One failed Metrolink tram delays all services again

[martin2345uk]

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.

Totally agree, we'll never be totally problem free. But, even these sorts of issues, which are often "signalling faults" should reduce once block signalling is removed from the entire network.

Though given recent progress I have lost all optimism that this will happen anytime soon!!

 

[Nym]

OK, if you where to convert it back to heavy rail down to Sale, you wouldn't need expensive tunnels or anythuing reduiculous in Manchester CC.

One can simply build a large interchange at Cornbrook Interchange, a new section of line from where the Didsbury line diverges over to panoma, and then place in a link between the CLC and 'Central Lines' that will serve the alty route and then also the CLC and then we have a fully functioning route to Alty that can take heavy rail out to Alty and onto anywhere else in either direction, including Chester and Crewe that can be served by express DMUs by also re-instating four track in some places to put passing loops back in, and the rest of the stations served by EMUs between Central and Alty at 6tph.

All CLC stoppers will then be sent into Central rather than Oxford Road via Deansgate, allowing further expansion of services on that line, and also providing a focus for all of these services.

Summary of works:

Central: Re-open as a 6 platform station, electrified, 2 track out to Cornbrook main platforms.

Cornbrook: current platforms converted to heavy rail and CLC route platforms added, with crossover connections on the UP and DOWN sides so through services can run. New Metrolink platforms added in the wasteland to the North, four platforms if possible all fed from Panoma where additional lines will now join. Flyover placed in so that the lines toward central would be from N to S, Central, Central, Metrolink, Metrolink, Deansgate, Deansgate.

Panoma: Now a major interchange and diverting point for metrolink services (10tph on Eccles Line, 5/10tph on Trafford Park Line, 5tph to Airport and 5tph to Didsbury) 25/30tph being plenty to feed through Cornbrook on current infrastructure, 10tph being removed by converting the alty route.

"Didsbury Line Junction" Either use the old underpass or build a new flyover over the Alty line that will be converted back to heavy rail.

The alty line: Add in four track and passing loops where possible, four platforms at Stretford, Sale and Alty (The stations where fasts will now stop).

Changes Elsewhere:

Chester - Alty - Stockport - Piccadilly service cut, no longer run, the Diesel path used for something more useful, service will run as a shuttle between Stockport and Alty or Knutsford.

Other stuff detailed elsewhere...

PS: My other option for 'fixing metrolink' involves heavy use of Tram Trains on the Alty and Bury routes, and additional platforms being incorparated into a re-built Oxford Road station and four tracking between a 'to be expanded' Cornbrook and Deansgate. But I'd prefer running it back to heavy as Central re-opening can also benifit the CLC and every other route in Manchester as there is a way to join the Chat Moss and Windsor Link lines into Central too...

 

[WatcherZero]

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 ---


A failed freight or passenger train can cause other operators services to be cancelled, terminated short or diverted (meaning calling points are omitted.)

As can cars speeding and hitting overhead poles, lorries protesting blocking the roads, pedestrian accidents, etc..

 

[pemma]

As can cars speeding and hitting overhead poles, lorries protesting blocking the roads, pedestrian accidents, etc..

There's only a very small section of the Metrolink network where such incidents can happen and such incidents should not result in end to end cancellations.

There is one tram operator using the lines so it is a self-contained network. Self-contained doesn't mean no external parties can delay a service.

Merseyrail is considered a self-contained network despite running over level crossings which road vehicles can block, having the possibility of a person trespassing or falling on to the track and being electrocuted or electric supply problems due to vandalism etc.

 

[WatcherZero]

Exactly, so its a fair comparison they manage high 90's services operated while Northern is 10% worse. TPE also manage 99% services operated though their services delayed figure is 90%.

 

[pemma]

Exactly, so its a fair comparison they manage high 90's services operated while Northern is 10% worse. TPE also manage 99% services operated though their services delayed figure is 90%.

What's a fair comparison?

You mentioned Northern vs Metrolink before but my above post talks about Merseyrail so are you saying Merseyrail vs Metrolink is a fair comparison? If so note that Merseyrail don't have the luxury of brand new trains alongside their older ones.

