TRANSPORT | Metrolink ‎Extension [Archive]

spoonsbeatfish

May 13th, 2009, 02:54 PM

ML: I'm a Deansgate fan - simple reason: it brings the trams slightly further west than Cross St where there are many developments like Spinningfields etc.

The big question with this route would be where to bring the line back onto the existing tracks.

Two options far as I see it:

1. (Coming down Deansgate from north end): turn left into Peter Street (station in front of Midland Hotel for interchange with St Peters Square) then right onto old tracks at Lower Mosely Street.

OR
2. (Coming down Deansgate from north end): continue down Deangate with new station in front of Hilton/Beetham Tower, then right across car park and Bridgewater Street up a fairly steep (but not impossible) ramp onto the old box bridge and rejoining old tracks towards Cornbrook.

Route 1 was shown in this old map I did (with the idea of continuing down Oxford Road - an concept for another thread/discussion) but you get the idea of where the Deansgate/Peter Street part might be able to go from here.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3556/3527548449_f728053af0_d.jpg
I hear you that the Deansgate route might be slightly more pricey, but the cost/benefit would be higher as it would be slightly farther from the exisiting spine down Mosely St and if we're gonna provide a Second City Crossing it might as well be as useful as possible.

Go on fella convince me of Cross St!

:-)
Mark

Not saying its not possible but some serious changes would need to be made towards traffic diversion, it can take 40 minutes on those metroshuttles going down Deansgate at peak hours. Cross Street would be easier for that reason and would be cheaper. The difference in price would not be as severe if the Deansgate route followed one of your ideas though and it would be more useful having it further away than the existing cross city route.

Edit: Could always have the MOSI old historic/not always in use/much cheaper tram in use down Cross Street (it makes sense having an old historic tram go past the old historic civil quarter i.e town hall/lib). It could work (as well as the tourist attraction/MOSI connection) as a useful free jump on, jump off metroshuttle type service through the centre/middle of the city for pedestrians walking around while the actual proper service getting people into town goes to the places most used.

MarkO

May 13th, 2009, 03:03 PM

Not saying its not possible but some serious changes would need to be made towards traffic diversion, it can take 40 minutes on those metroshuttles going down Deansgate at peak hours. Cross Street would be easier for that reason and would be cheaper. The difference in price would not be as severe if the Deansgate route followed one of your ideas though and it would be more useful having it further away than the existing cross city route.

Mmmmm. Interesting point Spoony...never thought of that.

Though it has always amused/irritated me that we spend all this money on trams and they don't get priority treatment against other road users. (All that waiting at lights is absurd and massively slows down the system - another argument for underground sections in busy built up areas...but that again is an entirely different thread).

The thing is that most of the big developments in central Manch have been towards Deansgate, and Cross Street is, if you think about it, still quite a schelp from some of those. I'm thinking particulalry of Spinningfields - perhaps the developers could chip in the difference between Cross St and Deansgate costs??? Just a random radical thought!!

AND: Lovin your last MOSI thought too!

M€tr0l1nk

May 13th, 2009, 03:08 PM

The talk of the Deansgate alignment was to join up at Cornbrook and not G-Mex, not sure if this involved bringing the other bridge into service, but it would have the obvious advantage of creating additional capacity and redundancy on the network.

Mez

May 13th, 2009, 03:09 PM

spoonsbeatfish

May 13th, 2009, 03:26 PM

Mmmmm. Interesting point Spoony...never thought of that.

Re Traffic, hopefully they can work out something. I quite like your idea for going up the box bridge just past the Hilton. It takes off almost half the Deansgate route through the outskirts of the city centre along Chester Road where two almost parallel lines are not needed but still allows for a more diverse second city line. It should also allow for a fairly quick city crossing if the traffic can be sorted.

If that route was to go ahead, it may be worth putting an intermediate station between Pomona and GMEX as an interchange between the 2 lines in the centre of Castlefield? Its the same distance to GMEX as between other city centre lines.

AND: Lovin your last MOSI thought too!

Thanks, its all just wishfull thinking though. Maybe if that line due to lack of utility dig ups (due to seasonal nature of tram line) could be reduced from almost £20m per mile to £2 or £3m per mile then it could go ahead. From Mosi up to Urbis, Printworks, Exchange Square via the town hall and great bridgewater street is 1.2m and Mosi themselves have over £5m tucked away so you never know...

spoonsbeatfish

May 13th, 2009, 03:29 PM

You're all wrong I tells ya. Deansgate is STILL too close to Mosely st.

Who was it that said Chapel st will be the new Northern Quarter? Joined up thinking?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2125/3528437286_bc0fd541df.jpg

Lol, slight divergence!! I see you're being silly, but I think long term ambition to bring a tram line to Chapel street will occur. I think it will be as a result of a tram train link to Bolton and Wigan, leaving the main train line at Salford Crecent and carrying on to Victoria via the university, the Meadows, and centre of Salford i.e. Chapel Street (at street level).

macc

May 13th, 2009, 04:22 PM

Priscilla QOTD

May 13th, 2009, 04:45 PM

Re Traffic, hopefully they can work out something. I quite like your idea for going up the box bridge just past the Hilton. It takes off almost half the Deansgate route through the outskirts of the city centre along Chester Road where two almost parallel lines are not needed but still allows for a more diverse second city line. It should also allow for a fairly quick city crossing if the traffic can be sorted.

If that route was to go ahead, it may be worth putting an intermediate station between Pomona and GMEX as an interchange between the 2 lines in the centre of Castlefield? Its the same distance to GMEX as between other city centre lines.

Thanks, its all just wishfull thinking though. Maybe if that line due to lack of utility dig ups (due to seasonal nature of tram line) could be reduced from almost £20m per mile to £2 or £3m per mile then it could go ahead. From Mosi up to Urbis, Printworks, Exchange Square via the town hall and great bridgewater street is 1.2m and Mosi themselves have over £5m tucked away so you never know...

I always liked the idea of the tram going down the top end of Chester road - there are lots of people living in that area, what with all the apartment developments like Saint George's Island (where I live) et al. "What about Cornbrook?" I hear you cry.... well, it's just not that convenient quite frankly - and the surrounding streets are far from salubrious. Plus, if this line were to separate on the south side of Cornbrook, it would relieve pressure on Cornbrook once all the lines are up and running. I've often thought that having so many lines going through one station could be asking for trouble - one breakdown, other mishap or even just a delay here could cripple the entire network. And there's the possibility of overcrowding on the platform.

Just thinking out loud.... :|

ScouseinManc

May 13th, 2009, 05:08 PM

I always liked the idea of the tram going down the top end of Chester road - there are lots of people living in that area, what with all the apartment developments like Saint George's Island (where I live) et al. "What about Cornbrook?" I hear you cry.... well, it's just not that convenient quite frankly - and the surrounding streets are far from salubrious. Plus, if this line were to separate on the south side of Cornbrook, it would relieve pressure on Cornbrook once all the lines are up and running. I've often thought that having so many lines going through one station could be asking for trouble - one breakdown, other mishap or even just a delay here could cripple the entire network. And there's the possibility of overcrowding on the platform.

Just thinking out loud.... :|

Surely then PQOTD, that would involve the building of another viaduct adjacent to the one at Cornbrook.

Obviously this couldn't be done on the south side, as it's the heavy rail line out of Piccadilly, so one could only be built on the north side. I can't imagine there being any funds available for this.

However (& also thinking out loud), does anyone know if the disused CLC viaduct (next to the one currently being used in between Cornbrook & GMEX) is to be utilised in part of the extension plans? Or will it continue being left to rot, until there is no option but to take it down due to it being deemed unsafe (like so many other great structures of that age)?

spoonsbeatfish

May 13th, 2009, 05:13 PM

I'm sure Deansgate would be the preferable option but there's no way it would work without clearing all the traffic (except buses and taxis) and seriously re-prioratising the traffic lights.

Deansgate must be the most congested road in the city and displacing all those cars would put a lot of strain elsewhere. You could still cross it for access though. Just expect a long time waiting at the lights.

Having said that if they did close Deansgate to cars it'd be another very good reason to part-pedestrianise Victoria Street in the Renaissance hotel redevelopment.

I think the Victoria Street pedestrianisation is happening anyway regardless but its obviously a lot easier to remove the traffic from part of the road than all of it. I don't know enough about traffic patterns but I expect them not to pick Deansgate for this reason irregardless of cost.

spoonsbeatfish

May 13th, 2009, 05:20 PM

I always liked the idea of the tram going down the top end of Chester road - there are lots of people living in that area, what with all the apartment developments like Saint George's Island (where I live) et al. "What about Cornbrook?" I hear you cry.... well, it's just not that convenient quite frankly - and the surrounding streets are far from salubrious. Plus, if this line were to separate on the south side of Cornbrook, it would relieve pressure on Cornbrook once all the lines are up and running. I've often thought that having so many lines going through one station could be asking for trouble - one breakdown, other mishap or even just a delay here could cripple the entire network. And there's the possibility of overcrowding on the platform.

Just thinking out loud.... :|

Looking at the map, Chester Street does look a lot better for you, and if there is enough demand in the area for usage fair enough there is a good incentive to put it there. There is the issue of cost though, if running down Chester Street increases the cost by £10m then its less likely to go ahead. I would rather a partial Deansgate route than no Deansgate route.

Are there any plans to up Cornbrook to 4 platforms or double up the tracks in that area? You're right, the area will become fairly congested and just one problem could really cause chaos.

Another issue is a Chester Street routing (i.e. street line) would be a lot slower and slow down car trips/roads in the area. The routing will probably go through Cross Street though as its cheaper so it doesn't really matter anyway.

Priscilla QOTD

May 13th, 2009, 05:28 PM

Surely then PQOTD, that would involve the building of another viaduct adjacent to the one at Cornbrook.

Obviously this couldn't be done on the south side, as it's the heavy rail line out of Piccadilly, so one could only be built on the north side. I can't imagine there being any funds available for this.

However (& also thinking out loud), does anyone know if the disused CLC viaduct (next to the one currently being used in between Cornbrook & GMEX) is to be utilised in part of the extension plans? Or will it continue being left to rot, until there is no option but to take it down due to it being deemed unsafe (like so many other great structures of that age)?

I couldn't give any specifics, but I seem to remember that of the two suggestions mooted by GMPTE or whatever they're called these days, the longer route going via Deansgate did join the rest of the network on the south side of Cornbrook. Maybe my memory is failing me again........ :nuts:

Cherguevara

May 13th, 2009, 05:29 PM

Surely then PQOTD, that would involve the building of another viaduct adjacent to the one at Cornbrook.

The city centre spatial strategy outlined the two routes in more detail. The Deansgate route would change to street running at Cornbrook and run down Chester Road to Deansgate.

The route from Victoria Street into Deansgate wasn't specified, although presumably round the back of the Cathederal would be the easiest option, or potentially through the tunnel at Walkers Croft. That's much more expensive though.

It might be worth going to Cross Street for the 2CC and leaving a potential Deansgate line until there are the funds to properly implement the city centre transport strategy (new interchanges, traffic reduction on the central streets etc.). A Deansgate line might be a very good option for tram-trains from Rochdale/East Lancs and the Mid-Cheshire line via Altrincham to use, but that's way off in the future if ever.

Priscilla QOTD

May 13th, 2009, 05:30 PM

Looking at the map, Chester Street does look a lot better for you, and if there is enough demand in the area for usage fair enough there is a good incentive to put it there. There is the issue of cost though, if running down Chester Street increases the cost by £10m then its less likely to go ahead. I would rather a partial Deansgate route than no Deansgate route.

Are there any plans to up Cornbrook to 4 platforms or double up the tracks in that area? You're right, the area will become fairly congested and just one problem could really cause chaos.

Another issue is a Chester Street routing (i.e. street line) would be a lot slower and slow down car trips/roads in the area. The routing will probably go through Cross Street though as its cheaper so it doesn't really matter anyway.

I would've thought Chester Road may be wide enough for segregated running down a central reservation, no?

Priscilla QOTD

May 13th, 2009, 05:32 PM

The city centre spatial strategy outlined the two routes in more detail. The Deansgate route would change to street running at Cornbrook and run down Chester Road to Deansgate.

The route from Victoria Street into Deansgate wasn't specified, although presumably round the back of the Cathederal would be the easiest option, or potentially through the tunnel at Walkers Croft. That's much more expensive though.

It might be worth going to Cross Street for the 2CC and leaving a potential Deansgate line until there are the funds to properly implement the city centre transport strategy (new interchanges, traffic reduction on the central streets etc.). A Deansgate line might be a very good option for tram-trains from Rochdale/East Lancs and the Mid-Cheshire line via Altrincham to use, but that's way off in the future if ever.

Thanks Che. I knew remembered something about that... Brain still not quite pickled from all those daiquiries.....

spoonsbeatfish

May 13th, 2009, 05:41 PM

However (& also thinking out loud), does anyone know if the disused CLC viaduct (next to the one currently being used in between Cornbrook & GMEX) is to be utilised in part of the extension plans? Or will it continue being left to rot, until there is no option but to take it down due to it being deemed unsafe (like so many other great structures of that age)?

There will be a move from 2 lines using that route to 4 + the 4 MediaCity ones and there is still the potential for a further Trafford Line in the future. There may be enough capacity but it must be tight. It restricts future expansion, say if the lines were so popular a few more trams were bought to increase frequency. It will also become very susceptible to troubles and delays.

It would be a disgrace if that old viaduct was taken down. When there is the capacity just waiting there to be used, hopefully it will get taken up by Metrolink or it probably will end up rusting away until it has to be taken down.

spoonsbeatfish

May 13th, 2009, 05:44 PM

I would've thought Chester Road may be wide enough for segregated running down a central reservation, no?

I don't know the area, I've never ventured further than the main Castlefield area so I don't know, but yeah quite possibly. That should eliminate the journey time problem if the car lanes could be reduced successfully.

MarkO

May 13th, 2009, 06:36 PM

Bravo to all above posters ^^ this kind of blue sky thinking and debate that inspires me and obviously many of you!

Todays fantastic decision :banana: has proved something that European cities have practiced (and light rail enthusiasts of course have argued) for years: in order to provide people with alternative choices other than being forced into using their cars whether they like it not, the variety of effective transport options needs to be broad, flexible, reliable, fast, cheap, safe etc

With todays (pretty momentous) decision, GM will now be able to prove modern light rail can be a truly effective part of the urban transit options. Hopefully lighting the way for other metro areas (Brum/Leeds/L'pool most urgently) to be allowed to follow suit.

The discussion immediately above re 2CC shows that there are not one but several new routes which could be entirely viable in future discussions for GM

* Chapel Street
* Chester Road
* Oxford/Wibraham Rd
* Even Whitworth Street one day maybe.

Lets keep this going SSC'ers!

Potato Man

May 13th, 2009, 09:29 PM

If you follow the railway viaduct from Victoria, through Central Salford there appears to be enough vacant land to build new rails next to the existing track as far down as Hampson Street. From here is just a short distance (albeit an awkard & expensive passage over water and a complex road junction) to the existing routes south of the city. But if we were really going for joined up thinking we could minimise costs by planning/building alongside the Castlefield Curve.

Pros:
No road traffic disruption
Interchange with busses/trains at Central Salford (also serving Spinngfields over pedestrian bridge)
Potential starting point for Chapel Street spur
Possible stop at Greengate/Exchange
Potential stop around Hampson Street serving proposed development at Middlewood Locks, Granada Campus and Potato Wharf masterplan
Links in well with tram/train

Cons:
Too far off the beaten track
National Rail
Unable to mix heavy and light rail under current H&S rules
Costly and difficult passage over ringroad, plus timeframe issues if linking this to castlefield curve
Potential constraints on heavy rail expansion

MarkO

May 13th, 2009, 11:59 PM

Cons:
Too far off the beaten track

Hey Potato Man. I like your thinking about..joined up...thinking...but these words above are the ones that may affect your...thought!

Problem is those chunky old viducts strutting out of Vic. are not so well sited for where the development has been in Salford.

Well in fact they ARE but you'd need several new stations (as you suggest) SO might that clog up the heavy rail network?

Though you may be right in suggesting making the most of the existing structure is a wise move, I refer you what's happened here in Paris. There's a perfectly useful abandoned heavy rail line (the Petite Cienture - even still has the rail in place) which could have been used for the T3 tramway which opened a couple of years ago, and which is now extending right round the east side of the city. In places the tram is within eyesight of where the old rail alignment sits but it was considered too...off the beaten track...to make it viable. So they dug up the boulevards and laid street based trams. And it's been an enormous success. So much so that there will EIGHT tramway lines round greater Paris in a few years time.
(Nice feature in English here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Tram and a T3 map here: http://www.aut-idf.org/BusTram_T3Extension.jpg )

BUT BACK TO Manchester, Potato Man is absolutely right to bring up new ideas. Anyone got any others?

