TRANSPORT | Metrolink ‎Extension [Archive] - Page 16

Johnny de Rivative

July 16th, 2010, 01:38 AM

A few occasional shots from today 15.7.10 :-

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6371.jpg

The depot connection is not yet there (although the crossover is), but you can see how the inbound line from Chorlton suddenly disappears under the Alti line, away from the camera (and is that a tampong machine appraoching us on the outbound?) :-

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6369.jpg

One additional perk of the new Northbound platform at Old Trafford, is that you can get a very good view of the cricket without paying :-

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6373.jpg

New bits and bobs arriving :-

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6451.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6452.jpg

A few months back, someone asked whether any of the old original tramlines had been uncovered during the upheaval of Ashton New Road. Well, before today I had never seen any, despite looking out for this on my daily travels. (My speculation has been that they were removed at the conversion to trolleybuses in 1938. The rapidly deteriorating situation in Europe at that time would also lead to the requisition of as much scrap metal as possible, to be made into munitions for the war effort, and later many schools were left without railings for the duration and beyond.)

Anyway, today for the first time that I have seen, a little bit of old rail has in fact re-appeared, actually on Manor Road, East of Edge Lane. In tramway days, this was a double-to-single headshunt or turnback siding, for short workings back to Manchester. Perhaps this little bit was left in situ, as the Manor Road section was not required for 'Edge Lane' short workings on trolleybus service 215X, which instead did a revolve in the wide space between Manchester Road and Manor Road :-

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6455.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6457.jpg

Chorlton Bloke

July 16th, 2010, 01:50 AM

Ace!

There is probably quite a lot of the old lines still in place. In the 70s when Manchester roads were collapsing right left and centre it was only the old tram lines that prevented potentially serious accidents.
I'm pretty sure it was M/C that was the origin of the DB unit as a measure of hole size. DB being Double Decker Bus.

Johnny de Rivative

July 16th, 2010, 02:05 AM

Yes, I agree Chorlton - apart from the pre-war trolleybus conversions, most of the network remained in place throughout the war, until the closures prior to the last tram in 1949, when there wouldn't have been such an urgent demand for scrap metal.

apologiesforthedelay

July 16th, 2010, 10:01 AM

3018 was being towed by the MPV in the OT depot about 20 minutes ago! :banana:

WatcherZero

July 16th, 2010, 08:05 PM

Saw the MPV hooked up to 3013 at the front of the depot all day, didnt realise it had been painted all over bright orange (from former white and blue highlights with old logo) or was it a new one?

Freel07

July 17th, 2010, 07:06 PM

Saw the MPV hooked up to 3013 at the front of the depot all day, didnt realise it had been painted all over bright orange (from former white and blue highlights with old logo) or was it a new one?

No it's the original loco now in yellow and sporting the number 1027 I believe.

I drove past Oldham Mumps Signal Box yesterday afternoon and I see it's been torched along with the adjacent signalling relay room. One end seems pretty badly damaged the other end almost untouched it seemed. Couldn't get any photos as I was driving. In fact I'm not sure how easy it would be to get near enough, I'll have to check the aerial photography.

apologiesforthedelay

July 17th, 2010, 07:09 PM

Freel07

July 17th, 2010, 07:16 PM

Was it 3013 or 3018?

Probably 3013 being prepared for the weekly Friday night run to Timperley and back to keep the second batch operational. Apparently one or two each each week are given an outing on a Friday night after service finishes. As 3018 hasn't been at Old Trafford long it is unlikely to need moving yet.

WatcherZero

July 17th, 2010, 07:25 PM

I went past twice and it looked like 3013, was in the northern corner close to the tram wash. I assumed they had been shunting them around the depot.

Would love to know which unit has been fitted with the different profile wheels. Latest Tramways and Urban transit claims 3001 is being used as a testbed for modifications but as far as we are aware its awaiting repairs for its RTC, either magazines wrong or their using it as a stationary testbed.

Freel, nice to know their being warm stored not cold stored.

Freel07

July 17th, 2010, 09:58 PM

apologiesforthedelay

July 18th, 2010, 11:48 AM

We currently have 48 new trams on order.

How man would need to be ordered for the Airport line?

Johnny de Rivative

July 18th, 2010, 02:43 PM

Freel07

July 18th, 2010, 03:05 PM

My memory without looking back, is that it would bring the total to 80, including the rest of Phases 3a & b.

I think the Airport frequency is intended to be 6 minutes. This also brings back a question I have had unanswered for some time, about the estimated running times between stops on all the new extensions? (They must already know this in order to decide how many trams to order!)

The current orders including Ashton and East Didsbury total 48 bringing the fleet to 80.
I have seen somewhere that the Airport line with a 12 minute service to each od Piccadilly and Victoria would need another 20 which with spares brings the fleet to 102 (assuming 10% spare provision). The 10% spare assumption I have made is based on the Phase 1 & 2 fleet which was 32 trams of which 29 were required for peak service, that's 23 for Bury Altrincham with 3 doubles and 6 for Eccles leaving 3 spare or 10%.

WatcherZero

July 18th, 2010, 04:08 PM

Freel07

July 18th, 2010, 07:13 PM

I thought the Airport was supposed to be a 12 minute frequency? It was supposed to require 16 trams though that included the loop being built, possibly reduce to 11 or 12 without. If you wanted a 6 minute service you would be looking at upto 24 then.

Probably main reason they wouldnt do a 6 minute service however would be theirs already a 5-6 minute frequency, quicker service from Pic to the Airport so this line would only be beneficial to local residents or perhaps salford/trafford residents looking for fewer changes.

All the info I have seen indicates 10 trams per hour to the Airport and I am sure I have seen a proposed pattern of 5tph to Piccadilly and 5tph to Victoria with each service requiring 10 trams.

WatcherZero

July 18th, 2010, 07:36 PM

What I saw was 5tph to the city and 5tph turned back at Cornbrook at least until 2cc was completed.

Going to see If i can find a doc on the Airport line proposal

Edit: Nope no official document has frequencies apart from that map of Cornbrook frequencies to justify 2cc in which we know the numbers dont add up.

Johnny de Rivative

July 18th, 2010, 09:29 PM

Probably main reason they wouldnt do a 6 minute service however would be theirs already a 5-6 minute frequency, quicker service from Pic to the Airport so this line would only be beneficial to local residents or perhaps salford/trafford residents looking for fewer changes.

I agree - I don't think Metrolink will attract any Airport travellers going to Piccadilly at all (except perhaps enthusiasts like me!!).

But there will surely be sufficient demand for a 6 minute service to town, from places like much of Wythenshawe; Baguley, Northenden, Barlow Moor, etc. Such places will get a massive improvement on the existing bus provision, or having to change modes, in many cases cutting current journey times by up to 50% . . . ? :cheers:

WatcherZero

July 18th, 2010, 10:21 PM

Drama, an extraordinary authority meeting has been called for 23rd july, two items on the agenda an update on GM transport fund and

"Note the resignation of Cllrs David White and Christine Corris from the Authority as representatives of Stockport MBC"

"Note the appointment, by Stockport MBC, of Cllr Craig Wright and Cllr Shan Alexander to fill the above vacancies."

Resignations a month after the posts were filled, anyone from Stockport know what local politics happened here?

Anyway as to the other agenda item.

Opening dates
Some new estimated opening dates more accurate than the year
* Oldham town centre extension Spring 2014
* Rochdale town centre extension Spring 2014
* Airport Line extension Mid 2016
* 2CC Mid 2016

Airport Line
Major aim to provide a link between the regional centre, residential areas of south Wythenshawe and the large and growing employment area around the airport which are currently difficult to reach because of the Mersey and M56 and M60.

As well as connecting to the Regional Centre and Manchester Airport, the scheme will provide a high quality public transport link from local residential areas to a wide range of facilities including: a major regional hospital centre at Wythenshawe, local health facilities, high schools, university leisure and residential facilities, and district town centres, including Wythenshawe, where a transport interchange is also being developed.

9 miles 14.5km of double track, The track type will be a mixture of paved,
twin block and ballast along the route. 12 trams will be procured for the Airport which will provide a minimum 5tph running 06:00 to 00:30. The financial and operational viability of increasing service patterns including providing additional trams will be taken in light of future passenger usage, value for money and availble funding. It has also been agreed with Manchester Airport that a limited service of between 2 and 5 tph will operate between 3-6am (FIRST METROLINK NIGHT SERVICE!!!)

2.14. The scheme will also link the following areas:
* Manchester Airport – which is a major and growing employment centre;
* Wythenshawe – a major housing area with a wide range of types of publicly and privately owned properties, and also a significant employment zone. In particular the line will provide better links between the town centre and residential areas of Wythenshawe;
* Wythenshawe Hospital - a major hospital that provides medical services, with some services provided on a regional basis;
* Baguley – a residential, retail and industrial area;
* Northern Moor – a residential area that has no existing direct transport corridor to the regional centre; and
* Chorlton - an important shopping, employment and residential area.

2.15. Manchester Airport is currently served by heavy rail services from Manchester Piccadilly station. The heavy rail link between Manchester and the Airport runs on a different alignment to the proposed scheme and is served by through trains to destinations beyond Greater Manchester which run via central Manchester.

2.16. The Metrolink extension will meet demand for local journeys from points within Greater Manchester to and from the airport; including trips
by airport employees, passengers and visitors to the airport.

2.17. It will also provide an attractive alternative to the car for relatively short journeys on links where it reduces the time and distance compared with
the existing road network. In addition, the line will provide a fast public transport route to the centre of the Airport at the Ground Transport
Interchange from areas, including Chorlton, that have no direct public transport links at the moment.

2.18. A new public transport link for employees on the Airport site will be particularly valuable as employee car parking is already heavily
restricted and there is little scope for creating more spaces within the Airport complex. Increased security measures have also led to
restricted access to the Airport for passengers arriving or departing by car and this is likely to continue into the future.

2.19. The Airport extension passes through the Wythenshawe regeneration area, and will serve a number of major employment centres. The new
service is anticipated to help alleviate socio-economic deprivation in Wythenshawe by improving access for residents there to employment
opportunities in the Airport and surrounding business parks, as well as improving access to retail, health, and education facilities in the
Regional Centre.

2.20. In developing the scheme, a value engineering exercise has been carried out to ensure that the costs represent good value for money
and can be met within available funding. This work has resulted in a recommendation to reduce the number of stops from 18 to 15 on the
Airport extension. Further detail in this regard is included as an Appendix to this report.

Removing 3 stops which are close together saves £1.2m a stop and reduces journey times by 30seconds each. Maps at the end of this doc showing stop coverage before and after http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/3129/item_05_gm_transport_fund-metrolink_phase_3a_amd_financial_strategy_update, 3 or 4 stops to be removed, the decision on which to be taken by leader, vice leader and oppostion leader of GMITA in conjunction with MCC.

Oldham and Rochdale TC
Lots of detail on route allignments, traffic, etc.. each one require ordering one additional tram.
Kingsway stop funding still being progressed.

2cc
Stop options still being considered, computer rendered images of proposed stops will be included in September public consultation.

Contractor
Value for money review of 3A works has been satisfactory therefore it is considered preferable to excercise the 3A contract options for the construction of 3B

LRV's
Negotiations with the existing LRV supplier have been ongoing over recent months and are drawing to a conclusion. It is anticipated that confirmed costs will represent value for money, within available budgets. Fourteen LRVs will be procured for the extensions to Manchester Airport and Oldham and Rochdale town centres.

