(Would be useful to see a photo of the maps used on stations and in-car before I make that call - anyone??)[/QUOTE]

:)

Ok, its far from perfect, but I thought I better have a go, if all it does is go someway to making up for using 'eccles' 'metrolink' and 'urgency' in the same sentence... ;) and yes all I've done is bastardise the metrilnk map in paint...

http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab80/iheartthenew/tram_network.jpg

Ok, its far from perfect, but I thought I better have a go, if all it does is go someway to making up for using 'eccles' 'metrolink' and 'urgency' in the same sentence... ;) and yes all I've done is bastardise the metrilnk map in paint...

http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab80/iheartthenew/tram_network.jpg

This is better, but I think it would be good to split line 1 into 2 to differentiate between services that run via Piccadilly Gardens as opposed to on the Second City Crossing.

Also, once the Second City Crossing is built, surely there would be no benefit in running line 1 services from Mosley Street to Market Street without going via Piccadilly Gardens/Piccadilly?

I was thinking along the (northern) lines of "this is an Edgeware service via Bank" but "this is an Altricham service via Cross St" Yes/No?

I was thinking along the (northern) lines of "this is an Edgeware service via Bank" but "this is an Altricham service via Cross St" Yes/No?

Seems a bit confusing (saying this as someone who has several times forgotten which northern line branch I was on despite the announcement).

Also I'm not sure how your routes would survive the introduction of Airport and Didsbury services?

Mmm, the map on the stop has changed again from the 'final' one in the paper. It now shows the oldham bypass, also on that map the indicating of interchanges without seperating lines seems a bit meaningless.

points taken:

Leeds No1, I should have taken the curve out on line 1 between Mosley and Market streets. Whats the cartographical equivalant of a typo?

Che, hows about making lines 1 + 3 via Cross St only, extending Line 3 to Didsbury and creating a 4th line from Victoria to the Airport via Piccadilly

Here's another go then. Yeah its still not perfect but I'm tired, so I'm off to bed now... Zzzzz

http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab80/iheartthenew/tram_network2.jpg

Ok when you get up in the morning, need to add Rochdale service via three oldham stations and a rochdale service bypassing those 3 stops. Also the Media city spur to Cronbrook though we have speculated it may go to Piccadilly once 2CC is operational.

I suppose then we have the question of to add or to add dotted the non-funded extensions: Airport Loop, Trafford Centre, etc.

Good work!

I was thinking along the (northern) lines of "this is an Edgeware service via Bank" but "this is an Altricham service via Cross St" Yes/No?

You could do, but you might as well make things easier and just have two lines to start with. The plan is to split the Northern Line by the way.

Forgive me for not knowing the system and it's future as well as you do, but what about something like this? It's a quick knock-up in Photoshop, a few graphic 'typos' around and missing City Zone station names but you get the idea:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9522/manchestermetrolinkcopy.jpg

A few recommendations:

Both the Altrincham and Bury lines have direct connections to Piccadilly at present and those won't get removed unless GMPTE want to create a riot, so 2 new lines need to go in there.

I'm confused why your Stockport and Rochdale routes have both a blue and a red line. Only one is necessary and I'd keep the blue line going via 2CC. Stockport already has a direct connection to Piccadilly by heavy rail, so a direct connection by tram isn't really necessary. Same with Manchester Airport too - it already has a fast heavy rail connection to Piccadilly, so you can make some room by removing that link on the green line.

Also, a last point about the Wythenshawe 'Loop'. I think there needs to be a terminus here, a la the Circle Line in London which is now no longer a circle, but stops at Edgware Road. For our map, I'd make the terminus Manchester Airport so both Wythenshawe routes end up there.

Urgency on the Eccles line? When?

I wondered that too

Thats pretty good No 1.

Word is that certain fellow Prestwich people on GMITA have raised their eyebrows at the swastika construction of that map.

Hence the new yellowman map presently growing at various Metrolink stations.

Ah if Senor Stephens was reading this, he be firing lyrical salvos right left and centre about "pretty maps" Ho!!!

Thats pretty good No 1.

Word is that certain fellow Prestwich people on GMITA have raised their eyebrows at the swastika construction of that map.

Hence the new yellowman map presently growing at various Metrolink stations.

Ah if Senor Stephens was reading this, he be firing lyrical salvos right left and centre about "pretty maps" Ho!!!

I have to say, I also spotted the 'swastika-esque' construction of the map. Didn't say anything as I thought it hadn't been noticed but evidently it has. On the note of swastikas, I was at the City Museum in Leeds a few weeks back and there was a mosaic you could do (for kids really but naturally I had a go). As I was building it, I realised it created a swastika... How do they get away with stuff like this?

Anyway, back to the point. The 'yellowman' map (is that its actual name) is better in the sense it doesn't have the swastika, but its usability is far worse. It wouldn't take that much redesign work to sort out the swastika-esque Metrolink map; there's no need for so many diagonals.

I'm confused why your Stockport and Rochdale routes have both a blue and a red line.

Its simply picking up the point that it should be services that are shown, not the physical lines. In other words, the blue line is for services via Cross Street, where as a red line service would serve Shudehill and Market Street via St. Peter's Sq, Mosley St., Picc Gds and Piccadilly

[QUOTE=Johnny de Rivative;49393369]The siding at Sportcity will in fact be a trailing crossover, capable of holding four trams or 2 double, according to the latest technical drawings I have . From Mcr, they would terminate at Sportvity-Velodrome, then reverse around the corner into the siding, located on the West side of Asda on a slope going down into the tunnel. They will then presumably wait there until after the match, then continue Westwards under the tunnel to the first picking-up point, Sportcity-Stadium in the Mcr direction. QUOTE]

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/turisiding.jpg

I obviously read that drawing totally wrong when I saw it as it's the same one I saw some months ago. The trailing crossover is quite clear.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2368689400_54708ff40d_b.jpg

This is still my favourite network map that has ever been posted on here. (I'm pretty sure that it originally came from MarkO, if I'm wrong, apologies to the creator.) OK, so it doesn't have the 2CC, and the service patterns it illustrates might not be 100% accurate but the point is that this demonstrates how much clearer the map could be.

We know that what is shown on here as line 5 would in fact be two lines (rather services) - from Chorlton (eventually Didsbury) one would go as far as Shaw, and the other would go as far as Rochdale.

MarkO, taking this, the 2CC and extensions to Ashton, Rochdale town centre (inc Oldham bypass) and the Airport into account, do you think you might find the time to adjust this to post phase 3b? Pretty pretty please?

Big favour to ask, I know. I did say pretty please though.... :hug:

That's a good map- should be adopted for the future map (With the needed adjustments obviously).

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2368689400_54708ff40d_b.jpg



This is now my favourite, my attempts look so amatuer now... to include 2cc simply divert lines 1 + 5 via cross st....

Yep that was my creation PQOTD (well my original idea - but executed by a guy with map-drawing talent & software called Robin Woods at Communicarta), but :cheers: 4 for the support.:)

My intention on that one above was to concentrate solely on an in-car map that would fit one of the long thin panels above the doors or in a slot where the ads go. It seems that even if the new one currently on display (and posted on here by a few forummers) is a bit misleading (without routes etc), at least we now have a nicely designed starting point (that thing they had before in a myriad different typefaces was a bit shoddy really IMHO).

I'm quite sure there would be value in creating a portrait version too for posters on stations. And yes the swastika-esque extensions map which people have valiantly tried to adapt above, probably does need reworking for that rather unfortunate connection alone (also I proffer that the station names on an angle is a bit crap too).

Yes I would love to have a go at adding 2CC routes but what would be really useful right now is:

*Some confirmation from GMPTE of the routes hat will be on offer after media:city opens and also for 2011/12 for the other 3a lines.

* An idea whether or not route numbers or line colours would be preferred (and what they might be)

Have just put a request in to the press office for exactly that info which I will share with y'all so hopefully we may all have an answer on which we can all base our suggested maps.

It certainly would be most odd to try and operate 3a (let alone the full extent including 2CC etc) with nothing more for the traveling public than the destination blind on the front of the tram for any guidance as to where it was going to go. IMHO its an issue GMPTE have to address relatively soon or for sure there will be confusion!

Here you go MarkO. Originally posted by user Bank Street over the other Metrolink thread

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj197/manchestermymanchester/scan0001-2.jpg

This map (without the extensions) is the one currently in-place on the new ticket machines and inside the 3000 series trams.

Just to reiterate my point, while this diagram is aesthetically pleasing, it is no practical use to man or beast because the passenger would have no idea where the tram they were boarding would go unless they caught sight of the front - and with 2CC it would easy to end up in the wrong place.

Another thought about this one too: in comparison to the one I offered: to the uninitiated, Bury appears to be north of Oldham, Altrincham north of the Airport etc.

I just feel we can be a lot cleverer with the layout while retaining a diagrammatic feel and keeping a weeny bit truer to the geographical location of destinations across GM :)

Well I for one think the different coloured lines are absolutely essential, whereas the numbers, despite having some appeal, I could live without. I think the array of colours already used is fine - the key is obviously not to have any two colours that are too similar, so that they are all easy to distinguish.

I think I might write to GMPTE myself regarding service patterns - I am sure I have some vague memory of them already being decided, but for the life of me, I can't find them anywhere! I'm sure that while I'm at it, I'll be compelled to express my grave concerns about the map currently on official display. :bleep:

Certainly colours are essential on the map but as well as making it a bit geographically truer, I think numbers would be important. Unlike on the LU, where each line pretty much has its own train set and can therefore have subtle colour coding and branding to match the line, I dont think thats possible here. If the lines have numbers there is the opportunity for that number to be displayed on the dot-matrix displays on the trams and platforms.

Anyone got any information on the new PID design for the stations? It could be that the new PID's have been designed to include route numbers/colours etc.. but as of yet I've not seen anything on them.

I would imagine they could well be the same as the ones installed at the rail stations since GMPTE funded them too, they are three bar displays.

Top Bar: Destination and time of arrival, late/ontime
Second Bar: Scrolling list of stops
Third Bar: The service after Destination, time of arrival, late/ontime
Clock:

That would solve some of the problems.

The only published information on them is this:

17. Passenger Information Displays

17.1. As part of the upgrade of the city centre stops the existing Passenger Information Displays have been removed. These displays were unreliable and providing incorrect information to the Metrolink passengers.

17.2. New visual displays that show real time passenger information will be connected to the new Tram Operating System (TOS). The displays will be in accordance with current regulations, will provide accurate up to date information and will be rolled out to all Metrolink stops.

17.3. The contract to supply the displays has been awarded to MPact Thales. The roll out program which is conditional on the TOS program is currently being developed with the contractor and will be available in early 2010. It is planned that the new displays will start to be introduced on the city stops during Summer 2010.

[QUOTE=Johnny de Rivative;49393369]The siding at Sportcity will in fact be a trailing crossover, capable of holding four trams or 2 double, according to the latest technical drawings I have . From Mcr, they would terminate at Sportvity-Velodrome, then reverse around the corner into the siding, located on the West side of Asda on a slope going down into the tunnel. They will then presumably wait there until after the match, then continue Westwards under the tunnel to the first picking-up point, Sportcity-Stadium in the Mcr direction. QUOTE]


http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/turisiding.jpg

fascinating.

does that mean that no trams will reverse at Sportcity-Stadium itself?

do you have the technical drawings for that as well?

Nerd, no crossovers are shown between this one and Piccadilly, but in reality it is only a few dozen yards East of Sportcity-Stadium stop. It is a staggered stop either side of the wide bridge which it runs under - similar to the Old trafford layout, even including all the crowd-marshalling gates, etc.

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/philips_0001.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/sportstop.jpg

You can tell how old these plans are (2001), Asda and Commonwealth Games yet to come!

I think Mark O's map is the best, with or without numbers. Various schools of thought about this:- Croydon has had numbers from the outset (there was even a phantom No. 4initially) despite having a similar shape and number of terminals as Mcr (4). With 5 terminals, Sheffield has 3 coloured squares instead of numbers, which I can never remember, although perhaps one would if using them every day. At least you can see the actual coloured block, as opposed to the fatuous "Mauve Line" etc, in words, on First buses. Nottingham has never had numbers although only a small network, but Midland Metro has a number 1 despite only having the one line - reminiscent of the odd situation in Blackpool in years gone by, when Fleetwood-North Stn had a number 1 (a remnant of company days) but all the others had no number. And Dublin has two coloured lines even though they are not connected!

When I asked this question at one of the recent GNPTE presentations , it was quite clear that no decisions about through workings etc were going to be made until as late as possible prior to line openings. - to allow for more surveys about passenger intentions, projected usage nearer the time, etc. However, from my amateur study of the GMPTE psyche over several years (!), I have half a suspicion that they intend to leave the map as it now is, and let people sus out which way it is going from the destination alone, at least prior to 2cc. This tends to be borne out by the fact that they are showing both maps, present and future, together. . .?

Nathan, come on lad, you are worrying me by suggesting the the Airport and Stockport lines are irrelevant, as they both already have a fast train service to town! We are not in the business of High Speed 1, 2 or 7, - trams are essentially the opposite concept, namely to fill in all the little spaces in between. There is someone in Ashton who often writes to the local paper in Tameside, saying the tram is unnecessary, as Ashton already has a railway station, and another who says it will be a waste of time because it doesn't go round her estate. You can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people some of the time!

Which is fair enough, but they will have to decide before it comes time to order the 3B trams as they will need to know how many to order.

Which is fair enough, but they will have to decide before it comes time to order the 3B trams as they will need to know how many to order.

I don't see why. Surely there will still be the same number of routes operating the same frequencies. It's just a case of how they operate. Will the present Altrincham to Piccadilly service be extended to Ashton? Should the service from Didsbury go to Rochdale or Bury, and which city crossing should it use? Etc etc. Those are the questions we want answers to now....

