daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > Manchester Metro Area > Greater Manchester Transport Projects

Greater Manchester Transport Projects Transport Matters For Greater Manchester and Surrounding Areas



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 177 votes, 5.00 average.
Old December 24th, 2012, 09:11 PM   #4781
mackenziesoley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,895
Likes (Received): 205

Quote:
Originally Posted by WatcherZero View Post
Exactly, so point remains not really suitable for urban areas or level crossings.
That's not what you said Watcher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WatcherZero View Post
You cant really use driverless vehicles unless its all in tunnels and viaducts otherwise the risk of tresspass is just too high.
How does that apply to crossing as you never mentioned it in your original message I objected to. Your now making a separate point to your message, care to admit you were wrong again?

You mean that you can't run a Metrolink like system with driverless trains. Indeed they actually looked at getting the DLR to do street running to Mile End but they changed to Stratford once plans to be completely automatic we're taken.
mackenziesoley no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old December 25th, 2012, 12:49 AM   #4782
WatcherZero
Registered User
 
WatcherZero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,022

Tunnels and viaducts to seperate from car and pedestrian traffic yes. Unless your saying that level crossings, shared running on roads and driving through pedestrianised streets is okay without a human failsafe? They do have it on the Paris Metro but its only turned on in tunneled sections.


Thank you glad agree that it cant be safely done.

P.S DLR uses part of a former NLL alignment, obviously your know it all attitude is shooting yourself in the foot. Also your image of it sharing a pedestrian path with a 3.5 metre fence, dont really understand how you think people will be accidentally stepping over it unless theyve got really long legs round there. Tunnels and Viaducts cannot completley eliminate chance of tresspass the weakest point of protection always being the platforms themselves, however its about managing risk, do you want a similarly DLR controlled train to try and navigate itself across Piccadilly Gardens.

Only had time to check one of your list of 'locations' however Crossharbour to Mudchute is mostly a viaduct over a cutting, while it might appear street level just the other side of the wall is a large drop.

Last edited by WatcherZero; December 25th, 2012 at 01:04 AM.
WatcherZero no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 25th, 2012, 04:59 PM   #4783
mackenziesoley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,895
Likes (Received): 205

Quote:
Originally Posted by WatcherZero View Post
Only had time to check one of your list of 'locations' however Crossharbour to Mudchute is mostly a viaduct over a cutting, while it might appear street level just the other side of the wall is a large drop.
Appear. Once again you don't actually know what you talk about. Viaduct was removed in 1999.

Just going block you for benefit of all others.

Last edited by mackenziesoley; December 25th, 2012 at 05:07 PM.
mackenziesoley no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 25th, 2012, 09:05 PM   #4784
heatonparkincakes
Registered User
 
heatonparkincakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,835
Likes (Received): 344

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherguevara View Post
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.
Tremendous. My lucky day indeed!

My initial guestimations is that this would cost at least a billion pounds.

I like it kid.

My now herald S Bahn would mostly use existing lines, bar re building the lost
line between Radcliffe and Bolton. Erm that and a shed full of new signal ing and trains. So a little less.

Really don't like the idea of driverless trains.

What will future school boys aspire for if they can't drive the 1803 express to 1950s England anymore.
__________________
1914 Lions led by donkeys
2014 Lions led by donkeys
heatonparkincakes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2012, 12:10 AM   #4785
Cherguevara
Registered User
 
Cherguevara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,420
Likes (Received): 828

I did a quick and dirty back of the envelope costing of £2bn or thereabouts, but that was based on what may be grossly unsuitable comparators (DLR, skytrain, Honolulu rapid transit).
Cherguevara no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 27th, 2012, 10:43 AM   #4786
madferret
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,080

Quote:
Originally Posted by mackenziesoley View Post
NLL is not the DLR as its the Overground's North London Line, a manually driven and separate railway.
He's thinking of the former eastern sections of the line, Canning Town to Stratford and Poplar to Bow.

