|
|
|
| daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on one |
|
|||||||
| Manchester Metro Area For Manchester, Salford and the surrounding area. |
| Global Announcement |
|
SkyscraperCity needs your help to do some house cleaning! please click here for more info! |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#4761 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Manchester
Posts: 828
Likes (Received): 90
|
You walked right into that one my freind.
Fifty Shades of Yellow
__________________
With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4762 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 857
Likes (Received): 46
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4763 | |
|
John
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 245
Likes (Received): 30
|
Quote:
![]() Now, if TfGM had a 20 year plan for "Future Metrolink".............
__________________
Stalybridge needs Bananas !! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4764 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,828
Likes (Received): 105
|
I'm coming round to the idea that the future Metrolink should not be Metrolink at all. Not that I think it's a bad system for doing what it does, but I don't think the technology is right for the challenging transport corridors it is yet to serve.
My preference would be a combination of high quality bus lanes to pool less frequent services from the urban periphery into frequent, rapid, segregated services in the inner city (Rochdale Road, Hyde Road, Wilmslow Road, Princess Road, Stockport Road) with a segregated/driverless DLR/Vancouver Skytrain system to connect major regional destinations along the general S/SE-NW alignment (Wigan, Bolton, the three Unis, the city centre, the major hospitals, Cheadle Royal, Airport/HS2, Wilmslow and Stockport). The latter would obviously be very expensive, but if you kept the very expensive bits to a minimum I suspect the sums could add up. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4765 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,658
|
Im more of the belief that it will remain a core tram system supplemented by express tram-train services to further flung destinations. Its decades off but there will eventually be a requirement for some segregation from the street to move the number of passengers and services through the city centre more efficently.
The policy on future routes remains as far as I know introduce high frequency tram-bus services to grow and concentrate services along a particular spine then when they reach crictical mass (become cost effective) convert to rail. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4766 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,078
Likes (Received): 84
|
Quote:
Make it daft. VD girl's journey was purely illustrative. A future GM public transport network will be dominated more than anything by money and what powers (if any) GM has to run it. Pretty much as it always has. A future network will be cemented first by the tram system, which I doubt will expand any much more than is planned, bar say completion of the Stockport, Port Salford and Airport links and maybe an extension to Stalybridge. Second the existing system will be enhanced by extending the Eccles/Mediacity/Port Salford by some form of tram-train that would be compatible to all to Rose Hill, Glossop and Chinley. Extending any more tram/train depends on the success of the above. But to be frank I see only routes out to Wigan. Heavy rail will be hopefully enhanced by the Northern Hub. And to tie up the remainder will be buses, although I will suggest that modality will continue to decline.
__________________
1913 Public squalor, private wealth 2013 Public squalor, private wealth |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4767 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,053
Likes (Received): 95
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4768 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,828
Likes (Received): 105
|
Alright heaton, 'tis your lucky day (since I've got a chest infection so I can't really do much anyway). I present to you my stupid idea, in very simplified powerpoint diagram form.
![]() It's a medium capacity system taking the Wigan line and linking it to Leigh and Bolton via a mix of disused rail ROW and some short tunnels, linking it in a tunnel under the city centre to Mauldeth Road where it surfaces and runs elevated down Kingsway before splitting to Stockport, the Airport and Wilmslow in a combination of elevated and at grade. The system would be entirely segregated using driverless vehicles (to keep those operating costs down), probably the same size as a pair of M5000s coupled together. If each branch had frequency of a Metrolink line the core (Walkden-East Didsbury) section would have a service frequency of 30tph or 1 vehicle every 2 mins in peak, equivalent to about 12,000 seats an hour in each direction. This might be more capacity than is required at first, although evidence from cities where similar interventions have been undertaken suggests that they promote high density development around their stations. It would probably have a to have underground stations at Salford Central, Piccadilly Gardens, Piccadilly, Booth Street and Whitworth Park, although Fallowfield could probably be built in a trench. All other stations would be unstaffed either using existing sites (like Metrolink) or elevated in parkway medians. Total route mileage around 40 miles for all branches with approximately 1 station a mile. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4769 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,658
|
You cant really use driverless vehicles unless its all in tunnels and viaducts otherwise the risk of tresspass is just too high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4770 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,477
Likes (Received): 104
|
Quote:
Think you missed this important bit..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4771 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manchester
Posts: 504
Likes (Received): 46
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4772 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,828
Likes (Received): 105
|
Watcher - that's a good point, although if the DLR have managed it on the former North London Line I think it would be possible, although it would probably require some very substantial fencing/additional viaducts on the long stretches through Wigan.