Marco's map would be the bollox if it were colour coded and rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise. Manchester is more of a 'North-South' city if that makes any sense.

http://www.railway-technology.com/contractor_images/infotec/4-next-train-indicator.jpg

They showed the new destination screens on that artists impression of Piccadilly Gardens stop, but I cant find it. Pretty sure they will be looking like the one above. I know GMPTE are quite familiar now with the Thales/infotec displays used on mainline stations.

They would be crazy not to use those. The information is very clear and can be read from a good distance away. Since Virgin installed them at Preston station, it has been far easier for passengers.

I don't see why. Surely there will still be the same number of routes operating the same frequencies. It's just a case of how they operate. Will the present Altrincham to Piccadilly service be extended to Ashton? Should the service from Didsbury go to Rochdale or Bury, and which city crossing should it use? Etc etc. Those are the questions we want answers to now....

I believe it is fairly well established that the E Didsbury services will run through to Shaw and Rochdale, and the Airport Services will run to Piccadilly. I would expect the Ashton services to reverse at Victoria. I am not sure about the Eccles line, though. It would make it easier in terms of allocating line space if the Mediacity trams (post 3b) reverse at Piccadilly, and the Eccles trams reverse at Victoria.

Presumably it will be possible to extend any of the Piccadilly reversing services through to reverse instead at Sportcity-velodrome on CoMS matchdays.

Nathan, come on lad, you are worrying me by suggesting the the Airport and Stockport lines are irrelevant, as they both already have a fast train service to town! We are not in the business of High Speed 1, 2 or 7, - trams are essentially the opposite concept, namely to fill in all the little spaces in between. There is someone in Ashton who often writes to the local paper in Tameside, saying the tram is unnecessary, as Ashton already has a railway station, and another who says it will be a waste of time because it doesn't go round her estate. You can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people some of the time!

I think you've misunderstood what I said there Johnny!

I certainly don't think the Airport or Stockport lines are irrelevant. In fact I believe they are very relevant for the reasons you outlined.

All as was saying was, for the purposes of Leeds No.1's map, that it isn't essential for Stockport and Manchester Airport to have direct connections to Piccadilly via Metrolink because they both already have good heavy rail connections to Piccadilly station. So in other words, I was saying that those lines could head up to Victoria and beyond, in order to free up space for a direct Piccadilly connection to be maintained for both Altrincham and Bury, which wasn't shown on Leeds No.1's map. I wasn't saying that the Stockport or Airport lines were not needed altogether! :)

Thats a good point but you are falling into the fallacy of assuming end to end journeys. For three quarters the people on the line it would take longer to travel back to the airport then get a direct train, but they could change tram quite easily.

I believe it is fairly well established that the E Didsbury services will run through to Shaw and Rochdale, and the Airport Services will run to Piccadilly. I would expect the Ashton services to reverse at Victoria. I am not sure about the Eccles line, though. It would make it easier in terms of allocating line space if the Mediacity trams (post 3b) reverse at Piccadilly, and the Eccles trams reverse at Victoria.

Presumably it will be possible to extend any of the Piccadilly reversing services through to reverse instead at Sportcity-velodrome on CoMS matchdays.

Wasn't the possibility of Eccles - Ashton services mentioned? Or what about extending the Alty/Bury - Piccadilly services to Ashton? That would be a natural extension to the exisiting service pattern, and maintain a 6 minute frequency on the Ashton line. There are so many possibilities. You mention it is fairly well established (and I was under that impression too), but where is it established? I can't find anything in service patterns... :nuts:

Wasn't the possibility of Eccles - Ashton services mentioned? Or what about extending the Alty/Bury - Piccadilly services to Ashton? That would be a natural extension to the exisiting service pattern, and maintain a 6 minute frequency on the Ashton line. There are so many possibilities. You mention it is fairly well established (and I was under that impression too), but where is it established? I can't find anything in service patterns... :nuts:

Always been the intention to extend Alti/Bury - Picc services through to Ashton. See link for Phase 3a

http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/979/item_09_metrolink_capacity_along_cornbrook_viaduct_and_through_the_city_centre_1_august_2008

Phase3b not yet clear

Thats a nice find Vince. Nice to see theyve used colours at least once and even if not finalised you can decode all the planned routes from that document.

so how many trams per hour will the chorlton line have going in and/or out of town? sorry if the answer's obvious, I'm confused though :)

so how many trams per hour will the chorlton line have going in and/or out of town? sorry if the answer's obvious, I'm confused though :)

Well the Didsbury line will have a 6 minute frequency - so 10 trams per hour, and the Airport line will have a 12 minute frequency - 5 trams per hour. 15 trams per hour total gives an average frequency of 4 minutes.

Well the Didsbury line will have a 6 minute frequency - so 10 trams per hour, and the Airport line will have a 12 minute frequency - 5 trams per hour. 15 trams per hour total gives an average frequency of 4 minutes.

Ah, I thought they'd changed the plan so now the Airport line would have a six minute service. I can't remember where I read it though. If it was part of the TIF documents then it probably no longer applied.

Well the Didsbury line will have a 6 minute frequency - so 10 trams per hour, and the Airport line will have a 12 minute frequency - 5 trams per hour. 15 trams per hour total gives an average frequency of 4 minutes.



thank-you, so a fairly good frequency, I'm really looking forward to it

Well the Didsbury line will have a 6 minute frequency - so 10 trams per hour, and the Airport line will have a 12 minute frequency - 5 trams per hour. 15 trams per hour total gives an average frequency of 4 minutes.

Both airport and east didsbury services will have a 6min frequency so 20tph through Chorlton, although only 15tph will reach the city centre if airport line opens before 2cc. 5tph would have to terminate at Cornbrook until 2cc opens.

Both airport and east didsbury services will have a 6min frequency so 20tph through Chorlton, although only 15tph will reach the city centre if airport line opens before 2cc. 5tph would have to terminate at Cornbrook until 2cc opens.

Are you sure? If so, that's great! I was always a bit disappointed with 12 minutes on the airport line... I'm sure I got that from official sources. Ah well.

Looks like you'll have a 3 minute frequency then Tuc!

Always been the intention to extend Alti/Bury - Picc services through to Ashton. See link for Phase 3a

http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/979/item_09_metrolink_capacity_along_cornbrook_viaduct_and_through_the_city_centre_1_august_2008

Phase3b not yet clear

Sorry - should've read this first!!

This is the document I'd been looking for... Thank you.

Always been the intention to extend Alti/Bury - Picc services through to Ashton. See link for Phase 3a

http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/979/item_09_metrolink_capacity_along_cornbrook_viaduct_and_through_the_city_centre_1_august_2008

Phase3b not yet clear

Thanks for finding that again, Vince.

Thats the document I was thinking about - and you are right; it does indeed show the Alty-Bury services carrying on to Droylesden in phase 3a - and the Chorlton services linking with the Shaw/Rochdale line.

looking at the final diagram on page 7, (and discounting the Trafford Centre Line) the I think numbers can be made to add up if we assume.

Alty - Bury 5tph (along Mosley Street)
Bury - Alty 5tph (along Mosley Street)
Alty - Ashton 5tph
Bury - Ashton 5tph
E Dids - Shaw 5tph (along 2CC)
E Dids - Rochdale 5tph (along 2CC)
Airport - Picc 5tph
Airport - Vic 5tph (along 2CC)
Mediacity - Vic 5tph (along 2CC)
Eccles - Picc 5 tph

The Mediacity and Eccles services could swap destinations.

It gives confirmation of the operating pattern for media city/eccles services too:

When Phase 3A is complete, the traffic along the Cornbrook Viaduct will be 25 tph, with
the Media City service terminating at Cornbrook, so that Cornbrook stop will be required to
handle 30 tph. Both of these are well below the capability under LoS. (In accordance with
the Grant Funding Agreement with Salford, between 0715-2000 hrs, the Media City
service operates as a shuttle to Cornbrook. Outside these hours, all Eccles trams will call
at Mediacity.)

Thanks for finding that again, Vince.

Thats the document I was thinking about - and you are right; it does indeed show the Alty-Bury services carrying on to Droylesden in phase 3a - and the Chorlton services linking with the Shaw/Rochdale line.

looking at the final diagram on page 7, (and discounting the Trafford Centre Line) the I think numbers can be made to add up if we assume.

Alty - Bury 5tph (along Mosley Street)
Bury - Alty 5tph (along Mosley Street)
Alty - Ashton 5tph
Bury - Ashton 5tph
E Dids - Shaw 5tph (along 2CC)
E Dids - Rochdale 5tph (along 2CC)
Airport - Picc 5tph
Airport - Vic 5tph (along 2CC)
Mediacity - Vic 5tph (along 2CC)
Eccles - Picc 5 tph

The Mediacity and Eccles services could swap destinations.

You've counted BUry-Alty twice. :lol:

I'm also a bit confused by the page 7 diagram in that document. If (excluding Trafford) there are 20tph along 2CC and 20 tph on the Market St. to Vic stretch and only 20 tph north of Victoria that means that 20 tph have to be turned round at Vic, which is surely too many?

You've counted BUry-Alty twice. :lol:

I'm also a bit confused by the page 7 diagram in that document. If (excluding Trafford) there are 20tph along 2CC and 20 tph on the Market St. to Vic stretch and only 20 tph north of Victoria that means that 20 tph have to be turned round at Vic, which is surely too many?

no

I have counted bury-alty, separately from alty-bury (you have to do this to make the numbers add up).

on your second point; you are right. If the Ashton to Picc services continue on to Alty and Bury respectively (as is indicated on the phase 3a diagram), then there will only be 10 tph along the line between Market Street and Victoria. Only 10tph will reverse at Vic, I think.

Interestingly with a tram every 90 seconds (or 45 seconds if you count both ways) Deansgate/Gmex will become the Hub of the tram network, I understand now why their planning to make it a proper interchange over the next couple of years with a full on bus station. I just want to know how their going to fit it into that area?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Trams_crossing_at_gmex.jpg/275px-Trams_crossing_at_gmex.jpg

Nice one Vince!

Here's the map:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2742/4247948190_06465cef80.jpg

Gives us a jolly good idea behind official thinking. And am still waiting for a reply from the Press Office.

Re the idea of changing the dimensions of the map to suit the shape of Manchester: yes you are right, that needs to be done too - but the one people are talking about about is very definitely designed for in-car use (normally a long thin strip)

:-)

PS looks like at least 9 separate services - you absolutely cannot run a system that complex without a colour coded map (and probably service numbers too, IMHO)

no

I have counted bury-alty, separately from alty-bury (you have to do this to make the numbers add up).

on your second point; you are right. If the Ashton to Picc services continue on to Alty and Bury respectively (as is indicated on the phase 3a diagram), then there will only be 10 tph along the line between Market Street and Victoria. Only 10tph will reverse at Vic, I think.

Why? You haven't counted each direction of any of the other routes separately. Maybe I'm being thick, but I don't get what you mean. Are you saying you expect 15tph to run on the Alty and Bury lines?

So is the diagram (Figure 34, p.7) wrong then? I can't work out where these extra 10 services for Market Street - Vic come from, but it's clearly marked. It would also be a shame if there wasn't a more regular service from Vic to Picc, as if it's just the Bury-Ashton service making that journey then everyone wanting Picc from Oldham/Rochdale will have to wait a fairly long time for the every 12 minute service from Bury to arrive.

I do apologise Nathan, I had misunderstood your point. However there might still be places along the 'Southern' Met-lines that would want to go to Piccadilly,such as Chorlton etc? I have also looked at the map in the past and thought, for example, there's no point in Oldham working through to Ashton , as they are only 4 miles apart by road. However, again I am forgetting the people in between, such as Monsall/Central Park to Picc etc etc.

Vince Noir, what a fascinating document you had hidden away, I am looking forward to snuggling up with it by the fireside on a snowed-in afternoon!

But I am also getting a bit worried about the "signing-off" of the Ashton and E Dids extensions - it was due in 'Autumn 09', and last May they were saying work could start as soon as September, as a continuation of the 3a project. Anyone any news on this?

All as was saying was, for the purposes of Leeds No.1's map, that it isn't essential for Stockport and Manchester Airport to have direct connections to Piccadilly via Metrolink because they both already have good heavy rail connections to Piccadilly station. So in other words, I was saying that those lines could head up to Victoria and beyond, in order to free up space for a direct Piccadilly connection to be maintained for both Altrincham and Bury, which wasn't shown on Leeds No.1's map. I wasn't saying that the Stockport or Airport lines were not needed altogether! :)

A fair point and a sensible idea.

MarkO, I don't think there is any need for service numbers. Keep numbers to buses. What is the benefit of having service numbers if the lines are coloured anyway? Instead of confusing the situation by saying the blue line is Line 1 (for example), why not just call it the Blue Line?

But I am also getting a bit worried about the "signing-off" of the Ashton and E Dids extensions - it was due in 'Autumn 09', and last May they were saying work could start as soon as September, as a continuation of the 3a project. Anyone any news on this?

This is the last progress report (Early Nov).

http://www.gmita.gov.uk/downloads/file/2832/item_10_metrolink_update

MarkO, I don't think there is any need for service numbers. Keep numbers to buses. What is the benefit of having service numbers if the lines are coloured anyway? Instead of confusing the situation by saying the blue line is Line 1 (for example), why not just call it the Blue Line?

Well it might work like this:

Lines could be numbered (or lettered - or named even though I guess that could be confusing) and each would have its own separate colour (obviously - you couldn't have three blue coloured lines even if they did have different numbers) Examples: Barcelona L1, L2, L3 etc. Paris Ligne 1, Ligne 2 etc. Lisbon Gaivota Linha (means seagull), Girassol Linha (means Sunflower), Lyon Ligne A, Ligne B etc

If you do not chose a route number or route name for each line then they will inevitably end up being 'named' by their chosen colours. (Washington DC, Boston, Chicago, Montreal). Only problem here is that with up to ten routes we might end up with some pretty unusual colour names! Even Boston was stretchng it here with their latest incarnation the "Silver" line (which looks grey really!).