Cherguevara

May 14th, 2009, 12:29 AM

Well I'm full of them, but since this thread is about progress rather than fantasy I'm reluctant to share.

Anyway if we're in the business of proposing phase 4 I'd say tram train Wigan/Bolton-Salford-Town-Picc-Glossop/Marple and Burnley/East Lancs Route-Rochdale-Deansgate-Cornbrook-Alti-Chester/Crewe. It connects the remaining boroughs to Metrolink fairly cheaply and adds city centre running to the east-west alignment and down Deansgate.

Phase 5 introduce a northern package of Bolton-Little Lever Whitefield and then to Rochdale via Bury and Manchester via Prestwich and a southern package of Alti-Stockport tram-train, Airport loop completion, Didsbury to Marple via Stockport Metrolink and a tram train along the airport rail line via Upper Brook Street (for the university). The northern line creates aglomeration in the subregion supporting growth in the poorer half of the borough while the southern package improves connectivity in the more propserous south.

Finally I would like Manchester, Salford and Trafford to explore cheaper rail based solutions to connect the underserved areas of the inner city to the transport network (something along the lines of the Portland Streetcar).

dd528

May 14th, 2009, 04:50 PM

a tram train along the airport rail line via Upper Brook Street (for the university).

[..]

Finally I would like Manchester, Salford and Trafford to explore cheaper rail based solutions to connect the underserved areas of the inner city to the transport network (something along the lines of the Portland Streetcar).

I'm not sure to what extent a route along Upper Brook St. would really be serving the University. As it stands at the moment, the vast majority of foot traffic generated by UofM and MMU falls along Oxford Rd. I think this will slowly change, with recent developments connecting the two roads together more, but most academic departments and student facilities (unions, halls of residence, precinct centre, etc.) still face onto Oxford Rd.

I think that this, plus the laziness of students, plus the fact that buses remain significantly cheaper than trams, especially on such a high volume route, means that any light rail service serving the University will have to run along the Oxford/Wilmslow Rd. corridor.

I still think such a service would be valuable though, connecting into your point about connecting up more deprived inner-city areas. Whilst the likelihood is that Stockport will eventually join the Metrolink network via East Didsbury, I think some sort of Manchester City Centre-Stockport route that passed through Ardwick, Longsight and Levenshulme would be beneficial. The problem with the existing heavy rail line is that it does not stop in Longsight at all, and in my (admittedly limited) experience, the Ardwick stop is not in the best location for serving the local area.

That's why I think your tram-train idea is a good one Cher, as it could potentially serve more stops, and if it deviated from the heavy rail route to run closer to Upper Brook St, it might follow a more useful path through Longsight and Ardwick. I do believe it would be more useful if it were to carry on through to Stockport though, rather than branching off at Slade Lane to follow the airport route (although both options might be run at some point in the future, of course). Not because Burnage is necessarily any better served by heavy rail that the Heaton Chapel locality at the moment, but because I think better connecting residential neighbourhoods to Stockport (which remains a sizeable retail and business centre within the county) would be more valuable than connecting them to the airport. I am happy to accept that I might be completely wrong about this though :colgate:

Similarly, I think expansion of a rail-based project through Hulme, Moss Side and Whalley Range would be beneficial to those areas, which are all completely untouched by heavy rail. I'm not all that familiar with public transport in the north of the city, but I believe areas such as Cheetam Hill, Crumpsall and Collyhurst are served only by buses? Not to mention much of Salford.

I'm a big believer in the potential of transport networks to address the isolation that can sometimes develop in deprived communities. I'm very glad to see the expansion of Metrolink for this reason above all, and hope that future developments will only increase interconnectedness.

Whilst it might be the East Didsbury line that's going to be bringing home much of the bacon in the new expansions, I think it is probably the least important of the developments in terms of social impact. Not that that's an argument that it shouldn't be built. If running trams through affluent areas that already have decent public transport provision means they can also be run through less affluent areas, I'm very much in favour. It can only be a good thing to have the richest neighbourhoods connected up to the most deprived parts of the city.

MarkO

May 14th, 2009, 05:08 PM

Excellent posts from Che & DD - this is excatly the kind of new thinking we need - (as I blithered on about for yonks on here and elsewhere) for an urban area the size of GM there ought to be trams, tram-trains, and even Metro in the city, covering every major area.

This is the only way we'll ever convince people to leave their cars at home - or better still get rid of them altogether.

The UK's only example of a dense network of rail based urban transit exists only in London. With 100km of lines now planned for GM it's great news and makes a huge difference, putting GM 2nd or 3rd to London (Tyneside is pretty well catered for), but we should not rest until there's an urban rail/rapid transport solution within 10 or 15 minutes walk of 80-90pc of GM homes.

That inevitably means one or more lines for South Central Manchester (Oxford Road corridor being the most obvious example), but Ardwick/Longsight/Levenshulme and Hulme/Moss Side/Whalley Range etc are really good examples of other candidates.

In North Manch I'd suggest Victoria/Stangeways/Bury New Rd/Cheetham Hill/Middleton/Rochdale as another possible strong candidate.

Bolton-Bury (using lots of old abandoned track) is another possibility - and while you're at it why not connect that line over to Wigan?

Will make up another "fantasy" map soon including all above ideas.

If we don't raise the possibilites we're doomed to get nothing.

It's only Manchester's forward thinking, tenacity and diplomacy that has brought us to here where so many other tram schemes have elsewhere sadly failed. :-)

Cherguevara

May 14th, 2009, 05:16 PM

I see your point about the Oxford Road corridor. I suppose I suggested Town-Upper Brook-East Dids-Airport because it connects an area that will hopefully begin to generate a great deal of knowledge sector jobs with the areas these workers will probably choose to live and the Airport (which is a major economic driver and potentially a large economic centre).

I chose UBSt because I couldn't see a way of getting light rail through Rusholme, and also because I didn't see the line serving students but university staff and the staff of spin off companies (which are likely to be on the periphery of the campus). I also like the idea that a tram through Victoria Park would help return the area from multiple occupant student housing to real family homes. It's just an idea anyway. I'm not a transport planner and I would never state that I'm right when it isn't my area of expertise.

I've also answered by own questions about the Leigh busway:

http://www.brtuk.org/downloads/BRTSymposiumUniversityofWarwick6-7thDecemberPresentations_09.pdf has a explanation of the scheme

and an article dated 2004 says that we may be buying some of these:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irisbus_Civis

Cherguevara

May 14th, 2009, 05:28 PM

That inevitably means one or more lines for South Central Manchester (Oxford Road corridor being the most obvious example), but Ardwick/Longsight/Levenshulme and Hulme/Moss Side/Whalley Range etc are really good examples of other candidates.

In North Manch I'd suggest Victoria/Stangeways/Bury New Rd/Cheetham Hill/Middleton/Rochdale as another possible strong candidate.

Bolton-Bury (using lots of old abandoned track) is another possibility - and while you're at it why not connect that line over to Wigan?

Will make up another "fantasy" map soon including all above ideas.

If we don't raise the possibilites we're doomed to get nothing.

It's only Manchester's forward thinking, tenacity and diplomacy that has brought us to here where so many other tram schemes have elsewhere sadly failed. :-)

I'd be an advocate for rail based transit to these locations, but I don't know if something of the spec of Metrolink is always the best answer. Much of Metrolink's ridership comes from the outer urban area rather than the inner suburbs and that is where the riders can afford to pay the fares required to keep the system from being loss making. I'm not saying less affluent areas don't deserve quality public transport options, but that we can't endanger the viability of the system for completenesses sake.

Other cities have explored and employed cheaper light weight shallow trench trams to provide transit to emerging regeneration areas. These are slower, have less dedicated right of way and can't carry the same number of passengers that a full LRV can, but since at most they would be used to connect inner city areas to the metropolitan system they would be unlikely to need to.

dd528

May 14th, 2009, 07:35 PM

I'd be an advocate for rail based transit to these locations, but I don't know if something of the spec of Metrolink is always the best answer. Much of Metrolink's ridership comes from the outer urban area rather than the inner suburbs and that is where the riders can afford to pay the fares required to keep the system from being loss making. I'm not saying less affluent areas don't deserve quality public transport options, but that we can't endanger the viability of the system for completenesses sake.

I think you're absolutely right. There is a serious issue to be addressed about the balance between economic and social benefits. There seems to be something of an orthodoxy amongst certain people that transport, rather than being an essential social service, is actually just a profit-making enterprise, and that if a system is not running at a profit, it's not worth running at all. I think this is misguided, to say the least.

Clearly there are always economic constraints on any major public works project, and money should be spent as wisely as possible. I'd certainly agree that there's no point building infrastructure where it is not going to be used, simply in order to fill in blank spaces on a map. And it's definitely worth considering transport options of a different specification, where these might turn out to be the best options for a particular area.

Who knows? Maybe it'll turn out that some parts of the city would be best served by a combination of train, underground tram and free hovercraft shuttle, whereas others will have all motorised traffic removed, and be served by 20-lane cycle paths. As long as all the realistic options are being considered (which probably doesn't actually involve hovercrafts, alas), I'm happy.

ScouseinManc

May 15th, 2009, 08:43 AM

Looking forward to seeing this 'fantasy map' MarkO :)

Local Lad

May 15th, 2009, 12:03 PM

Does anyone have any idea what the changes to the Cornbrook station are? I've never seen any plans.

I imagine it might be the construction of a south facing bay platform, but who knows!

flange

May 15th, 2009, 12:30 PM

No trams for a month

Don Frame

May 15, 2009

THE Metrolink tram system south of Manchester will be shut for the whole of August for major improvement works.

Passengers using the Altrincham and Eccles lines will have to use bus and train services instead.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive says it has chosen the quietest month of the year to carry out key expansion and upgrade work.

But there are concerns that travellers could face problems.

Andrew McFarlane, of the Mid-Cheshire Rail Users' Association, said: "The Altrincham line particularly is very busy and we fear trains will not be able to cope unless extra carriages are laid on."

But he added: "These are badly-needed works - overhead wires on the line have been there almost 40 years."

The disruptions will come on top of existing work affecting trams in the city centre.

Passengers

Stops at Piccadilly Gardens, Piccadilly station and Mosley Street are closed for rail replacement and will not reopen until September, with passengers having to leave trams at Victoria or Albert Square.

Transport bosses say they believe passengers will applaud the planned improvements.

Coun Richard Knowles said: "These proposals are very welcome. We are building four new tram lines and we want the stops on the existing lines to be as welcoming as the new ones."

During the shutdown, new connections will be built at the Trafford Bar stop to link up with a line being built to Chorlton.

At Cornbrook, the layout will change to accommodate the new MediaCityUK tram service. A junction will be built between the Harbour City and Broadway stops to join up with the new spur to MediaCityUK from next summer .

All the overhead electrical cables and some supports on the Altrincham line will be replaced and a depot for 40 new trams will be completed at Trafford Bar. The plans will be presented to Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority's policy committee for approval at its meeting next month.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1115475_no_trams_for_a_month

Accura4Matalan

May 15th, 2009, 02:40 PM

Exciting times :) Its good to see that they are not just going to leave the old parts of the network to rot while building the new lines. Its much better to have one completely refreshed network. A month without service is a small price to pay for the improvements in return.

A6 Bypass

May 15th, 2009, 02:49 PM

If blue sky is the deal then (and I'm repeating myself here):
Branch to Royal Oldham Hospital possibly extending to Royton which would then reconnect via the old branch to the Rochdale / Oldham loop lie.
Build the line to Wythenshawe hospital.
Extend the Rochdale town centre line to the Infirmary.
ditto Ashton line to Tameside GH
Fairfield Hospital is beyond redemption where it is.
MRI via the suggested Wilmslow Road line.
Divert the Eccles line to Hope (getting silly now).
Ditto NMGH.
Special pleading from a medic, but if any of you have tried to park in these places you'll know what I mean. Hospitals are major sources of travel.

A6 Bypass

May 15th, 2009, 02:51 PM

Oh, yes, don't forget the Middleton extension!

bank street

May 15th, 2009, 03:19 PM

a line up bury new road with stops at strangeways, lower and higher broughton, sedgley park and moving east to make use of this beauty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifton_Viaduct

thank you please

I'd also like to see a line (or the line from Trafford Park) link up with urmston, traff general hosp, flixton irlam cadishead then over to partington and on to either altrincham or back towards sale. there are disused bridges accross the ship canal at cadishead and partington that used to have rails running over them that could easily be put to good use.

heatonparkincakes

May 16th, 2009, 12:36 AM

Its party time here

But before there is any fantasy maps, can people please consider

a. some of the old disused lines have been built on, especially the radcliffe lines

b. that lines to hospitals are ok, sensible for today, but within a genration half of them will have been considerably downgraded as health practices change.

c, and mark, prestwich hospital is long long maud gonne.

d. ah a middleton via victoria road and pass the convert would be interesting

A6 Bypass

May 16th, 2009, 08:29 AM

Its party time here

But before there is any fantasy maps, can people please consider

b. that lines to hospitals are ok, sensible for today, but within a genration half of them will have been considerably downgraded as health practices change.

In your dreams. As long as fags and booze are around there'll be hospitals.

M€tr0l1nk

May 16th, 2009, 09:03 AM

He was not saying that people will not need medical treatment, rather the method of delivering it is already changing.

Manchester Super Hospital anyone? Alty General all but closed close to me. No maternity wards in all of Salford.

Medical provision is going through a revolution at the moment, not exactly the time for huge transpot expenditure to a hospital that may be shut in 10years.

Zim Flyer

May 16th, 2009, 10:45 AM

Medical provision is going through a revolution at the moment, not exactly the time for huge transpot expenditure to a hospital that may be shut in 10years.

True but everyone loves a local hospitial and if there is one that has good public transport connections then the arguements for saving it will be stronger.

M€tr0l1nk

May 16th, 2009, 10:50 AM

Zim Flyer

May 16th, 2009, 11:04 AM

So the same authorities that are looking at closing a hospital will spend vast sums of money of providing high quality transport to that hospital in a bid to put pressure on themselves to save that hospital?????

Since when have we had joined up government, often government departments work against each other.

heatonparkincakes

May 16th, 2009, 12:52 PM

Yeah had there been any joined up thinking or something vaguely progressive and eco friendly, then the modernisation of hospitals from the mid 80's would have also been constructed around easy public transport access.

Unfortunately as we live in a land dominated by failed uncontained consumption lead free market economics, you have what we have.

What I mean to those who may have misunderstood is that the core aspects of hospitals of various assessments and treatmenst that are emergency or need a bed will retain.

So Accident and Emergency, maternity, medical and surgical wards and some very technical assessments will remain in the hospitals.

Pretty much everything else can be transfered to a range of poly clinics and local GPs, if and when the structures and technology comes about.
Eventually we should have the sufficient technology to access services via what comes after the internet and personal devices that aids the natural homeostatis of the body and thus alerts us to illness far before the conscious mind recognises it.

That would not need a hospital, unless it was serious.

Thus there will be an level of need for high cost public transport links to these public facilities.

A6 Bypass

May 16th, 2009, 03:08 PM

dd528

May 19th, 2009, 04:20 AM

It ain't just the punters - it's the staff too. Legions of them. And the high intervention / acute style of medicine that will remain in the secondary and tertiary sector is very labour intensive.
Also on the basis that wealth = health the hoped for increase in healthy lifespan will escape the North, and especially the North East sector of Greater Manchester.
sorry - not many skyscrapers there...

I think another factor with public transport links to hospitals is that you get a more diverse range of people using them than just about anywhere else. You get people who work there, so get the same bus/tram/train every day. You get long term day patients or whatever, who are the same, as are people who just happen to live nearby. But you also get a set of people who are only going to use that transport in the short term, whilst they're receiving treatment, or whilst they're visiting someone who's receiving treatment. Plus, where relatively specialist services are involved, people may have come from the far side of the city, or even from elsewhere in the country.

So unlike other services, the likelihood is that every day, a decent number of the people getting public transport to a hospital will never have travelled that route before in their life. Add to this the fact that they may be in a delicate state of mind already (visits to hospitals are rarely cause for celebration, whether you're a patient or a relative/friend), and there are a few issues there that are perhaps not quite so prevalent on your general commuter routes.

Whether any of that gets taken into account is another issue altogether, of course.

alr1970

May 19th, 2009, 02:07 PM

I've just posted some photos of development progress on the route south of Chorlton, in my Flickr Metrolink set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970/sets/72157614964489895/
Not much to see yet, all that's happened so far is vegetation clearance.