Costs
Fares are assumed to rise at RPI+1% a year

Scheme/LTP/O&R MBC/Borrowing/Total
Rochdale town centre 3.0 2.5 30.0 35.5
Oldham town centre 4.0 5.0 80.0 89.0
Airport Line 57.0 - 341.0 398.0
Total 64.0 7.5 451.0 522.5

MAG are contributing a nominal funding of £50m but rather than being upfront they will service the Airport line borrowings interest payments.

Risk Mitigation, historic low borrowing costs will be taken advantage of, in addition will have interest rates from public works loan board fixed for the first 5 years to lock in savings, they have indicated upto £500m available by rule PWLB borrowing cannot be more than 50% of total cost of a scheme but that 3A will be included with 3B in calculating that total figure. Net Revenues will be used in paying off loan.

MAG Conditions for contribution
A limited early morning service will run between G-Mex and the Airport between 03:00 and 06:00 on a daily basis. After the first twelve months of operation, if the limited service is loss making, MAG will have the option to continue this, or a reduced service, and will cover any associated operating losses;

Airport Employees entitled to concessionary season pass

MAG will recieve a royalty payment if passenger numbers exceed predictions.

Joint ticketing, data sharing, car parking and advertising strategies.

If cancelled or not completed before a certain date MAG will be entitled to a full refund of contributions paid.

apologiesforthedelay

July 18th, 2010, 11:07 PM

a limited early morning service will run between G-Mex and the
Airport between 03:00 and 06:00 on a daily basis. After the first
twelve months of operation, if the limited service is loss making,
MAG will have the option to continue this, or a reduced service, and
will cover any associated operating losses;

^^

Sir Miles Platting

July 18th, 2010, 11:08 PM

Am I right in thinking that MAG is going to fund it's own connection to Metrolink?

WatcherZero

July 18th, 2010, 11:15 PM

Its contributing £50m to the £400m cost, I covered how its doing it (covering interest payments rather than upfront payment) and yeah will fund the night service if its lossmaking (3-6 makes me think its shift change), though they may reduce it from 5tph to 2 or 3tph if demands low.

This means the line will be operating from 3am- 12:30am or 21.5 hours a day.

MarkO

July 19th, 2010, 01:07 AM

^^

Love it! The UK's first 24hour tram!!!

First 24hour urban rail service in fact!!!!:cheers:

Local Lad

July 19th, 2010, 01:12 AM

WatcherZero

July 19th, 2010, 01:28 AM

Couple of things I put in my list originally but lost accidentally.

Hough End which had always been potential to not be done since 360m from St Werburgh.

They are investigating structural and operational implications of using lanes on the existing M56 bridge instead of building a new one since their proposing cancelling Haveley stop which would have been on the bridge (due to opposition from local residents when seeking TWA in 1994) and merging it with Martinscroft stop 400m away moving the new stop somewhere in the middle. No final decision has been taken yet on cancelling M56 bridge and street running over existing bridge, option will be presented to ITA Capital Projects Committe when costings done.

They are being asked to allow the leaders/MCC to choose three stops out of 4 options to close (or optionally all 4) to save money, journey time and because of low average spacing between stops being 700m when Dft guidance recomends 800m and lessons learned from the Eccles line is that with an average of 700m some people choose faster options such as bus.

the ones likely to be abandond are Haveley, Hardy Farm (on edge of urban area rather than central like Barlow Moor Road) and Robinswood (though crossacres could be removed instead). In addition Woodhouse Park in the Airports industrial zone could be served by the Airport station and would have low predicted patronage figures, however in its favour its close to a proposed road scheme and could see development in future so its being floated as a potential 4th cancellation.

Edit: While typing Local Lad beat me to it

MarkO

July 19th, 2010, 01:29 AM

...also it's great to see that good ideas are continually circulating, blimey SSC is powerful!:

Posted on SSC:
12 Aug 2009
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22406418@N03/3798112176/in/photostream/
In GMPTE report July 2010;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22406418@N03/4806148637/

Chorlton Bloke

July 19th, 2010, 01:43 AM

They are being asked to allow the leaders/MCC to choose three stops out of 4 options to close (or optionally all 4) to save money, journey time and because of low average spacing between stops being 700m when Dft guidance recomends 800m and lessons learned from the Eccles line is that with an average of 700m some people choose faster options such as bus.

Oh wouldn't it be good to see a return of integrated public transpot, buy one ticket, take the bus to the nearest tram stop and continue to your destination without the need for a second ticket or the thought that now I'm on the bus I'll save a bit by staying on the bus even though the tram will get me there faster.

MattN

July 19th, 2010, 01:59 AM

It won't be 24 hours or a 'night service' in the conventional sense if it's running from 0300-0030 will it? Certainly a strange set of operating hours though, never heard of that before!

If it were to run 24 hours I don't think you could call it the UK's first 24 hour urban rail service though, the Thameslink trains run 24 hours through North London at least calling at all stations, fair enough it carries on all the way to Bedford but it is at least partially urban.

WatcherZero

July 19th, 2010, 02:28 AM

Its because theirs a Manchester Airport shift change around 4-5am (I applied for WH Smith at the airport during summer break many years ago), so this would allow local staff to get to work and back, the normal 6am operation would be too late.

So yeah thats why it will close 12:30am and reopen 3am

MarkO

July 19th, 2010, 11:41 AM

Anyone posted this yet?

http://menmedia.co.uk/rochdaleobserver/news/s/1302013_25m_bill_to_keep_tram_plan_on_track

PS OK I was exaggerating a tad with the 24hr tram thing but I still think (Outside of Thameslink which really is still classed as heavy rail) that a 3am start will make it the only urban rail service operating in the UK at that hour! And might even be a case for 24hr trams Piccadilly-MediaCity? Any takers for that one??

nerd

July 19th, 2010, 12:11 PM

I thought the Airport was supposed to be a 12 minute frequency? It was supposed to require 16 trams though that included the loop being built, possibly reduce to 11 or 12 without. If you wanted a 6 minute service you would be looking at upto 24 then.

Probably main reason they wouldnt do a 6 minute service however would be theirs already a 5-6 minute frequency, quicker service from Pic to the Airport so this line would only be beneficial to local residents or perhaps salford/trafford residents looking for fewer changes.

16 trams was the total that would have been needed without the loop; providing a 6 minute service with a 48 minute turnround; i.e. each tram gets back to where it starts in 1 hr 36 mins (6 * 16 = 96).

So a 12 tram purchase would either require a much faster turnround (unlikely I think) or a lower service frequency. I would reckon that an 8 minute service interval is implied here.

WatcherZero

July 19th, 2010, 03:59 PM

Freel07

July 19th, 2010, 07:14 PM

Freel07

July 19th, 2010, 07:30 PM

From the report '12 trams will allow a minimum of 5tph calling at all stops between 0600 and 0030.'

Theyve corrected the spelling mistakes in the reports name too lol

old name
http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/3129/item_05_gm_transport_fund-metrolink_phase_3a_amd_financial_strategy_update
new name
http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/3129/item_05_gm_transport_fund-metrolink_phase_3b_and_financial_strategy_update

Interesting that the proposed service has been cut back from 10 tph to 5 tph now and also a reduction in stops. I know that in 2006 they were still proposing 10 tph. I know that the business case for this line didn't stack up as well as the other lines presumably due to competition from heavy rail.

apologiesforthedelay

July 19th, 2010, 07:46 PM

Has anyone got that basic diagram of all the lines with how many TPH will cross each section.

I think there was one for post 3b with and without the 2CC.

future.architect

July 19th, 2010, 08:02 PM

Spotted 3005 at Timperley around 13:00 this afternoon on an Altrincham to Piccadilly journey. Makes me wonder whether it may be the tram being used for wheel profile tests. It's pretty unusual to see an M5000 on the Alty Line off peak these days.
Also noticed early signs of TOS installation around Cornbrook with what look like new cable loops at a number of places.

I got 3002 form stretford to market street this afternoon (it was destined for Bury) and the ride qaulity was pretty outrageous, especialy on that bit of antique track between stretford and old trafford. There is deffinately a speed restriction of the m5000's in that section.

Observations from this afternoon, deffo overhead line conductor being instaled on the cholton line.

Freel07

July 19th, 2010, 08:30 PM

I got 3002 form stretford to market street this afternoon (it was destined for Bury) and the ride qaulity was pretty outrageous, especialy on that bit of antique track between stretford and old trafford. There is deffinately a speed restriction of the m5000's in that section.

Observations from this afternoon, deffo overhead line conductor being instaled on the cholton line.

Maybe they are drifting them back onto Phase 1 for comparative trials.

I noticed quite a number of the OLE masts on the Chorlton Line around OT seemed to have their cantilever arms fitted now.

future.architect

July 19th, 2010, 09:00 PM

Maybe they are drifting them back onto Phase 1 for comparative trials.

I noticed quite a number of the OLE masts on the Chorlton Line around OT seemed to have their cantilever arms fitted now.

considering it took only 1 month to remove the old cables and install new cables on the altrincham line, could we be seeing the 1st signs of testing actual trams on the chorlton line by august?

Cherguevara

July 19th, 2010, 09:20 PM

Interesting that the proposed service has been cut back from 10 tph to 5 tph now and also a reduction in stops. I know that in 2006 they were still proposing 10 tph. I know that the business case for this line didn't stack up as well as the other lines presumably due to competition from heavy rail.

I'm pretty sure originally the proposal was for only 5tph. This was bumped up to 10tph during the congestion charging debate because the expected ridership was so much higher with road charging (presumably from the various park and rides along the route). Since this isn't happening it appears that the new modelling has suggested 5ph will be sufficient.

I doubt heavy rail competition is the real reason for this lines relative poor demand, as it isn't really intended to serve Manchester to MAN journeys. Light rail lines work best when they are anchored by a major destination at each end as it encourages use in both directions and throughout the day. That's why it terminates at the Airport. However the Airport business park is a development area rather than an established centre and so outward demand will be very low initially. In this sense the line is to promote future development rather than serve existing demand.

The other reason this line is likely to be less busy than the Alty, Bury or Didsbury lines are that those areas are established commuter communities with demand spread out fairly evenly along the route. Most of the airport line by constrast passes throuh Wythenshawe, which is more deprived and has higher unemployment rates. Although the tram will provide much better connections to this community there will still be fewer potential riders than in the more affluent areas.

WatcherZero

July 19th, 2010, 09:35 PM

Has anyone got that basic diagram of all the lines with how many TPH will cross each section.

I think there was one for post 3b with and without the 2CC.

http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/979/

While It does show 10 on the Airport line (and this recent report says more could be added later when there more funds).

The other thing was this diagram didnt add up very well.
Besides 10 of the 20 from South Manchester being turned back at Cornbrook which is labeled. What isnt labeled is that 15 would be turning back at Piccadilly (presumably 5 of which the current Eccles) and 5 turning back at Victoria.

The notes adds that with 2cc the 30 along Cornbrook-city centre would be increased to 45, 10 were to be turned back at Cornbrook so where do the other 5 come from?

Edit: Che is also spot on, the line will mostly be serving people going to work and returning from work at the Airport as well as local people using the airport. It wont be like the Edinburgh trams where it will be the only rail link to the Airport, its gonna be competing with a very good heavy rail service. The report does indicate higher frequency could come later if passenger numbers are good but the money would need to be found somewhere to buy more trams, this line is being built on borrowing so any increase in costs (and therefore interest) drastically increases payback time. Its great to see a service for the shift change at the Airport however and if it proves a sucess it might catch on in other locations where theres a 24 hour workforce.