Personally I'd go for lettering or numbering - it's more 'tram' like (eg Amsterdam, most German & French systems, Melbourne etc) - but of course then you could keep a separate and fancy colour for each without needing to refer to words like "Teale" or "Taupe" or "Aquamarine"!!

:-)

http://www.railway-technology.com/contractor_images/infotec/4-next-train-indicator.jpg

They showed the new destination screens on that artists impression of Piccadilly Gardens stop, but I cant find it. Pretty sure they will be looking like the one above. I know GMPTE are quite familiar now with the Thales/infotec displays used on mainline stations.

Here is the artists impression of the Piccadilly Gardens stop showing the two new information screens hanging from the canopies.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9070/piccadillygardensstop.jpg

Alot has changed from that artists impression though, the canopies are not glass and the canopie runs the whole length of platform.

Well it might work like this:

Lines could be numbered (or lettered - or named even though I guess that could be confusing) and each would have its own separate colour (obviously - you couldn't have three blue coloured lines even if they did have different numbers) Examples: Barcelona L1, L2, L3 etc. Paris Ligne 1, Ligne 2 etc. Lisbon Gaivota Linha (means seagull), Girassol Linha (means Sunflower), Lyon Ligne A, Ligne B etc

If you do not chose a route number or route name for each line then they will inevitably end up being 'named' by their chosen colours. (Washington DC, Boston, Chicago, Montreal). Only problem here is that with up to ten routes we might end up with some pretty unusual colour names! Even Boston was stretchng it here with their latest incarnation the "Silver" line (which looks grey really!).

Personally I'd go for lettering or numbering - it's more 'tram' like (eg Amsterdam, most German & French systems, Melbourne etc) - but of course then you could keep a separate and fancy colour for each without needing to refer to words like "Teale" or "Taupe" or "Aquamarine"!!

:-)

the problem with colour-coding lines was always said to be, that it would constrict felxibility in relief and back-up and repair.

Always been the intention to extend Alti/Bury - Picc services through to Ashton. See link for Phase 3a

http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/979/item_09_metrolink_capacity_along_cornbrook_viaduct_and_through_the_city_centre_1_august_2008

Phase3b not yet clear

is it significant that on figure 34 of this document that only the trafford centre line is included out of the possible post stage 3b works in the pipeline?

Well essentially its still on the table, its been planned and approved and it would go ahead tommorow if Peel put up the money for it.

is it significant that on figure 34 of this document that only the trafford centre line is included out of the possible post stage 3b works in the pipeline?

I believe the Stockport line would also fall into that category, but since it's really just an extension to the Didsbury line it makes no difference to the strategy for handling city centre crossings.

I don't think it's as advanced as Trafford though.

Well essentially its still on the table, its been planned and approved and it would go ahead tommorow if Peel put up the money for it.

do you think they will? seems like an ideal solution to the horrendous traffic problems in that area. i remember when i was doing gcse geography in 1998 and the trafford centre was part of our studies. they said then that peel had already earmarked the money to fund the line thinking it was one of the first things that trafford council would demand and were amazed that they didnt ask about it. if peel were prepared to stump up then why arent they now?

Well it might work like this:

Lines could be numbered (or lettered - or named even though I guess that could be confusing) and each would have its own separate colour (obviously - you couldn't have three blue coloured lines even if they did have different numbers) Examples: Barcelona L1, L2, L3 etc. Paris Ligne 1, Ligne 2 etc. Lisbon Gaivota Linha (means seagull), Girassol Linha (means Sunflower), Lyon Ligne A, Ligne B etc

If you do not chose a route number or route name for each line then they will inevitably end up being 'named' by their chosen colours. (Washington DC, Boston, Chicago, Montreal). Only problem here is that with up to ten routes we might end up with some pretty unusual colour names! Even Boston was stretchng it here with their latest incarnation the "Silver" line (which looks grey really!).

Personally I'd go for lettering or numbering - it's more 'tram' like (eg Amsterdam, most German & French systems, Melbourne etc) - but of course then you could keep a separate and fancy colour for each without needing to refer to words like "Teale" or "Taupe" or "Aquamarine"!!

:-)

Well I think the point about colour names is a fair point, so perhaps it is a good idea to use numbers as well. It's definitely something that only really becomes an issue when a system grows to a large size though.

Well I think the point about colour names is a fair point, so perhaps it is a good idea to use numbers as well. It's definitely something that only really becomes an issue when a system grows to a large size though.

Red
Orange
Yellow
Green
Blue
Purple
Pink
Black
Brown
Grey

Can you think of any other colours that aren't shades of one of these? If Metrolink post phase 3b will be a nine service network it's getting pretty close to the point when telling people to "get the Mauve line and change to the Cerise or Puce services at Cornbrook" becomes a problem.

Its an issue really because of having 9 point to point services. If some of them were loops it wouldnt be so bad. Even the LU is only 12 lines though only ones a circle their is far less overlap of services and some are branching lines, but you would know on those lines where the services were going, no more than 4 lines pass through any one station (to my memory).

I believe it is fairly well established that the E Didsbury services will run through to Shaw and Rochdale, and the Airport Services will run to Piccadilly. I would expect the Ashton services to reverse at Victoria. I am not sure about the Eccles line, though. It would make it easier in terms of allocating line space if the Mediacity trams (post 3b) reverse at Piccadilly, and the Eccles trams reverse at Victoria.

Presumably it will be possible to extend any of the Piccadilly reversing services through to reverse instead at Sportcity-velodrome on CoMS matchdays.

why would the eccles ones not just go on towards ashton?

Thats a good point but you are falling into the fallacy of assuming end to end journeys.

It's more an issue of practicality. Not every line that's built will be able to have a direct connection to Piccadilly simply because there isn't sufficient capacity for it. I also think it's unnecessary as well, because as you say it's making assumptions about end-to-end journeys. Most passengers on the Altrincham line heading towards Manchester get off before the tram reaches Piccadilly station. It's hardly as if our entire city revolves around Piccadilly. Most people use the tram to get into the city centre for shopping / work purposes. And Victoria's obviously an important destination too.

So if not every line can reach Piccadilly then I'm just saying it's sensible to give direct connections to those areas which don't have them already. Since the Airport and Stockport already have heavy rail connections to Piccadilly, then I'd say one of them (or both) should have its metrolink route up to Victoria instead.

why would the eccles ones not just go on towards ashton?

see the map on MarkO's post - and the subsequent discussion

Thanks for those documents Vince and Watcher. Very revealing on a number of points. I didn't realise that although Cornbrook capacity will increase to 84 tph, Mosley St will still be limited to 30 due to lack of intersection priorities. To my way of thinking, trams should always have had maximum priority from the outset - this weakness was identified by commentators in 1992, and I am surprised it hasn't been addressed before now.

This diagram also seems to throw some light on the potential cross-city routes post-2cc:

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/3bdiagram.jpg

The busiest secton (45tph) coming in from Cornbrook seems to divide itself roughly evenly between 2cc and Piccadilly Delta (25/20), rather than everyhing being either Picc Station or 2cc. My head gets mashed trying to absorb the mathematics, but as there are only 20 tph North of Victoria, this seems to imply:

# some trams from the South terminating at Victoria, both via 2cc and via 'Primark Chord' (i.e. the Western or Alti-Bury side of the Delta),
# some trams from Oldham side heading for Piccadilly.

Or have I got the maths/ratios wrong? Probably.

However, my other question remains unanswered about whether they are imminently ready to 'sign-off' the Ashton and E Didsbury extensions funding-wise. Not only these accelerated bits, but the whole of 3b really needs signing-off or otherwise made irrevocable, before we lose our current magnificent Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis. I am hoping the quill is hovering above the parchment as we speak . . . !

do you think they will? seems like an ideal solution to the horrendous traffic problems in that area. i remember when i was doing gcse geography in 1998 and the trafford centre was part of our studies. they said then that peel had already earmarked the money to fund the line thinking it was one of the first things that trafford council would demand and were amazed that they didnt ask about it. if peel were prepared to stump up then why arent they now?

I agree. Far more pressure needs to be put on Peel for this.

The good thing about the TC line is that it could be extended over to the new City of Salford Stadium and then City Airport. So maybe now that the Salford Reds stadium is meant to be starting soon, this should be the ideal time for pressure to be put on Peel to get their skates on.

I agree. Far more pressure needs to be put on Peel for this.

The good thing about the TC line is that it could be extended over to the new City of Salford Stadium and then City Airport. So maybe now that the Salford Reds stadium is meant to be starting soon, this should be the ideal time for pressure to be put on Peel to get their skates on.

thinking more about it, peel were probably prepared to stump up the cash in 1994 or whenever planning permission was being sought in order to grease the wheels of a potential money spinner for them. now the trafford centre has been built they are probably of the view that the centre is already making money without them shelling out another £100 million on a metrolink line.

maybe the fact that they have built additional projects in that area since the trafford centre was built and the fact that road traffic congestion may begin to affect profits will cause them to reconsider paying the money. they are probably waiting for gmpte to try and broker a deal with them where they take on half of the costs.

but as someone said earlier on this thread trafford mbc would be the main, if not sole beneficiary of this line, so gmpte may not be willing to pay half the costs. i would imagine trafford wouldnt want to (or be able to) pay this cost alone.

its a shame though. you can see the trafford centre from most elevated positions in salford as it is so close, yet a bus ride on the 100 can take up to an hour in bad traffic to travel 4 or 5 miles.

I know they got the transport and works act permission in 1999 and got it extended in 2002 and its still active as of 2009. Its only a short stretch at 3.7km (also heard a 5km figure), but it had many stops including:
Wharfside
Man United
Imperial War Museum North
Village
Mosley Road
Parkway
Giants Field
Trafford Centre

GMITA says they will only build it if its 100% private funded, though I suppose Peel could ask for a slice of the Revenues or get a commercial partner. But yeah shows how long its been Government approved just waiting for the money to start, I was going to ask how much it would cost but found it in Trafford MBC transport strategy as estimated at £60m (though 10 years ago). Interestingly in 1999 Trafford MBC claimed Peel was considering a monorail to it.

I know they got the transport and works act permission in 1999 and got it extended in 2002 and its still active as of 2009. Its only a short stretch at 3.7km (also heard a 5km figure), but it had many stops including:
Wharfside
Man United
Imperial War Museum North
Village
Mosley Road
Parkway
Giants Field
Trafford Centre

GMITA says they will only build it if its 100% private funded, though I suppose Peel could ask for a slice of the Revenues or get a commercial partner. But yeah shows how long its been Government approved just waiting for the money to start, I was going to ask how much it would cost but found it in Trafford MBC transport strategy as estimated at £60m (though 10 years ago). Interestingly in 1999 Trafford MBC claimed Peel was considering a monorail to it.

ive heard the monorail plan before. im sure thats been junked since then though. wouldnt make any sense to have people having to get off the met and get on a monorail. plus i would imagine they would be more expensive to build and maintain.

i would love to know what the inside track is on this though. whether peel have privately flat out refused to fund the line or whether they are waiting until they feel the time is right. if salford reds do move there the area could be facing a nightmare scenario of united, the reds and the trafford centre all fighting over a road system on a saturday that cant handle the traffic for one of them, never mind all three.

if the metrolink can get as many people in out as quickly as possible without using the roads they may decide that the time is right to fund it. if they do ask for the council to part fund it, how likely do we feel this is?

ive heard the monorail plan before. im sure thats been junked since then though. wouldnt make any sense to have people having to get off the met and get on a monorail. plus i would imagine they would be more expensive to build and maintain.

i would love to know what the inside track is on this though. whether peel have privately flat out refused to fund the line or whether they are waiting until they feel the time is right. if salford reds do move there the area could be facing a nightmare scenario of united, the reds and the trafford centre all fighting over a road system on a saturday that cant handle the traffic for one of them, never mind all three.

if the metrolink can get as many people in out as quickly as possible without using the roads they may decide that the time is right to fund it. if they do ask for the council to part fund it, how likely do we feel this is?

GMPTA (as was) originally included the Trafford Centre line in their development plans for Metrolink, on the understanding that it would be fully funded from private sources. Originally (I think) the understanding was £25m would be paid by Peel, and £50m by Altram (who were the consortium formed to buy the operating franchise from GMA when the Eccles extension was consgtructed). This was a similar deal to that which was involved in the funding of the portion of Phase 2 through Salford Quays, which was also supposed to be funded half-and-half by Peel and Altram.

But then the Phase 2 financial model went sour; the system was not generating an operating profit, and Altram broke up - with Serco buying out their former partners and taking over the franchise themselves. Serco announced that they did not hold themselves bound by Altram's agreements with Peel. Peel asked GMPTA and AGMA to make up the difference, but they maintained their original stipulation that the line had to be fully privately funded; and proposed that Peel should find an alternative partners themselves. Peel withdrew their money, all the while saying that they would be willing to put it back if the original deal could be resuscitated.

At which point, the negotiatioins stuck (and by now the costs of the extension had rocketed, so that the money Peel had put on the table was in any case well below a third share). In the final stages of the TIF referendum campaign, AGMA effectively agreed to underwrite the funding of the extension from Congestion Charge revenues, as a negotiating ploy to try to limit the damage that Peel were doing; but that offer fell with the popular vote against the charge.

So far as I am aware, that is where matters still stand - except that the notional planning cost of the line extension is now well over £100m, which is at least four times the sum that Peel had been willing to put forwards. I imagine it is possible that some sort of deal could be still dressed up to allow funding to be available, without it appearing actually as public funds. But in any case, Peel will need to up their offer a lot.

That said, I think this will happen eventually. Phase 3 (a and b) will tend to improve the economic outlook for the city centre relative to the Trafford Centre; as shop staff tend to migrate towards jobs where they can get to work on public transport - and so do not need to own a car. Peel will come under pressure to raise their offer - and possibly to find appropriate partners to top up the money. One obvious candidates would be MUFC - who stand to gain a lot from improved Metrolink access; but something tells me that it would not accord the Glazer's way of doing business.