Andrew

ScouseinManc

May 19th, 2009, 02:51 PM

Page not found...?

dd528

May 19th, 2009, 05:19 PM

I've just posted some photos of development progress on the route south of Chorlton, in my Flickr Metrolink set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970...7614964489895/
Not much to see yet, all that's happened so far is vegetation clearance.

Andrew

It merked your URL there!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970/sets/72157614964489895/

nerd

May 19th, 2009, 06:56 PM

It may be a hopeless task, but it might help to retain a degree of realism.

a. the key issue is commuting, if we are going to fund Metrolink from borrowings against passenger revenue, then the system has to maximise commuter flows, and must provide the strongest possible support to employment in the city centre.

b. there will be no scope to subsides fares - if we are looking for Council Tax to underwrite loans for consturuction, then this means that fares will have to cover operating costs.

So there is no point in proposing routes that will not generate sufficent demand to pay their way.

So a few numbers;

- the latest total current peak-period (7:30-9:30)commuter flow into Manchester City centre is 85,067. This is split; cars 32,958 (of which 50% come from outside GM); walking (most of whom are car drivers parking outside the centre) 7,203; bus 20,242; rail from within GM 14,400; rail from outside GM 3,550; metrolink 6,048; cycle 435; motorbike 231.

- The proposals are predicated on employment increasing in the regional centre (there would be no point in building extra capacity if not). A 1% per year increase over 20 years would imply an additional 17,000 commuters.

- The total peak-period capacity of Metrolink after the completion of Phase 3b will be 30,000. Not all of this will get to the regional centre - so the total effective capacity in the centre will be about 27,000. Against this, rail capcity of 2,261 is likely to be removed (relating to Oldham and Ashton). Netting off the existing flows the extra capacity will be 18,691. The current system runs between 85% and 95% of capacity at peak periods, so we may expect an effective increase of at least 16,000.

- the rail lines are also proposed to increase capacity by up to 7,000 with additional coaches. I am not sure whether the loss of the TIF bid is going to reduce this.

- then there will be an increased capacity on the two BRT llines. Assuming 8 buses per hour from Leigh, this may be expected to provide for about 1,500 commuters, while the Oxford Road BRT (if we suppose 24 buses per hour) could provide around 4,000.

So the total additional capacity in the system should be between 27,500 and 30,000.

Netting off the 17,000 increase in employment, we may expect the existing 37,000 bus or car trips from within GM to reduce by around 12,000. Leaving 25,000 bus or car trips, that migh be replaced by higher quality public transport.

Which rules building out any sort of Metro - to cover its operasting cost a Metro need to carry at least 60,000 peak hour commuters.

Tram-train is more of a possibility. The Marple and Glossop lines between them carry 2,539 commuters, and there are around 2,000 regular car commuters from that direction.

Otherwise, probably the best option would be futher extension of the BRT network - perhaps to Middleton, Bolton, Trafford Centre, Stockport and Denton.

dd528

May 19th, 2009, 09:55 PM

W0bz

May 19th, 2009, 10:22 PM

Good Idea for the thread MarkO.

I origanlly posted these on Metrolink thread but appropriate here too (i think).

The Before

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt286/W0bz_photos/Metrolink%20-%20Edge%20Lane/Edge_Lane_before.jpg

Taken from:
http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=4192950

Get ready for the road works!

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt286/W0bz_photos/Metrolink%20-%20Edge%20Lane/DSC01343.jpg

Looks if this still has to come down:

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt286/W0bz_photos/Metrolink%20-%20Edge%20Lane/DSC01348.jpg

The houses have already gone:

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt286/W0bz_photos/Metrolink%20-%20Edge%20Lane/DSC01342.jpg

Looking up Manchester Road towards Droylsden (on the left):

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt286/W0bz_photos/Metrolink%20-%20Edge%20Lane/DSC01347.jpg

Looking up Manchester Road towards Droylsden (on the right):

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt286/W0bz_photos/Metrolink%20-%20Edge%20Lane/DSC01349.jpg

Artist's impression when complete:

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt286/W0bz_photos/Metrolink%20-%20Edge%20Lane/Edge_Lane_after.jpg

taken from:
http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=4192950

nerd

May 20th, 2009, 01:20 AM

This seems realistic to me. One thing I would bring up is the number of passengers coming into the city centre for retail and leisure purposes. Whilst I make no claims about how these users compare in number to commuters, it strikes me that they must be taken into account. There are certainly some routes that are relatively commuter-light, but see heavy use by shoppers or late-night revellers, and are often at their fullest at the weekend or in the evening. Or there may be cases where commuter numbers are not quite high enough to justify a particular type of transport, but heavy weekend use might push it into viability.

Anyone got any idea of what the statistics might be for retail and leisure passengers?

The detailed traffic survey tends to select peak (7:30- 9:30) and off-peak (10:00 - 12:00) for its surveys. There are a few 24 hour totals, but not in such detail.

However, it is commuter traffic that earns the money. After 9:30, the concessionary fares qualify, and hence these passengers are not earning the system anything like so much profit. Effectively, commuters will pay a premium (over bus fares) for the extra reliability and speed of the tram. Students and older people won't (in general). They are less pressed for time, and so tend to use whichever mode is closest to them, and cheapest. Light rail stands and falls on whether it can provide a service that is attractive to commuters, at a price they are willing to pay.

A6 Bypass

May 20th, 2009, 07:33 AM

The detailed traffic survey tends to select peak (7:30- 9:30) and off-peak (10:00 - 12:00) for its surveys. There are a few 24 hour totals, but not in such detail.

However, it is commuter traffic that earns the money. After 9:30, the concessionary fares qualify, and hence these passengers are not earning the system anything like so much profit. Effectively, commuters will pay a premium (over bus fares) for the extra reliability and speed of the tram. Students and older people won't (in general). They are less pressed for time, and so tend to use whichever mode is closest to them, and cheapest. Light rail stands and falls on whether it can provide a service that is attractive to commuters, at a price they are willing to pay.

In this analysis, how does the airport line stack up, Nerd?
I understand its rationale, bringing in workers from the south of Manchester, but its no way for, say, a Rochdale resident to get there. Surely even the airport doesn't generate commuting like the city centre - similar to Wythenshawe hospital - except that hospital travel doesn't have the same timing constraints that a flight does (assuming flexible visiting :lol:).

Chogmook

May 20th, 2009, 07:58 AM

this is on the Evening News website, includes a mention of the Trafford Park line still....

Counting transport plan's cost
Simon Donohue

May 20, 2009

THE transport revolution will cost each council tax payer around £2 per year - or an average of £68.36 over 30 years.

It will bring in a whopping £649m towards the scheme's £1.53bn price tag.

Furthermore, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities has sought to allay fears that projects planned for the current financial year will be scrapped.

But it is likely that some safety schemes will be revised, including Greater Manchester's part in the government's action plan to reduce road deaths.

The £68.36 figure is an average one, based on a three per cent increase in the transport levy payable as part of the council tax.

An increase of three per cent will be applied for each of six years, after which no further increase will be applied, although overall bills will continue to rise in the usual way.

The increased levy is expected to be applied for a total of 30 years.

A document drawn up in advance of the meeting at which the AGMA deal was discussed spelled out the possibility that some schemes planned for the current financial year could be reduced or scrapped as a result of money being redirected.

A spokesman for Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive says: "The funding commitment from the Local Transport Plan does not come into effect until the next financial year - 2010/2011 - so does not affect any schemes planned for this year.

"In the vast majority of cases, LTP projects are planned on a year-by-year basis, and we will be working with each of the district authorities in the coming months to review their plans for next year.

"We do not anticipate that any specific schemes will miss out on funding. It is more likely that authorities will have to prioritise projects."

It will be up to individual authorities to decide how much council tax their residents will pay.

What the plan will mean to you

Bolton

THE town's new interchange will see Moor Lane bus station relocated and replaced with a state-of-the-art gateway at a new site next to Bolton railway station, providing a new integrated public transport hub behind Great Moor Street and Newport Street. A park and ride scheme is proposed for Horwich.

Salford

THE biggest single change will be the Leigh-Salford-Manchester Busway. Buses will be guided at up to 40mph on a 7km path along a former rail route between Leigh and Ellenbrook.

New paths will be built for cyclists, walkers and horse riders. Buses will then be given priority along a 9km section of the A580 between Ellenbrook and Swinton.

A new nearside bus lane will be built between Ellenbrook and Moorside Road, Swinton, with a bus lane created on the existing three lane carriageway between Moorside Road and Irlams o `th' Height.

It is proposed that Irlam will get a park and ride site.

And the downside? Car journeys on parts of the A580 could be more difficult.

Rochdale

WORK is already under way to take Metrolink as far as Rochdale railway station.

Funding has now been earmarked to extend this line down Drake Street to a new transport interchange in Rochdale town centre. Park and ride schemes are proposed for both Littleborough and Rochdale.

Oldham

THE process of taking Metrolink through the town is proceeding and funding has now been earmarked to build a new loop line to Oldham town centre, from Werneth to Oldham Mumps, with new stops at Westwood, Oldham King Street and Oldham Central (Union Street). Park and ride schemes are proposed for Derker, Shaw and Crompton, Oldham Mumps and Hollinwood.

Bury

OPTIONS for reducing congestion between Ramsbottom, Bury and Heywood are being explored, including the development of the East Lancashire Railway, although that would be subject to additional funding being identified. Park and ride schemes are proposed for Whitefield and Radcliffe.

Tameside

CONSTRUCTION is continuing on a tram line to Droylsden. A new Metrolink line will run between Droylsden and Ashton under Lyne, calling at Audenshaw, Ashton Moss, Ashton West and Ashton-under-Lyne.

A park and ride scheme is proposed for Guide Bridge.

The Ashton northern bypass (stage 2) will complete the ring of relief roads around Tameside town centre by extending the Ashton northern bypass (stage 1) through to the Arlington Street link in the north of the town.

And the downside? Campaigners against the Mottram - Hollinworth - Tintwistle bypass are delighted that the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities proposes only construction of the Mottram bypass but are angry that the scheme, subject to a Public Inquiry, is being publicised as a "fait accompli".

Emma Lawrence, co-ordinator of the Save Swallow's Wood group, accuses AGMA of suggesting that the road plan will not be subject to planning and regulatory scrutiny.

Not only will the road cut through unspoilt wood land, but there are fears that it could increase traffic flow.

"We will continue to fight," says Lawrence. "All of our suggestions for alternatives have been ignored in favour of simply encouraging even more cars."

Trafford

FUNDING has been earmarked for a state-of-the art interchange in Altrincham centre. Connections between tram, train and bus services will be improved. Park and ride schemes are proposed for Flixton and Altrincham. Subject to additional funding being identified, a new Metrolink line would be built from the Pomona stop on the existing Eccles line to Trafford Park.

Manchester

WORK is proceeding on a tram line to Chorlton. The East Didsbury line will call at Withington, Burton Road, West Didsbury, Didsbury Village and East Didsbury. A park and ride scheme is proposed for Prestwich.

Funding has been earmarked for a new line to Manchester Airport, calling at Barlow Moor Road, Hardy Farm, Sale Water Park, Northern Moor, Wythenshawe Park, Moor Road, Baguley, Roundthorn, Martinscroft, Haveley, Benchill, Crossacres, Wythenshawe town centre, Robinswood Road, Peel Hall, Shadowmoss, Woodhouse Park and the airport.

A second tram line will run across Manchester centre to help ensure efficiency across the expanded network.

Cross-city bus proposals include introducing more bus priority measures to make journeys to the universities and hospitals on Oxford Road quicker and more reliable. This will include new links from north and west Greater Manchester and improve the quality of buses serving the area.

Stockport

THE South East Manchester multi modal study relief road involves the construction of a new dual carriageway linking the airport roundabout at the end of the M56 spur to the A555 at Handforth, and from the A555 at Handforth to the A6 at Hazel Grove. The Stockport interchange - which is subject to additional funding being identified - would see an ultra-modern transport hub built in the town centre, connecting buses and trains.

The Stockport town centre access scheme - also subject to additional funding being identified - would include various highways and public transport improvements to reduce congestion, improve bus journey times and reliability, and improve walking and cycling opportunities around the town centre. Park and ride schemes are proposed for Davenport and Hazel Grove.

Wigan

THE town will benefit from the Leigh-Salford-Manchester rapid transit busway. The Wigan inner relief road involves a new route between the A49 Saddle junction and Frog Lane and would complete the inner relief road. A park and ride scheme is proposed for Hindley.

Greater Manchester-wide

NEW park-and-ride spaces would serve a mix of rail and Metrolink routes. The proposed sites are spread across the region and would serve Metrolink stops and train stations, providing a fast onward journey to the city centre.

At most locations, an increase in spaces is proposed, with improvements to safety and security at sites that are currently under-used. It is likely to be free to park with passengers paying to travel.

A total of £50m has been earmarked to complement funding from Network Rail and other sources to deliver station improvements across Greater Manchester.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1116134_counting_transport_plans_cost

nerd

May 20th, 2009, 11:00 AM

In this analysis, how does the airport line stack up, Nerd?
I understand its rationale, bringing in workers from the south of Manchester, but its no way for, say, a Rochdale resident to get there. Surely even the airport doesn't generate commuting like the city centre - similar to Wythenshawe hospital - except that hospital travel doesn't have the same timing constraints that a flight does (assuming flexible visiting :lol:).

Airports are funny in transport management terms; in that they operate round the clock, and so have much lower proportion of employees travelling in the peak period. There are (I believe) around 22,000 persons employed in and around the airport site. Almost all employees arrive by car, and there is staff parking for 5,000 spaces (i.e. each firm operting in the airport is entitled to one space for each four employees) - which tend to be a mile or more distant from the airport facilities, and hence staff have to use a shuttle bus to get to their cars. There is also a lot of employment nearby - perhaps another 3,000.

For all the most recent expansion planning applications, the airport have assured the planning authorities that they would shift employees substantially into public transport; and if they could, it would be a big bonus for them, as they might then cut the staff parking - and use it either for passenger parking (very high revenue) or develop it commercially.

But the trouble is that public transport access to the airport is poor. The direct rail line provides a good service from the city centre - but at the cost of severely restricting the number of stopping services along the Styal line. The Metrolink could potentially solve the issue - especially if there is scope for park-and-ride that could be used by airport staff travelling from outside GM.

I suspect that your hypothetical Rochdale resident might be expected to take train to Victoria, Metrolink to Piccadilly, and train to airport - which would take less than an hour. Going all the way by Metrolink would take a lot longer.

W0bz

May 20th, 2009, 10:06 PM

If blue sky is the deal then (and I'm repeating myself here):
Branch to Royal Oldham Hospital possibly extending to Royton which would then reconnect via the old branch to the Rochdale / Oldham loop lie.
...

If the land where the old Royton Branch hadn't been so heavly built on then may be the line could have realistically gone to the hospital instead of running from Shaw to East Dids, with the Rochdale going through Shaw, Shaw would still have seen a better service than the current trains.

Map of the old Royton branch & pics of the buildings in place of the station:

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/

If blue sky is the deal then (and I'm repeating myself here):
...
Divert the Eccles line to Hope (getting silly now).

...

I was certainly surprised the Eccles line didn't stop at Hope hospital as it is a major teaching hospital with a number of specialist units.

Does anyone know why it didn't get a stop?

M€tr0l1nk

May 20th, 2009, 10:11 PM

Ladywell is only 10mins walk from Hope hospital, and there is no where for a stop at the end of Stott Road.

W0bz

May 21st, 2009, 09:10 PM

Ladywell is only 10mins walk from Hope hospital, and there is no where for a stop at the end of Stott Road.

The offical answer on the Q/A on the Metrolink website gives it as 15mins approx.

http://www.metrolink.co.uk/customerservice/faq/index.asp?question=33#answer

I guess it depends on how fast you can walk - (not fast if you're on crutches as I was when I was as an out patient).

M€tr0l1nk

May 22nd, 2009, 08:19 AM

W0bz

May 22nd, 2009, 05:52 PM

HAving spent well over 1month as an in patient there, when my wife was visiting at least one a day by tram, for the majority of people it is fine, it is an equally long walk inside the hospital as outside regularly.

Does not matter though, no room at the end of Stott Lane mean it would not be possible anyway.

Sorry M€tr0l1nk, my previous post didn't have a few things in that I'd meant to put in - my youngest was climbing all over my chair after showing him the pics of the trams on the low loaders - I was a bit distracted.

I wasn't disagreeing about there not being enough room @ the end or on Stott Lane - I should have made that clear.

