Should Metrolink order a new "full length" fleet? What should it look like if so?

[edwin_m]

I believe TfGM strategy, when funding allows, is indeed to order single units that are the same length as the existing doubles. Some of these would have the necessary equipment to operate as tram-trains. They would go onto the busiest routes where as mentioned above omitting two cabs and couplers gives an immediate capacity uplift. This would free up some M5000s to go to other routes, either still as doubles or as singles depending on demand.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I believe TfGM strategy, when funding allows, is indeed to order single units that are the same length as the existing doubles. Some of these would have the necessary equipment to operate as tram-trains. They would go onto the busiest routes where as mentioned above omitting two cabs and couplers gives an immediate capacity uplift. This would free up some M5000s to go to other routes, either still as doubles or as singles depending on demand.

It would make sense. Where have you heard this from?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I believe TfGM strategy, when funding allows, is indeed to order single units that are the same length as the existing doubles. Some of these would have the necessary equipment to operate as tram-trains. They would go onto the busiest routes where as mentioned above omitting two cabs and couplers gives an immediate capacity uplift. This would free up some M5000s to go to other routes, either still as doubles or as singles depending on demand.

There are a few very sharp track turnouts and steep gradients where I am wondering how a single unit the length of a current double unit would be affected by such as that.

 

[edwin_m]

There are a few very sharp track turnouts and steep gradients where I am wondering how a single unit the length of a current double unit would be affected by such as that.

Shouldn't be any effect at all. The longer unit would just have more body sections, connected by articulations similar to the ones in the middle of a M5000. It would also have more motors to give a similar power:weight ratio.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Shouldn't be any effect at all. The longer unit would just have more body sections, connected by articulations similar to the ones in the middle of a M5000. It would also have more motors to give a similar power: weight ratio.

Thank God for that. I was beginning to think in terms of the Class 142 Pacer bogieless coaching stock...

 

[DanNCL]

Something like a 555 but suitable for on street running is what a double length Metrolink vehicle would look like.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Something like a 555 but suitable for on street running is what a double length Metrolink vehicle would look like.

You're probably right. Would look very heavy and bulky next to then very light, streamlined M5000s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There isn't a simple answer to that question really. Eccles probably doesn't justify doubles, nor does Ashton. TPL definitely doesn't (other than football days and a few services in the evening rush hour). Rochdale definitely doesn't beyond Shaw (again though, rush hour services do to an extent.

St Albans Abbey doesn't justify more than a 153, and most of the time one of those bike-adapted ones or even a Parry People Mover would have enough seats. But it's easier to use a 4-car 350 because that's what most of the fleet is. Same for Metrolink - simple is easier and cheaper overall.

So overall I'd say - like London Underground, have a single fleet designed to take the full length of the platforms. Something a bit 555 like, I'd probably also include partial longitudinal seating.

 

[507 001]

Correct, and I would be more than happy if they did order double length sets. I hate singles.

However from TfGM’s perspective there will be discussion needed about whether it’s worth the cost.

Double units are slower (despite being quicker at stations), and they are harder to police (something that gets slightly easier if you make it a walk through double length set, but doesn’t go away entirely). They also consume a lot more electricity, which makes quieter services harder to justify.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What should also be mentioned is, from the Bank of England statement made this week about how they perceive growth in the immediate future, as if the tax obtained revenue for the Government falls below the expected levels, there will be less opportunity to keep up the expected levels of Governmental spending on matters external to the NHS, that Greater Manchester so far has been a noted beneficiary in any related public transport matters.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They also consume a lot more electricity, which makes quieter services harder to justify.

Curiously the railway classically doesn't give a monkey's about this, with it being generally seen that it's cheaper not to faff about shunting things around - hence things like the fixed 12 car Thameslink formations that run 12 car even if it's 4am and there are 5 people on board. Does this not apply to tram operation - is power a much bigger proportion of the cost?

If they could be bothered to actually publish a timetable (something I've never understood about Metrolink, because they do run to one) they could presumably reduce the frequency at quiet times to compensate, which might be even cheaper because you only need one driver for a long set, not two for two short ones? Sheffield even has one route that only operates hourly.

 

[nesw]

I know that it’s simple to work out the approximate PVR (Peak Vehicle Requirement) however, could someone “in the know” kindly list the planned requirement for total number of tram sets needed for Monday-Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday? If possible, it would be interesting to see the number of sets for each circuit and how many are planned to be doubles.

I’ve seen the summary in publications over the years but nothing for the current timetable. Thank you.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What would be the total number of actual fleet units in such a new order and based on current costs charged by manufacturers on similar sized light-rail units, what total figure would likely be quoted?

