Conversion of Manchester Metrolink to low-floor operation?

[py_megapixel]

As many of you will be aware, Metrolink is unique in the UK and fairly unusual worldwide in that it's a street-running tramway where the rolling stock requires full-height platforms for passengers to safely board and alight. There are various reasons it was built like this, but I think the main one was to allow reuse of old British Rail stations with minimal building works required. After all, many sections of the network (i.e. Altrincham, Bury, East Didsbury, the Oldham loop excluding the new street-running section, and parts of the other lines) don't really feel like a tramway at all, and have much more in common with the "big trains". (Of course, some of them reused BR alignments).

There would undoubtedly be benefits to Metrolink being low-floor (by which I mean vehicles where the floor height is close to the level of the street). There would be advantages to the system being more standard (such as it being cheaper to acquire new rolling stock), and the high floor probably prevents extensions that might otherwise be desirable but where the space is too constrained to fit high platforms (such as along Oxford Road perhaps). The cost of constructing extensions could be reduced if each stop only required effectively a raised pavement to be constructed rather than a platform.

On an accessibility front I am not sure whether high-floor or low-floor wins here. Clearly either is better than what first-generation trams often had - a bus-style high floor with stepped entrance - but would low-floor offer a benefit over the existing system given that Metrolink already offers level boarding at all stops?

My view, though, is that a conversion to low-floor wouldn't be a particularly good idea. It would probably be extremely expensive and disruptive - there are lots of platforms to rebuild, and whole lines would have to be closed while they did it; how on earth would they lower the platform in the Piccadilly Undercroft? Besides, it would be a shame to close off the option of future conversions of national rail lines - such as Glossop and Rose Hill - that might benefit from it. Low-floor trams also tend to have an awkward interior layout as the floor isn't flat throughout the passenger saloon - there are wheel arches and various other equipment to get in the way.

So what do you think? In your opinion, is it feasible, and is it a good idea?

 

[Purple Orange]

I wouldn’t say it needs to be converted. Accessibility is not an issue and I think the investment required would be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think in terms of how things are now the deed has probably been done.

However, there would be a time to revisit. I reckon within 20-30 years demand and additional lines will be such that it's necessary to put part of the city centre operation underground a la Den Haag Tramtunnel, providing a third city crossing underground. If this is done, it'd be easy to envisage the underground bit being made up mostly of the ex-railway parts without street running (e.g. Deansgate to Victoria), operated using vehicles more like the new Stadlers for Merseyrail or the T&W Metro. Then the sections with lots of street running (and any new lines e.g. down Oxford Road) could be done as low-floor, which would make the street furniture a lot less disruptive and remove the risk of someone getting trapped against a platform (wonder if this ever happened?) It'd be fairly easy to have bi-level platforms at Deansgate and Cornbrook if that was required - indeed, the original city centre platforms were like that though using folding steps on the rear tram if it was a double set.

Metrolink certainly works, but having what are basically full size commuter railway stations blocking the street, while it has a curious Swiss look to it, isn't ideal. Crikey, St Peter's Square is like putting a Tube station at street level these days.

 

[daodao]

I think in terms of how things are now the deed has probably been done.

However, there would be a time to revisit. I reckon within 20-30 years demand and additional lines will be such that it's necessary to put part of the city centre operation underground a la Den Haag Tramtunnel, providing a third city crossing underground. If this is done, it'd be easy to envisage the underground bit being made up mostly of the ex-railway parts without street running (e.g. Deansgate to Victoria), operated using vehicles more like the new Stadlers for Merseyrail or the T&W Metro. Then the sections with lots of street running (and any new lines e.g. down Oxford Road) could be done as low-floor, which would make the street furniture a lot less disruptive and remove the risk of someone getting trapped against a platform (wonder if this ever happened?) It'd be fairly easy to have bi-level platforms at Deansgate and Cornbrook if that was required - indeed, the original city centre platforms were like that though using folding steps on the rear tram if it was a double set.

