Are Metrolink Going OTT

[northernrail]

Well you would hope in the 2 years you say it will take to convert the line then they will have had enough warning to buy their ticket before hand

If you have been in the same routine of buying tickets on the train for years it will be hard to break that routine.

I know a lot of people who are annoyed about the Oldham loop closing (the lines being built from scratch are good thing) but closing the oldham loop wasnt needed in my opinion its Metrolink trying to get more money.

 

[ukrob]

If you have been in the same routine of buying tickets on the train for years it will be hard to break that routine.

And you think that is a reason not to convert to Metrolink?!

How do you think other areas when Penalty Fares are introduced? That is an overnight change, not a two year change!

 

[northernrail]

And you think that is a reason not to convert to Metrolink?!

How do you think other areas when Penalty Fares are introduced? That is an overnight change, not a two year change!

Its A Factor.

ive already said We All Have Diffrent Views, I know people who dont approve of the takeover but what can we do now

 

[MidnightFlyer]

To be fair, the fatc that you now have to buy on stations and not on trains (even though you had to buy at stations at two stations before closure, Shaw and Oldham M), and that is one of the best arguments you have, then your reasons appear to be pretty weak.

 

[Greenback]

Everyone has different views, it would be boring if we all thought the same!

I agree that it would have been better not to have closed the Oldham Loop. However, that doesn;t mean that metrolink is evil, that the extensions are not beneficial or that heavy rail is always better than light rail. Each has advantages and disadvantages!

 

[142094]

I think though that the level of investment that goes into conversion, with new trams etc, would be more than enough to improve heavy rail to a sufficient level that a tram could bring it up to, I'll find examples later: I do not have the time to at the moment...

But that investment was never going to come from BR - no point investing in heavy rail a a time when cars were taking over and we were on the brink of a recession.

Yes, thank you for the reminder (again!) that the T&WM is not the same as a tram... Advise I take a trip before I comment, I have: Newcastle Central to the Stadium of Light, and I have got to tell you, I would rather have crawled over broken glass that was also toxic, on the way back I just walked into Sunderland City Centre and got a heavy rail service back... to be fair though, the only thing worse than getting a tram to Sunderland was actually being in Sunderland itself

Good! So you got a Metro to Sunderland, not a tram!

And no, it is no sense of nostalgia, just my opinion, I have said in my long post at the start why I feel heavy rail is better than light rail, and where trams are better than heavy rail, please read it to understand my opinion further.

Fair enough, but when you look at transport planning as a whole, in many cases it is not feasible to just have heavy rail in an area, and in some cases you can't put in a few new tram lines. Newcastle city centre would be too small for a tram network, and that is why the Metro is ideal. Areas that were once served by heavy rail as you have said (Whitley Bay etc) now have a far superior service to what they once did.

 

[Mojo]

Fair enough, but when you look at transport planning as a whole, in many cases it is not feasible to just have heavy rail in an area, and in some cases you can't put in a few new tram lines. Newcastle city centre would be too small for a tram network, and that is why the Metro is ideal. Areas that were once served by heavy rail as you have said (Whitley Bay etc) now have a far superior service to what they once did.

Absolutely. Light rail is far better value for money compared to heavy rail because of the different standards required, everything from rolling stock to signalling and even lineside fencing. Not to mention avoiding the bureaucrats at Network Rail and those in the privatised train operating companies.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Good! So you got a Metro to Sunderland, not a tram!

To be honest, I could not give one about what it happened to be, I recall walking back into Sunderland, getting a Northern service from there back into Newcastle, to be honest, my primary concern at the time was getting out of Sunderland!

As many others have said, many a time on this Forum, we disagree on stuff. You and Mojo clearly rave over trams; I hold them in contempt in scenarios as outlined above.

Sorted.

 

[Crossforth]

Metrolink trams crash in places such as Coronation street

On the whole I think the Metrolink is brilliant, although I can see why people prefer the routes to be heavy rail as money could be spent building a tram route where there is nothing instead of converting a route to tram that already has the train. (Did that make sense 'cus I knew what I meant)

But on the whole I like the Metrolink, I can't say about other cities though as I haven't been on any other trams... unless you count the DLR which I also like

 

[142094]

As many others have said, many a time on this Forum, we disagree on stuff. You and Mojo clearly rave over trams; I hold them in contempt in scenarios as outlined above.

