TRANSPORT | Metrolink - Future Phases & Fantasy Extensions

[Ashtonian]

Originally Posted by Mwmbwls

The Sheffield Star in reporting the need to renew the Supertram Infrastructure also reveals that the date of the Rotherham Tram Train experiment has slipped from 2015 to 2016.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/busine...aled-1-5691021

That slippage is crazy!

As a result, I don't think we're going to get tram trains in GM area for a long long time, shame really.

[charter]

Originally Posted by Johnny de Rivative

When first built, the Barton motorway viaduct seemed to symbolise the modern age of the motor car. Like its companion at Thelwall, it had to be 70 ft high to clear the ships, but in this location it needed a sharper rise and fall, which made it all the more spectacular than its predecessor. Remembering it like yesterday and thinking it quite a recent build, I did a double take recently when watching a dvd of my favourite film - ("A Taste of Honey" by Shelagh Delaney) - there it was large as life in the background, fully 50 years ago!! In those days it was actually called the M62, later to become the M63 then the M60 :-

Quite right it was originally the M62 later M63 then M60. Originally the motorway just had 2 lanes each way and the first part to open was between what is now M60 junction 7 on the A56 at Sale to junction 13 at Worsley.
When originally planned what today is the M602 through Eccles bypass was to be the M64 and to meet up with the Mancunian Way. This motorway wasn't considered important enough to carry the two digit number, hadn't been opened, and had only appeared on a few maps, so it was a prime candidate for the change.
Here it is on a plan:


This then was to meet up with the M67 which was originally supposed to go through to Sheffield.
Here's the original M62 opening plaque

[DiscoSteve]

A good description o fthe M67 Missing City Centre to Denton section can be found here
http://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m67_m...ield_motorway/

http://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m67_m...ty%20large.JPG

[Greybeard33]

Originally Posted by Mwmbwls

The Sheffield Star in reporting the need to renew the Supertram Infrastructure also reveals that the date of the Rotherham Tram Train experiment has slipped from 2015 to 2016....

Originally Posted by Ashtonian

That slippage is crazy!

See my reply in Tram-Train thread.

[Joseph_Locke]

Originally Posted by Mwmbwls

Thank you, I stand both corrected and with my faith in Quail shaken.

The problem with "car length" as a unit is that you might as well use "strides" - passenger vehicles range from about 15.5m (class 142) to 23.2m for Mk3s and the like!

In the early stages of project development we tend to use 24m per vehicle plus 5m when presented with a specification written in numbers of vehicles.

Gets worse with Pendos, as you have to add 20m for the Thunderbird ...

p.s. "Quails" are an industry bible - odd, isn't it?

[scientist12]

Pretty much the same as VDB but with a figure of 8 rather than a circle (I'm not compromising on that one). The cheapest light rail metro system construction of any city in Europe I would think (as it's all rail conversion or on street). Could probably get all of this extension for the price of Cross rail (that's a wild guess):

image hosted on flickr

Future metrolink 4 by scientist12, on Flickr

[metropolitics]

Hi guys, I know this thread includes a lot of fantasy and speculative ideas for Metrolink's future, but has anyone on here ever made a map featuring all the "proposed" changes and extensions of Metrolink. I.e. the ones grounded in officialdom that are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manches..._and_expansion ???

[Paul Sidorczuk]

Originally Posted by scientist12

Pretty much the same as VDB but with a figure of 8 rather than a circle (I'm not compromising on that one). The cheapest light rail metro system construction of any city in Europe I would think (as it's all rail conversion or on street). Could probably get all of this extension for the price of Cross rail (that's a wild guess):

image hosted on flickr

Future metrolink 4 by scientist12, on Flickr

Once again, I see another plan where Middleton is totally disregarded.....save for just having its name only shown on the plan to acknowledge its existence.

On looking at the plan, Middleton seems to be reminiscent of something akin to an oasis in the middle of a desert region.

[Paul Sidorczuk]

Originally Posted by metropolitics

Hi guys, I know this thread includes a lot of fantasy and speculative ideas for Metrolink's future, but has anyone on here ever made a map featuring all the "proposed" changes and extensions of Metrolink. I.e. the ones grounded in officialdom that are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manches..._and_expansion ???

Interesting to read the note that the Rotherham tram-train trials will be noted by TfGM. However, there is slippage in the start date for this project now, from 2015 to 2016

[scientist12]

Originally Posted by Paul Sidorczuk

Once again, I see another plan where Middleton is totally disregarded.....save for just having its name only shown on the plan to acknowledge its existence.

On looking at the plan, Middleton seems to be reminiscent of something akin to an oasis in the middle of a desert region.

True but if that lot got built surely Middleton would be next. If Heywood and Middleton are built last I think lines that aren't seen as viable at the moment would become viable due to being plugged into a far superior network that can take people to far more places than ever before, Heywood to the Trafford Centre for example, one change at Cornbrook. Heywood to the airport, one change at Victoria or at Piccadilly for the train.

[scientist12]

Originally Posted by Paul Sidorczuk

Interesting to read the note that the Rotherham tram-train trials will be noted by TfGM. However, there is slippage in the start date for this project now, from 2015 to 2016

I do think it seems like nonsense for Manchester to have to wait for some trial in Yorkshire to take place before proceeding when they could perfectly well do their own trial. I think Knustsford should be connected with Rose Hill as soon as possible with a tram train the length of a double. I could see this service taking the place of the 12 minute Altrincham service to Piccadilly. This would mean no extra paths would be taken up through Cornbrook and their would be an increase in capacity as the tram train vehicle has higher capacity (due to no space being wasted joining two units together). The M5000's currently used to service Altrincham to Piccadilly then become available to double up all services from Alt to Bury plus Eccles, E.Didsbury etc. I would see the service going through Piccadilly and New Islington before joining the railway line to Marple at Ashbury's.

[scientist12]

Originally Posted by metropolitics

Hi guys, I know this thread includes a lot of fantasy and speculative ideas for Metrolink's future, but has anyone on here ever made a map featuring all the "proposed" changes and extensions of Metrolink. I.e. the ones grounded in officialdom that are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manches..._and_expansion ???

All of these proposals are on my map pretty much (I know you want a map just showing them) except Eccles to the Trafford centre. I think that idea suffers a bit due to the slow journey time through the Quays although it frees up one pathway through Cornbrook.TC needs to be plugged into people that come in from all over Manchester. If they have to go via the Quays surely the bus and car are going to be a more attractive option being much quicker. The plan, which is almost certain to happen, to instead build a TC line through Trafford park is surely the death knell of this proposal altogether.

[Joseph_Locke]

Originally Posted by scientist12

I do think it seems like nonsense for Manchester to have to wait for some trial in Yorkshire to take place before proceeding when they could perfectly well do their own trial.

Why duplicate the effort? DfT is funding Sheffield - Rotherham, whereas TfGMPTE would have to fund a parallel trial themselves.

The SRTT trial has thrown up many mis-matches between NR and LR standards and practices, and one or two inadequacies in both, all of which need sorting out. This isn't easy, because in at least one case the easiest route could be to change a small suite of Network Rail standards.

If Manchester ploughed it's own furrow on this it is unlikely to bear fruit until late-2015, even with lavish applications of Fundmore(TM)