Manchester Metrolink master thread

[Manchester77]

Additionally there are lots of tight curves that couldn't take such a long single unit.

 

[HSTEd]

Additionally there are lots of tight curves that couldn't take such a long single unit.

Wait what?

Why would a multiple articulation vehicle be unable to take the curves associated a pair of single articulation vehicles coupled together?

 

[Nym]

They wouldn't... A long unit would be fine.

 

[HSTEd]

How much would it affect service reliability if some double length trams had been ordered and then if that failed a service could run albeit short formed?

My experience with observing the Metrolink is that if a vehicle fails in service the whole service collapses anyway such is the tightness of the timetable.
Whether you have to remove a double length set to the depot or merely one of a pair of single length sets is largely academic.

Additionally a double length set would have only the same number of single points of failure that can cause a single length set to fail, such as cab electronics, TMS and the pantograph.

You could easily have two independent traction packages that would be able to operate alone if one failed and get the whole set back to depot.
So I am not sure its that important... and if it was important why are single articulation trams becoming increasingly rare in newbuild systems?

 

[Nym]

Exactly, it's not that hard to have two isolated units connected together...

Even the S Stock is still two units joined at the hip with a very nice big ISOLATE switch and pair of cocks in the centre...

 

[Manchester77]

Updates about Cornbrook firstly:
- On Sunday (21/07/13) there will be no services on the Eccles or Altrincham lines. Additionally there will be no service on the ORL line with SML services running East Didsbury - Chorlton.
- According to the metrolink Facebook blog, TMS testing didn't go according to plan last weekend so further testing is planned for this weekend. It is expected that TMS will almost defiantly be working on the Monday (22/07/13).
- The real benefit of TMS on the viaduct will be better spacing of trams and the ability to recover from severe service disruptions due to additional spacing.

Onto the discussion about double length vehicles:
- Appologies, I hadn't read your post properly I was thinking of an M5000 style vehicle but with 4 segments which defiantly wouldn't fit around some of the curves by a Nottingham style vehicle yes has more articulations. I don't know if such a beast could be produced high floor though.
- I think a contributing factor of the present configuration of vehicles is that the new order was initially supposed to be fully compatible with T68 designed trams. A longer Nottingham style unit wouldn't be able to run in service as a double. Obviously now this wouldn't be an issue as T68s won't be around for much longer but I do believe that the origanal plan was that after the T68s refurbishment trams would be interchangeable for example 1004 and 3004 could run in service without major complexities.
- Additionally, once the roll out of TMS is complete its hoped that two single trams can occupy the same platform at once in the peak to speed up services.

 

[Starmill]

All this talk of doubles is, for the moment, somewhat redundant. In regular service the only doubles are on the Altrincham - Bury service and some peak time 'extras' provided for the East Didsbury - Manchester passengers, which do have to run full journeys to Rochdale. The doubles used for the South Manchester Line are split up after they have done their trips as there isn't the need for them for the rest of the time. There are doubles on running (usually) Victoria - Etihad shuttles for events at Etihad... but you'd have to be out of your mind to suggest that doubles are ever really appropriate for the East Manchester Line in its present state! Of course its not finished yet and patronage will build up ect. ect. but the only reason doubles are running there during these works is to maintain capacity on the Bury line, where the Saturday service was reduced from 10 to 5 tph, but all the trams were doubled to make up for it.

Even when the network does finally need other services to be regularly doubled, the loss of flexibility is too much for the tiny amount of extra capacity you get by removing two cabs. At least, that's my take on it, based on my experience of TfGM's attitude to the service it specifies... which really doesn't often do doubles! For example the idea is very much that all Alty - Bury services would be doubles... but we STILL only have up to 9 of the 10 sets as doubles (and either 1 or two of those are usually T68s!). The Alty-Bury service (usually) operates fewer doubles on a Saturday and doesn't run for as long hours... it doesn't run at all on Sundays. What would the fixed double formations do then? TfGM would see that as a waste of capacity.

What might be interesting in this respect though is what happens if we get tram-trains!

 

[edwin_m]

Updates about Cornbrook firstly:
- Appologies, I hadn't read your post properly I was thinking of an M5000 style vehicle but with 4 segments which defiantly wouldn't fit around some of the curves by a Nottingham style vehicle yes has more articulations. I don't know if such a beast could be produced high floor though.

