2014 finished with the operational Manchester Metrolink M5000 fleet at 92 examples following the entry into service of 3093. This LRV was first used in passenger service on Christmas Eve, running on the Airport line, and has now joined the non-ATS/VRS fleet based at Trafford Depot. All M5000s in Manchester have now run in service at some point with the only member of the class not currently operational being long-term absentee 3013. But it shouldn’t be too long before we see the unlucky thirteenth back on the mainline as it has now emerged from the workshops following rebuilding and has seen initial testing around Queens Road Depot.
-
British Trams Online is always on the look out for news and photos from tramways across the British Isles. Whether it be a tram being delivered, a new livery or any other piece of news we want to hear from you! All submissions should be sent to gareth@britishtramsonline.co.uk. As well as topical news and photos we are also still seeking archive photos for our Picture in Time series. Thanks to everyone who does send submissions.
All news carried on these pages is provided in good faith and is correct to the best of our knowledge. If you notice any errors please let us know either by leaving a comment or by email.
Opinions expressed on these pages are those of writer(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of British Trams Online or any organisations we are associated with.
If posting comments to any news articles please read these guidelines which will help us to keep a harmonious community. All comments will be reviewed before publishing and may be subject to editing.
For details of our Privacy Policy please click the following link: Privacy Policy
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Andy walters on In Pictures: West Midlands Metro rail replacement work
- Albert on Another delay for trams at Crich
- Michael Morton on New campaign to celebrate West Midlands volunteers will see tram named
- David on Nottinghamshire County Council to continue funding tram concessionary pass scheme
- Ginger Doctor on In Pictures: West Midlands Metro works get underway
Archives
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- April 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- March 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- September 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- November 2007
- September 2007
- June 2007
- October 2006
- September 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- October 2005
- September 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
Categories
- 15 Events
- 15 Years Apart
- Aberdeen Corporation Transport 15
- Aberystwyth Cliff Railway
- Advert Up Close
- Amman Valley Railway Society
- Around the World in Trams
- Bath and Bristol
- Beamish Tramway
- Birkenhead Heritage Tramway
- Black Country Living Museum
- Blackpool Tramway
- Brighton Tram 53 Group
- British Trams Online at 15
- Burton & Ashby 14
- Bury Transport Museum
- Cardiff Metro
- Cliff Lifts
- Cork Luas
- Crich line-ups
- Crich Tramway Village
- Docklands Light Railway
- Douglas Bay Horse Tramway
- Dublin Luas
- East Anglia Transport Museum
- Edinburgh Trams
- Electric 50 – Crich 2014
- Event Previews
- Event Reviews
- Feature Articles
- Fleetwood Heritage Leisure Trust
- Fylde Tramway Society
- Fylde Transport Trust
- General
- Glasgow Airport link
- Going for a ride
- Great Orme Tramway
- Heaton Park Tramway
- Hull Streetlife Museum
- Hythe Pier Railway
- Ipswich Transport Museum
- Isle of Wight Steam Railway – Ryde Pier Tramway 2
- KenEx Tram
- Leeds Tram
- Leeds Transport Historical Society
- Llandudno & Colwyn Bay Electric Railway Society
- Loan Trams
- Lockdown Walks
- London Trams
- London Transport Museum
- Lost Trams
- Lytham 43
- Manchester Metrolink
- Manx Electric Railway
- Models
- North Eastern Electrical Transport Trust
- Nottingham Express Transit
- Opinion
- Out and About
- People
- Picture in Time
- Preston Trampower
- Random A-Z of Trams
- Reviews
- Ryde Pier Tramway
- Sandtoft Trolleybus Museum
- Scenic T68s
- Seaton Tramway
- September 2018 Review
- Site News
- Snaefell Mountain Railway
- So nearly, not quite!
- South Yorkshire Supertram
- Southampton Tram Project
- Southend Pier Railway/Tramway
- Still Standing!
- Stop by Stop
- Summerlee Museum Tramway
- Support our Heritage Tramways
- Television
- The Number 20
- Then & Now
- They Ran in 2019
- They Ran in 2020
- They Ran in 2021
- They Ran in 2022
- They Ran in 2023
- Tram of the Year
- Tram Pub Signs
- Trams &
- Trams in Unusual Places
- Trams in Video
- Trams Up Close
- Tyne and Wear Metro
- UKTram
- Ulster Transport Museum
- Uncategorized
- Very Light Rail
- Visitor's Guide
- Volk's Electric Railway
- West Midlands Metro
- Whatever Happened To?