Going back to Northern vs Metrolink. One day a Northern service I was on was travelling towards Chester held before Skelton Junction for an extended period of time. The reason for this delay was the Metrolink overhead electrics had come down and were interfering with the heavy rail running as well as tram services being suspended between Timperley and Altrincham. So it seems Metrolink are able to delay Northern but not the other way around.

 

[futureA]

Another infrastructure fault caused delays this morning,

So heavy rail is immune from infrastructure faults is it?

OK, if you where to convert it back to heavy rail down to Sale, you wouldn't need expensive tunnels or anythuing reduiculous in Manchester CC. ......

This is a joke?

 

[Nym]

This is a joke?

You think I'd go into that much detail for a joke?

 

[WatcherZero]

What's a fair comparison?

You mentioned Northern vs Metrolink before but my above post talks about Merseyrail so are you saying Merseyrail vs Metrolink is a fair comparison? If so note that Merseyrail don't have the luxury of brand new trains alongside their older ones.

Going back to Northern vs Metrolink. One day a Northern service I was on was travelling towards Chester held before Skelton Junction for an extended period of time. The reason for this delay was the Metrolink overhead electrics had come down and were interfering with the heavy rail running as well as tram services being suspended between Timperley and Altrincham. So it seems Metrolink are able to delay Northern but not the other way around.

Metrolink services are oft delayed by the Heavy Rail controlled level crossing failing. Also fire at Piccadilly causing Metrolink cancellations.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Have a read of the metrolink forums on Skyscrapercity. They are a hell of a lot more knowledgeable then these threads.

Indeed those forums seem to be the home ground of both Metrolink staff members and Metrolink travellers/enthusiasts, with many postings showing excellent photographic images and comments on all four of the Metrolink lines now under construction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

With regard to that particular stretch of line being what it used to be, you have to understand the reasons why the railway company made this sectional line improvement in those years when these works were first carried out.

 

[futureA]

You think I'd go into that much detail for a joke?

No offence. But your grand plan didn't sound any less far fetched than tunnels and I think having a well established conference & exhibition centre in this location is more important to the city than re opening a defunct rail terminal.

 

[pemma]

So heavy rail is immune from infrastructure faults is it?

Where did I say it was?

Metrolink are responsible for their own infrastructure while heavy rail operators rely on Network Rail. That's another reason why Metrolink is less likely to suffer disruption as the result of a third party.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Metrolink services are oft delayed by the Heavy Rail controlled level crossing failing. Also fire at Piccadilly causing Metrolink cancellations.

Often delayed by it failing? I've never experienced the level crossing failing in the open position. Normally they get complaints about leaving the level crossing closed too long so people starting on the wrong side miss the tram/train as they can't get across the line in time.

Fire at Piccadilly causing Metrolink delays? Are you referring to the same fire that closed platform 13 and 14 at Piccadilly that was external to the station?

You seem unable to accept the fact that Metrolink is a self-contained network. That doesn't mean that delays can't be caused by third parties but it's a hell of lot less common than with heavy rail.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

I was caught by this one, on one of my infrequent attempts to travel by Metrolink yesterday. Fortunately a 263 bus was about to leave Altrincham with plenty of empty seats. Metrolink seems to have become so unreliable that the only way to be reasonably confident of arriving on time is to allow sufficient time to switch to the bus. This rather defeats the point of a light rail system!

On my regular commute with Northern Rail on the mid-Cheshire line, I have experienced delays of more than a few minutes only two or three times in the last year.

 

[pemma]

I was caught by this one, on one of my infrequent attempts to travel by Metrolink yesterday. Fortunately a 263 bus was about to leave Altrincham with plenty of empty seats. Metrolink seems to have become so unreliable that the only way to be reasonably confident of arriving on time is to allow sufficient time to switch to the bus. This rather defeats the point of a light rail system!

Exactly my experience. When I use the train on the Mid Cheshire line it's almost always no more than 5 minutes late and I've experienced one cancellation in the last 5 years. When I use the tram (less frequently than the train) I'm often left waiting more than 6 minutes and on some occasions it's been as long as 45 minutes with the only information given a generic PA announcement apologising for delays.