Why? As long as no individual segment is longer between pivots than those of the existing vehicle, and similar arrangements at the pivots, it will go round the same curves. You might get away with four large segments and three articulations, but throw on cuves may mean the cabless segments have to be shorter (as they don't taper at the ends) so three cabless (five total) are needed.

Another option, used in Stuttgart and elsewhere, is to have the existing arrangement but with no cab at one end, and run two coupled back to back. There would be no passenger access between the two halves as the lateral movement on transition curves would be too much to provide a gangway.

No existing dual-voltage tram-train design is shorter than about 37m, because of the extra space needed for the high voltage equipment. If dual-voltage tram-trains were bought for Manchester, they would have to run singly and would probably be made up to about 60m long so as to maximise capacity in the city centre.

 

[Manchester77]

I'm unsure if you're fully familiar with metrolink but there are some pretty tight turns. There an almost 90° turn just after Pomona, the the ramp between Salford Quays and Exchange Quay, then there's the Market Sreet area. Think these are the main tight points. And as starmill has said the is actually little need for such vehicles as doubles will oly be used on ALT-BUR runs post 2016

 

[northwichcat]

And as starmill has said the is actually little need for such vehicles as doubles will oly be used on ALT-BUR runs post 2016

If passenger numbers grow then single trams won't be good for Altrincham-Piccadilly services.

 

[Manchester77]

The current order for M5000s is for all single services with the maximum number of AT-BUR services double which is I think 8/9 out of the 10 following power upgrades. If the Port Salford line is given the go ahead we may well see additional trams for more services to be double but the current order of 94 trams covers the above

 

[Rhydgaled]

If passenger numbers grow then single trams won't be good for Altrincham-Piccadilly services.

In my opinion Altrincham - Piccadilly already needs doubles at some times when the Altrincham-Bury service isn't running (or increase the hours/days of Altrincham-Bury operation). I also wouldn't be supprised if all services were full in the peaks even if everything was doubles.

 

[Manchester77]

It'd certainly be more likely that the hours of ALT-BUR are extended than ALT-PIC doubles purely due to tram availability and the number of trams. Passengers from the Altrincham line have the 'enhanced' double 6 minute service to Cornbrook where there are additional trams to Piccadilly where people can change.

 

[northwichcat]

Passengers from the Altrincham line have the 'enhanced' double 6 minute service to Cornbrook where there are additional trams to Piccadilly where people can change.

Although no strict timetable meaning passengers have no idea whether they will make a connection or not and once MediaCity services become a shuttle to/from Cornbrook it'll increase the chance of the next Piccadilly tram being the one the one they could have picked up at Altrincham 6 minutes later.

Connections between Metrolink and Northern Rail at Altrincham seem to be causing real problems for people at the moment as there have been a lot of complaints that arriving at a city centre stop 45 minutes or more before the Northern service leaves Altrincham can result in you not making the connection at Altrincham. Obviously if you miss the train and have to wait an additional hour a journey time of up to 2 hours between central Manchester and Knutsford is very unattractive. Even the chairman of the local RUG got caught out recently and he insisted on a Saturday evening it took over one hour between arriving at Shudehill stop and arriving at Altrincham and he caught the next available tram from Shudehill and changed to an Altrincham one and he's vowed to never to not use Metrolink any time soon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In my opinion Altrincham - Piccadilly already needs doubles at some times when the Altrincham-Bury service isn't running (or increase the hours/days of Altrincham-Bury operation). I also wouldn't be supprised if all services were full in the peaks even if everything was doubles.

To make matters worse on the Piccadilly services whenever Bury-Altrincham services get delayed by more than a couple of minutes they might be terminated short at Timperley, which is fairly common late afternoon when Metrolink have the evening peak city centre flow on their minds, which then makes the following Piccadilly service northbound very busy with all the school/college pupils at Altrincham.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm unsure if you're fully familiar with metrolink ...

I've run fifty-odd design safety meetings for Phase 3 and was also the project manager for technical support to TfGM's tram-train strategy. How about you?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

To make matters worse on the Piccadilly services whenever Bury-Altrincham services get delayed by more than a couple of minutes they might be terminated short at Timperley.

If these services are terminated at Timperley, do passengers have the use of a bus service facility from that stop to use to continue onwards to Altrincham ?