The DLR may be driverless but it's not unmanned. There is always at least one person on board supervising the train.
madferret no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2012, 01:31 PM   #4787
mackenziesoley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,895
Likes (Received): 205

Quote:
Originally Posted by madferret View Post
He's thinking of the former eastern sections of the line, Canning Town to Stratford and Poplar to Bow.

The DLR may be driverless but it's not unmanned. There is always at least one person on board supervising the train.
That just shows how little he knows as the entire line was rebuilt including most of the platforms (they only kept the center sections as the rebuilt NLL platforms as part of the JLE were too narrow). They went down to the track bed and started again. Tho my point that he believed automatic trains require only tunnels or viaducts is where I took offence as its wrong, clearly shown that it can run on surface routes.

The point of manned trains is important as in London the issue of union strikes being stopped by making trains automatic has been shown to be not valid as passengers are fine with trains driving themselves but want staff on board. As the proposal is to convert drivers to on board staff as they introduce cabless trains means you won't remove the staff required meaning Boris' (as usual) empty promise that he can't commit too.

If Manchester was to implement a system such as this it could do it completely unmanned as you could build in all the needed emergency intrastructure such as walkways to allow passengers to self evacuate when needed.

It does sound like minds are seeing the same problem London realised 20 years ago. Into center is fine but going across is difficult.
mackenziesoley no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 12:35 PM   #4788
VDB
Registered User
 
VDB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Newcastle / Manchester
Posts: 7,252
Likes (Received): 2504

Just been thinking about tram-trains and the future for Metrolink, and certain other ideas that myself and other people have had for taking Metrolink into new heights and having a train/subway network sitting alongside it.

I think we should stick with trams and tram-trains. The set up we have now - with a high floor system - is brilliant because converting our heavy rail suburban lines is made cheap and easy. We'll see the true benefits of this when tram-train comes to life. Other networks like Midland Metro and Supertram will not be able to harness the true potential of tram-trains like we will be able to because they are not high floor systems.

And plus trams and tram-trains are so agile. We have the possibility of taking the network anywhere; just look at the Airport line. If you've ever followed it down on Google Earth, you'll notice that it's made up of a mixture of small sections of trackbeds and (mostly) roadside reservations. Despite the fact it goes through dense suburbia, the line hardly ever shares track with the road; it's almost completely segregated. It's actually a very clever line and quickly becoming one of my favourites.

You can take Metrolink's trams onto the streets, onto elevated rail, into underground tunnels and sharing heavy rail. That's the magnificence of what we have here - a universal system. We can expand this massively over the next few years and I suspect that by 2030 we'll have doubled the system from the completed Big Bang in 2016, using tram-trains alone. (in other words we'll triple it with Big Bang and then double that again... a seven-fold increase?)

Just a question on the side - and I know it's a little early to be talking about vehicles - but will Metrolink's tram-trains be a completely different fleet to the current one, or will we be using M5000 look-a-likes? I hope the latter is true to maintain a uniform fleet, although I worry that when it comes to replacing the trams in 30-40 years time it'll be expensive if we have the entire network using the same type of tram.
VDB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 01:32 PM   #4789
Cherguevara
Registered User
 
Cherguevara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,420
Likes (Received): 828

Volde - M5000s are unsuitable for tram-train operation as they can't be cleared to run on national rail tracks. If we do invest in a substantial tram-train network it makes sense to buy another set of uniform vehicles for all the lines we develop, but they will be of a different type.

You shouldn't compare Metrolink's flexibility for universality though, or at least not for universal usefulness. It works best on converted rail or wide boulevards. Where neither is available it has limited applications.
Cherguevara no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 01:49 PM   #4790
VDB
Registered User
 
VDB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Newcastle / Manchester
Posts: 7,252
Likes (Received): 2504

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherguevara View Post
Volde - M5000s are unsuitable for tram-train operation as they can't be cleared to run on national rail tracks. If we do invest in a substantial tram-train network it makes sense to buy another set of uniform vehicles for all the lines we develop, but they will be of a different type.

