Are Metrolink Going OTT

[northernrail]

Ok the Manchester Metrolink is a decent system the way it is, But so many new lines its Over The Top.
Aswell as the originall 26 T68 and 6 T68a stock they have more than 45 New M5000 stock on order.
The chances are the first few months of the new lines opening and all new stock in service will be a failure while Staff in the controll room get used to such a larger system.
There is even a Proposed second line through the city center.
What are your views on the "Big Bang" as its been called?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Manchester, alongside Sheffield and Nottingham is doing a great thing by reintroducing light rail through city centres, and suburban areas, to be honest I think that places such as Bristol, Glasgow and Leeds should do similar (I haven’t really got a clue what is happening up in Edinburgh). I think it should be encouraged for all sizeable cities to have large tram systems... As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with the second city centre route through Manchester, nor the extensions to Didsbury town, the Airport or Media City etc.

There is, however, one thing that I absolutely despise about tram systems, and that is when they take over from heavy rail, such as Oldham, Altrincham (via Sale) and Bury in Manchester, as well as Whitley Bay, Tynemouth, Wallsend etc on the Tyne & Wear Metro, and , to an extent, Addiscombe and Wimbledon-West Croydon on the Croydon Tramlink. Trams should never be used to replace heavy rail, they should be used to relieve overcrowding in city centre areas, as well as on exceptionally busy bus routes, and connecting inner-suburbs, basically places where heavy rail cannot otherwise help, but extending out of the city is wrong, I would hate to do Oldham-Manchester, Bury-Manchester or Sunderland-Newcastle on a tram.

I think basically everyone can see what I'm saying by now, but I'll be breif in this:
Good for inner-suburbs and city centre connection;
Bad when it overtakes heavy rail.

I am slightly concerned about how much money is going into the Metrolink project, but I think, if it is taking nothing away from rail funding, or heavy rail services, it is a good thing... well done to all cities involved in such schemes, and roll on the one along Oxford Street!

Matt

PS - no matter under what circumstances, heavy rail will always come bottom of the ‘which is better?’ list!

 

[ukrob]

Quite a strange post.

Surely, by your logic, all railway lines should be totally segregated form each-other?

I don't see the problem of a network expanding? The new signalling system can cope with over 80 trams per hour over a section if it needs to.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Concur. I'm not sure where your reasoning stems on this, northernrail. Take the DLR and how it's grown in route-miles, frequency and complexity since inception. When manually driven by onboard traincrew, I feel no less safe travelling than when it's running fully automated.

As an aside, last week I spied the DLR test runs down the new Canning Town to Stratford International line.

 

[northernrail]

since i was a baby Metrolink has had no problems with the 3 lines but 8 lines.
You have to admit that it is getting slightly over the top

 

[ukrob]

since i was a baby Metrolink has had no problems with the 3 lines but 8 lines.
You have to admit that it is getting slightly over the top

Why is it 'over the top'?

It would only be over the top if it was duplicating existing routes.

Is the DLR over the top? How about the whole tube network - is that over the top?

 

[northernrail]

Why is it 'over the top'?

It would only be over the top if it was duplicating existing routes.

Is the DLR over the top? How about the whole tube network - is that over the top?

The DLR could be bigger for a Capital City and the Underground was different companys who made it, Metrolink is one company who is getting bigger but dont need to

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The DLR could be bigger for a Capital City and the Underground was different companys who made it, Metrolink is one company who is getting bigger but dont need to

Thy don't need it? I am sure that if people felt it wasn't required, they would not build it... to be hinest, i don not a problem with the brand-new (Ashton, Stockport and Airport) extentions taking place.

 

[ukrob]

The DLR could be bigger for a Capital City and the Underground was different companys who made it, Metrolink is one company who is getting bigger but dont need to

So, should all the areas that will be served by the extensions just do without instead? Should a bus company be limited to three routes too?

I don't think this conversation is going to go anywhere.

 

[northernrail]

So, should all the areas that will be served by the extensions just do without instead? Should a bus company be limited to three routes too?