 

[Manchester77]

I've run fifty-odd design safety meetings for Phase 3 and was also the project manager for technical support to TfGM's tram-train strategy. How about you?

was I actually saying that you were unfamiliar I was questioning if you were as I didn't know some people have a lot of knowledge of operation but not of the routes it varies hence me being unsure how familiar you are on SCC there aren't people so saying thats fine sorry

paul I think they only allow metrolink tickets to be used when theres no service whereas in the case of terminating short its expected you wait for the next tram to altrincham

 

[Starmill]

If these services are terminated at Timperley, do passengers have the use of a bus service facility from that stop to use to continue onwards to Altrincham ?

Indeed, M77. Unfortunately, when this happens, the driver directs people to wait on the platform for the next Altrincham tram service.

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed, M77. Unfortunately, when this happens, the driver directs people to wait on the platform for the next Altrincham tram service.

Do you have a timetable for that service? Nothing under M77 appears on the TfGM site and searching for bus services that serve the Timperley area brings up the following:

16 ALTRINCHAM - SALE - CHORLTON - MANCHESTER
19 ALTRINCHAM - SALE - WYTHENSHAWE - AIRPORT
41 ALTRINCHAM - NORTHENDEN - RUSHOLME - MANCHESTER
16A MANCHESTER - CHORLTON - STRETFORD - ALTRINCHAM
245 EXCHANGE QUAY - FLIXTON - STRETFORD - ALTRINCHAM
247 ECCLES - FLIXTON - SINDERLAND - ALTRINCHAM
263 ALTRINCHAM - SALE - HULME - MANCHESTER
X41 ALTRINCHAM - NORTHENDEN - RUSHOLME - MANCHESTER

Also I've heard that when Metrolink is disrupted and passengers are advised that their tickets will be accepted on certain Arriva routes some people who have valid tickets for Metrolink which aren't on standard yellow ticket stock get told they aren't good for the bus.

 

[Manchester77]

When there's distrtion it's usually the 245 which is a single deck Arriva route which is inadequate for the number of people haveing to use it.

By timetable do you mean for the bus route or Altrincham line, if you need the Altrincham line one I can email it you by the bus one is here
http://www.arrivabus.co.uk/uploadedfiles/Services/North_West/NWWY245_270113_130113.pdf

 

[northwichcat]

By timetable do you mean for the bus route or Altrincham line

starmill says above there is a M77 bus service which can be used as an alternative if an Altrincham tram terminates at Timperley which I've never heard of and can't find any information on. The only thing I can think of is they are actually referring to a bus service which run as a Metrolink replacement service when there were engineering works between Timperley and Altrincham.

 

[Manchester77]

I thought he was saying indeed to my post above his and my user name is Abbreviated to M77...

 

[Starmill]

Sorry jcollins, think you got the wrong end of the stick with that one!

M77 is indeed an abbreviation for Manchester77's username!

Did it not tip you off that the rest of the sentence says that people are directed to wait on the platform when a tram turns short? Buses are not provided.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also I've heard that when Metrolink is disrupted and passengers are advised that their tickets will be accepted on certain Arriva routes some people who have valid tickets for Metrolink which aren't on standard yellow ticket stock get told they aren't good for the bus.

^ THIS. Too right! I guess a lot of it is down to the bus driver, but I have had to pay for a single in the past because a held a through ticket to a Metrolink Zone, printed on standard orange stock.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sorry jcollins, think you got the wrong end of the stick with that one! M77 is indeed an abbreviation for Manchester77's username!

What makes it even more confusing is that you used a quote from MY posting to make your reply to Manchester77....hock:

 

[Starmill]

What makes it even more confusing is that you used a quote from MY posting to make your reply to Manchester77....hock:

No, Paul, I was replying to you, but with the assistence of Manchester77.

 

[martin2345uk]

I do believe that the origanal plan was that after the T68s refurbishment trams would be interchangeable for example 1004 and 3004 could run in service without major complexities..

Where do you get this stuff from. I thought it was long agreed that the 2 types of tram have totally incompatible braking systems for a start.

 

[Manchester77]

There was a PDF thing I had saved on my laptop but then it died along with everything with it. As I recall it wasn't by TfGM/Stagecoach Metrolink so it may not have been reliable but I'll see if I can find it and post it

 

[snowball]

What makes it even more confusing is that there is no M77 postcode, but there is a Scottish motorway.

 

[Class377/5]

Where do you get this stuff from. I thought it was long agreed that the 2 types of tram have totally incompatible braking systems for a start.

If your refurbishing the trams to the scale needed, it would have made more sense to add this modification.

 

[Starmill]

If your refurbishing the trams to the scale needed, it would have made more sense to add this modification.

There are trams being refurbished?