Dogs to be permanently allowed on Metrolink

[AY1975]

Following on from the now locked thread on the recent trial to allow non-assistance dogs on Manchester Metrolink for the first time at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/dogs-on-the-metrolink.218979/ it would appear that, as a result of that trial and the feedback received from users, Transport for Greater Manchester has decided to make it permanent.

There doesn't appear to be anything about it on the TfGM website yet, but there have been a number of media reports about it, such as this one from the Manchester Evening News: https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ews/dogs-set-allowed-metrolink-trams-25930202

"Dogs set to be allowed on Metrolink trams permanently after trial deemed success
A final decision will be made this week with Transport for Greater Manchester bosses recommending the move is made permanent.

Pet dogs are set to be allowed on trams permanently in Greater Manchester after a pilot launched last summer has been declared a 'success'. The three-month trial came to an end in October, but dogs have still been allowed to travel on trams while a decision on making it permanent is made.

This week, councillors will make a final decision with Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) bosses recommending the move is made permanent. It comes after Andy Burnham committed to a pilot of allowing dogs on trams during his campaign to be re-elected Greater Manchester mayor in May 2021."

The Metrolink conditions of carriage on the TfGM website at https://tfgm.com/public-transport/tram/conditions-of-carriage have been updated accordingly, although they still say animals may not be carried on Metrolink with the exception of pet or assistance dogs. On the one hand, this means that they have ironed out an anomaly whereby you could take a dog on a bus or a train but not on a tram, but on the other hand they have (possibly inadvertently) created a new anomaly whereby you can take an uncaged dog but not a cat in a pet carrier (unless going to the PDSA at Old Trafford, so why not when going to any other vet?) on a tram.

I understand that TfGM is considering introducing time restrictions (e.g. no dogs in peak hours) following concerns expressed by some councillors, although it is not clear whether such restrictions will be mandatory or only advisory.

Moderators - please feel free to merge this with the existing locked thread if appropriate.

 

[miklcct]

Oh no. I wish to see the other way round instead - banning dogs on trains as they are frequently a nuisance.

 

[507 001]

Following on from the now locked thread on the recent trial to allow non-assistance dogs on Manchester Metrolink for the first time at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/dogs-on-the-metrolink.218979/ it would appear that, as a result of that trial and the feedback received from users, Transport for Greater Manchester has decided to make it permanent.

There doesn't appear to be anything about it on the TfGM website yet, but there have been a number of media reports about it, such as this one from the Manchester Evening News: https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ews/dogs-set-allowed-metrolink-trams-25930202

"Dogs set to be allowed on Metrolink trams permanently after trial deemed success
A final decision will be made this week with Transport for Greater Manchester bosses recommending the move is made permanent.

Pet dogs are set to be allowed on trams permanently in Greater Manchester after a pilot launched last summer has been declared a 'success'. The three-month trial came to an end in October, but dogs have still been allowed to travel on trams while a decision on making it permanent is made.

This week, councillors will make a final decision with Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) bosses recommending the move is made permanent. It comes after Andy Burnham committed to a pilot of allowing dogs on trams during his campaign to be re-elected Greater Manchester mayor in May 2021."

The Metrolink conditions of carriage on the TfGM website at https://tfgm.com/public-transport/tram/conditions-of-carriage have been updated accordingly, although they still say animals may not be carried on Metrolink with the exception of pet or assistance dogs. On the one hand, this means that they have ironed out an anomaly whereby you could take a dog on a bus or a train but not on a tram, but on the other hand they have (possibly inadvertently) created a new anomaly whereby you can take an uncaged dog but not a cat in a pet carrier (unless going to the PDSA at Old Trafford, so why not when going to any other vet?) on a tram.

I understand that TfGM is considering introducing time restrictions (e.g. no dogs in peak hours) following concerns expressed by some councillors, although it is not clear whether such restrictions will be mandatory or only advisory.

Moderators - please feel free to merge this with the existing locked thread if appropriate.

It’s all just rumour at the moment. Nothing concrete.

The PDSA at Old Trafford is long gone btw…

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The PDSA at Old Trafford is long gone btw…

Closed in early October 2019. Moved across to Gorton.

 

[WatcherZero]

Interestingly in the survey results for the trial 80% of non-dog owners supported allowing dogs on trams while only 60% of actual dog-owners supported it. Perhaps they knew something the others didnt...
The Blind groups remain the most vocal opponents worried about the safety of their guide dogs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interestingly in the survey results for the trial 80% of non-dog owners supported allowing dogs on trams while only 60% of actual dog-owners supported it. Perhaps they knew something the others didnt...