^^

That said, I think this will happen eventually. Phase 3 (a and b) will tend to improve the economic outlook for the city centre relative to the Trafford Centre; as shop staff tend to migrate towards jobs where they can get to work on public transport - and so do not need to own a car. Peel will come under pressure to raise their offer - and possibly to find appropriate partners to top up the money. One obvious candidates would be MUFC - who stand to gain a lot from improved Metrolink access; but something tells me that it would not accord the Glazer's way of doing business.[/QUOTE]

Think this is the only thing that would swing it,Peel aren't going to stump up any cash they don't have to,as long as the T.C is performing well & all the units are full I cant see them splashing the cash.Same as with Man u,Old t couldn't be any fuller,the glazers couldn't give a shit if it takes us punters 5 mins or 5 hours to get home.especially with all the cost cutting exercises underway there atm.( my mrs works there & their cutting everything!!!)

(Great post btw nerd)

^^

That said, I think this will happen eventually. Phase 3 (a and b) will tend to improve the economic outlook for the city centre relative to the Trafford Centre; as shop staff tend to migrate towards jobs where they can get to work on public transport - and so do not need to own a car. Peel will come under pressure to raise their offer - and possibly to find appropriate partners to top up the money. One obvious candidates would be MUFC - who stand to gain a lot from improved Metrolink access; but something tells me that it would not accord the Glazer's way of doing business.

Think this is the only thing that would swing it,Peel aren't going to stump up any cash they don't have to,as long as the T.C is performing well & all the units are full I cant see them splashing the cash.Same as with Man u,Old t couldn't be any fuller,the glazers couldn't give a shit if it takes us punters 5 mins or 5 hours to get home.especially with all the cost cutting exercises underway there atm.( my mrs works there & their cutting everything!!!)

(Great post btw nerd)[/QUOTE]

I think it will happen if Manchester gets to hold some of the World Cup football games. It would be dreadful if all they got was a few extra trams running from Old Trafford Bar. Perhaps some of the money will come from there at least as far as MUFC?

I think it will happen if Manchester gets to hold some of the World Cup football games. It would be dreadful if all they got was a few extra trams running from Old Trafford Bar. Perhaps some of the money will come from there at least as far as MUFC?

Is phased construction possible on a line like this? In the event that the world cup came to England could MUFC and GMITA fund an extension to old Trafford like the mediacity spur (with a similar Cornbrook Shuttle service) and leave it open for Peel to put together a private sector package later?

Is phased construction possible on a line like this? In the event that the world cup came to England could MUFC and GMITA fund an extension to old Trafford like the mediacity spur (with a similar Cornbrook Shuttle service) and leave it open for Peel to put together a private sector package later?

Manchester United should pay for the first part in its entirity (and they could afford to do it right now cash up front)and the trams to operate on it as they would at this stage be the only ones gaining from it. It should only open on match days till the rest is done. In stuttgart there are 2 lines going to the daimler stadium but only when matches are on and the line is to the top standard and about a mile and a half away from the "main" lines.

Surely the only way you could realistically get money from Manchester United is as part of a section 106 agreement linked to a significant stadium expansion.

But if press reports about the clubs financial situation are accurate, that doesn't feel very likely in the immediate future.

Surely the only way you could realistically get money from Manchester United is as part of a section 106 agreement linked to a significant stadium expansion.

But if press reports about the clubs financial situation are accurate, that doesn't feel very likely in the immediate future.

going off topic slightly, but apparently united are funding their proposed ground expansion using money from property holidings in the area that are seperate from the debt the club itself is saddled with. by the sounds of it the money will be raised for the trafford centre line one way or another, it might just take 10 years or so to sort out.

Is phased construction possible on a line like this? In the event that the world cup came to England could MUFC and GMITA fund an extension to old Trafford like the mediacity spur (with a similar Cornbrook Shuttle service) and leave it open for Peel to put together a private sector package later?

I think the World Cup and the money it could bring could be a catalyst in getting trams closer to the MU stadium.

ive heard the monorail plan before. im sure thats been junked since then though. wouldnt make any sense to have people having to get off the met and get on a monorail. plus i would imagine they would be more expensive to build and maintain.

How about a monorail joining new heavy rail stations on the CLC and Chat Moss lines passing through the Trafford Centre? People can rapidly get to the Trafford Centre via Piccadilly and Victoria Stations.

It'd be quicker than the Metrolink via Salford Quays.

How about a monorail joining new heavy rail stations on the CLC and Chat Moss lines passing through the Trafford Centre? People can rapidly get to the Trafford Centre via Piccadilly and Victoria Stations.

It'd be quicker than the Metrolink via Salford Quays.


i have a feeling that monorails are illegal in this country (in the sense that new ones cant be built). a better idea would be to join the trafford and eccles metro lines.

Manchester United should pay for the first part in its entirity (and they could afford to do it right now cash up front)and the trams to operate on it as they would at this stage be the only ones gaining from it. It should only open on match days till the rest is done. In stuttgart there are 2 lines going to the daimler stadium but only when matches are on and the line is to the top standard and about a mile and a half away from the "main" lines.

It's a puzzle to me why MUFC don't do more to develop their non-footie commercial operations. Their conference facilities are consistently crap, and far inferior in standard of service to what is on offer at Bolton, Wigan or CoMS. On the main forum we have extended discussion of proposals to develop land around CoMS for leisure/recreation/hotel/entertainment use, but there is no reason why MUFC should not do the same, and make a good deal of money out of it. But of course, such a development would become far more profitable with a Metrolink line running through it.

i have a feeling that monorails are illegal in this country (in the sense that new ones cant be built)

V. interesting - please could you elaborate.

a better idea would be to join the trafford and eccles metro lines.

Sounds good - depends on the successes of both lines and future travel demands.

V. interesting - please could you elaborate.

I am sure i read that they are against the regulations because of difficulties in evacuating them in an emergency. however, i cannot find any evidence of this and could possibly be wrong!

Hanging monorails I guess it means by that.

How about a monorail joining new heavy rail stations on the CLC and Chat Moss lines passing through the Trafford Centre? People can rapidly get to the Trafford Centre via Piccadilly and Victoria Stations.

It'd be quicker than the Metrolink via Salford Quays.

it sounds like too much hassle making that journey just sitting here thinking about it. also this becomes compounded if you intend to use public transport to get to the trafford centre from north manchester.

this could involve a bus or metrolink journey to the city centre, then a train journey, then a monorail journey. added to that is the fact that there would be different operating companies insisting you buy their ticket and most people would rather sit in their car in traffic for an hour than go though all of that.

the future planning of public transport is being geared towards integration of public transport as much as possible. an expansion of the metrolink to reach the trafford centre would see a good way of doing that.

if they ran one direct tram an hour from oldham, ashton, rochdale, bury and maybe even altrincham that would make a tram ride seem preferable over endless tailbacks on the m60 to some people.

I am sure i read that they are against the regulations because of difficulties in evacuating them in an emergency. however, i cannot find any evidence of this and could possibly be wrong!

Hanging monorails I guess it means by that.

Well whoever came up with this thought they were fine.......

http://londonist.com/2006/07/hanging_monorai.php

i have a feeling that monorails are illegal in this country (in the sense that new ones cant be built). a better idea would be to join the trafford and eccles metro lines.

Nope, not illegal, there is still an active proposal, less than a year old, to build one in Portsmouth with help from a section 106 (is that right?) if we get the new stadium built. Although saying that... Portsmouth FC is in the shit now so it looks highly unlikely.

There's more chance of Elvis making a comeback than MUFC splashing cash on something...they don't need. They are in debt to the tune of £700m or there abouts.

Was there not some plans about a monorail around the carparks around the Trafford centre or Did I dream that?

Does anyone know how many M5000 series trams are now on the system? Last I heard number 8 had arrived, although Im sure I saw more than that today passing Queens Road. Didn't seem like Metrolink wanted to take their new toys out in the snow.

Was there not some plans about a monorail around the carparks around the Trafford centre or Did I dream that?

Does anyone know how many M5000 series trams are now on the system? Last I heard number 8 had arrived, although Im sure I saw more than that today passing Queens Road. Didn't seem like Metrolink wanted to take their new toys out in the snow.

how typical would that be. no we wont pay for a useful, versatile transport to link to our centre, but we will fund a novelty monorail to negate the need for people to walk the half a mile maximum distance that their favourite shop is from there car.

3001/2/3 are currently operational, all were out today doing various bits of passenger working and training

a novelty monorail to negate the need for people to walk the half a mile maximum distance that their favourite shop is from there car.


dunno, that sounds like a reason to go to the TC to me, though maybe the only one... :hahaha:

Monorails should be used for only two uses, Airports, and Alton Towers.

Monorails should be used for only two uses, Airports, and Alton Towers.

I don't know, Japan uses them quite well. And again there is that active proposal in Portsmouth that won't get built because Portsmouth City Council are a bunch of useless bastards.

Monorails should be used for only two uses, Airports, and Alton Towers.

Agreed. Everytime I hear the word 'monorail' it reminds me of Lyle Lanley in the Simpsons.

"I built monorails in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook, and it sure put them on the map!"

TBH though the Japanese Monorails are urban transits usually private sector funded in locations where no previous line had existed or the land is to built up for ground use.

In effect they are a solution to getting a rail line into an already dense metro environment similar to our Victorian rail Viaducts, though using concrete and steel rather than brick does reduce their footprint greatly it also reduces their range, versatility and increases their cost greatly. Think what problems we would face today if our Victorian forebears had built monorail systems instead.

Was there not some plans about a monorail around the carparks around the Trafford centre or Did I dream that?

Does anyone know how many M5000 series trams are now on the system? Last I heard number 8 had arrived, although Im sure I saw more than that today passing Queens Road. Didn't seem like Metrolink wanted to take their new toys out in the snow.

To the best of my knowledge there are 8 M5000s in Manchester now and 3 in use. The rest await commissioning by Bombardier and acceptance by GMPTE.

Monorails should be used for only two uses, Airports, and Alton Towers.

They had a monorail at merryhill shopping centre in Wolverhamton and it didn't last long.

Monorails should be used for only two uses, Airports, and Alton Towers.

And Chester Zoo !!!! ;)

And Chester Zoo !!!! ;)

....... not forgetting Blackpool Pleasure Beach! :)

And Chester Zoo !!!! ;)

They have a monorail on a circular route in Sydney connecting the city centre with the redeveloped harbour area.
It is not specially popular except with tourists so they are talking about abandoning it and replacing it with ...a tram line! :banana:

http://i49.tinypic.com/2pskal4.jpg

I have to say; I do prefer Monorails. I do like trams, but they just seem a bit ... cheap and tacky to me.

I prefer trams to Monorail, but I am also acutley aware of the limitations of trams that severely restrict their ability to evolve into Rapid Transit networks. City centre running is good for access and cheaper than tunneling/viaducts but in the future you face the problem of still competing for roadspace with vehicles and pedestrians and the resulting loss in speed of having to run slowly in case of hitting something. If Metrolink is to eventually evolve into such a system then its going to need either a town centre bypass or some sort of segregated inner ring to seperate town centre services from cross city services.

anyway, back on topic...


Hot new hardware for city streets

So Confidential waited for the tram at Trafford Bar today. And instead of a two decade old dated grubby white charabanc of a conveyance he got a bright, new yellow love machine. A fine looking tram – one of forty new babes – being put through its paces.

The new trams are called Flexity Swift and manufactured by Bombardier Transportation. It's nice to have trams with a porn-star name, but it's sad that Manchester, one of the pioneering train manufacturing centres back in the day, should have its new vehicles built in foreign lands, namely Germany.


The tram was beautiful on the outside in its warm yellow livery. It was utterly overcrowded on the inside. 'The more things change the more things stay the same,' as the poet says. Although to be fair there was a limited service due to the ice and so people were cramming on the trams.
On a transport website the spec given for the new vehicles is: 'Each tram is 28.4m long, and has 52 standard seats with a further 8 'perch' seats. At a standard 4 persons per square metre, there will be space for 146 standing passengers, giving each tram a total peak capacity of 206.'

Metrolink say: 'The introduction of the new trams means passengers will experience quieter, smoother journeys, less crowding at peak times and a more reliable service. They bring a host of other new features such as: a lighter, brighter and roomier interior, extra legroom for seated passengers, better handrails for standing passengers, wider doorways, two multi-purpose areas for wheelchairs and prams and clearer information displays'.

The new trams are called Flexity Swift and manufactured by Bombardier Transportation. It's nice to have trams with a porn-star name, but it's sad that Manchester, one of the pioneering train manufacturing centres back in the day, should have its new vehicles built in foreign lands, namely Germany and Austria.

The new trams are part of the £600 million upgrade of the network also featuring station improvements and new ticketing machines plus the doubling in size of the system with almost 20 miles of new track and 27 new stops.




New lines will begin running to:

MediaCityUK in summer 2010
Chorlton in spring 2011
Central Park in spring 2011
Oldham Mumps in autumn 2011
Rochdale in spring 2012
Droylsden in spring 2012.
As an afterword it was a shame in a way that malfunctioning doors broke Flexity down at Cornbrook Station for five minutes. But hey let's be nice, let's put it down to teething problems. Certainly Ms Swift will look prettier gliding through our streets than those old snub-nosed has-beens.

We've even got a video of the tram at Manchester Central below. If there's one criticism though, we're not sure that the frog being strangled horn works.

http://www.manchesterconfidential.com/images/7110tr1lg.jpg
http://www.manchesterconfidential.com/images/7110tr4lg.jpg
http://www.manchesterconfidential.com/images/7110tr2lg.jpg
http://www.manchesterconfidential.com/images/7110tr3lg.jpg

Article goes here (http://www.manchesterconfidential.com/index.asp?Sessionx=IpqiNw86JWxlIpqiNwF6IHqi)

:lol: I see what it means by the horn;

But I suppose it has to be different to a normal-sounding horn, otherwise people crossing the tracks in the City Center will just simply ignore it and get run over.

