How is this raising capacity?

Connaire wrote:
> Hi
>
> Someone please tell me why when the Oldham loop becomes Metrolink
> (when ever that happens ) are they replacing a fleet of mostly
> sprinters that can seat 147 per two car set and pacers that can seat
> 121 with a tram that can only seat 62 people?

<snip>

> So can someone please explain how that is increasing capacity?
>
The way they justify it is by comparing the crush load of a Metrolink
LRV (250 people at 4 per square metre IIRC) against the seated capacity
of a 142, if memory serves.

Cheers,

Barry

Connaire wrote:
> On May 10, 11:37 pm, Stephen Farrow <stephen.far...@> wrote:
>> Joyce Whitchurch wrote:
>>> Connaire wrote:
>>>> If we asume that the trams run every 12 min between Manchester and
>>>> Shaw & Crompton compared to the every 15 min now that gives us a seat
>>>> capacity of 186 for the Metrolink and 534 for the trains (2 pacer 2
>>>> 150's)
>>>> So can someone please explain how that is increasing capacity?
>>> They may be planning to run trams at 6 minute intervals, at least as far
>>> as Oldham. I don't think Northern's Pacers load that well north of Oldham.
>> As I understand it, trams will run every 6 minutes as far as Shaw, and
>> every 12 minutes to Rochdale.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> Don't speak Latin in front of the books.
>
> Still not as much capacity as the trains will have

But much, much greater frequency than the train service that's operated
on the line at the moment, which - aside from at Shaw and Oldham Mumps -
is, to all intents and purposes, half-hourly.

--

Stephen

Experience has taught me that behind every toothy grin hides
an extra row of teeth.

Vernon wrote:

> I am trying to piece together the daytime service frequencies post-Little
> Bang.
>
> I assuming Altrincham and Bury will retain their every 6 minutes service.
>
> Apparently Eccles will stay at every 12 minutes. mediacity:uk (ugh!) will
> also have a 12 minute frequency, but these trams will terminate in a new bay
> platform at Cornbrook. I would like to see a diagram of the layout at this
> station.

This Mediacity - Cornbrook shuttle idea seems ridiculous to me. Why
don't they at least run to G-Mex and turn round at the crossover there?
Or build a new crossover and bay, for which there is plenty of room.
This would provide a main line interchange. The long-term idea before
the BBC came along was for Oldham line cars to run through Manchester to
the existing city-facing bay at Cornbrook, so when Oldham happens its
trams could run through to mediacity.

Like you, I cannot see how a bay platform can be fitted in at
the other end of Cornbrook. The lift and stairs access
is at that end of the island platform, and beyond the platform
the line slopes off imemediately to get under the Altrincham line.

> All this would mean 60 trams per hour entering the triangle at Piccadilly
> Gardens, with its many conflicting movements. Is this maximum capacity for
> Metrolink with a single cross-city line?

It has the makings of a fiasco which will make the "Piccadilly
scissors-crossover farce" pale into insignificance.

Charlie

Vernon wrote:
> "Stephen Farrow" <stephen.farrow@> wrote in message
> news:g05839$j6e$1@news.datemas.de...
>> As I understand it, trams will run every 6 minutes as far as Shaw, and
>> every 12 minutes to Rochdale.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> Don't speak Latin in front of the books.
>
> Where did you find this?

Just about every article written about the line in the local press.

--

Stephen

Oh, he's perfectly fine with having his personal freedoms slowly
stripped away, as long as he's completely unaware that it's
happening. Just like a true American.

Stephen Farrow wrote:

> Journey times after conversion
> to Metrolink, yes, will be slower, but the route will serve a great many
> more people, and any means of getting the railway to serve Oldham and
> Rochdale town centres properly would be considerably more expensive than
> conversion to Metrolink.

An obvious case for "Tram-Trains", you might think. This just the
context in which they have been used elswehere.

Charlie

Charlie Hulme wrote:
> Stephen Farrow wrote:
>
>> Journey times after conversion to Metrolink, yes, will be slower, but
>> the route will serve a great many more people, and any means of
>> getting the railway to serve Oldham and Rochdale town centres properly
>> would be considerably more expensive than conversion to Metrolink.
>
> An obvious case for "Tram-Trains", you might think. This just the
> context in which they have been used elswehere.

And certainly, most of the planned new/resited stations along the line
outside Oldham and Rochdale town centres could be done without
converting the line to Metrolink, bringing the service within walking
distance of many more people. It's just the town centres themselves that
present a more difficult problem (though I'm not sure I see much
difference between conversion to Metrolink and running "tram-trains"
along the line, into Oldham and Rochdale town centres, and into
Manchester city centre via the Metrolink tracks).

The higher Metrolink frequency, though, is going to make Beal Lane in
Shaw an absolute nightmare.


--

Stephen

Bill: The eyes are the windows to the skull.
Dave: Soul.
Bill: For those who have one, yes.

Joyce Whitchurch wrote:
> Charlie Hulme wrote:
>>
>>> All this would mean 60 trams per hour entering the triangle at
>>> Piccadilly Gardens, with its many conflicting movements. Is this
>>> maximum capacity for Metrolink with a single cross-city line?
>
> It probably is, given the constraints of the various road junctions
> along the way to the triangle. This is why an alternative north-south
> line is being investigated, possibly running via Deansgate but more
> probably running via Albert Square and Cross Street.

Being investigated, eh? When would be the target opening date?

Moving the water pipes, etc. from those roads would be a major
operation.

Charlie

Stephen Farrow wrote:

> It's just the town centres themselves that
> present a more difficult problem (though I'm not sure I see much
> difference between conversion to Metrolink and running "tram-trains"
> along the line, into Oldham and Rochdale town centres, and into
> Manchester city centre via the Metrolink tracks).
>

Through running (alternate journeys perhaps) to Salford Central,
Salford Crescent and points beyond, valuable to many users.

Charlie

Stephen Farrow wrote:

>
> Wouldn't alternating tram-trains to Salford Crescent with Metrolink
> trams to Cornbrook/Mediacity simply increase the potential for
> performance pollution on a network on which there would already be too
> many routes intersecting at flat junctions as it is?
>

Possibly - but the Germans seem to be able to manage these things.

Proper tram priority over the road crossings in the City
is surely a top priority, whatever else happens.

Charlie

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 23:53:55 +0100, Cheeky <me@> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:52:29 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
>> Williams) wrote:
>>
>>> If GMPTE went for a zonal
>>> system rather than splitting by mode, even more people would buy them.
>> I'm sure that this is something that is under consideration... Metro
>> did it years ago.
>
> And that far more forward-thinking PTE at t'other end of the M62
> (that'd be Merseytravel) have done it since day one, though they do
> sadly have a bus-only and train-only product as well (also zonal)
> these days.

GMPTE started with a zonal train system (concentric zones) - remember
the Saver Seven - and later abandoned it, probably since fraudsters
were buying just the inner zone since they knew there was no checking
at oulying stations.

Charlie