Cherguevara

July 19th, 2010, 09:41 PM

http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/979/

The notes adds that with 2cc the 30 along Cornbrook-city centre would be increased to 45, 10 were to be turned back at Corbrook so where do the other 5 come from?

That's Trafford isn't it? It's not on the pre 2CC map but it is on the post 2CC map.

WatcherZero

July 19th, 2010, 09:50 PM

Lol forgot there was yet another map after Purdys signature.

I would say we are more likely to see a 10tph Trafford with 5 possiblly turning back at the TC than a 10tph Airport at the moment.

apologiesforthedelay

July 19th, 2010, 10:01 PM

I think 5tph will be sufficient. If not, then it's nothing a few double units won't sort out.

Cherguevara

July 19th, 2010, 10:10 PM

Lol forgot there was yet another map after Purdys signature.

I would say we are more likely to see a 10tph Trafford with 5 possiblly turning back at the TC than a 10tph Airport at the moment.

Come on Watcher that's clearly balls! No one has ever proposed more than a 5 tph service to the Trafford Centre, and you'd be hard pressed to justify one considering that almost the entire route is through an uninhabited industrial park. It may be reasonably busy during the peaks, but it's going to be dead for the rest of the day.

WatcherZero

July 19th, 2010, 10:18 PM

apologiesforthedelay

July 19th, 2010, 11:01 PM

Perhaps doubles could do it, but there seems to be a preference in Metrolink operation to put on extra services than to double up units. For example even on something like an OT event they lay on a dozen trams an hour to it rather than double the lengths.

I agree with this entirely.

A double every 12 minutes > a single every 6 minutes.

Frodz

July 20th, 2010, 12:39 AM

Well I imagine the reason for more frequent singles on event days at OT is to prevent the build-up of large crowds because everyone turns up at around the same time. Better to keep the queue flowing.

There wouldn't be the same pressure at the Trafford Centre.

Cherguevara

July 20th, 2010, 12:52 AM

I was there last week and when you see the thousands of daily visitors I believe it makes sense, your right that it doesnt make sense to have that frequency to Port Salford and Salford City Reds but I believe you could get enough to justify 6 minutes to the TC itself with the park and rides along the route and factoring the Metrolink itself will act as a funnel to gather people from across the whole network onto the service.

Perhaps doubles could do it, but there seems to be a preference in Metrolink operation to put on extra services than to double up units. For example even on something like an OT event they lay on a dozen trams an hour to it rather than double the lengths.

You're forgetting why it has so many visitors though. The key advantage of the Trafford Centre is its plentiful free parking. It has thousands of daily visitors because you can park up, run round the shops, drop your purchases into the boot and be home in around half an hour almost anywhere in the region. Outside rush hour (when most customers are there) it will always be quicker to drive than it would be to get public transport into town/to Cornbrook and travel out again. If they charged for parking it might be a different story, but while parking is free, public transport is not going to capture much of that market.

Now people who work at the centre (of which I was once one) would probably use it because they aren't paid well (so find cars less affordable) and often have to travel during the peak (when a tram might very well be quicker than driving). But I don't believe there are enough workers to make it busier than the Airport line, which not only has employment centres along its route, but also a considerable residential population with low levels of car ownership who will benefit from improved journey times for both local and regional journeys.

Chorlton Bloke

July 20th, 2010, 01:17 AM

Now people who work at the centre (of which I was once one) would probably use it because they aren't paid well (so find cars less affordable) and often have to travel during the peak (when a tram might very well be quicker than driving). But I don't believe there are enough workers to make it busier than the Airport line, which not only has employment centres along its route, but also a considerable residential population with low levels of car ownership who will benefit from improved journey times for both local and regional journeys.

You overlook the point that the catchment area will be vastly increased. Teens tradtionally have low access to cars, many more than access TC by bus might be encouraged to visit on the tram.
Didsbury Village to TC by bus is timetabled at about 35 minutes but manages to miss that frequently.
It's not all about those working along the line.

WatcherZero

July 20th, 2010, 01:29 AM

Indeed while Bolton, Wigan and Stockport would presumably travel by bus you would see kids on a day out from Bury right round to Altrincham because it will feel far safer and more comfortable travelling by tram than by a long bus journey and much more fun to travel with a large group of mates. Theres also loads that cant travel by car, we have 100m bus journeys a year here and a couple million for the Trafford Centre may be willing to change over.

According to TC 10% of customers and 25% of staff already travel there by bus. The TC is open 10am to 11pm as well so will be plenty of all day travel not just during office hours. GMPTE withdrew from funding 50% of the ML1 route in 2007 becuase it was profitable on its own.

Cherguevara

July 20th, 2010, 02:10 AM

You overlook the point that the catchment area will be vastly increased. Teens tradtionally have low access to cars, many more than access TC by bus might be encouraged to visit on the tram.
Didsbury Village to TC by bus is timetabled at about 35 minutes but manages to miss that frequently.
It's not all about those working along the line.

So it might be used by a some more kids one of two days a week. That isn't going to justify doubling the service frequency, especially when you consider it's still not going to be very convenient for most people. I don't think the Trafford Centre tram is a bad idea. I just don't imagine it will be particularly well used most of the time, and I don't think many shoppers will switch to using it.

I was reading something written by a transport planner the other day that I thought was quite interesting relating to this discussion. He said if you wanted a transport scheme to be successful you need to combine as many journey types as possible with one route. So the Altrincham line combines journeys between the different Trafford towns, within the districts of the Trafford towns, between Trafford and Manchester City Centre and between Trafford and wider destinations within Greater Manchester. Not all these journeys happen at the same time, but they keep the line busy for most of the day.

The Airport line won't be as busy, but it will still have Wythenshawe and south Manchester people accessing jobs in town or at the Airport, access to the Airport (for flights) from some areas, people travelling from Wythenshawe to wider Greater Manchester and people getting around within Chorlton and Wythenshawe. The Trafford Centre Line will not have this mulitplicity of regular users. It will instead a certain proportion of the of the workers in TP and the TC and occasional usage from people attending football or rugby matches or the IWM or shopping at the centre.

Johnny de Rivative

July 20th, 2010, 01:38 PM

Very interesting reading cheers for that WatcherZero.

Its good that they admit that the Eccles line stations are too close together putting people off using the service as the journey is so slow.

Also interesting is the proposed removal of some stops on the airport line seeing as it seems they don't want to make the same mistake again as the Eccles line

Stops for removal or to be combined include

Haveley and Martinscroft to be combined into one station in the vicinity of the Wendon Road junction
Hough End
Hardy Farm
Moor Road - Possible removal
Crossacres or Robinswood Road undecided at present
Woodhouse Park

Disappointing to discover that passengers are deserting the Eccles line for the bus due to poor comparative journey times. I wonder if people have any ideas as to how this could be rectified?

I guess this line will always have to carry the baggage of its circuitous route - e.g. the twist above the Anchorage car park (whilst presenting a slight 'feature' for the enjoyment of enthusiasts like me), is a prime example of speed reduction caused by the line configuration. Perhaps they were unable to get a compulsory purchase for it to run at ground level.

Also, I am not sure if the trams have absolute priority yet at road junctions, although this seems to have improved since the early days of the line? Some corners also seem to suffer excruciatingly severe speed restrictions from time to time, are these faults in the 10 year old track . . .

Perhaps controversially, Pomona stop must have an incredibly low footfall - would it not be an idea to mothball it until either the area is redeveloped, or it becomes an interchange for the Trafford Centre/Port Salford line ???

(I have also made some comments about Airport line stops on 'future' 3b thread

WatcherZero

July 20th, 2010, 01:47 PM

Its partly stop density in the Quays but mostly the fact that it circles them rather than taking a direct route to Manchester. Your never going to fix that and just enjoy the fact transport alternatives (Bus and low stopping but hourly Heavy Rail) are available. Its not really a trend but something thats existed since the route was created being excaerbeted at the moment by overcrowding. The overcrowding however must be seen as a sign of its success.

apologiesforthedelay

July 20th, 2010, 02:06 PM

Perhaps controversially, Pomona stop must have an incredibly low footfall - would it not be an idea to mothball it until either the area is redeveloped, or it becomes an interchange for the Trafford Centre/Port Salford line ???

(I have also made some comments about Airport line stops on 'future' 3b thread

I would get rid of Pomona too. I have never seen anybody get on or off at this stop apart from Ticket inspectors!

Local Lad

July 20th, 2010, 02:42 PM

WatcherZero

July 20th, 2010, 02:46 PM

I was thinking how their trend towards level track crossings at stations makes this impossible, a driver will have to always slow down or stop in case someones crossing.

Still Metrolink continues to walk a fine line between a tramway commuter system and a pre-metro rapid transit system.

Chogmook

July 20th, 2010, 03:13 PM

Broadway should be mothballed too, literally yards away from both Media City and Harbour City stops and mostly empty!

WingTips

July 20th, 2010, 05:13 PM

I would get rid of Pomona too. I have never seen anybody get on or off at this stop apart from Ticket inspectors!

We should remember though that the area around Pomona is about to be redeveloped (I have a feeling ML must have had an idea about this years ago)- probably burried in a 10 year plan somewhere...

WatcherZero

July 20th, 2010, 05:21 PM

Broadway west bound is really close to the others and some of the developments it was meant to service are now nearer other stops, east bounds further from other stops and near residential units.

It is on the other hand a very busy stop quite often weirdly more on west bound than east bound though possibly reflecting more in the area travel to and from Manchester than Eccles.

thecityofgold

July 20th, 2010, 05:58 PM

future.architect

July 20th, 2010, 06:08 PM

You could move Harbour City slightly closer to Anchorage and then eliminate both Broadway and Anchorage. There are far to many stops on this stretch of the Quays.

Pomona is also ripe for closure. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it.

Pomona should be mothballed. By mothballed, i mean the entrances should be made emergency exits (incase you need to evacuate a tram there) but the signs and other equiptment (apart from emergency phones) should be removed. Trams should pass through there without stopping. The advantages of this is that when the area is redeveloped (which it will) you can re open the stop quicky and cheaply if you like.

anchorage, harbour city and broadway should be combined into something between harbour city and anchorage.

I also hope they dont build the stop at sale water park. who would use it? its about 300 metres form dane road and that stop is always dead anyway.

Cherguevara

July 20th, 2010, 07:30 PM

I also hope they dont build the stop at sale water park. who would use it? its about 300 metres form dane road and that stop is always dead anyway.

It's going to have a park and ride just off the M60, so presumably park and riders. I think it's also a nice idea to have a stop in the Mersey Valley, as it's a bugger to get to unless you live next door to it and I quite like the idea of going jogging there. That's not a very practical purpose though.

Watcher - In some ways I think that fine line is a system like Metrolink's strength. Due to the way the city developed, declined and has begun its resurgence again development patterns are inconsistent across large areas of the city; these consequently have differing transport needs. Tyne and Wear Metro is an example of a high spec system that's sadly been very difficult to extend within Newcastle itself because the cost is too high. Metrolink by contrast can have its expensive fast, segregated higher capacity sections meeting a need not far below that served by a light Metro (if they had enough vehicles anyway) but also its cheaper mixed running/at grade crossing routes through development areas where the benefits of a faster system might not be justified. There's no theoretical reason why it couldn't also operate Koln style tram-tunnel sections or Kahlsruhe style tram-train sections if these were needed in the future. What we have to accept is it will probably never be perfect for any job, but if its adequate for those it does and can be expanded when needed then it's not a bad compromise.

apologiesforthedelay

July 20th, 2010, 07:42 PM

We should remember though that the area around Pomona is about to be redeveloped (I have a feeling ML must have had an idea about this years ago)- probably burried in a 10 year plan somewhere...

