Manchester Metrolink: how could it be improved?

[Ballyheigue]

Moderator note: Split from

Manchester Metrolink (Non speculative discussion)

The original thread has been closed - so this is to kick start discussion/comment I am told the current peak vehicle requirement is 107 trams for the network - from a fleet of 147. From January, this rises to 117 as the system recovers from covid - both in passenger numbers and staff...

www.railforums.co.uk

Do we think Metrolink is way too big for its own good now?

Even before the latest amendments, speed restrictions etc, I've felt it way too slow to many areas with bunching of trams into stops being a big issue, particularly in the centre of Manchester. For example, St Peters Square to Media City seems so slow at times, you can wait ages for a Trafford Centre tram to be able to come into it's stop and so on.

What I think is the timetables need reducing throughout the network on a permanent basis, so the trams can be better spaced out, after all Manchester City Centre can only fit so many trams in .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

From what seems to have recently been a topic of discussion, the current actual reality of what is happening at pinch-points must surely bring reality to the mindset of those who want to expand the Metrolink network.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Apr 2026 ==

The tram around Salford Quays is so slow.

You do have to remember those people who use all those intermediate tram stops as their reason for travelling on the Metrolink.

 

[Bantamzen]

It depends exactly where on the Salford Quays campus you're aiming for, but certainly for the area around the Lowry I find it quicker to get the tram to IWM then walk. The tram around Salford Quays is so slow.

I used to travel to Anchorage, which is only a 10 or so minute walk from IWM. However if the weather was being Manchester, then that was usually sacked off. Salford Quays when the wind is blowing and the rain coming in sideways isn't a fun walk to the office.

From what seems to have recently been a topic of discussion, the current actual reality of what is happening at pinch-points must surely bring reality to the mindset of those who want to expand the Metrolink network.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Apr 2026 ==


You do have to remember those people who use all those intermediate tram stops as their reason for travelling on the Metrolink.

It's not just the stops though, it's the way it winds through the Quays and has to climb and drop a couple of times towards Media City. It can take a full 10 minutes from Cornbrook to Anchorage, so depending on the tram timings (and the weather) it can be quicker to get the Trafford Centre line then walk the remaining distance.

As for the pinchpoints, they certainly can be an issue, but Manchester city centre is big enough for those planning expansion to perhaps consider an third city crossing, although this is stuff more for the speculation threads.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You do have to remember those people who use all those intermediate tram stops as their reason for travelling on the Metrolink.

It's not the stops themselves that are the issue, it is the line speed because of all the steep slopes and sharp curves. I understand why it is like that, but that doesn't stop it being slow.

From what seems to have recently been a topic of discussion, the current actual reality of what is happening at pinch-points must surely bring reality to the mindset of those who want to expand the Metrolink network.

Depends what you mean by "extend the Metrolink network."

Extending existing lines further out, such as from East Didsbury to Stockport, wouldn't make any difference to what's happening in the city centre. As for the city centre, my opinion is that the 2CC still seems underused.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Extending existing lines further out, such as from East Didsbury to Stockport, wouldn't make any difference to what's happening in the city centre. As for the city centre, my opinion is that the 2CC still seems underused.

But is it not the case that trams using the 2CC line still have to pass through Deansgate-Castlefield and St Peter's Square tram stop?

When I gave thought to the extension of the Metrolink network, I had in mind places such as Middleton and Heywood.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Apr 2026 ==

It's not the stops themselves that are the issue, it is the line speed because of all the steep slopes and sharp curves. I understand why it is like that, but that doesn't stop it being slow.

I know of a number of office staff who work at the large office blocks in the intermediate area and on speaking to them, none seemed bothered in the least, as the intermediate tram stops are very close to their places of employment.

 

[edwin_m]

But is it not the case that trams using the 2CC line still have to pass through Deansgate-Castlefield and St Peter's Square tram stop?

When I gave thought to the extension of the Metrolink network, I had in mind places such as Middleton and Heywood.

