Victoria Metrolink rebuild

Status
Not open for further replies.

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
TfGM got back to me on a request...

I asked......

The TfGM committee Capital Projects and Policy Sub Committee meeting on the 20th April 2015 agenda has listed item 9 as "exercise of option to operate Metrolink Phase 3b". I would like to ask is this information available to the public, and if it isn't, could this information be obtain through the freedom of information act?*

Also the redevelopment of Victoria Metrolink stop, is there a plan or track plan of the proposed rebuild of the station once the 2cc is opened in 2016?*

Finally the Metrolink and Rail Network sub committee mentions that 12 T68 replacement M5000 trams will all be in service in November 2012. Its also mentions 13 additional M5000's to be brought into use for the current and future networks. Does this mean trams 3017-3041 will be in service by November 2012 and that you don't expect TMS to be operation by then?
I got this reply back....

Thank you for your email.
*
I will answer each of your queries in turn.
*
Freedom of Information Act request
A response regarding the Phase 3 report will be provided by TfGM’s Paralegal Team.
*
Track plan of Victoria Station
Please find attached a copy of the Capital Projects and Policy Sub-Committee report which includes in Appendix 1 a plan showing the proposed remodelling of the Victoria Station Metrolink stop. This will cater for the increased capacity of future Metrolink lines and 2CC.
*
T68 replacement by M5000 vehicles and TMS
You made reference to sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the attached Metrolink and Rail Networks report. I can confirm that the two separate statements do not imply that TMS will not be in operation by November 2012. The date of November 2012 in section 3.3.1 relates to the anticipated date when the 12 T68 vehicles will be replaced by M5000 vehicles. The 13 additional M5000s referred to in 3.3.2 provide an immediate solution while TMS is being rolled out across the system in order to allow the vehicles to operate on both systems.
*
If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
*
Kind regards,
Here's the image they included, I haven't seen this before....


Metrolink - Victoria rebuilding by Sparkyscrum, on Flickr
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,574
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
TfGM got back to me on a request...

Here's the image they included, I haven't seen this before....


Metrolink - Victoria rebuilding by Sparkyscrum, on Flickr
It is immediately noticeable that the new Victoria Station roof shown on the drawing only covers half the platform lengths of the Metrolink platforms.

It might be a good thing if you now follow up their reply to you, to ask them if this is only an artistic impression or will these Metrolink platforms really be left "half-exposed" to the variagies of the Manchester weather.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,425
Answer to both in part is the original roof, their replacing it not extending it and theres limited room for platforms with the station wall. The other side is three platforms rather than four is better for interchanges, you dont have to change platform as all northbounds services are on one, all south on the other and terminating in the middle.
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
3,848
Whats more noticeable to me is that the're only providing three platforms, personally one of these is reversible but it's rather silly IMO, why not four?
I was lucky enough to see these plans some months ago, and I said exactly that. TfGM were convinced that this is a best fit project and a fourth running road, effectively creating a fourth platform was unnecessary. Network Rail's silly poncey office block clearly has priority over passenger rail services, hardly surprising.

A further issue this creates is a small, packed pair of platforms that will definately not cope with passenger numbers during both MEN Events and busy peak hours; land occupied by the project is hardly bigger than the current platform, but add in the new centre track, and you get two, very unfit for purpose platforms.

The trackwork and pointwork approaching it will also be a sure fire reliability disaster.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,395
Location
Somewhere, not in London
I was lucky enough to see these plans some months ago, and I said exactly that. TfGM were convinced that this is a best fit project and a fourth running road, effectively creating a fourth platform was unnecessary. Network Rail's sill office block clearly has priority over passenger rail services, hardly surprising.

A further issue this creates is a small, packed pair of platforms that will definately not cope with passenger numbers during both MEN Events and busy peak hours; land occupied by the project is hardly bigger than the current platform, but add in the new centre track, and you get two, very unfit for purpose platforms.

The trackwork and pointwork approaching it will be a sure fire reliability disaster.
Yes indeedy, there's masses of car park to play with and they come up with that solution that is frankly laughable.

If I was coming up with this it would have been two or three very wide island platforms, with exceedingly simple point work on either side.

Still the cross over point in the place as it is now, but just two ballast based scissor crossovers, one for each line, with a central scissors between the two centre tracks for terminating services, the same provided on the other side.

If there was space, that there is, I'd put in a 3rd, central island platform to terminate additional services, and have in place PROPER PIS to tell people where their trams are coming from.

But then again, if it where me designing at top level for Metrolink, I wouldn't have the 2CC coming though and would provide capacity elsewhere to send Metrolink services to Piccadilly or close to.

Masses of 'insane' ideas of mine kicking around in this brain, the latest one is actually very mad, but not relevant for this thread, but each idea results in a re-build or Cornbrook to provide more platforms and platforms on the CLC lines, with the provision of additional tracks over the Viaduct.

(Latest one is a new viaduct from Cornbrook to Victoria, linked into the CLC and Alty lines, moving Alty onto Tram-Train operation for it's whole length, providing masses of bay platforms at Exchange for services off the Chat Moss, CLC and Alty lines)
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,847
Location
t'North
Yes indeedy, there's masses of car park to play with and they come up with that solution that is frankly laughable.
But who's car park is it? If TfGM are responsible for Metrolink but Network Rail own the station then that's a lot of public money having to be transferred from one group to another. It's taking long enough to get this solution and for the various parties to stump up for the new roof.

