Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
You seem very against something that would be simple and relatively cheap to implement, it would really benefit plenty of people who aren't familiar with the network.
I am far more concerned with the vast numbers of Metrolink travellers who live in the area served by the system rather than those who live far away and are only infrequent users of the system. Can you imagine people from "oop North" being against oyster cards in the capital as "they don't have them in Grimethorpe"...
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is the advantage of having a speculative forum, where people can voice their own personal preferences, without having any effect upon what happens in the real world. There have been a number of postings made upon this thread that express surprise that the professionals who actually run the Metrolink system have never put any of these speculative posting ideas into operation in all the years that the system has been operational.
I am far more concerned with the vast numbers of Metrolink travellers who live in the area served by the system rather than those who live far away and are only infrequent users of the system.
Among those Metrolink travellers who live in the area served by the system, is there any evidence of widespread opposition to the idea of introducing route letters or numbers?
Among those Metrolink travellers who live in the area served by the system, is there any evidence of widespread opposition to the idea of introducing route letters or numbers?
I very much doubt it, as only contributors to this thread seem aware of it, not the traveling public at large and TfGM state it is not an idea they intend to pursue, when asked.
I very much doubt it, as only contributors to this thread seem aware of it, not the traveling public at large and TfGM state it is not an idea they intend to pursue, when asked.
I am far more concerned with the vast numbers of Metrolink travellers who live in the area served by the system rather than those who live far away and are only infrequent users of the system. Can you imagine people from "oop North" being against oyster cards in the capital as "they don't have them in Grimethorpe"...
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is the advantage of having a speculative forum, where people can voice their own personal preferences, without having any effect upon what happens in the real world. There have been a number of postings made upon this thread that express surprise that the professionals who actually run the Metrolink system have never put any of these speculative posting ideas into operation in all the years that the system has been operational.
North Londoners often complained about London Overground not having route identification. South Londoners often, in my experience, said 'why do we need that'? We [South Londoners] are used to not having route colours because of our massive rail network, while North side of the river seems obsessed with transport emulating the Underground, and often struggle to use non TfL routes
There's a point here... While I or you, may see no personal usefulness in 'routes', many will. It wouldn't make it more complicated, and is easier for new people to the system. Systems should cater to both frequent and infrequent users, otherwise the infrequent users won't bother using it. I'm not really interested if TfGM want to pursue it or not; as you say, tis the advantage of a speculative forum.
Having said that, Metrolink have route colours on their map, so what's the problem in using a letter to match, exactly? It's half-asked nonsense which TfL are also guilty of with the DLR. Even Virgin Trains lettered their coloured routes and that was far less useful.
Metrolink have route colours on their map, so what's the problem in using a letter to match, exactly? It's half-asked nonsense which TfL are also guilty of with the DLR. Even Virgin Trains lettered their coloured routes and that was far less useful.
I would say that the vast majority of regular Metrolink passengers rely on the PID on the platforms for information on what tram is coming next and also the tram destination screens rather than reference to a map of many colours.
I am far more concerned with the vast numbers of Metrolink travellers who live in the area served by the system rather than those who live far away and are only infrequent users of the system. Can you imagine people from "oop North" being against oyster cards in the capital as "they don't have them in Grimethorpe"...
But what impact would having a route number prefix on the destination display make to people who already know how to use the network? Very little...
If something is relatively cheap and simple to implement, has little to no impact on people who already use the network but will benefit irregular users, where is the issue?
But what impact would having a route number prefix on the destination display make to people who already know how to use the network? Very little...
If something is relatively cheap and simple to implement, has little to no impact on people who already use the network but will benefit irregular users, where is the issue?
You are trying to justify your own personal preferences here, whilst making references to myself "missing the point". It is not I you have to convince of the veracity of your views on the matter, but TfGM who are in charge of operational matters and I have already mentioned their views on the subject of this thread and of their categoric non-acceptance of the speculative views of certain website members on this thread.
