Dogs on the Metrolink

[AM9]

I don't know about food, but not allowing one to drink a coffee from a lidded cup on a tram is just silly.

I've seen that go wrong on trains so allowing it on trams where an irregular stopping pattern is more likely is just asking for more trouble.
Edit: I've just seen post #30. I know that trams often ride rough on streets but if that is true on the high speed reserved sections, standees with cups of hot drinks is just an unnecessary risk.

 

[jumble]

It's often the case that agressive dogs have similarly agressive owners, and why should a lone driver have the job of dealing with such people. 'Well behaved' is subjective and a driver is likely to end up in a confrontation with many passengers who either don't agree that the behaviour is below the acceptable level, (or are too fearful of the dog's owner(s)). Arbitrary rules are dangerous in an emotional charged situation unless there are adequate staff to deal with those who think that the rules don't apply to them.

If this were true how come I can travel on Croydon Tramlink without any one caring ?
I have travelled frequently on all sorts of TFL transport and have never seen an aggressive member of my species and so do not believe this to be an issue
Funnily enough Last time I was on Tramlink it was an aggressive human that was the big problem!
One of our forum staff who was also present can confirm this if they feel inclined to do so.
Regards
Summer the Cocker Spaniel

 

[StretfordEnd96]

A lot of the points raised as to why dogs aren't allowed in my opinion do seem a little bit contradicting in regards to the fact these don't apply on trains - i.e. - "Dogs aren't allowed on trams because of potential fouling" - well this is an issue on trains too. "Safety, damage to trams, delays, animal's behaviour and people with allergies" - while I understand these are possibly valid points (though I'd argue some of these aren't an issue or don't exist as issues) I don't see why they don't apply to trains too and therefore dogs shouldn't be allowed on those.


In my opinion I think the main factor is that the Metrolink is seen as a busy city light rail system mainly used by commuters and shoppers/leisure in and out of the city, on vehicles which are smaller than train carriages, and therefore they feel dogs aren't suited to this type of environment - in comparison to trains which often include much longer distances, bigger carriages, better staffed (?) perhaps.

There is therefore the point that, Manchester's more local heavy rail lines e.g local stopping services that are often packed at rush hour would also lie under this no dogs remit as these bare a similar environment to trams - but enforcing this on local stopping trains vs longer distance ones wouldn't make much sense.

I am a big dog lover myself, always had dogs, but I'd never bring one on public transport. One because I've never needed to, two because knowing me, something embarrassing would happen - if you can work out what that may be xD
In other words, I only really get the tram to head in and out of the city for leisure, shopping etc. therefore I don't really need my dog with me - but a TPE service to Scarborough for a weekend away on the train I'd be happy enough to bring my dog.

 

[AM9]

If this were true how come I can travel on Croydon Tramlink without any one caring ?
I have travelled frequently on all sorts of TFL transport and have never seen an aggressive member of my species and so do not believe this to be an issue
Funnily enough Last time I was on Tramlink it was an aggressive human that was the big problem!
One of our forum staff who was also present can confirm this if they feel inclined to do so.
Regards
Summer the Cocker Spaniel

Even with witness verification, anecdotes are irrelevant to a discussion on blanket rules such as this. Blanket rules can also be applied to suppress aggressive human behaviour where it is in the interests of a majority of people (in this case public transport users).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am a big dog lover myself, always had dogs, but I'd never bring one on public transport. One because I've never needed to, two because knowing me, something embarrassing would happen - if you can work out what that may be xD
In other words, I only really get the tram to head in and out of the city for leisure, shopping etc. therefore I don't really need my dog with me - but a TPE service to Scarborough for a weekend away on the train I'd be happy enough to bring my dog.

I guess, though, you own a car? If someone doesn't, and the vet is a journey away, then they don't have much option.

 

[StretfordEnd96]

I guess, though, you own a car? If someone doesn't, and the vet is a journey away, then they don't have much option.

Yes that's a good point and I apologize - though I would imagine for most dog owners the vet's are more local (i.e. bus journey) rather than having to trek down the Metrolink network

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes that's a good point and I apologize - though I would imagine for most dog owners the vet's are more local (i.e. bus journey) rather than having to trek down the Metrolink network

That's an interesting cultural observation, because down the M62 Merseyrail is used for local journeys as well as those "into town" - buses only come into it if Merseyrail doesn't go there. Is Metrolink only thought of for going to Manchester city centre? Odd if so.

 

[StretfordEnd96]

That's an interesting cultural observation, because down the M62 Merseyrail is used for local journeys as well as those "into town" - buses only come into it if Merseyrail doesn't go there. Is Metrolink only thought of for going to Manchester city centre? Odd if so.