I'd put the "offical" time up to just say I would imagine that it would make a lot of those people who had cars use them instead of taking the tram,
especially as you say - it's such a big hospital it can take a while to get where you need to be.

I was in Hope for many months and this was when I still live in Blackpool, my then girlfriend and now wife had to use the train and then bus as this was pre Metrolink days.

We were both lucky to have someone to take what ever it took to come and visit us :).

I

W0bz

May 22nd, 2009, 05:58 PM

"Construction work to start on new Metrolink line (http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=103073&news_id=6114975)

The first stages of work to build the new Metrolink line to Central Park will get underway next month."
Published on 22/05/09

http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=103073&news_id=6114975 (http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=103073&news_id=6114975)

"Drop in to catch up on South Manchester's Metrolink line (http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=103073&news_id=6114971)

Work on the new Metrolink line to Chorlton is continuing apace - and people are being encouraged to find out just what is happening in their area."
Published on 22/05/09

http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=103073&news_id=6114971 (http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=103073&news_id=6114971)

link_road_17/7

May 26th, 2009, 10:56 PM

Didn't know whether to post this here, or in the main 'Metrolink' thread, or both:

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/Planning_and_Highways_28_May_2009_Application_089506__Former_Railway_line_St_Werburghs_Rd.pdf

Visual plan (http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?089506-DPE-0001.pdf)

Site Layout Plan 1 (http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?089506-DSP-0001.pdf)

Site Layout Plan 2 (http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?089506-DSP-0002.pdf)

Overall Site Layout (http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?089506-DSP-0003.pdf)

Design & Access Statement (http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?089506-DSX-0001.pdf)

Don't think I've seen these docs on here before, so thought they'd be interesting to add to the thread?

jrb

May 26th, 2009, 11:47 PM

Crains.

East Manchester tram work starts at weekend
By Simon Binns

Work on the new Metrolink line through East Manchester will begin next weekend, in the Holt Town area, as utilities are diverted to pave the way for construction work later this summer.

The Greater Manchester Passanger Executive (GMPTE) is overseeing the £600m project to bring new tram lines to Droylsden, Oldham and Rochdale, Chorlton in South Manchester and Media City in Salford. The initial diversion work will involve laying ducts across Every Street, Ashton New Road and Holt Town over four weekends. A temporary traffic light system will be put in place as a result.

Construction work is already underway to create an underpass at Great Ancoats Street and utility diversions are being carried out on Pollard Street, Carruthers Street and Merrill Street.

"Construction work on the new line is really beginning to build up a head of steam and people are going to start to see a lot of activity all along the route in coming months,” said Philip Purdy, GMPTE’s Metrolink Director.

“Weekend utility work will be starting in Holt Town soon and we will be building the foundations of the area’s new Metrolink stop and tram track later this summer.”

Drop-in events to allow residents to find out more about the works will be held at St Cross Church Parish Centre on Wednesday June 3 from 5.30pm to 7.30pm; and St Anne’s Primary School in East Manchester, on Tuesday June 9, from 5pm to 8pm.

As the utility work progresses, Beswick Street will be closed to southbound traffic from Ashton New Road to Pollard Street East. This is expected to take place from mid June for up to four months. GMPTE is working with Manchester City Council to finalise the details.

Heavy duty concrete piling rigs will start to arrive in late June to create the foundations of the new Metrolink stop. This will involve work in the Ashton New Road, Holt Town and Cambrian Street area.

Once the new line is complete, trams will run from Piccadilly to Droylsden every six minutes.

MarkO

May 27th, 2009, 04:46 PM

Didn't know whether to post this here, or in the main 'Metrolink' thread, or both:

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/Planning_and_Highways_28_May_2009_Application_089506__Former_Railway_line_St_Werburghs_Rd.pdf

Very interesting stuff Linky, well found! Feels like it's all coming to a head at last when you see stuff like that.

Be in Manc early June so I'll definitely go on a recce of all lines to take more photo's

Here's a great recent photo of Mauldeth Road bridge taken by fellow SSCer Andy:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/3539608357_529598df1a_d.jpg

Be quite amazing to see Metrolink vehicles finally pounding through there in a few years time!

Also can't wait to see them lay the tracks thru Central Park (photo taken by meself in wait for it... June 2007!!!) Be so great see this first class structure being put to use it was intended.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3356/3569679351_94147b89dc_b.jpg

And here from the other side:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/3569679743_af1c375167_b.jpg

I predict that when the new trammy-trams are up and running thru, this station will be an absolute icon of what a modern LRT scheme can be.

staticmeltdown

May 28th, 2009, 12:43 PM

Interesting docs, thanks for posting

Didn't know whether to post this here, or in the main 'Metrolink' thread, or both:

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/Planning_and_Highways_28_May_2009_Application_089506__Former_Railway_line_St_Werburghs_Rd.pdf

Visual plan (http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?089506-DPE-0001.pdf)

Site Layout Plan 1 (http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?089506-DSP-0001.pdf)

Site Layout Plan 2 (http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?089506-DSP-0002.pdf)

Overall Site Layout (http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?089506-DSP-0003.pdf)

Design & Access Statement (http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/selecteddoc.aspx?089506-DSX-0001.pdf)

Don't think I've seen these docs on here before, so thought they'd be interesting to add to the thread?

soupçon

May 28th, 2009, 09:04 PM

Also can't wait to see them lay the tracks thru Central Park (photo taken by meself in wait for it... June 2007!!!) Be so great see this first class structure being put to use it was intended.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3356/3569679351_94147b89dc_b.jpg

Wow, that's great.

I was investigating the route of the lines on google earth and was amazed to see signs of tunnelling etc. around COMS even though the picture says 2003. If that's accurate, it shows amazing vision and forward planning (for England). Build it and they shall come...

I'm enjoying seeing the tram network in Manchester going from strength to strength. I really wish the network here in Sheffield could push on to the next level. Unfortunately you can't even get to the Sheffield Hallam University/ Station tram stop nowadays, as East Midlands Trains have stopped all use of the pedestrian bridge except for rail ticket holders. :bash:

MarkO

May 29th, 2009, 01:01 AM

Wow, that's great.

...It shows amazing vision and forward planning (for England). Build it and they shall come...

I'm enjoying seeing the tram network in Manchester going from strength to strength. I really wish the network here in Sheffield could push on to the next level. Unfortunately you can't even get to the Sheffield Hallam University/ Station tram stop nowadays, as East Midlands Trains have stopped all use of the pedestrian bridge except for rail ticket holders. :bash:

I agree wholeheartedly with Soupçon, the 100plus km of tram lines in Greater Manchester will be a real beacon for other UK provincial conurbations.

It's an absolute disgrace and national embarrassment that cities the size of Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol and Leicester for example have no urban rail whatsoever. Birmingham's one single tram line in a conurbation of 2.5 million is just lamentable (no offence intended to Brummies, it aint their fault). Sheffield and Nottingham systems also need massive expansion.

Well trod forumers will recall that many others including me have been harping on for years on here and elsewhere about why the UK cities outside London desperately need massive investment in light rail (and dare I say it a few underground lines too!).

It's absurd that all there is are buses or suburban heavy rail (which is also woefully inadequate in most cities outside Brum, L'pool, G'gow, Leeds and Manch).

Just take a look at any comparable city to those named above on mainland Europe and you'll be stunned to see how incredibly good urban rail is in provincial cities across the continent (with admittedly a few notable exceptions like Poland).

I cite: Barcelona/Hamburg/Lyon/Munich/Milan/Marseilles/Rotterdam/Lille/Cologne/Bilbao/Rhine-Rhur/Toulouse/Frankfurt/Valencia/Porto/Stuttgart.....errrr shall I go on?

None is a capital city, all are comparable to UK's major conurbations...all have tram/light-rail/Metro in abundance...and are mostly building more.

For shame Britain. Bravo GMPTE for bucking the trend. Lets pray the shining example of ManicChestHair encourages more.

The only provincial British city that can even faintly hold its head above the parapet is Newcastle. The Tyne&Wear PTE deserving a bloody Gold Medal IMHO for pulling off the Metro in the face of adversity during the same epoch that Manch lost Picc-Vic.

Said it before and I'll say it again; why the f*** are we not more ANGRY about this? Forget MPs Expenses, get out there and force decent investment in public transport!

* Its environmentally friendly
* Provides jobs
* Boots the economy

(Mark puts soap box away, wipes away steam coming from ears and goes to sit in the corner with a nice pint of red wine :cheers:)

Mez

May 29th, 2009, 01:24 AM

Hear Hear Mark. You've got my vote :horse:

Mez

May 29th, 2009, 01:55 AM

Just found this from 1984.

It really is quite poor that 25 years later, not only have the proposals not changed, they are 9 years out of date and counting.:nuts:

Credit to the PTE for plugging away at the plan i suppose.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/Manchester_LRT_1984_proposals_map.jpg

flange

May 30th, 2009, 03:31 PM

Ticket barrier

Sleuth was chatting to the Metrolink Director, Philip Purdy, this week about the system. Sleuth keeps being caught out by the ticket machines at the stations which were designed by evil pixies and refuse to work with normal British sterling. It’s fun to watch people licking their coins and using all sorts of magic processes to make the coins heavy enough to work. The note readers are the most evil feature, you have to iron your fivers and tenners to make them smart enough to be accepted. Sleuth learnt from Purdy that in September the old machines will start to be replaced by new ones, not designed in the Middle Ages, and with card readers. By Christmas all the old ones will be gone. Good news thinks Sleuth.

Ticket machine bashing

Sleuth had a suggestion for Mr Purdy. He suggested that Metrolink throw a party. “Given all the grief people have suffered at the hands of these machines, all the fines they’ve had to pay when they nipped onto the tram without a ticket because of these idiotic things, why not do this: make a big pile of them in a park somewhere and ceremonially smash them to pieces whilst a crowd of Metrolink passengers stand by, applauding and cheering? Metrolink Director, Philip Purdy, looked at Sleuth and smiled and thought. Then he looked at the press officer in the room and said: “that’s an interesting thought. That’s certainly something to look into.” Sleuth’s going to start a campaign to make it happen.

Inspectors inspected

The full interview with Philip Purdy, the Metrolink Director, and a plain-speaking Aussie, is published on Confidential next Wednesday and covers the city centre works, the ticket charges, the expansion plans and also the behaviour of Inspectors. Asked, “are you happy with the Inspector’s attitude to customers?” Purdy replied, “No, I am not. They need to be far more customer focussed.” Sleuth applauds the answer, that level of self-awareness is reassuring and one of several positive developments outlined in the forthcoming interview.

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2987/newmetrolink1.jpg

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8083/newmetrolink2.jpg

More Metrolink

By the way this is how the new trams will look. Sleuth is pleased that Metrolink is going for a strong Manchester Confidential yellow. Sleuth also wonders who that red haired lady is there, she looks familiar.

http://www.manchesterconfidential.com/index.asp?Sessionx=IpqiNwIjNwTrIWU6IHqjNwB6IA&realname=Sleuth%2029/05/2009

Savage Henry

May 30th, 2009, 11:32 PM

MarkO

May 31st, 2009, 01:49 AM

... a lot of people will have heard of/know where Newton Heath is, whereas Dean Lane means less to people, i'd have thought. :)

Good point Henry^^

There's a few others that need some discussion too:
Isn't the stop due to be called Monsall actually in Collyhurst?

St. Werburgs Road doesnt seem to bright either; the stop is right at one end of the road and it's doesn't exactly trip off the tongue, especially as it's gonna be a much quoted terminus for a while - wouldn't it be better as Chorlton Park or a more exotic sounding Thirlmere Aqueduct?

I also like the idea of comedy names:
Wrigley Head takes the biscuit. Should stay exactly as is proposed! (In fact the whole line is going to make some interesting potential loudspeaker announcements... including Wet Rake, Derker, Mumps, and Butler Green...no offence to anyone who lives in them there areas, but you gotta see the potentially amusing side of it!

Vicky Pollard Street still raises a smile.

Eccles to be renamed "Eccles Lardy Barm Cake" (sure HeatonParkinCakes would approve).

The stop planned in between Bury and Radcliffe would undoubtedly be better known as Elton's Pond (after the reservoir of course) - or even "Warth"!

And surely one of the stations that are due to pass thru Wythenshawe should be renamed "Chatsworth" after it's notoriety in 'Shameless'
:lol:

GanEden

May 31st, 2009, 12:17 PM

I hope we can get die cast models of that new tram.

Savage Henry

May 31st, 2009, 01:06 PM

There's a few others that need some discussion too:

Central Park, for one, I think it sounds ridiculous.

M€tr0l1nk

May 31st, 2009, 03:23 PM

Central Park is a proper address of a business park though (it's where I work from) as such, you can see why the station would be named after the business park it serves.

neil

May 31st, 2009, 05:24 PM

My mate who lives in Newton Heath would much prefer Dean Lane to be renamed 'Newton Heath' once open - and I think giving as many of the stations as possible proper geographic-linked names would be a good move, reinforcing in peoples minds all the different areas you'll be able to get to on the Metrolink (ie. a lot of people will have heard of/know where Newton Heath is, whereas Dean Lane means less to people, i'd have thought)

Just a random thought anyway :)

They did this with Old Trafford. The Old Trafford now used to be called Warwick Road and the Trafford Bar now used to be called Old Trafford. On match and cricket days people were getting off at the old Old Trafford so were further away. If they have done it before i am sure they can do it again.

M€tr0l1nk

May 31st, 2009, 06:06 PM

Previous maps from the PTE have shown stations that were having their names considered for change (included Sale Water Park, Manchester United and a couple of others from memory).

The * appears to have disappeared from the maps recently suggesting that the names have been confirmed.

Dig out the original huge Phase3 pdf maps that had all the roads on them, they had the station names under review.

Chorlton Metro

May 31st, 2009, 08:20 PM

Talking of re-naming check this link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/8075874.stm

Architecty

June 2nd, 2009, 06:02 PM

In other geek news:

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/metro/2009/05/07-600m-tramway.html

Sound’s down for £600m tramway

Posted: 7th May 2009 | From Railnews May 2009 print edition No Comments

Councillor Matt Colledge (left) with MPact-Thales project director Bryan Diggins and GMPTE Metrolink director Philip Purdy.
A NEW piling rig using a technique that cuts the amount of noise disturbance has signalled the start of major construction work on Greater Manchester’s Metrolink expansion.

The rig – in action at the site near Great Ancoats Street – began the creation of the concrete retaining walls of an underpass to be used by trams running beneath Great An-coats Street on the new Metro-link line to Droylsden, the first major engineering work of the £600 million Metrolink expansion project.

During work on the underpass, contractor MPact-Thales will move up to 20,000 cubic metres of soil and walls will be constructed using more than 400 concrete piles up to 1.5 metres in diameter and set 15 metres deep.

The reduced-disturbance technique involves a hollow-stemmed CFA being rotated into the ground to the required depth then, as the auger is with-drawn, plasticised concrete is pumped down the stem under balancing pressure to form a shaft of liquid concrete to ground level. A reinforced cage with welded spacers to centralise it within the pile bore is then inserted and secured.

MPact-Thales project director Bryan Diggins said: “We want to be good neighbours to people living and working alongside the new extensions, and our new method of piling cuts noise, dust and vibration.

“We are also looking into ways to recycle the spoil material to reduce lorry movements in the area.”
The initial phase of piling will take place over the next couple of months but construction work will continue in the Great Ancoats Street area for the next two years.

The new four-mile line to Droylsden will run through East Manchester, past the City of Manchester Stadium and the Velodrome. Eight new stops will be created along the route, which is due to open in spring 2012, with trams running to and from Manchester every six minutes.

The Metrolink expansion will also see trams to Media-City UK in Salford by next summer, to South Manchester by spring 2011, to Oldham Mumps the following autumn and to Rochdale by spring 2012.

Meanwhile, new customer information screens, CCTV and public address systems have come to seven stations in the Wigan and Bolton areas of Greater Manchester following a £600,000 Transport Infra-structure Fund investment by Greater Manchester Integra-ted Transport Authority.

In a project managed by Northern Rail, the new equipment has been installed at Bromley Cross, Daisy Hill, Farnworth and Lostock in Bolton, and Atherton, Hag Fold and Hindley in Wigan.

The TIF was set up eight years ago to improve public transport in areas of Greater Manchester not set to receive direct benefit from expansion of Metrolink, and will provide £3.5 million to Wigan and Bolton every year until 2011.

W0bz

June 4th, 2009, 10:57 PM

(Had posted on Manchester Metro Area -> TRANSPORT | Metrolink)

The Future Network map has been updated with the 3b extensions in the new colours.

http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/Metrolink_schematic_280509.pdf

I noticed that Oldham central is now just a "possible Metrolink stop", which has changed since the TIF 3b map.