You are trying to justify your own personal preferences here, whilst making references to myself "missing the point". It is not I you have to convince of the veracity of your views on the matter, but TfGM who are in charge of operational matters and I have already mentioned their views on the subject of this thread and of their categoric non-acceptance of the speculative views of certain website members on this thread.
You've ignored the question, what is it about implementing some kind of route numbering system that you object to? Forget TfGM for a second, it's you that keeps shooting down any suggestions by myself of others here without giving much of a reason why, other than the locals know how to use it already so there's no problem...
Usability for non regular users is poor, something needs to change, if not route numbers, what is YOUR suggestion? Not TfGM, you...
You've ignored the question, what is it about implementing some kind of route numbering system that you object to? Forget TfGM for a second, it's you that keeps shooting down any suggestions by myself of others here without giving much of a reason why, other than the locals know how to use it already so there's no problem...
Usability for non regular users is poor, something needs to change, if not route numbers, what is YOUR suggestion? Not TfGM, you...
Transport professionals can't stand "outsiders" (i.e. users) coming up with good ideas which would make life easier for the people not running the show - even if the idea is simple, cheap and really useful, and costs almost nothing to implement. Just look at the story of Harry Beck's London Underground map.
Again, your own personal view surfaces..."something needs to change". The Manchester Metrolink system has been operational for 32 years since running commenced on 6th April 1992 and I cannot recall your particular opinion as one that has been raised over the years in that time period.
You ask what is my suggestion and my response to that is that the status quo of platform-based PID and tram unit destination display screens should prevail. I am 79 years of age and find the existing system easy to understand.
This seems an opportune time to quote the saying made by Thomas Bertram Lance, the Director of Management and Budget in the 1977 Jimmy Carter administration....
So it should never have been extended beyond the initial Bury and Altrincham Lines plus Piccadilly spur. In which case yes, nothing would need to be done and route numbering would be as pointless as in Blackpool.
Again, your own personal view surfaces..."something needs to change". The Manchester Metrolink system has been operational for 32 years since running commenced on 6th April 1992 and I cannot recall your particular opinion as one that has been raised over the years in that time period.
You ask what is my suggestion and my response to that is that the status quo of platform-based PID and tram unit destination display screens should prevail. I am 79 years of age and find the existing system easy to understand.
Yes, it is my personal view, but it's hardly unique, TfL are naming the London Overground lines because the network has expanded from what it was at it's conception, same goes for London Underground...
The Metrolink of 1992 and 2024 are two very different beasts, just because something was good enough 30 years ago, doesn't mean it can't be improved upon, however you don't seem very open to that.
But this dosen't apply to any transportation system. Metrolink is a success story and to not improve it anymore would be daft as Manchester still has worse public transport than London which leads to more inequality in opportunities for those who do not have cars (i.e. those who live in poverty). Also, climate change is a thing which won't be improved by a stagnant system which can't attract more modal share than it already does.
But this dosen't apply to any transportation system. Metrolink is a success story and to not improve it anymore would be daft as Manchester still has worse public transport than London which leads to more inequality in opportunities for those who do not have cars (i.e. those who live in poverty). Also, climate change is a thing which won't be improved by a stagnant system which can't attract more modal share than it already does.
It is the operators of the Manchester Metrolink system and their "supposed error of their ways" by not considering such raised speculative points that you have to convince. How do you intend this to happen?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That will be excellant news to the Greater Manchester residents where the Metrolink has never penetrated like Bolton and Wigan and for those residents in areas where it does exist but miles away from their homes. Do I take it that electric cars will not be for the "plebs oop North"?
Did I hear correctly that strike action of the Metrolink is something that is being considered?
That will be excellant news to the Greater Manchester residents where the Metrolink has never penetrated like Bolton and Wigan and for those residents in areas where it does exist but miles away from their homes.
Okay, you've lost me now, clearly any improvements to the Metrolink will have little to no impact on car usage in areas it doesn't serve, but that's no reason not to make improvements in areas it does serve.
