Manchester If Only

[Manchester77]

Forgive me for butting in but is there a translation for these other acronyms?

VRS and ATS I get but TMS? EML? SML? ORL?

And what is SSC?

VRS - Vehicle Recignition System
ATS - Automatic Train Stop
TMS - Tram Management System
EML - East Manchester Line
SML - South Mancehster Line
ORL - Oldham/Rochdale Line
SSC - SkyScraperCity

Other ones possibly used
ECC - Eccles Stop / Eccles Line
PIC - Piccadilly Metrolink Station
BUR - Bury Stop / Bury Line
T68 - Original Metrolink Trams (1001-1026)
T68A - Second Metrolink Fleet (2001-2006
M5000 - New Metrolink Trams (3001-3094

 

[snail]

Thank you!

 

[HYPODERMIC]

I've just caught up with this thread. *Cringe*. Most Mancunians aren't bonkers like the OP. Manchester simply does not need an underground.

That said, there is still a lot to be done in order to get Manchester's transport network to a satisfactory state.

The bus network must be the priority. It is the mode used by the majority of public transport users, but is still disjointed and inefficient, reliant on aging, dirty and polluting vehicles. Investment in new vehicles is continually underway, but often slow and confined to limited routes. It is clear from the London experience that a unified, mono-branded system operated management contracts and concessions ala TfL Buses would be ideal.

The Metrolink network is increasingly successful, and I think it is only a few lines from being foundationally "complete" - Trafford Park, Stockport, and central and north Salford are the obvious gaps for rail coverage of key conurbation centres, with TfGM known to be working on proposals for the first two. That is not to say additional lines would not be very desireable, just that we will soon approach the point where additional lines are probably no longer "emergency" urgent priorities for TfGM.

Cross-modal integration is also very lacking. The region would benefit from a reformed ticket system, particularly with regards to the buses where prices vary across operators and routes. Integrated ticketing, unified zonal fares, enhanced cross-modal interchange facilities and smartcard ticketing should be key focuses for TfGM.

An underground railway would be an expansive sham waste of money, a shiny glamour project achieving little for ordinary people. The real work lies in addressing bread and butter issues like ticketing and buses.

-----

I agree that investment in this country is far too London-centric. But this is not a DfT fault as much as it is a national flaw. Enabling our core cities to compete and drive national growth effectively should be a political priority. Taking money from London and pumping it into regional vanity projects would not be sustainable (though perhaps it is true that this constant cycle of investment in London is a catalyst to potential regional capital flight and brain drain); political and economic reforms are needed to facilitate self-sustaining regions. I happen to see investment in northern infrastructure (ie. transport) as key to this process.

In this, Manchester has done actually rather well, especially so given the limited political power at its disposal (though transport investment per capita, compared to London, is actually still very low). Other core cities have fared much worse, particularly Leeds, Liverpool, and Birmingham.

 

[Manchester77]

Extend metrolink from East Didsbury to Stockport and from Pomona to Port Salford

Introduce smart card ticketing for Bus, Tram and Train

Introduce new ticketing zones

Allow local PTEs to control franchises (as planned by TfGM and other northern PTEs) allowing a much more focused approach on trains

An underground would be pointless as you said.

To OP:- Your map shows it pretty much following metrolink's current and planned routes. So does that not prove that metrolink is better that your actually following metrolinks routes rather than you creating new ones? And if we wanted to use yor map we'd have to pay

 

[PR1Berske]

The Port Salford extension (sorry, the PSE :P) is one of the ambitions Metrolink holds onto.

 

[Starmill]

Bless! We finally realised we were all here together.

I must say, I found the SSC Metrolink threads on RailUK Forums the thread is closed now, so here we go:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=866944&page=1331

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=584932&page=981

They're quite long!

Unfortunately, HYPODERMIC, I don't think its possible for TfGM to have an "emergency" mode about anything.

On the other hand, I must agree with your latter sentiments. I often look at London with despair. When I go there, I get a sort of perverted hangover upon my return. But then I think, it could be worse. I could live in Leeds.

 

[billio]

An underground railway would be an expansive sham waste of money, a shiny glamour project achieving little for ordinary people.

I think there is a case for putting the tram network underground in the city centre. This would make the streets on which operates safer and more pleasant and should speed up the tram service across the centre.

The problem with using former railway lines for the tram is that it has cut off some large centres of population from direct access to the standard rail network. So wherever you place the HS2 station travellers from places such as Bury and Oldham are probably going to spend nearly as much time getting to that station as they will travelling at high speed. Unless of course the HS2 station is alongside Victoria.

 

[HYPODERMIC]

I think there is a case for putting the tram network underground in the city centre. This would make the streets on which operates safer and more pleasant and should speed up the tram service across the centre.

Not necessarily.

Accidents on the Metrolink network are not common. Where trams do travel at speed in the city centre (Mosley Street, High Street) they are moving in straight lines and are very visible, or are grade separated from motor and pedestrian traffic entirely (Deansgate-Castlefield viaduct).

Underground stops also entail unique safety concerns - particularly after dark, where solitary passengers may feel isolated from the above world and vulnerable to crime. The passenger environment is not improved at all; it is possibly worsened.