Perhaps my point is not just the city centre but for any town in the region

I don't really know why they aren't allowed on there to be honest

If you have a dog and it has a vets appointment and Metrolink is your only form of travel to get there I think it's pretty unfair that your puppy wouldn't be allowed to travel. No doubt about that. But I'd expect a very small number of people in the county to be in that position.

 

[507 001]

I guess, though, you own a car? If someone doesn't, and the vet is a journey away, then they don't have much option.

You can bring a dog on Metrolink if travelling to a vet. You just need a code from customer services before travelling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can bring a dog on Metrolink if travelling to a vet. You just need a code from customer services before travelling.

That's a start, but I still think the policy is silly.

 

[Fokx]

You can bring a dog on Metrolink if travelling to a vet. You just need a code from customer services before travelling.

I believe this is strictly only for the PDSA in Salford on the Eccles line rather than any vet of the persons choosing either (unless this has since changed).

It is worth remembering that Manchester bus operators used to have a ‘dog fare’ too

 

[AM9]

If you have a dog and it has a vets appointment and Metrolink is your only form of travel to get there I think it's pretty unfair that your puppy wouldn't be allowed to travel. No doubt about that. But I'd expect a very small number of people in the county to be in that position.

Strange that a 'dog' which could be almost anything from a Shih Tzu to a Pit Bull is described as a "puppy" when justifiying taking a dog on a tram.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe this is strictly only for the PDSA in Salford on the Eccles line rather than any vet of the persons choosing either (unless this has since changed).

It is worth remembering that Manchester bus operators used to have a ‘dog fare’ too

I have no particular issue with charging for dogs, I just find it stupid that they are not allowed, when they are allowed on every other mode of public transport in the city and others, including heavily loaded DOO commuter trains around London.

 

[507 001]

That's a start, but I still think the policy is silly.

I don’t, but there we go.

I believe this is strictly only for the PDSA in Salford on the Eccles line rather than any vet of the persons choosing either (unless this has since changed).

It is worth remembering that Manchester bus operators used to have a ‘dog fare’ too

It’s any PDSA these days, the one at Old Trafford is a common one.

 

[AY1975]

You can take them on tyne and wear metro and they don't have staff in the carriage or on the platform either.

And on London Tramlink, as mentioned in post #30, and the Docklands Light Railway, which don't have conductors, and on the Blackpool and Edinburgh trams which do have conductors (or ticket inspectors/customer service agents in the case of Edinburgh).

Birmingham and Sheffield trams also have conductors but don't allow dogs other than assistance dogs.

I suppose one possible explanation is that tram systems opened since the 1990s were established in a more health and hygiene conscious era, whereas buses and ordinary heavy rail trains have always had the same policy on dogs and no-one has ever thought to change it.

 

[naughtygreeny]

The reason for the no dogs rule on Metrolink is because they were concerned that in a high volume system with a lot of standing passengers people would be stepping on dogs tails or otherwise agitating them.

I think this is sensible and completely understandable

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think this is sensible and completely understandable

Despite not applying to other such UK systems?

I think someone in TfGM just hates dogs, to be honest.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I think someone in TfGM just hates dogs, to be honest.

They'll have been there a long time then! It's been like that since 1992.

 

[javelin]

I'm a dog lover, but I'd rather the driver was allowed to get on with the business of driving than having to deal with the fallout of some scally's bull terrier eating another passenger's pet.

 

[Wolfie]

Funny how they manage to be carried on other high volume systems with a lot of standing.

Dogs on the tube in rush-hour are an utter pain. They take a shedload of floor space and inevitably end up being kicked or stood on, sometimes with nasty consequences. I wish TfL had the same policy as TfGM.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dogs on the tube in rush-hour are an utter pain. They take a shedload of floor space and inevitably end up being kicked or stood on, sometimes with nasty consequences. I wish TfL had the same policy as TfGM.

I don't think I've ever seen a dog on the Tube in rush hour. Off peak of course things are different. Perhaps like bicycles on most trains they should be carried off peak only.

 

[jumble]

Dogs on the tube in rush-hour are an utter pain. They take a shedload of floor space and inevitably end up being kicked or stood on, sometimes with nasty consequences. I wish TfL had the same policy as TfGM.

Ive never been kicked or stood on and have travelled on many rush hour trains so really do not understand what you are talking about.
I am delighted that TFL let me travel when ever I want
Regards
Summer the Cocker Spaniel

 

[londonbridge]

whereas buses and ordinary heavy rail trains have always had the same policy on dogs and no-one has ever thought to change it.

I remember posters on TFL buses which used to say : “Dogs travel free. They are carried at the discretion of the driver or conductor but are not allowed on seats. On double deck buses they normally travel upstairs, but in special circumstances the driver or conductor may allow a small dog to be carried downstairs”. I don’t know when/if the policy was changed but these days I’ve often seen larger dogs downstairs sprawled on the floor across the aisle, and occasionally small/medium size dogs actually on a seat.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Dogs on the tube in rush-hour are an utter pain. They take a shedload of floor space and inevitably end up being kicked or stood on, sometimes with nasty consequences. I wish TfL had the same policy as TfGM.