St Peters Square has four platforms and the capacity of two tracks is much greater if they are not in the street.

TfGM are very aware of capacity issues in the city centre. Extending existing routes further out doesn't add extra services, although the extra passengers may lead to more double trams. This does affect the city centre to some extent, because the platforms can hold two single trams but only one double. This is partly why TfGM plans to order some trams (or tram-trains) that are single units but as long as an existing double, so passengers can occupy the space currently taken up by the two inner cabs and the coupler.

Heywood is planned to be served by a tram-train running between Bury and Rochdale (possibly on to Oldham) so won't affect the city centre.

At some point though, something more radical will be needed in the centre, but that is getting into speculative territory.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Maybe it would make sense to build an extension through to Irlam and Cadishead?

How long do you envisage such a line extension would take and noting the type of roads in those areas, how much road traffic problems and trade loss to retail shops en route would ensue during the time of those required works?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Apr 2026 ==

Heywood is planned to be served by a tram-train running between Bury and Rochdale (possibly on to Oldham) so won't affect the city centre.

At some point though, something more radical will be needed in the centre, but that is getting into speculative territory.

Point taken with regards to Heywood, but Middleton is a different kettle of fish and one that at one time, Burnham seemingly never missed an opportunity to mention.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Point taken with regards to Heywood, but Middleton is a different kettle of fish and one that at one time, Burnham seemingly never missed an opportunity to mention.

I think Middleton was something mainly supported by local MPs who lobbied Burnham to act. Technically you could serve Middleton with the extension of the new Trafford Centre to Crumpsall trams, although you'd need a slightly longer stretch of new alignment if you wanted to segregate these services from the Bury Line between Crumpsall and Bowker Vale (where I think the Middleton branch was planned to leave).

 

[Cloud Strife]

How long do you envisage such a line extension would take and noting the type of roads in those areas, how much road traffic problems and trade loss to retail shops en route would ensue during the time of those required works?

Good question. Generally speaking, I think it wouldn't be too bad as the bypass exists, but to start:

Going through Eccles to reach Asda and the rugby stadium could be a good first extension. From there, it's easy enough to go through the old golf course on an offline alignment, which takes you through to Barton Moss. From there, it shouldn't be a major problem to run along Liverpool Road by closing one direction at a time to lay the tracks. With the bypass, there's no disruption to through traffic, and there are plenty of accesses from the bypass to Liverpool Road.

The possibility would exist to build a large park and ride just over the boundary into Warrington, and a subsequent extension into Partington would deliver a tangible benefit to some of the most deprived communities in Greater Manchester. If it could somehow all be linked up with the Trafford Centre, it would be a huge boost to those areas.

 

[AlastairFraser]

If it could somehow all be linked up with the Trafford Centre, it would be a huge boost to those areas

A Trafford Centre branch extension to Port Salford via the rugby stadium is included as a priority in the Salford City Council Draft Local Plan - I have attached the link here.

 

[Statto]

I'd like to see more Piccadilly - Victoria services, now every 15 minutes & always been one line, which is dreadful for such an important link between 2 major stations, it's often quicker to get the first tram & go from Piccadilly to Piccadilly Gardens then walk around the corner to Market Street (& vice versa), than wait for the direct tram

 

[VT 390]

I'd like to see more Piccadilly - Victoria services, now every 15 minutes & always been one line, which is dreadful for such an important link between 2 major stations, it's often quicker to get the first tram & go from Piccadilly to Piccadilly Gardens then walk around the corner to Market Street (& vice versa), than wait for the direct tram

Definitely agree with this as, many times, I have just missed a Bury tram at Piccadilly and the following one has been cancelled or delayed making rail journeys from the south to Victoria routes much longer than they need to be when many routes operate hourly.
Piccadilly to Victoria is actually the only city centre route where, when all routes operate, does not get a 6 minute (or currently 7.5 minute) frequency, yet it is one of the most useful short distance city centre routes.
I am not sure how additional services could fit in when the full timetable operates but even a Piccadilly to Victoria shuttle service would be better than nothing (interworking with the Airport to Victoria is necessary) but could be extended to Ashton to restore the more frequent service on that route.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is the current "Freebus" service between Piccadilly and Victoria like, provision-wise?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

What is the current "Freebus" service between Piccadilly and Victoria like, provision-wise?

