M5000 3093 enters service

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.

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

18 Responses to M5000 3093 enters service

  1. roger woodhead says:

    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.

  2. tram man says:

    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

  3. tram man says:

    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.

  4. tram man says:

    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.

  5. roger woodhead says:

    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!!

  6. David Butterworth says:

    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.

  7. David Call says:

    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.

  8. tram man says:

    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.

    • Ken Walker says:

      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.

  9. David Call says:

    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.

  10. roger woodhead says:

    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!

    • Steve Hyde says:

      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.

      • David Call says:

        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.

  11. tram man says:

    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.

    • Anonymous says:

      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?

      • David Call says:

        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.

        • David Call says:

          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.

  12. Erik Ickerbobs says:

    Anyone knows when 3013 will be back on the road?

Comments are closed.