- World Cup of Trams
Meta
I was under the impression that 3013 had been sent back to Bombardier for repairs, I was obviously wrong! I am guessing that slow delivery of spare parts has been a problem in returning this TRAM to service from friends in the industry I understand that this is something of a problem on odd occasions with Bombardier.
Gareth don’t forget 3087 which is currently of the road following the R.T.A a few weeks ago on the airport line.There is damage to one of the jacking points and the sole bar.As is usual with any M5000 off the road for any length of time,3087 has become the latest Christmas tree for parts.
On another subject,whats happenend to the “leave a reply” section .Untill the 31st of December your e-mail was kept private,now everybody can see your e-mail address
please ignore my comment about the e-mail address.I do apologise,iwas only clicking on my own user name when leaving a reply.I realise now that only I can see my own e-mail address.
Roger,
sending 3013 back to Vienna would have been the most cost effective way,especially when you cost in lost revenue for over a year.I know there could be some issue with insurance,but at least there wouldn’t be a problem with parts.With something like 3013 you need a dedicated team of body experts working on it everday.
When 3001 was involved with a R.T.A back in 2010 and couldn’t be repaired at Queens rd it was back loaded on the delivery truck back to Vienna and returned a few months later.
Tram Man
Are we the only 2 posting comments?
3001/3013 I must have confused the two. Having just entered my 70th year I have had a senior moment I guess.
In days of yore when I owned my own bus company, if a vehicle was damaged we would assess the damage and if we could repair it within 48 hours we would do the job in house beyond that it went to a specialist repair firm to minimise down time and prevent holdups occurring to the maintenance of other vehicles. So I think that is the way mind was working with my earlier comment!!
Let’s hope that 3087 returns to service a good deal quicker than 3013, which has been off the road since February 2013!
Also was the driver of the refuse wagon brought to task; prosecuted or fined over the incident? At the time (to the observer) it seemed like a simple case of careless driving – all too common these days.
Tram Man, I can’t see that 3013’s absence has resulted in any lost revenue for Metrolink, since there has been no time within the last two years when there has been in any way a shortage of trams.
David B, the truck involved in the collision with 3013 was certainly not a refuse lorry, it may have been carrying glass, but I’m not sure, it’s difficult to tell from the only photograph I have seen.
There is no way that the rear overhang of any sort of vehicle can fail to sweep a path extending beyond that of the track of the said vehicle. This problem is at its most extreme in the case of a maximum-length rigid LGV, which the truck in question looks to have been. However, there is still a limit on how far this swing is going to extend, so it would appear that the tram driver was passing very very close to the rear of the LGV. Yes, we know a tram driver has no control over the course his vehicle is going to take, but if his course was such that he was going to pass the truck so close as to make it a possibility, at least, that there could be contact, then he could have always waited until the truck moved. I am sure that the driver of any trackless vehicle passing the truck as close as the tram driver must have done would have been rebuked, and possibly held partially responsible for the accident.
The driver of the truck obviously had a responsibility to ensure that his vehicle did not encroach the path of any following vehicle, but it’s reasonable to suppose that there will be some breathing space between the two paths, and, in any case, making a right turn without the rear end swinging out at all can be virtually impossible in some situations. Quite apart from any liability on the part of the tram driver, I think there needs to be a divide between careless driving and misfortune.
David believe or not there has been occasions over the last two years where there has been a shortage of vehicles.This is due to the fact that A.T.S/V.R.S vehicles used to provided most of the sets required every day,so they were in great demand.As more new vehicles arrived there was a glut of T.M.S only trams.The situation has now changed with the opening of the airport line and making the Rochdale-east Didsbury line fully T.M.S.
There were occasions at old Trafford where there were just enough A.T.S vehicles with no spare,so when one broke down or returned to the depot with a technical fault there was no vehicle to replace it.
Technical fault or as a result of being covered in graffiti or having windows smashed by lowlifes, the latter in particular becoming an increasing problem. Wasn’t there a morning not too long ago when about 6 trams marked up for morning service couldn’t go because they had been covered in graffiti if I remember correctly.
Tram Man – you appear to be presuming that 3013 is an ATS-fitted tram, but I don’t think it is. I think the ATS equipment was removed and fitted to a later M5000.
Of course, if that’s the case, it could be said that there lies a consequential cost of 3013’s accident – i.e. the cost of removing its ATS equipment and refitting it in another M5000.
Actually, even if were to turn out that 3013 didn’t lose its ATS equipment, it doesn’t alter the economics – the opportunity to remove 3013’s equipment was an option which was available.
Tram Man
I agree with your comments which are supported by the quarterly Metrolink statistics. At the moment they do have some spare trams due to the East Didsbury and Ashton lines running at half their eventual time table. If the Bury line does not go over to TMS soon then there will be an increased demand for ATS fitted trams for the Ashton servicewhen through services from Bury restart.