The Tube is an utter pain with or without dogs in rush hour, mostly because of the nitties that board it in bad areas. Every mass transit system is unfortunately, the only thing they could do to stop that is to gate all stations and issue banning orders to the people who are persistently anti-social.

 

[SLee]

I'm a dog lover, but I'd rather the driver was allowed to get on with the business of driving than having to deal with the fallout of some scally's bull terrier eating another passenger's pet.

This is as good a reason as any.

You’ve seen some of the gangs of chavs on those trams causing damage, intimidating others and being generally anti social. Now imagine if the tram drivers let Dorris on with her jack Russell, they would then have to let the rest on with dogs, which would include the chavs and their pit bulls.

also the amount of littering, damage and graffiti that goes on on these trams, would half the people pick up pet waste? I doubt it.

Also the trams become packed to a ridiculous degree, if a pet was on a tram that suddenly filled up at a platform it could become unnerved, accidentally stood on or kicked and then even out of self defence lash out.
Then you have the unfortunate situation of someone injured and a dog being put down.

just not worth allowing it, or bikes. But you see plenty of people sneak on with them, obviously the ones that don’t wear masks or pay for tickets either, the cream of society.

 

[tspaul26]

food and drink is also banned, even at Tramstops.

Food and drink is very, very rarely enforced to be fair.

I don't know about food, but not allowing one to drink a coffee from a lidded cup on a tram is just silly.

This is not quite correct. The prohibition is on consumption of (or having open for consumption):

• alcoholic beverages; or
• food which will soil the system or the property of others.

As such, there is no absolute ban on food and drink and I have never known there to be a problem.

 

[SLee]

This is not quite correct. The prohibition is on consumption of (or having open for consumption):

• alcoholic beverages; or
• food which will soil the system or the property of others.

As such, there is no absolute ban on food and drink and I have never known there to be a problem.

Although I do consider food and drink on trams to be a safety hazard as 99% of people just leave any drinks containers, food packets and even food itself behind on the tram.

I’ve seen half empty bottles and cans rolling around the tram floor spilling contents, left over food on the floor, pizza, burger, kebab boxes all over the saloon. All this stuff can either soil seats or be a potential slip risk.

If you ever go from one terminus to the other by the end of the journey the junk left behind is disgusting, especially since metrolink platforms have bins.

I’ve seen people swig down there last bit of drink as we pull into a terminus, put the can on the seat and walk off the tram straight past a bin, no thought whatsoever to clean up after themselves.

the problem is because little to no rules are enforced on metrolink it’s got to the point that the members of society that only care about themselves run the show and some even like to flaunt the fact they don’t follow rules.

like the amount of times a tram pulls onto a platform and there is a group of youths on the platform waiting. The doors open, people get on and off, apart from the youths. The driver closes the door and just before the doors come to a close, the youths then decide to prise the door open and board, the could of boarded before but they wanted to do a show of power and state that the tram leaves when they say it leaves. This is the type of people you see a lot on metrolink now.

 

[WatcherZero]

A lot of the times prohibitions exist so that staff have the option to enforce them in particularly egregious cases, not to be routinely enforced.

 

[Springs Branch]

I don't know about food, but not allowing one to drink a coffee from a lidded cup on a tram is just silly.

A lot of the times prohibitions exist so that staff have the option to enforce them in particularly egregious cases, not to be routinely enforced.

A couple of observations from local public transport in Australia*, where food & drink is banned.

• Well-dressed young woman, presumably en route to her office job, boards city-bound bus, glances at the take-away latte in her hand and says apologetically to driver "Oh! Sorry. I'm not allowed on with this, am I?"
  Driver replies "You're all right love, take a seat. We only have that rule to stop teenagers spilling their McDonalds and Slurpees all over the floor."
• A different bus, two bogans (local term for chavs) jump onboard, make themselves comfortable on the back seats and each cracks open a can of beer. Bus promptly stops, driver comes up the back, tells them they can't drink alcohol "because the bus isn't licenced premises" and they need to either get off or pour their drinks into the gutter. It's an interesting approach I've never seen before, and maybe adds a bit more legal weight ("it's not me, mate, it's the law") to what some might otherwise consider a discretionary and trivial public transport by-law. They chose the pour into gutter option without complaint on that occasion.

* A fair distance away from Britain, but culturally comparable in this respect - including the number of don't-give-a-****-merchants who use local PT.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Went on Metrolink yesterday and the signs now seem to say "no food or alcohol", so coffee allowed.