Metrolink certainly works, but having what are basically full size commuter railway stations blocking the street, while it has a curious Swiss look to it, isn't ideal. Crikey, St Peter's Square is like putting a Tube station at street level these days.

The high platform requirements have reduced the number of stops that can practically be built on street-running sections, e.g. at the Darley Avenue/Hardy Lane junction or along Hollyhedge Road on the Airport line, where stops were originally envisaged. However, it is not straightforward to separate the street-running and ex-railway alignments into 2 separate networks, e.g. the Airport line merges with the East Disbury line, which runs on the former Manchester South District Railway, on its route into central Manchester.

 

[mike57]

Could you design a tram that could use either platform height with level boarding? Maybe multiple doors? A movable ramp? Problem is I suppose it would be a Manchester special, and therefore more expensive than a standard design.

 

[edwin_m]

When Metrolink was first conceived in around 1990, they wanted level boarding but there were no low floor tram designs available, so they had no real choice but to go to high floor. Several German cities did the same, so I think there will always be a range of relatively off-the-shelf vehicle designs available. The transitional costs of going low-floor would be huge, involving a total re-build of every station as well as disruption to journeys when people probably have to change between high and low floor vehicles. For those reasons I can't see any conversion happening for the foreseeable future. Possibly if there was a totally new corridor built with no shared platforms, such as something including University to Salford, it might be low-floor, but I'm not aware of any such proposal.

Incidentally, only the Altrincham and Bury lines had any part of the original platforms re-used. All the Phase 3 platforms were totally new even where they replaced an operational or disused railway platform.

 

[stuu]

Could you design a tram that could use either platform height with level boarding? Maybe multiple doors? A movable ramp? Problem is I suppose it would be a Manchester special, and therefore more expensive than a standard design.

Muni in San Francisco (and probably other systems), uses high platforms in the city centre subway, and then low and even no platforms in the suburbs. The trams have steps inside, which fold upwards to make a flat surface for the high platforms. Low platform stops have a ramp up to one door for accessibility, so the steps don't fold down there.

On the subject of high platform trams, there are many German systems which have them, including Cologne where the current Manchester tram design comes from. I can't see the system changing, there's no really clear benefit to doing so. The money would be better spent elsewhere

 

[zwk500]

Could you design a tram that could use either platform height with level boarding? Maybe multiple doors? A movable ramp? Problem is I suppose it would be a Manchester special, and therefore more expensive than a standard design.

A moveable ramp on the tram is probably going to be too slow for the desired throughput. A low-height platform is 300-350mm high, some 550-600mm lower than the current Manchester tram platforms. If any conversion was to happen, it would be a 'big bang' style thing, with the timetable reworked to isolate sections of line and then a total route closure from the City Centre to a terminus and a big multi-week project to convert all platforms on a section at once. But you're looking at resolving a 2' difference, it's not going to be affordable.

When Metrolink was first conceived in around 1990, they wanted level boarding but there were no low floor tram designs available, so they had no real choice but to go to high floor.

Although most high-floor trams are 600mm platform height, and Manchester is 900mm platform height, so is there any commonality?

I agree about the disruption caused nowadays. Platform height conversion is unlikely until the stations reach a serious need of refurbishment at c.50+ years of age.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although most high-floor trams are 600mm platform height, and Manchester is 900mm platform height, so is there any commonality?

Unless Stadler collapsed, there's always *an* option. Their platforms are flexible enough to do doors at any height (or several, as per the Giruno units).

Even outside of Stadler, you're just looking at fitting street-running features to an U-Bahn vehicle. There are enough U-Bahnen in Germany that such vehicles aren't going to go away.

 

[edwin_m]

Although most high-floor trams are 600mm platform height, and Manchester is 900mm platform height, so is there any commonality?

Cologne Stadtbahn - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In 1985 the first part of the network was built that was only accessible for high-floor trains with a platform height of 90 cm (35 in).

Above applies to Cologne where the Manchester design was first used, and I believe to other German networks using the Stadtbahn B or compatible vehicles, although the German Wikipedia quotes a 1000mm floor height for the Stadtbahn B.