Is there any room to develop anything around there??

martin2345uk

July 20th, 2010, 08:23 PM

Johnny de Rivative

July 20th, 2010, 08:37 PM

Is there any room to develop anything around there??

Yes, there is the whole of the old Pomona docks area, numerous derelict wharves between there and Cornbrook. It could be a Park & Ride if nothing else - I used to use Pomona for that purpose, before the private owners put double yellow lines on the closed-off Cornbrook Road, which no-one can ever use at the moment.

I am sure Pomona was built in anticipation of it becoming the junction for the Trafford Line - the troughing in the track bed has always been there for this purpose.

On the subject of overcrowding though, could they ever put doubles on the Eccles line? I would hate to measure success on the principle of letting the sardines go rolloping round the corners, as long as they are filling Brian Souter's shareholders pockets!!

Alex_L33

July 20th, 2010, 08:43 PM

I have a quick question around the line on the viaduct between GMex and Cornbrook... is that a purpose built viaduct for Metrolink? Or was it an existing heavy rail viaduct? I can't work it out from looking at it! If it is purpose built, why didn't they use the disused viaduct that runs alongside it?

They were both there as existing heavy rail. The line into Manchester Central (GMEX) was originally 5 tracks wide, with the now-disused viaduct carrying three.

iirc, the viaduct that was converted for Metrolink use was actually the older of the two, but as there was less metalwork I think it was cheaper to repair. I seem to remember they raised the whole metal section up by about a foot to increase clearance where the heavy rail passes underneath, but I imagine little had to be done to the brick arches, as the trams must be lighter than the trains were anyway.

future.architect

July 20th, 2010, 08:47 PM

I have a quick question around the line on the viaduct between GMex and Cornbrook... is that a purpose built viaduct for Metrolink? Or was it an existing heavy rail viaduct? I can't work it out from looking at it! If it is purpose built, why didn't they use the disused viaduct that runs alongside it?

I would have thought that most people could tell that it is of victorian origin. The one that metrolink uses was built in 1877. The second steel viaduct was built in 1884 but when metrolink was being designed, the older viaduct was found to be in better condition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlefield

Johnny de Rivative

July 20th, 2010, 10:45 PM

Work at Audenshaw Snipe (3b)

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6480.jpg

ASDA Eastlands :-

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6562-1.jpg

Clayton tram stop :-

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6561.jpg

Motortownman

July 21st, 2010, 01:05 AM

I suppose the thing that no one has mentioned is that on most 'tramways' and that is what Manchester Metrolink eventually wants to be, the trams don't stop at all the stations. If no one is waiting at the station and no one signals to the driver that they want to get off the tram sails through. I'm sure they could try this on the Eccles line, maybe?

Just a quick passing photo on my way home

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC01024.jpg

The hole in the viaduct at Queens Road is being filled back in again which is a good sign.

I wrote to GMPTE about this idea and they said there was no way they would consider it as they want all trams to stop at all stops whether anybody wishes to get on or off. They also want the buses to do the same .hehe There is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of that happening !!

Motortownman

July 21st, 2010, 01:08 AM

Broadway should be mothballed too, literally yards away from both Media City and Harbour City stops and mostly empty!

Oh I don't know about that. There's usually passengers standing there when I've been on the tram. It's next to a very busy industrial estate and remember there are no buses go anywhere near that area

Bananatrama

July 21st, 2010, 01:11 AM

future.architect. I think you mean 1894 for the date of the second viaduct

WatcherZero

July 21st, 2010, 01:13 AM

Same time Manchester Central was built (the 3 lines were for it ofcourse)

future.architect

July 21st, 2010, 01:22 AM

future.architect. I think you mean 1894 for the date of the second viaduct

lol, well spotted! i will change it now.

Cherguevara

July 21st, 2010, 01:28 AM

I wrote to GMPTE about this idea and they said there was no way they would consider it as they want all trams to stop at all stops whether anybody wishes to get on or off. They also want the buses to do the same .hehe There is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of that happening !!

Really, for the buses? That's mental, especially with the number of stops in some areas. Getting the 41 down to my Dad's would be even more of a drag.

It kind of makes sense for the trams, in the sense that you wouldn't expect it to be a request stop, so people might not request and miss a tram.

nerd

July 21st, 2010, 01:33 AM

I suppose the thing that no one has mentioned is that on most 'tramways' and that is what Manchester Metrolink eventually wants to be, the trams don't stop at all the stations. If no one is waiting at the station and no one signals to the driver that they want to get off the tram sails through. I'm sure they could try this on the Eccles line, maybe?

It is a fundamental design feature of light rail that all trains stop at all stations. Otherwise level boarding would not be possible, as there would need to be a 'mind the gap!' space between vehicle and platform to allow units to pass safely through a station at speed.

WatcherZero

July 21st, 2010, 02:07 AM

But then thats why the Bus BRT schemes were approved, stationlike stops a conisderable distance apart and segregated lanes to get maximum speed while slower stopping alternatives exist.

Fernando Partridge

July 21st, 2010, 12:13 PM

Ashtonian

July 21st, 2010, 02:17 PM

What about the trams in Sheffield with their request stops?

Sounds like the way forward for some stations on the ECC line. When the stations do get patronised - they can revert to compulsory stop status.

Chorlton Bloke

July 21st, 2010, 04:05 PM

Sounds like the way forward for some stations on the ECC line. When the stations do get patronised - they can revert to compulsory stop status.

But surely on a line such as Eccles the advantage of the introduction of request stops would quickly be cancelled out.
Request stops would have a tendency to cause bunching especially if the frequency of service was increased and there would be the possibility that any time saved would be then lost waiting to access the terminal station.

WatcherZero

July 21st, 2010, 04:26 PM

I have to agree its totally impractical for a limited stopping service unless the system was designed with that in mind, e.g. passing loops at stations.

I do believe that if longer lines were built like Wigan/Bolton/Maple it might be possible to design the infrastructure to allow a express and a stopping service to operate on the same lines. That way you could offer a stopping service that say takes 50m and a rapid transit service taking 35m which would deal with these problems of competing with other transport modes.

You know what, If I can be arsed later I will post a couple of diagrams showing commuter flows and journey times within the county in the Future Metrolink thread and we could theorycraft into how they could best be served.

Chorlton Bloke

July 21st, 2010, 05:13 PM

You know what, If I can be arsed later I will post a couple of diagrams showing commuter flows and journey times within the county in the Future Metrolink thread and we could theorycraft into how they could best be served.

That would be interesting and raises a slightly related newbie question.
At the moment when I go looking for a thread I have to take a flask and sandwiches. I have rather major problems with the index. Often when I find a thread unless I bookmark it it disappears.
The really embarassing bit is that I used to moderate a vBulletin board and knew my way round blindfold:cry:

WingTips

July 21st, 2010, 05:37 PM

Oh I don't know about that. There's usually passengers standing there when I've been on the tram. It's next to a very busy industrial estate and remember there are no buses go anywhere near that area

I have noticed alot more passengers recently usung the BWY stop it seems to be getting busier and busier, and lets not forget passenger living and working at MC wanting to travel in the ECC direction will find this stop their nearest as trams form MC will not head in that direction.

soupçon

July 22nd, 2010, 01:02 AM

It is a fundamental design feature of light rail that all trains stop at all stations. Otherwise level boarding would not be possible, as there would need to be a 'mind the gap!' space between vehicle and platform to allow units to pass safely through a station at speed.

Depends what you mean by 'speed'. Sheffield trams slow down through the stops if no-one is getting on or off; roughly 10 mph from 30 on the street-running sections.

I don't see why trams would need to stop if there aren't any passengers getting on or off. It could allow a bit more flexibility to make up delays.

Motortownman

July 22nd, 2010, 09:30 AM

What about the trams in Sheffield with their request stops?

Their system used that idea from day one. So did Croydon. Would be incredibally difficult to retrain passengers now I think.

apologiesforthedelay

July 22nd, 2010, 10:04 AM

Their system used that idea from day one. So did Croydon. Would be incredibally difficult to retrain passengers now I think.

Dean Kirby at the M.E.N. would have a field day!! :lol:

Fernando Partridge

July 22nd, 2010, 10:48 AM

Their system used that idea from day one. So did Croydon. Would be incredibally difficult to retrain passengers now I think.

And the trams would all need to be fitted with a means of making such a request.....

But the 'retraining' cannot be that difficult....the first time I used to the tram in Sheffield I picked it up straight away, it was the 'the next stop by request is...' announcement

Cherguevara

July 22nd, 2010, 10:54 AM

And the trams would all need to be fitted with a means of making such a request.....

But the 'retraining' cannot be that difficult....the first time I used to the tram in Sheffield I picked it up straight away, it was the 'the next stop by request is...' announcement

I think it's more training people on the platforms. How would one hail down a tram? Do you just stand there, do you have to flag it down, do you just sit in the shelter and hope the driver sees you?

iheartthenew

July 22nd, 2010, 01:04 PM

I think it's more training people on the platforms. How would one hail down a tram? Do you just stand there, do you have to flag it down, do you just sit in the shelter and hope the driver sees you?

The same way you'ld hail a bus I presume?

WatcherZero

July 22nd, 2010, 03:39 PM

Ashtonian

July 22nd, 2010, 04:44 PM

I dont support the idea, however thinking how it could be done the door controls could easily be rigged to alert the driver to a stopping request, would also get people used to pressing the button before a stop however in my experience 99% of the time the driver opens all the doors anyway.

On the station would be more difficult, simple button connected to a signal light, or just waving your hand (which some people do when they see a tram coming).

Some heavy rail lines have request stops. You inform the guard/conductor if you want to get off at the particular station. If you're waiting at the station you stick your arm out - just like for a bus. I presume the train would be going at a slow enough speed to stop and the driver has sufficient visibility to see the request.

As for trams - if you're on one, i suppose there has to be a button to press. This won't be a foolproof system - with plenty of false requests.

Chorlton Bloke

July 22nd, 2010, 05:23 PM

As for trams - if you're on one, i suppose there has to be a button to press. This won't be a foolproof system - with plenty of false requests.

Seems to be a way of introducing many more problems without introducing any great advantage. There is a lot to be said for KISS which still leaves room for if it can go wrong, it will go wrong.

If passengers are expecting a journey to take ten minutes they are hardly going to get excited if it takes nine, in fact the majority will probably not notice.

More more significant improvements could be made by turning buses from the Oxford Road corridor at St Peters Sq rather than running dozens of empty buses up Moseley St, improving tram priority on shared sections and passengers realising they'd board faster if they let other passengers dismount first.

Motortownman

July 22nd, 2010, 11:24 PM

Seems to be a way of introducing many more problems without introducing any great advantage. There is a lot to be said for KISS which still leaves room for if it can go wrong, it will go wrong.

If passengers are expecting a journey to take ten minutes they are hardly going to get excited if it takes nine, in fact the majority will probably not notice.

More more significant improvements could be made by turning buses from the Oxford Road corridor at St Peters Sq rather than running dozens of empty buses up Moseley St, improving tram priority on shared sections and passengers realising they'd board faster if they let other passengers dismount first.