 

[Nym]

No offence. But your grand plan didn't sound any less far fetched than tunnels and I think having a well established conference & exhibition centre in this location is more important to the city than re opening a defunct rail terminal.

Really, so this conference and exhibition centre couldn't move 70 yards up the road into the Derelict Buildings just behind St Peters' Square to make way for a regionally important station that will prevent the stifling of growth on two major commuter lines, a long regional line, and several diversionary railway routes, not to mention removing or reducing the need for the Metrolink 2CC plans that I don't know many locals who are in favour of?

Don't start with no offence either, you clearly do mean offence.

And with the Ordsall Cord plans coming to soon attempt shoving more services through the Castlefeild Corridor, that the re-opening of Central can mitigate by removing the slow CLC services that cause numerous issues in the form of crossing movements throughout the corridor, especially with the route soon intending to move to a 3+3tph timetable, shouldn't one be wondering how we will fit so many services through Oxford Road, plus freight. Where as moving the CLC Slow services and possibly some Semi Fasts into a dedicated station, away from Deansgate may just give some chance for the Ordstall Cord to work properly, by reducing the demand of services through Deansgate (Knot Mill) back down from what will shortly become anything up to 16 or even 18tph, back down to a much more managable 10tph. (2tphpr+OC) Or a more realistic 13tph (3tphpr+OC) (3CLC SF, 3CMF (Sco, Chester, Liverpool), 3 Windsor (2 Bolton, 1 Atherton)) remembering of course that freight needs to run through this bit of the network too to Trafford Park.

Lest not forget that there is still a hell of a lot of land available to build a new conference centre, but there isn't much land at all available for station space, and very little for terminating services from the CLC, Chat Moss and Windsor Bridge Lines...

 

[185]

Panoma

Nym, that's my favourite typo this year.

Why was it spelt Panoma?

Coz it's by the Panoma canal

I'm still of the view that the priority for the 2CC needs to be it's start and end points... ie beyond Cornbrook Junction everthing is funnelled into 2 lines to St Peters Sq .... and beyond the 2CC project, from Victoria, everything is funnelled into 2 lines up to Irk Valley Junction (Oldham Line).

The 2CC needs to use the disused 1.5km line over the Iron Bridge over Castlefield, and the disused Red Bank 1.25km line from Victoria to Irk Valley.

 

[Nym]

Nym, that's my favourite typo this year.

Why was it spelt Panoma?

Coz it's by the Panoma canal

I'm still of the view that the priority for the 2CC needs to be it's start and end points... ie beyond Cornbrook Junction everthing is funnelled into 2 lines to St Peters Sq .... and beyond the 2CC project, from Victoria, everything is funnelled into 2 lines up to Irk Valley Junction (Oldham Line).

The 2CC needs to use the disused 1.5km line over the Iron Bridge over Castlefield, and the disused Red Bank 1.25km line from Victoria to Irk Valley.

TBH, I don't think that 2CC is the answer, lets say that Metrolink tracks can take 20tph as the upper limit in City sections, marginally higher on segregated, lets base this on LU and say 27, possibly 30 for a short section.

We have coming from three directions:

Victoria: 10tph Bury, 10tph Oldham & Rochdale
Piccadilly: 10tph E Mancs Line
Deansgate: 5tph Eccles, 5tph Media City, 10tph Alty, 5/10tph Didsbury, 5tph Airport, 5/10tph Trafford Park/Salford Reds

One can see where the problem / pinch point will be here, we need to take services off the Deansgate approaches.

Now, if one assumes we re-open Central and send Alty services in by Heavy Rail then this becomes a tad easyer at:

5tph MC, 5tph Eccles, 5tph Didsbury, 5tph Airport and we have a balanced CC Network, with 10tph extra terminating at Piccadilly. But then opening the line to Trafford Park / Salford Reds and increasing frequencies can quickly cause problems. So for this I propose a 2nd terminus in Manchester serving the Deansgate approaches. Incorporated into an intergrated re-build of Oxford Road station, lengthening the through platforms 1 and 4 to 8x20 or 8x23m length by sacrificing platform 5 to extend 4, and the Piccadilly ends of 2 and 3, shortening these to 4 car length. (This IS possible within the footprint of the current viaduct)

This would provide conflict free terminating on 2&3 at Oxford road, or with clever timetabling, alternate platform services, although terminating on 2/3 may be a better option, either is possible.