Useless (doesn't even stop near Victoria anymore).

 

[Topological]

Manchester will need a third city centre crossing. The suggestion (gossip) is that it would come in from Salford along Chapel Street. Some then point to following the road up past Salford Central to reach Albert Square on the current 2CC and sharing that line at a T junction. That would work. These are just the various crayon drawings when it comes to the centre. Further up the Crescent, trams are drawn into every planning document (as they are in Stockport).

As I work in Manchester, and lived there for 20 years, I do like to see what they are thinking about. Metrolink grew a very long way from the network I first caught as a student.

 

[duffield]

I'd like to see more Piccadilly - Victoria services, now every 15 minutes & always been one line, which is dreadful for such an important link between 2 major stations, it's often quicker to get the first tram & go from Piccadilly to Piccadilly Gardens then walk around the corner to Market Street (& vice versa), than wait for the direct tram

Of course, as I've said before, this wouldn't be such an issue if there was a decent heavy rail service via the Ordsall Chord, currently used by a pathetic 1tph in each direction.

 

[The Pelican]

The Stockport extension seems the best one to build next- the tram goes a lot of the way there, and it might open lots of connectional opportunities. I'd build it via the street running route past the pyramid.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The thread title is '... how could it be improved', and there's one aspect of it that I think is poor.

I occasionally travel to the East Lancs Railway by train to Piccadilly and then tram. On the tram platform at Piccadilly the describer lists where the next four (I think) trams are going to. What passengers need to know is when the tram they want will appear; in my case, very often, Bury doesn't appear in the list of departures at all (because there isn't one in the next 4 departures) , and presumably other destinations don't appear either.
An obvious improvement would be a list of tram destinations with the time of the next journey. Perhaps someone from the tram could pop upstairs at Piccadilly and see how it's done on a much bigger network - the screens on the concourse.

There is no information about the possibility of taking a tram to another destination and changing en route. This could be a simple poster as the situation nis fairly fixed.

Some time ago I tried to use the Manchester travel web site; I chose Piccadilly as my starting point and Bury as the destination, and then a set of pictograms appeared; figure walking, figure cycling, bus, tram. I thought that choosing the tram would give me tram details but I was wrong; it gave me routes for every mode except the tram. I was impressed by the website in one respect, though; it told me the exact time it would take me to walk there (around 4 hours, from memory) without asking anything about my fitness.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

An obvious improvement would be a list of tram destinations with the time of the next journey

Although, with all lines now at equal trams per hour, only 3 lines go to Piccadilly so there should always be a Bury tram in the mix.

I find this problem far worse at Cornbrook.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Although, with all lines now at equal trams per hour, only 3 lines go to Piccadilly so there should always be a Bury tram in the mix.

I find this problem far worse at Cornbrook.

Thanks. I haven't been to Bury for quite a while, for a number of reasons.
It's strange how buses/trams seem to be even more operations-led (rather than passenger-led) than the railways in passenger information, and that's saying something.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I remember from another website quite some time ago there were postings sugesting that a third north-south city-crossing would benefit the Metrolink. There were a number of its thread contributors who responded to that aspiration, stating quite a number of reasons why this would not be a good idea, with the implementation of such a new line.

Perhaps the thread contributors to this thread may wish to give their own personal thoughts on this matter.

 

[sprunt]

What would be the benefit of another city crossing when you'd still have to cram everything through Castlefield?

 

[Topological]

What would be the benefit of another city crossing when you'd still have to cram everything through Castlefield?

