people willing to make them.

Have a look at Midland Metro. Their original fleet is from the same manufacturer and is of a similar vintage and are even called T69's. They have similar issues with their network and the T69 fleet will alos be replaced in the near future.
And yet the 142s are crap and Northern are keeping them going.
 
Last edited:

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,428
AFAIK there are no differential speed restrictions on the M5000s vs the T68s due to track condition. The increase in journey times is due to the M5000s' lower top speed and the increased congestion caused by the additional services through the city.
There was indeed differential speed restrictions of 40mph for M5000 and 50Mph for T68 before the relaying due to track wear. The top speed, acceleration and braking charachteristics of the classes are virtually identical. The M5000 ride quality was after investigation found by Manchester University found to be the rail wear pattern of the T68's. (they are 5 tonnes heavier with larger wheels) And is why T68's are only allowed on the South Manchester line rarely to preserve the track condition.

Saying 142 at Northern are much more reliable? Metrolink operates 98-99% of scheduled track mileage, Northern Rail operates only between 85-90%.
 
Last edited:

Samtron2000

Member
Joined
10 May 2011
Messages
81
Bollocks? Sounds like you can't handle the truth. Consult the past and previous timetables for both Metrolink and heavy rail for yourself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They spent 2-3 years converting two lines and building a new city centre section. Either they had very lazy workmen or they spent a lot of money converting it.
Hmmm, maybe ain't your stron point is it. The altrincham line closed 24/12/1991 and re opened June 1992! 6 months isn't 2-3 years is it!!
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Hmmm, maybe ain't your stron point is it. The altrincham line closed 24/12/1991 and re opened June 1992! 6 months isn't 2-3 years is it!!
Chester services were taken off the Sale line in May 1989 to allow for the Sale line to be converted to Metrolink. May 1989 is 3 years before June 1992, so my point is correct, unless you want to say work actually started in 1987 which is when a DLR train was borrowed for tests ahead of conversion to light rail.

You really need to start looking at all the facts not the facts that TfGM see with their rose tinted glasses.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
20m ppl a year use it.
20 million journeys per year is not 20 million people.

One person with an annual season ticket would typically make around 500 journeys per year just going to and from work, so you're talking more like 40,000 people per year or 4/5ths of the population of the town of Sale.

One reason for people using the Metrolink is lack of real alternatives. If it's bus or tram then tram wins but if it's train, tram or bus (as in many German cities) then tram doesn't win.
 
Last edited:

futureA

Member
Joined
24 May 2010
Messages
103
They spent 2-3 years converting two lines and building a new city centre section. Either they had very lazy workmen or they spent a lot of money converting it.
It may seem like a lot of money but in truth the scope of the project was very limited for the reasons I have outlined in the previous post.

Not quite the same issue as if the Sale route hadn't been converted there would have been 2 available heavy rail routes between Navigation Road and Deansgate, even though one route would be available to DMUs only.
Most of the Altrincham line is beyond Navigation Road. What benefit would this have to people in Stretford, Sale or Old Trafford?

Why would it need rebuilding? For around 15 years Metrolink used the BR lines with a DC voltage passing through them instead of an AC voltage.
This shows how little you know. In 2009 the overhead line on the Alrincham line was rebuilt to Tramline standards.



Look at the tiny insulators. Good luck trying to get 25KV through that.

* EMUs providing more capacity than trams - very much needed at times.
* Faster journeys between Altrincham and Manchester.
* Sale regaining direct services to places beyond Altrincham.
* Freeing up of paths on the congested Stockport-Manchester line.
* Better through ticketing.
More capacity is needed at some times but this can be solved by double trams. At various times of the day the Altrincham line is fairly quiet, dead even. Not cost effective to run a load of trains carrying fresh air around for most of the day.
Can't argue with the other points, clearly advantages but just how important are they compared to other points? How many people in Stretford for instance need to travel beyond Altrincham?

Post Ordsall Chord and platforms 15/16 at Piccadilly there would probably be enough capacity. Services could continue beyond Manchester eastbound to enable more services.
Maybe in the future but not now.

A 4 track section still exists around the Timperley area but it's not used effectively due to Metrolink only having one line though Navigation Road.
But the 4 track section from Dane road to Old Trafford is Long gone. However there is nothing to prevent metrolink reinstating it if they wished to.

Which is why Metrolink was not the preferred option in the 1970s and a city centre tunnel was. A new underground station in the Market Street area could have been included as part of the proposal.
You are proposing converting the line back to heavy rail. How many billions of pounds would it cost to build city centre tunnels?

If you can find the money, great. I fully support it. But the fact of the matter is that we can't afford it. The most affordable way to get commuters to the heart of the city centre is trams and at the moment they are adequate.

If the line was converted back to heavy rail tomorrow terminating at Deansgate, Oxford Road and Piccadilly I don't think it would have massive public support.

And yet the 142s are crap and Northern are keeping them going.
As Watcher has pointed out, Northern has lower reliability than Metrolink.
 
Last edited:

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Most of the Altrincham line is beyond Navigation Road. What benefit would this have to people in Stretford, Sale or Old Trafford?
Imagine there is a blockage at Stretford. Trains could run Altrincham-Navigation Road-Stockport-Manchester and other trains could run Manchester - at least as far as Sale. That's much better than having no service and passengers having to use existing local bus services as happened last week.

There would also be an advantage if the line between Stockport and Manchester was blocked that some diesel trains could divert via Northenden and Sale.

Can't argue with the other points, clearly advantages but just how important are they compared to other points? How many people in Stretford for instance need to travel beyond Altrincham?
There has been thousands of complaints from people in Sale complaining about problems with going beyond Altrincham. This is another place where GMPTE brushed things under the rug and looked at Metrolink with rose tinted glasses.

As Watcher has pointed out, Northern has lower reliability than Metrolink.
Metrolink is self-contained, Northern services get held to avoid TPE, EMT, Virgin etc. services getting delayed further. I'm talking about the life expired 142 reliability compared to what shouldn't be life expired T68 reliability.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,428
Metrolink is self-contained, Northern services get held to avoid TPE, EMT, Virgin etc. services getting delayed further. I'm talking about the life expired 142 reliability compared to what shouldn't be life expired T68 reliability.
That wasnt delays, that was services actually operated rather than cancelled, understrength or diverted.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Another infrastructure fault caused delays this morning, the second time it's happened this week, so eliminating the T68s won't solve everything as some optimistic posters seem to have suggested.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That wasnt delays, that was services actually operated rather than cancelled, understrength or diverted.
A failed freight or passenger train can cause other operators services to be cancelled, terminated short or diverted (meaning calling points are omitted.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top