You shouldn't compare Metrolink's flexibility for universality though, or at least not for universal usefulness. It works best on converted rail or wide boulevards. Where neither is available it has limited applications.
But these new types of tram would be running alongside the existing fleet on the existing city centre track.. right?
VDB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 02:41 PM   #4791
Cherguevara
Registered User
 
Cherguevara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,420
Likes (Received): 828

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDB View Post
But these new types of tram would be running alongside the existing fleet on the existing city centre track.. right?
I would have thought so. If the first routes were to go east from Piccadilly then it would make sense to make them extensions of the shorter Picc terminating services (shorter services because that why you'd need to buy fewer tram-trains).
Cherguevara no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 02:43 PM   #4792
Gerbil
11th March 2009
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 558
Likes (Received): 24

I think it was nerd who said a few weeks ago that the problem with tram-trains (apart from the fact that they are not yet proven in this country) is that they will be more expensive, both to build and maintain. The threshold number of passengers for profitability is therefore higher.

However, it could probably be arranged so that the difference between trams and tram-trains is, as far as the passenger is concerned, only a nominal one, giving a fully integrated system running in many different environments. In fact, the only other system which has similar level of flexibility is guided bus, but that has the disadvantage of lower capacity.
Gerbil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 07:10 PM   #4793
kriis101
Model Tram Designer
 
kriis101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2,306
Likes (Received): 673

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDB View Post
Just been thinking about tram-trains and the future for Metrolink, and certain other ideas that myself and other people have had for taking Metrolink into new heights and having a train/subway network sitting alongside it.

I think we should stick with trams and tram-trains. The set up we have now - with a high floor system - is brilliant because converting our heavy rail suburban lines is made cheap and easy. We'll see the true benefits of this when tram-train comes to life. Other networks like Midland Metro and Supertram will not be able to harness the true potential of tram-trains like we will be able to because they are not high floor systems.

And plus trams and tram-trains are so agile. We have the possibility of taking the network anywhere; just look at the Airport line. If you've ever followed it down on Google Earth, you'll notice that it's made up of a mixture of small sections of trackbeds and (mostly) roadside reservations. Despite the fact it goes through dense suburbia, the line hardly ever shares track with the road; it's almost completely segregated. It's actually a very clever line and quickly becoming one of my favourites.

You can take Metrolink's trams onto the streets, onto elevated rail, into underground tunnels and sharing heavy rail. That's the magnificence of what we have here - a universal system. We can expand this massively over the next few years and I suspect that by 2030 we'll have doubled the system from the completed Big Bang in 2016, using tram-trains alone. (in other words we'll triple it with Big Bang and then double that again... a seven-fold increase?)

Just a question on the side - and I know it's a little early to be talking about vehicles - but will Metrolink's tram-trains be a completely different fleet to the current one, or will we be using M5000 look-a-likes? I hope the latter is true to maintain a uniform fleet, although I worry that when it comes to replacing the trams in 30-40 years time it'll be expensive if we have the entire network using the same type of tram.
Aye finally, someone else has realised that there are some hidden (and lucky) advantages to the fact we got stuck with high-floor vehicles.
I envisage the tram-trains to be the 4000 series, possibly the length of a double tram (from my idea that these tram-trained lines will have a lower frequency than the 6mins we will see on most of the tram lines).
These would be more like the M5000s but with the central cabs removed and an articulated section inserted, as I can't see something like the Blackpool Flexity2's handling well on heavy rail track.
Obviously they will follow the fleet livery of yellow and silver (though not sure how that will look if they share a Northern Rail platform!!) - which of course is good enough to make the general public think they are the same thing!! (Think about the times that 1003 has pulled into a stop and you have heard public say things about the new trams!!)

