New Metrolink routes after second city crossing.

[edwin_m]

Ah, you are looking at elevating the roads not the railway/tramway, my mistake.

However on their existing sites I think this would be impossible as both ramps for Deansgate Lane and the eastern one at Navigation Road would have to land in areas of housing which if not directly demolished would be severely blighted by overshadowing or losing their vehicle access. Looking at the map I wonder if an alternative to Deansgate Lane might be created by extending Newstead Terrace along one of the two disused trackbeds from Skelton Junction that pass over both the railway and the Metrolink. But for Navigation Road I can't see any alternative other than to replace with a pedestrian footbridge and expect all vehicles to use Woodlands Road.

 

[snowball]

I was suggesting that it might be worth replacing the train crossing with a bridge, which due to proximity would also mean the tram crossing being replaced as a bonus.

This would require demolition of several houses - several at each site, if both LCs were replaced.

Fortunately neighbour objections rarely stop railway projects.

Perhaps because projects to demolish several houses solely to replace a level crossing on a minor road are almost never put forward in the first place.

 

[Greybeard33]

Ah, you are looking at elevating the roads not the railway/tramway, my mistake.

However on their existing sites I think this would be impossible as both ramps for Deansgate Lane and the eastern one at Navigation Road would have to land in areas of housing which if not directly demolished would be severely blighted by overshadowing or losing their vehicle access. Looking at the map I wonder if an alternative to Deansgate Lane might be created by extending Newstead Terrace along one of the two disused trackbeds from Skelton Junction that pass over both the railway and the Metrolink. But for Navigation Road I can't see any alternative other than to replace with a pedestrian footbridge and expect all vehicles to use Woodlands Road.

Regarding a Newstead Terrace extension, the OOU Skelton Jn to Partington line is protected for possible future reopening, and the Skelton Jn end is still in use as a siding for engineering trains. The alternative route, along the alignment of the old Warrington line, might be feasible, but would require repurchase of the plot of land between the bridge and Deansgate Lane, which was sold off years ago - now a car park/container storage area.

In any case this would be a long diversion, not giving much benefit compared with using the existing Moss Lane overbridge and Park Road.

Navigation Road is very busy and the alternative route via Woodlands Road is slow and congested in the peaks, so I am sure there would be an outcry if there were a proposal to close the crossing.

 

[Greybeard33]

It would depend on site assessment by the operators. However the same risk of an inattentive driver exists at all the simple tramway junctions too. If they fail to act on the signal there must be a risk they would also fail to pay attention to conflicting road traffic - especially in a location inside the barriers where they would be habituated to expect no traffic would ever be when they were approaching.

But yes, it is possible a lower speed would be imposed here.

The risk of a lapse of concentration must be greater when driving on a segregated light rail line than when driving a tram on the public highway. In the latter case, the potential hazards from conflicting road vehicles and pedestrians demand more engagement of cognitive processing, so helping to prevent the driver's conscious mind wandering.

It seems to me that the loss of ATS protection on Metrolink is a step backwards. Numerous tragic accidents over the years have convinced the heavy rail industry of the importance of automatic protection systems such as TPWS, rather than relying on driver infallibility.

 

[Chester1]

Perhaps because projects to demolish several houses solely to replace a level crossing on a minor road are almost never put forward in the first place.

It could be done by demolishing two houses at each site and part of Navigation Road Station (and extending it in the other direction). They may be minor roads but anything much more than the current 1tph + occasional peak extra and freight on top of 10 trams per hour is absurd for any level crossing. I agree that the Metrolink signalling wouldnt justify it but the level crossings could pass a sensible limit through an improvement in the current inadequate train service. With some investment the line could support 4tph between Altrincham and Piccadilly, if sufficient paths through Stockport became available.

