TRANSPORT | Metrolink

[Freel07]

Originally Posted by Bradfordian2

I was at the scene within a few minutes of the incident happening and from what I overheard it would seem that someone working on the Primark refurbishment had inadvertently disconnected the tensioning wire which then slackened and drooped in front of the pantograph of the M5000 shown in the photograph (which I think was 3037 on the 1939 St Werburgh's to Oldham). I don't think anything actually fell on to the wires, and I couldn't see anything wrong with the running wire, which I presume remained live. Didn't look too serious, and I'd be surprised if things aren't back to normal in the morning.
The Eccles line and Picc-Alt continued more or less as normal, of course, and at the time of the suspension of service there were three of the Oldham/Werbys trams south of the problem point, i.e. one short of the number needed to operate a twelve minute service between Piccadilly and Werbys, but also still south of Delta at the time were four Alt directs which should have been heading for Queens Road (two double T68s and two solo M5000s) - there should have been five, but one had already missed a trip - and three solo trams similarly due to run into Queens Road, but ex-Eccles/Media. The consequence of this was that trams just kept being sent to Altrincham to get them out of the way - this included one which should have been doing Picc-Burys (2001). One of the M5000s still out at the time (ex-directs) was 3031, which I haven't seen reported as having entered service - was today its first day?

Right time right place Bradfordian!

I had cause to be around the system today for work purposes and had a look at the Market Street site. Apparently the problem was as you say caused by the scaffolders although my sources put a slightly different slant on the actual cause than you were given. The problem was that in erecting the scaffolding they decided that one of the pull off ropes was in their way and decided to cut the nuts on the building fixings on Primark. Hardly inadvertent and to be honest I'm surprised they were allowed to continue working as they would have needed a Permit to Work from Metrolink. Even this morning the way the scaffolding is erected compromises the OLE pull offs as they were stacking poles and planks right under the ropes and in at least 2 places the ropes were in contact with the scaffold poles which could well cause damage to the ropes. No doubt the Metrolink Engineers will have been on site this morning. The photos below showing the ropes and scaffold were taken around 07:30 and they were still erecting it then. By the time I went past around 12:00 they had disappeared so whether they had been stopped or had completed their job I don't know.











By the way I believe you were right about 3031, it was it's first day I think.

[Manchester77]

I've noticed that it seems to be all M5000s on the Eccles route. My observations show that following the introduction of M5000s T68As have been mainly but on Piccadilly to Bury duties allowing more T68s to be doubled up for the bury to alty directs.
Has anyone else seen this?

[kriis101]

Originally Posted by Manchester77

I've noticed that it seems to be all M5000s on the Eccles route. My observations show that following the introduction of M5000s T68As have been mainly but on Piccadilly to Bury duties allowing more T68s to be doubled up for the bury to alty directs.
Has anyone else seen this?

I think they are just minimising the chance of a 'vehicle failure', by using M5000s as much as possible. This means that T68s run the double directs and T68As run the Bury-Pics.

[future.architect]

Failed vehicle at Sale, everyone thown off at Cornbrook.

Another t68 to go in the bin probably

[kriis101]

Originally Posted by r02bapurdie

Also they had trams running on the Oldham line again early this Morning around 2ish and I think they had two trams running up and down the line, so we should be seeing two new trams entrying into service soon then probably any tram between 3032 to 3036 will entry into service.

I think one of them was more likely to be 3057 on its commissioning runs.

[Kofieye]

Originally Posted by apologiesforthedelay

Kids are back to school. Not enough doubles running Alti-Bury

Quite. They make M5000s unsavoury places, don't they?

Originally Posted by r02bapurdie

Do u work for Metrolink or know someone who works for Metrolink Bradford as how the hell do u know all this stuff like which tram should be on this route or this tram will be heading back to depot at 8pm?

Also they had trams running on the Oldham line again early this Morning around 2ish and I think they had two trams running up and down the line, so we should be seeing two new trams entrying into service soon then probably any tram between 3032 to 3036 will entry into service.

It's a little scary isn't it. I think we established that he does it with a pair of eyes, a pencil and a lot of free time

[Bradfordian2]

Originally Posted by Kofieye

It's a little scary isn't it. I think we established that he does it with a pair of eyes, a pencil and a lot of free time

You've got me weighed up all wrong - I don't use a pencil, I can afford a biro. Mind you, I lost the top off it ages ago..

[Kofieye]

Originally Posted by Bradfordian2

You've got me weighed up all wrong - I don't use a pencil, I can afford a biro. Mind you, I lost the top off it ages ago..

Hahah. Sorry. I'm hard wired to pencils, my dad's a joiner and that combined with the fact that we were never allowed to use pens in primary school...

[apologiesforthedelay]

Team failure at ladywell. Eccles trams turning at Weaste.

PID at exchange quay was showing the word DELAY next to the affected service on the outbound platform.

[r02bapurdie]

I took this picture at 2am last night of tram going past my house (sorry if u can't see it as I took it from my phone.

image hosted on flickr

Metrolink tram at night

[Futurelink]

Originally Posted by apologiesforthedelay

Team failure at ladywell. Eccles trams turning at Weaste.

