...when a loory hit a phase 2 tram a couple of years ago it did serious structural damage that took over 6 months to fix.

His paintings were tough at least.
We could be on Paramount 2 + 1hr with this body of work.

^^ 10 pounds to whoever can decypher the above post.... :)

I translated it as: Northbeach "my false reading of lorry as lowry and the hillarity that ensued have the comedic potential to obtain for me employment on one of the least popular and therefore cheapest paying digital comedy channels. Wooh!"

When you consider the amount of money going into the `cross rail` project in London (even though it might be necessary long term?)

Why has Manchester given up on the `Pic / Vic` link?

Ok, you got the `Metrotram` but the `Pic / Vic` link was originally only going to cost £80m - what would it cost now or do you think it is no longer necessary?

No longer necessary. Sadly Victoria has been relegated to a suburban station, and you can hop on a tram to Piccadilly Station.

I say build the Castlefield Curve and run a circle line around Manchester City Centre:

Piccadilly - Oxford Rd - Deansgate - Middlewood/Castlefield - Salford Central - Victoria - Collyhurst - City of Manc Stadium - Ardwick - Piccadilly.

All the tracks are in place.

Sounds good.

^^^ Not Quite. The stretch where the line comes down from sport city is no longer complete. there's a section just west of Ashburys on the Glossop line which needs rebuilding. Its currently a viaduct with overgrown bushes on it. I agree though. Its silly that two tiny bits of missing track are preventing us from having a vital circular line. It annoys me just to think of how short the 'castlefield curve' would have to be.

apparently the 2006-2011 Local Transport Plan is currently at the printers, it will be available to download at www.gmltp.co.uk very soon.

Sounds like bad news to me this, but keeping it back til after the local election as to not lose the council to the lib dems:

Metrolink tram line deal 'close'
Alan Salter


A DEAL to revive three axed Metrolink tram line extensions is close, local officials and MPs believe.

They had hoped Transport Secretary Alistair Darling would make an announcement yesterday, and allow them to start spending some of the £520m originally on offer for the lines to Oldham and Rochdale, Tameside and the airport which were axed two years ago as costs spiralled to almost £1bn.

Tony Blair later put the £520m back on the table and the negotiators believed they had convinced civil servants that scaled-down plans were value for money.
Advertisement your story continues below

But Mr Darling has decided he still needs more time to study the detail - and will not now announce the go-ahead until after the local elections in May.

The Department for Transport said in a statement: "We are in constructive discussions with Manchester about the Metrolink extensions. We are working closely together to resolve the outstanding issues in relation to the elements of the package that would be part-funded by the government. "

The M.E.N launched its "Get Back on Track" campaign with a 40,000-name petition after the shock decision two years ago.

Plans for the Leeds supertram and Liverpool's Merseytram were also axed.

'Frustrating'

Coun Roger Jones, chairman of Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, said: "Alistair Darling still feels there is more work to be done to sort it out. We are very close to pulling off the deal and this is very frustrating because we have waited such a long time."

Local officials hope a release of the £520m will allow them to start work on all three lines while they apply for extra money from the government's new £2bn Transport Innovation Fund, which seeks to cut congestion. Officials have denied they will be forced to offer congestion charging in return for the extra funds.

Manchester Central MP Tony Lloyd, who has taken part in discussions, said: "We are getting very close to a result. I can't say when that will come but I do think the gap between us is more about ironing out the details than the principle."

City council leader Coun Richard Leese, Coun Jones and Lord Peter Smith, leader of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, said in a statement: "We remain very confident of securing final approvals to our plans for Metrolink extensions."

I agree Irish Blood English Heart, how much time does Darling need.

The bloke is such a scum bag.

At least we appear to be moving in the correct direction - if this extra 2 months means that we finally get the go ahead then it'll be worth it, however, if we get the stringed along as in Nottingham I may have to kill Darling.

Taken from a football forum...

Note - it's subscription so you cannot see the link


Hiya mate, I posted last year that all was ok with the metrolink:
http://www.redissueforum.co.uk/show...325&postcount=6

The company I work for does a lot of work with GMPTE and did the last Metrolink. It's been known within our team in the office that everything would be ok, even with the olympics going on, funding will be made available for new projects and for upgrading Bury - Manchester line etc...

Metrolink

I heard a while ago that an announcement would be made at the end of March. I was told it would have seen the Rochdale line go ahead, but without the on street running in Oldham Town Centre. There would have been an option to add this additional feature at a future date if funding allowed.

Does this tie in with anything you had heard about the content of Thursday's 'announcement'.

Potato - not heard that my self, however....

The plan was to run trams on the old tracks to Rochdale whilst the road sections in Oldham and Rochdale are constructed, this would involve a bit of single track running - similarly to around Navigation Road on the Alty line - however, this was / is only for the duration of the construction of the road sections, after which the trams would start street running.

There has always been talk of maintaining the none-street section, such that 'express' trams could run straight into Manchester.

Two things that make me think it's unlikely though...

When the GMPTE decided to change their plans for the airport line - i.e. dropping the hospital side of the Wythenshawe loop, it HAD to be voted on - it would be the same with such a large chage to the Rochdale Line I'd have thought, and as such we'd have heard about it by now.

Secondly, the location of the Oldham stations is poor, given the DfT moaning all the time about lack of integration etc recently, I'd have thought making this change would have significantly lowered the benifit / cost ratio, and as such would not be an attractive option.

To be honest, the way I've been reading it, I'm starting to expect ALL lines to commence at the same time (after the depot most likely since we'll need somewhere to store the trams), and during construction we'll be getting Transport Innovative Funding money to complete the lines - how we get the TiF money is I expect the hold up, they're may still be putting the final touches to this to make sure it's all water tight.

As I say, none of this comes from anything more than what I've read, and from how I think these people work.

Its just been on North West Today that Metrolink funding has been secured with work expected to commence 2008 :)

Just like that?! Excellent!

Lets hope we get the Chapel st line too! ;)

Its just been on North West Today that Metrolink funding has been secured with work expected to commence 2008 :)
Load of crap that probs say no again next year. 2008 why?

Its just been on North West Today that Metrolink funding has been secured with work expected to commence 2008 :)

this is excelent news if it is true and only 15 years late!

i remember reading a newspaper that said metrolink would be ready by the year 2000!

Andy - 2008 start will be as expected, takes ages (in this country) to get tenders done and contracts signed - expect trams in Rochdale in 2010.

Fan-fucking-tasic if this is as good as it sounds - note - nothing on any web site yet as far as I can tell.

From 'the horses mouth' (as it were), funding has been confirmed for phase 3.

£520m now, the rest WILL come via TiF

source for this Metrolink?

Accura - saw on BBC NW tonight.

I've spoken to someone involved, who was half surprised it is common knowledge, however, said that the story is true.

Metrolink Phase 3 remind me which route this is someone?
is it the southern corridor or the Rochdale line?

well merseytravel already has miles and miles worth of tracks that metrolink would probably be able to aquire cheaply.. its not as if liverpool has any use for them anymore

They may decide to keep them. They are still hoping to get funding over the next 5 years.

Roly - this is the line to Rochdale, AND the line to Ashton AND the line to the airport, plus maybe a line to Stockport.

I'll find a map.

:D

try http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/met_network.pdf

We're going to have one hell of a tram network - half as many stops as the London underground!!!

maggie - I suspect those tracks will get used for the Bury line, which will be being replaced (it's 40 years old and worn out) next year.

hopefully the order for 8 new trams to relieve congestion on phase1 is about to be increased to an order for 63 new trams.


Just to give some figures, we'll have at least 87 trams, and around (probably slightly more) 100 stops.

try http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/met_network.pdf

We're going to have one hell of a tram network - half as many stops as the London underground!!!

Holy Shit! bigups man. :D

try http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/met_network.pdf

We're going to have one hell of a tram network - half as many stops as the London underground!!!

seriously? wow!

so its pretty much everything we wanted then Metro?

thanks btw

hopefully the order for 8 new trams to relieve congestion on phase1 is about to be increased to an order for 63 new trams.


Just to give some figures, we'll have at least 87 trams, and around (probably slightly more) 100 stops.

will the new trams be a new design Metro? more modern looking maybe? Like Nottinghams

They'll be similar to the ones in Koln (search google for images) - I excpect them to be slightly longer than the current ones with higher capacity.

Will mean we can double up existing trams to run direct services, and use new longer trams for shorter running, greatly increasing capacity.

This news - if confirmed to be as good as it sounds - will be by far the best news Manchester has had for decades - forget Eastgate, forget Albany, this will bring in millions, if not billions of investment.

P.S. The trams will obviously be 900mm floors - i.e. high floors.

P.S. I'm planning on buying the internet domain metrolinkphase3.co.uk when I've saved up and got my broadband sorted out.

Plan to chart the entire project, already have plenty of pictures of the depot site being cleared.

They may decide to keep them. They are still hoping to get funding over the next 5 years.
doubt it think theyve kinda come to their senses and decided to go for the cheaper and more effective option of enhancing the existing infrastructure for the time being

P.S. I'm planning on buying the internet domain metrolinkphase3.co.uk when I've saved up and got my broadband sorted out.

Plan to chart the entire project, already have plenty of pictures of the depot site being cleared.

cool try 123reg.com should cost about £23 or something if its available

roly - I'm planning on hosting it on my own equipement.

This means I need to pay for DNS registration - I also need to consider how much bandwidth I'm going to use - at present I'm limited to 1Gb / month - I am planning on getting the company I work for to pay for me to have unlimited (finances are VERY tight in the 'Metrolink' house hold at the moment following our visit to the Winter Olympics).

Anyone with some cash to splash, if this story is confirmed to be as good as it sounds, buy some property near one of the new lines - practically guarenteed money maker.

This is excellent news.

Metrolink - the original phase three plans are quite old now. Other than the dropping of the Wyth hosp link do you know of any other cuts/changes that have been proposed to cut costs or meet the changes in the city since the plans were first announced?

Could you also say where the GMPTE sees Metrolink going post phase three? Do they see P3 (including Stockport, Trafford Park etc) as the natural conclusion of the network or do they have long term plans for further network growth. I'm not interested in this in a greedy "I want more" way, but I want to know what the PTE sees as the major public transport priorities when this stage in our development has been concluded.

As far as I am aware the 3 stops on the loop near Wythenshawe are the only 'chopped' parts of the network.

The street sections in Rochdale and Oldham will come 'on;ine' after the rest of the line, though that is simply to allow running to Rochdale at the earliest oppurtunity.

The (provisional) local transport plan (final version will be available very very soon) states that by 2020 the GMPTE would like phase 3, (including Stockport in phase 3!!!) built, along with the Trafford Centre line - however, the Trafford Centre line to be funded privately.

At which point they'll reassess the situation I suspect.

Given in 1980 the plan was for a 6 line Metrolink (although not the ones we're going to end up with) the initial plans were quite accurate for what we actually need 25 years on.

Personally, I suspect as 2020 approaches, and if (as I fully expect) Metrolink is a roaring success, I suspect there will be great pressure from area (such as Bolton and Wigan) to be joined up to Metrolink.

I don't think GMPTE have any definate plans at all, however, as time goes oon, they may evolve - and if they do, I suspect we may start to see proposals appear that may not go into central Manchester - i.e. a line between Wigan, Bolton, Bury and Rochdale may be an attractive way of helping to stimulate to poorly performing (economically) northern half of Greater Manchester.

I count around 113 stops - but to compare it to the London Underground is odd as the London Underground is heavy rail with large sections running underground and over long distances.

Good news if true, although I'd gradually want for the integration of city transport networks more efficiently. The future Metrolink lines take over the routes of current commuter lines - it is a pity that they couldn't have been tied into the current heavy rail lines to create a more comprehensive service.

Yet Manchester will have to continue to build higher density if it wants to be able to expand upon this and any future projects.

what's the max speed for the Trams Metrolink?

Nick - only the Rochdale line is a heavy rail converstion.

That line is knackered and the option is replacing it with buses, trams or more heavy rail, trams make the most sense.

Either way the tracks and vehicles need replacing on that line.

All other lines are NEW lines, and all will be heavily integrated into Manchester's transport - when the new local transport plan is published it'll go heavy on this I understand.

With regards the London underground comparions - yep, I know, nothing like the scale of the London underground in reality (the tube carry more people in 3 weeks than the expanded tram network will do in a year), but it does give an idea of the coverage we'll get across Greater Manchester - obviously a much smaller place than Greater London.

Insignia - max speed of current and new trams is 80km/h or 50mph - tends to be a standard across the industry.

P.S. Nothing on GMR hourly news about this :S

Suspect that BBC News have had the story 'leaked' and only some programs are covering it until 100% confirmed.

P.S. Nothing on GMR hourly news about this :S

Suspect that BBC News have had the story 'leaked' and only some programs are covering it until 100% confirmed.

Superb! :)

Andy - 2008 start will be as expected, takes ages (in this country) to get tenders done and contracts signed - expect trams in Rochdale in 2010.

Fan-fucking-tasic if this is as good as it sounds - note - nothing on any web site yet as far as I can tell.
Ye and its a fucking joke. If they have the bloody money, so they should bloody spend it, whats to wait for? Everything has been done, in fact in places it has already started aka houses have been knocked down, tunnels and bridges have been built. Contracts should take no longer than 2-3 months max. If someone put there arse into action they could start by the end of the year.

andy - I reckon that plenty of advanced work will take place - for example, the very time consuming shifting of utilites (carried out by the utility companies) will be able to start practically straight away.

Wonder is it'll be one line at a time, or the Big Bang of all 3 at once???

andy - I reckon that plenty of advanced work will take place - for example, the very time consuming shifting of utilites (carried out by the utility companies) will be able to start practically straight away.

Wonder is it'll be one line at a time, or the Big Bang of all 3 at once???
Make more sense to do one at a time, because we might get more money and the next line such as the airport line might get its loop back.

Insignia - max speed of current and new trams is 80km/h or 50mph - tends to be a standard across the industry.

Yep. Nottingham's is 50mph. I'm always suprised (and amazed!) by how fast NET is off-street!

How much of the extension for Metrolink is off-street btw?

Don't think we'll be getting the airport loop back for quite some time to be honest.

To be honest, I suspect the construction of each line may go out to tender seperately - as such different companies may end up building each line - all at once, or one company may win all the tenders, and build one at a time, depends on what works out cheapest I suppose.

Practically all off the new stuff is segregated.

There are stetches (Ashton line has most street running at about 2.5miles I think) of street running.

Cannot remember exact figure bu ovr 80% won't be on roads.

Have a read of www.lrta.org and click on Manchester Metrolink (scroll down a bit) for details of all the new lines.

try this...

http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/pages_list.html

describes all the routes.

Fuck, never knew rochdale was that far away!

Any numbers on how much this exspansion will plough into the greater manchester region economy? 'metro'.

Manc - it's estimated the full expansion will add £1bn to the local GDP.

F....never knew rochdale was that far away!

Its not that far....


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e50/b4mmy/transporterdiagram.jpg

Has anyone seen this yet??

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/209/209591_metrolink_tram_line_deal_close.html

:banana: First Longford's news now this!!

I'm only guessing but this might have been told to the press but embargoed until a certain day and time - ie 06:00 on Monday, so the the people involved can be put up for interview and the story 'managed'. This does happen from time to time in the news world - maybe NWT just couldn't keep it to themselves!

Given that in the report that gave Manchester the best rating in the UK for business, one of the top concerns was that the government pulled phase three this should re-inforce our position. The conversion of the Rochdale line will also help ease heavy rail congestion through Victoria.

Time to crack out the champers! Well done to everyone that thought so hard for this.

All I saw in that article was that a decision will be made after the local elections in May.

Somebody correct me please.

Im not going to beleive anything on this issue, until work starts on the new lines,,,we've been fobbed off to many times,,,after the local election's ? mmmm stink's of bullshit to me .

Absolutely nothing on the North West Tonight websire

www.bbc.co.uk/england/northwesttonight

April Fools!!!!

Not April fools I don't think, however, given the lack of further news, I suspect someone has broken ranks in an attempt to force the DfT to go public with it's support, or the BBC has broken some confidence.

It could well be May when we do get an official 'Yes' (as I said yesterday my friend was VERY surprised this news was public!!!), however, I am now virtually certain we'll get a yes, and that construction WILL start in 2008 - it's not jst the BBC story, but also the MEN one, the Tameside advertiser one, and my contact (I know I've said to ignore me on this but..... :D ) something positive is stirring, it's getting close, and it'll be good news.

I've emailed North West tonight, the MEN editor and a contact in the DfT who deals with light rail to find out what the truth is here.

I don't think there's any doubt this is not an April Fools, when news companies pull jokes they are silly things like spaghetti trees, not annoucning a crucial region building development has ben secured and will be going ahead. Hopefully though we'll get proper clarification tomorrow and it will ease a few minds. But man, how many times has this stop started? As others have said, I'll wait till they stat laying the first tracks before I get excited.

Dear Kurt

The story is true, of course. Roger Jones from the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority gave an interview and confirmed the details. However, an official announcement by the Government will not be made until after the May local elections. This may explain why you can't find more on this development on the internet just yet.

I hope that helps to answer your question.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kurt Stephens [mailto:kurtlstephens@gmail.com]
Sent: 02 April 2006 18:01
To: Manchester NorthWest Tonight
Subject: 5:05pm Saturday broadcast


Hi,



I understand on the 5:05pm broadcast on Saturday evening there was an article about Metrolink Phase 3, saying that the government have given the go ahead, and construction will start in 2008.



There appears to be no further information on this anywhere on the internet – could you confirm the story to be true, (i.e. not a poor April fools joke), and if so, is there any reason for the BBC News web site not being updated to carry this very important story for the whole Manchester region.



Many thanks



Kurt Stephens


http://www.bbc.co.uk/

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the
BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

See :D I wasnt lying, and the BBC were not playing April Fools jokes.

Now where is jrb's underground? :rant:

I know you weren't.

Is quite a strange way of this coming out - Roger Jones is the big cheese of the PTA, if anyone from the Manchester side knows what is going on - he does.

Ref the underground - lets not get too greedy now.

My thoery on goings on...

I suspect the reason the official announcement may be after the local elections, is to ensure that the Lib Dems in Rochdale / Stockport / Oldham / Withington will not be able to take credit for the recent progress (as they no doubt would).

By delaying until after the elections, LD cannot use it as evidence as they help get things done in your local area, and since Labour probably cannot lose any further votes on this - and the majority of people won't believe them when they say the project will proceed, for the Labour party is probably makes sense for the decision to be delayed.

Or am I just too cynical???

I suspect that locals (e.g. Roger Jones) have been told it's a dead cert after the elections - and to start working towards the project, hence the recent stories we've seen in the papers and on the tele.

According to the article only the original £520 mil is on offer. Where is the extra funding comming from?

Transport Initiative Fund - they wouldn't start this type of project if they weren't very confident it'd get done.

To be honest, the £520m has always been there - if the GMPTE could convience that the governemtn that project could be delivered, and the project will e value for money.

Given they've already spent about £300m, I expect they'll crack with utility diversions etc, secure in the knowledge that Tif money will fund the rest.

We'll find out for sure in May.

Personally, I suspect as 2020 approaches, and if (as I fully expect) Metrolink is a roaring success, I suspect there will be great pressure from area (such as Bolton and Wigan) to be joined up to Metrolink.

I don't think GMPTE have any definate plans at all, however, as time goes oon, they may evolve - and if they do, I suspect we may start to see proposals appear that may not go into central Manchester - i.e. a line between Wigan, Bolton, Bury and Rochdale may be an attractive way of helping to stimulate to poorly performing (economically) northern half of Greater Manchester.

More attractive would be Bolton and Wigan linked up to Stockport, Marple, Hazel Grove and Crewe etc by a Thameslink-style network, via a (dare I say it?!) tunnel through Manchester.

I expect the local transport plan to 2011 will make no further mention of metro frequencies on the rest of the GM network.....we'll have to wait a long long time for that.

There are all kinds of ways the northern Manchester network could evolve. I'd love to see trains to Rawtenstall via Heywood and Bury Bolton St, or even Victoria to Wigan via Bury and Bolton etc....

It's all a bit fanciful, innit?

From the DfT......



Mr Stephen



In response to your e-mail I would like to begin by making clear that no decision has been taken on the Phase 3 extensions project.



We are in constructive discussions with Manchester about the Metrolink extensions and are working closely together to resolve the

outstanding issues in relation to the elements of the package that would be part-funded by the Government.

T hose discussions are underway now.



All the best



******





******

Light Rail Branch
Regional and Local Major Projects Division
Department for Transport
Zone 3/18
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

So who's telling the truth? wtf

They both make sense.