TBH I don't actually like trams - I would hate to see them on the Penistone or Harrogate lines. Since the Metro is not a tram, then there is no problem with that.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

TBH I don't actually like trams - I would hate to see them on the Penistone or Harrogate lines. Since the Metro is not a tram, then there is no problem with that.

I hate both trams and Metro equally, so TBF it doesn't make a difference to me

 

[WestCoast]

I like tram systems, I especially like the vast Amsterdam tram network, where pretty much all the city is covered by trams. I much prefer taking a tram to a bus!

I was also quite impressed by the LUAS system in Dublin when I visited.

I don't think the metrolink is going over the top at all, even if they are converting heavy-rail routes. It's great that finally one UK city (apart from Sheffield perhaps) will have a decently sized tram network with a number of lines branching out from the centre.

I feel that this market can be served better by trams as opposed to traditional heavy rail on reserved right of way (such as the new line 26 IJPlein line in Amsterdam) as more stops can serve more people and areas. Plus, the trams can get right into the heart of the city centre. Even better would be a faster DLR style system but that of course will be deemed too expensive.

A pacer operating on a heavy rail line with a few stops is not an efficient, modern transport line. Integrated European city transport networks combine heavy rail with metro, trams and buses as an ideal solution but of course outside London this will be a struggle for the UK provincial cities to achieve.
In Manchester, you can't even buy a transfer ticket and the bus/tram/train combined period tickets are vastly inflated when compared to just a bus day ticket (and then you have all the different bus operators offering their own tickets). It's a mess!!

 

[142094]

A pacer operating on a heavy rail line with a few stops is not an efficient, modern transport line. Integrated European city transport networks combine heavy rail with metro, trams and buses as an ideal solution but of course outside London this will be a struggle for the UK provincial cities to achieve.

That very much depends on the route. Taking the Oldham Loop for instance, journey times between Pacers and trams will be markedly different. I wouldn't be happy living somewhere such as Shaw and Crompton, where once I could get a fast Pacer to Victoria but now having to settle for a tram calling at all stops on route. A lot of people I talked to on the last day of service were considering travelling to Rochdale to get the train from there.

As for the Harrogate and Penistone lines, well the Harrogate line is far too long for any sort of tram network, and the Penistone line again is the wrong sort of route. The only place I see for trams is inner-city areas.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

That very much depends on the route. Taking the Oldham Loop for instance, journey times between Pacers and trams will be markedly different. I wouldn't be happy living somewhere such as Shaw and Crompton, where once I could get a fast Pacer to Victoria but now having to settle for a tram calling at all stops on route. A lot of people I talked to on the last day of service were considering travelling to Rochdale to get the train from there.

As for the Harrogate and Penistone lines, well the Harrogate line is far too long for any sort of tram network, and the Penistone line again is the wrong sort of route. The only place I see for trams is inner-city areas.

I will agree with your first point (we've agreed on something regarding light rail at last ): in the few weeks after the Lop closed, morning trains to Victoria were leaving HUNDREDS behind at Mills Hill! Rochdale has also lost early trains into Manchester, especially on Sundays, though, since December, there has been a new, earlier train calling at all stations. I would assume residents of Shaw, Crompton, Milnrow, New Hey and Oldham will be disappointed at the loss of their fast, half-hourly train, even if it was a Pacer (150s also worked it, along with the occasional 156). Out of curiosity, have the released stock gone to strengthening Huddersfield/Rochdale-Victoria trains; Huddersfield definitely needs them for the amount of people using Greenfield!

I agree also that Harrogate and Penistone are not correct for tram-trains, but I have a few questions regarding them (this isn't paranoia, just curiosity ):
Does it involve any conversion of a line, i.e. lowering platforms etc?
Does it stop other trains from using the route?
Is it officially light rail, or like one of the old Pacer-Bus things made by British Leyland?
Is there any actual advantage to using them, other than maybe getting rid of 142s?

Thanks, and sorry if this is too off-topic.