5&6 would then be handed over to metrolink served by a new open viaduct (Steel Structure) linking to the end of the Deansgate Locks viaduct, there is plenty of road space to do this if we loose the on street parking.

These platforms at Oxford Road can then take the overspill of anything in excess of 20tph coming from the Deansgate approaches on the Metrolink, weather Central is re-opened or not.

If it is, then services could run as:

5tph Bury - East Didsbury
5tph Bury - Piccadilly
5tph Oldham - Airport
5tph Oldham - Piccadilly
5tph Ashton Under Lyne - Media City UK
5tph Ashton Under Lyne - Eccles

Providing the core 20tph balanced network.

Then add in

5tph Piccadilly - Trafford Park
5tph Piccadilly - East Didsbury

To terminate at Oxford Road, taking the overspill, and not needing four track between Cornbrook and Deansgate as 30tph is marginally do-able, one can alter the destinations as one desires, these can be changed if you like.

If Alty is not heavied back up again, then an expansion of the Metrolink network on this branch will be needed, as demand far outstrips supply and the Mid Cheshire is in need of help, then the whole route should be operated by Tram-Trains of four car length, some with diesel generators to run to Knutsford, Northwich or Chester. Passing loops installed on the line and 10tph slow and 5tph Semi Fast run. This would mean a minimum of 45tph between Cornbrook and Deansgate, requiring four track to be put in, and even more space to be found as two platforms at Oxford Road wouldn't be able to cope with 25tph.

15tph is more realistic for OR's two new platforms, as is 35tph through to Cornbrook, so it strikes me as a preferable option to take this busy arm off Metrolink, put it back on NR so that service levels can be increased (no bottleneck at Navigation Road) and free up other services in the City end of the Metrolink network.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Really, not to mention removing or reducing the need for the Metrolink 2CC plans that I don't know many locals who are in favour of?

How much notice do you really think that TfGM really take of the "many locals" as you describe these people, when they already have the Second City Crossing as a fulcrum point in the future expanded Manchester Metrolink system. They did hold a series of open discussion exhibitions to which the general public were invited with regard to the Second City Crossing and its new station at Exchange Square. Were any published statistical figures made available once these had been held which would reflect the views given by the members of the public.

Have you yet held any preliminary discussions with the current owners of the Manchester Central complex as to their future projected plans for the building ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 2CC needs to use the disused 1.5km line over the Iron Bridge over Castlefield, and the disused Red Bank 1.25km line from Victoria to Irk Valley.

And as a special treat to all railway enthusiasts, to reopen the disused railway line from Middleton Junction to Oldham Werneth....

 

[martin2345uk]

Wouldn't reinstating Alty - Central as heavy rail involve a remodelling of the Cornbrook junction?

 

[Nym]

Yes, I went through it in another thread somewhere, using the scrap land to the North of the station to build a replacement Metrolink station, then extending the current one for heavy rail and providing access to and from the CLC lines, and platforms on the CLC lines themselves.

This is one way to do it, backwards to how I'd do it in my current mood http://g.co/maps/jgpxc the mood changed when I considered curves and gradients for heavy rail services, but it does indicate the land to the NW that I would put into use for the Metrolink lines, using the current Metrolink Lines at Cornbrook and the platforms for the Heavy lines to Altham.

The metrolink 'flying junction' as it is now would be used for Heavy Rail access off the CLC into Cornbrook, putting the Metrolink lines on a new bit of viaducting further North.

 

[futureA]

Don't start with no offence either, you clearly do mean offence.

Oh please.
If you can't handle criticism you should not post.

Really, so this conference and exhibition centre couldn't move 70 yards up the road into the Derelict Buildings just behind St Peters' Square....