Station names are still subject to comfirmation.

alr1970

June 5th, 2009, 01:46 PM

Rode home the long way yesterday and photograhed the Old Trafford depot site and South Manchester line as far as Chorlton. All in my Metrolink (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970/sets/72157614964489895/) set on Flickr.

Work on the depot has progressed to establishing the new gound levels:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2440/3596652190_725d52918d.jpg?v=0
This shows the drainage problems more clearly I think:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3623/3596709276_3b235a9ae5.jpg?v=0

Andrew

jrb

June 6th, 2009, 01:40 AM

Rowe Hankins wins Metrolink contract
By Simon Binns

Bury-based rail systems firm Rowe Hankins will supply new generation speed probes to Stagecoach Metrolink Ltd (SML) and its fleet of 26 original T68 trams, following a six-month trial over 50,000kms.

Failure of the original 17-year old probes had resulted in an irregular speed signal and led to trams being taken out of service 13 times in the year to March 2008.

Rowe Hankins fitted the first of the new probes in December 2008. A second unit was fitted with the new speed probes early in 2009. Both tram-sets were then subject to intensive usage to prove the system and zero failures were reported during the trial.

The Rowe Hankins speed probes are active Hall-effect sensors providing a speed-proportional digital signal. To interface with the driver's instruments, the original signal processors have been retained but modified and upgraded to accept the new speed signal input.

Previously, two types of sensors were in use. Rowe Hankins replaced these with a standardised sensor, customising the housing to fit the different installation requirements. For future maintenance purposes SML will now only need to hold the one model of sensor in stock.

"Rowe Hankins were very positive and proactive in working with SML to produce a cost effective answer to the problem. The Rowe Hankins speed probes are more reliable, give a better quality output and are easier and quicker to install than the original equipment," said Clive Pennington, head of engineering at SML.

Comments?manchersternews@crain.com

Local Lad

June 15th, 2009, 03:44 PM

Great Ancoats Street underpass continues steadily

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00643.jpg

As far as i could tell the exposed concrete at the front is the tunnel roof. I Guess they are going to dig the road up but im not sure.

Local Lad

June 23rd, 2009, 01:12 AM

So long Elsinore Road.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00646.jpg

If anyone was wondering how the new line to Chorlton was gonna fit under the road, worry no more! The bridge has been demolished, quite hard to get a photo though

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00651.jpg

Few views over the site, and it is massive. Stretching from Trafford Bar all the way to Old Trafford station

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00647.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00648.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00648.jpg

All taken on my crappy camera phone, so excuse the quality!

MarkO

June 23rd, 2009, 12:48 PM

Those pix above are excellent and show great progress.

These however were taken Wednesday 17 June (note rain) round the back of Piccadilly - where the princely sum of a few plastic barriers had so far been erected!

Well one day the trams will be thundering through here (using the term losely) but it would be reassuring to see more progress at this vital point in the forthcoming network!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3303/3653804208_fefa7d15ab.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3301/3653007887_7d034f2554.jpg

Local Lad

June 24th, 2009, 07:48 PM

Any progress is good progress MarkO, even if its just a few barriers!

Had a ride down to see how the line into the Media city was progressing today
Fantastic to see foundations are well on the way now. You can see clearly see where the branch will go :rock:

Starting from the current Eccles line.

The Manchester side of the triangular Junction

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00663.jpg

Left for Eccles , Straight on for Manchester!

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00662.jpg

Few more

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00661.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00660.jpg

MarkO

June 25th, 2009, 02:04 AM

hey nice one LocalChap! Grand photo's those!

And mediaCity's looking most impressive in the background too.

I'm booking my ticket already to be there for the opening day of that line for sure.

Did we always know it was gonna be a triangular junction? If so better dig out that old map I knocked up yonks ago and see if I can squeeze in an addition!

So whats the planned service pattern due on this bit?

M€trol1nk

June 25th, 2009, 09:06 AM

You won't be the only one.

There tends to be 'loads' of people who arrange to be on the very first tram on a new service.

Problem is you tend to have to drive to get there.

nerd

June 25th, 2009, 10:41 AM

metman123

June 25th, 2009, 01:26 PM

I thought the triangular junction was being removed, not added.
there was only a set of points removed on the bend but these will be replaced as the media city junction is done!

Local Lad

July 1st, 2009, 04:18 PM

From this

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

to this... The metrolink construction depot that is positioned on the old Red bank carriage sidings. Seems to be where they are keeping all the city centre construction materials aswell as for the expansion of the Queens road depot which is just behind my photo.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00670.jpg

W0bz

July 3rd, 2009, 06:17 PM

Nice contrasting pics locallad ^^

Do you know when the top pic was taken?

link_road_17/7

July 3rd, 2009, 08:55 PM

Picture would be circa mid/late 1980s, the Mk2 carriage branded 'Trans-Pennine' being the giveaway clue.

WatcherZero

July 3rd, 2009, 09:00 PM

lol, I noticed that but eyes kinda didnt believe it due to being B&W, but then the buildings in background confirmed it.

heatonparkincakes

July 3rd, 2009, 09:14 PM

Ah the good old days of my child hood.

The Transpennine. Back and forth. Big clunking train that made you feel that the towns and yourself were important.

A huge metal snake crossing the North.

Bit different now.:gaah:

WatcherZero

July 3rd, 2009, 10:02 PM

Its the fastest growing passenger service in the country, something like 60% passenger growth to Northerns 40%.

W0bz

July 4th, 2009, 02:15 AM

Picture would be circa mid/late 1980s, the Mk2 carriage branded 'Trans-Pennine' being the giveaway clue.

Maybe to those who are aware of such information :)

Mid 80s I was still a Blackpool lad :cheers:then l I was a student in Sheffield :cheers:- trains looked much the same back then (to me at least)

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):) (well it was the 80's :lol: )

link_road_17/7

July 4th, 2009, 02:43 AM

When the Class 47s & Mk2s were to be replaced, it was considered replacing them with IC125s, instead we ended up with 'Express' Class 158s. Heidi Mottram (current MD of Northern) did a lot of work developing the 'TPE' brand during the 1990s (IIRC, she was Route/Brand Manager) during Regional Railways (NE) days.

'Trans-Pennine' name came about from the six-car(!) DMUs that worked the route in the 1960s, which were built at Swindon, after traffic fell they were shortened, then withdrawn in the 80's.

Red Bank carriage sidings also used to berth the mail and newspaper trains, until Murdoch went to road transport in the 80s, which destroyed a lot of the traffic. It had its own signalbox too, I think.

I hope some kinda plaque or memorial (or perhaps that photo) will reside in the new depot, but thats wishful thinking.

heatonparkincakes

July 4th, 2009, 06:19 PM

Bloody hell Links that post rung some bells in my head.

You just made me remember that my old fella ( a BR guard) talked about those newspaper trains. He said they were a doddle to work. And I didnt know about them being at Red Bank. In truth i dont know much about them and sadly him aint about to ask no more.

Apparently you could get the morning editions of the sunday papers at piccadilly from midnight. And I remember if he did do the Newspaper trains, them, I'd wake with all the editions of the paper down stairs that he'd been given.

My oldest memory of the Observer is reading a huge article on Jean Paul Sartre's funeral and realising from that I wanted to go to college (although I didnt even know what college mean as a nipper then!! It just seemed a romantic notion for a ten year old)

Cheers Links

Mamucium

July 5th, 2009, 06:25 PM

As there's not been much featured on the East Manchester Line, other than shots from LocalLad and W0bz, thought I'd submit some photo updates...

The first shot (sorry for a bit of blurring) is the progress of the underpass at Great Ancoats Street on the Pollard Street side.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8333/metrolink2009003.th.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink2009003.jpg)

Retaining walls are now in place for the underpass.

The following shots are in Droylsden, where on-going utilities work continues...
This is planned to be completed by the end of August on Market Street although the work on Manchester Rd looks like it could take longer.

Firstly, this is the site for the tram stop at Market Street, next St Mary's Infants School. Note the ongoing utility work to the left of the photo

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/220/metrolink2009005.th.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink2009005.jpg)

Utility work taking place at the junction of Manchester Rd and Market Street

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9435/metrolink2009007.th.jpg (http://img194.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink2009007.jpg)

More utility work at the junction of Craven Street and Manchester Rd

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9682/metrolink2009008.th.jpg (http://img11.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink2009008.jpg)

Retaining walls have been constructed to widen Manchester Rd to accommodate for Metrolink. View looking west, with Droylsden Library in the background.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7561/metrolink2009009.th.jpg (http://img7.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink2009009.jpg)

A closer look at the retaining wall outside of Droylsden Library

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2593/metrolink2009012.th.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink2009012.jpg)

This is the main site compound for the work at Market Street on the old site of Droylsden Swimming Baths

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7554/metrolink2009013.th.jpg (http://img406.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink2009013.jpg)

Finally (for the time being), this is where the Cemetery Road Stop will be. Note the compound in the background that has been constructed.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/5048/metrolink2009015.th.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink2009015.jpg)

I'll provide more updates as works progress.

W0bz

July 5th, 2009, 11:48 PM

Great pics Mamucium, I've been wondering how things were getting on further up the road from Edge Lane. I've read they put the footbridge across near the library. I've not ventured up that way juist in case I get stuck in the traffic.

Mamucium

July 6th, 2009, 12:09 AM

The new footbridge is in place, just couldn't get a decent picture of it, given the amount of netting and barriers around it. This will be for the new pavement once Manchester Rd expands. There's plenty of conduits underneath the footbridge for all the utilities as well. The footbridge runs parallel with the present road bridge that spans the old Hollinwood Canal branch and links in with that retaining wall running from Craven Street up to Droylsden Library.

BTW the traffic is horrendous up there now!

Local Lad

July 6th, 2009, 09:08 AM

Good work on getting a shot on the Pollard Street side of the underpass Mamucium... Did you sit on someones shoulders?! haha. Theres no way even my arm stretched as far as it would go that I could of got a shot over those 6ft barriers. :lol:

MarkO

July 6th, 2009, 09:46 AM

Excellent work Mamucium - more photographic proof that Manchester is now the site of the biggest tram construction works in Britain!:banana:

Do we have any official confirmation of the proposed service plan yet b.t.w.? (Sorry if I've missed it!)

heatonparkincakes

July 6th, 2009, 06:25 PM

Mark its the only bloody thing being built in Manchester these days!!!

At least it gives this forum something to talk about!!!

Mamucium

July 6th, 2009, 07:18 PM

Did you sit on someones shoulders?! haha.

The use of an upper deck of a Stagecoach 216 came in handy, lol

andysimo123

July 10th, 2009, 11:30 PM

Does anyone know how many trams the Queens Road Depot will be able to handle once its been extended?

M€trol1nk

July 11th, 2009, 01:14 PM

Not sure, but the Old Trafford one has planning permission to hold no more than 55 at any one time.

WatcherZero

July 11th, 2009, 08:19 PM

Ive looked but cant find a number, every report simply says "not enough room to accomadate them all so a new depot must be built".

alr1970

July 12th, 2009, 11:50 PM

Got this view of the Chorlton line today, from a moving tram:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2472/3714535704_9d4a1d8bcd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970/3714535704/)

Andrew

andysimo123

July 13th, 2009, 02:25 PM

Bloody hell, they arn't messing about. Last time I went past that was a huge steel bridge. Quality Photo.

Local Lad

July 17th, 2009, 08:51 PM

Observations while out to see what was happening on the Metrolink today. Unfortunately didnt have anything to take photographs on...

Plus it was a miserable crappy raining day, and I don't wanna give people the wrong impression about rain and Manchester lol.

Anyways

1. Ballast and points in place for a new fan of 4 or 5 sidings at Queens Road depot.

2. Southbound line in the city centre is now being cleared at the Victoria end.

3. Progress on the new depot is continuing but you couldn't see much, part from two more massive mountains of earth have appeared.

4. New overhead line bases and large piles of ballast are in place along the line after Cornbrook station including a construction base at the far end of the high bridges between GMEX station and Cornbrook

5. At Trafford bar station earth works are now appearing and it looks as though the inbound line from Chorlton will pass over a bridge to gain access to the mainline back to Manchester, the outbound line being level and then dropping down into the cutting.

Plenty of progess, great to see after all the waiting :lol:

M€trol1nk

July 17th, 2009, 10:47 PM

Think just how many people are being employed in Manchester, during these hard times on this project.

Everytime I travel on the trams during office hours I am amazed by the number of people doing manual or not so manual work - probably all fairly well paid too.

W0bz

July 17th, 2009, 10:56 PM

Just a quick one - noticed fencing up on the building on the corner of Edge Lane
Manor Road (Droylsden) and a couple of Porter Cabins put up on the grassy area of the previously demolished houses - looks like they are going to crack on and bring it down.
Didn't have my camera, I was going to take some pics at lunch time with my phone but it was p***ing down! Will try next week if the rain ever stops!

Edit: original pics : http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=35692294&postcount=4643

P.S. I wounldn't want to be working outside at the mo! Respect to the guys that do!

A6 Bypass

July 19th, 2009, 09:22 AM

Hi. Can someone clarify for me? Is there going to be a Queen's Road station on the Bury line and will it act as an intersection with the Oldham/Rochdale line?
Thanks.

Potato Man

July 19th, 2009, 11:01 AM

MarkO

July 19th, 2009, 01:27 PM

Queens Road is to far north for interchange of passengers from the Bury line to the Rochdale line.

Such a station would have to be further south (the junction of Smedley and Collyhust Roads). But if you look at this area on Google Maps its pretty desolate. The cost of building such a station could not be justified given there would be zero demand locally and it would slow down services on both the Bury and Rochdale lines.

Victoria must only be about 90 seconds down the line, so passengers will be expected to change here (which is busy and staffed, so would be a preferable place to change in terms of perceptions of safety anyway).

Always wondered why there isnt a stop between Victoria and Woodlands Road (I'm thinking particularly of the Collyhurst area - how useful and cool would it be for example to have a nice underground station in the long tunnel, say with and entrance on the Rochdale Road (near junction of Osborne & Dalton Streets). It's an area crying out for a station as it's high density housing with no other rail station near.

Even if not built in the tunnel, either side of the tunnel there is scope for it because above the cutting lots of potential passengers live.

:-)
M
Just another odd musing from madMark

A6 Bypass

July 19th, 2009, 02:05 PM

uklad1979

July 19th, 2009, 06:01 PM

Always wondered why there isnt a stop between Victoria and Woodlands Road (I'm thinking particularly of the Collyhurst area - how useful and cool would it be for example to have a nice underground station in the long tunnel, say with and entrance on the Rochdale Road (near junction of Osborne & Dalton Streets). It's an area crying out for a station as it's high density housing with no other rail station near.

Even if not built in the tunnel, either side of the tunnel there is scope for it because above the cutting lots of potential passengers live.

:-)
M
Just another odd musing from madMark

I think there was ment to be a stop just outside the tunnel in Collyhurst as you can see the platforms are dug out but it seems it was pulled and they never finished work on it. Looks like it would have been like Gmex where you would cross the tracks.

W0bz

July 19th, 2009, 07:22 PM

This is from the Light Rail Transit Association 's web site regarding the Bury line:

Queen’s Road staff halt could be replaced by a passenger stop, subject to funding. There would be steps and two lifts between the road and Bury (outbound) platform. Steps, a DDA compliant ramp and a lift would connect the Manchester (inbound) platform to the road.

http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/images/bury_ln_dia5.gif

From:
http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/Bury_Line.html

Mamucium

July 19th, 2009, 11:32 PM

A rainy afternoon in Droylsden, 2 weeks on from my last pics and things are certainly moving on since I last posted. It's definitely turning into a proper construction site!

Markers set-out for the widening of Manchester Rd.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/3629/metrolink19072009001.th.jpg (http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink19072009001.jpg)

Retaining wall now in place outside Droylsden Library

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/8058/metrolink19072009002.th.jpg (http://img269.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink19072009002.jpg)

The new footbridge on Manchester Rd

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/980/metrolink19072009006.th.jpg (http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink19072009006.jpg)

Utility conduits under the footbridge

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3078/metrolink19072009005.th.jpg (http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink19072009005.jpg)

Retaining walls progressing on the other side of the library

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7840/metrolink19072009010.th.jpg (http://img35.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink19072009010.jpg)

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/7421/metrolink19072009011.th.jpg (http://img268.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink19072009011.jpg)

Market Street and Manchester Rd, utility works still continuing. The trams will be cutting through this corner to the tram stop.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2838/metrolink19072009014.th.jpg (http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=metrolink19072009014.jpg)

More Photo's next month (at some point).