Mosley Street Doc up (votes on the 15th, but may be postponed as the Bus commitee tommorow has been)
http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/2894/item_10_metrolink_mosley_street_stop

Firstly as a side note we now know how many phase 3b trams/further expansion trams they are thinking of ordering, 58! Also the expected phase 3a patronage increase at Mosley (and perhaps then we could use as an average across the network?) is/was 34% and phase 3b will increase it by 15% temporarily before 2cc completion will negate a 3b increase.

The report lists passenger figures for Mosley which I wont list here but essentially lots board but few alight. With the modifications to Gardens and St Peters, and combined with 10tph extra, passenger overcrowding is not expected if the site were to close.

Issue mainly seems to be retractable steps, they are reported to be unreliable on the t68's and cost £6000 a year each to maintain, putting over 30 years £18m total cost, also on the new trams they cost £150,000 each so putting them on the 40 ordered trams and 58 future order would have cost a fortune for only two stops use (St Peters since being upgraded). Therefore left with the choice of upgrading the stop to full length or removing it.

Benefits of removal
Better shop window views
Better pedestrian flows
Wider pavements
Can upgrade road surface
increasing from 15tph to 25tph may cause congestion on picc delta
Will save money and increase reliability of trams no longer needing retractable steps
No money required to lengthen stop (£0.3m to remove vs £1.2m to upgrade)
A real time PID will be put in the stops place


Will have to apply to DfT for Railway works act to remove the stop, estimated to take 12 months, if DfT agree with decision then a public consultation must be carried out.


Planning application schedule for Phase 3a/3b Metrolink stops, which already submitted, which not required, and when remainder to come:
http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/2893/item_09_planning_applications

GMPTE submission requesting continued banning of bikes on trams and outlining park and ride developments
http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/2892/iem_08_carriage_of_bicycles_on_trams

A real time PID will be put in the stops place

I assume that means it will tell people to go to either Market Street or Piccadilly Gardens for the next Bury tram?

Relevant paragraph

Closure would require some passengers to make alternative decisions regarding alighting and boarding stops. These decisions will be made easier by the placing of passenger information displays in the Piccadilly Gardens area and on the nearby stops giving real time information on the next tram arrival and from where the next Altrincham service will depart (Piccadilly Gardens or Market Street). These real time displays will inform customers of the time to the arrival of the next tram, its destination and from which city stop. The displays will be positioned in key locations to ensure all customers are aware of the next service.

Is that one of the new PID's in the background of this image?
http://www.manchesterconfidential.com/images/7110tr1lg.jpg

Thanks for posting that article btw :)

Is that one of the new PID's in the background of this image?



No, thats one of the old ones, they havent been removed from some stops yet, infact they are still turned on at some stops. The new PID's wont be instaled till spring/ summer as they depend on the new signaling system being instaled first. The new PID will go on the pole with a plastic bag on the top of it next to the ticket machine.

Andysimo isn't gonna to be a happy bunny when he realises his beloved Mosley Street stop is going to be removed :lol::lol:. So 98 3000 series trams, plus the 6 2000 series and 26 1000 series. Were going to have quite a fleet in a couple of years. Hell yeah!

Andysimo isn't gonna to be a happy bunny when he realises his beloved Mosley Street stop is going to be removed :lol::lol:. So 98 3000 series trams, plus the 6 2000 series and 26 1000 series. Were going to have quite a fleet in a couple of years. Hell yeah!

Am fucking not happy. This could mean me using the car more instead of using tram/train! Don't want to but time is something I don't have. I have to get from one place to another in around 45-50 minutes. Mosley Street currently allows me to do that. 6 minute service. Once its gone it doesn't. What this means is instead of going to Mosley Street I have to pick between Market or the Gardens. That's an extra possible 12 minutes I do not have.

Relevant paragraph

If I see the words, we'll also make an iphone app, they can nuke Mosley Street.

yeah I saw that, investment in a Phone app that gives you real time timetables by triangulating your location, mainly aimed at the deaf and blind, at least their moving with the times.

Yeah andy you will have to walk the 5 minutes to the relevant station, though with a 6min frequency rather than 12 its not all bad.

yeah I saw that, investment in a Phone app that gives you real time timetables by triangulating your location, mainly aimed at the deaf and blind, at least their moving with the times.

Yeah andy you will have to walk the 5 minutes to the relevant station, though with a 6min frequency rather than 12 its not all bad.

Its not a 5 minute walk. Its a 1 minute walk. You have no idea how bad this is to me, personally. I don't have 6 minutes extra to spare on a monday afternoon, when I've already given 50 minutes to travelling time. I thought the idea was to speed things up. Seems all that Metrolink is doing is trying to slow things down. aka line of slow and removing stops that 1000s of people use.

On a non personal level, I reckon less people will use the system in the area once this happens. afew 1000 people will turn up one day, thinking what the fuck are they doing? and why am I waiting ages extra for the Alti tram? Fact is people in the Piccidilly Gardens area don't go to the Gardens or Market Street for an Alti Tram, they go to Mosley Street. I wonder why? hmmmmm
Its alot of pointless un-needed shit when most users have already had enough of multiple breakdowns, lack of information, all the upgrades etc There is only one reason is been done. Money. The other benefits are laughable.

The only disadvantage of it disappearing for me, is that when I'm half asleep in the morning and just get on any tram (when I'm supposed to be going from Vic to Picc) is that if I make a mistake, I can get off at M Street and get another from Picc Gardens. Now I'll have to go all the way to St Peters Square if I balls up.

More coffee for me in the mornings.

Poor, poor Andy...

andy, just invest 3 minutes of time walking to st peters sq where there is your much required 6 min service!! if you've already spent 50 mins travelling then whats an extra 3 mins.

Hi. I came across this thread last night. I started at the beginning and tried to read as much as I could before my eyes felt like they were falling out!

For someone who uses the trams on a daily basis to get to work, its been interesting to see the photos of the progress of the tram extensions and blockade throughout the 'summer' of 2009.

I used one of the new trams last night from Trafford Bar to Sale. It was hard to appreciate it as I literally had to squeeze onto it. It did seem a lot smoother and very quiet though.

I have a few questions if anyone could answer them for me.

I believe that 8 of the new trams have been delivered and 3 of them are in service.

- When will the other 5 be in service?
- Can they be connected to the older trams to form doubles? Or can they only connect to the same type of tram?
- Will the installation of the line of sight signalling mean the network has to close again? Also what are the benefits of this?

- I understand with the current weather we've been having, there have been a lot of vehicle failures and ice on the overhead wires, but with 3 new trams in service, why aren't some of the older trams running as doubles?

- Will the track on the Oldham Loop line be replaced or is it in good enough condition?

Thanks.

Its not a 5 minute walk. Its a 1 minute walk. You have no idea how bad this is to me, personally. I don't have 6 minutes extra to spare on a monday afternoon, when I've already given 50 minutes to travelling time. I thought the idea was to speed things up. Seems all that Metrolink is doing is trying to slow things down. aka line of slow and removing stops that 1000s of people use.

On a non personal level, I reckon less people will use the system in the area once this happens. afew 1000 people will turn up one day, thinking what the fuck are they doing? and why am I waiting ages extra for the Alti tram? Fact is people in the Piccidilly Gardens area don't go to the Gardens or Market Street for an Alti Tram, they go to Mosley Street. I wonder why? hmmmmm
Its alot of pointless un-needed shit when most users have already had enough of multiple breakdowns, lack of information, all the upgrades etc There is only one reason is been done. Money. The other benefits are laughable.

so you catch one of the 20 odd southbound trams and change, is that such a big deal?

Welcome to the fourm, glad you've enjoyed this thread.


I believe that 8 of the new trams have been delivered and 3 of them are in service.

- When will the other 5 be in service?


Basicaly, soon! thats the best answer. each one needs to have various tests done on it including running for 1000 miles without breaking down. as well as that, metrolink need to train over 100 drivers on how to drive them. I would expect the other 5 to be out by around april.


- Can they be connected to the older trams to form doubles? Or can they only connect to the same type of tram?


They can be connected to the older trams, but only in an emergency as the electrial systems are completely different. The new trams can be connected to each other to form doubles but this presents a problem using the mosely street stop as they dont have retractable steps. if they where used as doubles on the altrincham line, maybe we will see a return to those wooden steps that where used in st peters square over the summer since it will take at least a year to close mosely street.


- Will the installation of the line of sight signalling mean the network has to close again? Also what are the benefits of this?


As I understand it, the network will not have to be closed, but i could be completely wrong. Trams already operate by line of sight in the city centre and on the eccles line. What this means is, trams can operate closer together and if needs be, bunch up at stations. The old trafford stop was rebuilt last year and now has space for 4 single trams to be there simultaneously



- I understand with the current weather we've been having, there have been a lot of vehicle failures and ice on the overhead wires, but with 3 new trams in service, why aren't some of the older trams running as doubles?


I dont know, but its probably because there arent enougth serviceable trams about.


- Will the track on the Oldham Loop line be replaced or is it in good enough condition?


some will be replaced but not all of it.

hope thats answers some of your questions.

Thanks Future Architect!

In the last GMITA report, it mentioned that the cause of the fault on the 2001 tram had been established and they were hoping to get it fixed.

I guess it would have to go through vigourous testing like the new trams before it can be brought into service though.

Any ideas what the fault was and an estimated time when it could be brought back?

You lot are a bunch of wankers, hence why I don't spend that much time here. The scousers aren't as bad.

Am fucking not happy. This could mean me using the car more instead of using tram/train! Don't want to but time is something I don't have. I have to get from one place to another in around 45-50 minutes. Mosley Street currently allows me to do that. 6 minute service. Once its gone it doesn't. What this means is instead of going to Mosley Street I have to pick between Market or the Gardens. That's an extra possible 12 minutes I do not have.

As I understand it, once 3b is open there will be 5 Picc - Airport trams in addition to the 5 Ashton - Alty trams, and the 5 Picc - Eccles trams, all going through Picc Gardens stop. So, you can catch any westward bound tram at the Gardens, and then switch to a Bury - Alty service at Cornbrook if needed.

jam tomorrow of course

You lot are a bunch of wankers, hence why I don't spend that much time here. The scousers aren't as bad.

well you know what they sya.... empty barrels make most noise....lol

try getting on a magic bus and see what wankers really are...lol

Andysimo isn't gonna to be a happy bunny when he realises his beloved Mosley Street stop is going to be removed :lol::lol:. So 98 3000 series trams, plus the 6 2000 series and 26 1000 series. Were going to have quite a fleet in a couple of years. Hell yeah!

by my reckoning, that would permit regular peak-time doubling of all the Alty-Bury-Ashton services, plus all the E Dids - Shaw - Ashton services. And allow for extra doubling to CoMS and OT on matchdays and events.

That is assuming that the 58 3b are additional to the 40 3a (which does indeed seem to be the sense of the paper).

by my reckoning, that would permit regular peak-time doubling of all the Alty-Bury-Ashton services, plus all the E Dids - Shaw - Ashton services. And allow for extra doubling to CoMS and OT on matchdays and events.

That is assuming that the 58 3b are additional to the 40 3a (which does indeed seem to be the sense of the paper).

I think it's not 58 extra ones on top of 3a, i think it's 58 in total, which is an extra 18. think about it.... chorlton to east dids needs only about 5 extra, droylsden to ashton say another 4-5, oldham and rochdale extra 4 maybe =14 plus spare 14 maybe 15 at the most + 3 spares =18, what would they do with the extra 40?

I think it's not 58 extra ones on top of 3a, i think it's 58 in total, which is an extra 18. think about it.... chorlton to east dids needs only about 5 extra, droylsden to ashton say another 4-5, oldham and rochdale extra 4 maybe =14 plus spare 14 maybe 15 at the most + 3 spares =18, what would they do with the extra 40?

thats what i was thinking.

I think it's not 58 extra ones on top of 3a, i think it's 58 in total, which is an extra 18. think about it.... chorlton to east dids needs only about 5 extra, droylsden to ashton say another 4-5, oldham and rochdale extra 4 maybe =14 plus spare 14 maybe 15 at the most + 3 spares =18, what would they do with the extra 40?

I think it is an additional 58. Look at this quote:

To date forty trams have been ordered for the capacity improvements on phase 1 and 2, Media City and for the Phase 3a extension. To fit steps to these vehicles would have cost £6 million. For future proposed extensions, a further 58 trams will be required which will cost in the region of £9 million to fit retractable steps.

It's not going to cost £6 million for adapting 40 trams and an additional £9 million for adapting 18. I don't think the 58 is a definite order though, as I would imagine it includes Trafford and Stockport as well, which would need to be funded before orders were made.

it could be UP TO 40 more I suspect as they did mention a figure of 58 with the TIF which included the airport and the trafford centre lines. that would make it more feasable. I believ the figure was reached by (I think 26 required for the airport and 10 required for the trafford centre plus spares?

It was a bit quiet on the depot site on Wednesday:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2769/4251655767_3f126eeaf5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970/4251655767/)
One digger was clearing snow from the car park, but that was it.

Andrew

You lot are a bunch of wankers, hence why I don't spend that much time here. The scousers aren't as bad.

Notwithstanding the inconvenience the Closure of Mosley St Stop will cause if it goes ahead comments such as that above do nothing to show this thread as a constructive discussion.

You lot are a bunch of wankers, hence why I don't spend that much time here. The scousers aren't as bad.

Yes, it is our fault that your beloved Mosley Street stop might close. Stop acting like a spoilt little kid with anger issues. Oh, wait...

You lot are a bunch of wankers, hence why I don't spend that much time here. The scousers aren't as bad.

Wasn't sure if you were joking or not...

Are you really that arsed about it?

I mean, St Peters Sq is a 5 minute walk, and Market Street and Picc Gardens are a 2 minute walk. Some would say you're spoilt for choice for an alternative station.

There are far bigger issues on the Metrolink Network than the removal of Mosley St station.

I am equally concerned that the Big Chill is affecting my sense to determione whether Andy is being sarky or serious.