Hmmmmm so when they are all nearly full coming out of Piccadilly, where would they all get on?

Chorlton Bloke

July 22nd, 2010, 11:51 PM

Hmmmmm so when they are all nearly full coming out of Piccadilly, where would they all get on?

Buses leaving Parker Street are often only part loaded collecting a full complement of passengers either on Portland Street or at the Refuge on Oxford Street. Witness the number of people who dis board at Central Ref inbound.

In the past when Parker St has been restricted buses have been turned short at York Street with no serious inconvenience to passengers.

As things are I've seen empty buses arriving at Parker Street and being immediately dispatched for lack of space for them to stand.

Chorltonred

July 23rd, 2010, 02:02 AM

Saw 3019 at the Old Trafford depot today.

Motortownman

July 23rd, 2010, 09:01 AM

The same way you'ld hail a bus I presume?

That's good...lol.

A very large percentage of bus passengers haven't worked out how to hail a bus, or to push a bell when they want to get off. Trust me !!

Mostly Lurking

July 23rd, 2010, 01:31 PM

That's good...lol.

A very large percentage of bus passengers haven't worked out how to hail a bus, or to push a bell when they want to get off. Trust me !!

That is their problem. It is just laziness combined with an assumption that the bus will stop for them.

It works perfectly well for request stops on heavy rail all over the country.

WatcherZero

July 23rd, 2010, 06:36 PM

Though it starts a cycle of decline, less people use them so less stops, so less use them.

Cherguevara

July 23rd, 2010, 06:50 PM

That is their problem. It is just laziness combined with an assumption that the bus will stop for them.

It works perfectly well for request stops on heavy rail all over the country.

Trains have conductors that ease the situation somewhat. It doesn't really work that well even with them though. As watcher says it discourages use; but more than that it's confusing and stressful for passengers, especially those new to the system. Why make things more complicated for at most a few minutes shaved off the journey time?

Chorlton Bloke

July 23rd, 2010, 07:41 PM

I just don't see buses and trains using request stops as a compelling reason for Metrolink to use them. I can see plenty of disadvantages but no advantage beyond a possible but doubtful timesaving.
With the best will in the world bus drivers and train drivers miss request stops. And request bus stops cause many passengers to miss buses.

Mostly Lurking

July 23rd, 2010, 08:00 PM

Trains have conductors that ease the situation somewhat. It doesn't really work that well even with them though. As watcher says it discourages use; but more than that it's confusing and stressful for passengers, especially those new to the system. Why make things more complicated for at most a few minutes shaved off the journey time?

I'm talking about 'flagging' a train down so having a conductor/guard is irrelevant - and it works perfectly well all over the country, providing that users are aware it is a request stop.

I wasn't actually arguing for or against, just pointing out that it can (and does) work in many locations. I also think it would be very difficult to implement it successfully onto the network now at its current age.

Johnny de Rivative

July 23rd, 2010, 11:01 PM

Anyway as to the other agenda item.

http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/3129/item_05_gm_transport_fund-metrolink_phase_3a_amd_financial_strategy_update,
Oldham and Rochdale TC
Lots of detail on route allignments, traffic, etc.. each one require ordering one additional tram.
.

Hi Watcher, can you or anyone assist with the meaning of the term "optimised" in paragraph 2.32 of the above report for to-day's GMITA meeting? :-

"The alignment for the Oldham town centre extension interface at Werneth has been optimised, and the design will allow the construction to be incorporated into the Phase 3a delivery programme, reducing abortive costs."

It also seems to imply that Werneth will not be built as a tram stop ?
Many thanks.

WatcherZero

July 23rd, 2010, 11:31 PM

I didnt read it in detail the first time not knowing the local roads.

Its two possibles, either its impying their not gonna build it in the first place or its refering to the fact Werneth wont be operated once 3B opens, if you remember there was talk of keeping the 3B allignment open with Werneth and Mumps on a express route, since theyve chosen the moving mumps option and decided to rip up the track it means Werneth will close. Which of the two I dont know.

As to optimised is it not refering to what youve mentioned before of demolishing the viaduct before 3A opens?

Johnny de Rivative

July 24th, 2010, 09:36 PM

Yes it could be that - the report mentions later that " the works will involve demolition of the Mumps viaduct by Autumn 2010, to facilitate diversion of the line via the town centre." (para 2.35)

This seems very tight as we are now in mid-Summer, but if the viaduct is left up for 3a in Autumn 11, there will have to be a long blockade later while it is demolished for 3b. No doubt all will be revealed in time.

martin2345uk

July 24th, 2010, 11:28 PM

Couple of up to date photos from Chorlton...

St Werburghs Rd station, not much progress on this side...
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/2059/img0346y.jpg

Chorlton station, platforms looking good!
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/3171/img0348yi.jpg

I like this one - lift shaft, just behind the bricked up entrance to the original Chorlton station, looks like that will be re-opened :-)
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1271/img0347d.jpg

WatcherZero

July 24th, 2010, 11:41 PM

Will probably stick one of those yellow arches in there :P

Local Lad

July 25th, 2010, 04:58 PM

Shaw and Crompton mainline as of 3 o clock today.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC01062.jpg

M60lad

July 25th, 2010, 05:36 PM

Thanks for the latest pics Local Lad, just wondering did you see the other side where the Station used to be, as when I was in Shaw last week I had a look and there's still track on the Station side and where the platform used to be part of the old Level Crossing Gates have been left there

Also to let people know that the old bridge at Jammy Lane/Edward Street has now gone and there's a space now where it used to be and Drury Lane in Chadderton has now reopened to traffic and has been open now for the past couple of weeks

Local Lad

July 25th, 2010, 05:56 PM

Yeah the other side still looks exactly the same so I didn't bother to photograph it. The signal box is still standing. I guess they must be concentrating on the southern section first as this is due to open in the Spring of next year so not long at all!

Also I noticed MPT seemed to have rented an office block on the outskirts of Oldham but of course being Sunday there wasn't many people about. I noticed one lone orange clad worker securing the remains of now torched Oldham signal box at least.

Trafford Bar

July 25th, 2010, 08:02 PM

Anyone see the Emergency services exercise at Media City today with Tram 3012.
Unfortunately I didn't have my camera.
Staged a collision with a transit van . police fire and ambulance in attendance. Mass casualties and the like

Gdogg371

July 26th, 2010, 02:27 AM

just seen one banana and 3 t38s parked up outside media city and moving in one by one around the midnight mark. anyone know what that was all about?

WatcherZero

July 26th, 2010, 03:34 AM

Testing clearances and stress testing its OHLE.

Local Lad

July 26th, 2010, 07:43 AM

I noticed those units coming from back from Media city this morning double 1000 series + 1 single and an M5000 at about 05:30

Other overnight observations include the overhead line supports being took from the small yard at Victoria down to the Irk Valley viaduct site via some random looking truck/rail vehicle. They must of been working through the night because some were already bolted up to the brackets on the outside of the viaduct when I went past this morning. Hoorah!

Motortownman

July 26th, 2010, 09:32 AM

They actually now have the overhead wire up and in place between near to the depot and the bridge before Firswood station.

When you look at the pictures of Chorlton and Firswood, there are holes in the platform edge obviously to hold some kind of railing. Wonder what it will be? A fence , railing, or glass like St Peters square maybe?

Motortownman

July 26th, 2010, 09:34 AM

ScouseinManc

July 26th, 2010, 02:21 PM

Shaw and Crompton mainline as of 3 o clock today.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC01062.jpg

Can anyone advise as to why all the ballast has been removed, when it will only be relaid at a later date?

cap'njack

July 26th, 2010, 03:02 PM

[QUOTE=WatcherZero;60916845]Testing clearances and stress testing its OHLE.[/QUOT
Not true Watcher, they are testing the TOS equipment.

Chorlton Bloke

July 26th, 2010, 04:03 PM

Can anyone advise as to why all the ballast has been removed, when it will only be relaid at a later date?

Cos the track is laid in the ballast, not on it and the ballast would need cleaning of organic material and undersize materials. The original ballast was probably reclaimed and used for other purposes along witth the track.

Motortownman

July 27th, 2010, 09:12 AM

Freel07

July 27th, 2010, 09:31 AM

M60lad

July 27th, 2010, 12:23 PM

1015sparky

July 27th, 2010, 01:55 PM

Does anybody know whether there will still be access next week to Queens Road Depot to get the trams back each night while the Bury Line is shut from Woodlands Road next week.

If not where will trams be stored overnight while the work is going on

I'm guessing that the trams on the Bury section will be able to reach the depot. The Altrincham/Eccles trams are likely to be stored in the Victoria turn back siding, Altrincham station and on the Birdcage bridge at G-Mex. That's what has happened in previous blockades.

apologiesforthedelay

July 27th, 2010, 01:58 PM

I'm guessing that the trams on the Bury section will be able to reach the depot. The Altrincham/Eccles trams are likely to be stored in the Victoria turn back siding, Altrincham station and on the Birdcage bridge at G-Mex. That's what has happened in previous blockades.

I thought they were planning on keeping the Alti/Eccles trams at the OT Depot.

Ashtonian

July 27th, 2010, 03:50 PM

I thought they were planning on keeping the Alti/Eccles trams at the OT Depot.

:ohno: OT depot isn't complete yet.

r02bapurdie

July 27th, 2010, 04:09 PM

Hi

Oldham Council is to spend £5m on improving the town centre in preparation for the arrival of Metrolink in the spring of 2014.

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/45069/town-centres-5m-metrolink-facelift

r02bapurdie

July 27th, 2010, 04:20 PM

Bosses look at U-turn on tram scooter ban

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/transport/public_transport/s/1310656_bosses_look_at_uturn_on_tram_scooter_ban

apologiesforthedelay

July 27th, 2010, 04:38 PM

:ohno: OT depot isn't complete yet.

I thought in the last Metrolink GMPTE report/meeting thing, it said that the OT Depot would be ready to house upto 20 trams with the OHLE all working by August 2010.

future.architect

July 27th, 2010, 06:28 PM

The overhead lines at the trafford depot are switched on. The depot is obviouly still a building site, but it is finished enough to store trams there overnight and carry out cleaning.

uklad1979

July 27th, 2010, 09:55 PM

New PID's say Manchester Metro instead of Metrolink for some reason.
Cable has arrived at Cornbrook to cable in the signals.
Old TVM's one the Eccles line are being removed.

WatcherZero

July 27th, 2010, 10:33 PM

You sure? I know the old Eccles Pids still there showing time, but the new ones look like this unless the message has changed in the last fortnight:

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7110334.jpg

Motortownman

July 28th, 2010, 09:32 AM

1015sparky

July 29th, 2010, 12:36 AM

3020 has arrived at Queens Road :banana:

nistromo

July 29th, 2010, 04:00 AM

For the past few nights they have been running an M5000 up and down the Bury line through the night. Without stopping for stations, it goes past in either direction every 15/20 mins clocking up the miles

cap'njack

July 29th, 2010, 06:45 AM

Futurelink

July 29th, 2010, 02:03 PM

3020 has arrived at Queens Road :banana:

No doubt we'll see it at OT soon.

zapaman

July 29th, 2010, 02:20 PM

After 3 weeks here is the reply from GMPTE regarding through ticketing to rail stations. This would be fun to try. I bet the solution actually is that they give you a code to use on the tram for free the you buy the ticket at the rail station.