I don't think this conversation is going to go anywhere.

The areas to be served have coped fine
The question was Are Metrolink going OTT, we all have diffrent views, no one must share myn

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The areas to be served have coped fineThe question was Are Metrolink going OTT, we all have diffrent views, no one must share myn

At the moment. To be fair, it's all about getting more people onto piblic transport, and let's faec it, it looks impressive, and they are handier than buses.

 

[ukrob]

The areas to be served have coped fine
The question was Are Metrolink going OTT, we all have diffrent views, no one must share myn

I 'cope' fine, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't benefit from a new service.

To give a plain answer, no, Metrolink is not going over the top with its expansion.

 

[northernrail]

I 'cope' fine, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't benefit from a new service.

To give a plain answer, no, Metrolink is not going over the top with its expansion.

Like i said we all have diffrent views

 

[Deerfold]

You have to admit that it is getting slightly over the top

No-one seems to be admitting that.
I could see it being a problem if all the new sections suddenly opened at once but they're in quite a lot of stages.

Why do you think it will be a problem? If we knew your concerns we might be able to explain why they're not problems or agree that there are problems.

 

[MCR247]

I don't understand how it can be going OTT?

Surely investment for a new transport system is a good thing?

 

[tbtc]

I don't understand how it can be going OTT?

Surely investment for a new transport system is a good thing?

Agreed.

Investment in public transport is a good thing.

If its got to the stage that we are arguing that it's been too popular/ too busy/ working too well then... surely that's justification for more investment? And a "second line" will be needed through town to cope with the numbers. Makes sense.

A lot of train enthusiasts will hate the idea of another public transport system working well and carrying large numbers, but I'm a "horses for courses" guy, and sometimes a tram is better than a train, in the way that sometimes a guided busway is appropriate. Having a "train or nothing" approach doesn't help.

 

[starrymarkb]

So what about Leipzig (a city the size of Bristol) with 15 Tram Routes! is that Overkill in the OP's opinion?

 

[Mojo]

I disagree with the above opinion that light rail should never replace heavy rail, as there are a lot of urban railway lines which don't have the frequencies required or don't actually meet the kind of modern journey requirements. Replacing rattling old DMUs on suburban railway lines with modern, electric light rail vehicles is certainly an improvement in lots of cases, and the success stories of where light rail has taken over from heavy rail in Manchester and South London speaks for itself.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I disagree with the above opinion that light rail should never replace heavy rail, as there are a lot of urban railway lines which don't have the frequencies required or don't actually meet the kind of modern journey requirements. Replacing rattling old DMUs on suburban railway lines with modern, electric light rail vehicles is certainly an improvement in lots of cases, and the success stories of where light rail has taken over from heavy rail in Manchester and South London speaks for itself.

To be fair though, the cost of conversion could easily pay for passing loops (esp. on the Watford-St Albans), as well as clean up stations, and possibly provide new stock, light rail should go to complex places where heavy cannot go, and buses canot keep up with demand, I think any money that would have to go towards relaying track, lowering platforms etc could easily cover the cost of cleaning them up and improving heavy rail services.

 

[will1337]

I don't understand this thread. We are a country which underinvests in public transport infrastructure. When we do it tends to be in smaller projects. So long as it isn't to the detriment of heavy rail I fully support any tram projects. The metrolink expansion will make a massive difference to many in manchester as there are a lot of people who rely on public transport and it will reduce unnecessary car journeys. It is ambitious in scope but as starrymarkb mentioned will still leave the city with fewer tram routes than many smaller european cities and it is one of our largest.

Another thing which I have wondered is whether it will all go ahead bearing in mind the current financial climate. Is funding entirely secured? If it were severely cut back or abandoned entirely then it would be a very bad thing. Speaking as a Londoner, London is still over prioritised. Any investment in other cities is a good thing and can hopefully in time lead us to a less centralised economy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There is however one thing which these plans do not cover and which I think is vital to Manchester. This is the poor cross city rail connections. While metrolink will help for local journeys, a new Picc-Vic route is really needed. It is ridiculous that there are only too tracks leading north from two platforms at Piccadilly. Surely at a bare minimum there should be more through platform capacity. It would be very hard to achieve with the physical layout of 13 and 14. Could the signalling along the line be improved for better headways? Even if this is achieved there could be problems with dwell times on the platform which I have noticed can often cause trains to leave late.