 

[biggerisbetter]

I would like to see double length units ordered something like a 555 but capable of street running and with some units battery capable to allow for tram train extensions. Should also be capable of operating doubled up for a possible (likely fantasy) underground metro. Would allow either one or two unit types if some M5000s are retained for the quietest routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would like to see double length units ordered something like a 555 but capable of street running and with some units battery capable to allow for tram train extensions. Should also be capable of operating doubled up for a possible (likely fantasy) underground metro. Would allow either one or two unit types if some M5000s are retained for the quietest routes.

I would agree the 555 (modified for street running) provides a decent template for this. I don't think modern-day worm-like trams with multiple articulations are a particularly good idea - they result in seriously sub-optimal interior designs because of the limited possible layouts.

I think my inclination would be to look at the Sheffield design for influence as well, i.e. have areas with fewer doors and airline/facing seating for people making longer trips, and areas with more doors and mostly longitudinal/standing/wheelchair space for those making smaller trips and for enhanced peak capacity. Sheffield's design is quite clever - it's kind of like a double decker bus on the flat - if you're going a couple of stops you hang by the doors, if going a long way you "go upstairs" to the doorless central section.

 

[biggerisbetter]

I would agree the 555 (modified for street running) provides a decent template for this. I don't think modern-day worm-like trams with multiple articulations are a particularly good idea - they result in seriously sub-optimal interior designs because of the limited possible layouts.

I think my inclination would be to look at the Sheffield design for influence as well, i.e. have areas with fewer doors and airline/facing seating for people making longer trips, and areas with more doors and mostly longitudinal/standing/wheelchair space for those making smaller trips and for enhanced peak capacity. Sheffield's design is quite clever - it's kind of like a double decker bus on the flat - if you're going a couple of stops you hang by the doors, if going a long way you "go upstairs" to the doorless central section.

Yes with a longer vehicle you have the potential for different areas of seating to provide improved ambience for longer journeys at the same time as greater overall capacity. An example of how this could work would be to differentiate using the five car sections of the 555-based vehicle having the middle 3 sections with 2 doors each and longitudinal seating and the end 2 sections with 1 door each and transverse seating. This might be outweighed by the additional time taken for passengers to alight especially during peaks and sporting events and concerts and people not moving far enough down the carriage when busy so am agnostic to either layout.

The multiple articulations seem to more on low floor trams rather than the high floor vehicles so probably wouldn't be applicable to Metrolink. The system seems to have gone through phases in terms of whether high or low floors would have been preferable. Initially high floor made sense to utilise the existing high platforms on the ex-BR stations but as the system expanded, the cost of constructing new high floor platforms and the greater impact these have on the street scene, particular in the city centre maybe meant low floor would have been better overall. As the system potentially looks to its next phase of expansion however, it allows the provision of tram-trains on both Metrolink and National Rail infrastructure without platform extensions to serve low floor units as has been required in Rotherham for the Sheffield Supertram.

 

[edwin_m]

I would agree the 555 (modified for street running) provides a decent template for this. I don't think modern-day worm-like trams with multiple articulations are a particularly good idea - they result in seriously sub-optimal interior designs because of the limited possible layouts.

I think my inclination would be to look at the Sheffield design for influence as well, i.e. have areas with fewer doors and airline/facing seating for people making longer trips, and areas with more doors and mostly longitudinal/standing/wheelchair space for those making smaller trips and for enhanced peak capacity. Sheffield's design is quite clever - it's kind of like a double decker bus on the flat - if you're going a couple of stops you hang by the doors, if going a long way you "go upstairs" to the doorless central section.

I don't think I've ever heard of a high floor tram with "worm like" shorter body sections (any tram the length of a Metrolink double would need multiple articulations). So it's almost certainly going to have relatively long body sections, though not as long as those of the M5000 as the articulation prevents it having a tapered overhang at either end. I'd guess five body sections, inner ones maybe 10m long and end ones 14m. Or the inner bogies could sit on a very short section like the M5000s do.

Metrolink was originally built to the same geometry limits as the various high-floor Stadtbahns of the Ruhr in Germany, which collectively represent a big market. Assuming they kept that up for the later extensions, there should be a good range of suppliers able to offer compatible designs.

 

[HSTEd]

Given that there is a large legacy fleet of new M5000s, I don't swee any reason to order anything but double length trainsets for the forseable future.

Juggling of diagrams would allow the low traffic services to be served with shorter, cheaper to operate, trams whilst maximising peak capacity.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Given that there is a large legacy fleet of new M5000s, I don't swee any reason to order anything but double length trainsets for the forseable future.