"Thank you for your recent comments regarding the problems you have experienced whilst attempting to purchase a rail zone ticket from the new Metrolink ticket machines.

We are aware of the current problems with the new ticket machines and new software updates will be installed as soon as possible. In the meantime if you wish to purchase a rail zone ticket you can do so by contacting Metrolink Customer Services on 0161 205 8665."

Another reply:
Thank you for your comments regarding the problems you have been experiencing with the new Metrolink ticket machines. I would like to apologise for any inconvenience this has caused.

We are aware that a number of customers are experiencing some problems with our new ticket machines. Work is planned to take place over the next few weeks to resolve these problems and to ensure that customers are able to purchase rail zone tickets from these new machines.

In the meantime, if you keep your tickets and send them to Stagecoach Metrolink they will refund you the difference from what you would have paid if you were able to purchase a rail zone ticket. Stagecoach Metrolink’s address is as follows:

Customer Service
Stagecoach Metrolink
Queens Road
Manchester
M8 0RY

I hope this information is of use to you. If I can be of any further assistance then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely

Sean Dyball
Customer Relations Officer

iheartthenew

July 29th, 2010, 07:24 PM

Sometimes there is only 1 line on them which says "Welcolme to Manchester Metro" .

Yup, they were saying that last night too.

future.architect

July 29th, 2010, 07:47 PM

We begin our journey on Claude Road, My old home and the centre of yogurt weaving hemp jumper unicorn shopping anti tesco bicycle chorlton! But not as far from the city as you think...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/golddigga19/DSCF0308-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/golddigga19/DSCF0309.jpg
st werberugs

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/golddigga19/DSCF0310.jpg
possibly a bike shed

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/golddigga19/DSCF0311.jpg
platform, looks like they got bored building it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/golddigga19/DSCF0312.jpg
slightly architectual looking lift and stairs structure

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/golddigga19/DSCF0313.jpg
towards morrisons, did they not order enough masts?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/golddigga19/DSCF0314.jpg
Firswood, the wires are up, they end a few hundered metres beyond the platforms

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/golddigga19/DSCF0315.jpg
almost finished

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/golddigga19/DSCF0316-1.jpg
hole in the wall, obviously space for a future.arch What are they gonna do about that gas pipe tho?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/golddigga19/DSCF0317.jpg
towards kings road, you could amost drive a tram down here

heatonparkincakes

July 29th, 2010, 11:15 PM

Watch how the property values of those homes of the yogurt weaving hemp jumper unicorn shopping anti tesco cyclists rocket as the tram arrives.

(Tsk! and you didnt mention the Guardian or TES)

And watch equally curiously as the good folk of Benchill space invade the homes, gardens and pubs of those yogurt weaving hemp jumper unicorn shopping anti tesco cyclisticites.

Cherguevara

July 29th, 2010, 11:27 PM

And watch equally curiously as the good folk of Benchill space invade the homes, gardens and pubs of those yogurt weaving hemp jumper unicorn shopping anti tesco cyclisticites.

Are you suggesting that people are going to use the tram to commit burglaries? I'd like to see that.

I'd like to think we'll see Northern Moor (or Wythenshawe Park as I'm sure it will be renamed by estate agents) gentrified to within an inch of its life by all the tram hungry yoghurt munchers driven out of Chorlton by the rising house prices.

WatcherZero

July 29th, 2010, 11:39 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/golddigga19/DSCF0310.jpg

Electrical equipment and Driver rest facilities

Chorlton Bloke

July 30th, 2010, 12:06 AM

Electrical equipment and Driver rest facilities

And bicycle parking
http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pdf/future_metrolink/south-manchester-line/st-werburghs-road.pdf

WatcherZero

July 30th, 2010, 12:11 AM

No, they cycle parking looks like this, lockers:

http://www.stockport.gov.uk/2016/2811/50990/bikelockers?view=Standard

http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=6116191

heatonparkincakes

July 30th, 2010, 12:37 AM

I was joking Che.

I hope that the tram enlivens the economic lives of all people, but most especially the most excluded members of society.

Literal and figuratively connecting people.

Although I quite like the idea of some real proletarian grit cheering up the faux liberalism of certain enclaves. Might make them think that drinking fair trade coffee is not enough to change the world.

Chorlton Bloke

July 30th, 2010, 12:46 AM

No, they cycle parking looks like this, lockers:

http://www.stockport.gov.uk/2016/2811/50990/bikelockers?view=Standard

http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=6116191

Yes, probably on the concrete pad in front of the brick building, it must be one of the few bomb proof bike parks in existance, it consists of about two feet of reinforced concrete.

Chorlton Bloke

July 30th, 2010, 12:51 AM

Although I quite like the idea of some real proletarian grit cheering up the faux liberalism of certain enclaves. Might make them think that drinking fair trade coffee is not enough to change the world.

Merseybank estate to you. We have a fair bit of proletarian grit already.

Local Lad

July 30th, 2010, 08:18 AM

Just a few observations to add

I'm guessing it must be a test run and will be broken up to move, but the Oldham line junction was lay fully constructed this morning on the lower of the two viaducts at the Irk Valley site. My crappy phone camera doesn't have a big enough zoom so no photos sorry!

Also as I was leaving the Victoria station car park this morning, a truck was coming the other way with the replacement cross over (for the works outside the station) in parts on a flat trailer.

Is all go!

Motortownman

July 30th, 2010, 09:49 AM

"yogurt weaving hemp jumper unicorn shopping anti tesco cyclisticites."

errrm is that another way of saying "attitude" ?

M60lad

July 31st, 2010, 09:52 AM

Talking about the works outside Victoria Station led mr to the following query:

Am I right/wrong in thinking that the crossover from the Mainline to Metrolink line is being replaced during this weeks shutdown as its the only old Cross-over that I can actually think off outside Victoria Station

WatcherZero

July 31st, 2010, 01:27 PM

Dont know if they will be doing that, theres also one crossover and a siding so trams could terminate at Victoria from the city if they wanted.

WirlieG

July 31st, 2010, 03:08 PM

I see 2006 and 3006 are both being stabled at MediaCity for the time of the blockade on the Bury line at present.

WingTips

July 31st, 2010, 06:17 PM

What must be another first for SCC a climpse of the future...trams on the new MC spur...

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7310392.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7310393.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7310394.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7310395.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7310396.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7310397.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7310398.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7310400.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7310397.jpg

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7310414.jpg

And a sight that will shorly become familiar a tram with MC as a back drop..

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/trakkie/P7310415.jpg

DiscoSteve

July 31st, 2010, 06:25 PM

And watch equally curiously as the good folk of Benchill space invade the homes, gardens and pubs of those yogurt weaving hemp jumper unicorn shopping anti tesco cyclisticites.which will happen when the Airport line is completed... :ohno:

Local Lad

July 31st, 2010, 06:45 PM

All the 6's ! Brilliant work Wingtips, its sure been a while coming.

As Watcher says its the crossing just before the road bridge at Victoria rather than the connection to the mainline. I bet you could count the use of that just one hand!

Chorlton Bloke

July 31st, 2010, 06:55 PM

Scaffolding going up on the Wibraham Road bridge at Chorlton Station today. Looks as if they are getting ready to go through the bridge parapet and do whatever they intend to do to the top where the coping stones have been removed.

WingTips

July 31st, 2010, 09:17 PM

Johnny de Rivative

July 31st, 2010, 10:44 PM

The first of many iconic moments coming in the next few years! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

WirlieG

August 1st, 2010, 09:15 AM

Not sure if known widely but Tramways & Urban Transport reports that 3001 is actually being used as a test tram for modifications to the :banana: trams. The suggestion being that it is not still broken but deliberately being only used to develop the modifications that the new trams are getting.

Also, very interesting article from KPMG consultant who used to work at the DfT on assessing cost benefit but has recently worked on GM TF.

He talks about the new government scrapping cost benefit analysis - seen as a 'welfare' assessment - and now they are turning to an economic measure - i.e. how much will this development improve the GVA for an area. Changes in land use are highlighted as incredibly important. If you can show the value tax raised from surroudning land will rise a lot this is clearly good. He also warns that some scheme wil reduce the land values - clearly bad.

In the future this GVA increase method will be used to assess if a project proceeds and not CB analysis.

This GVA method was used in the GM TF and showed that the Metrolink expansions were more valuable than the old CB analyis.

The guy talks about the GM TF as an example as to how transport will be funded in the future, i.e. 1 pound in 7 for a £1.5bn major transport scheme actually coming from the DfT major transport schemes budget, the rest coming from alternate sources.

Such funding mechanisms will be more and more important as budgets are tightened.

M60lad

August 1st, 2010, 10:01 AM

Speaking of where trams are being stabled during the blockade this week, I was in Altrincham yesterday (Saturday) and noticed the following trams stabled both on Platfrom 1 & 2:

1010, 1024, 2002, 1015 & 3008

Incidently not to sure why but 2002 which was stabled on Platform 2 kept having its door closing alarm sounding about every minute as it seemed the doors were left activated and it also looked like the drivers cab door on this unit was left open aswell

MarkO

August 1st, 2010, 11:53 AM

The first of many iconic moments coming in the next few years! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

:applause:

Exactly JdR! (and Excellent piccies WingTips:cheers:)

In fact it's almost a decade since a new piece of Metrolink was opened (Eccles line, Jan 2001) - and that was first approved back in 1996, so there should rightly be a big old fanfare when this little stub finally does go into service (any confirmed dates for opening??).

If it were just that though I might be a little more muted (15 year wait for a few hundred meters) but thankfully as these pages demonstrate there's SOOOOO much more going on in Manchester right now and as JdR says, there will be a host of iconic moments over the next two years.:banana:

Bring on the 2CC/Airport/Trafford Centre and "phase 4" under 'GVA method' or any other way it can be done!! :nuts:

apologiesforthedelay

August 1st, 2010, 12:30 PM

Not sure what they were doing with the track at Market Street yesterday but it involved loud machinery and sparks!

WirlieG

August 1st, 2010, 12:35 PM

From what I saw they were working on the junction box for at the southbound end of the platform.

SleepyOne

August 1st, 2010, 06:24 PM

Also, very interesting article from KPMG consultant who used to work at the DfT on assessing cost benefit but has recently worked on GM TF.

He talks about the new government scrapping cost benefit analysis - seen as a 'welfare' assessment - and now they are turning to an economic measure - i.e. how much will this development improve the GVA for an area. Changes in land use are highlighted as incredibly important. If you can show the value tax raised from surroudning land will rise a lot this is clearly good. He also warns that some scheme wil reduce the land values - clearly bad.

In the future this GVA increase method will be used to assess if a project proceeds and not CB analysis.

This GVA method was used in the GM TF and showed that the Metrolink expansions were more valuable than the old CB analyis.

The guy talks about the GM TF as an example as to how transport will be funded in the future, i.e. 1 pound in 7 for a £1.5bn major transport scheme actually coming from the DfT major transport schemes budget, the rest coming from alternate sources.

Such funding mechanisms will be more and more important as budgets are tightened.

Interesting, thanks WirlieG.

Freel07

August 1st, 2010, 08:48 PM

:applause:

Exactly JdR! (and Excellent piccies WingTips:cheers:)

In fact it's almost a decade since a new piece of Metrolink was opened (Eccles line, Jan 2001) - and that was first approved back in 1996, so there should rightly be a big old fanfare when this little stub finally does go into service (any confirmed dates for opening??).