If something attracts 1 extra passenger, that's 1 less car driving into central Manchester.
You seem dead set against any sort of improvements, but it's still not really clear why.
Okay, you've lost me now, clearly any improvements to the Metrolink will have little to no impact on car usage in areas it doesn't serve, but that's no reason not to make improvements in areas it does serve.
If something attracts 1 extra passenger, that's 1 less car driving into central Manchester.
You seem dead set against any sort of improvements, but it's still not really clear why.
There are other places other than central Manchester where car drivers go to. Again, proposed improvements are something for the system operators need to concern themselves with should they see them as worth implicating, but I am being to be fed up with the non-acceptance of that fact of life by the resident armchair internet warriors.
That will be excellant news to the Greater Manchester residents where the Metrolink has never penetrated like Bolton and Wigan and for those residents in areas where it does exist but miles away from their homes. Do I take it that electric cars will not be for the "plebs oop North"?
Did I hear correctly that strike action of the Metrolink is something that is being considered?
April 2024 - 4.5%
April 2025 - RPI
April 2026 - RPI
Likely next steps will be to leverage TfGM & the mayors office for more funds.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
IMHO opinion the biggest improvements that should be the forefront of TfGM and the operators mind is futureproofing the network from a material science perspective.
It’s generally agreed that climate change is occurring and we are seeing more and more disruptions to transport networks in the UK.
The infrastructure is built using the specifications for the climate of UK1992, that will be markedly different to the climate of UK2032.
Without significant investment, the network will struggle to cope.
There are other places other than central Manchester where car drivers go to. Again, proposed improvements are something for the system operators need to concern themselves with should they see them as worth implicating, but I am being to be fed up with the non-acceptance of that fact of life by the resident armchair internet warriors.
Yes, I'm aware that not every car will be heading into central Manchester, but that doesn't mean those that are, or are going to somewhere Metrolink goes shouldn't be enticed out of their car.
This thread is for speculative ideas and suggestions, that is what myself and others are doing, I've not seen anyone suggest that they do not accept TfGM make the final decisions.
This thread is for speculative ideas and suggestions, that is what myself and others are doing, I've not seen anyone suggest that they do not accept TfGM make the final decisions.
Does what you say above preclude other website members from making comment on some of the speculative suggestions put forward? If that be the case, then this thread may well not be for me, but maybe the website staff will be so kind as to clarify that matter.
Would there really be any downside to assigning Metrolink routings bus-style route numbers?
Given that the Manchester bus system has 3 digits and both letter prefixes and suffixes to work with, it is hardly short of numbers.
Would replacing "Etihad Campus" with "701 Etihad Campus" really be a problem? It doesn't seem to have any downsides at all from my perspective.
(Both destination and route number arbitrarily chosen for the sake of demonstration).
De-facto, travel planners used by huge numbers of people are already applying route designators, we might as well have official ones.
We have nine current distinct routes on the system now and that will grow in future.
I don't think the current convention of just expecting passengers to muddle through using your knowledge of the routing and the destination is going to make the system attractive to new users, and systems like this must always look to grow custom. And, as I said, the cost of assigning route numbers seems to be negligible.
I believe the best numbering system would be give each line a number 1-9 based on their outer termini, geographically clockwise, with Bury-Altrincham as 1, Rochdale-East Didsbury as 2 etc.
The Ashton Branch would have the 3 Ashton - Eccles and the 13 Etihad - Media City
This would allow for disruption if anyone saw a tram ending in 3 they would know it would end up somewhere along the Ashton branch (or Eccles)
Ashton and Eccles are situated to the east and west of Manchester. That would not be much use to someone in Manchester city centre wanting to go to Ladywell or to Audenshaw, whereas the current system has trams shown on the PID as going to Ashton or to Eccles, so at least the prospective traveller would know in what direction the tram was going.
As a musical aside, in the remembrance of a music-hall song.....