Cherguevara

July 19th, 2009, 11:41 PM

I think there was ment to be a stop just outside the tunnel in Collyhurst as you can see the platforms are dug out but it seems it was pulled and they never finished work on it. Looks like it would have been like Gmex where you would cross the tracks.

It would be fascinating if that was the intention.

That whole area along the lower Irk Valley is one of the few topogrphically interesting parts of the city with so much unused space. If only the city had an awful lot of money, or there was a huge upswing in demand I could see it becoming the attractive inner city suburb that Manchester is without. A tram stop would clearly help that process.

One for the future maybe?

W0bz

July 26th, 2009, 05:30 PM

Corner of Edge Lane & Manor Road

Fencinging up ready for it to come down.

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt286/W0bz_photos/EdgeLane20-07-091.jpg

Portacabins for the workmen.

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt286/W0bz_photos/EdgeLane20-07-094.jpg

On the main Metrolink thread I metioned that there was some work going on in Morrisons' car park in Rochdale, close to the location of the new Newbold stop - the work going on at the moment is a new Doctor's surgery not anything to do with Metrolink, at least for the time being.

jrb

July 26th, 2009, 05:46 PM

South Manchester Reporter

It's lemon fresh TIF
Susannah Wright
July 23, 2009

http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/res/587.$plit/C_71_article_1127640_image_list_image_list_item_0_image.jpg?23%2F07%2F2009%2009%3A47%3A26%3A400

THE future is lemon for commuters on the tram network as the first of a fleet of new carriages arrived for service.

Transport chiefs are finally taking delivery of the new-look Metrolink trams that will ferry commuters around Didsbury and Chorlton and connect them with the rest of the Metrolink grid.

The M5000 units, which cost £2m each, were ordered two years ago. The first was shipped over from Europe, last weekend, before being transported by road from Hull, with a police escort, to the Queens Road depot in Cheetham.

Metrolink bosses have ordered a total of 40 vehicles which are expected to arrive at a rate of one a month. They will ease overcrowding on busy lines, which reached crisis levels in 2005, while meeting the demand that new stations at Chorlton, Salford, Droylsden, Oldham and Rochdale will create.

The M5000 model is already in use elsewhere in Europe and should be up running by the end of the year.

The Metrolink system first opened in Manchester in the early nineties. At the time, the white and turquoise vehicles were state-of-the-art, but in the years since they have dated.

The new tram’s yellow colour theme has also been used for the interior, while full-length glass double doors give it a lighter and brighter feel.

Councillor Keith Whitmore said: "This is a fantastic day for Metrolink and its thousands of passengers. Our trams have become an icon of Manchester – and this new generation will ensure that legacy continues – but this new tram is also a symbol of a very bright future for Metrolink.

"People already make around 20million journeys on our trams each year but we’re currently building four new lines that will double the size of the network by 2012.

"Metrolink is only going to keep growing and these new trams will ensure that, when it does, we can continue to provide high quality services fit for the 21st century."

Philip Purdy, GMPTE’s Metrolink Director, said: "We’ve been looking forward to this day and following the tram’s new progress very closely. I am really pleased with the result.

"The tram will now undergo extensive operational and safety tests and well also have to train people how to drive it. The tests will go on through the summer and the autumn before the tram goes into service.

"I hope to see it up and running towards the end of the year and I am certain people will be delighted with it when it does."

The new Chorlton line, funded by Transport Infrastructure cash, will link with the Altrincham line near Trafford Bar. It will stop at stations in Firswood, central Chorlton and St Werbergh’s Road – which will be named Chorlton High. A depot is being created on a triangle of land near Trafford Bar that is bordered by Elsinore Road, Ayres Road and a disused railway line.

The creation of two tramline extensions – to Didsbury and the airport – was given the go ahead in May as part of a £1.5billion public transport funding investment.

The move was finally given the green light by the government following the collapse of plans, due to the overwhelming ‘no’ vote in the congestion charge referendum last December.

Plans to create a tramline to Didsbury and on to Stockport date back 30 years, when Old Moat councillor Andrew Fender negotiated with British Rail to buy a swathe of land from Cornbrook – near the Salford end of the Mancunian Way – through Chorlton and Didsbury and on towards Stockport.

It was bought for the sum of £1 as the council then took on the costs to renovate dilapidated bridges and fencing.

Work on the project could begin as soon as September and lines to Didsbury and the airport could open in 2013.

Coun Whitmore said: "The new lines are being discussed by the ten local authorities so dates have not been finalised yet."

Timeline to tramlines: How the spurs will be built

Summer 2009: Work will begin laying the lines which will link Chorlton to the Altrincham to Bury line at Traford bar.
Late summer 2009: Work will begin to create walls to line the new tram tracks at Trafford Bar
Autumn 2009: Work begins to create three new stops for the new line at Chorlton Morrisons, St Werburgh’s Road (to be known as Chorlton High) and in Firswood.
Late summer 2009: Work is earmarked to start the next phase of creating a line to Didsbury and another to the airport, beginning with the railway lines that will carry it for part of the route.
Spring 2010: Tramline verges will be landscaped, CTTV cameras installed to monitor the lines and stations and the tram stops will be decorated
Late autumn 2010: Trams will start to be tested on the new Chorlton line
Early spring 2011: The Chorlton line will open with six trams carrying commuters to Piccadilly every hour.
2013: The two other lines - one linking Didsbury with Chorlton and the rest of the Metrolink network and one running to Manchester Airport - are expected to open.

Local Lad

July 27th, 2009, 11:51 PM

South Manchester junction as of this evening. Not so much change from last time I went down

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00688.jpg

New foundations are in place for the overhead line masts and piling continues at a higher level on the far side out of the picture

WatcherZero

July 28th, 2009, 09:50 PM

News Releases
Tuesday, 28 July 2009No Holt to work on Metrolink line through East Manchester

Metrolink construction work will gather pace in Holt Town next week as work starts to lay the foundations of the new tram stop.

Work is due to start on the ground on 3 August, as progress continues on the multi-million pound project to take trams to East Manchester and through to Droylsden town centre.

Utility diversion work has been taking place in the Holt Town area throughout June in preparation for main construction work to begin.

Heavy duty piling rigs will now move in to start creating concrete retaining walls for the stop in the area between Ashton New Road, Holt Town and Cambrian Street. The work will pave the way for track laying to start in the autumn.

As a result, from 3 August, Beswick Street will be closed to traffic in both directions from Ashton New Road to Branson Street until early November.

A diversion, following Pollard Street East, Ashton New Road, Hillkirk Street, Cambrian Street and Bradford Road, will be signposted. There will also be temporary traffic lights on Ashton New Road for around seven weeks.

Philip Purdy said: "We are making really good progress on Metrolink through East Manchester and people will start to see more and more happening on the ground as construction work starts to intensify.

"Obviously we're extremely mindful of the potential impact on residents and traffic through the area. We are concentrating this work on the new stop over a few months during the summer to get it done as soon as possible and limit the local impact.

"GMPTE will continue to work closely with our contractor and Manchester City Council in the planning and monitoring of the work.

"We've been holding drop-in events and writing to residents since the work began and we will continue to do so. And our public liaison team is always just a phone call away too."

The construction work at Holt Town follows hot on the heels of one of the first pieces of construction work on the new Metrolink line through East Manchester finishing ahead of schedule.

Two major piling rigs dominated the skyline at Great Ancoats from April through to June during work to create the retaining walls of the tram underpass. The initial phase of piling work finished in June ahead of schedule and construction work continues in the area.

The 3.9-mile East Manchester line will run from Piccadilly station calling at eight new stops - New Islington, Holt Town, Sportcity-Stadium, Sportcity-Velodrome, Clayton, Edge Lane, Cemetery Road and Droylsden.

Utility diversions and construction work will increase along the route throughout 2009, continuing into 2010/11. Trams will start running every six minutes from spring 2012.

GMPTE is overseeing a £600 million expansion of the Metrolink network which will also see new lines also built to Chorlton, Oldham and Rochdale and MediaCityUK in Salford.

To find out more about the project, call the Metrolink public liaison team on 0161 244 1555 (open during office hours), email future.metrolink@gmpte.gov.uk or visit www.gmpte.com/futuremetrolink.
http://www.gmpte.com/2009_news.cfm?news_id=6117847?submenuheader=3

Local Lad

July 30th, 2009, 03:04 AM

Had a read of that piece on the Metrolink in Modern railways today...

Its shows how Cornbrook will be changed. Though I would do my own diagram so people on here can see the new track layout.

Ok its not amazing :lol: But you get the rough idea

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/Cornbrook1.jpg

The little used bay platform will be removed and replaced with a new siding accessible from all lines in any direction. Smart move.

Edit... The outbound Eccles/ Mediacity line should pass over the two Altricham lines, meh!

alr1970

August 4th, 2009, 01:56 PM

Very busy down at Old Trafford now.

The depot site:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/3786878462_5301091f1b_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970/3786878462/)

and work has started on the station rebuild:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3586/3786066143_8e61fc5c18_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970/3786066143/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3536/3786066547_dd591b98d1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970/3786066547/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3579/3786066913_8dc43dabc9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970/3786066913/)

I hadn't realised that the station work was scheduled for this month, they only got planning permission a few weeks ago, AFAIK.

Andrew

Local Lad

August 4th, 2009, 02:48 PM

Glad to see they are not hanging around.

Looking at that second picture if you look up to the overhead line masts, you can see that the droppers that normally hold the wire that carries the Electric current, have already been removed. Didn't take long!

Accura4Matalan

August 4th, 2009, 05:04 PM

This is brilliant! Its very refreshing to see construction on this scale happening during the downturn :) This must have saved a large number of jobs from getting the axe.

M€trol1nk

August 4th, 2009, 05:13 PM

There must be shit loads of people working on this.

There seem to b over a dozen all day at Sale station alone, not checked Dane Road (just around the corner) but suspect it will be the same at all Alty line stations.

WatcherZero

August 4th, 2009, 07:12 PM

4 press releases today.

Work starts on major overhaul of two city centre tram stops
http://www.gmpte.com/2009_news.cfm?news_id=6118045?submenuheader=3
Work is now underway on major upgrades to two popular city centre tram stops as part of a £22 million project to revitalise the city centre tram network.

Metrolink utility diversions to finish on schedule on Droylsden's Market Street
http://www.gmpte.com/2009_news.cfm?news_id=6118043?submenuheader=3
Market Street in Droylsden is due to reopen to two-way traffic next week after months of important work to prepare for the arrival of Metrolink.

Changes to Metrolink for sports fans heading to Old Trafford
http://www.gmpte.com/2009_news.cfm?news_id=6118027?submenuheader=3
Sports fans are being advised that they will not be able to use Manchester's Metrolink trams to attend fixtures at Old Trafford during August.

And most interestingly
Come and talk about plans for trams in Oldham
http://www.gmpte.com/2009_news.cfm?news_id=6118041?submenuheader=3
People in Oldham will be able to discuss all things Metrolink at two special events next week. Included is information on the city centre stops, Oldham Mumps including two alternative locations. And alternate travel plans while the loop line is colsed.

Caiman

August 4th, 2009, 07:28 PM

Priscilla QOTD

August 4th, 2009, 07:56 PM

No mention of Mosley Street Stop... which also has a low platform that is incompatible with the new trams [double length]?

Isn't that because they're getting rid of it?

flange

August 4th, 2009, 08:13 PM

Workmen were working on the overhead lines by the M60 and Sale Water Park yesterday afternoon to the night and this afternoon, certainly getting on with the work quickly.

flange

August 4th, 2009, 08:37 PM

Trams on track for new stations

David Ottewell

August 05, 2009

MANCHESTER is to get two new stops on the tram line to Bury.

The stops at Queens Road, Collyhurst, and Abraham Moss, Crumpsall, will cost £4m.

They're being paid for by the government under a scheme to improve links to areas lined up for new houses aimed at first-time buyers and families.

Projects totalling £30m were approved - with the north west getting £9m.

The new stops are designed to complement a package of regeneration measures in north Manchester, including new and improved housing, new schools and the remodelling of district centres including Harpurhey.

Council leader Sir Richard Leese said: "This investment will ensure maximum community benefits, building upon the developments planned in the vicinity, including new housing."

He said the new stops should be in use at the same time as the wider Metrolink expansion, which is due to be up and running by 2011.

Tony Lloyd, MP for Manchester Central, said the cash was 'good news from the Labour government'.

"It's putting money into a scheme to invest in our local economy and support much needed new homes," he said.

The £30m is intended to support a £1.5bn housing pledge announced by local government minister John Healey earlier this month.

He committed to building an extra 20,000 affordable homes over the next two years.

Critics claimed the government was trying to `buy votes' by announcing big spending schemes - despite the economic downturn - ahead of a General Election.

Mr Healey said: "We need to ensure that people and families living in new homes have the transport links they need, whether this is a new road, new bus links or cycle paths."

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1129805_trams_on_track_for_new_stations

Caiman

August 4th, 2009, 08:47 PM

Isn't that because they're getting rid of it?
Last time I asked that in this thread I was told they were converting it like they are St Peters, not seen anything official to suggest it is being removed?

Priscilla QOTD

August 4th, 2009, 08:59 PM

No mention of Mosley Street Stop... which also has a low platform that is incompatible with the new trams [double length]?

I also notice Mr Purdy says:

"We're on track to start running services again at the beginning of November and St Peter's Square and Piccadilly Gardens stops really will offer passengers an improved environment in which to wait for their tram."

...which to me implies that even when the Altrincham line reopens at the end of August, St Peter's Square stop will still be closed.

So services from Altrincham and Eccles will be terminating at G-Mex for all of September and October? Has that been confirmed?

WatcherZero

August 5th, 2009, 01:04 AM

In regards the two stations confirmations thats 2 of the 4 possible optional stations going ahead. Im assuming Kingsway Business park is still up in the air but do we know if Hough End is definite?

andysimo123

August 5th, 2009, 01:11 AM

I also notice Mr Purdy says:

...which to me implies that even when the Altrincham line reopens at the end of August, St Peter's Square stop will still be closed.

So services from Altrincham and Eccles will be terminating at G-Mex for all of September and October? Has that been confirmed?

Well the Gmex ramp is inabit of a state so maybe its in line for a refurb during that time. Metman?

Chogmook

August 5th, 2009, 07:49 AM

Cross Street it is then. :no:

New city tram service?
Alan Salter

August 04, 2009

PLANS to send Metrolink trams down Cross Street in the heart of Manchester have been sent to government officials for approval.

A 'business case' has been sent to the Department for Transport (DfT) for a second city-centre tram crossing to cope with the hundreds of extra services every day when the `Big Bang' extensions are built to Rochdale, Oldham, Ashton and the airport.

Details of a building programme for the crossing are likely to be ready by the autumn, said David Leather, chief executive of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE).

The new Cross Street line is included in a £1.5bn package of transport improvements agreed by the region's council chiefs.

The money will come from a variety of sources - including government money and borrowing against increased council tax bills over the next 30 years.

The £1.5bn package was drawn up after an even bigger £3bn scheme - paid for in part by a congestion charge - was rejected in a referendum. The new package does not include congestion charging.

Transport chiefs in Greater Manchester have been looking at two routes for the second city-centre crossing - Cross Street and Deansgate.

Keith Whitmore, chairman of the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA), told the M.E.N: "The preferred option has not really been talked about, but it is no secret that Cross Street is the best way.

"Connecting it to the network would be easier and Cross Street is a little bit more central than Deansgate these days."

Transport bosses have known for years that the current Metrolink line from Victoria to Piccadilly and Manchester Central - formerly known as the G-Mex - does not have enough capacity to cope with an extended system, and that a new line is needed to bypass Piccadilly Gardens and St Peter's Square.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1129745_new_city_tram_service

(B of the) Bang goes a boulevard style Deansgate then.

ScouseinManc

August 5th, 2009, 08:34 AM

Cross Street it is then. :no:

(B of the) Bang goes a boulevard style Deansgate then.

This is disappointing to say the least. IMHO, Cross St is too narrow. Deansgate would have been the much better option. Cash saving excersise perhaps?

rolybling

August 5th, 2009, 08:59 AM

IMHO, Cross St is too narrow.

Mine too, they made the wrong choice

Priscilla QOTD

August 5th, 2009, 02:08 PM

Cross Street it is then. :no:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1129745_new_city_tram_service

(B of the) Bang goes a boulevard style Deansgate then.