As for monorail (please!). Wasnt the Liverpool forum driven to 30 metre high concrete single tracked distraction by that Pervasive Developmentally Disordered individual and his obsessions with monorails?

I do know that there was a 60's plan to run a monorail from Ringway (sic) Airport to Middleton up Kingsway and beyond.

Ugly things them monorails. The ultimate uber monster in street furniture. Only one place where they work

See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulg8A1tGbuE

Once again you have all just proven my point. I might be a bastard, infact I know I am but I've learnt that the Manchester forum is generally full of blind idiots who love to jump on the band wagon. Might be why our forum has died of death.

Once again you have all just proven my point. I might be a bastard, infact I know I am but I've learnt that the Manchester forum is generally full of blind idiots who love to jump on the band wagon. Might be why our forum has died of death.

there is a long running pattern with you on this thread of you posting something, someone disagrees and you then explode in a burst of furious anger. then you apologise, then you go quiet for a while and then the cycle starts again. could i suggest that next time you go quiet and stay quiet as you dont add anything to this forum with your comments. thanks.

as I would imagine it includes Trafford and Stockport as well, which would need to be funded before orders were made.

has there been any updates on the money being put up for stockport?

there is a long running pattern with you on this thread of you posting something, someone disagrees and you then explode in a burst of furious anger. then you apologise, then you go quiet for a while and then the cycle starts again. could i suggest that next time you go quiet and stay quiet as you dont add anything to this forum with your comments. thanks.

Amen to that. He should get some help dealing with it too for a better quality of life.

it could be UP TO 40 more I suspect as they did mention a figure of 58 with the TIF which included the airport and the trafford centre lines. that would make it more feasable. I believ the figure was reached by (I think 26 required for the airport and 10 required for the trafford centre plus spares?

The Airport line is being built though last I heard.

Gdogg - I don't think Stockport even has TWA powers granted, so it would be a long time coming even if money was found. I suspect that should things go fine with Phase 3b construction then powers will be applied for in a few years so that they're ready to roll if and when money becomes available.

If it was built I imagine it'd need a lot of vehicles, as I can imagine the Didsbury line being busy even without the extension.

Lets see if we try and work out what they could be for then a chunk could well be The Trafford and stockport lines.

East Didsbury needs 10, Airport needs 16 (10 more if looped?), Droylsden to Ashton, 6?, Oldham TC 4?, spare 4?,

Still requiring funding, Trafford 12-16? Stockport 6?

Rest used for doubling probably.

it could be UP TO 40 more I suspect as they did mention a figure of 58 with the TIF which included the airport and the trafford centre lines. that would make it more feasable. I believ the figure was reached by (I think 26 required for the airport and 10 required for the trafford centre plus spares?

Up to 40 more is how I understood it; and that would include the airport line - and was I think the number identified for the TIF bid, which I seem to recall suggesting 112 trams as needed in total.

Basically, the system at phase 3a will require a minimum of 62 trams. We will have 72 (40 M5000 + 32 T68) so that means that 10 services can be doubled at peak.

At phase 3b we will require a minimum of 82 trams - so if we have only 58 M5000s in total, that would allow only 8 services to be doubled (i.e. a reduction in serivice). Which seems unlikely to me. 112 trams would allow 30 services to be doubled, and 130 (i.e. if all 58 are additional) would allow 48 to be doubled. 160, and we could double the lot (in effect the doubled trams also serve as relief capacity, so you need to hold a smaller proportion as back-up).

I suspect that the number 58 is set out as additional to 3b - but as an aspiration, should there be no major cost overruns or cut-backs. But in practice, I would be reasonably happy with 112. 90 would be a major disappointment.

Up to 40 more is how I understood it; and that would include the airport line - and was I think the number identified for the TIF bid, which I seem to recall suggesting 112 trams as needed in total.

Basically, the system at phase 3a will require a minimum of 62 trams. We will have 72 (40 M5000 + 32 T68) so that means that 10 services can be doubled at peak.

At phase 3b we will require a minimum of 82 trams - so if we have only 58 M5000s in total, that would allow only 8 services to be doubled (i.e. a reduction in serivice). Which seems unlikely to me. 112 trams would allow 30 services to be doubled, and 130 (i.e. if all 58 are additional) would allow 48 to be doubled. 160, and we could double the lot (in effect the doubled trams also serve as relief capacity, so you need to hold a smaller proportion as back-up).

I suspect that the number 58 is set out as additional to 3b - but as an aspiration, should there be no major cost overruns or cut-backs. But in practice, I would be reasonably happy with 112. 90 would be a major disappointment.

it would seem a pointless exercise to build an expanded network and not have enough trams to run a proper service on it.

The 90 figure must be incorrect. The 1st 8 bananas were bought specifically to enhance Bury/Alty direct capacity. I know there is no real evidence of this just yet, but it's got to be the final intention.

From all the documents I've seen there is an expectation that the Didsbury line is going to be very busy, it could be some of the additional trams are specifically for this line.

You've also got to pencil in the fact that we've never had enough spares in the system to operate the existing frequencies. With a much larger system we are going to need much larger back-up. We really need extra slack.

As che says, the pricing in the document suggest they mean 58 in addition to the current 40 making a total fleet of 130. The document also suggests that this isn't a firm figure.

However If I remember correctly, after the first 40 there was a deal with bombardier on how many options on further trams there could be. Can't remember how many but I think 58 was around the maximum.

The 90 figure must be incorrect. The 1st 8 bananas were bought specifically to enhance Bury/Alty direct capacity. I know there is no real evidence of this just yet, but it's got to be the final intention.

From all the documents I've seen there is an expectation that the Didsbury line is going to be very busy, it could be some of the additional trams are specifically for this line.

You've also got to pencil in the fact that we've never had enough spares in the system to operate the existing frequencies. With a much larger system we are going to need much larger back-up. We really need extra slack.

Definitely. I don't think the 8 for the Alti-Bury service is enough really. Peak time at Sale station is a nightmare. The same goes for Stretford. And that's when there are no delays running a 6 minute service.

Have they solved the power problem on the Bury line yet? Apparently thats one of the reasons why they don't run too many doubles on there.

Extra slack is definitely needed when it comes to Match days or Concerts at Old Trafford to ship the masses out swiftly and safely. The same will apply for Sports City Station on the East Manchester Line.

As che says, the pricing in the document suggest they mean 58 in addition to the current 40 making a total fleet of 130. The document also suggests that this isn't a firm figure.

However If I remember correctly, after the first 40 there was a deal with bombardier on how many options on further trams there could be. Can't remember how many but I think 58 was around the maximum.

At around £2million a pop, surely 58 trams would be affordable with the money that is available. I hope so anyway.

Would some on please clarify for me as to whether or not the Airport extension is going ahead? and if so what what route will it follow?and when will construction start?

Would some on please clarify for me as to whether or not the Airport extension is going ahead? and if so what what route will it follow?and when will construction start?

Yes the airport extension (though not the loop) is part of the Greater Manchester Transport Fund and is due to go ahead. The route is shown on this map,

http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pdf/future_metrolink/future%20Metrolink%20main%20page/09-0316-91675%20Metrolink%20geographic%203a-3b%20incl%20Second%20CIty%20Crossing%20v2%20%28no%20roads%29.pdf

The first phases of construction are supposed to begin spring/summer this year but it won't be complete til 2016.....

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/6__GMTF__merged_.pdf

Page 9

Have they solved the power problem on the Bury line yet? Apparently thats one of the reasons why they don't run too many doubles on there.



2 new electrical sub stations will be built on the bury line. but im not sure when.

Yes the airport extension (though not the loop) is part of the Greater Manchester Transport Fund and is due to go ahead. The route is shown on this map,

http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pdf/future_metrolink/future%20Metrolink%20main%20page/09-0316-91675%20Metrolink%20geographic%203a-3b%20incl%20Second%20CIty%20Crossing%20v2%20%28no%20roads%29.pdf

The first phases of construction are supposed to begin spring/summer this year but it won't be complete til 2016.....

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/6__GMTF__merged_.pdf

Page 9

i cant still cant believe it is going to take them until 2016 to build the second city centre crossing.

Yes the airport extension (though not the loop) is part of the Greater Manchester Transport Fund and is due to go ahead. The route is shown on this map,

http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pdf/future_metrolink/future%20Metrolink%20main%20page/09-0316-91675%20Metrolink%20geographic%203a-3b%20incl%20Second%20CIty%20Crossing%20v2%20%28no%20roads%29.pdf

The first phases of construction are supposed to begin spring/summer this year but it won't be complete til 2016.....

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/6__GMTF__merged_.pdf

Page 9

Cheers for info Frodz

Will a third depot be needed if we end up with Phase 3b? (130-ish trams)

Cheers for info Frodz


So what is the anticipated journey time from PIC to MAN going to be?

So what is the anticipated journey time from PIC to MAN going to be?

I'm not entirely sure, though it'll be relatively long. If at PIC you'd be much better off taking the train to MAN.......

The line is really there to allow local travel between opposite sides of the mersey valley, allow wythenshaw locals direct access to the airport, and provide a direct rail route between northern parts of the conurbation and the airport. It isn't so much designed for passengers between MCC and the airport who already have quick access.

Will a third depot be needed if we end up with Phase 3b? (130-ish trams)

We may well need one yes, im reading the twa approval of the depot and it lists as a condition that no more than 55 trams shall be stabled there for environmental reasons, However I also looked at a 2002 site layout (tried looking for the proper planning ap but couldnt find it) on which the diagram indicated 60 trams could be stabled (excluding the workshop).

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/dl/archive/icationsfortheproposedgr5610.pdf

Queens road built for a capacity of 26 phase 1, phase 2 added 6 more without expanding capacity, I think their going to base the 8 for the alty-bury line and 4 mediacity trams here so now the depots being extended to a capacity of 44, just enough space.

That means a combined capacity of 99 trams which wont be enough if the fleet reaches 130.

I'm not entirely sure, though it'll be relatively long. If at PIC you'd be much better off taking the train to MAN.......

The line is really there to allow local travel between opposite sides of the mersey valley, allow wythenshaw locals direct access to the airport, and provide a direct rail route between northern parts of the conurbation and the airport. It isn't so much designed for passengers between MCC and the airport who already have quick access.

My thoughts are leaning towards the agoniseingly slow journey from central London to LHR...on LU, I presume that Mertolink (ML) are therefore targetting the local market.

Good progress, still no where near the transport infastructure that the City deserves.

But outside of London what do you expect.

So what is the anticipated journey time from PIC to MAN going to be?

I reckon 48 minutes to turnround (i.e. including the time spent at Picc before returning).

Distance is 21km, so that imples an average speed of 26kph - a bit less than the system average of 27kph

Why is there no 'shoot yourself in the head' emoticon?

My thoughts are leaning towards the agoniseingly slow journey from central London to LHR...on LU, I presume that Mertolink (ML) are therefore targetting the local market.

Surely its also for people who work in the airport? There must be a lot of folk along the proposed line working at the airport, each making the journey several times a week.

Surely its also for people who work in the airport? There must be a lot of folk along the proposed line working at the airport, each making the journey several times a week.


That is what I meant, I am sure it will appeal more to staff rather then Passengers with suitcases as it looks like it could be a very protracted journey.

In my experience, if the trams there and the trains not, after a long haul flight, you'll get on anything, however long it takes.

I am in full favour of the tram going to the airport..and I am sure it will be a "jewel in the crown" line, but we also should remember that many destinations are already available from MAN by train..(a good thing too)

I just came across this link, I know we have seen many of these pictures before, but there are a few new ones also..

http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/mpgs/m5000/index.html

Saw one of the new trams today !!! :D

It was the 3002 or something like that (it might've been the 3003 I dont know)

After not seeing any of the new trams on my previous visits to the centre today I was drinking coffee near piccadilly gardens and saw within 20 minutes 3001, 3002 and 3003 go past in order.

2 seemed to be on the Bury while 1 and 3 were doing Altrincham to Piccadilly, came back half an hour later and caught 3003 to Picc then switched platforms and caught it out again to Cornbrook as a test, the M5000 were better in every regard and were better lit and airier even crammed to capacity, they need to raise the volume of the announcer by 10-20% though, it was alright on an empty tram but on a full one you could barely hear it, internal displays are great as well!

As to service today when I arrived at about 2:00 everything was running fine but after about 5:00 the Bury service became almost non-existant and about 6:00 the Altrincham surface seemed to hiccup while I was waiting 30 minutes for a Bury tram at Gardens five Altrincham went past towards Piccadilly but non came back then 3 came at once when I hgave up on the bury tram and started walking (at this exact moment 3002 goes past me of course!)

After not seeing any of the new trams on my previous visits to the centre today I was drinking coffee near piccadilly gardens and saw within 20 minutes 3001, 3002 and 3003 go past in order.

2 seemed to be on the Bury while 1 and 3 were doing Altrincham to Piccadilly, came back half an hour later and caught 3003 to Picc then switched platforms and caught it out again to Cornbrook as a test, the M5000 were better in every regard and were better lit and airier even crammed to capacity, they need to raise the volume of the announcer by 10-20% though, it was alright on an empty tram but on a full one you could barely hear it, internal displays are great as well!

As to service today when I arrived at about 2:00 everything was running fine but after about 5:00 the Bury service became almost non-existant and about 6:00 the Altrincham surface seemed to hiccup while I was waiting 30 minutes for a Bury tram at Gardens five Altrincham went past towards Piccadilly but non came back then 3 came at once when I hgave up on the bury tram and started walking (at this exact moment 3002 goes past me of course!)

Please send your feedback to Philip Purdy at Metrolink....we need to keep letting them know our experiences..good and bad

All construction seems to have come to a halt during the big freeze, hope it ends soon and we can get cracking again.

In the meantime, here is a photo from the early days to remind us of warmer times, when concrete walls were for pulling down, and Piccadilly Gardens were gardens . . .

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/oldgarden.jpg

p.s. I am not going to have a go at Andy when he throws one of his benjies - he was very good to me when I didn't know how to put photos on!