 

[Altfish]

It could be done by demolishing two houses at each site and part of Navigation Road Station (and extending it in the other direction). They may be minor roads but anything much more than the current 1tph + occasional peak extra and freight on top of 10 trams per hour is absurd for any level crossing. I agree that the Metrolink signalling wouldnt justify it but the level crossings could pass a sensible limit through an improvement in the current inadequate train service. With some investment the line could support 4tph between Altrincham and Piccadilly, if sufficient paths through Stockport became available.

There are currently 2tph and about 5 or 6 freights a day.
The best solution to the level crossing problem would be to permanently close them. Deansgate Lane crossing could be closed without much pain, as long as pedestrian access was maintained (footbridge?). Navigation Road is much busier and not easy to close and as has been said earlier the only diversion is Woodlands Road which is a fairly distance away.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I am planning a visit to Manchester fairly soon, is teh second city link now working ok and is the best day fare £ 5.00 Thanks.?

 

[PermitToTravel]

It's up and running and that's the best ticket if you want to use the whole network. A rail ticket from Ardwick to Manchester is an option if you only want the Central Zone

 

[WatcherZero]

If you buy a single trip ticket outward portion has to be completed within 120 minutes but you have all day to make the return.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I see the title of this thread concerns new Metrolink routes after 2CC, so I am intrigued as to which new Metrolink route will encompass the Deansgate Lane and Navigation Road scenarios that have been recently discussed on the thread.

 

[rebmcr]

I was suggesting that it might be worth replacing the train crossing with a bridge, which due to proximity would also mean the tram crossing being replaced as a bonus. Fortunately neighbour objections rarely stop railway projects. There are advantages to removing the level crossing if the railway line ever gets a long over due upgrade.

There are currently 2tph and about 5 or 6 freights a day.
The best solution to the level crossing problem would be to permanently close them. Deansgate Lane crossing could be closed without much pain, as long as pedestrian access was maintained (footbridge?). Navigation Road is much busier and not easy to close and as has been said earlier the only diversion is Woodlands Road which is a fairly distance away.

Another option would be to whack in a short viaduct for two NR tracks, and have the existing ground-level alignment fully taken-over by Metrolink -- replacing the level crossings with traffic lights. Eliminates single-tracking fro two routes, fully separates signalling, removes the LCs from NR's remit, and empties GMITA's coffers... oh, wait.

 

[WatcherZero]

If you did that it would be cheaper to put tram rather than heavy rail on top as it can handle steeper gradients meaning shorter viaduct. The whole idea of a viaduct Would be horribly expensive and do nothing for the level crossings though.

 

[Ianno87]

I see the title of this thread concerns new Metrolink routes after 2CC, so I am intrigued as to which new Metrolink route will encompass the Deansgate Lane and Navigation Road scenarios that have been recently discussed on the thread.

Uhhhhh.... you're the person who asked the question about Navigation Rd in the first place that bore no relation to the thread topic.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Uhhhhh.... you're the person who asked the question about Navigation Rd in the first place that bore no relation to the thread topic.

Why did no-one then show me the error of my ways and put the thread back on topic?

That fact that then others continued in the same vein appears to make me somewhat akin to the person portrayed in the oil painting of the "The Hireling Shepherd" that was painted in 1851 by the famous Pre-Raphaelite painter, William Holman Hunt...

 

[rebmcr]

Why did no-one then show me the error of my ways and put the thread back on topic?

That fact that then others continued in the same vein appears to make me somewhat akin to the person portrayed in the oil painting of the "The Hireling Shepherd" that was painted in 1851 by the famous Pre-Raphaelite painter, William Holman Hunt...

Stop talking about fine art and stay on topic, Paul.

 

[Chester1]

Class 399 (Sheffield Tram Trains) are 37m (3 car) vs Metrolink tram 30m (2 car). If TfGM decides to introduce tram trains to Marple would it be feasible to alter sufficient stops to make 74m (6 car) services possible? Piccadilly would be expensive. Id guess that Piccadilly Gardens and Market Street platforms could be extended with a significant change of track layout. Shudehill would need one road closure (north), Victoria, Queens Park and Abraham Moss would be straightforward and the rest are old train stations with much longer platforms. Would any other service be viable?