If it were just that though I might be a little more muted (15 year wait for a few hundred meters) but thankfully as these pages demonstrate there's SOOOOO much more going on in Manchester right now and as JdR says, there will be a host of iconic moments over the next two years.:banana:

Bring on the 2CC/Airport/Trafford Centre and "phase 4" under 'GVA method' or any other way it can be done!! :nuts:

Its actually almost exactly 10 years since Broadway to Eccles opened. It was 21st July 2000, the line to Broadway opened first on 6th December 1999.

DiscoSteve

August 1st, 2010, 10:13 PM

no photos but drove the length of Ashton New Road/Manchester Road to Droylsden this morning - what a monstrous construction job that is!

Johnny de Rivative

August 1st, 2010, 11:05 PM

It sure is a four mile building site at present - not very photogenic during this period however, as one building site tends to look much like another . . .

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6728.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6731.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6730.jpg

Stop names are not up for public consultation, but I do think Cemetery Road stop should be re-named SIDEBOTTOM STREET - after the recently deceased 'Frank Sidebottom'. A lovely man, and a Mancunian Icon.

The tram platforms will actually sit across Sidebottom Street, while Cemetery Road itself is a bit further up on the other side. It is also an unfortunate name, as the stop will face an old people's residence (!) :|. . .

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6726.jpg

Meanwhile, back at at Man City, the walls of the tram stop are getting greener, and the bridge above has been painted blue :-

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6734.jpg

I think it must be actually intended to have some kind of 'vertical garden' as trellis type netting has been laid behind for it to cling on to :-

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6743.jpg

(I wish they would do that with the Piccadilly Gardens Wall, or at least put some windows in it!)

WatcherZero

August 2nd, 2010, 09:04 AM

We have units being delivered fortnightly being stored at the partially completed OT depot. An interesting comparison can be made with Edinburgh, 1 unit has been delivered and put on show on a partially completed track section in Princes Street but due to delays to the depot at Gogarburn theres nowhere to store the rest of them, 12 completed units are having to be stored at CAF's factory in Spain (At construction consortiums own cost). September however they will start being delivered monthly in pairs and while TIE says the depot will be able to start accommodating at least some by the end of the year they have had to secure temporary storage elsewhere at a cost of £1500 per tram per month until the depot opens.

future.architect

August 2nd, 2010, 10:49 AM

Im glad that our project is running early/ on time/ on budget. Edinburgh's is a total mess.

future.architect

August 2nd, 2010, 02:29 PM

I was just at st peters square and that fat councilor and his mates where having their picture taken. They had this giant novelty ticket with 'Next stop, Manchester Airport' printed on it so expect a press release from GMPTE soon.

Priscilla QOTD

August 2nd, 2010, 05:28 PM

From GMPTE (http://www.gmpte.com/2009_news.cfm?news_id=9004272?submenuheader=3):

News Releases
Monday, 02 August 2010All clear for three new Metrolink lines

In a historic decision, Greater Manchester's leaders have given the green light to three Metrolink extensions, which will see the city region's iconic tram system running to Oldham and Rochdale town centres and to Manchester Airport via Wythenshawe.

At a meeting of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) on Friday, the leaders of the city region's ten local authorities confirmed funding of £0.5 billion from the Greater Manchester Transport Fund to deliver the three new tram lines.

The announcement means Metrolink trams will be running to Oldham and Rochdale town centres by spring 2014 and to Manchester Airport by mid 2016.

Lord Peter Smith, Chair of the AGMA Executive, said: "Public transport has a crucial part to play in supporting Greater Manchester's economy and these Metrolink extensions will give a huge boost to the region. I am delighted that these vital projects can now go ahead.

"The major transport schemes covered by the Greater Manchester Transport Fund have been prioritised based on their value to the regional economy.

"They have been identified as schemes that will support economic recovery and future growth by both creating jobs and improving access to jobs, education, leisure and healthcare.

"If delivered in full, the investment programme is forecast to increase total employment in Greater Manchester by 21,000 by 2021 above what it would otherwise have been. Overall, the potential programme is forecast to be worth £1.3bn per year by 2021.

"These new Metrolink lines in particular will also be the catalyst for regeneration in several areas, so today's announcement is great news."

Chair of Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA), Councillor Ian Macdonald, said: "We are delighted that we are now at a stage where we can press ahead with delivering Metrolink lines to Manchester Airport and Oldham and Rochdale town centres.

"This further expansion of the Metrolink network will be a real boost both to the local areas as well as Greater Manchester as a whole, supporting the future growth of the regional economy, taking car journeys off the roads and vastly improving public transport links."

Vice Chair of GMITA, Councillor Keith Whitmore, said: "This historic announcement is excellent news and is a vital step towards delivering a 21st century public transport network for Greater Manchester.

"Both GMITA and AGMA have worked hard to get to this stage and I now look forward to work starting on the ground."

Manchester Airports Group has also agreed to provide a contribution to funding for the Airport line.

Geoff Muirhead, Chief Executive of the Manchester Airports Group, said: "We are delighted at this news, and have been long standing supporters of the Metrolink extension since it was first proposed.

"We have consistently maintained that support and are pleased to see it coming to fruition, as it will make us one of the most accessible destinations in the region.

"We have already invested over £100 million in the airport station and millions of passengers already use our extensive bus, coach and rail routes to get their flights to our 190 destinations worldwide.

"Metrolink is a crucial addition to our services and will extend our reach into the conurbation of Greater Manchester."

In addition to the 48 new trams currently on order for Greater Manchester's expanding Metrolink network, 14 new trams will be ordered to serve the extensions to Manchester Airport and Oldham and Rochdale town centres. This will bring the total number of new trams for Manchester's expanded Metrolink to 62.

iheartthenew

August 2nd, 2010, 06:00 PM

:). In just over 3 years will be spotting and celebrating the arrival of 3062 at OT?

Ashtonian

August 2nd, 2010, 06:21 PM

Has the Ashton extension already been approved previously ?

WirlieG

August 2nd, 2010, 06:22 PM

Going to take less than 2 years at the current rate to get up to :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Presumably 2CC is also included in this excellent news.

And all those who claimed Greater Manchester would fall apart once Labour were out of power eh?

WatcherZero

August 2nd, 2010, 06:37 PM

apologiesforthedelay

August 2nd, 2010, 07:10 PM

So we will have 94 trams in 2016!

Can our depots cope with that?

WatcherZero

August 2nd, 2010, 08:29 PM

Cherguevara

August 2nd, 2010, 08:40 PM

No 2CC is not green lit yet, public consultation on stop locations starting next month I think. After that we have the Manchester Central interchange proposal from MCC and Trafford line remaining unapproved, all other firm proposals (bar dropped Stockport and Full Airport loop) green lit.

As I understand it the 2CC is fully funded through the borrowing element of the GMTF so will be approved locally when the design, planning and legal powers stages are completed.

WatcherZero

August 2nd, 2010, 09:08 PM

Couple of weeks old but just found this Dft video for the official opening of the expanded Queens Road Depot. (Some brief shots inside the sheds and 3012 breaking the ribbon)

fX49Xoidoq4

Johnny de Rivative

August 2nd, 2010, 09:51 PM

Has the Ashton extension already been approved previously ?

Yes Ash, final government funding approval was announced in mid June, in advance of other transport projects such as Rochdale Interchange, which will have to wait until the Autumn spending review for a decision. I guess this is so that the current construction of 3a can be continued end-on to the 'accelerated' bits of 3b, i.e. Ashton & East Didsbury.

From http://lrta.org/:-

"Manchester Metrolink extensions saved : Metrolink's planned extensions to East Didsbury and Ashton-under-Lyne have survived government cuts. The Department of Transport has confirmed the new routes will receive their planned funding.

The decision has come as a relief after the government had announced a list of projects, across the country, that it had decided to scrap as part of a review of project recently approved by the previous government.

The extension to Ashton-under-Lyne is expected to help safeguard almost 2000 jobs created under the Tameside Economic Zone, as companies have located to the area because of the planned Metrolink extension.

18 June 2010 "

Local Lad

August 2nd, 2010, 10:30 PM

Barely on paper, Queens Roads newly expanded capacity is 44. It had always been over its design capacity of 26 because it wasnt expanded for the 6 extra T68A but its now been expanded to have a capacity equal to all T68 + 12 M5000 (8 Altri-Bury + 4 Media City). Old Trafford depot had planning permission for no more than 50 to be stored there on noise pollution grounds and is currently being built for a 40 capacity. If OT is upped to 50 maximum allowed that gives a total capacity of......94

Watcher. I suspect that when the Metrolink grows to the monstrous size that it will do, they might well do as the railway does and have units stabled around the network. If both depots were filled totally to capacity they wouldn't be able to move units around inside the depot as is the problem currently at Queens Road, remember that photo posted on here, Queens Road rammed to the rafters!! Its going to be quite a run down to the Airport and Rochdale Town centres in the morning, so its got to be a good idea to have some ready at the outer reaches of the network. Also I'm sure that every tram doesn't need to be in the depot every single night for maintenance and the don't require fuel, so easy days!

Great news on all the extension news. Its going to be one hell of system!

Chorlton Bloke

August 3rd, 2010, 01:45 AM

I suppose a few all night services would relieve pressure on stabling.

jets9

August 3rd, 2010, 04:08 AM

From GMPTE (http://www.gmpte.com/2009_news.cfm?news_id=9004272?submenuheader=3):

And not a congestion charge in sight! :lol:

WatcherZero

August 3rd, 2010, 04:24 AM

Ashtonian

August 3rd, 2010, 02:22 PM

Yeah but a sizeable increase in everyone in the counties council tax, so your still paying for it...
People missed out on the sly hint that the C-Charge would only come after ALL the improvements were completed and the government would lend the money to set up the scheme itself, i.e. they could string it out and a change in government policy and bang we got £2.5bn in government cash without a C-Charge, because 75% of people couldnt work that out the money went to Crossrail.

C-Charge was a clever way of getting non GM residents (who clog up our network) to contribute to it. Now GM residents will suffer with cutbacks on other projects.

I was in the minority who voted for the C-Charge.

WatcherZero

August 3rd, 2010, 05:42 PM

Latest issue of RAIL has a page of little Metrolink snippets (one story is truncated in mid sentence, bad editor!) generally stuff we know from last Authority meeting with a couple of quotes. Does seem to confirm Werneth 3A is gone due to the decision to alter the route and remove the tunnel.

MEN (print) today has also got a story on the meeting, noting the approval of the Airport line and picking up on the 3am service with only a 2.5 hour nightly shutdown, Airport head quoted as saying 'we are a 24 hour operation' and 'Metrolink is the final piece of our integrated hub transport strategy'.

r02bapurdie

August 3rd, 2010, 07:10 PM

Hi

TRAMS have been given the green light to roll into Union Street by spring 2012.

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/45364/now-its-official-trams-finally-on-way

r02bapurdie

August 3rd, 2010, 07:19 PM

Hi

The Altrincham and Eccles Metrolink lines will be closed on Sunday evenings for the next three weekends to allow essential engineering and improvement work to be carried out.

The closures will allow engineering work to be carried out on connections to the new South Manchester line to Chorlton, and the installation and testing of a new system which will lead to improved passenger information.

http://www.gmpte.com/2009_news.cfm?news_id=9004289?submenuheader=3

Seasonedbest

August 3rd, 2010, 07:24 PM

Love the comments below that article.^^

Cherguevara

August 3rd, 2010, 07:33 PM

Love the comments below that article.^^

Christ, there really needs to be an intelligence test before people can access the internet.