Frankly, it's the suggestion that no one has done any thinking about these solutions that is laughable.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,395
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Frankly, it's the suggestion that no one has done any thinking about these solutions that is laughable.
Really? Have you looked at the Metrolink network with single track sections planned to take 20tph? Who the hell thinks about that solution and says, "Yes, that's a good idea!"
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,847
Location
t'North
Really? Have you looked at the Metrolink network with single track sections planned to take 20tph? Who the hell thinks about that solution and says, "Yes, that's a good idea!"
Probably the people that designed it that way. All your objections are interfaces between light rail and heavy rail. What's your (practical) alternative for getting trams and heavy rail through those sections? Bridges?
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
3,848
I'm under the impression the single line bit at Newton Heath / Dean Lane Station is a temporary measure, until Network Rail and GMW agree to re-site their waste plant. The offside track at Dean Lane is used for the (three a week?) bin trains.

Similarly, Navvy Road's single track section may be obsolete when a proper solution to where the Chester service is to go is decided some years in the future. (Tram Train? Airport Spur Line? etc)
 

D841 Roebuck

Established Member
Joined
16 Mar 2012
Messages
1,398
Location
Rochdale
This is GMITA (or whatever initials they're using this week) we're talking about.

An organisation with the intellectual capacity of a dead whelk, the planning ability of watercress and the morals of Ernest Marples.

The only reasonable way to get Metrolink working properly is to include it in the new Northern Rail franchise from 2014.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,574
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
This is GMITA (or whatever initials they're using this week) we're talking about.

An organisation with the intellectual capacity of a dead whelk, the planning ability of watercress and the morals of Ernest Marples.
I think that Transport for Greater Manchester Committee (TfGMC) and Greater Manchester Combined Authourity (GMCA) are two of the organisations receiving new titles when the re-naming occurred, in addition to TfGM being the new name for GMPTE.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,574
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
But if it's Croydon Tramlink then it's a network with a timetable, not just a random accompaniment of trams going wherever they feel like.
Now then, young sir, this is somewhat unkind of you. Most people are happy with the notices on Manchester Metrolink that give the "x" minutes of frequency on each of their routes.

Your comment of "a random accompanyment of trams going wherever they feel like" would appear to cause "Armageddon" to be visited upon the existing signalling that is currently used on the network.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,395
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Now then, young sir, this is somewhat unkind of you. Most people are happy with the notices on Manchester Metrolink that give the "x" minutes of frequency on each of their routes.

Your comment of "a random accompanyment of trams going wherever they feel like" would appear to cause "Armageddon" to be visited upon the existing signalling that is currently used on the network.
It would be fine if they actually did show up every X minutes...

And do I detect a hint of sarcasm here?
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,574
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
It would be fine if they actually did show up every X minutes...

And do I detect a hint of sarcasm here?
I was assuming that the point that your previous posting was stating that the Croydon Tramlink has a published timetable, but the Manchester Metrolink has not and that is the reason why I referred to the information on the Manchester Metrolink system notice boards, who do also give the times of the first and last times of the services on the routes. I had not assumed that you were making a criticism of the actual frequency of the trams on the Manchester Metrolink system.

My second point was made strictly in response the specific comment of the final part of your posting. I refute your wording of "sarcasm" as there was no such "hint" intended.
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,847
Location
t'North
Now then, young sir, this is somewhat unkind of you. Most people are happy with the notices on Manchester Metrolink that give the "x" minutes of frequency on each of their routes.
I find the Traveline timetable useful when travelling on the Eccles line (Enter MET2 as the 'Bus Number'*). Ok, it's not 'published' as such but in my limited experience they turn up at these times more often than not.

* MET1 gives you Bury-Altrincham; MET3 St. Werburgh's Road-Victoria
 

OxtedL

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
23 Mar 2011
Messages
2,405
At busy times on Tramlink you will often find yourself waiting for the single line more than once between Beckenham and Harrington Road. The section would be a lot more useful if they could up the frequency - BJ gives good access all the way from Brixton down to Orpington including Herne Hill and Bromley, and I've found that these are the busiest trams in the rush hour when I've been on the system, with a large number of people going to BJ. I don't know how TfL see it, but I reckon there could be a case for a better frequency if the line wasn't single.

Looking the other side of Croydon towards Wimbledon, the single track bits are starting to look more and more like big problems as time goes on.

Single line on a tram network surely can't really be a good thing.
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
At busy times on Tramlink you will often find yourself waiting for the single line more than once between Beckenham and Harrington Road. The section would be a lot more useful if they could up the frequency - BJ gives good access all the way from Brixton down to Orpington including Herne Hill and Bromley, and I've found that these are the busiest trams in the rush hour when I've been on the system, with a large number of people going to BJ. I don't know how TfL see it, but I reckon there could be a case for a better frequency if the line wasn't single.

Looking the other side of Croydon towards Wimbledon, the single track bits are starting to look more and more like big problems as time goes on.

Single line on a tram network surely can't really be a good thing.
They've started work to double certain sections now and are looking to get the whole Wimbledon branch double track. It's what to do with Wimbledon and the proposed take over of Thameslink services from Wimbledon to Sutton that's slowing the whole process down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top