 

[tbtc]

the Harrogate line is far too long for any sort of tram network

The only thing in favour of a "light rail" approach for the Harrogate line is that it is pretty self contained. It has its own platform at York (never seen anything in that bay other than a Sprinter/ Pacer for Harrogate), and could be given a dedicated platform at Leeds (when I used to commute on the Harrogate line it was randomly allocated "bay" platforms alongside the 333 services).

So, if you need to alter platform heights, you'd only need to worry about the morning Harrogate - London HST (five single trips a week) - you could tinker with platform heights/ other infrastructure to suit the tram/ "light rail" vehicle.

This is why it wouldn't work on the Penistone line (which shares platforms between Sheffield and Barnsley with other services) and I can't see the logic in the "tram train" trial from Sheffield to Rotherham (does it fit Supertram platforms or does Rotherham Central end up with two levels of platform?)...

What Manchester has works. But that's not to say that we could simply copy and paste it onto other lines.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Out of curiosity, have the released stock gone to strengthening Huddersfield/Rochdale-Victoria trains; Huddersfield definitely needs them for the amount of people using Greenfield!.....

IIRC six units were released by the closure of the Oldham loop, they are now used to strengthen services in Greater Manchester, some will have been used on Rochdale services, but I can't say all have.

 

[WatcherZero]

Original press release was: 15 services a day strengthened including peak time services to and from New Mills, Huddersfield, Southport, Clitheroe, Todmorden, Wigan, Marple and Blackburn, as well as an evening peak time service between Leeds and Huddersfield.

 

[142094]

I agree also that Harrogate and Penistone are not correct for tram-trains, but I have a few questions regarding them (this isn't paranoia, just curiosity ):
Does it involve any conversion of a line, i.e. lowering platforms etc?
Does it stop other trains from using the route?
Is it officially light rail, or like one of the old Pacer-Bus things made by British Leyland?
Is there any actual advantage to using them, other than maybe getting rid of 142s?

I'm trying to remember the plans that were drawn up but in effect it did mean that platforms had to be lowered (On the Harrogate line at least). Also IIRC on the Penistone line certain stations would have some of the platform lowered (to allow normal train to serve them as well). I can't remember the exact details and can't find the plans, so happy to be corrected. I'll have a look later on for more details.

 

[WatcherZero]

I cant find a copy of the 'Leeds City Region Tram-Train Feasibility Study' by Arup, only this fragment update on it.

York Council report on the Harrogate plan: http://democracy.york.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=13937

 

[185]

I have submitted three points to the DfT.

1. Closure of Mosley street.
This is stupid. GMPTE only want it shut now that their office has moved to Piccadilly station so they no longer care as their senior exec no longer use it. Mosley street is vital to providing a combined (from Picc and Bury) reliable service for Altrincham passengers.
The solution is to keep Mosley St soley for Altrincham services and stop all others at the gardens stop.

2. Closing Woodlands Road.
This should not be allowed unless the PTE commit to open a new stop at Queens Road near the tram depot. Otherwise this creates a section of north Manchester with a tram hurtling through it non stop. It's not a rich area either, so this adds to social deprivation.

3. Capacity issues.
The trams purchased are too small for the job, and not fit for purpose. All trams when purchased had the option of having a centre car built, but GMPTE chose not to fund that. This should be a priority scheme as the Oldham Loop will just not cope when open.

 

[kylemore]

I have submitted three points to the DfT.


3. Capacity issues.
The trams purchased are too small for the job, and not fit for purpose. All trams when purchased had the option of having a centre car built, but GMPTE chose not to fund that. This should be a priority scheme as the Oldham Loop will just not cope when open.

Lots of new Trams going cheap from a certain location north of the border soon!
They've got umpteen sections and are nearly as long as a 3 car 170, only problem is they're low floor.

 

[ukrob]

I have submitted three points to the DfT.

1. Closure of Mosley street.
This is stupid. GMPTE only want it shut now that their office has moved to Piccadilly station so they no longer care as their senior exec no longer use it. Mosley street is vital to providing a combined (from Picc and Bury) reliable service for Altrincham passengers.
The solution is to keep Mosley St soley for Altrincham services and stop all others at the gardens stop.

Digital signs are to be erected to show where the next Altrincham service will depart from. Mosley St is a non-standard station.

2. Closing Woodlands Road.
This should not be allowed unless the PTE commit to open a new stop at Queens Road near the tram depot. Otherwise this creates a section of north Manchester with a tram hurtling through it non stop. It's not a rich area either, so this adds to social deprivation.