I have just read the comments on this article. MEN readers really are as thick as pigshit (apart from the ones that come on this forum, of course!). It infuriates me every single time I read them. I just don't understand how these people can be so goddamn opinionated and pesimistic when they clearly know so little. The MEN's reporting doesn't always help to educate them, but even when the articles are factually correct, it seems the public are incapable of taking the facts on board. I used to post replies once in a while, but it's like proverbially :wallbash:

I really do admire those like Kurt who find the time to try to put them right - I don't know how you do it......

Priscilla QOTD

August 5th, 2009, 02:12 PM

bank street

August 5th, 2009, 04:29 PM

I'm still raving to myself. I mean, some of those suggestions...... Trams should stop at the outskirts - GMex and Piccadilly etc; Let's move loads of jobs out of the city centre and then we won't need public transport to go there, so on and so forth....

I'm in a rage.

Crikey just had a quick read through some of these. I really don't understand the arguement some of these moronic people have regards there should not be a 2CCC because of obesity and it will make people lazy!

I thought the purpose (as described in the article) is to help with capacity thanks to the extra services/lines that will be added to the network.

It defies logic how some of these people's minds work. Must be a few well placed WUMs at work here I suspect.

tomegranate

August 5th, 2009, 04:52 PM

I've clashed with that particular moron at least once before. Mind bogglingly stupid.

Caiman

August 5th, 2009, 05:38 PM

They're idiots incapable of thinking beyond their one-dimensional interpretation of reality, wrapped up in their self important little worlds of ignorance and stupidty, their opinions are useless and invalid and should be laughed at and dismissed.

andysimo123

August 5th, 2009, 06:45 PM

I'd say they've made the right decision on the second line but I'll explain why later.

M€trol1nk

August 5th, 2009, 07:15 PM

Some pictures of Dane Road and under the M60 at Sale Water Park...

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9067/imag0001a.jpg

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7526/imag0002e.jpg

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/178/imag0003hgz.jpg

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5053/imag0004j.jpg

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/3168/imag0005h.jpg

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1176/imag0006a.jpg

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5745/imag0007koa.jpg

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9422/imag0008z.jpg

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/981/imag0009p.jpg

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/6274/imag0010ncu.jpg

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8150/imag0011hye.jpg

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/695/imag0012lqr.jpg

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1895/imag0013s.jpg

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/6335/imag0014.jpg

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/8945/imag0015k.jpg

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9121/imag0016z.jpg

ashley b

August 5th, 2009, 07:54 PM

Work dismantling St Peter's Square coming along well too, from tonights North West Tonight:

http://www.ashfish.net/metrolink/01.jpg

Comdot

August 5th, 2009, 11:32 PM

PS Just dawned on me this might sit better under "Manchester Construction Projects" so if any of the administrators fancy moving this thread then shuffle-away!

there's a thought. :)

Comdot

August 5th, 2009, 11:38 PM

some updates from me. :)

sunday pics, work to line by deansgate stop
http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9045%20copy.jpg

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9046%20copy.jpg

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9063%20copy.jpg

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9064%20copy.jpg

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9065%20copy.jpg

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9059%20copy.jpg

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9061%20copy.jpg

metrolink work at ancoats

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9128%20copy.jpg

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9126%20copy.jpg

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9129%20copy.jpg

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9127%20copy.jpg

st. peter's square

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9169%20copy.jpg

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9172%20copy.jpg

http://www.nickgrayson.net/ssc/2%208%2009/IMG_9170%20copy.jpg

Local Lad

August 5th, 2009, 11:43 PM

Nice pictures metrolink and Nick. Looks as though the new wires are already in place at Sale then?

I walked just behind the camera as they were filming the bbc thing, no one saw me in the background on Tv on at work though!:lol:

They were already putting the new rails down at St Peter Square this evening, towards Mosley Street

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/DSC00692.jpg

M€trol1nk

August 6th, 2009, 09:51 AM

Think they have only taken the out bound line down so far to be honest.

Not wanting to tempt fate, but the huge coil of copper under the M60 must surely have more protection against theft that appears at first glance???

MarkO

August 6th, 2009, 11:30 AM

How impressive is the all that work going on shown in all the above ^^pix by Metrolink and Nick and Locallad????

Looks like Manchester IS going to get the transit system it deserves and a few people on here will have to be eating their hats! Bravo to all involved (bit of shame so much of it had to be closed for so long, but given the almost complete rebuild of the existing line & the fabul-arse extensions suppose we cannot argue!).

DEANSGATE OR BUST
Meantime on the Deansgate debate am once again sharing grimaces with Priscilla QOTD. Even if we ignore all the idiots on the MEN comments page, who seriously have no ambition or long term outlook on life beyond mediocrity, we surely must shed a tear that a golden opportunity may have been missed to swing the 2CC line off Cross St and round onto Deansgate, even if only for one or two stops.:ohno:

There's been no single convincing argument (except cost) why this should not happen, and to sacrifice this opportunity on the altar of an accounts book seems churlish given everything that's happened up to this point!

(PS: Forget the insertion points people - the 2CC Deansgate option could easily leave and rejoin the original route at exactly the same place as the Cross St Route - it's just the Deansgate section Spinningfields to Kendals that we're talking about, it really does seem to hold enormous benefits at such a tiny additional cost IMHO - and besides 8/10 SCC cats prefer it!):banana:

M€trol1nk

August 6th, 2009, 11:59 AM

Mark - that is a TINY proportion of the number of people around.

I have been wlaking around between Stretford down to Brooklands recently, there are scores of people working on this at the moment, not been into town since the closure (vacation time - woo hoo) but expect it to be very very busy down there.

M€trol1nk

August 6th, 2009, 12:02 PM

MarkO

August 6th, 2009, 01:33 PM

With regards Deansgate, as has already been said those who make these decisions do so with much much more information than we could ever dream of accessing.

They wll have taken the best decision for the long term of Metrolink / the city centre.

For example, would you have sacrificed the Chorlton - East Dids line for a Deansgate alignment?

If the 'extra' money became available would you go down the Deansgate aligment or build the eastern side of the airport loop?

These are not easy decisions, to be honest I have confidence in those that have a lot more information than we do.

Mmmmmmmmmm. Fair point, Metrolink and extremely succinctly argued, as ever.

BUT before U & others join the camp, here's a few extra facts!

Victoria/Cross St/Corporation St/Peter St/Lower Mosely Street = 1145metres
requiring 5 signaled junctions across busy roads

Victoria/Cross St/St Ann St/Deansgate/Peter Street/Lwr Mosely St = 1475m
requiring 6 signaled junctions across busy roads

An added distance of just 330metres and 1 junction - we're hardly talking about even the distance of the mediacity branch let alone East Didsbury or the Airport loop.

If they are already needing to pay for the Cross St route, it really would not be a large fraction - 25% extra, if that - to send it partly down Deansgate with all the added benefits of improving the spread of stops past important developments.

So have a little think about it - by the time we've all reflected and written a reply central Government would have wasted 100 times that amount on consultants/London/giving money to bankers etc.:doh:

Vince Noir

August 6th, 2009, 02:18 PM

Mmmmmmmmmm. Fair point, Metrolink and extremely succinctly argued, as ever.

BUT before U & others join the camp, here's a few extra facts!

Victoria/Cross St/Corporation St/Peter St/Lower Mosely Street = 1145metres
requiring 5 signaled junctions across busy roads

Victoria/Cross St/St Ann St/Deansgate/Peter Street/Lwr Mosely St = 1475m
requiring 6 signaled junctions across busy roads

An added distance of just 330metres and 1 junction - we're hardly talking about even the distance of the mediacity branch let alone East Didsbury or the Airport loop.

If they are already needing to pay for the Cross St route, it really would not be a large fraction - 25% extra, if that - to send it partly down Deansgate with all the added benefits of improving the spread of stops past important developments.

So have a little think about it - by the time we've all reflected and written a reply central Government would have wasted 100 times that amount on consultants/London/giving money to bankers etc.:doh:

I'm sorry but this kind of ill-informed judgement is bordering on childish!
It may not necessarily be cost that has tipped the balance towards Cross Street, deliverability is a much bigger show-stopper in many cases.

The only FACTS you have are distances measured off a map. As I'm sure you're aware there are a few more things to be considered than that. It's fine to have an opinion, that's great and debate is a wonderful thing, but stop questioning professional's judgement, ability and vision based upon nothing but your own opinions. Have you been out and surveyed the potential routes?

M€trol1nk

August 6th, 2009, 02:25 PM

Vince Noir

August 6th, 2009, 02:33 PM

Indeed, just to backup what Vince is stating.

None of us have a clue what utilities are underneath each route, we have no idea of what Compulasry Purchases would be required for each of the routes.

For example, I am sure there are huge water and gas mains running the length of Deansgate, that could / would be incredibly costly to sort out - Cross Street MAY be much simpler - we simply do not know.

Anyway - Vince - any idea if the current city centre works will put in the required junctions for 2CC?

I very much doubt it - the business case has only just gone to DfT for approval according to the MEN. It would be nice to put in the connections during the current blockades but I can't see it happening. Where would the cash come from?

M€trol1nk

August 6th, 2009, 02:36 PM

I would hope the Transport Fund / PTE would be able to 'find' the money as was the case for the extra cross over that is being added near Mosley Street, however, I do appreciate the issues and realise it would have been incredibly hard to deliver at such a time.

Anyway, suppose with the extra cross over near Mosley Street the possible disruption may be minimised.

M€trol1nk

August 6th, 2009, 02:40 PM

MarkO

August 6th, 2009, 03:07 PM

Vince, please do not read my postings as 'having a go' at anyone involved in this huge project, trust me, I have the highest admiration for those that are delivering this highly comlpex, politically testing scheme, I am very proud that the city I live in is achiving this given the state of the rest of non-London England.

...and may I add Vince that your comment was a little heavy handed, I hope I've never been so curt to other forummers, surely we are entitled to opinions, most of which by nature will be personal - that's kind of the point of this whole forum anyway isn't it? And is surely nothing different from thousands of comments by enthusiastic amateurs posted above?

As it happens I also have huge respect for the professionals and have friends who work for GMPTE, and I have massive admiration for what Manchester has achieved in the face of a Whitehall that has at best been lukewarm to lightrail and at worst been downright hostile (and I've said as much many times on these pages).

Indeed there may well be other infrastructure issues at stake on Deansgate as Metrolink points out, but to simply slate my comments as 'childish' (when 'measured off a map' or not, it's the first concrete 'fact' we've had on here about the 2CC routing debate for some time) is really a bit disingenuous.

I've always had respect for your postings Vince whether they are personal or not or whether I agree with them or not, I would hope that you could extend the same courtesy to mine?

Of course I've not surveyed either route (other than on foot) coz I do not have access to the equipment and documents needed. What might be very interesting of course would be to see the results of the professionals surveys and see what they did or did not consider for 2CC. Then we would know for sure if 330 meters extra was rejected on cost grounds or for other reasons. Or if any other route options were considered too for that matter. Without such information being in the public domain, enthusiastic amateurs who are only arguing for the best options for the city as they see it (personally, of course) are bound to buzz about this and other sites.

andysimo123

August 6th, 2009, 06:36 PM

24 hours later and now I'll explain why any Deansgate route would have been a huge mistake. The problem comes down to traffic vs trams and while I am pro tram/train the possible closing of deansgate for trams or running trams in traffic causes its own problems. If anyone wants the current City Centre line and Cross Street to be possibly shut off to Buses and other traffic, Deansgate has to stay open as it is now. I think the road layout needs fixing but it can't be closed to general traffic. You can't have Deansgate, Cross Street and Mosely Street all pedestrian zones with trams running down them. Bus routes and other traffic would be forced into huge bottle necks at either end with no where to go. Running trams in traffic down Deansgate would be an accident waiting to happen. The best thing to do is to close off Mosley Street and Cross Street leaving Portland Road and Deansgate open. A second route is built, trams have less risk of crashing and mad traffic jams don't appear for most of the day. I see sensible no reason to run trams down Deansgate.

URBANISER

August 6th, 2009, 07:23 PM

I'm sorry but this kind of ill-informed judgement is bordering on childish!
It may not necessarily be cost that has tipped the balance towards Cross Street, deliverability is a much bigger show-stopper in many cases.

The only FACTS you have are distances measured off a map. As I'm sure you're aware there are a few more things to be considered than that. It's fine to have an opinion, that's great and debate is a wonderful thing, but stop questioning professional's judgement, ability and vision based upon nothing but your own opinions. Have you been out and surveyed the potential routes?

Childish! Facts! For F***s sake give the OPINION a chance!

Vince Noir

August 6th, 2009, 09:56 PM

...and may I add Vince that your comment was a little heavy handed, I hope I've never been so curt to other forummers, surely we are entitled to opinions, most of which by nature will be personal - that's kind of the point of this whole forum anyway isn't it? And is surely nothing different from thousands of comments by enthusiastic amateurs posted above?

As it happens I also have huge respect for the professionals and have friends who work for GMPTE, and I have massive admiration for what Manchester has achieved in the face of a Whitehall that has at best been lukewarm to lightrail and at worst been downright hostile (and I've said as much many times on these pages).

Indeed there may well be other infrastructure issues at stake on Deansgate as Metrolink points out, but to simply slate my comments as 'childish' (when 'measured off a map' or not, it's the first concrete 'fact' we've had on here about the 2CC routing debate for some time) is really a bit disingenuous.

I've always had respect for your postings Vince whether they are personal or not or whether I agree with them or not, I would hope that you could extend the same courtesy to mine?

Of course I've not surveyed either route (other than on foot) coz I do not have access to the equipment and documents needed. What might be very interesting of course would be to see the results of the professionals surveys and see what they did or did not consider for 2CC. Then we would know for sure if 330 meters extra was rejected on cost grounds or for other reasons. Or if any other route options were considered too for that matter. Without such information being in the public domain, enthusiastic amateurs who are only arguing for the best options for the city as they see it (personally, of course) are bound to buzz about this and other sites.

Mark

Please accept my apologies for my ealier post. I was having a bad day at work but that's no excuse for the tone of my post, which was far too strong and very out of character. It was not intended to be a personal attack.
I sometimes forget I'm posting on a discussion board and am not at work and for that I also apologise.

For what it's worth I would like to see a tram route down Deansgate - it being traffic free would be great, but the challenges highlighted in the city centre strategy (posted many times on here) have obviously proved too great.

I think we can all agree that Manchester is certainly heading in the right direction (finally!). The next few years are going to be very exciting times.

Again, I apologise for the tone of my post.

Vince

MarkO

August 6th, 2009, 11:14 PM

Mark

Please accept my apologies for my ealier post. I was having a bad day at work but that's no excuse for the tone of my post, which was far too strong and very out of character. It was not intended to be a personal attack.
I sometimes forget I'm posting on a discussion board and am not at work and for that I also apologise.

For what it's worth I would like to see a tram route down Deansgate - it being traffic free would be great, but the challenges highlighted in the city centre strategy (posted many times on here) have obviously proved too great.

I think we can all agree that Manchester is certainly heading in the right direction (finally!). The next few years are going to be very exciting times.

Again, I apologise for the tone of my post.

Vince

Vince, hugely impressed that you took the time to write those words above. Thanks very much indeed.

Hey we all have bad days & I'm quite sure I have written a few dodgy comments in the heat of the moment on here now and again!

Anyhow no hard feelings Vince and good to get back to the debate.

In fact I think you've done us a favour because it probably is wise when we dreamers suggest things that we probably should have our feet more firmly on the ground....& having thought it through, I accept that I did massively under-estimate the issue of having three of the main road routes through Manchester with trams on.

What is GREAT is that we are having this debate - it was only so recently that we were facing the possibility of all bets off on any extensions at all!

heatonparkincakes

August 7th, 2009, 01:05 AM

Personally until I actually see and experience it happen before my eyes, I will take any Metrolink plans with a Northwich sized dose of salt.

In the last decade, its been Yes, No, Yes, No and then Yes to its expansion.

So those in charge today of GMITA would like the 2cc to traverse past the Arndale, the Royal Exchange and then through Albert Sq.

As opposed to those who wish to see it travel down Deansgate.

Basically i feel its a shopper v office debate.
Or maybe if I am cynical, one route goes past a town hall and the other doesnt. Guess who the politicians favour? erm hard that one Heaton?

What does the GMITA think would benefit most.

Then there is construction cost
Congestion and other transport connection issues
Utilities
What will the DfT fund

However I still would argue this is not the main issue. For me the pressing qustions that are yet to be answered are:

How to manage capacity at either ends between Queens Rd and Victoria and most especially at Cornbrook.

How can this be managed to allow the vaunted (dreamlike of Rochdale and Salford MBC) expansions to Middleton, Little Hulton, etc.

How do we manage the Oxford Road bus madness.

