First Metrolink T68A withdrawn

The withdrawal of the T68A fleet has now started with 2006 being officially withdrawn from service on 4th April having failed at Exchange Quay the previous day before the morning rush hour. Rather than repair the fault it was decided as the withdrawal of these vehicles was due to commence imminently it should be taken out of service permanently.

Delivered new to Queens Road depot at the end of September 1999, 2006 managed less than 12 and a half years in the serviceable fleet in Manchester. It was also the last of the T68As to undergo the special projects modification works and these were only completed last year with the tram returning to service on 7th September – less than seven months later and the tram has now run its last passenger journeys on Manchester Metrolink. 2006 remains at Queens Road where it is likely that its ATS and VRS equipment will be removed before being moved across to Trafford depot.

In other news from Manchester the reprieve received by 1025 following its withdrawal was short-lived as it has now been moved to Trafford depot following the removal of its ATS and VRS equipment. As you may remember when 1025 was withdrawn from passenger service on 15th January it was fitted with a special pantograph and was used on ice breaking duties across the network during the winter period. With this period now apparently over (although I think someone needs to tell the weather that!) 1025 has been
stood down, all useful equipment removed and on the night of 23 March was transported across Manchester for further storage at Trafford where all 12 of the withdrawn T68s are now situated.

On the M5000 front the latest example to enter service has been 3057 which brings the current fleet strength of this class to 50 although it is the 51st to carry passengers. 3013
remains out of service following accident damage earlier this year.

The first T68A to be withdrawn from service, 2006, is seen approaching the terminus at Eccles on 23rd March 2013. Less than two weeks later it had run its last journeys in passenger service. (Photo: Gareth Prior)

This entry was posted in Manchester Metrolink. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to First Metrolink T68A withdrawn

  1. Dan Clarke says:

    I Didn’t Expect Any Of The T68A’s To Be Withdrawn Yet As There Just Simply Havn’t Been Enough M5000s To Operate Every Service But Altrincham To Bury. I Was On The Metrolink A Week Before Services Started Running To Rochdale Yet What Do I See In Passenger Service At Deansgate Castlefield….. 2001!

  2. Ralph Oakes-Garnett says:

    Yes I was out filming the Eccles and Media City Lines yesterday and saw every T68A except 2004/6. Also saw 1022 and 1017 on the line.

    • Ken Walker says:

      Yes Ralph there appears to be at least 1 T68 on the Eccles service each day in addition to T68A’s. 1026+1016, 1022+1013, 1012+1021 and 1003+(I think) 1023 were seen at Piccadilly gardens on Bury/Altrincham services today all within 30 minutes.

  3. Gary Levine says:

    The tram no 2006 still outside the workshop at Queens Road. Has this vehicle really been withdrawn from service? Should it not be in Old Trafford by now?

  4. Gareth Prior says:

    Yes it has really been withdrawn from service. There is no set time as to how long it takes the withdrawn vehicles to be moved across to Trafford. It won’t be moved until the ATS/VRS equipment is removed.

    • Dan Clarke says:

      Is There A Set Order That The T68’s/T68A’s Are Being Withdrawn In Or Is It Just Whenever One Fails, If They Waited For Each One To Fail Then They Could Be Waiting A Long Time As One Might Go Quite A Long Time Without Breaking Down

      • Gareth Prior says:

        Only Metrolink truly know if there is a set order they are withdrawing the trams. The withdrawal of 2006 was accelerated because of its failure although the T68As are due to be taken out of service fairly soon. The advice to anyone who wants to catch a T68A is do it whilst you can!

      • Ken walker says:

        I would imagine it is dictated by when a particular tram requires work costing more than a certain amount to be carried out, rather than withdrawing them in a particular order. Either that or when a repair is required for which no spares are available, the tram then becoming a ‘Christmas Tree’ to keep the others going.

  5. roger woodhead says:

    2006, 12 and a half years service, 6 months since works visit! unbelievable . Car s last for longer than this, buses last 20 years +, trains well seemingly forever. This is an appaling waste of a capital asset and I would love to know how much TfGM still owe, if anything, on the cost of the T68/68A. On the basis of this withdrawal I would expect both 3031 and 3046 to be withdrawn shortly as they both developed faults on Saturday on Rochdale line which gave me a horrible trip as they worked successive journey’s. I tend to agree with certain pressure groups that TfGM need to come clean about the costs of Metrolink.