 

[WatcherZero]

For Pic-Vic connections wait for the Northern Hub, and yes funding is 100% secured about half the 1.2bn from council tax backed loans and half from government grants, Peel has also coughed up £10m for Media City spur and tehres a possibility they may contribute to another trafford line currently being planned and Manchester Airports Group has contributed £20m to the airport line, they will recieve bonuses if passengers on that line exceed expectations (sort of mini franchise payment for encouraging use).

 

[142094]

There is, however, one thing that I absolutely despise about tram systems, and that is when they take over from heavy rail, such as Oldham, Altrincham (via Sale) and Bury in Manchester, as well as Whitley Bay, Tynemouth, Wallsend etc on the Tyne & Wear Metro, and , to an extent, Addiscombe and Wimbledon-West Croydon on the Croydon Tramlink.

You've said that before about the Tyne and Wear Metro, yet never have backed up your statements about why you hate heavy rail being taken over by light rail.

A little bit of history about the Newcastle area. In the late 1800s and early 1900s a lot of people did travel by heavy rail in the area, yet this was gradually eroded by buses and trams which were cheaper and ran to more destinations. As a result NER decided to put in 3rd rails to make journey times faster, and so the railways did recover (but not to the extent that they used to be). The same thing happened throughout the 20th Century - more competition from trolley buses and then the private car, BR downgrading services from the fast electrics to diesels and reducing the amount of trains running. It got to a stage where some lines were closed (Riverside branch being one), and at the time services were very poor. Then in the late 60s the plan came about for a new rapid transport system which would take over a lot of the lines previously being run by BR and have faster trains and more stations. The Metro was and is probably one of the best things that has happened to this region. Over 40 million people per year now use it, which would never happen under a heavy rail suburban system. I don't see how you can say that it would have been better under heavy rail - more than likely a sense of nostalgia that you have.

Also, the Metro system is not a tram system. Trams run on roads, the Metro does not. There is nothing wrong with a Metro travelling between Newcastle and Sunderland, and would advise you to have a trip before you comment on it.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

You've said that before about the Tyne and Wear Metro, yet never have backed up your statements about why you hate heavy rail being taken over by light rail.

Also, the Metro system is not a tram system. Trams run on roads, the Metro does not. There is nothing wrong with a Metro travelling between Newcastle and Sunderland, and would advise you to have a trip before you comment on it.

I think though that the level of investment that goes into conversion, with new trams etc, would be more than enough to improve heavy rail to a sufficient level that a tram could bring it up to, I'll find examples later: I do not have the time to at the moment...

Yes, thank you for the reminder (again!) that the T&WM is not the same as a tram... Advise I take a trip before I comment, I have: Newcastle Central to the Stadium of Light, and I have got to tell you, I would rather have crawled over broken glass that was also toxic, on the way back I just walked into Sunderland City Centre and got a heavy rail service back... to be fair though, the only thing worse than getting a tram to Sunderland was actually being in Sunderland itself

And no, it is no sense of nostalgia, just my opinion, I have said in my long post at the start why I feel heavy rail is better than light rail, and where trams are better than heavy rail, please read it to understand my opinion further.

Matt

 

[tbtc]

One thing to point out is that setting up a tram (or equivalent) system means the PTE (or local stakeholders, like Manchester Airport) are in control of the service.

Lets say you are GMPTE. You want to improve services from Oldham to Manchester. You could hope Northern chose to improve services (they have lots of routes to work on, they'd need to bid for paths through Manchester Victoria etc), and then there's no guarantee that any "additional" trains won't be whisked away in the future etc.

However, if you build a tram, you get to retain control over the route, nobody is going to take the trams away from you, you can take decisions over future investment/ expansion etc.