 

[MarkyT]

Another consideration is that high-floor cars tend to be better riding than low-floor and often have a higher maximum speed due to ability to have fairly conventional bogies. Equipment can be slung beneath the car bodies instead of being on the roof or taking up interior car space, hence high floor vehicles are often easier to maintain and have a lower centre of gravity. Possible greater stop spacing due to construction costs of higher platforms will decrease journey times so might make the system more attractive for longer trips. A number of BRT (bus rapid transport) systems with very high traffic in S. America and elsewhere also chose high platforms, possibly because low-floor buses of sufficient size weren't available at the time they were established.

 

[edwin_m]

Another consideration is that high-floor cars tend to be better riding than low-floor and often have a higher maximum speed due to ability to have fairly conventional bogies. Equipment can be slung beneath the car bodies instead of being on the roof or taking up interior car space, hence high floor vehicles are often easier to maintain and have a lower centre of gravity. Possible greater stop spacing due to construction costs of higher platforms will decrease journey times so might make the system more attractive for longer trips. A number of BRT (bus rapid transport) systems with very high traffic in S. America and elsewhere also chose high platforms, possibly because low-floor buses of sufficient size weren't available at the time they were established.

However, the current Metrolink trams put all the equipment on the roof and their maximum speed is no greater than that of low-floor trams. It's maybe a future opportunity though.

 

[py_megapixel]

However, there would be a time to revisit. I reckon within 20-30 years demand and additional lines will be such that it's necessary to put part of the city centre operation underground a la Den Haag Tramtunnel, providing a third city crossing underground. If this is done, it'd be easy to envisage the underground bit being made up mostly of the ex-railway parts without street running (e.g. Deansgate to Victoria), operated using vehicles more like the new Stadlers for Merseyrail or the T&W Metro. Then the sections with lots of street running (and any new lines e.g. down Oxford Road) could be done as low-floor, which would make the street furniture a lot less disruptive and remove the risk of someone getting trapped against a platform (wonder if this ever happened?) .

This is something I had wondered about before. The real problem in my opinion would be the Airport line, as pointed out in this post:

The high platform requirements have reduced the number of stops that can practically be built on street-running sections, e.g. at the Darley Avenue/Hardy Lane junction or along Hollyhedge Road on the Airport line, where stops were originally envisaged. However, it is not straightforward to separate the street-running and ex-railway alignments into 2 separate networks, e.g. the Airport line merges with the East Disbury line, which runs on the former Manchester South District Railway, on its route into central Manchester.

I'm not sure how the Piccadilly Undercroft would be handled either.

Metrolink certainly works, but having what are basically full size commuter railway stations blocking the street, while it has a curious Swiss look to it, isn't ideal. Crikey, St Peter's Square is like putting a Tube station at street level these days.

I don't think the biggest issue is actually the city zone stops. Part of the reason for the multi-level platforms on the original system was concerns that high-level platforms would dominate the street scene, but I think the city has adapted to it fine. The Victoria, Shudehill, Piccadilly Gardens and Piccadilly are all part of a big interchange anyway so the platforms don't really make that much difference. Exchange Square and St Peters Square have loads of space already. Admittedly the platform on Market Street is a bit of a hindrance to people walking down the street, but no more so than the motor vehicle carriageway was when the system first opened. It's also pretty much next to Picc Gardens, which I think it would be possible to relocate and rearrange to serve both lines, also reinstating the functionality of the former Moseley Street stop. So I think there is a lot to be said for closing Market Street.

The main problem is the sections outside the city centre which actually run along a road, and the tramway effectively has to dive off the road into a dedicated area every time there is a stop. This means it has to slow right down, and also means a lot of space is required for stops compared to other cities.

However, the current Metrolink trams put all the equipment on the roof and their maximum speed is no greater than that of low-floor trams. It's maybe a future opportunity though.

Did the T68s have underfloor equipment?