Anyhow, all just the idea in my head, and no doubt will turn out completely the opposite!!
kriis101 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 07:25 PM   #4794
mackenziesoley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,895
Likes (Received): 205

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriis101 View Post

Aye finally, someone else has realised that there are some hidden (and lucky) advantages to the fact we got stuck with high-floor vehicles.
I envisage the tram-trains to be the 4000 series, possibly the length of a double tram (from my idea that these tram-trained lines will have a lower frequency than the 6mins we will see on most of the tram lines).
These would be more like the M5000s but with the central cabs removed and an articulated section inserted, as I can't see something like the Blackpool Flexity2's handling well on heavy rail track.
Obviously they will follow the fleet livery of yellow and silver (though not sure how that will look if they share a Northern Rail platform!!) - which of course is good enough to make the general public think they are the same thing!! (Think about the times that 1003 has pulled into a stop and you have heard public say things about the new trams!!)

Anyhow, all just the idea in my head, and no doubt will turn out completely the opposite!!
Manchester may just find its high level trams actually mean tram-trains are a lot easier to implement.
mackenziesoley no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 07:42 PM   #4795
VDB
Registered User
 
VDB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Newcastle / Manchester
Posts: 7,252
Likes (Received): 2504

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriis101 View Post
Aye finally, someone else has realised that there are some hidden (and lucky) advantages to the fact we got stuck with high-floor vehicles.
I envisage the tram-trains to be the 4000 series, possibly the length of a double tram (from my idea that these tram-trained lines will have a lower frequency than the 6mins we will see on most of the tram lines).
These would be more like the M5000s but with the central cabs removed and an articulated section inserted, as I can't see something like the Blackpool Flexity2's handling well on heavy rail track.
Obviously they will follow the fleet livery of yellow and silver (though not sure how that will look if they share a Northern Rail platform!!) - which of course is good enough to make the general public think they are the same thing!! (Think about the times that 1003 has pulled into a stop and you have heard public say things about the new trams!!)

Anyhow, all just the idea in my head, and no doubt will turn out completely the opposite!!
Thanks Kris, really useful. Do you have any pictures of these potential 4000 series vehicles?

When you mention that the tram-trains will be using Northern Rail platforms; surely this won't be true of the Wigan via Atherton/Rose Hill and Glossop sections, where it'll pretty much be the only service operating them when the heavy rail aspect is replaced?
VDB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 07:56 PM   #4796
kriis101
Model Tram Designer
 
kriis101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2,306
Likes (Received): 673

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDB View Post
Thanks Kris, really useful. Do you have any pictures of these potential 4000 series vehicles?

When you mention that the tram-trains will be using Northern Rail platforms; surely this won't be true of the Wigan via Atherton/Rose Hill and Glossop sections, where it'll pretty much be the only service operating them when the heavy rail aspect is replaced?
Only a picture in my head haha

And I don't know much about the big trains, can just see that the Northern Rail colours would look hideous against the nice shiny yellow and silver IF they ever shared the same platform.
kriis101 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 08:09 PM   #4797
iheartthenew
Registered User
 
iheartthenew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: THE DIZZY HEIGHTS
Posts: 4,057
Likes (Received): 787

If you Google or look up tram-train on Wikipedia, you will see plenty of LRVs that you probably recognise.

I doubt though that the 4xxx trams are even on the drawing board yet, as it will be a good decade until we probably get to see them, so even a realistic concept drawing will be unavailable for some time
__________________
Most of the stuff you see around you is the work of people no better than you or I.
iheartthenew no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 08:13 PM   #4798
VDB
Registered User
 
VDB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Newcastle / Manchester
Posts: 7,252
Likes (Received): 2504

Some pretty sweet looking witchcraft here;



Look familiar to you?

VDB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 08:48 PM   #4799
markydeedrop
John 3:16
 
markydeedrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2,182
Likes (Received): 112

I would check out the Paris T3 (tram) page Volde if you want something to really make your mouth water. This looks amazing:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...655652&page=23

Some great vids on Youtube of the system as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lil43w0m8e4
markydeedrop no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2013, 09:00 PM   #4800
VDB
Registered User
 
VDB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Newcastle / Manchester
Posts: 7,252
Likes (Received): 2504

Those trams are pretty nice, but it's something about low-floor systems that's just a bit meh.

I'd prefer Metrolink to look more like the DLR.
VDB no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu