Talk:Manchester Metrolink/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Old discussions

Can anybody contribute details of the Metrolink 'Zones'? The pricing system used on Metrolink uses these zones (A to G I think) but the posters that are on platforms no longer show them. :( - Ericthefish 13:35 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That do you? :) Arwel 13:57 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Nice one! Thats a damn good article. - Ericthefish 14:04 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to (and easily identified by the contrasting aquamarine coloured doors required by late 1990s disability regulations) about the Eccles line trams, now they've taken to painting the doors of the older trams the same! -- Arwel 22:20, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I added the small part about the ride provided based upon personal experience - hope it fits the NPoV ideal, but if not I apologise. As a regular user of these infernal machines, I can only say that I pity the inhabitants of Oldham and Rochdale if they should have the misfortune to have their "proper" railway network replaced by the Metrolink. - MJ

Made a bit more neutral. I've heard about the track quality before, so I think the comments should stay in some form. -- 9cds(talk) 16:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I quite agree, the ride can be fairly jolty. I think that problem is caused by old track which hasn't been touched since c1990 when it was taken over from British Rail. I recall hearing somewhere that they were going to renew the track before too long. G-Man * 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And not before time, assuming it's true. I've seen quite a few track gangs on the line lately, so that might indicate that they're about (finally) to renew the line, but I don't hold out too much hope. Also, I can't help thinking that some of that line's a lot more than 15 years old; the entire line from Victoria to Bury, so far as I recall, still uses bull-head rail, which (again IIRC) ceased manufacture in the late '50s. Although I know that BR cascaded older rail from the main lines to less heavily-used ones, that still makes me think that those metals are a lot older than they ought to be. - MJ

Zones

Are the zones listed under ‘Fare structure’ still valid? The Metrolink web site doesn’t seem to mention any of them except for the City zone. And if so, which zone is Cornbrook in? David Arthur 19:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Last time I was in Manchester (about a year back) they were still valid and charges were based on them. Cornbrook isn't in a zone, as you can't buy a ticket too/from it (although I heard rumours about them making it a proper station when the area is regenerated) Paul Weaver 18:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


The GMPTE website still contains a detailed zone map. Also, having tested the ticket price tool on the Metrolink website, they are definitely still charging based on the zone system. Road Wizard 00:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks — I’ve added the zones to my map. David Arthur 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fares

For what it's worth, despite the signs the Metrolink machines can actually give more than £7 in change (I've got £17 back from them). Perhaps this could be changed. (comment left by 194.80.32.9 00:09, 1st May 2006).

Thank you for the information, but do you have any way to verify it? If we say here that passengers can get more change than the signs say, Wikipedia will be left open to criticism if someone acts on our information and loses money in the machine. Also, please place new conversation topics at the bottom of a discussion page, as this helps editors to spot new additions more quickly. Thanks. Road Wizard 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I was told by a Metrolink Inspector when I inquired, and so I tried it out. However, I understand that this mightn't be the most valuable verification ever. Also, it might not be at every Metrolink stop for all I know. Stefan 18:34, 4 May 2006


The edit i added to the Fares section was removed for some apparent reason and i have no idea why.

Edit was as follows: Currently, the Metrolink does not offer Fares for students over 18, unlike other similar rail based rapid transit systems (Sheffield and Nottingham) which offer discounted tickets to students. This is currently leaving many students of Manchester (the city with the largest student population of europe) paying full adult fare, the same as a full-time commuter. A petition for students campaigning for student fares on the Metrolink has recently sprouted up on the popular social-networking site Facebook.

Since all of it is factual, why would this be removed? Or could its removal possibly be by the company themselves trying to save face?

The Warning

Is this really necessary to the article?, as it strictly speaking isn't a tourist guide. DannyM 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've toned the wording down a bit and out it into the gernal 'fares/tickets' section --Spacepostman 11:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Fantasy/Public Proposals

I see someone added a link to a Metrolink fansite with proposals for an underground extension to Metrolink. It has recently been removed for 'not being relevant'. I see both sides of the argument, however I do think the concept could be intergrated into the article someone as the near and distant future of Metrolink and Greater Manchester's Public Transport becoming more intergrated and developed is currently the topic of much public discussion (See: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=235489 ) as well as rumours of advanced 'future developments' (such as the hand over of more local rail lines to Metrolink), room being reserved for the line to be continued past Stockport by the local council and the same in Salford down Chapel Street, calls for street running trams down Oxford Rood corridor. I propose someone writes a new section in the article on this sort of thing (with sources) and put the link to this 'MetroTube' and others within it. Come on guys, those with an interest, archiving this kind of thing in the public arena will increase interest in Metrolink by the powers that be and get them thinking about it's true potential! --Spacepostman 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to read the policy on WP:NOT a crystal ball. Generally we cannot include speculation on what the future may hold unless it has been well documented by reliable sources. Certainly "fantasy" proposals fall far short of that requirement. If there is a genuine, well documented proposal to build a tunnel network or even to convert additional rail lines to Metro use, then these can at least get a mention. However, given that not all of the officially sanctioned Metrolink extensions have received funding as yet, I doubt that any more long term plans have gone beyond the stage of idle speculation. Road Wizard 01:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence "Similar proposals for a Monorail system, the Manchester Duorail, connecting the underground in the city centre were also drawn up by GMPTE but were abandoned for the same reasons. [citation needed]" from the construction history paragraph. While I don't live in Manchester, I have lived in the NW region for going on 40 years and can't remember hearing any mention of this on "Northwest Tonight" or "Granada Reports" or their predecessors, and there are no Google hits on it either. The Picc-Vic tunnel plan was a well-discussed and planned project, but Duorail seems to have been someone's back-of-a-fag-packet pipe dream. -- Arwel (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're staying in regards to the speculation content, and I agree that the article shouldn't include that from what you've explained about the crystal ball|WP:NOT a crystal ball]] guideline. Howver the Duorail plans were very real, the source is from an article from the respected Manchester Civic Society News Letter which I am sure you agree wouldn't get something like that wrong. It's this kind of little-known emerging histoical information that Wikipedia is here to document. If you like I could do a bit more research into this before we add it to the article again?--Spacepostman 04:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Past proposals that are well sourced are quite welcome. However, the source you have identified does not provide many details. In particular, there is no mention of which person or group made the proposal, what the proposed system was (all it says is that it was different to the monorail proposal), and whether it was initially accepted or just rejected outright. What the source does support is a sentence like:
In 1966 there was a proposal to build a light rail system from Manchester Airport to Bury via the city centre, but it was never implemented.
If you want to identify further sources to expand the detail of the proposal, then you are welcome to do so. As the route of the proposed system is quite similar to that of the modern Metrolink, its presence in this article can be easily justified. Road Wizard 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

update map

could someone please update the map to the more up-to-date version on http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/metrolink_phase3_stops.pdf I'm not sure how. thank you very much.

List of Trams by name and number

In the list, trams no. 1007, 2002 and 2006 have the same name: Sony Centre Arndale. Ditto, 1002, 1009 and 1016: Virgin Megastores. Looks weird - mistake ?? --Jotel 13:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of Flexity Swift's Ordered

This article states that 9 new Flexity Swift trams have been ordered "In April 2007 9 new trams were ordered for the Metrolink. These will be Flexity Swift" but the Flexity Swift article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexity_Swift) sates that 8 have been ordered. "In April 2007 8 new Flexity trams were ordered for use on Manchester Metrolink." Which number is correct?

8 is 9 was a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.39.214 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stagecoachmetro.gif

Image:Stagecoachmetro.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stagecoachmetro.gif

Image:Stagecoachmetro.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

fictitious viaduct

The "Transport Interchanges" section contains the following statement: Trams pass along the fictious Viaduct in the Coronation Street soap opera opening titles. Three issues here:

  • typo - easy to sort out
  • if the viaduct is fictitious, how can anything pass along it ?
  • this statement, even if/when clarified, has nothing to do with interchanges.

--Jotel (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it needs to be removed. The viaduct exists but it is part of the set and the Metrolink tram is superimposed onto it. I'll remove it now, thanks for pointing that out. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If they’re inserting trams into a fictitious area, though, that seems to show the importance of the trams in a way that’s interesting and worth mentioning somewhere (properly explained). David Arthur (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps adding it under the heading trivia would suffice --AJFurnell (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia so we could not add a trivia section, the only thing I could suggest is adding it to the history section. If there are any other things the metrolink is used in then maybe we could add a "Uses in popular culture section" but I can't think of anything else except Nicky Hambleton-Jones riding it on one episode of 10 Years Younger. And the Queen rode it when it opened. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Metrolink was definitely used in the ITV Series Cracker and I'm sure in the BBC Three series Sinchronicity --paypwip 10:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I did once hear of plans to de-rail a Metrolink tram so it skidded down Coronation Street but Serco said no as it would scare people off the trams. It was also shown as being in London on Drop Dead Gorgeous (TV series) where they also superimposed the London Eye onto Manchester's Skyline. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 10:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The CBeebies program 'Me Too' combines elements from Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Newcastle and Manchester into a fictitious city. The element from Manchester is Metrolink. --paypwip 10:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't Metrolink have a 'Metrolink in popular culture' section or something along the lines of? It's only right the trams are highlighted through their importance to Manchester as a world reknown location, there is a reason they are featured in so many pieces of media after all!

number of lines

Should the number of lines in the infobox be 2 or 3? One could argue there are three lines: Bury, Altrincham and Eccles. --Jotel (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As a user of the metrolink i definately think it should be classed as 3, since many trains run from piccadilly to the end of each of these separate lines. Such that you have these services running: Piccadilly - Bury Piccadilly - Eccles Piccadilly - Altrincham Bury - Eccles Bury - Piccadilly Bury - Altrincham Eccles - Piccadilly Eccles - Altrincham Eccles - Bury Altrincham - Bury Altrincham - Eccles Altrincham - Piccadilly

Some run a bypass line to miss out Piccadilly station when running a line which does not finish at Piccadilly, hence, they should really be classed as separate lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.224.80 (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "routes" is more fitting than "lines". GMPTE often refer to the present system consisting of "1 and a half lines" with "3 routes", not lines. When the system was constructed the original line opened in 1992 when complete it consisted of just one line and 3 routes. Bury - Altrincham, Bury - Piccadilly and Altrincham - Piccadilly. When the "Eccles line" opened although they classed it as a new line, the plans (only now being constructed) were meant to include an extension beyond Piccadilly towards Ashton-Under-Line taking passengers to the City of Manchester Stadium. I understand this part of extension was not viable at the time due to Manchester's failed bid to host the 2000 Olympic Games - so the Eccles extension (linking Salford Quays which was starting to grow) was the only part of the new line built, hence why it is referred to as having "one and a half lines" at present. --Spacepostman (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

between Central and Victoria ?

The table in the Future developments sections mentions 'Additional route across Manchester city centre between Central and Victoria'. What is 'Central'?? Should it be GMex, or central Manchester or what? --Jotel (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"GMEX" was renamed "Manchester Central" a couple of months ago, being as it is the former Central Station TomHennell (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It's called Deansgate-Castlefield. Never been called Central. changing it now. - --Selbs101 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Glorious future

The External links section has two links (at the end) to two different documents showing the future network. These documents differ as to the extent of the new routes. Could somebody who knows the origins of those add some information to the section to clarify what is what, or delete the link to the document which is now out of date? --Jotel (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Route map: Eccles in the north??

The route map in the Routes section is slightly confusing. It has North marked in the top l.h. corner, thus implying that Eccles is north of the city centre, somewhere near Bury.
This is meant to be a schematic diagram, so the compass points are unnecessary (and meaningless). May I ask somebody who knows how to edit .svg files to remove the North bit? --Jotel (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a schematic map, but even schematic maps are grounded in geography — look at the Thames running through the centre of London’s map. If you find it misleading, it should probably changed, but I don’t think removing the compass point is a solution in itself. I have an alternative version where Eccles is presented in a more geographical manner (in preparation for accommodating future expansion of the system), but the downside is that this involves include a large amount of space which is (at least for the moment) blank. This would mean that the map could no longer be displayed in a column at the right, but is it preferable? David Arthur (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It depends how schematic you want to be. Various route maps, in articles on canals and railway lines, show everything nicely lined up vertically, with a complete disregard for compass points and bends in the route. The existing Metrolink map is compact, fits nicely in a right-justified column, but the North indicator is unnecessary and confusing. --Jotel (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe you’re thinking of the railway/canal route diagram templates, which have a somewhat different purpose than a map like this; their function is to show the detailed characteristics of the line (junctions, tunnel entry/exit, and the like), whereas this focuses more on the parts that matter to a user of the system. The main purposes of the North indicator are to explain why the alignment is different from the official map, and to make this one more communicative (the official one isn’t really of any geographical use at all). David Arthur (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Route map 2008

I replaced the route map with the 2008 version, in a collapsible form. The new map is IMHO better, but a bit awkward to display 'uncollapsed' without creating a lot of whitespace. --Jotel (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious...

Is it actually called Manchester Metrolink in any official literature? I realise we have to disambiguate the article, but AFAICT, it's officially called (or at very least branded) Metrolink. Can anybody enlighten me? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick look shows that http://www.metrolink.co.uk/ Metrolink] itself and GMPTE refer to it simplay as Metrolink, I don't think any further sources are needed. Shall we move this article to Metrolink, Manchester or Metrolink (Manchester)? Nev1 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realise the second one was already a blue link. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't be certain, but I think references to the service within Greater Manchester call it simply "Metrolink". Sources outside Manchester seem to refer to it either as the Metrolink in Manchester or "Manchester Metrolink". This includes references by official bodies such as the Department for Transport.[1] Road Wizard (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, there's no need for Manchester organisations who work with and for Mancunians to remind everyone where it is. There are some occassions where it's refereed to simply as Metrolink by the DfT, but it looks like shorthand and the full "Manchester Metrolink" seems more common. No move needed then I guess. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I asked then! Any objections if I put a mention of this into the lead? (I'm thinking "Manchester Metrolink[2] (branded Metrolink) is..." or something simillar. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
None at all, seems a good ieda to me. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I suspect the various uses of 'Manchester Metrolink' are by analogy with 'London Underground'. It seems fairly clear that the system is not (and never has been) properly known as anything more than Metrolink. David Arthur (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you please define "properly known"? As I mentioned earlier, sources outside Manchester appear to always qualify references to "Metrolink" with the city name somewhere in the text and often use the term "Manchester Metrolink". In what way is this not proper? Road Wizard (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, when the usage by both the authorities and ordinary people in Manchester agrees, I'd say that more or less by definition takes precedence as a 'common name' over what it's called elsewhere. When the DfT say 'Manchester Metrolink', they're essentially disambiguating the name, which is reasonable given that the name could refer to practically anything (there are many things with similar names around the world), but doesn't re-name the system itself. David Arthur (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Then perhaps the opening sentence should be reversed to something like "Metrolink (often called Manchester Metrolink by people outside of the Manchester area)..." Would that or a similarly worded sentence be acceptable? Road Wizard (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, although I don't know that it's really necessary — is ‘Metrolink is a tramway in Manchester’ likely to produce any confusion? David Arthur (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If you're thinking of renaming the article, please be careful not to cause confusion with the Metrolink commuter rail operation in Los Angeles, or the Brisbane ferries in Australia, or the MetroLinks in Missouri and Nova Scotia! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course not, Metrolink is a disambiguation page. You can see that alternative names were suggested earlier, however it's unlikely that the article will be moved. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Metrolink (Manchester) seems a good article title — for a comparison, see SkyTrain (Vancouver), which is often referred to as the Vancouver SkyTrain by non-resident 'railfans'. David Arthur (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Early proposals

I unearthed some old publicity from the 80s which unveiled the first ideas for a light rail system. I'm adding old maps and artists' impressions as it give a bit of historical depth to the article. I was a bit unsure of the dates as the brochures are undated but have roughly worked it out:

  • brochure 1: 1984 - it says the system will take 5 years to build and envisages a 1989 start of operation
  • brochure 2: 1987 - a little less clear, but it mentions that the competitive tender would be decided in 1989, so powers have already been obtained, placing this publication around 1987 or 88.

Anyway it's all fascinating, especially the forgotten plans for Metrolink to Glossop...! Wikidwitch (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Bravo Wikidwitch, a very useful addition to the page:--Mapmark (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Route map diagram

The current route map is excellent and very useful for the article but I feel it's a bit large at the moment, with neighbouring text running into a narrow column and it feels slightly cramped. Does anyone object if we use the alternative version, (with the Eccles line pointing upwards) as this shape seems more suited to right-alignment? Wikidwitch (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections here from a Metrolink map lover/creator --Mapmark (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the original vertical version is definitely much more convenient – I always liked the way it fit on the page, but some people didn't like the way it distorts the geography. I'll probably have to go to a purely geographic layout when some of the new extensions open and make the system more complicated, but at the moment I have no objection to reverting to the original. David Arthur (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

An editor has replaced the current logo on the page with this one. I don't object to this changing to reflect Met branding but I feel it's jumping the gun slightly - although this branding was unveiled, I'm not aware that it is in use anywhere except on some signs Piccadilly station. As far as I know isn't in use on the trams (correct me if I'm wrong), it's not used on the official website, or anywhere as far as I can see except. So unless anyone objects I'd prefer to stick with the old one for now.

If/when the article does adopt the new logo, could someone make a graphical version instead of a photo taken in the station? It would look so much better. Wikidwitch (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I've done a graphical version anyway so I hope it's to everyone's taste. Thanks, by the way to Secondarywaltz for the transparent version - the yellow was, in retrospect, a little much. Wikidwitch (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

need to revise mileages

Now that the content of the current extensions is a bit clearer, the mileages for the extension lines need to be adjusted, and a consistent figure should be given for the prospective total system. I think the distances are as below

- the airport line is shown as 20.9km; I think this is the distance from the city centre, the extra from Chorlton is (I think) 14.5km, with the Chorlton spur itself being 3km to Trafford Bar.
- the East Didsbury line is 4.5km; the further extension to Stockport should be moved from this sub-head,
- the phase 3a to Oldham and Rochdale is 22.5km, with the town centre links being 2.4km and 1.1 km, respective, but the Werneth line is not now to be converted.
- the line to Droylesden is I think 6.3km, with a further 3.9km to Ashton.

I am not sure that all these numbers are the most up-to-date; if anybody knows better, could they adjust the numbers (and all the references to the eventual system in the text), so that the total no longer includes the Stockport and Trafford Park lines, but does give an estimate for the Second City Centre line. TomHennell (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

These distances are estimates of the routes proposed as there is no published maps. Deansgate Option would leave the present Altrincham line between Trafford Bar stop and Cornbrook underpass/junction. It would then run on street along Bridgewater Way, Chester Road, Deansgate, Fennel Street and Corporation Street where it joins the present line into Victoria Station, this is around 3-3.4km. Cross Street Option would use the existing route through G–Mex stop and down to road level. It would then run along Windmill Street (part), Mount Street, Lloyd Street (part), Albert Square, Cross Street and Corporation Street joining the present line into Victoria Station, just over 2km. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

GMPTE website relauchned

Just thought everyone would like to know that GMPTE have redesigned their website, and the Metrolink section has now been merged with [3].

This means a lot of reference links in articles may have broken, so please make any updates as necessary. If the pages you link to cannot be found, you may be able to replace the links by pointing instead to the GMPTE pages on the web archive or Metrolink pages on the web archive.

Wikidwitch (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

They seem to have reorderd the layout from directorys to files e.g. http://www.metrolink.co.uk/tickets/concession/index.asp is now http://www.metrolink.co.uk/tickets/concession.asp
83.104.138.141 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical maps to be deleted

The powers that be in Wikipedia are moving to delete the old schematic maps from the 1980s here and here as they are said to be an infringment of copyright, despite both having good fair use rationales. I have added rationales why they should not be deleted (mainly they are historical images which are allowed under fair use) but am not optimistic. If you like them, grab your own copy before they are killed off.Wikidwitch (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Trams/light rail

There seems to be some confusion among some contributors as to what Metrolink actually is. Thus, although most references to the rolling stock refer to the vehicles as "trams" there are odd references to "trains" here and there, which is inconsistent if nothing worse! By general international standards Metrolink is light rail, in the subcategory of tram. Light rail systems which are not tramways are entirely segregated: in GB the main examples are Tyne & Wear Metro and Docklands Light Railway. In London, indeed there is both segregated light rail (DLR) and a separate tram system (London Tramlink, formerly Croydon Tramlink.)

The confusion may have come about because large sections of the original Metrolink lines were formerly heavy rail. London Tramlink and Midland Metro (to take just two British examples) also have substantial former heavy rail sections, but nobody suggests they are anything other than tram systems. Most tram networks have segregated track somewhere along their routes -- particularly modern ones, which don't encroach on the highway unless they must. The test though, is: "Do the vehicles run on a track, anywhere along their routes, which is not segregated from the highway?" If the answer is yes then it's a tramway.

One anti-tram editor has alleged that Metrolink is "officially light rail". Indeed it is, but it's tramway light rail, not segregated light rail. Someone even wrote that Metrolink vehicles run in the highway "like a tram". What a coincidence. Could that be because they are trams? See the Transport & Works Act 1992 for the most official definition of what trams and tramways are that you could hope for.

Also see the Metrolink website front page reference to "Manchester's iconic tram system", in complete contrast with the early nineties when GMML tried very hard indeed not to use the word tram at all. Apparently the Chairman thought the term was old-fashioned. He hadn't been around Europe very much, if so, where in several countries (esp. Germany) trams never went out of fashion.

Metrolink trams are trams. Why try to insist otherwise?


I sincerely doubt every other contributor to date is “confused”. Here is just one of many official GMPTA (now GMITA) documents from September 2007 that I picked at random referring to LRV’s (light rail vehicles),
www.gmita.gov.uk/.../item_07c_4ps_gateway_review_of_metrolink_phase_3a -
How strange if as you say they “woke up to the fact Metrolink is a tram”.
“trams” is a faux amis based on the fact it’s easier to say and most people see the similarities. That does not make it an actual tram which are single car (metrolink is 2, articulated) and almost entirely street running. Indeed the whole point of Light Rail as a transport method is the ability to use it both as segregated rail and (usually in city/town centres) on-street, yes “tram-LIKE”, services offering greater flexibility than either of these other systems. These are not characteristic of an urban tramway which almost exclusively use shared right of way and does not operate like a segregated rail system!
Tyne and Wear Metro and DLR are in fact closer to light metros which you will see if you looked at their wiki articles…… Light rail refers to rail that is also used in shared rights of way and arguably neither TWM or DLR do. Indeed their train-sets are closer to metro/heavy rail too.
When you claimed that somehow the new extensions will “reinforce its tram qualities” how exactly do you mean? The extensions confirmed to date are the Oldham Loop conversion (full segregated track), Droylesden line (at least over 50% segregated), East Didsbury line (reuse of old railway alignment and so again full segregated track) and the MediaCity spur (full segregated track). Indeed the system is going to be made up of, percentage-wise, far more segregated track in the future!
“The test though, is: "Do the vehicles run on a track, anywhere along their routes, which is not segregated from the highway?" If the answer is yes then it's a tramway.”
Wrong. Full segregation is only true of heavy rail/metros, please view the Light Rail page for more details. You seem to be claiming anything that has shared right of way at all is a tram which is not true.
Thankyou for accepting that Metrolink is officially a Light Rail system. Metrolink isn’t an urban tramway! Frodz (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry -- but a lot of this just ain't so. If you are right, then there are very few genuine tramways -- anywhere! Nearly all now have at least some articulated cars -- systems such as Amsterdam have been using them since the 1950s. Nearly all, too, have some off-highway track -- including the Blackpool Tramway (damn: there's that word again). Some have quite a lot -- Midland Metro, for example, which isn't a metro in the customary sense (cf. Paris, Moscow, etc.) either, because it too has street running and is planning to add more.
We might be using the word "segregated" in slightly different ways. To me, it means what it says -- in other words, fenced off, and probably protected by anti-trespass laws. Just because a tramway isn't inserted into the highway but runs alongside (or nearby), that isn't full segregation -- it is simply dedicated track. Again, that's common on nearly all tram systems. I suspect very few run wholly on public roads. But it is quite right that much of the original Metrolink routes run on truly segregated track, because they were converted from heavy rail. Parts of the new lines will too, I quite agree. But parts won't: they will either be dedicated or street-running sections. Just like trams!
But if you won't be moved, then every reference to trams in the Metrolink article had better be deleted (you can't have it both ways). Your only problem then is what the noun for the rolling stock should be. As I said earlier, GMML had exactly the same problem at the launch, and ended up using at least four nouns to describe its vehicles, including the unforgiveable "LRV", which is industry jargon and deeply imprecise, because the trains on Tyne & Wear Metro, the trams in Croydon and Mr Parry's People Mover -- all are LRVs, just like the trams in Manchester.
s62 of the Transport & Works Act Act says (in part): “tramway” means a system of transport used wholly or mainly for the carriage of passengers and employing parallel rails which— (a)provide support and guidance for vehicles carried on flanged wheels, and (b)are laid wholly or mainly along a street or in any other place to which the public has access
Before you leap triumphantly at "wholly or mainly" (there is no definition of "mainly" in the Act to help us) you might bear in mind that although the present Metrolink system has more segregated track than not, that is unlikely to be the case for ever. Only parts of the planned extensions use former heavy rail: the rest will be dedicated track or street-running. Enough of Metrolink is already on the highway to make the vehicles trams (according to the DfT) rather than trains, and all the official parties seem to agree that they are. It would be ridiculous to define Metrolink as non-tram now, only to change its status when the amount of segregated track falls below, say, 50%.
It is reasonable to say that Metrolink is a "super" or second-generation tram system. But "light rail" is far too vague, as is "LRV". "Light rapid transit" is even worse, because that is sometimes said to include certain heavy rail systems too, such as London Underground. We need a better and more precise term, and I can't think of a better one than tram.
I accept that GMITA may use the term LRV in some of its more technical reports. But its Second Local Transport report (which is a formal submission to Government) refers invariably to "trams" when it discusses Metrolink.
DISCLAIMER
"How strange if as you say they “woke up to the fact Metrolink is a tram”."
-- I didn't use that phrase -- or anything like it. Neither did I say nor imply that "every other contributor to date is “confused”.". I said SOME contributors. I will leave you to decide who they might be.

New vehicles in service

Just a note that some of the new-style, yellow trams are now operational in Manchester (example here). --Jza84 |  Talk  19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Was there any need for "Attention!"? This is common knowledge... CrossHouses (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Common knowledge enough for regulars to update the article? One would've hoped so. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Article was updated in early January, also note that a runnint tally has been kept in the infobox as each one is delivered.
Exactly Jza84, it was already included in the article. Check your facts. 15:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

New Category needed perhaps?

Anyone agree that the listing of Metrolink stops might be added to a new category, similar to the existing one made for the Midland Metro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Midland_Metro_stops)? --Mapmark (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Divvy - I just added it at the bottom of the main 'Metrolink' page but on reflection perhaps it doesnt go there anyhow??? Obviously if I'm wrong please just delete it! --Mapmark (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Article split

The Main article is getting too long, ive just split off part of the T68 article, created a M5000 page and improved both so hopefully we could move some material or ensure the main page doesnt become too full on those two sections. The main article itself is still a problem mainly with the History and Expansion sections. As it comes on stream we could reduce the expansion section by assimilating it into the main article body but it may still be a problem. The history section is the main issue which has relegated present information way down the page. Im therefore proposing an article split with a new page Manchester Metrolink History taking all but a few footnotes out of the main page and also sounding out a temporary expansion split though not personally in favour.

WatcherZero (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think splitting off the history, leaving just a summary here, would be a good idea. History of Manchester Metrolink would be a better title though, cf History of the London Underground. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, agree, a new article is needed, and History of Manchester Metrolink seems a perfectly sensible title. There is also more to add on this subject including some of the planned schemes pre-PiccVic so it makes sense. --Mapmark (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Performed Split WatcherZero (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Might eventually want to connect Main article, History, two tram pages and route template into a box like this: Template:Undergroundconnect

I've linked the history article in, and provided a 4-paragraph summary on the main page, in keeping with similar articles. NRTurner (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Nicely done Watcher/Turner. Big improvement. :-) --Mapmark (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Average Speed

I was just wondering where the "average speed" entry in the infobox was sourced from. It may be roughly correct so I don't want to edit it, but should be backed up by some evidence. I wonder if the intention was to quote it as the max speed for the city centre section, as that is 30mph. I'm not convinced that this information is very useful anyway, as the average speed for the city centre is probably about 15mph, and for the segregated lines perhaps 40mph, so it depends very much on which stops one is travelling between. If such a figure is desired it could be calculated from the known line lengths and stop timing information available here in the pocket guide: http://www.metrolink.co.uk/accessibility/ although their site seems to have only an old version, I have seen newer versions in print

I have corrected speed to the average service speed; that is to say speed including passenger stops and turnround times. TomHennell (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I question the neutrality of this article, on the basis that there is a section devoted to Criticism of the system, but there is nothing in the article in support of the Metrolink network to balance this out. I'm the first to say the Metrolink has its problems, but from a purely encyclopedic point of view, I find it hard to believe that every piece of PR about the system has been negative. Thoughts? 81.141.73.29 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Offtopic - Without commenting on the claim, I'd just like to say how very nice it is to see someone doing proper NON-driveby tagging for a change. Great stuff. A lot of articles I watch seem quite often to get drive-by-ed ... well, you get the picture. DBaK (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this section is not of Wikipedia quality. Most of the criticisms mentioned are either inherent in the system (It is light, not heavy, rail); have been overtaken by events (second city crossing plan); or are specific to a particular group of disaffected users (students over 19). I think the whole section shouold be deleted.
Which is not to say that there might not properly be a note of current ongoing issues: perhaps three might be suggested as being very much 'live' - the increasing unreliability of the T68 trams (and the poor real-time disruption information systems for travellers); complaints at poor riding qualities of the new M5000 trams on anthing less than perfect track; and the continuing and unresolved question of when smart-card ticketing will be introduced. TomHennell (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed some obsolete issues (Serco running down the system prior to end of their contract, Cross City congestion) and added balance to cycling and conversion issues, feel free to further improve. WatcherZero (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Is their concensus that the neutrality issues have been resolved? WatcherZero (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay 79.69.229.57 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Metrolink tram classification

I'm a little perplexed about a paragraph in the introduction section, debating the Metrolink's status as a "tram:"

“The system is neither a tram nor a metro system. It is operated as a tram in the City Centre but more as a metro when outside of the Centre. There are no underground stations although Piccadilly Station is located underneath the main National Rail station. This means that the station feels and looks like a true metro station.″

I think it's pretty certain that the system isn't a 'metro' system, as per the wikipedia article , since that typically denotes an underground system. As for questioning its status as a 'tram', well even the Metrolink website refers to it as a tram, as do the GMPTE.

It seems to me that debating whether the Metrolink is a 'tram' , is a little bit like debating whether the London Underground should be referred to as 'underground', since 55% of the network runs over ground. Can someone please shed some light on this? Thanks. Tong22 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


I totally agree. This is obviously someone's personal opinion. There are no citations and it doesn't even add to the article anyway especially it saying piccadilly looks like it could be underground, so what? Don't see why it shouldn't be deleted.
--Selbs101 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox width

I've widened the infobox slightly as it was making the diagram split (see [4]) - is there a better way of handling this? 81.142.107.230 (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont know a better way, ive adjusted it manually in the past for the same problem which tends to appear with long station names, sometimes ive been forced to tweak the template itself, the problem is also that your screen size will affect it too, it will look fine on one screen size and clip on another. WatcherZero (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Useful

http://www.rail.co/2011/11/21/manchester-metrolink-20-years-of-evolution/ interesting reading and worth using — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.52.37 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Route Map Changes

There has been some route map changes that are not shown on the current map, if someone could update map that would be goodGuyb123321 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Description

An unfamiliar lay person reading the opening description wanting to know what it was would be forgiven that Metrolink is a DLR type of light-rail system. It is not. It is a "tram" system that runs on segregated rails in parts. People identify the system as "trams". The word "tram" and a link to Tram inserted. 94.194.102.190 (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how you make that inductive leap re: DLR, there is no suggestion of similarity nor is DLR mentioned. What makes you think that? Besides DLR itself is described more often as a metro than light rail. Regarding Metrolink, it is actually the other way round to what you describe. It is a mid-capacity light rail system with some street running, it is not actually a tram no matter how much the average joe on the street may use the name colloquially. A tram is a low-capacity system with negligible segregated track. ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Incident Section

Its growing too large and becoming unencyclopedic (table format doesnt help) while an occurence is notable when a rare event when it becomes a long list it loses notability. Propose removing. WatcherZero (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it ought to go J3Mrs (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree it's not right for the article. I'm thinking it ought to be moved to the History of Manchester Metrolink article for now, and then integrated into prose in the body of the article - some of the incidents will probably be of interest to some readers.
I'm also of the view that the article could do with a little bit of a revamp. I look at articles like London Underground with some envy - of course the Tube is a historic and globally iconic monster of a network, but Metrolink is growing up fast, and could follow some of the layout and mapping techniques used in that article. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

Hi all, I've been busy working on a complete rewrite of the Metrolink article, using London Underground as a template for layout, and have an unfinished draft at User:Jza84/Sandbox2. Intially, I'd like support from editors to be bold and replace the existing article with the new version, but (as it's such a collosal task), I'm also seeking editors to help sense-check, amend and complete the draft. An SVG route map for the infobox in the style of that at the Tube article would also be great.

Thoughts anybody? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont think it adds anything really, with the reduction of information and many errors introduced its actually much inferior to the current version. WatcherZero (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you help point me in the right direction to make improvements? Like I say, it's unfinished so I know there are sections towards the bottom end of the draft without much content. I have however tried to make it more factual, or rather, stick to the principle of verifiability. If you take out the unsourced material from the current article (which is permitted under Wikipedia guidelines), you're left with a pretty stubby article - much of that remaining material is "sourced" with dead webpages. If you compare the history sections of both, I'm confident consensus would say there's a massive increase in verifiable information.
That said, I'm not a light rail expert so do need some support. I have the article's best-interests at heart here and still propose we push for an overhaul. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I've read them both. The current version has all the faults of articles edited on a piecemeal basis by numerous editors. Jza's version, while incomplete, is more coherent. I wouldn't give up on it. That said, I'm no expert either but I do like articles to be at least readable. J3Mrs (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks J3Mrs and WatcherZero - mixed feedback I guess, so I'll perservere (for now) with making even more improvements. There are elements that will need input from other editors (afterall, Wikipedia is collaborative), particularly providing a referenced section about service times etc. I've raised a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop for SVG route maps, but it has a backlog and requests often go stale. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I've made some more progress with this (and have found self-made errors which I've hopefully smoothed out now), but I'm struggling with referencing aspects of it - and want to avoid using the Light Rail Transit Association website as it looks like a tertiary source (and changes webpages quite often). Does anybody have references for the following seven issues I see as outstanding?:
1) The original opening of Phase 1 of Metrolink was delayed by a period of months?
2) Parts of the original track in the city centre had to be amended and replaced due to poor design (something to do with buses driving over key kit)?
3) What was the public reaction to Phase 2/the Eccles Line? And why did it (apparently) fail to reach passenger targets?
4) TfGM forecast that Metrolink will serve a daily ridership of 190,000 passengers once Phase 3b is completed? (I've found a reference to 45 million per annum, which works out about 125,000 per day)
5) Anything about the design and acquisition of the six T-68As for the Eccles line? How do they differ from the original fleet?
6) Anything about the required level of service needed from Metrolink? I remember, some time ago, reading that Metrolink (or perhaps its operator) is contractually bound to provide 10 trams an hour on key routes 98% of the time. What is the service record like?
7) Who provides the voice of Metrolink trams? I.e. the lady who announces "the next stop" on-board? It may not be important, but if it's publically known, then I guess we owe it to readers to add to the article.
Hope you can help, --Jza84 |  Talk  11:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Will try and address a couple, voice over lady isnt famous just a member of staff, daily usage your just dividing by 365 arent you? Usage on a weekday will be significantly higher than at the weekends so you could easily have 190,000 on a weekday but only 45m per year but remember they are just broad forecasts, if you do a quick check using those numbers weekend daily works out around 60,000, thats not accounting for public holidays as well. Theres bi-monthly performance reports here: http://www.transportforgreatermanchestercommittee.gov.uk/info/311/20122013 . WatcherZero (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Brill - thanks WatcherZero. I suppose on reflection 45 million per annum is a good enough option anyway, and satisfies the need to add referenced material, I was just curious where that figure came from (if it was in an official document or estimated by enthusiasts etc). I've struck through the voice-over lady question too with this post - thanks for clearing that up. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I've had a quick read and it seems to be much more coherent and encyclopaedic in nature than the current article. Good work. NRTurner (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks NRTurner, that's much appreciated. I'm getting close to finishing the piece as a draft ready to transfer over to the article space (with blessing / no objection). I'm still struggling with elements about service level, and how to explain and reference this using reliable third-party sources. I'm also still keen to understand why Phase 2 failed to reach passenger targets. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The tramline weaves around the quays, its a slow and curvy route while the buses had the benefit of being able to drive as the crow flies so if you were going end to end the bus was faster, bus company also responded to opening by lowering fares to compete. Metrolink responded by lowering its fares on that line and over the years since its built up a respectable usage and helped to regenerate the Quays making it a destination in its own right. WatcherZero (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. Is there anything out there on the net or in a book, journal etc that you're aware of which we could cite for the article? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Best I could do at short notice is point 3.4 in this document. http://www.salford.gov.uk/d/salford-idp-light-rail.pdf WatcherZero (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
That looks great - and provided some details useful elsewhere too. I've added it in. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Re 2, try something based around

There was excessive breakup of the road surface adjacent to the track in the early days of operation. The sections were relaid following the evaluation of several possible solutions. Hall, J.R. (1995). "Design, build, operate and maintain contract as applied to Manchester's Metrolink". Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Transport. 111 (4). Thomas Telford: 310–313. doi:10.1680/itran.1995.28033. ISSN 0965-092X. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

(my text). The test sites were five in number on Mosely Street, and (if neccesary) you might add that the areas affected were the dual running sections. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Stephen. Added in and struck point 2. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm at the point where I can say the draft is complete and potentially ready to be transferred over. Before I do so, are there any objections/burning issues/errors that anyone would like to raise/fix/address? Again, the draft is at User:Jza84/Sandbox2 and is open to editting. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As nothing's come forward I have overwritten the old article with the new with this diff, per WP:BOLD. I hope others agree it is an improvement. I would also like to urge editors and enthusiasts alike that "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." - the former article suffered from a lot of well-meaning additions, but with poor or zero referencing. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Are they trams or not?

It says in the lead "Metrolink uses a fleet of light rail vehicles – popularly known as trams". At the risk of igniting a war, are they trams or not? I looked at the Tram article for guidance and it's very unclear from that what is a tram and what isn't, although the main image for the article is of light rail vehicles. Looking at the Metrolink pages [5] they refer to "Tram times" so it would appear that they accept the term "tram" for the vehicles, at least - or are they just giving in to a popular misconception? Richerman (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The distinction varies by country and those operated by Metrolink in particular do span multiple definitions, in the simplest sense I can say to you is that a Tram is always a Light Rail Vehicle but a Light Rail Vehicle is not always a tram. WatcherZero (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to stick with what the Holt and Ogden & Senior books have said in particular as they seem the most authoritative, though they are all from the early 1990s. I also personally call it "the tram", but a lot of the more technical type sources seem resistant to it for various reasons.
If it spills over into debates we could always put a footnote in with an explanation? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester_Metrolink/Archive_1&oldid=1136256784"