Other than guide dogs, I don't get that. Surely someone who doesn't think their dog would be safe can choose not to take it on the tram. It isn't compulsory. ("Dogs must be carried", can I borrow a dog? )

But on the overall issue dogs (and small domestic caged animals like cats and birds, not that you see them very often) are permitted on pretty much all public transport the UK over, I can see no case whatsoever for Metrolink to be different. People might quote antisocial behaviour, but that's in no way exclusive to Metrolink; London buses are often as bad for that if not worse.

 

[BJames]

Other than guide dogs, I don't get that. Surely someone who doesn't think their dog would be safe can choose not to take it on the tram. It isn't compulsory. ("Dogs must be carried", can I borrow a dog? )

But on the overall issue dogs (and small domestic caged animals like cats and birds, not that you see them very often) are permitted on pretty much all public transport the UK over, I can see no case whatsoever for Metrolink to be different. People might quote antisocial behaviour, but that's in no way exclusive to Metrolink; London buses are often as bad for that if not worse.

I fully agree with this. My family takes our small dog on the train regularly. He sits under the seat/table/at our feet depending on the train. It's the one thing guaranteed to make random people start talking to you on the tube and wanting to make a fuss over him! I will admit our dog is of very good temperament which helps.

I noticed a while back that NET trams in Nottingham do not allow dogs either; I don't know whether this is still the case as I haven't used the tram in a long time.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Interestingly in the survey results for the trial 80% of non-dog owners supported allowing dogs on trams while only 60% of actual dog-owners supported it. Perhaps they knew something the others didnt...
The Blind groups remain the most vocal opponents worried about the safety of their guide dogs.

How do guide dogs cope on the street or in the park when they encounter a non-working dog?

 

[WatcherZero]

They are supposed to keep moving and get distance if a risk, if the dogs being playful keep their dog focussed on their owner with food or sound. Particularly when being trained they minimise dog-dog interactions and dont allow the dog to play with other dogs to strengthen the human-dog bond.

 

[AY1975]

It’s all just rumour at the moment. Nothing concrete.

According to this story from the BBC, councillors have approved the decision to make it permanent, and it was set to be rubber stamped by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority at the end of January but there doesn't appear to be anything about it on the GMCA website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-64290348

'Pet dogs set to be allowed on Metrolink permanently

Pet dogs will be allowed on board trams in Greater Manchester permanently following a three-month pilot.
Plans to allow pooches on board the region's Metrolink have been endorsed by councillors after the trial received "very positive" feedback.
The move is set to be rubber-stamped by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority at the end of the month.
However, Danny Vaughan, head of Metrolink, has agreed to consider introducing time constraints for dogs.
It comes after some councillors raised concerns over the plans, with one calling for the rules to be tightened.
"When I've been on trams in rush hour, they are heaving - and it's not fair to the dogs really because they get stressed and they panic a bit," Doreen Dickinson said.
"I can see an accident waiting to happen at rush hour."
The Tameside councillor also asked who would enforce any rules which would require owners to clear up any dog mess and questioned whether there would be much space left for passengers if bikes were also allowed on trams in the future.
She added: "I'm not saying let's not have dogs on trams, I just think we need to tighten the rules."'

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's down to the owner not to take their dog somewhere it will find unpleasant. Most owners love their dog as if it was a child - some more than their children - and are unlikely to do things that would distress it. Even the very rough looking people you often get on Metrolink tend to have time for kids and dogs.

 

[lachlan]

As much as I don't like dogs, I accept I'm in the minority there and if we are to get more people on public transport, dogs need to be accommodated too.

As for the question regarding space for dogs and bikes, if that is an issue more trams should be put on.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't have a problem with doggies on trains or trams, as long as they're not on the seats (or at least on a blanket on the seat). At least until doggie underpants become a thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As much as I don't like dogs, I accept I'm in the minority there and if we are to get more people on public transport, dogs need to be accommodated too.

As for the question regarding space for dogs and bikes, if that is an issue more trams should be put on.

In the end if we want city dwellers to be able to give up cars entirely, you can't ban things that many people will want to travel with from public transport.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They are supposed to keep moving and get distance if a risk, if the dogs being playful keep their dog focussed on their owner with food or sound. Particularly when being trained they minimise dog-dog interactions and dont allow the dog to play with other dogs to strengthen the human-dog bond.