 

[edwin_m]

Class 399 (Sheffield Tram Trains) are 37m (3 car) vs Metrolink tram 30m (2 car). If TfGM decides to introduce tram trains to Marple would it be feasible to alter sufficient stops to make 74m (6 car) services possible? Piccadilly would be expensive. Id guess that Piccadilly Gardens and Market Street platforms could be extended with a significant change of track layout. Shudehill would need one road closure (north), Victoria, Queens Park and Abraham Moss would be straightforward and the rest are old train stations with much longer platforms. Would any other service be viable?

From various sources I believe 60m is the maximum viable length for Metrolink operation in the city centre. Any tram-trains for Manchester would probably be made up of additional sections to be approximately that length, and therefore would not be coupled except in emergency.

 

[Greybeard33]

From various sources I believe 60m is the maximum viable length for Metrolink operation in the city centre. Any tram-trains for Manchester would probably be made up of additional sections to be approximately that length, and therefore would not be coupled except in emergency.

Yes, the M5000 is actually 28.4m long with couplers retracted, so a double set is a bit over 57m. The Sheffield tram-trains are 37m because that is a standard length for tram-trains on the continent - I believe it is the maximum length allowed for on-street operation in Germany?

The German tram-train model has generally been to convert lightly-used heavy rail lines around city regions smaller than Greater Manchester, in order to improve city centre penetration. The 37m length provides adequate capacity for these German routes, whereas TfGM envisages conversion of busy suburban commuter lines and so would want higher capacity vehicles able to take advantage of the full length of the existing Metrolink platforms.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, the M5000 is actually 28.4m long with couplers retracted, so a double set is a bit over 57m. The Sheffield tram-trains are 37m because that is a standard length for tram-trains on the continent - I believe it is the maximum length allowed for on-street operation in Germany?

The German tram-train design evolved from a standard two-section tram by keeping the ends with the DC power equipment largely unchanged but adding a centre section with the transformer and other equipment needed to run on 15kV. Some of the Kassel ones have a diesel engine instead of a transformer, but it still supplies 750Vdc to a standard-ish tram traction package. This left the length at about 37m. The centre section (maybe not on all designs) has no doors and is designed as a seating area for people travelling longer distances.

Later designs have diverged from trams, mainly by adding extra crashworthiness, but still keep to roughly the same length. It still seems to be the case that a shorter tram-train wouldn't have enough space on the roof for all the equipment needed.

I've never heard of a maximum tram length in Germany, and Wikipedia states that Dresden has trams (not tram-trains) 45m long and the freight tram is 60m long. The critical factor is usually either platform length or making sure a tram stopped by traffic signals doesn't block the junction it has just passed through.

 

[Chester1]

Yes, the M5000 is actually 28.4m long with couplers retracted, so a double set is a bit over 57m. The Sheffield tram-trains are 37m because that is a standard length for tram-trains on the continent - I believe it is the maximum length allowed for on-street operation in Germany?

The German tram-train model has generally been to convert lightly-used heavy rail lines around city regions smaller than Greater Manchester, in order to improve city centre penetration. The 37m length provides adequate capacity for these German routes, whereas TfGM envisages conversion of busy suburban commuter lines and so would want higher capacity vehicles able to take advantage of the full length of the existing Metrolink platforms.

If 60m is the current limit id be surprised if there was no room for extensions and junction alterations on at least Piccadilly to Bury. Even a 5 car tram train at aproximately 61.5m would be an improvement on 57m and allow better spreading of passengers compared with a double tram. I have seen the 60m limit a few times but never a breakdown on where the limit cannot be increased.

 

[edwin_m]

If 60m is the current limit id be surprised if there was no room for extensions and junction alterations on at least Piccadilly to Bury. Even a 5 car tram train at aproximately 61.5m would be an improvement on 57m and allow better spreading of passengers compared with a double tram. I have seen the 60m limit a few times but never a breakdown on where the limit cannot be increased.