Could you design a tram that could use either platform height with level boarding? Maybe multiple doors? A movable ramp? Problem is I suppose it would be a Manchester special, and therefore more expensive than a standard design.

The original trams had sliding steps so passengers could board from a low platform when they were operating in multiple, but these proved unreliable either weren't specified or weren't available (don't know which) on the new M5000s.

Multiple doors would probably result in people trying to get on/off from the wrong one and then the tram leaving without them!

 

[edwin_m]

The original trams had sliding steps so passengers could board from a low platform when they were operating in multiple, but these proved unreliable either weren't specified or weren't available (don't know which) on the new M5000s.

The M5000 was closely base on the K5000 for Cologne, but one of the changes was to omit the steps that could be used to board it from street level. They are visible on photos of the K5000. I understand there's a space underneath the vestibule where they would have been in the K5000.

 

[py_megapixel]

The M5000 was closely base on the K5000 for Cologne, but one of the changes was to omit the steps that could be used to board it from street level. They are visible on photos of the K5000. I understand there's a space underneath the vestibule where they would have been in the K5000.

Presumably, then, TfGM decided not to specify these on the M5000 for some reason. This seems a bit odd to me, as it would have avoided the need for the closure of Moseley Street and extensive rebuilding of platforms in the city centre. I don't think the steps on the T68s were very reliable though; perhaps they just wanted to be rid of them.

It could just have been on cost grounds, I suppose, but in the context of a complete rail vehicle, installing a few sliding steps in a space which is already designed to carry them can't be a massive increase in cost, can it?

If what you say about there being a space under the vestibule is correct, I wonder if they could be retro-fitted.

 

[Chester1]

TfGM have aspirations to run tram trains and that will be a lot cheaper due to high floors.

Someone with expertise could do the sums but id wager that the extra cost of relatively unusual stock is vastly smaller than the cost of rebuilding 100 tram stops.

 

[Basil Jet]

there are lots of platforms to rebuild,

While the street-running platforms would have to be deconstructed, at the segregated platforms wouldn't raising the track (a) be cheaper, and (b) make for more energy efficient acceleration and deceleration since every tram stops at every station?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

While the street-running platforms would have to be deconstructed, at the segregated platforms wouldn't raising the track (a) be cheaper, and (b) make for more energy efficient acceleration and deceleration since every tram stops at every station?

Building up the trackbed versus reducing the height of platforms there probably wouldn't be much difference in terms of how much you have to pay your builders. One needs material adding and the other needs it taking away, but building lower platforms could be done adjacent to the existing high ones in many cases, meaning the network could remain open for longer with a period of both types of vehicle in use.

All academic of course, as the high floor trams aren't actually a problem. Probably easier to do tram-train with high floor, though AFAIK all current uses of the technology are low-floor.

 

[zwk500]

Building up the trackbed versus reducing the height of platforms there probably wouldn't be much difference in terms of how much you have to pay your builders. One needs material adding and the other needs it taking away, but building lower platforms could be done adjacent to the existing high ones in many cases, meaning the network could remain open for longer with a period of both types of vehicle in use.

All academic of course, as the high floor trams aren't actually a problem. Probably easier to do tram-train with high floor, though AFAIK all current uses of the technology are low-floor.

BIB - this is the strategy that would probably be taken if it ever happened. Build Rotherham Central-style mixed-level platforms to allow both types of tram to overlap. Of course, that doubles the length of the station and will have an impact on crossing sighting, points positions etc.

 

[edwin_m]

Presumably, then, TfGM decided not to specify these on the M5000 for some reason. This seems a bit odd to me, as it would have avoided the need for the closure of Moseley Street and extensive rebuilding of platforms in the city centre. I don't think the steps on the T68s were very reliable though; perhaps they just wanted to be rid of them.

It could just have been on cost grounds, I suppose, but in the context of a complete rail vehicle, installing a few sliding steps in a space which is already designed to carry them can't be a massive increase in cost, can it?

If what you say about there being a space under the vestibule is correct, I wonder if they could be retro-fitted.