Where are these derelict buildings you speak of? This is one of the densest and least derelict parts of Manchester city centre. The only derelict building I can think of in the vicinity is the Odeon and thats hardly big enough is it?

Moving the conference centre would cost an enormous amount of money and thats before you spend hundreds of millions to bring the building up to the standards of a 21st century railway.

Having a successful and established conference centre is more important to the city than reactivating a railway station that we don't really need. Fact

 

[WatcherZero]

Im afraid I have to agree, with both the Arena and the conference centre, you dont chop down the apple tree to get at the apple.

 

[pemma]

Just noticed this on Metrolink's website, relating to after a football match:

"Due to heavy patronage at Old Trafford stop, passengers are advised to allow extra time to make their onward journey. The queuing time from the back of the queue to the platform can be approximately 1 hour. Please allow extra time for your journey. "

Of course that's the usual expectation but it shows one of the big disadvantages of Metrolink over heavy rail. 3 strengthened commuter train services can carry well over 2000 passengers (based on 6 car EMUs) while a crush loading on a tram carries 200.

 

[martin2345uk]

True, match days can be a nightmare at the moment!!

However Philip Purdy said in his presentation a few weeks back that, once TMS is (finally!!) in operation, they will be able to load 2 double trams at once at Old Trafford station with another one waiting just behind to enter, and so on until the crowd is cleared significantly faster than they manage today.

 

[WatcherZero]

Just noticed this on Metrolink's website, relating to after a football match:

"Due to heavy patronage at Old Trafford stop, passengers are advised to allow extra time to make their onward journey. The queuing time from the back of the queue to the platform can be approximately 1 hour. Please allow extra time for your journey. "

Of course that's the usual expectation but it shows one of the big disadvantages of Metrolink over heavy rail. 3 strengthened commuter train services can carry well over 2000 passengers (based on 6 car EMUs) while a crush loading on a tram carries 200.

Like the the three MUF trains on matchdays?
Or are you suggesting they should put on all those extra empty carriages to Chester?
If Metrolink was converted back to heavy rail It would only be an hour and a half after disgorging passengers at Piccadilly that a strengthened train would be able to get back to Old Trafford to load more, excellent use of capacity! Im sure I wouldnt mind a hour and a half wait.

 

[pemma]

However Philip Purdy said in his presentation a few weeks back that, once TMS is (finally!!) in operation, they will be able to load 2 double trams at once at Old Trafford station with another one waiting just behind to enter, and so on until the crowd is cleared significantly faster than they manage today.

A few snags with that:

1. T68s and M5000s can't operate in multiple.
2. M5000s won't operate in multiple while Mossley Street remains open.
3. Extra trams can't operate between Old Trafford and Manchester only, it will require a southbound ECS run as far as Timperley and then back north and running to Timperley will put the unit(s) in to the section under Network Rail signalling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Like the the three MUF trains on matchdays?

Or like the services that used to serve Warwick Road station before Metrolink on both Football and Cricket match days, in addition to the services to the football ground station, which also carried large numbers back to Sale and Altrincham.

 

[futureA]

A few snags with that:

1. T68s and M5000s can't operate in multiple.
2. M5000s won't operate in multiple while Mossley Street remains open.
3. Extra trams can't operate between Old Trafford and Manchester only, it will require a southbound ECS run as far as Timperley and then back north and running to Timperley will put the unit(s) in to the section under Network Rail signalling.

Mr Collins, in 5 years time none of your points will be valid.
*T68's are being scrapped so this is irrelevant.
*Mosley street will close at some point so this is irrelevant.
*Metrolink can and do run trams from Manchester to old Trafford on match days.

 

[martin2345uk]

Aye, I did say my scenario was dependent on TMS, which closing Mosley Street (and therefore doubling the M5000s) is also dependant on.

I hope your 5 years is right Future, TMS seems to have been dragging on as long as I can remember!

 

[pemma]

n 5 years time none of your points will be valid.
*T68's are being scrapped so this is irrelevant.

AFAIK only some of the T68s have been earmarked for being scrapped and these don't include any of the 1999 build of T68As.

 

[martin2345uk]

Aye but still there will be enough M5000s to run the doubles, once signalling permits.