I've not seen one either but I think your assessment a few posts back was pretty accurate. The Piccadilly constraint might vanish if, as is possible, there is a comprehensive rebuild for HS2/NPR that could bring the tram into new platforms on the Store Street side. However not being able to divert a tram down Mosley Street or 2CC in the event of blockage of the intended route could be an operational headache, and longer trams do increase occupancy of road and tram junctions which all stack up. The Gardens triangle also has places where trams can wait without causing conflict, and capacity would be reduced if these were removed (either because trams became too long to use them or because of layout changes to lengthen the platforms either side).

 

[WatcherZero]

There is indeed a legal limit on length in Germany, I cant remember what it was at the moment though I think it was derived from a maximum amount of articulations permitted.

 

[nerd]

There is indeed a legal limit on length in Germany, I cant remember what it was at the moment though I think it was derived from a maximum amount of articulations permitted.

75m is the limit on tram-train length in Germany; being two 37m units coupled. Some services in Karlsruhe do run in this configuration; however this length is commonly considered too long by most commenators, and is a major reason for Karslruhe's decision to sink the main tram-train route into a tunnel.

TfGM have already stated that they regard 37m as too short for their envisaged tram-train services, as they see a need for service capacities greater than 300; so either a new design with a length greater than 40m would be implied, or two 28m units run coupled.

 

[Nym]

If 60m is the current limit id be surprised if there was no room for extensions and junction alterations on at least Piccadilly to Bury. Even a 5 car tram train at aproximately 61.5m would be an improvement on 57m and allow better spreading of passengers compared with a double tram. I have seen the 60m limit a few times but never a breakdown on where the limit cannot be increased.

Market St is sandwiched between two curves, Victoria is sandwiched between a large junction and an overbridge, Shudehill is bound on two sides by a public road, Piccadilly is in an under croft that would present significant difficulty, Piccadilly gardens may be able to get a few more metres but is sandwiched by a junction and Portland St, St Peter's Square is plenty tight enough, again, with junctions either side, and Exchange Square has a junction on one side and the two parts of Arndale on the other closing in on each other, again, like Piccadilly Gardens, maybe a few meters but that's it.

I do not think that Tram-Trains for the likes of Marple and New Mills is the right play, unfortunately, there isn't space at Piccadilly for the right play. Even if one where to re-open the likes of Mayfield for services approaching on the Slows from Stockport (or when six tracked, the airport), the LDHS services in platforms 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 would not fit in anything beyond Platform 10, so only one platform could be gained for the "E" lines. Similarly, HS2 is going to take the space to the North East of the station, unless two platforms are added for the "E" lines prior to this.

An alternative could be to run some services via Philips Park and into Victoria, ignoring the time penalty, there isn't space there either.

All that could be achieved should electrification meet the end of the suburban networks, is that trains are lengthened to their realistic maximum, and standardised against all services via Ashburys. Dividing into 'service groups' and running to a standard timetable cycle, such that any service can return out on any other service, and be timetabled as such. Of course, Diesel services to Sheffield will need sufficently high performance rolling stock to keep out of the way of EMUs.

The bonus of course with the Ordsall Cord is that one could effectively isolate the "E" line services into Manchester, this could spell improvements to services on these lines, perhaps with a 10 minutely clock face timetable with additonal services on a 5 minutely basis for peak services, and the two remaining TPE services on the 'off 5 mins' paths, adjustments would of course be made to allow with headway, for differing stopping patterns to Guide Bridge.

It may simply be that Tram-Train, without the aforementioned improvements, is the least worst option.

 

[nerd]

Yes, the M5000 is actually 28.4m long with couplers retracted, so a double set is a bit over 57m. The Sheffield tram-trains are 37m because that is a standard length for tram-trains on the continent - I believe it is the maximum length allowed for on-street operation in Germany?