Pretty sure Mosley Street could have been re-built with a high platform if they had wanted. The real problem was operational capacity after Phase 3 - having a tram stop just after leaving the triangle blocks following trams from passing through the most critical junction on the network. With the level of crowding at some city centre stations, keeping profiled platforms would probably have been seen as a hazard.

I imagine they saved quite a bit of money by omitting the moveable steps from the M5000s, not only in first cost but in maintenance and reliability problems avoided.

TfGM have aspirations to run tram trains and that will be a lot cheaper due to high floors.

Someone with expertise could do the sums but id wager that the extra cost of relatively unusual stock is vastly smaller than the cost of rebuilding 100 tram stops.

Building up the trackbed versus reducing the height of platforms there probably wouldn't be much difference in terms of how much you have to pay your builders. One needs material adding and the other needs it taking away, but building lower platforms could be done adjacent to the existing high ones in many cases, meaning the network could remain open for longer with a period of both types of vehicle in use.

All academic of course, as the high floor trams aren't actually a problem. Probably easier to do tram-train with high floor, though AFAIK all current uses of the technology are low-floor.

I doubt there is much difference in the cost of tram-train vehicles for high versus low floors. The ones in Cardiff are high floor. The main cost difference for tram-trains probably relates to stations on the heavy rail network, where lowering the platform would be disruptive but having to build high and low platforms end to end (if still served by passing trains) risks affecting all sorts of signals and structures off the platform ends.

 

[stuu]

Building up the trackbed versus reducing the height of platforms there probably wouldn't be much difference in terms of how much you have to pay your builders. One needs material adding and the other needs it taking away, but building lower platforms could be done adjacent to the existing high ones in many cases, meaning the network could remain open for longer with a period of both types of vehicle in use.

All academic of course, as the high floor trams aren't actually a problem. Probably easier to do tram-train with high floor, though AFAIK all current uses of the technology are low-floor.

The newer extensions all use pre-cast segments on a flat foundation for the platforms, so in theory they could be craned out and replaced very quickly with different sized segments. Still can't see how it would be value for money, but technically it shouldn't be hard.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The M5000s do not enjoy the supposed superior riding qualities of high-floor trams for they are shockingly rough at speed on the 'country' sections towards Rochdale and Altrincham. The T68s which they replaced were absolutely fine in this respect.

Utrecht in the Netherlands has just converted to low-floor, on admittedly a very much smaller system, prompted by the need to renew the 1980s stock and the opening of a new extension to the University. It was initially operated in two parts with the new line low-floor from the outset, but now connected up via Central station and low-floor throughout.

 

[geoffk]

There would have been an opportunity in the early days of Metrolink, when only the Altrincham and Bury lines were running, to opt for a mixed low/floor high floor system, i.e. to build all future lines with low platforms. This would have meant two separate tram fleets and split-level platforms in central Manchester able to be served by both fleets. But it would have reduced the cost of later lines and enabled street running trams to avoid the need to divert off the road, as they do on the Eccles and Ashton lines. But then what about tram-trains (if they happen)? They would be high-floor and so could not serve the low-platform stops.

 

[javelin]

Most of these supposed problems don't in fact exist anyway.

It is significantly cheaper to acquire low-floor rolling stock? The M5000 is IIRC about £2.3 million per unit. That's a pretty standard cost for an equivalent low-floor tram. There are plenty of manufacturers who will supply high-floor vehicles if you ask. And for that matter high-floor light rail vehicles aren't that rare, just plenty are branded as metro.

Is building high-floor platforms massively more expensive? Were Metrolink's new lines (after Altrincham/Bury) particularly expensive per km compared to other systems in the UK? I don't see any evidence for that. When it comes to street sections, the largest costs of building on-street are not building a few extra slabs of concrete, it's moving the utilities. I actually don't mind the high platforms in the city centre, they keep passengers waiting to board out of busy pedestrian flows.

 

[py_megapixel]

Most of these supposed problems don't in fact exist anyway.