It seems Roger Jones has been told we've got the money, however, the official announcement will not be until May.

When I ask the DfT the OFFICIAL position, they repeat the official line.

There is not a contradiction (as far as I can tell) between the two emails.

You're right Metro, those emails do make sense, NWT being honest about it but the DfT are bulllshitting as usual. I'm not sure about your theory as to why Labour are delaying any announcement. I see what you mean about Lib Dems trying to take credit for it (and we don't want that, cheeky beggers!) but surely if Labour have a poor showing in areas like Rochdale wouldn't the news of a brand new Metrolink line SECURED and about to start be good news for them?(Labour I mean) Surely its the type of good news story Labour would relish before an election?

Not sure, the LDs could say - "Look in 5 years of having labour council / MPs you didn't get trams, within 1 year of getting LD council / MPs we've secured trams through our pressure on the government. If you elect more LD councillors then imagine what more we can do for you".

now given the total lack of interest in how the tram story has progressed, quite a few people may well believe the Lds on this matter - there may be some truth in it!!!

Additionally, if Labour were to say that thy've secured funding, the normal person in the street probably wouldn't believe Labour - the Labour party has a trust issue.

Well its out there now in the public arena so if I was Alistair Darling or Labours Rochdale candidate I would want this news out, a big announcement of real funding being secured and work starting could do wonders for that trust issue IMO.

Or it could, of course, be that what is brilliant news for Mcr would be a very unpopular vote-loser elsewhere come the local elections - ie, in those places that haven't convinced Darling of their case for light rail. Leeds, Liverpool etc

theres another article about it here article here (http://www.oldhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/210/210187_metrolink_looks_positive.html)

maggie - in reply to your post on the other thread, Roger Jones (GMPTA Leader) says there will not be an official announcement until after the election in May.

The BBC has confirmed it is not an April Fools.

Or it could, of course, be that what is brilliant news for Mcr would be a very unpopular vote-loser elsewhere come the local elections - ie, in those places that haven't convinced Darling of their case for light rail. Leeds, Liverpool etc

Too true... Can't believe they turned down a Tram system in Leeds ('not the best value for money') only months later to EXPAND the Manchester system. What a slap in the face! Just so it's clear I'm all for expanding the Manchester system, just don't see why Leeds doesn't get a chance. A punishment to the people of Leeds for voting out Labour from Leeds Council just before the decision I wonder?

Too true... Can't believe they turned down a Tram system in Leeds ('not the best value for money') only months later to EXPAND the Manchester system. What a slap in the face! Just so it's clear I'm all for expanding the Manchester system, just don't see why Leeds doesn't get a chance. A punishment to the people of Leeds for voting out Labour from Leeds Council just before the decision I wonder?

Could well be...
Labour councellors return to Leeds, DfT brings the trams back and everyone is expected to love the Labour council. Magic!

I don't think it's a coincidence the the Labour conference this year will be held in Manchester and phase three coming back - it wouldn't look good for the party with people in the city slagging them off all the time. This way they will get a warmer reception.

Isn't Democracy Great!

With all due respect Leedslad, Leeds City Council appear to have done fuck all to get the trams back on the go. They seemed pretty damn "meh" when they were putting in the proposals in the first place. Leeds SHOULD'VE got it's trams, but there isn't another place in England that has fought Government like Manchester has. Even in Leeds, I hear more about the Manc council chiefs battling for Metrolink more than I hear anything about the Supertram. And the YEP has only just started to campaign to get them going again. The MEN has been "fighting the cause" for over 10 years.

It's been hard fucking work, but we've earnt our trams. To say it's a slap in the face for Leeds is pretty damn ridiculous because plain and simply, Leeds City Council just don't appear to have the same want for it as MCC do.

Couple of things, I'll post them in seperate posts...

Roger Jones quotes in the Sale and Altrincham Messenger giving details on why no announcement yet...

"We has a very positive meeting with Greater Manchester MPs to discuss progress on delivering the proposed Metrolink extensions. MPs have told us that a deal is close but because of the election period restrictions, an announcement cannot be made until after the local elections.
We are extremely encouraged by this news and are confident that we are now on the last lap. We would like to thank the Greater Manchester public, the business community and our officers for their commitment to securing Metrolink expansion and for their hard work in helping us reach this stage."