The German tram-train model has generally been to convert lightly-used heavy rail lines around city regions smaller than Greater Manchester, in order to improve city centre penetration. The 37m length provides adequate capacity for these German routes, whereas TfGM envisages conversion of busy suburban commuter lines and so would want higher capacity vehicles able to take advantage of the full length of the existing Metrolink platforms.

Quite so, GB.

The German standard model for tram-train operation is to provide what are essentially regional commuter rail services over heavy rail tracks; but by using light rail vehicles, and building a connecting spur into a street-running tram track, to run the final kilometre or so into town on tram tracks. Because such services are envisaged as sharing most of their route with normal regiona rail operations, frequency is similar to heavy rail standards - commonly 2 services per hour, and not more than 4 per hour. Outside the city, stops are at train stations and fairly widely spaced. In UK terms, you might see Chester or Preston as the sort of city where this might be considered an optimum mode of light rail service.

Contrariwise, TfGM (and Nexus in Newcastle) envisage what are essentially light rail services into a metropolitan city centre, mostly on dedicated routes with close stop spacings; but sharing short lengths of track with regional rail, or with less-frequent freight, in order to achieve conversion of routes to light rail operation with lower costs and disruption. Frequencies are generally envisaged at 10 per hour or 5 per hour.

The corollary being that neither TfGM nor Nexus appear to regard there being any strong need for longer trains than 60m. Given close stop spacings and consequent lower average speeds in service, 10 services with a likely capacity of 400 each will be ample for almost all such uses.

What TfGM seem to be implying though, is that the same light rail units might be coupled in longer formations for their envisaged metro-type operations. But that precludes street-running; either using a viaduct or a new tunnel.

 

[Greybeard33]

With the road traffic restrictions now in place on Portland Street, Aytoun Street, Auburn Street and London Road, might it be possible for the line from Piccadilly Gardens to Piccadilly to handle 25tph in future, versus the current 20tph? That would enable a tram-train frequency from the East/Southeast Manchester lines into the city centre of 15tph, in addition to the existing 10tph on the Metrolink Etihad/Ashton line, without any tunnelling. If 50-60m long tram-trains each had a capacity of about 400, similar to a double M5000, they would then provide a total capacity of about 6000 passengers per hour.

This would entail 25tph on both the 1CC and 2CC lines, with 50tph through Cornbrook and an eventual 10tph on the Trafford Park line, versus the 5tph currently planned.

It seems to me that the best solution for the E/SE Manchester lines may be a combination of tram-trains as above, plus metro-style services into the Piccadilly main shed platforms 1-4, rather than very costly tunnelling.

 

[nerd]

With the road traffic restrictions now in place on Portland Street, Aytoun Street, Auburn Street and London Road, might it be possible for the line from Piccadilly Gardens to Piccadilly to handle 25tph in future, versus the current 20tph? That would enable a tram-train frequency from the East/Southeast Manchester lines into the city centre of 15tph, in addition to the existing 10tph on the Metrolink Etihad/Ashton line, without any tunnelling. If 50-60m long tram-trains each had a capacity of about 400, similar to a double M5000, they would then provide a total capacity of about 6000 passengers per hour.

This would entail 25tph on both the 1CC and 2CC lines, with 50tph through Cornbrook and an eventual 10tph on the Trafford Park line, versus the 5tph currently planned.

It seems to me that the best solution for the E/SE Manchester lines may be a combination of tram-trains as above, plus metro-style services into the Piccadilly main shed platforms 1-4, rather than very costly tunnelling.

I don't think the line west of Piccadilly is that much the limiting factor; espcially if the HS2 rebuild requires the Piccadilly Metrolink stop to be relocated beneath the high speed platforms. Which in turn would mean that the tram line westwards would initially be tunnelled willy-nilly.

More particular issues are the lmitation of Mosely Street to 25 tph; and also the capacity of the Peter Street crossing westwards from St Peters Square.

