There has been movement in the Manchester Metrolink fleet in recent weeks with further M5000s entering the operational fleet whilst the future is looking rather bleak for the six T68As as they are now restricted to the Bury-Altrincham direct service and will only be used on that if there are insufficient M5000s available.
On the M5000 front 50 of the class are now fitted with the ATS/VRS equipment for use on the entire network with 3047 and 3046 becoming the latest members to carry passengers. However that news has been tempered slightly as 3013 is likely to be out of service for a while following the collision damage it suffered at Weaste this week. On the delivery front 3063 arrived at Queens Road depot in late January and after initial commissioning work has already been moved to Trafford depot for further storage.
There have been no further withdrawals of T68s and T68As recently but as mentioned above the use of T68As is likely to be a rare occurrence in the future. Following the opening of the East Manchester Line as far as Droylsden this class of tram is now confined to use on the Bury-Altrincham direct services and will be last choice on these diagrams. Currently there are ten diagrams on this service of which six should be double T68s and the remaining four are scheduled to be single M5000s. It is only if there is a shortage of M5000s that T68As are likely to be used on the service and so if you see a T68A out and about the advice is get it whilst you can!
The latest official word from Transport for Greater Manchester (the performance update report presented to the Committee on Friday 8th February) suggests that further T68 withdrawals will commence from the end of March although this report has been unreliable in the past regarding withdrawals so it remains to be seen whether, in fact,
further withdrawals happen in the next few weeks.
I did hear that the T68As may well gain a reprieve when the Rochdale section opens simply because there won’t be sufficient M5000s to cover everything but the Altricham to Bury doubles which are worked by the remaining 14 T68s. What the T68As will be used if this is true on remains to be seen.
Why are the T68As being sidelined anyway, being considerably newer than the T68s? Are they non-standard or less reliable in some way? Can T68s and T68As not run coupled? Just curious
T68As were always less reliable than the T68s and can’t be coupled together or to T68s in service. They are also reaching the point in their lives when they need floor renewals just as the T68s did some years ago.
Thanks for clarifying the reason
The T68 & T68As will not be used on the Rochdale line which will contine from Shaw.
Reason is that T68s have not been tested for potential signal interference when running parallel to the Network Rail line at Newton Heath. They had to be similarly cleared for running next to the Network Rail line between Navigation Rd and Altrincham.
Yes thats right athat they can’t be used on ORL. My point wasn’t made clearly. I meant to say that the T68As may well have to return to use on the Eccles Line, the Bury Altrincham directs as singles or the Altrincham Piccadillys.
That would make a lot of sense, freeing up M5000`s to run on the new routes. The T68A`s were troublesome I believe due to the lack of speed on the Eccles line and were prone to overheating! I assume they have been fine racing up and down to Bury. 2001 was out of use for several years and got rewired. I think it`s a shame to see these trams parked up. The woeful lack of seating on the M5000`s hasn`t endeared them to passengers and I can see capacity issues as more routes come on stream and the T68`s disappear.
Yes the M5000s only seat 52 passengers with up to 150 standing
A lot is made of the great capacity of modern trams but much of that is because many people have to stand at peak periods. As someone with arthritis in the knees, standing in the same place for some time isn’t very pleasant (walking is actually easier). I think reducing seating capacity to just 52 is really taking things too far, but I can’t see this being changed unfortunately.
Apparently the last 20 trams will have 60 seats. Still a poor comparison withe the 120 or so seats that the trains had that used to work the Oldham branch. 5 trams an hour in place of the 4 trains an hour that there used to be during daytime represents a substantial drop in seating capacity. The evening and Sunday service is a considerable improvement though.
Once more of the infrastructure upgrades are finsihed in the City Centre the Shaw to South Manchester service will be of 10 trams per hour during the day with 5 of them turning at Shaw and 5 running on to Rochdale. That represents a fair increase in frequency and I suspect also seating.
The 94 M5000`s simply won`t cope when the entire system opens in 2016, there will have to more trams purchased.
Yes Metrolink think we are Europeans who do not mind standing but it is traditional here to have a seat where possible. Some of these routes are also fairly lengthy. The reports of failures of trams with many standing unable to alight is also worrying. Two incidents to my knowledge in the past 2 weeks. Once at G Mex and also at Victoria on the 8th.
Unfortunately we are Europeans! But seriously the M5000 can only accomodate a certain number of seats and with the 20 extras in the final batch that represents about the maximum. When GMPTE asked for tenders for the new trams they weren’t exactly flooded with response, I think I am right in saying only 2 manufacturers responded. Both offered standard European trams and the K5000 based bombardier offer most closely matched the Metrolink infrastructure requirements so there really wasn’t much choice.