Maybe if the rules were different and PTEs (etc) could make direct investment in "heavy rail", there'd be more investment in railways from PTEs. But in the current environment, you can't blame them for wanting to ensure that their money is spent on their area.

 

[northernrail]

I 'cope' fine, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't benefit from a new service.

QUOTE]

what would we cope better from getting rid of the debts our country is in or new tram line

 

[WatcherZero]

Depends if the economic stimulus, revenue it generates and expansion it stimulates (A general BCR) is larger than the interest rate. Its the sort of decision commercial companies must make on a daily basis, do they return excess capital to investors (dividends, analgous to short term government tax cuts, see Bush tax cuts), use it to reduce borrowing (increased long term shareholder value, lower future taxes, Clinton economics) or invest it in the short term and long term success of the company (again long term increased shareholder value, you and me having greater wealth).

 

[northernrail]

No-one seems to be admitting that.
I could see it being a problem if all the new sections suddenly opened at once but they're in quite a lot of stages.

Why do you think it will be a problem? If we knew your concerns we might be able to explain why they're not problems or agree that there are problems.

The problems i have with it is shutting down a heavy rail line for 2 years can leave people annoyed (eg. the Rochdale Line)
Passengers will be so used to buying tickets on the trains that they could forget to buy on the Platform and then get fined for travelling without a ticket.
On the Bury Line the heavy rail class 504's may have run less frequently but they had more passenger capacity (That is a Fact)

 

[Clip]

The problems i have with it is shutting down a heavy rail line for 2 years can leave people annoyed (eg. the Rochdale Line)
Passengers will be so used to buying tickets on the trains that they could forget to buy on the Platform and then get fined for travelling without a ticket.
On the Bury Line the heavy rail class 504's may have run less frequently but they had more passenger capacity (That is a Fact)

Well you would hope in the 2 years you say it will take to convert the line then they will have had enough warning to buy their ticket before hand

 

[lancastrian]

Is Metrolink going over the top. NO WAY, although it has taken over now three heavy rail routes, it has been to the benefit of them. The total usage of the Bury & Altrincham routes before metrolink, was about 9 million, with in 5 years it was up to 12 million, I am not sure where it is now, but it is still increasing. These new extensions are GOOD, the route to East Didsbury is reopening a closed Heavy Rail section, which would never have ben reopened otherwise.

The mixture of reused heavy rail, reopened heavy rail or even new street running, the result has been an improved transport system in Greater Manchester. The new cross city route will be another wonderful assest to Metrolink and Manchester.

The extensions on both The Tyne & Wear Metro and NET in Nottingham will also benefit both the cities and for those communities it is built into. What we need in this country is not to deminish extensions to Light Rail, but to celebrate them and to encourge our Government to not only extend them but to build others in cities that don't have them.

I am sure that Leeds and Bristol would both be very happy with an 'over the top' expansion of their Light Rail systems, if only they had them.

 

[tbtc]

I am sure that Leeds and Bristol would both be very happy with an 'over the top' expansion of their Light Rail systems

We'd love it in Sheffield too! However our three prong tram system has stayed the same for over fifteen years (whilst Manchester expands and expands)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problems i have with it is shutting down a heavy rail line for 2 years can leave people annoyed (eg. the Rochdale Line)

This is one thing that I don't understand

Why didn't they keep the Manchester - Rochdale - Oldham line working (whilst they converted the Manchester - Failsworth - Oldham to tram), then once the Manchester - Failsworth - Oldham section is up and running as a tram, start converting the Oldham - Rochdale line to tram.

That would have ensured Oldham retained a direct link to Manchester at all times. Plus it'd be quicker to get the Failsworth section up and running if all resources were concentrated on it initially, meaning they'd be earning revenue from it sooner)

Instead, they've closed the entire "Oldham loop" at once, meaning nothing is serving Oldham.

I have the same problem with tram construction in Edinburgh - it'd be much easier to build it in sections. We could have part of the Oldham loop and Edinburgh tram up and running by now if they'd developed them in stages