It is significantly cheaper to acquire low-floor rolling stock? The M5000 is IIRC about £2.3 million per unit. That's a pretty standard cost for an equivalent low-floor tram. There are plenty of manufacturers who will supply high-floor vehicles if you ask. And for that matter high-floor light rail vehicles aren't that rare, just plenty are branded as metro.

Is building high-floor platforms massively more expensive? Were Metrolink's new lines (after Altrincham/Bury) particularly expensive per km compared to other systems in the UK? I don't see any evidence for that. When it comes to street sections, the largest costs of building on-street are not building a few extra slabs of concrete, it's moving the utilities. I actually don't mind the high platforms in the city centre, they keep passengers waiting to board out of busy pedestrian flows.

I think you're right.

The Metrolink system currently does its job quite well, and I believe people generally have a positive impression of it in Manchester, at least compared to the mainline railways which are a bit of a mess. The fares are sensible, the rolling stock is arguably a bit austere but perfectly adequate for the length of journey, and an 5tph electric service is certainly nothing to be sniffed at. (Also, the oldest M5000 is newer than much of Northern's fleet!).

The system does have its flaws, but none of the major ones are really to do with it being high-floor. (I'd say the main one is actually live passenger information. There are certain bus operators which now wipe the floor with Metrolink in terms of information both on board and at stops, especially considering they don't usually have Metrolink's bizarre allergy to route numbers/letters. The system also seems very slow in places, such as on the new section from Pomona to Wharfside).

 

[BPX]

TfGM have aspirations to run tram trains and that will be a lot cheaper due to high floors.

Someone with expertise could do the sums but id wager that the extra cost of relatively unusual stock is vastly smaller than the cost of rebuilding 100 tram stops.

Aren't the M5000s already tram-trains? The line to Bury an Altrincham is an ex-railway line.

 

[Gostav]

Aren't the M5000s already tram-trains? The line to Bury an Altrincham is an ex-railway line.

Tram-train means the tram will be run on railway line with other trains and follow railway signals such as Sheffield Tram-Train, Manchester Metrolink trams only run on completely separate lines which are not tram-trains.

 

[BPX]

Tram-train means the tram will be run on railway line with other trains and follow railway signals such as Sheffield Tram-Train, Manchester Metrolink trams only run on completely separate lines which are not tram-trains.

I believe before the coloured-aspects they were considered tram-trains before they got converted to LOS signalling with SGIs. All they'd need to do is convert the cab of the M5000s and include AWS/TPWS functionality just like with their recent fleet with ATS operation?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Aren't the M5000s already tram-trains? The line to Bury an Altrincham is an ex-railway line.

Tram-train means the tram will be run on railway line with other trains and follow railway signals such as Sheffield Tram-Train, Manchester Metrolink trams only run on completely separate lines which are not tram-trains.

I believe before the coloured-aspects they were considered tram-trains before they got converted to LOS signalling with SGIs. All they'd need to do is convert the cab of the M5000s and include AWS/TPWS functionality just like with their recent fleet with ATS operation?

Any tram-train vehicle that shares track with heavy-rail traffic will need to meet higher standards for crash performance, due to the much greater forces involved. I don't believe the M5000s would meet that standard, but I might be wrong. If they did, I'm sure there would have been some movement towards sorting out the awkward arrangements at Navigation Road and on the Oldham line.

 

[edwin_m]

Any tram-train vehicle that shares track with heavy-rail traffic will need to meet higher standards for crash performance, due to the much greater forces involved. I don't believe the M5000s would meet that standard, but I might be wrong. If they did, I'm sure there would have been some movement towards sorting out the awkward arrangements at Navigation Road and on the Oldham line.

Tram-trains don't meet the heavy rail standards for crashworthiness - that's the reason they need enhanced train protection provision such as TPWS at all signals. The degree of risk depends on the probability as well as the severity of a possible collision, and as the severity is higher the probability is reduced to compensate.

Having said that, more recent tram-train designs do include extra crashworthiness so are intermediate between trams and trains. But that could possibly be argued out in a safety case, based on alternative provisions being made instead.