"Oh Mr Yellowcoat, whatever shall I do,
I wanted to go to number six and they've taken me on to two"
I don't think the current convention of just expecting passengers to muddle through using your knowledge of the routing and the destination is going to make the system attractive to new users, and systems like this must always look to grow custom. And, as I said, the cost of assigning route numbers seems to be negligible.
Reading this, it implies that "new users" will not have the same cognitive understanding powers as those currently using the system on a regular basis.
Incidentally, where did you obtain the "negligible cost" information that you mention at the end of your posting?
Reading this, it implies that "new users" will not have the same cognitive understanding powers as those currently using the system on a regular basis.
Newer uses do not have either the muscle memory or the understanding of a network, anywhere it may be... It's harder for someone (like a student) who doesn't understand/speak English. Especially when you add a complicated fare system on top.
You can't expect new users, anyone it may be, to be able to navigate a city's network blind in the first few months of use when you make it as hard as possible to indicate the different service patterns.
Have you ever seen a bus/coach service without a route number? 99% of tram networks have a simple and clear wayfinding system using either line numbers or letters (example Prague or Munich, all of which have tentacular networks, and even in one line network (Rouen, Brest, France...), the route is named T1, M, A... whatever).
Even the Overground got line names now because it is just a way better wayfinding tool than just destinations.
If you just actual service patterns to route number/color 1:1, outside of the printed material cost, the training cost would be minimal (just tell CSRs the line numbers) and the PIS update would be again minimal if not without cost..
Newer uses do not have either the muscle memory or the understanding of a network, anywhere it may be... It's harder for someone (like a student) who doesn't understand/speak English. Especially when you add a complicated fare system on top.
You can't expect new users, anyone it may be, to be able to navigate a city's network blind in the first few months of use when you make it as hard as possible to indicate the different service patterns.
The Metrolink is set up for the public transport users resident in Greater Manchester, whatsoever you might think to the opposite. Perhaps your best course of action would be to contact Mayor Andy Burnham, who has just been re-elected in that role and a person with public transport as part of his master Bee Network vision, where buses, trams and trains will all be part of that vision and put these points you make to him. You can then report back to the thread with the answers given to you.
I don't know if you assume the only ridership is composed of commuting traffic. Where of course, after a few days, you can get how to make that single journey work and back home.
I don't know the numbers but I don't think it is the only traffic for the 3rd most populous metropolis in the UK.
But outside of the commute part, that point make absolutely no sense, it's the same network for everyone, and while indeed it is suited to residents, it should cater easily to anyone, resident or not.
Yep I was being fairly conservative with 20 years. I can see thr development creeping towards where I live.
No I think Metrolink should be able to cope for now but given the tame fram for a tunnel project is likely to be close to a decade, it needs to be looked at soon. Full walk through units for Altrincham would be sensible. Having all Altrincham trams as doubles is needed ASAP for Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
I am not convinced that a tunnel is necessary for a third city crossing. Its a question of funding vs disruption and reduced capacity for road traffic. An on street route along Whitworth Street and Whitworth Street West could work for instance. I can't see central government financing a tunnel in the next few years. That may require TfGM looking at options they previously dismissed as unacceptable.
I don't know if you assume the only ridership is composed of commuting traffic. Where of course, after a few days, you can get how to make that single journey work and back home.
I don't know the numbers but I don't think it is the only traffic for the 3rd most populous metropolis in the UK.
But outside of the commute part, that point make absolutely no sense, it's the same network for everyone, and while indeed it is suited to residents, it should cater easily to anyone, resident or not.
As it stands at this moment in time, all lines of the Manchester Metrolink system fall totally within the areas of the ten councils that go towards what is recognised as Greater Manchester. The holders of TfGM-issued ENCTS passes who pay the £10.00 annual surcharge and at the permitted times, can also use trams over the entire Manchester Metrolink network and trains with stations that fall within the boundaries of Greater Manchester, but such passes issued by other issuing authorities do not have any such relaxations from full-fare payment.
I recently saw a "population league-table" of major conurbations where London was first, Birmingham was second, but Manchester was below Leeds.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