Scientist - I don't think merging the three routes would be such a problem with Metrolink like frequency on the outer branches. If this was the case, then the central section would see about 30 services an hour, which is the maximum of the automated Jubilee line, so theoretically feasible. Of course the Walkden-Parrs Wood section wouldn't really require such high capacity, but it would go some way towards addressing the journey time costs of going up/down stairs to board a train. Cost would obviously be the big issue, as unlike Metrolink the big ticket items (tunnels, underground stations, elevated track) would have to be built first. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4773 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,658
|
Quote:
Edit: If you mean the NLL it is mostly segregated in viaducts and embankments and where its not it has a 10ft fence. Last edited by WatcherZero; December 24th, 2012 at 04:29 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4774 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manchester
Posts: 504
Likes (Received): 46
|
Ok here was my train of thought on Che's ideas. Still trams rather than driverless and avoiding tunnelling. I'm starting to tend towards favouring all tunnelling to be kept out of the equation on grounds of access, ambience and cost. Segregation is achieved instead by demolition. This is still expensive but unlike London some corridors have unused or poorly used land. There is also a lot of land that has low rise buildings on them so that the costs of new land being used for trams could be offset by rebuilding high rise buildings in the smaller space remaining. First corridor:
image hosted on flickr ![]() Picture 9 by scientist12, on Flickr The boxes in yellow mark the buildings for demolition all of them could be demolished and rebuilt in high rise form (esp on the triangle and by the canal) to better utilise the land in a CBD. A new bridge would be constructed over the canal to ensure complete segregation from the traffic. I envisage it going up to Albert square and joining the second city crossing to Victoria. More demand for point to centre rather than cross city so let people change if they want to go across the city. Second corridor. Rusholme tram bypass. Again the areas in yellow could be demolished or in fact a wide area round here could be demolished as these are all low rise, architectually insisignificant buildings of low quality, (there must be plenty of demolition experience after the demolition of Hulme, Man City stadium, Ardwick etc). This could then be regenerated with much higher density housing which would be warranted by the arrival of the tram. Another great advantage is that it could be less disruptive of the main arteries during construction lying slightly off the main arteries:image hosted on flickr ![]() Picture 10 by scientist12, on Flickr Still maintain Oxford Road is wide enough in most places with some pavement grab for full segregation like this at Fallowfield:image hosted on flickr ![]() IMG_1452 by scientist12, on Flickr Then off at Mauldeth road or wilbraham road or fallowfield loop to kingsway. Again Kingsway is wide enough for a tram bahn. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4775 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,828
Likes (Received): 105
|
It does in places through Deptford; they just built a wall/fence around it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4776 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,658
|
Exactly, so point remains not really suitable for urban areas or level crossings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4777 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,053
Likes (Received): 95
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4778 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,053
Likes (Received): 95
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4779 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,828
Likes (Received): 105
|
Quote:
It seems a rather trivial complaint about an idea which several more obvious drawbacks. If TfGM had the money to build a 40 mile DLR they'd have the money to build enough 10 foot high fences to run it fully segregated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4780 | ||
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,477
Likes (Received): 104
|
Quote:
NLL is not the DLR as its the Overground's North London Line, a manually driven and separate railway. I do note you've now tried to change what you said, so I quote you.... Quote:
DLR suffers from trespass just like other railways, in fact it was part suspended last night due to a drunk on the track. You never mentioned in your original view anything about fences but stated you can't do automatic trains without it all bring tunnels or viaducts. That quite frankly is a load of crap. Learn to make valid points please and not talk about things you seriously know nothing of. Note this picture with public path next to the DLR train. image hosted on flickr ![]() DLR 94 (GE Branded) at West Ham by -Causton-, on Flickr |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|