If I recall ccorrectly the existing lines on full timetable will require 94 trams so they are technically 2short at present!
I am not sure what quarterly figures you refer to Roger but the latest available Metrolink Performance figures covering 2014/15 Periods 6 and 7 certainly do not demonstrate any shortfall in tram availability. Whilst admittedly they do not distinguish between TMS only and ATS equipped trams they show a consistent surplus of available trams throughout both periods. It is recorded in TfGMC minutes that the ATS equipment from 3013 was transferred to 3057 shortly after the accident to 3013.
It is correct to say that the fleet of 94 trams was ordered to operate the full timetabled services across the Phase 3 network. That fleet size included approximately 10% spare capacity to cover for maintenance and accident damage. However even allowing for the additional trams needed to operate the Airport to Cornbrook service the requirements are now where near 90 trams at present whilst work continues at Victoria.
The Monday to Friday daytime requirement is 75-77 units, depending on how many ORL/SML sets happen to be doubled. Restoring the Bury-Ashton link will require a further three sets – that’s presuming there aren’t any consequential changes to other services. However, it’s almost inconceivable that, for instance, the service provision on Bury-Alt direct will reduce to its pre-Victoria closure level (i.e. using 18 units rather than 20). But even if that were to happen tomorrow, there would of course still be sufficient trams in the current fleet to cover.
Don’t forget that not all intended services/frequencies have been implemented – reducing all ORL/SML sets to singles but doubling the frequency between East Didsbury and Shaw will take the PVR to 88, and extending the Airport service to Victoria will take it to 90 (that includes the three extra trams required to operate MCUK-Velopark rather than MCUK-Cornbrook, and those three trams weren’t included in the original calculation). So, already, there lies a justification for a total fleet of c.100 trams.
David,
without wanting to get into a long discussion about which vehicles are fitted with what A.T.S equipment.3013 was one of the original vehicles fitted at the factory with BBR A.T.S equipment.Then upto 3061 its a mix match of vehicles fitted with twenty year old A.T.S equipment taken from the old T68s.Even though the majority of these vehicles came from the factory all wired up for A.T.S,but just needed a antenna and logic unit.I think it was in 2013 TFGM finally bit the bullet and decided to order some BBR A.T.S equipment .So as you can see its far from being a standardise fleet.I know of course there were other factors involved with all these decisions,such as Thales should have had T.M.S up and running years ago.Infact there was a court case over this very issue,which I think is still waiting a outcome.
Yes David you are right the A.T.S equipment was robbed of 3013 probably the same week as the RTA and refitted to another vehicle.
I also suspect that in the case of the later withdrawals of the T68/T68a fleet the transfer of equipment to M5000s did not happen, creating a reduced fleet of ATS vehicles, but I might be wrong. Are the Ashton-Bury trams definitely going to be re-instated when Victoria is completed instead of keeping the current Ashton-Eccles route and just extending the Abraham Moss shuttles to Piccadilly?
At the time of the peak requirement for ATS-fitted trams (which was immediately prior to the Eccles and MCUK services being authorised for operation by non-ATS trams) the PVR was 63 units and the available fleet 72. When Eccles/MCUK could be operated with non-ATS trams the PVR for ATS-fitted trams reduced to 50 (although the Eccles service continued to be operated by ATS-fitted trams initially, but by that time there wasn’t a shortage of them. The PVR for ATS-fitted trams then hovered around the 50 mark until the ORL/SML axis was authorised for non-ATS trams, then it reduced to 30 units (20 Bury-Alt, 6 Picc-Alt, 4 Bury-A/Moss).
When the PVR for ATS-fitted trams reduced to c.50 there wasn’t the same need to fit new trams with the equipment, so, as you rightly believed, not all the T68/As had their ATS equipment transferred to M5000s, and the ATS-fitted fleet steadily reduced to 60 units (3001-12/4-61). However, with a PVR of 50 units, the available fleet should have still been adequate.
I don’t think there’s ever been a question mark over the Bury-Ashton link being restored, not least because it will restore the Picc-Vic link, and that was one of the prime justifications for Metrolink’s introduction. The significance for the fleet is that it will presumably, in the short term, increase the PVR for ATS-fitted trams from 30 to 38 – but with 60 available, there’s no problem there.
EDIT Sorry about the above dopey comment – extending the Bury-Abraham Moss service to Piccadilly would, of course, restore the Picc-Vic link exactly the same as restoring Bury-Ashton would. But, as far as I’m aware, it’s still the intention to restore Bury-Ashton.
Anyone knows when 3013 will be back on the road?