All construction seems to have come to a halt during the big freeze, hope it ends soon and we can get cracking again.

In the meantime, here is a photo from the early days to remind us of warmer times, when concrete walls were for pulling down, and Piccadilly Gardens were gardens . . .

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/oldgarden.jpg

p.s. I am not going to have a go at Andy when he throws one of his benjies - he was very good to me when I didn't know how to put photos on!

he is alright as long as you dont question him.

New pictures from 47118 on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47118s-pixs

http://i48.tinypic.com/123uobc.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/2a9r8ud.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/2irae4x.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/qo9kpy.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/25phls8.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/352gbgw.jpg

Great pic of the old gardens, I can vaguely remember it. Are there any other pictures floating around of the Metrolink's early days, particularly it's construction? It'll be interesting to see.

There's this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Approaching_GMEX,_Manchester_-_geograph.org.uk_-_710048.jpg

As for the gardens, I prefer the newer layout. I'm too young to remember the old setup, but I think the newer one is much more metropolitan, and (looking from the pictures) much more open. I also like the wall, it's just a bit different, and I think has the same feel you get with the other regenereated/rebuilt areas in central manchester.

i cant still cant believe it is going to take them until 2016 to build the second city centre crossing.

I don't know if it's anyone else but 2016 seems about 15 years away, I still feel it's the year 2000 not 2010.

After all the delays and false starts we have had those six years will go pretty quick.

he is alright as long as you dont question him.

You can question me, just don't ask a question you already know the answer to. I'll bite your face off. :) Also don't gang up on one forum member like you lot like to do. Its not good for my blood pressure. Its just like a predictable argument which should never start. I can take one on one, that's funny take the piss out of each other. 2 on 1 or 10 on 1. I can't be bothered trying because I can't win. Then end up looking like a right idiot because everyone including me takes it too much heart.

Is 3004 out and about yet?

After all the delays and false starts we have had those six years will go pretty quick.

Indeed, and bits and pieces will come in service gradually before that, from Media city in a couple of months.

Trafford Depot Spring 2011
Chorlton Spring 2011
Oldham line-Central Park Spring 2011
Oldham Mumps Autumn 2011
Rochdal Spring 2012
Droylsden line Spring 2012
Leigh Guided busway Spring 2013
Chorlton-East Didsbury Mid 2013
Droylsden-Ashton Christmas 2013
Rochdale and Oldham Town Centres Q1 2014
Airport and 2CC Mid 2016

Is 3004 out and about yet?[/QUOTE]

yep, its out clocking up its mileage before handover.

Its been a long hard struggle, check out these documents from 1995! The lines expected to be complete by 2000.

http://www.gmpte.com/upload/library/met_east.pdf
http://www.gmpte.com/upload/library/met_roch.pdf

1997!
http://www.gmpte.com/upload/library/met_south.pdf

1999! expected to be done by 2010
http://www.gmpte.com/upload/library/metdidsb.pdf

Its been a long hard struggle, check out these documents from 1995! The lines expected to be complete by 2000.

http://www.gmpte.com/upload/library/met_east.pdf
http://www.gmpte.com/upload/library/met_roch.pdf

1997!
http://www.gmpte.com/upload/library/met_south.pdf

1999! expected to be done by 2010
http://www.gmpte.com/upload/library/metdidsb.pdf

tomorrow's world used to say we would have robots doing the ironing and be living on the moon by 2000 so im sure compared to that a few poxy metrolink lines seemed like small change to the powers that be at the time.

Talking of the past, time to wheel out again the Heaton spin of the SELNEC Pic-Vic plan.


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4239370774_edbdb225a1_o.jpg

That reminded me, im unsure how Piccadillys going to cope with the extra services, the departue platforms alright with easy access but can get crowded already but the main limiting factor is the arrival platform which cant accomadate large numbers of people leaving the platform, you have a scrum for the escalator. When you have people boarding from that platform again its going to get really bad trying to get on and off it.

Will they have to reverse the arrivals escalator for when services begin so people can access the platform? Surely two escalators will be required on both arrival and departure platforms?

Great pictures of bananas against the snowy city centre backdrop Marky- they certainly complement the variety of architecture in this wonderful city. The Wall, I think I could live with better if it had some windows, in order to open up the 'spatial' lines of sight from more directions, or at least something green growing up the 'blank' side of it.

Can anyone remember the name of the tram (british built I believe) they tested at Blackpool a year or two ago?...they have some problems with it fire etc I beleive.

Can anyone remember the name of the tram (british built I believe) they tested at Blackpool a year or two ago?...they have some problems with it fire etc I beleive.

Hi Wingtips, it was built by Tram Power Ltd in Liverpool:

www.trampower.co.uk

Can anyone remember the name of the tram (british built I believe) they tested at Blackpool a year or two ago?...they have some problems with it fire etc I beleive.

It was called the City Class built by Trampower http://www.trampower.co.uk/
I think it was rebuilt but has yet to find a home for testing.

Sorry I should have checked someone else hadn't already answered before posting.

Many thanks all......

Sorry I should have checked someone else hadn't already answered before posting.

No problems at all Freel07. You are right they have rebuilt it using the insurance from the Blackpool fire.

I doubt Blackpool will let them test again as they are full pelt with their Bombadier Trams now.

The best thing this company could do is keep trying to get a trial on a small closed line where some track is in situ or build a small stretch. I know Preston is talking about such a trial although not with this company. It's just a case of taking them seriously like Parry Vehicles have in the West Mids, one successful trial, followed by one order will open a few more doors to them.

I wish them well.

I too feel this is a great shame...a British built tram plying up and down British Streets would have been a real coup, another wasted opportunity I feel.

Yeah that liverpool company are having trouble being taken seriously (mind you their claims are pretty extraordinary) they joined the bidding for a Canadian network last year but were ejected from the first round because they wernt considered a financially viable company.

Nottingham's trams were built by Bombardier at Derby.

That reminded me, im unsure how Piccadillys going to cope with the extra services, the departue platforms alright with easy access but can get crowded already but the main limiting factor is the arrival platform which cant accomadate large numbers of people leaving the platform, you have a scrum for the escalator. When you have people boarding from that platform again its going to get really bad trying to get on and off it.

Watcher, there will also be the newly-created walkway, quite a wide one at ground level, through one of the arches, currently visible through the doors along the Arrivals (Droylsden) platform, and leading to Sheffield St, Boad St. + car parks etc.

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/piccplan.jpg
http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_3334.jpg

Of course, there is a question mark about how many people will want to access the station from that side, although I have found there is a fair bit of commercial activity in that area. Having spent some time there recently (purely for the purposes of photography of course) I have been surprised to be asked more than once "want any business love?". As a small town boy fom provincial Lancashire, I wasn't quite sure whether they were selling she-shells, pretty deflowers, or cockles and muscles alive, alive-o . . . . :nuts:

Foot-fall will be a big fat zero through there unless there is to be built some stunning development that employs actual people in the very near future. Nope - I very much doubt there will be a high demand to access the service entrance/arse end of Piccadilly station unless your going to Warehouse Project, or you're a train engineer.

Does anyone have a plan of the new depot layout at all?

I would have to agree, noones going to use that entrance, though probably useful as an emergency exit.

I wonder if it would be possible at all to widen the existing escalator, its quite narrow.

Thats what I was asking, but as far as i'm aware, there's one narrow escalator, and some steps. So I guess they could convert the steps.

Does anyone have a plan of the new depot layout at all?

All I can give you is the indicative layout 2002 (the one that got Government appoval with the condition of 55 trams max stabled there). Detailed design was done in 2008 but I cant find a copy of it, doesnt appear to be on Trafford MBC site under either planning apps or major developments.

http://www.gmpte.com/upload/library/metnews4.pdf

That reminded me, im unsure how Piccadillys going to cope with the extra services, the departue platforms alright with easy access but can get crowded already but the main limiting factor is the arrival platform which cant accomadate large numbers of people leaving the platform, you have a scrum for the escalator. When you have people boarding from that platform again its going to get really bad trying to get on and off it.

Why would people board from the arrival platform? Surely, terminating trams would continue empty to the reversing siding beyond Sheffield Street, before running back into the departure platform, the same as they do now?

Train Guard

Why would people board from the arrival platform? Surely, terminating trams would continue empty to the reversing siding beyond Sheffield Street, before running back into the departure platform, the same as they do now?

Train Guard

Because it is going to become a through platform for people travelling the other way, or am I missing something?

I would have to agree, noones going to use that entrance, though probably useful as an emergency exit.

I wonder if it would be possible at all to widen the existing escalator, its quite narrow.

Quite a few people use the pedestrian exit from the arrival platform end into London Road, though it isn't well signposted. It's on the site of the now vanished Birmingham Street, and an ashlar arch (probably an entrance to the original station for foot passengers) was still visible until recently, but has now disappeared.

Train Guard

Because it is going to become a through platform for people travelling the other way, or am I missing something?

Ah...I forgot about Ashton/Droylsden passengers! I suppose that they would use the existing steps, though they could be converted into a down escalator. Isn't there also a lift access to the mezzanine level hall?

Train Guard

Just been on two new trams but I am very angry, I forgot to get the number of my last one. I got a tram around 3:00pm from picc station this was 3002, I then got another one from perhaps around 3:15 to Stretford. Does anybody know if this was 3001 or 3003? I forgot to check?

I liked the new trams, they seemed to be much better in rush hour, I coped with my broken elbow. They are much more airy too, they also feel much bigger inside than they actually are.

Dislikes - The lights look cheap, harsh bright lights and cheap covers which look like they have come out of a class 142.

Still comfortable and I can't see GMPTE could have bought anything better for the money. Money well spent :banana:

Cant tell you Joy, i only saw them a couple of times today but last Saturday 3001/3003 were doing Altrincham-Bury via Piccadilly and 3002 was doing Eccles if thats any help.

Just to add, Trafford depot and Media City stop site were bustling with shivering workers digging the frozen ground, also seemed to be new ticketing machines prepatory work (knocking holes in the walls and measuring platforms with spirit levels) going on at several Bury line stops.

Just been on two new trams but I am very angry, I forgot to get the number of my last one. I got a tram around 3:00pm from picc station this was 3002, I then got another one from perhaps around 3:15 to Stretford. Does anybody know if this was 3001 or 3003? I forgot to check?

I liked the new trams, they seemed to be much better in rush hour, I coped with my broken elbow. They are much more airy too, they also feel much bigger inside than they actually are.

Dislikes - The lights look cheap, harsh bright lights and cheap covers which look like they have come out of a class 142.

Still comfortable and I can't see GMPTE could have bought anything better for the money. Money well spent :banana:

Why are you angry?

Whythenshawe Hospital Loop

will this (ever) be built?

Whythenshawe Hospital Loop

will this (ever) be built?

Not for a long time in the current market.

Finance for the loop is dependent on somehow capitalising the development value of Davenport Green. Which in turn depends on getting planning permission to concrete over the green belt. Neither currently looks at all likely.

Angry indeed.

Tell me tram bods. to me they seem akin to the ones in Nottingham.Is that so?

The Wythenshawe hospital loop. Past the hospital, I am still unsure how immediate this is (bar of course those who live next to it.) Imagine though a spur being built to the "ospikal" but not the full loop.

Andysimo isn't gonna to be a happy bunny when he realises his beloved Mosley Street stop is going to be removed . So 98 3000 series trams, plus the 6 2000 series and 26 1000 series. Were going to have quite a fleet in a couple of years. Hell yeah!

Another brilliant idea! So all the people who can get an Alty tram coming from Bury or Piccadilly will have to either go to St. Peters Sq or hedge their bets on which line is most likely to have a failed vehicle on, so they can decide whether it is best to go to the Gardens or Market Street.


Also at Picc Gardens, they spent so much money on it, a 2 car tram will stop with it's first door beyond the covered area, forcing people to get wet. Did no one think of covering the areas where people get on.

Likewise Bury trams stopping at Heaton Park, could easily when 2 carrages long, stop under the covered area, but oh no they have to go on further and force people to get wet if it is raining.

before everyone starts fighting again about the mosley street stop, can i ask if anyone on here posted this video on youtube please?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwhPy3CMln4&feature=related

Also at Picc Gardens, they spent so much money on it, a 2 car tram will stop with it's first door beyond the covered area, forcing people to get wet. Did no one think of covering the areas where people get on.

Likewise Bury trams stopping at Heaton Park, could easily when 2 carrages long, stop under the covered area, but oh no they have to go on further and force people to get wet if it is raining.

I am sure that it was done like that for a reason. In any case, a bit of rain for a few seconds isnt going to kill you.

Angry indeed.

Tell me tram bods. to me they seem akin to the ones in Nottingham.Is that so?

Nottingham trams are 'Incentro' vehicles, which were manufactured by Bombardier, but the original design was by ADtranz, who they took over.

Bombardier decided to continue with its own 'Flexity' products, but the 'Flexity Berlin' is said to be the continuation of the 'Incentro'.

A bit of drama at Cornbrook last night. I was waiting for an Altrincham bound tram after getting off a new one, 3001. Then about 5 mins an Eccles tram, 1015 pulled in and had a strange smell coming from it as it came in. I realised pouring from the front end under the drivers window white smoke. This was quite acrid smelling and put me in mind of that smell in the London Underground.Well within half a minute of it coming in the driver went from one end of the tram to the other and everyone rushed off.
A driver on a Manchester bound tram got off to help the 1015 driver. They seemed to have problems getting it moving and most of us started to think that it would be stuck there and nothing would get in and out with it blocking the track. Finally after 5 minutes with lots of sounds coming from the air brakes he got it going but minus passengers saying that he was taking it to the quays.
Not sure what was wrong with it but it didn't smell good. No more smoke came out after he left Cornbrook.