And in the background. Where would a tram-train route cross the city from east to west?

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 12:49 PM

zapaman

August 7th, 2009, 01:09 PM

flange

August 7th, 2009, 01:15 PM

The building at the top of Dane Road is coming down as we speak. The entire station seems to being demolosuhed very fast.

Think, but am probably wrong, that the lift on the inbound platform is going to be removed and replaced with a rap heading up to the resource centre.

Looks like the lift is staying the building will be totally demolished the only remaining thing will be the entrance if it is structurally sound, planning application for the work at Dane Road station is here.

http://planningdocs.trafford.gov.uk/pamsearch/planning_application_search_pam.jsp?APPLICATION_NUMBER=H/71725&SearchType=Planning%20Application/

zapaman

August 7th, 2009, 01:18 PM

Just one further thought / query. Whilst clearly I don;t agree with the people on the MEN site saying that 'all trams should stop on the edge of the city centre'. It might I suppose be worth considering (maybe as a temporary measure) having an additional terminus platform at Victoria, ie located in part of the current covered car park. Thoughts? Comments?
It wouldn't be as convenient for me (travelling as I do on the Bury line), but it would at least allow trams to be turned around at Victoria without occupying the current platforms.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 01:26 PM

Zapa - I think that is the plan.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 01:27 PM

Thanks flange.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 01:35 PM

I would be very dissapointed to see a Metrolink platform in Albert Square. It would completely spoil the ambience in the Square. Metrolink already passes the Town Hall in St Peters Square. The tramlines would probably need to be built on rubber to stop shaking the Albert Memorial to pieces.

Is it possible that they could run the track from Cross St into Princess St connecting in St Peter's Square with the original line.

There seems little space to put platforms in along any part of this route except in Albert Square and Exchange Square.

alr1970

August 7th, 2009, 01:45 PM

More views from the South Manchester junction construction site:
piling for the junction:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2482/3798043752_c8af93d888_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970/3798043752/)

View north from the Ayres Road bridge
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/3795502447_54d380fc16_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alr1970/3795502447/)

Andrew

zapaman

August 7th, 2009, 01:50 PM

Zapa - I think that is the plan.
What is the plan?
The terminus platform at Victoria? or
The stops at Exchange Sq and Albert Sq? or
all of the above?

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 02:02 PM

Zapa - my response was related to the plan to put an extra turning point on the line at Victoria to allow for faster turning of trams at that stations.

I would imagine that stops will appear somewhere in Albert Sq, hopefully near to where the Square Albert pub used to be / still is. Think there is plenty of room down there to avoid making a mess of the square.

Almost certain that the turning circle of the tram would not allo for them going along Princess St.

As has been also pointed out, where the wheel currently is seems another sensible locaion for another stop.

Wonder what will happen with the bollards to stop traffic?

Could be removed I presume and it made very clear that it is only a bus and tram route with people who chose to ignore the signs sent fines in the post, the route being monitored by saftey cameras.

zapaman

August 7th, 2009, 02:10 PM

Thanks M€trol1nk!
When would they put in the 'extra turning point on the line at Victoria'? Is it part of the Phase 3a works? Would it include a terminus platform? What would be the service patern for trams using the terminus platform?

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 02:19 PM

A bollard or barrier could be controlled by the tram driver.

MarkO

August 7th, 2009, 02:24 PM

For what it's worth and to add my weight to the debate I think that the Cross St option is probably the best. I say this primarily because of the road closure issues that would result if Metrolink were to run down Corporation St and Deansgate. I guess the transit times between Vic and Gmex would also be quicker down Cross St as there would be fewer tight bends to negotiate (I may be wrong - comments welcome). The other issue would be where to locate the stops.
With the Cross St route it should be fairly easy to locate stops at Exchange Square and then at Albert Square. The stop at Exchange Square would be close to where the big wheel is currently (temporarily) located and close the steps into the new section of the Arndale.
A stop at Albert Square would also be fairly simple to locate without blocking (vehicular) access to nearby buildings. The location would probably be along where the taxi rank is currently located, ie opposite Brazennose St and Lloyd.

Good points here IMHO. And to add to the debate here's an extremely amateur rough guess at walking times to tram stops on the various options.

Offered not as an argument for or against either, simply to enable debate. (Obviously as pointed about above this is not a simplistic argument, there are loads more issues than simply discussing a geographic spread of stations, or journey times across the centre, and I am a complete amateur not a professional, but I offer this simply to give us more thoughts on the discussion - and because zapaman mentioned possible station locations).

One aspect that this does show up which has perhaps not been mentioned much before on either side is that the very centre of Manchester geographically - ie King Street/Brown St/Spring Gardens (what used to be called the CBD) - is one of the furthest from either existing or planned routes!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3798112176_487d0781d3_o.jpg

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 02:25 PM

but, the bollard comes up very rapidly when a bus passes over it - having double units complicates matter enormously - you don't want to spear the second tram.

It also needs to work 100% of the time, spearing a tram would be enormously expensive.

Zapa - not sure of the details.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 03:45 PM

I'm sure they can re-jig it. It's a machine not a living thing.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 03:48 PM

My thoughts, however, the reliability will need to be extremely high.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 03:52 PM

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 03:53 PM

Some pictures of Sale station being done up, not easy to get a good view of the works there...

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/5133/imag0017bvj.jpg

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2606/imag0018vkk.jpg

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/362/imag0019g.jpg

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5663/imag0020mec.jpg

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/7605/imag0021t.jpg

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 03:54 PM

And so it should be, why shouldn't it. You don't catch a plane expecting it to crash or catch a Pendolino expecting it to go through a red signal.

It will need to be set correctly and properly maintained, is that beyond GMITA?

It ain't going to be controlled by the PTE though is it?

The highways do not come under their remit.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 03:56 PM

whoever controls it I'm sure they have the ability to communicate with the PTE and vice versa.

Or get rid of it.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 04:01 PM

I am too sure it is possible, I just worry that tram add significant complexity to a relatively simple current setup.

With complexity brings costs, not just setup but also maintenance costs.

For example, how long does it take to shift a car that has got impaled onto a bollard at the moment? During that time the trams are diverted or stuck.

When will the devices be repaired if they are hit?

I ain't saying it is impossible, just I am interested in how this particular problem will be overcome.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 04:16 PM

I'm sure Stagecoach will sue the shit of however owns the bollard if it damages a unit, a) for the damage b) for the lost revenue.

It might not be worth the while keeping the thing.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 04:24 PM

spoonsbeatfish

August 7th, 2009, 05:06 PM

For what it's worth and to add my weight to the debate I think that the Cross St option is probably the best. I say this primarily because of the road closure issues that would result if Metrolink were to run down Corporation St and Deansgate. I guess the transit times between Vic and Gmex would also be quicker down Cross St as there would be fewer tight bends to negotiate (I may be wrong - comments welcome). The other issue would be where to locate the stops.
With the Cross St route it should be fairly easy to locate stops at Exchange Square and then at Albert Square. The stop at Exchange Square would be close to where the big wheel is currently (temporarily) located and close the steps into the new section of the Arndale.
A stop at Albert Square would also be fairly simple to locate without blocking (vehicular) access to nearby buildings. The location would probably be along where the taxi rank is currently located, ie opposite Brazennose St and Lloyd.

While a stop at Albert Square should be fairly easy with regard traffic etc, I hope if they do put it there, (especially if its in front of Brazennose St) they sink the track by a foot and a half (just for the station) so that the platforms are only a foot and a half off the ground and do not cause such a break in the area. A stop there could create a major barrier for pedestrians crossing Albert Square, down brazannose down to Deansgate which during markets like x-mas would be a particular shame.

Personally I'd prefer they sink all the station lines so they create less of an impact on the area but I don't think thats going to happen, partly from cost and partly from operationally the trams going down sudden gradients needing better breaks and slowing down acceleration when they move off from stations.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 05:16 PM

Indeed, but the risk that the bollards may possibly damage the trams will cause those that operate the things to charge the council a much higher fare to run the things as the risk to their bottom line will have gone through the roof.

I agree it may not be worth keeping the things, not sure how many cars actually try to travel down Mosley Street as it is.

That implies the council is the client and has commissioned the bollard and farmed it out to a private operator. Maybe the council's representative on the PTE will speak about it.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 05:17 PM

While a stop at Albert Square should be fairly easy with regard traffic etc, I hope if they do put it there, (especially if its in front of Brazennose St) they sink the track by a foot and a half (just for the station) so that the platforms are only a foot and a half off the ground and do not cause such a break in the area. A stop there could create a major barrier for pedestrians crossing Albert Square, down brazannose down to Deansgate which during markets like x-mas would be a particular shame.

Personally I'd prefer they sink all the station lines so they create less of an impact on the area but I don't think thats going to happen, partly from cost and partly from operationally the trams going down sudden gradients needing better breaks and slowing down acceleration when they move off from stations.

A stop in Albert Square would be an Aesthetic disaster.

spoonsbeatfish

August 7th, 2009, 05:17 PM

spoonsbeatfish

August 7th, 2009, 05:22 PM

A stop in Albert Square would be an Aesthetic disaster.

Maybe, but I think thats where one of the stops would go, so I would hope its asthetic damage could be minimised (maybe through reducing the height of the station's platforms.

At least it will bring more people to the area and perceptualise Albert Square as more the centre of the city and not just Picc Gardens.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 05:30 PM

Maybe, but I think thats where one of the stops would go, so I would hope its asthetic damage could be minimised (maybe through reducing the height of the station's platforms.

At least it will bring more people to the area and perceptualise Albert Square as more the centre of the city and not just Picc Gardens.

It's not the centre of the city though, there is nothing there apart from offices and the Town Hall. It's a nice corner that needs to be kept that way. The commercial heart of the city is a triangle between Piccadilly, Exchange Square and the point were Deansgate meets King St.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 05:38 PM

Looking at Albert Sq I don't think there will be a stop in there.

You need 70-80m of straight road, that takes up an awful lot of the square.

I suspect that Mount St and Cross St further north may be considered.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 05:44 PM

Looking at Albert Sq I don't think there will be a stop in there.

You need 90m of straight road, that takes up an awful lot of the square.

I suspect that Mount St and Cross St further north may be considered.

If you look at St Peter's Sq on Google maps, the platform is very long and would destroy the ambience of Albert Sq.

I still think the tram will turn into Princess St, the angle is no tighter than Piccadilly Gardens into Moseley St. Look at the overhead views.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 05:48 PM

I may be completely wrong about this, but I got the impression that all Bollard vehicles had 2 sensors/emitors, one at the front of the vehicle to get them to lower and one at the back to get them to rise again and thats how it works considering a police car/ambulance is half the size of a bus. Couldn't the trams just have the same or if its not like that, change it so it was?

Problem being, on a double unit once the first tram has passed the bollards will smack into the second tram.

I'd guess it wouldn't be worth it but maybe a possibility?

Sure something could be done, but not too sure what.

Seperately, Metrolink, is there going to be 3 or 4 platforms at Victoria after 3a or 3b? I think when reading the Victoria (Muse?) masterplan it said something about new platforms but not sure.

There are already 3 platforms there - just one is not used as the roof is literally falling in.

I think the changes relate to the fact that the track will be adjusted to allow for trams turning from either direction much easier and out of the way of other traffic.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 05:51 PM

If you look at St Peter's Sq on Google maps, the platform is very long and would destroy the ambience of Albert Sq.

I still think the tram will turn into Princess St, the angle is no tighter than Piccadilly Gardens into Moseley St. Look at the overhead views.

The plans have already been made public, the tracks go down Mount St and rejoin around the back of Midland Hotel so forget Princess Str.

Looking at Google Earth I reckon that stations will be places to 'alternate' with the existing stations.

i.e. there will not be a station in Albert Sq as there is already one about 100m away.

However, one on Mount St near the Peter St junction and one just passed the Princess St junction (heading north) and then possibly by Urbis allows for three stops a long way from existing stops.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 06:02 PM

Seems odd that the Midland would be happy with trams on three sides. Is the plane a foregone conclusion or a discussion document.

There is space behind the Friends meeting house but a platform would entail road closures on either side.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 06:21 PM

Those who run the Midland are not going to have much choice I suspect.

Planning application will go in once the government approved the T&WA.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 06:26 PM

Is there a link to an official document showing the route ? I can't seem to see anything when I Google it, just the acknowledgement that there will be a second crossing.

spoonsbeatfish

August 7th, 2009, 06:30 PM

Problem being, on a double unit once the first tram has passed the bollards will smack into the second tram.

I should have addedm that they would need to come up with an automatic switch off of the respective front and back sensors if two trams are put together. That way the bollards would just recognise it as 1 long vehicle not 2 but in any case I'm sure they will sort it out.

There are already 3 platforms there - just one is not used as the roof is literally falling in.

I think the changes relate to the fact that the track will be adjusted to allow for trams turning from either direction much easier and out of the way of other traffic.

Thanks for the info. It's disgraceful that the station has got to such a bad state that platforms can't be used because of safety issues!!!

I suppose it being a train station and not in the centre of town you could just have longer platforms with multiple tram units one behind the other (once LOS comes into play). That's what I found at most city centre tram station in Helsinki (which ran very well, if a little slow).

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 06:32 PM

Is there a link to an official document showing the route ? I can't seem to see anything when I Google it, just the acknowledgement that there will be a second crossing.

Someone posted a link on here ages ago, think the old TIF documents had the exact details of the route chosen (and the one not chosen).

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 06:34 PM

Seems strange that I can't find anything other than words. I will initiate another search.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 06:35 PM

You won't from Google.

Have a gander through the TIF docs.

It was half ay through one of them.

Unless you know the name of the pdf you will never find it.

spoonsbeatfish

August 7th, 2009, 06:38 PM

Is there a link to an official document showing the route ? I can't seem to see anything when I Google it, just the acknowledgement that there will be a second crossing.

http://www.gmfuturetransport.co.uk/pdf/000175_booklet2-what.pdf

Page 44

I think it was also in the Draft Strategic transport plan. I couldn't say if that would be the definite route though.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 06:42 PM

Thats is the one.

There is an incredibly low chance that the plans will have changed from then.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 06:48 PM

They are marked as "possible"

However assuming option 1 is probable, looking at the distance between stations in the centre, there is no need for an Albert Square Station or any station on option 1 until it reaches King St.

I can't see there being more than two stations on this section.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 06:52 PM

They are both 'possible' as that is an old TIF document.

The T&WA has gone in for Option 1.

Not sure where the first stop will be, but I think the aim is for a stop every 400m - 800m.

Get on Google Earth and see where that puts you.

Isaac Newell

August 7th, 2009, 06:54 PM

It puts you in the middle of a building. You have to go with the topography.

M€trol1nk

August 7th, 2009, 06:56 PM

It is 750m between G-Mex and the start of Albert Sq - well within the realms of having a stop before there, more than 1km to King Street.

I am almost certain that there will be a stop between G-Mex and King St, very rare to have that kind of distance between stops on street running trams in a city centre.

spoonsbeatfish

August 7th, 2009, 07:00 PM

From that drawing/diagram it looks as if the Deansgate route may have tunnelled under Cheethams, which I don't believe they would ever do. I guess the route although not that clear would have gone along Fennel Street which would have destroyed Cathedral Gardens and the tranquility of the area.

The more I think about it, the more I've changed my mind and would prefer a Cross Street option. it will be faster and cheaper and serve the centre of the city which is where most people want to go. It's only a couple of minutes away from Deansgate and considering people will quite happily walk for 5-10 min after commuting in by train/tram I don't think it will make too much difference for Spinningfields.

Most importantly though, traffic should barely be affected by the Cross Street option where as it would probably be chaos on Deansgate or wherever the traffic was diverted to. Trams bustling along Cross street would probably make the route a bit more busy which since it has stopped general traffic can be fairly quiet and trams should not cause as much of a pedestrian risk as cars. Firstly there are far fewer, secondly they are much more obvious and thirdly they wont be speed starting/driving recklessly.

On a personal point I would also quite like Deansgate to be pedestrianised eventually (or at least part of it) and would prefer that to trams running through it. Just to clarify though. I would not pedestrianise the whole road now as it could lead to a ghost town effect. If the traffic could be diverted without problem (big if) I would consider the section between St Mary's Street and St Mary's gate (possibly even up to Kendals) to have traffic removed and let all the cafe's bars spill out on to the road. When the Cathedral square plans go ahead a bulk of traffic will have to be diverted anyway. If that got done then possibly in the future, once the King Street works and the Rennaisance gets replaced then it could be extended to run from John Dalton Street all the way to the Cathedral/Irwell. The area seems to be doing fairly well now without traffic going completely crazy so maybe this could happen? Anyway wrong thread