The third crossing would not use Castlefield.

The idea is that any Metrolink conversion of the Atherton line, or expansion of Eccles services, would use The Crescent and Chapel Street to reach the city rather than coming through Castlefield. As mentioned earlier, many planning applications around Salford Crescent show Metrolink.

Although the talk is of crossing the city, it is very clear that Castlefield has to count as part of the section to be bypassed.

 

[The Pelican]

What would be the benefit of another city crossing when you'd still have to cram everything through Castlefield?

Elevated tram lines can take a higher number of trams per hour than a single street running line, so Cornbrook might not be the core bottleneck. After that, a three or four platform Cornbrook might allow trams to depart alternately from opposite sides of each platform. If that gets built, it might then be time to revive one of the early 2CC plans, which involved street running all the way from Trafford Bar down Chester Road, then running down Deansgate and John Dalton Street, which would give Metrolink two completely independant routes through the core. The street running route would be a lot slower, but wouldn't cross the existing 1CC on the flat.

 

[Chester1]

Elevated tram lines can take a higher number of trams per hour than a single street running line, so Cornbrook might not be the core bottleneck. After that, a three or four platform Cornbrook might allow trams to depart alternately from opposite sides of each platform. If that gets built, it might then be time to revive one of the early 2CC plans, which involved street running all the way from Trafford Bar down Chester Road, then running down Deansgate and John Dalton Street, which would give Metrolink two completely independant routes through the core. The street running route would be a lot slower, but wouldn't cross the existing 1CC on the flat.

The bottleneck is Deansgate-Castlefield to St Peter's Square. The viaduct between Cornbrook and Deansgate-Castlefield has a higher capacity because its segregated.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The bottleneck is Deansgate-Castlefield to St Peter's Square. The viaduct between Cornbrook and Deansgate-Castlefield has a higher capacity because its segregated.

I'm not sure how true that is, given the section from Deansgate-Castlefield to St Peter's Square is slower than the segregated track. Given the system operates on line of sight, the low speeds mean that you can stack a surprising number of trams through that section. Once you're at St Peter's Square it opens out again.

Not having the middle platform at Deansgate-Castlefield blocked with the Trafford Centre trams might help, too.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not sure how true that is, given the section from Deansgate-Castlefield to St Peter's Square is slower than the segregated track. Given the system operates on line of sight, the low speeds mean that you can stack a surprising number of trams through that section. Once you're at St Peter's Square it opens out again.

Not having the middle platform at Deansgate-Castlefield blocked with the Trafford Centre trams might help, too.

At low speeds the spacing between trams moving freely can be short, similar to or less than the length of the tram itself, so the time the tram takes to travel its own length has a significant effect on the headway. The length of the tram is fixed, so this time is longer at low speeds. It becomes less important at higher speeds as the braking distance increases and becomes the larger part of the distance headway. The braking distance increases as the square of speed, but the time taken for the tram to travel the distance headway only increases linearly with speed, which is why capacity falls of at higher speeds (but not much at tram speeds).

 

[The exile]

Plant an orchard of magic money trees then: build a comprehensive city-centre network that means there are at least two entirely independent routes between any two of the outer branches. The result should be that it would be possible to block any single point in the city centre and still be able to send through trams between any two outer termini.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Plant an orchard of magic money trees then: build a comprehensive city-centre network that means there are at least two entirely independent routes between any two of the outer branches. The result should be that it would be possible to block any single point in the city centre and still be able to send through trams between any two outer termini.

I often wonder if there are those who still believe that having a tram line running up and down every road in the city centre is the way forward, with notable routes being via King Street and St Anne's Square

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Plant an orchard of magic money trees then: build a comprehensive city-centre network that means there are at least two entirely independent routes between any two of the outer branches. The result should be that it would be possible to block any single point in the city centre and still be able to send through trams between any two outer termini.

Isn't that how historical tram networks worked, before they were all ripped up and replaced with buses?