Thanks, that aspect does make sense. However there are plenty of other confined spaces where both pet dogs and guide dogs are allowed- buses and trains being the obvious examples, so what's so special about the trams specifically?

 

[507 001]

if that is an issue more trams should be put on.

Where do we get these extra trams?

Where do we keep them?

What do we tell the passengers on the sets that are already maximum length who have to sacrifice seats for bikes? Or those in wheelchairs?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where do we get these extra trams?

Stadler? Alstom?

Where do we keep them?

In a depot. Build another if necessary. There'll be more expansion anyway, so one will be needed. Moving to fixed 4 car sets would free up enough wasted length from cabs and couplers for as many dogs and bicycles as our stereotypical branch line passenger's wildest desires.

 

[507 001]

Stadler? Alstom?



In a depot. Build another if necessary. There'll be more expansion anyway, so one will be needed. Moving to fixed 4 car sets would free up enough wasted length from cabs and couplers for as many dogs and bicycles as our stereotypical branch line passenger's wildest desires.

Exactly what I thought the answer would be.

Where does the money come from for these new vehicles? And the new depot/depot remodelling (to cope with ~60 metre vehicles)? You’re talking about replacing a fleet that is at worst 15 years old here. Besides, Alstom won’t build us any more M5000s.

Back in the real world, until there is any major expansion or fleet renewal there’s nowhere for them to go.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Given all the extensions that were happening at the time, the M5000s really should have been 4-section sets. Doesn't nearly everything run as doubles these days anyway? Hindsight is always 20/20 of course.

 

[Meerkat]

In the end if we want city dwellers to be able to give up cars entirely, you can't ban things that many people will want to travel with from public transport.

Well I would ban city dwellers from keeping pets personally as its anti social to people and the pets....but thats wandering toward off topic.

 

[507 001]

Given all the extensions that were happening at the time, the M5000s really should have been 4-section sets. Doesn't nearly everything run as doubles these days anyway? Hindsight is always 20/20 of course.

Who says Bombardier were capable of building such a vehicle?

Building a batch of ~60m vehicles would have required extensive changes to both depots to look after them.

And no, nowhere near ‘nearly everything’ runs as a double.

Well I would ban city dwellers from keeping pets personally as its anti social to people and the pets....but thats wandering toward off topic.

Wow.

 

[lachlan]

Exactly what I thought the answer would be.

Where does the money come from for these new vehicles? And the new depot/depot remodelling (to cope with ~60 metre vehicles)? You’re talking about replacing a fleet that is at worst 15 years old here. Besides, Alstom won’t build us any more M5000s.

Back in the real world, until there is any major expansion or fleet renewal there’s nowhere for them to go.

Who said anything about replacing fleets? I don't think it's too much to ask that a public transport network is capable of carrying all the wheelchair users, cyclists, and dogs and owners that want to use it. Public transport after all is an essential service and isn't there to make money.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Who says Bombardier were capable of building such a vehicle?

Building a batch of ~60m vehicles would have required extensive changes to both depots to look after them.

And no, nowhere near ‘nearly everything’ runs as a double.

Ridership is only likely to increase in the future, so when the current fleet is due for replacement longer units would be ideal. I'll bow to your judgement on how many services are doubled, but certainly before Covid pretty much every tram I saw in Manchester was a double. The depot issue is a tricky one but if that can be solved it would make sense to go for longer units once the current fleet is due for replacement.

If the tender was for 60m trams, I'm sure Bombardier would have been capable of meeting it, otherwise a different manufacturer would have won this hypothetical contract for longer trams. Plenty of tramways around the world have managed to procure units longer than the M5000s.

 

[WatcherZero]

They kept with the shorter vehicles for operational flexibility and easier failure recoveries (detach the failed rear unit for the one behind to rescue, or have the working front one drag it back to the depot, if they both failed split and rescue them individually). Even on heavy rail you will see operators opt for 2x2, 2x3, 3x4 etc formations even though they could have more cheaply ordered say a mixed fleet of 8 and 12's rather than all 4 car units.
The other issue is street running and on street platforms, when you have really long vehicles on the road at high frequency they block junctions for a very long time and it can be easier for traffic snarls while there is a limit to how long you can reasonably build an on street platform (they are all coupled pair length). So you may well see longer vehicles in future but primarily allocated to the lines with less street running or on tram-train routes which dont go through the city centre (e.g. the proposed new Oldham-Bury line or tunnel under the city centre).