Done. Abraham Moss and Queens Road stations.

3. Capacity issues.
The trams purchased are too small for the job, and not fit for purpose. All trams when purchased had the option of having a centre car built, but GMPTE chose not to fund that. This should be a priority scheme as the Oldham Loop will just not cope when open.

If you have three car trams you can not use them in multiple. Which is better - one three car or two two cars coupled? Incidentally, the new trams can't run in multiple until Mosley Street is closed as it is a non-standard station.

 

[sprinterguy]

I agree also that Harrogate and Penistone are not correct for tram-trains, but I have a few questions regarding them (this isn't paranoia, just curiosity ):
Does it involve any conversion of a line, i.e. lowering platforms etc?
Does it stop other trains from using the route?
Is it officially light rail, or like one of the old Pacer-Bus things made by British Leyland?
Is there any actual advantage to using them, other than maybe getting rid of 142s?

Tram-trains proposed for various ventures in the UK would have high level entrance doors: Undoubtedly, this would require a degree of lowering of many platforms on a route in order to standardise their heights, as there are a lot of small variations in platform heights around the rail network, but there would be no lowering of platforms to the familiar near-ground level seen on light rail networks like Sheffield and Midland Metro.

One of the popular modern Tram-train designs in Europe is a derivative of Bombardiers' M5000 tram currently entering service with Metrolink, so think of something like that. This means that tram-trains are much more akin to light rail design than heavy rail practice.

The advantages of Tram-trains over traditional heavy rail operation is best witnessed on routes with frequent station stops, as one of the main benefits is a more rapid acceleration and deceleration, and the light rail vehicles will also cause less track wear than, say, a Pacer or Sprinter.

Tram-trains are designed to comply with heavy rail crashworthiness standards, so they do not preclude the operation of other services over the same route. Centro's proposal for a Tram-train service along the Camp Hill line from Brum city centre is based on the requirement for the trams to mix with heavy freight traffic and occasional long distance passenger trains, which could only be done with a Tram-train and not a typical Supertram.

 

[tbtc]

Lots of new Trams going cheap from a certain location north of the border soon!

Its a shame that the various tram systems in the UK don't have any "standard" between units. Would make things so much easier if subsequent systems (Nottingham, Wolverhampton etc) had been designed to accomodate either "high floor" Manchester trams or "low floor" Sheffield ones. Could have made it a lot easier to buy new trams (if they were a standard design).

 

[sprinterguy]

Its a shame that the various tram systems in the UK don't have any "standard" between units. Would make things so much easier if subsequent systems (Nottingham, Wolverhampton etc) had been designed to accomodate either "high floor" Manchester trams or "low floor" Sheffield ones. Could have made it a lot easier to buy new trams (if they were a standard design).

Too right. Short production runs of trams that aren’t able to be extended in the future as the production line has shut down, and are incompatible with those of other networks and manufacturers only serve to push up the cost of light rail schemes. Standardisation of tram types would be a major boon to UK light rail projects.

In order to facilitate the New Street extension and an increased service frequency, Centro will be selling all 16 of the current Midland Metro T-69 trams, as they are insufficient to operate the upgraded service, at a time when they are barely fifteen years old and have little hope of finding work on other UK light rail systems. It’s absolute madness.

Speaking of which, Birmingham will take 19 of those Edinburgh trams off the Councils’ hands, we could do with getting a cheap bargain on replacement Midland Metro trams. Tell you what, we’ll take all 27 and sell on the 8 left over, try and make a bit of profit and salvage something from the confused mess that governs UK tram orders. :roll:

 

[robertclark125]

In order to facilitate the New Street extension and an increased service frequency, Centro will be selling all 16 of the current Midland Metro T-69 trams, as they are insufficient to operate the upgraded service, at a time when they are barely fifteen years old and have little hope of finding work on other UK light rail systems. It’s absolute madness.:

There is a planned extension to the LUAS in Dublin, so although they would be to a different design, could be a cheap way for LUAS to get extra trams!

 

[island]

The green line extension has already launched. For the red line extension, the T69s at 24m long are too short to be useful given passenger volumes, and doubling them up at 48m will exceed the length of some of the platforms.