Having checked my source for the above info I find I was wrong. Only one company, Bombardier actually made an offer when it came to detailed specifications, the other dropped out.
When all 94 M5000`s are delivered what then for future deliveries? I read somewhere that Bombardier don`t intend building anymore. It`s a shame they didn`t adapt the phase one lines for low floor operation ( I know the expense would have been high and funding unlikely) as this would have offered more choice on rolling stock and saved on building all those phase three platforms.
We may find sooner than expected if the proposed line to Port Salford gains approval as people seem to think it will. Maybe if an expression of interest is lodged fairly soon Bombardier would consider further production. Otherwise who knows where suitable vehicles may be procured.
It would have been nice to convert to low floor and the feasibility was explored but as you say the cost was prohibitive.
I suppose that is the drawback of being the pioneer for 2nd generation tramways in the UK, other UK systems have had the opportunity to learn from Manchester’s mistakes. Was there the same difficulty finding a supplier in the 1990s as there was for phase 3? I presume there is little or no demand for “high platform” trams in the rest of Europe, and if the Bury and Altrincham lines had been completely rebuilt as the Rochdale line has been, I wonder how much would have been saved by being able to buy standard European designs. But the money available at the time probably made complete rebuilding out of the question. The ironic thing is that the outer ends of the city centre platforms were built at low height but have now been raised! But we are where we are.
The transistion to low floor can be done. I rode the Salt Lake City system last year. It’s first two lines were high floor but all new lines are being built for low floor. Stops are now being prgressively modified to retain a short section of high platform at stops on the old lines and at weekends most lines are operated only by the new low floor trams. It is obviously a gradual process but it can be done.
Jamie
This question of high floor v low floor has been debated before on this site. GMPTE had little option but to adopt High Floor because their was little or no funding available to them to rebuild the old rail platforms except to improve disabled access. I agree that for subsequent extensions they had the opportunity to change this as the T68/68a were fitted with steps for low height platform access though not suitable for disabled. There is the problem do you make the platforms accessible to all or do you restrict access for some at stops where high floor trams have to use low level stops.
Regarding future tram purchases, if Bombardier do cease production of High Floor vehicles it may be a blessing in disguise. On the assumption that TfGM have future extensions in mind they could explore the possibility of having a manufacturer supply the chassis and bogies etc. Then discuss with British bus bodybuilders the possibility of them bodying the chassis with a body that meets both TfGM needs AND passengers requests. A precedent exists for this Blackpool had East Lancs body the Jubilee and Centenary cars, BR had Leyland-National and Alexander provide bodies for Diesel units could Alexander or Optare or Wrights do the same for TfGM?
This is the basic problem, governments in this country unwilling to invest properly in public transport, even though they profess to want us to leave our cars at home. Why is it that we have to argue for every penny to invest in what other countries do as a matter of course, especially as the UK is supposed to be about the 5th richest country in the world? If at this early stage Bombardier were the only company to bid for building high floor trams and are not willing to build any more, then there will eventually come a time with the M5000s becoming old where they will have to adopt the network to operate standard European designs, or see the network gradually die away due to lack of available trams.
The modern tram has no chassis as such so any new British tram would need to start from scratch. The body is an integral structure much the same way as a car or railway carriage.
The market for UK trams is so small that it is doubtful any company would invest in the necessary fabrication equipment etc.
Heaven forbid!! I don’t want a 21century pacer, thank you very much!!
I would like to mention for the record that indeed East Lancashire Coachbuilders did a good job in building eight Centenary cars (with input from Blackpool Borough Transport engineers). However the Jubilee cars were the product of Rigby Road Works in entirety – with exception of the end sections which were built by Metal Sections and fitting on to the main body frames.
The nearest that trams designed as buses (or vice versa) were successful in Britain (other than the Blackpool Centenary cars) were thirteen single ended double deck trams built by English Electric for Rotherham’s system in the mid-1930s. These looked very much like trolleybuses on rails but with only one current collection pole.
Jubilee Car 761 the 1979 prototype is owned by the Fleetwood Heritage Leisure Trust whilst its sister car 762 is now at the National Tramway Museum in Derbyshire.
Whatever happened to the Trampower project after the fire? That was supposed to be about developing affordable trams for the British market wasn’t it?
It’s promoters are also behind the proposed tram system in Preston which (according to their website) “a demonstration track will run in early 2011” and “the ‘Guild Line’ will open in 2012”.
Draw your own conclusions…
It looks as though in 15 years time the whole system will have to go low floor at great expense due to lack of high floor trams on the market.
Iwas there film man, i recorded the old Deepdale Freight Rail, ready for the Demo line, it was going to run by a bunch Kids, all they can do is send silly Emails, draw your conclusions