 

[507 001]

Ridership is only likely to increase in the future, so when the current fleet is due for replacement longer units would be ideal. I'll bow to your judgement on how many services are doubled, but certainly before Covid pretty much every tram I saw in Manchester was a double. The depot issue is a tricky one but if that can be solved it would make sense to go for longer units once the current fleet is due for replacement.

If the tender was for 60m trams, I'm sure Bombardier would have been capable of meeting it, otherwise a different manufacturer would have won this hypothetical contract for longer trams. Plenty of tramways around the world have managed to procure units longer than the M5000s.

Hopefully ridership does continue to increase, but until it does our hands are tied. The fleet we have is big enough to cope with pre-covid numbers, but we’re talking at least 15 years before the original batch of M5000s is anywhere near needing replacement.
As it stands the only chance of more vehicles is Tram-Train. TfGM have been very clear that they have no issues maintaining two vehicle types, but not 3.

In terms of doubles, you have all of the directs, 3 alt-pics, 3 Eccles-Ashtons and then something like 6 Rochdale-Dids sets. This is the same as pre-covid.

When the tender for the M5000s initially went out there were two bids. One was the M5000 and I can’t remember who the other was from but I know it was deemed unsuitable. So it was M5000s or nothing essentially. Yes there are longer vehicles out there but usually not by much, usually low floor and generally with a lower max speed.

Who said anything about replacing fleets? I don't think it's too much to ask that a public transport network is capable of carrying all the wheelchair users, cyclists, and dogs and owners that want to use it. Public transport after all is an essential service and isn't there to make money.

This quote here suggested it;

Moving to fixed 4 car sets would free up enough wasted length from cabs and couplers for as many dogs and bicycles as our stereotypical branch line passenger's wildest desires.

The thing is, to allow bikes safely you would have to replace the M5000s, otherwise if you’re just supplanting them you’d end up with some sets that can, and some sets that can’t. Given the nature of the network, how do you guarantee a frequent enough service for those with bikes? How do you prevent conflict between the cyclist and the driver when he tells the cyclist that he can’t get on that particular service, but if he waits 6/12/24 minutes he’ll be able to get on that one?

Unfortunately whether you like it or not, at the moment Metrolink is there to make money, in particular for the stakeholders of Keolis-Amey.

And regardless, whether it is for profit or not, the money has to come from somewhere.
It’s highly unlikely that anybody would consider building/rebuilding depots and procuring a hypothetical fleet of new vehicles, either to replace or supplant the existing far from life expired fleet would make a good business case for some hypothetical cyclists. Hypothetical cyclists who, if you consider the usual type of journey on Metrolink, would probably rather use their own wheels for free instead.

I will agree that there is probably a need to allow bikes on, but I suspect it’s gonna have to wait for quite a while…

 

[33117]

Oh no. I wish to see the other way round instead - banning dogs on trains as they are frequently a nuisance.

Can I just say please that I've travelled on the trains with my dog since he was about 6 months old.

I can assure you a nuisance he isn't, all he ever does is sits on the floor by my feet. The vast majority of us are good responsible owners so please don't tar us all with the same brush.

 

[Spamcan81]

Well I would ban city dwellers from keeping pets personally as its anti social to people and the pets....but thats wandering toward off topic.

Well aren't you a bundle of joy. Why is it antisocial to keep a pet in a city?

 

[duncanp]

Well aren't you a bundle of joy. Why is it antisocial to keep a pet in a city?

It isn't necessarily anti social to keep a pet in a city, but you have to consider whether the accommodation and your lifestyle is suitable.

In other words keeping a dog cooped up in a tiny flat all day, whilst the owner goes out to work and doesn't have time to take the dog for a walk, is not a good idea.

On the other hand, if you live in a house with a garden, and are able to take the dog for a long walk to a park at least once per day, plus give it plenty of attention, that is fine.

 

[Meerkat]

Well aren't you a bundle of joy. Why is it antisocial to keep a pet in a city?

well actually i consider the breeding and keeping of animals as pets rather unethical (though no problem with doing it for food if it’s done with care!).
Doing it in a city is extra antisocial as it’s a bad environment for the pets, and dogs in particular cause issues with noise and poo.
But any further discussion should be on a different thread.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Oh no. I wish to see the other way round instead - banning dogs on trains as they are frequently a nuisance.

Humans are far more of a nuisance than dogs, perhaps we should ban them instead?