WatcherZero

August 3rd, 2010, 07:39 PM

Love the comments below that article.^^

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/StatlerAndWaldorf.jpg

future.architect

August 3rd, 2010, 08:07 PM

Love the comments below that article.^^

Never knew that Oldham was part of Royston Vasey.

Nathan Dawz

August 3rd, 2010, 09:53 PM

:ohno: It should be a crime not to shoot these people.

Cpl_R

August 3rd, 2010, 10:13 PM

My Adopted home town is full of bell-ends. These people know sweet FA, and yes they should be shot..

Futurelink

August 4th, 2010, 01:45 PM

Love the comments below that article.^^

That's entertainment at it's very best :lol:

Fernando Partridge

August 4th, 2010, 02:28 PM

My Adopted home town is full of bell-ends. These people know sweet FA, and yes they should be shot..

You really couldn't make the 'FARSE' post up.

ScouseinManc

August 4th, 2010, 02:29 PM

Futurelink

August 4th, 2010, 07:44 PM

Feck em all (IMHO)...

If the 'good' folk of Oldham are so unhappy about it, then the £89M should be diverted elsewhere. Leave all the ungrateful swines transportless. That'd give em something to moan about.

Could always use the new found cash to kick start a line out to the Trafford Centre, or another up through Monton & onto Worsley & Leigh.

I do agree with one of the comments tho - "what do people want to come to Oldham for?" Spot on - no reason whatsoever, the place IS a dump! Don't get me wrong, there are some nice buildings up there & it's nice & hilly, but it really is down to the people at the end of the day isn't it!!

You mentioned extending the line through Monton up to Worsley and Leigh - I think this would be a good idea. Also running the Metrolink up to Swinton/Irlam o' th' Height would be nice too. However that would be another one of those akward spellings, like Besses o' th' barn.

I reckon one of us should comment on that news article informing them of how much of a laughing stock they are.

W0bz

August 4th, 2010, 09:10 PM

Not every one in "oldham" thinks that Metolink is a bad idea - we just have some of the worst (best?) moaners. To many they just see a longer jorney time and the prospect of higher fares. Not how I see it. Metrolink will give a more frequent service than the train ever did especailly in evenings and weekends with a bit of an increase in journey time - wothwhile in my book.

Cpl_R

August 4th, 2010, 09:24 PM

Am liking the comment on how chaotic mumps is. Mmmm o'riley? ;) I go through mumps everyday it's not that bad. Most of the congestion is cause by the bloody bus lanes. Maybe the tram will help to relive this.

Johnny de Rivative

August 5th, 2010, 01:17 AM

WOBZ & CPL - On the subject of timings, I placed this admittedly amateurish assessment on the 'future' thread recently :-

projected timings based on the existing overall average of 2 minutes per stop, produces these results :-

East Didsbury - Victoria 28 mins Via 1CC but excluding Mosley Street. Comparable to the three existing lines & 10x per hour. By rail, East Didsbury - Piccadilly is 16 mins but only 2x per hour, and add 10-15 mins if changing for Victoria etc, depending on through journey required.
(St Werburgh - Victoria 18 mins)

Ashton - Piccadilly 24 mins The current off-peak journey times on Northern Rail services Ashton-Victoria, vary greatly between 9 mins (1x per hour through to Lime Street) and 15 mins (1x per hour terminating at Victoria), although there are no intermediate stops! I think this confirms my impression that the timetable allows for pathing delays, which always seem to occur when terminating into Victoria from the East.
However, as long as your journey is Ashton - Victoria only, the train is much quicker, as anti-Metrolink Ashton whingers keep telling us. But then again, the trains are only 2x per hour, where Metrolink will be 10x per hour and will also cover 11 intermediate points. And if your journey is Ashton to the Piccadilly side, by rail you will still have to allow 10-15 mins to change etc. , so not much difference in those cases.
(Droylsden-Piccadilly 16 mins)

Rochdale Railway Stn - Victoria (via 3a) 28 mins This excludes Kingsway and Werneth, giving a fast run between Mumps and Freehold, but perhaps creating a service lacuna in that area. Northern Rail Rochdale-Victoria via Moston is 13-14 mins fast, 19-21 mins stopper, and via Oldham Loop was previously 33-34 mins, so Metrolink is somewhere in between, depending also on what through journey may be required.

Rochdale Railway Stn - Mumps 12 mins (3a) Northern Rail was 15 mins, and only 2x hourly with uneven headways, whereas Metrolink will be 5x per hour.

Rochdale Smith Street - Victoria (3b) 38 mins Via both town centres but excluding Kingsway and Werneth. If anywhere near accurate, is this really as bad as anticipated, for those not wishing to change levels at Rochdale Station?

Mumps - Victoria (3a) 16 mins
Mumps - Victoria (3b) 22 mins Both these exclude Werneth. On the previous Oldham Loop rail service, there was surprisingly only one minute's difference between fast and stopping trains, i.e. 19-20mins fast, 20-21 mins all stops. Again, I think the timetable allowed for pathing delays into Victoria, which perhaps counters the suggestion made previously that there is no need for a tram/rail Interchange at Central Park!

Airport - Victoria 46 mins Via 2CC, and excluding Crossacres, Martinscroft, Hardy Farm and Hough End.
(Wythenshawe - Victoria 36 mins; Northern Moor - Victoria 22 mins)

If the above timings are at all realistic, I should say that overall they compare extremely favourably with previous or existing provision, and involve only a modicum of 'give and take' in terms of detriment vs. benefits of the new system.

In the meantime, work is progressing this week on the Irk Valley connection between the Bury and Oldham/Rochdale lines, complete with the shiny tin man's caps which are fast becoming the standard finials on the OLE :-

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6880.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6864.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6851.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_6852.jpg

Come the weekend we should be able to have a closer look at it . . .

Local Lad

August 5th, 2010, 09:38 PM

Nice spot of climbing there Johnny! I was wondering how to get a shot of the junction, great work though.

Just a quick one to add. Now I'm not sure how well you will be able to see but I had a pleasant surprise when I went for a walk behind Piccadilly again. You can see day light through the tunnel at Ancoats now!

Woo hoooo!!

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC01066.jpg

Johnny de Rivative

August 5th, 2010, 10:15 PM

Wowswer! Now be careful out there - (It's a bit dodgy behind Piccadilly!)

They are just finishing the top road surface also on Great Ancoats Street, ready to re-open both sides, which will remove a serious bottleneck at long last. I am also looking forward to the tunnel at Sportcity, but you won't be able to see one end from t'other, as it turns through 90 degrees underground. So much going on just now, I can't keep up!

WatcherZero

August 5th, 2010, 10:32 PM

Contracts been signed with the contractors for 3b lines now (bar 2CC), so expect to see possible early works on those lines such as clearance, demolition or earth moving and for the ends of 3a lines to run into 3b construction seamlessly, though with 2014 for town centres mid 2016 airport date dont expect to see them get their skates on. The East Didsbury 2013 line will probably be first to see some serious work however.

I imagine the idea will be that as one kind of team finishes on 3a they will start straightaway on 3b with no downtime and the groundworks are pretty much finished on 3a now with them doing track laying, city running stretches and some early electrification.

apologiesforthedelay

August 5th, 2010, 10:35 PM

Cotton City

August 5th, 2010, 10:46 PM

WatcherZero

August 5th, 2010, 11:05 PM

Yes some advance work had started on the new lines but limited to preperation, surveys, clearance, drainage not actual construction.

Bury and to a lesser extent Eccles lines are getting a makeover this year and next, will be improvements to existing CCTV but they are not adding toilets where there are none.

Seasonedbest

August 6th, 2010, 01:44 AM

Are all stations planning to get a makeover with CCTV and toilets? I saw a young lad have a wee on the edge of the platform on Monday as there was no toilets anywhere, his mum looked very embarrased. Not a good advert for Manchester.

Few transport systems around the world, especially trams, have toilet facilities. Those that exist are being closed and this seems to be the common theme. Bury is very lucky to be keeping theirs.

I can think of a hundred things that are not a good advert for Manchester, most of them lying deep within a section of society - not because toilets don't exist on a platform.

future.architect

August 6th, 2010, 01:54 AM

Great pics JDR, they are not messing about are they?

Chorlton Bloke

August 6th, 2010, 02:11 AM

I can think of a hundred things that are not a good advert for Manchester, most of them lying deep within a section of society - not because toilets don't exist on a platform.

Most of whom would make a bee-line for the toilets, if provided, to jack up.

It would be a phenominal expense for something that would see very little legitimate use.

WatcherZero

August 6th, 2010, 03:35 AM

Old Mantra, know your closest pub or supermarket :P

ScouseinManc

August 6th, 2010, 08:29 AM

This may just be hearsay, but I was chatting to a friend yesterday who informed me that GMPTE are really pushing for the South Manchester line to be open in time for Christmas shopping (sorry to use that term already!!) - can anyone verify this?

Great to see the new OLE's being installed on the Smedley viaduct & the works at Ancoats nearing completion - cheers JDR & Local.

apologiesforthedelay

August 6th, 2010, 08:45 AM

Bombardier Transportation, together with consortium partner, Vossloh Kiepe, have signed an option to supply an additional 14 Bombardier Flexity Swift light rail vehicles to Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive’s Metrolink system. This option forms part of the contract signed with GMPTE in April 2007 and is valued at £27 million (32 million euro, $ 43 million US) with Bombardier’s share amounting to approximately £20 million (24million euro, $ 32 milllion US).

Bombardier received its first order from GMPTE in April 2007 for 12 trams and this contract included an option for GMPTE to order up to 97 vehicles. The first option order for a further 28 light rail vehicles followed in June 2008, with a second option for 8 vehicles announced in March 2010. Today’s order for 14 vehicles brings the total number of trams ordered from the consortium for Manchester to date up to 62 light rail vehicles.

The manufacture of these vehicles will follow straight on from the ones currently being built for Manchester and the first of these additional 14 vehicles (tram 49) is scheduled to be delivered to Manchester in October 2011.

As consortium leader, Bombardier designs and manufactures the vehicles at its sites in Bautzen, Germany and Vienna, Austria. Bombardier’s Siegen plant is responsible for delivering the bogies and the consortium partner Vossloh Kiepe is providing the electrical equipment.

Philip Purdy, GMPTE’s Metrolink Director, said: “We are pleased to be ordering a further 14 vehicles in addition to the trams already on order, and of course those that have now been delivered are successfully serving the existing Metrolink lines, playing an important part in making services more robust. This is a historic moment for Greater Manchester’s Metrolink network, as we’re expanding the system to be almost treble the size that it is today, and these new trams are a crucial part of delivering that project. I look forward to seeing our new vehicles arrive in due course.”

Colin S Walton, Chairman of Bombardier Transportation, UK, added: “We are delighted to continue our long and successful partnership with GMPTE, helping to improve the attractiveness of public transport services in and around Manchester.”

“The fact that the GMPTE has placed yet another order with us proves that they are satisfied with the quality and service provided by Bombardier and Vossloh Kiepe and underscores our capability as a provider of light rail solutions. We are proud to be able to deliver 14 more units and further speed up traffic in the busy conurbation of Greater Manchester,” commented Germar Wacker, President, Light Rail Vehicles, Bombardier Transportation.

How I wish we could buy all 97 trams on option!!!