    • Ken walker says:

      Yes 12 and a half years, and probably not much more for the other T68A’s. Doesn’t compare very well with 70+ years for a Balloon or Brush railcoach does it? (Or EE rail coaches for that matter in their guise as towing cars.)

  6. Clifford Stead says:

    It will be interesting to see when 2001 bites the dust bearing in mind the major refit it had recently.We had a chilly, uncomfortable and slow ride to Rochdale on 3038 last Friday! What a contrast to the 1990`s flying down the Bury line on a new T68. No one I spoke to had a good word for the “Banana trams” in terms of passenger experience when compared to the T68`s and I`m inclined to agree! TFGM have invested in a “Lemon” of a design. If you are lucky enough tofind a seat you won`t want to sit in it long, a 1980`s pacer dmu offers better comfort.

    • Danny says:

      Utter nonsense. Yes, there are less seats, but on a network where you’re more often than not going to be standing anyway, the extra standing room is welcome. When you do get a seat, the seats are comfortable and the leg room generous, especially important for tall blokes like me. The temperature has never been a problem? If it was cold then that is likely due to the fact that it was a cold day. The speed isn’t relevant to the design of the tram, it’s down to line speed. Ride quality is superb except on sections shared with T68s, but that’s because the T68s are making odd groves in the rails that the M5000’s accentuate. As for your Pacer comment, that is a total fallacy, they’re a billion times better than that. Sounds like you’re simply resistant to change.

      • Clifford Stead says:

        Resistant to change no, line speed I disagree, the M5000 whatever line it runs on appears to be slower than the T68. Comfortable seats, absolutely not! Trying going to Rochdale on them, not great..

        • Ken walker says:

          Yes they do run slow on the Rochdale line, but it appears to be down to the schedule not the trams. On Easter Sunday the driver of the tram I travelled on to Manchester actually announced that we would be taking it steady at about 30mph due to the generous schedule. The other side of the coin was shown the other Saturday after the tram failures when the driver of a late running service from Rochdale managed Newhey to Victoria in 31 minutes. I thought Stirling Moss was up front! I suspect the Rochdale line has been given an easy schedule so that the journey time won’t be extended when they start going through Oldham town centre – waiting time at stations isn’t unknown, but it’s more environmentally friendly to go slower and use less power farther than stand waiting time. Drivers also seem willing to wait for someone who is buying a ticket when the tram runs in.

          • Ken walker says:

            Should read ‘rather than stand….’ Bloomin’ predictive text (and failure to check before posting)!!!

    • freel07 says:

      What would you have done Clifford? GMPTE as they were then were faced with no choice but to go for the M5000s as no-one else submitted detailed tenders for the work. The problem at the time was that additional trams were needed for capacity enhancement but that meant only a small batch were needed. Government funding had been diverted south for DLR and the Olympics meaning the bid for Phase 3 had been rejected.

      As for the T68As they had always been less reliable than their older cousins and were ordered by the Altram consortium with insufficient spares to keep all 6 on the road for long.

      There may be a positive to their early withdrawal though as given their relatively short working life their is a good chance they may have a residual value. They are structurally in better condition than the T68s and if Midland Metro do dispose of the T69s they share common traction electronics meaning that spares would be available.

      • Clifford Stead says:

        I would have converted the system to low floor personally which would have avoided the problems with the lack of choice for new trams. Now that would have been an expensive thing to do in the short term but the long term benefits would have been huge.

    • Dan Clarke says:

      And The Pacers Were Bad Enough!

  7. Ralph Oakes-Garnett says:

    Still not seen 2004 in srvice this week. I wonder if this is the next one to go?

  8. Ken walker says:

    After well over 20 years of being lumbered with a pacer almost every time I travelled on the Oldham loop (and in later years it was usually one of the hideous Merseytravel variety) I can say with some degree of certainty that an M5000 is infinitely more comfortable. On Easter Monday travelling to Blackpool for a run to Fleetwood on the Twin set, having got off an M5000 at Victoria and boarding a Northern Rail class 156 it hit me just how drab the interior of their fairly recently refurbished units is compared to an M5000. Yes there can be problems getting a seat at times – only last Thursday at Victoria I let a “standing room only” Rochdale service go and decided to walk round to platform 2, catch a train to Rochdale and the tram back to Milnrow, and as I got off the tram at Milnrow the one I had seen at Victoria ran into the opposite platform, showing that the journey time by either route is more or less identical, just as it was in “loop” days. But I find that with the absence of Diesel engine noise and heater fumes, the light interiors and the slick work at station stops I would not want the pacers back. No way!

Comments are closed.