PID at exchange quay was showing the word DELAY next to the affected service on the outbound platform.

Another T68 I presume? Although the Eccles line is usually dominated my M5000s so who knows.

[r02bapurdie]

Originally Posted by Futurelink

Another T68 I presume? Although the Eccles line is usually dominated my M5000s so who knows.

I saw 2001 tram today and that were going to Eccles or MediaCity so it could be that one? also I saw the 3031 tram too this Afternoon as Victoria going to Bury.

[Kofieye]

Originally Posted by apologiesforthedelay

Team failure at ladywell. Eccles trams turning at Weaste.

PID at exchange quay was showing the word DELAY next to the affected service on the outbound platform.

Yeah, forgot to mention, I've noticed this too. It flashes "DELAY" in the place of the timer for a few seconds as a prerequisite to increasing the remaining time... I think. Or possibly leaving the same time up for longer than a minute. I guess it amounts to the same thing.

Originally Posted by r02bapurdie

I saw 2001 tram today and that were going to Eccles or MediaCity so it could be that one? also I saw the 3031 tram too this Afternoon as Victoria going to Bury.

Very interesting. I got on 2001 this morning, t'was bound for Eccles. It seems to have something along the lines of "Do not use full throttle from standstill" written by the handle. We also got stuck behind 1019 whose step wouldn't go back in at Mosley St! Poor old bugger.

And unfortunately, I also saw an M5000 at Pic Gardens displaying "Piccadilly via Woodlands Road" this afternoon. Maybe this was 3031?

[Freel07]

Originally Posted by Kofieye

Yeah, forgot to mention, I've noticed this too. It flashes "DELAY" in the place of the timer for a few seconds as a prerequisite to increasing the remaining time... I think. Or possibly leaving the same time up for longer than a minute. I guess it amounts to the same thing.

I've noticed this on the Oldham Line a couple of times. I think what happens is that the 'Delay' info comes up when a tram is obviously late but the system has no information about its location. An example I have seen was at Freehold inbound a couple of weeks ago. The sign had been showing the first tram as normal counting down to it's scheduled arrival. Once its scheduled departure time from Mumps had passed without the tram actually setting off the display showed 'Delay'. When it finally set off the expected arrival returned and counted down until the tram arrived. I hope my attempt to describe what I mean makes sense.

As a side note the expected times between Oldham and Freehold did seem to be shorter than the actual which supports the view about the slow running and the possibility that things may tighten up when the route is extended. either that or minutes are longer in the Oldham timezone.

[r02bapurdie]

Originally Posted by Freel07

I've noticed this on the Oldham Line a couple of times. I think what happens is that the 'Delay' info comes up when a tram is obviously late but the system has no information about its location. An example I have seen was at Freehold inbound a couple of weeks ago. The sign had been showing the first tram as normal counting down to it's scheduled arrival. Once its scheduled departure time from Mumps had passed without the tram actually setting off the display showed 'Delay'. When it finally set off the expected arrival returned and counted down until the tram arrived. I hope my attempt to describe what I mean makes sense.

As a side note the expected times between Oldham and Freehold did seem to be shorter than the actual which supports the view about the slow running and the possibility that things may tighten up when the route is extended. either that or minutes are longer in the Oldham timezone.

I notice that at Freehold and at Hollinwood it say "St Werburgh's Road - 5 mins" and next one say "DELAY" on it some tim but stupid thing is like this Sunday it will't have any thing on Manchester side of platform were it should say "Piccadilly 4 mins" but not it just have info at bottom of PIDS

[laser2k]

The inbound PID at Salford Quays appears broken - lots of flickering making it essentially unreadable....

[TJF]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but could it be considered a mistake to have kept the high platform design on the Metrolink, rather than lowering the old rail platforms like has happened on other systems?

I know it's not a major issue, just wondering what peoples opinions are.

[LNGCats]

Never a viable option.

In 92 litre floor trams were a rarity.

Money was not around to let the phase 1 platforms at the time.

Never been the business case to rip out the existing infrastructure and replace it all in what would be incredible expensive - including replacing all the trams.

[paulw3726]

Originally Posted by High-Fi

Johnny - thanks for those bus pictures. I remember hanging off the back of that Mayne's bus back in the day. Not long after I started working at Pikrose at Guide Bridge (long since gone) I got stationed in the Inspection department for about six weeks. It turned out that one of the Inspectors bought that bus. He was a Droylsden bloke, quite tall with curly ginger hair, can't remember his name. He used to store it at Queens Road. Wonder if it's still owned by the same guy?

His name is Brian and he still owns Maynes AEC Regent 8860VR which is kept at Museum of Transport, Boyle Street. It is recently back on the road and appeared at Sandtoft Trolleybus museum (near Doncaster) earlier in the year.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trolleyfan/7222160488/
A report last week on the web says similar 8859VR was at Southampton Docks for export to Japan. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanbus/6005221712/

[apologiesforthedelay]

Due to an earlier points failure near Victoria station, some services are busier than usual this morning.

Understatement. Sale station inbound and outbound platforms are both incredibly busy.