Juggling of diagrams would allow the low traffic services to be served with shorter, cheaper to operate, trams whilst maximising peak capacity.

Given the life-expectancy of the current M5000 fleet, if the "speculated" new double-length fleet enhancements are purchased, is the existing storage capacity at both the depots sufficient to cope with the storage of them?

 

[edwin_m]

Given the life-expectancy of the current M5000 fleet, if the "speculated" new double-length fleet enhancements are purchased, is the existing storage capacity at both the depots sufficient to cope with the storage of them?

Probably very few - no point in building stabling if there are no trams to use it.

There looks to be space at the Trafford depot to lay in three more stabling tracks, which would be enough for five or six double-length trams. There's an apparent space west of Queens Road depot too, which I think is a slope but they could possibly retain it to squeeze in a few more tracks. However, any substantial fleet expansion is also likely to need another depot.

Bing Maps

Map multiple locations, get transit/walking/driving directions, view live traffic conditions, plan trips, view satellite, aerial and street side imagery. Do more with Bing Maps.

www.bing.com

 

[TheSmiths82]

Will driver training be an issue? If we have a different fleet type would it make sure sense to limit to one or two lines so we could say something like all drivers with Altrincham/Bury line route knowledge can drive the M5000's and the new trams, but drivers without that don't have to? I suppose eventually all tram drivers could learn the new trams.

 

[geoffk]

As the system potentially looks to its next phase of expansion however, it allows the provision of tram-trains on both Metrolink and National Rail infrastructure without platform extensions to serve low floor units as has been required in Rotherham for the Sheffield Supertram.

TfGM will realise that they cannot cascade the M5000s anywhere else in UK because of the high-floor layout.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would the cost of this speculative fleet replacement come out the last large Governmental hand-out to the Greater Manchester area?

 

[TheGrew]

Could the existing M5000s be extended by sticking in intermediate additional carriages rather than a new build?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could the existing M5000s be extended by sticking in intermediate additional carriages rather than a new build?

I thought the production line for the M5000 units had ceased to be.

 

[edwin_m]

Could the existing M5000s be extended by sticking in intermediate additional carriages rather than a new build?

In principle yes. However the middle bogie is unpowered so a new design of articulated powered bogie would be needed for the extra one(s) to preserve power to weight ratio which is probably needed to cope with the gradients.

 

[LYuen]

Curiously the railway classically doesn't give a monkey's about this, with it being generally seen that it's cheaper not to faff about shunting things around - hence things like the fixed 12 car Thameslink formations that run 12 car even if it's 4am and there are 5 people on board. Does this not apply to tram operation - is power a much bigger proportion of the cost?

If they could be bothered to actually publish a timetable (something I've never understood about Metrolink, because they do run to one) they could presumably reduce the frequency at quiet times to compensate, which might be even cheaper because you only need one driver for a long set, not two for two short ones? Sheffield even has one route that only operates hourly.

Typically railway is low friction and electrical rolling stock has regenerative brakes, which has a potential to return more than 50% of the kinetic energy to power other units. The increase in cost would be very little.

About the timetable, AFAIK the times for Metrolink on bustimes is accurate and up to date?

 

[TheGrew]

I thought the production line for the M5000 units had ceased to be.

According to Wikipedia, there isn't any current Flexity Swift production. I don't know how easy it might be to restart production. It does look like the newer 'Freedom' platform is only low-floor so I would have thought they would still want a high-floor offer.

In principle yes. However the middle bogie is unpowered so a new design of articulated powered bogie would be needed for the extra one(s) to preserve power to weight ratio which is probably needed to cope with the gradients.

Yeah absolutely, looking at the Wikipedia page I hadn't clocked that realised that the Rotterdam Metro trains (which I have also ridden on) are built on the same platform but with the newer units being longer and more powerful.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

According to Wikipedia, there isn't any current Flexity Swift production. I don't know how easy it might be to restart production. It does look like the newer 'Freedom' platform is only low-floor so I would have thought they would still want a high-floor offer.

One might well notice the number of light railways with low-floor units and that surely would be in the mind of any manufacturrs of these units when bearing in mind the opening of a production line just to produce a rather small number of high-sided centre vehicles when such production lines could remain there for much larger low-sided unit production.

 

[stuu]

One might well notice the number of light railways with low-floor units and that surely would be in the mind of any manufacturrs of these units when bearing in mind the opening of a production line just to produce a rather small number of high-sided centre vehicles when such production lines could remain there for much larger low-sided unit production.

There's lots of high floor lines elsewhere, Germany especially, so there will always be a worthwhile market