A bit of drama at Cornbrook last night. I was waiting for an Altrincham bound tram after getting off a new one, 3001. Then about 5 mins an Eccles tram, 1015 pulled in and had a strange smell coming from it as it came in. I realised pouring from the front end under the drivers window white smoke. This was quite acrid smelling and put me in mind of that smell in the London Underground.Well within half a minute of it coming in the driver went from one end of the tram to the other and everyone rushed off.
A driver on a Manchester bound tram got off to help the 1015 driver. They seemed to have problems getting it moving and most of us started to think that it would be stuck there and nothing would get in and out with it blocking the track. Finally after 5 minutes with lots of sounds coming from the air brakes he got it going but minus passengers saying that he was taking it to the quays.
Not sure what was wrong with it but it didn't smell good. No more smoke came out after he left Cornbrook.

Could be one of two things. Either an overheating air compressor or possibly more likely brakes binding on one bogie and overheating the disc and pads causing smoke.

3004 running from Bury-Altrincham this morning, passed Balloon Street at 8am

3004 running from Bury-Altrincham this morning, passed Balloon Street at 8am

In service or on test/clocking miles up?

A bit of drama at Cornbrook last night. I was waiting for an Altrincham bound tram after getting off a new one, 3001. Then about 5 mins an Eccles tram, 1015 pulled in and had a strange smell coming from it as it came in. I realised pouring from the front end under the drivers window white smoke. This was quite acrid smelling and put me in mind of that smell in the London Underground.Well within half a minute of it coming in the driver went from one end of the tram to the other and everyone rushed off.
A driver on a Manchester bound tram got off to help the 1015 driver. They seemed to have problems getting it moving and most of us started to think that it would be stuck there and nothing would get in and out with it blocking the track. Finally after 5 minutes with lots of sounds coming from the air brakes he got it going but minus passengers saying that he was taking it to the quays.
Not sure what was wrong with it but it didn't smell good. No more smoke came out after he left Cornbrook.

Breaks over heating, it happened at Old Trafford to me last year. It looked like the whole tram was about to go up in smoke.

In service or on test/clocking miles up?

in service - was VERY full.

The Horn sounds like it may have been modified from the earlier 3 series - sounded more like the old ones

Another brilliant idea! So all the people who can get an Alty tram coming from Bury or Piccadilly will have to either go to St. Peters Sq or hedge their bets on which line is most likely to have a failed vehicle on, so they can decide whether it is best to go to the Gardens or Market Street.

There will be electronic sign posts to direct you to the correct platform. It's a workaround but it's still a bit crap and entices people to peg it between platforms to catch tram.

St Peter's Square and Albert Square/Mount Street will have the same problem when 2cc is built and will also require electronic signposts. The potential of Library Walk being the pedestrian link between the two is pretty cool but have the council considered the effects of their refurbishment and 'atrium' over Library walk on this? At night Library walk would likely be closed and the pedestrian link severed.


Also at Picc Gardens, they spent so much money on it, a 2 car tram will stop with it's first door beyond the covered area, forcing people to get wet. Did no one think of covering the areas where people get on.

Likewise Bury trams stopping at Heaton Park, could easily when 2 carrages long, stop under the covered area, but oh no they have to go on further and force people to get wet if it is raining.

I noticed this while passing Market Street yesterday and it's a very good point. It's poor functional design to maintain an aesthetic balance on the platform.

Now that the stops can hold 2 sets of trams, the first tram into the platform always drives to the front, so that if another arrives it can park up behind it. This makes sense, but it means that at rush hour if you want to go for a seat or squeeze on at all during problems or events you have to wait out in the rain because the shelters are centre platform. Let’s hope this is addressed when the Market Street shelters are upgraded.

in service - was VERY full.

The Horn sounds like it may have been modified from the earlier 3 series - sounded more like the old ones

Indeed - I caught 3004 from Shudehill to Cornbrook not an hour ago.

It wasn't that full when I was on it though! ;)

Indeed - I caught 3004 from Shudehill to Cornbrook not an hour ago.

It wasn't that full when I was on it though! ;)

I was on it about an hour ago, was a good old fashioned crush load. Oh how l love being pressed into other peoples armpits :ohno:

My girlfriend just travelled on one of the new trams - I'm jealous, i've only seen one, but i was in my car! :(

My girlfriend just travelled on one of the new trams - I'm jealous, i've only seen one, but i was in my car! :(


lol, my boyfriend got on a new tram today. he loved it!

now had my 2nd trip on a banana, 3001 to eccles. noticed 3004 was on its way to alty today too and read in 'rail' magazine 3005 + 3006 are at queens rd. is this true?

As far as I know, 3005, 3006, 3007 and 3008 are all at Queens Road. In fact, I'd wager that 3009 will be due very shortly!

:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

Their supposed to be coming every fortnight now (at least the Media City 4), only the first 8 ordered so far arrived though (they ordered 8, 4, rest seperatley). They might actually be behind as I had read that all 12 were supposed to have been delivered before Christmas.

Their supposed to be coming every fortnight now (at least the Media City 4), only the first 8 ordered so far arrived though (they ordered 8, 4, rest seperatley). They might actually be behind as I had read that all 12 were supposed to have been delivered before Christmas.

Will they use the MediaCity:Uk trams on the Current network between now and then to ease the overcrowding? (once they are tested etc...)

Will they use the MediaCity:Uk trams on the Current network between now and then to ease the overcrowding? (once they are tested etc...)

I don't think the different batches will be seen as associated with particular routes (except for the unmodified 1000 series). So any of the M5000s would be used anywhere. Initial usage would depend on whether those form 3009 onwards have the signalling equipment for the current Alty/Bury Lines.

with these trams that are out of action because of the weather. would they still have been put out of action if they were brand new and thoroughly maintained, or does age/neglect have a bearing on this?

with these trams that are out of action because of the weather. would they still have been put out of action if they were brand new and thoroughly maintained, or does age/neglect have a bearing on this?

Yes, age does have a bearing but the bad design and cheap specifications of the old trams play a massive part. Notice how all 3 of the new trams where working during the cold snap. I think the fact that they where designed to be used in Germany makes a difference.

This came up on the FCC trains that failed, they were tested to work properley at -17 in Germany, but at only -17.8 here they failed. The failure was the air intake filters freezing over. My speculation is that perhaps theirs more moisture in the air here so that at the same temperature more ice forms.

with these trams that are out of action because of the weather. would they still have been put out of action if they were brand new and thoroughly maintained, or does age/neglect have a bearing on this?

Remember the old BR 'wrong type of snow', thats been the problem now. The older trams have railway style motors which tend to draw snow and water in via the air vents when they are running on roads and even when the are on the railway style track at speed. The original fleet have always suffered this when we get heavy snow. Also compressed air systems suffer condensation freezing affecting the air systems.
The M5000 trams have no air systems to freeze and as others have said they have been developed in a country which gets much more of this sort of weather. I don't belive that a lack of maintenance can be blamed for the spate of failures since Christmas. Perhaps lessons could be learned to try to stop it happening again.

Heres some GOOD news.........

News Releases
Friday, 15 January 2010GMITA upholds no bicycles on trams policy

Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) has decided to continue the Metrolink by-law which prohibits the carriage of bicycles on trams, following an in-depth review into the policy.

A report considered today by GMITA's Capital Projects Committee recommended the current policy of prohibiting bicycles on trams at any time should stand in light of the safety issues which would arise if they were permitted.

Bicycles on trams would lead to increased risk of injury to passengers from sharp points such as handlebars and pedals.

There would also be potential for injury when cycles are taken on and off the tram, particularly during times when tram are fully loaded.

The Metrolink operates in part on city centre streets shared with general traffic, which can necessitate emergency braking, presenting the risk of passengers falling onto or against bicycles.

Other issues include the potential impact on passenger capacity if suitable cycle storage facilities are needed onboard; the need for the operator to ensure cycles are secured throughout the journey and the increased risk of delays and increased journey times.

Councillor Richard Knowles, Chair of GMITA's Capital Projects Committee, said: "We recognise the importance of and the growing interest in cycling as a way of connecting with public transport and are increasing the amount of safe storage for bicycles at Metrolink stops and new heavy rail Park & Ride sites.

"We must give priority to providing passengers with a safe, reliable and efficient tram service. Metrolink is a popular service and is well used throughout the day and we do not want to introduce a risk of injury to passengers."

Sixteen Metrolink stops on the existing network have cycle stands and/or lockers to cater for cyclists and all stops being built as part of the current Metrolink extension will have cycle parking facilities, where appropriate.

In addition, a recent stop improvement programme on the Altrincham Metriolink line introduced storage facilities at Timperley and enhanced facilities at Dane Road, Navigation Road, Old Trafford, Altrincham, Brooklands and Sale.

Similar improvements will be made on the Bury and Eccles Metrolink lines as part of an ongoing investment programme.

A copy of a report entitled 'The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams' is available here.

News Archive:

The accompanying report is very interesting if long, comparing carrying of bikes on all UK tram networks, trains, abroad. Diagrams of the tram layouts and possible bike storage locations, estimates of cost of damage, on and on on every subject.


Very Thorough.

I understand why.

Especially in rush hour and because inevitable there is a certain juvenile anti social element on two wheels that couldn't be trusted to correctly scratch their own nuts, never mind transport on and off a tram.

Is it the snow, but hasnt been the case that folding bikes are allowed. (Folded of course)?

Yep folded bikes (inside a case) are allowed, I think on the trams theirs a sign saying that infact. Last week I was on a tram with a guy wike a bike and another (non blind) scruff with a dog as well, one of those slobbering ones that has permanent dribble hanging like snot from its jaws.

ive been on here long enough that i should probably know the answer to this already, but will the increased revenue from an expanded metrolink be enough to just cover paying off the expansion, or will there be money available in fairly short order to fund further work?

ive been on here long enough that i should probably know the answer to this already, but will the increased revenue from an expanded metrolink be enough to just cover paying off the expansion, or will there be money available in fairly short order to fund further work?

Neither. The revenue from the Didsbury line should be enough to pay for the Ashton line (I think). Everything else should on average make enough to cover its running costs. Most of the money for the expansion is coming from local taxes, up front regional funding and a DfT grant (Phase 3a).

With regards to bikes on trams, as I have said before, why should the minority ruin it for the majority. All the excuses given can be easily shot down.

These (new) trams are designed to carry bicycles, and do so elsewhere.
HRMI supports the carriage of bicycles, who are the top ('elf n safety) dogs.
It was promised (back in 2002/3) that they would.
Public support/opinion is behind it.
'Low usage' excuses regards Oldham/Rochdale is a fob off. Passenger figures were undercounted due to poor revenue collection/protection, as well as poor service levels.
Priority for wheelchairs - trams will be doubled up, so another space is provided.
Enforcement - get proper conductors then!

GMITA/GMPTE needs a lesson on what is called the 'transport chain', seeing modes as complimentary, rather than competitive against each other.

I've supported Metrolink ever since its inception/creation, but this smacks, like their customer service, of running it for their own convenience, rather than that of the people who (or would) use it.

An article in February's 'Tramways and Urban Transit' talks about a proposal for Tram-Trains from Glossop and Marple branches, leaving the main line at Ashburys to join the Metrolink street network. I am just wondering if any precise route has been pencilled in as to how this connection would be made? If it is to run on-street towards the back of Piccadilly, there is a fair bit of spare land, but also one or two major obstacles, such as the giant road junctions at Pin Mill Brow . . .

Also, I know we are a long way ahead, but I hope this idea is not going to supplant any suggestions of eastward extensions beyond Stockport, if Metrolink ever gets there. These were always going to be allowed for in the original plans of about 2000 (John's Prescott's "25 new light rail lines"). The connection between Stockport and Marple via Brinnington is desperately needed in its own right - but perhaps the two projects may not be mutually exclusive in any event.

Turning to matters more imminent, the point indicator (though not yet the Proceed aspect!) has now appeared just South of Broadway, which will allow trams from Eccles to touch MediaCity on the way to Piccadilly off-peak. 2010 brings the countdown to the first time this indicator will switch over to the right, for the turnout to the first journey of the 3a extensions. Any bets on the number of days to go?

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_3805.jpg

Anyway, dark days of Winter will soon fade, and brighter days lie ahead . . .

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_3792.jpg
http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_3794.jpg

Johnny no precise route has been penciled in for any tram train service.

GMPTE have included a proposal for the Atherton to Marple line to be tram=trained, but that all there has been. An aspiration. And nothing more.

Let me explain. A trial of the tram-train is to happen in South yorkshire. If thats successful, then perhaps GM might consider it for those under used lines.

Johnny no precise route has been penciled in for any tram train service.

GMPTE have included a proposal for the Atherton to Marple line to be tram=trained, but that all there has been. An aspiration. And nothing more.

Let me explain. A trial of the tram-train is to happen in South yorkshire. If thats successful, then perhaps GM might consider it for those under used lines.

May I ask; If the Glossop route was to be 'tram-trained', would the section after Guide Bridge be still a tram train service or just a full metrolink service, since it has no other train lines/jucntions after that point.

Turning to matters more imminent, the point indicator (though not yet the Proceed aspect) has now appeared just South of Broadway, which will allow trams from Eccles to touch MediaCity on the way to Piccadilly off-peak. 2010 brings the countdown to the first time this indicator will switch over to the right, for the turnout to the first journey of the 3a extensions. Any bets on the number of days to go?

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/100_3805.jpg


It looks like there is an indicator for coming out of Media City and towards Broadway too - I can't see what purpose it will serve other than adding a turn back facility at Broadway, but wasn't there already one between Broadway and Harbour City?

That was the old signal for the same facing crossover from the other direction, when the temporary terminus was Broadway between Dec 1999, and the opening of the remainder of the line through to Eccles in July 2000. I don't think it has ever been used much since then, unless there have been other reasons for short workings or turnbacks to Manchester. I have certainly never seen a tram displaying 'Broadway' since 2000. There will have to be two more similar signals further around to the right and left, at the other two facing points of the delta.

Johny - I'm sure I saw something recently that suggested the Stockport-Hyde busway was still a goer, and that it would be built to allow trams to run as far as Brinnington to connect to the Marple line, so I think GMPTE are still keeping that in their box of things to think about in the future.