But I do not think that either of these are likely insolubale; so your suggestion looks like a lot of sense; and I can readly see it happening.

But it would imply only 15 tph paths eastwards from Piccadilly for tram-train - in your example, 10 of these would be from the Bury/Altrincham services into Piccadilly, and 5 from an extended Trafford Park line service.

But the tram train strategy appears to require 20 eastwards paths from Piccadilly, 10 towards Bredbury and Marple, and 10 towards Hafield and Glossop.

 

[Chester1]

Market St is sandwiched between two curves, Victoria is sandwiched between a large junction and an overbridge, Shudehill is bound on two sides by a public road, Piccadilly is in an under croft that would present significant difficulty, Piccadilly gardens may be able to get a few more metres but is sandwiched by a junction and Portland St, St Peter's Square is plenty tight enough, again, with junctions either side, and Exchange Square has a junction on one side and the two parts of Arndale on the other closing in on each other, again, like Piccadilly Gardens, maybe a few meters but that's it.

At Victoria there is an unused arch next to the Metrolink tracks and there is more than 15m between the end of the platforms and the bridge. The platforms and steps at Shudehill finish nearly 14m short of Dantzuk Street and an extra 3m could be gained through narrowing the road to one lane (its one way anyway). I agree Piccadilly platforms could be extended. Id guess the bes solution would be 2 new longer platforms in addition to the current two, which would be expensive but there is space in the undercroft. Piccadilly Gardens platforms can be extended north and Market Streets south with the three lines between the stops being brought together in the current large space between the two. Edwin_m is right that there is insufficient space for 75m trams to wait without blocking either the platforms or the junctions. Two extra platforms at Piccadilly Gardens for services to and from St Peters Square could reduce the effect but it could require massive rework of the bus interchange. I think that 74m could be introduced but the cost of work at Piccadilly and Piccadilly Gardens would be too high to justify. A simpler solution would be 5x12m trams. This would add 2.5m extra length and transfer space for two cabs in a double metrolink tram to seating and standing. There a sufficient services on the existing network that need double length to justify always having 60m tram trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At Victoria there is an unused arch next to the Metrolink tracks and there is more than 15m between the end of the platforms and the bridge. The platforms and steps at Shudehill finish nearly 14m short of Dantzuk Street and an extra 3m could be gained through narrowing the road to one lane (its one way anyway).

Do I assume that you are referring to Dantzig Street above?

 

[nerd]

With the road traffic restrictions now in place on Portland Street, Aytoun Street, Auburn Street and London Road, might it be possible for the line from Piccadilly Gardens to Piccadilly to handle 25tph in future, versus the current 20tph? That would enable a tram-train frequency from the East/Southeast Manchester lines into the city centre of 15tph, in addition to the existing 10tph on the Metrolink Etihad/Ashton line, without any tunnelling. If 50-60m long tram-trains each had a capacity of about 400, similar to a double M5000, they would then provide a total capacity of about 6000 passengers per hour.

This would entail 25tph on both the 1CC and 2CC lines, with 50tph through Cornbrook and an eventual 10tph on the Trafford Park line, versus the 5tph currently planned.

It seems to me that the best solution for the E/SE Manchester lines may be a combination of tram-trains as above, plus metro-style services into the Piccadilly main shed platforms 1-4, rather than very costly tunnelling.

Thinking further on this;

- if we assume that restricted capacity westwards from Piccadilly will be sorted - one way or another - in association with HS2.

Then the issue of restricted cross-town capacity for tram-train services really only arises due to TfGM's aspiration to link tram-train from Wigan/Atherton to Glossop/Hadfield.

But otherwise, tram-train from Glossop/Hadfield could link into existing lines; one being ther Trafford Park line (as you say above). But another might be to run tram-train from Piccadilly through Market Street and on to Shaw. Which would satisfy Oldham's expressed desire for a direct link into Piccadilly, and would increase capacity on the busier bits of the Oldham/Rochdale line. Maybe split five and five?