Street running does have clear advantages of its own too - ability to integrate with other modes of transport and position stops close to places of interest, passenger convenience, ease of access, etc. Underground stations entail additional delays in the descent underground to platform level, and in then having to ascend back to street level.

And you should always consider the opportunity cost of what you are advocating. If such a sum of money became available as to fund the costs of moving the City Zone tracks into underground tunnels I would abort the tunnelling and spend what would certainly be a very large sum on building new tramlines to new suburbs instead, or perhaps on replacing as many of the Pacers as possible.

It seems to me to be a scheme rooted in good intentions, but too costly and impractical to be worthwhile.

 

[billio]

Not necessarily.

Accidents on the Metrolink network are not common. Where trams do travel at speed in the city centre (Mosley Street, High Street) they are moving in straight lines and are very visible, or are grade separated from motor and pedestrian traffic entirely (Deansgate-Castlefield viaduct).

Underground stops also entail unique safety concerns - particularly after dark, where solitary passengers may feel isolated from the above world and vulnerable to crime. The passenger environment is not improved at all, and is very possible worsened.

Street running does have clear advantages of its own too - ability to integrate with other modes of transport and position stops close to places of interest, passenger convenience, ease of access, etc. Underground stations entail additional delays in the descent underground to platform level, and in then having to ascend back to street level.

And you should always consider the opportunity cost of what you are advocating. If such a sum of money became available as to fund the costs of moving the City Zone tracks into underground tunnels I would abort the tunnelling and spend what would certainly be a very large sum on building new tramlines to new suburbs instead, or perhaps on replacing as many of the Pacers as possible.

It seems to me to be a scheme rooted in good intentions, but too costly and impractical to be worthwhile.

You make good points, but 7 passenger deaths since 1992 is not necessarily a good safety record for a light rail system. Also for example, take the 14th December this year, 3 collisions between cars and trams. No significant injuries because the vehicles involved are travelling slowly but disruption to services and traffic.

I base my views on experiences in Den Haag. Putting some tram routes underground has made a vast improvement to the shopping streets where the trams once ran and the trams run more smoothly. It strikes me that if Manchester increases its tram or light rail network signifcantly then it will find a bottleneck in the city centre. Going underground might be a good solution to this.

 

[exile]

Sure, but hundreds of cities have successful street-running systems. The bottleneck is being addressed via a second route crossing the city centre.

As soon as you put a rapid transit system underground you add the hassle of getting up and down to street level.

 

[Starmill]

Not necessarily.

Accidents on the Metrolink network are not common. Where trams do travel at speed in the city centre (Mosley Street, High Street) they are moving in straight lines and are very visible, or are grade separated from motor and pedestrian traffic entirely (Deansgate-Castlefield viaduct).

Underground stops also entail unique safety concerns - particularly after dark, where solitary passengers may feel isolated from the above world and vulnerable to crime. The passenger environment is not improved at all; it is possibly worsened.

Street running does have clear advantages of its own too - ability to integrate with other modes of transport and position stops close to places of interest, passenger convenience, ease of access, etc. Underground stations entail additional delays in the descent underground to platform level, and in then having to ascend back to street level.

And you should always consider the opportunity cost of what you are advocating. If such a sum of money became available as to fund the costs of moving the City Zone tracks into underground tunnels I would abort the tunnelling and spend what would certainly be a very large sum on building new tramlines to new suburbs instead, or perhaps on replacing as many of the Pacers as possible.

It seems to me to be a scheme rooted in good intentions, but too costly and impractical to be worthwhile.

Allocative efficiency FTW!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sure, but hundreds of cities have successful street-running systems. The bottleneck is being addressed via a second route crossing the city centre.

As soon as you put a rapid transit system underground you add the hassle of getting up and down to street level.

Aye. 2CC (2nd City Crossing) ought to solve this particular problem a lot more cheaply than tunnels ever could... but my worry is, it will simply move the problem along the line, what if, if we ever get Port Salford open, St Peter's Square - Cornbrook becomes equally congested? The station in the square itself should cope with 4 platforms, but I'll be interested to see what they do with Deansgate and the ramp.

 

[Manchester77]

Remodel Cornbrook Junction - St Peter's Square.
Four track, rebuild Cornbrook with two island platforms (four faces)
Widen and strengthen existing viaduct. Use the disused viaduct into MC four an extra two tracks. Major works at DGCF consist of widening and new platforms. This way we have four tracks from CBK Jct. to SPQ with tracks then splitting into 1CC and 2CC

It's a bit complex

 

[radamfi]

Aye. 2CC (2nd City Crossing) ought to solve this particular problem a lot more cheaply than tunnels ever could... but my worry is, it will simply move the problem along the line, what if, if we ever get Port Salford open, St Peter's Square - Cornbrook becomes equally congested?

The Piccadilly triangle is such a significant capacity constraint because trams get in the way of each other, and that problem is resolved by the 2CC scheme. However, the line south of St Peter's Square does not have any such triangles so trams can pretty much travel nose to tail once line of sight signalling is installed so that shouldn't be a pinchpoint in the future. It is only congested now because block signalling is still in operation.

Further extensions in the Trafford Park area could end up terminating at Cornbrook anyway.