Also, forgot to mention ealier.

On the tram into town yesterday morning,bloke on Dane Road station counting passenger numbers (they do this type of thing to validate the 'value' of the system - i.e. how many people are not paying and how many journeys do season ticket holders make can be worked out from this type of analysis - as well as where on the system are the worst overcrowded trams).

Anyway, I asked him what he was up to - he said something along the lines of collecting data for when the system is 'sold'.

Again, doesn't mean anything on it's own, but with all the other stuff recently it sure could.

Sold? I thought it was owned by the GMPTE and only run by Serco?

I guess he was working for Serco. Maybe they dont want to run the system when its bigger? God knows.

Had an amusing incedent on a metrolink on wednesday. Going from Trafford bar to piccadilly the buses were gridlocked around the bustop bit again and there was a bus sticking out into the road. The tram tried to go through a gap that just wasnt there! BANG hit the back of the bus on the side of the tram. Bus was fine, drove off. Tram....fucked stopped in the middle of Piccadilly, doh!

Suspect the bloke meant the contract to run the system is being 'sold' i.e. it is out to tender - as is the case with phase 3.

Had a thought whilst driving along the M60 this morning.

Between Sale Water Park and Wythenshawe junctions (where it's being widened) heading anti-clockwise, there is a new bridge, with a totally unused arch, i.e. no part of the road goes under it. Given this is a brand new bridge I had thought this a bit odd - this morning it clicked, the airport line runs paralell to the M60 at this point, just north of the motorway, and most likely through this arch under the bridge.

For those interested, about 500m further towards Stockport, there will be a bridge over the M60 and the tracks will cut through the housing just near that ugly empty tower block which is just south of the motorway.

Local transport plan is available

http://www.gmltp.co.uk/

Not had chance to read it yet so cannot comment

http://www.gmltp.co.uk/localTransportPlanDocs.asp

Just scanning though the document, but found this...

The Transport Infrastructure Fund (tif) was established in 2001/02 as part of an agreed funding package between GMPTA and the Government made up of £3.5M PTA resources and £3.5M SCE per year for 10 years to complement the construction of Metrolink Phase 3. The agreement was a partnership arrangement between GMPTA and Government to work together to enhance transport facilities and accessibility in the western areas of Greater Manchester that will not benefit from Metrolink.

That is a total of £70m towards Phase 3 that we weren't aware of previously I think, no doub there are other hints in the document.

171 pages long though, quite some read.

Stockport and Trafford Centre details...



Metrolink Extensions to Stockport and Trafford Park

The Metrolink extension to Stockport was submitted in 2001 as a priority major scheme for Greater Manchester. Since then discussions have concentrated on the funding of the Airport, Oldham and Rochdale, and Ashton Lines, but DfT did not reach a conclusion on the Stockport extension. Once an agreed way forward is reached on the Phase 3 lines, further consideration will be given to this scheme, which we are committed to implementing. The proposed extension to Trafford Park remains as a scheme for which future Metrolink tenderers would also be asked to submit quotations. This scheme would be financed by the private sector.

More from the plan on Metrolink

Metrolink
The GMITS identifies the expansion of the Metrolink network and renewal of the existing system as a priority. Metrolink has been proven to be very effective in achieving modal shift, which will become increasingly important as the sub-regional economy expands.

Metrolink Phase 1-2 Renewals

A key element of the Metrolink Phase 3 scheme was a programme of upgrades to the existing Metrolink lines. In July 2005, the Secretary of State conditionally approved proposals which had been submitted in January 2005 for the allocation of £58m of the agreed £520m to fund 8 additional trams, improvements to stops (including lighting, information and accessibility, along with new ticket machines) and major infrastructure works including the upgrade and renewal of the sections of former railway lines and other works in Manchester city centre. The approval of this spend is subject to a number of conditions being met, in particular that there will be no increases in cost. The £44M balance of the programme will be funded by GMPTE. The total funding package will deliver the following improvements to the existing network:

capacity improvements/system reliability works – primarily 8 additional trams together with the associated facilities/upgrades
Infrastructure works – including Disability Discrimination Act/personal safety works , track improvements , new ticket vending machines , together with associated project management, design and contingency costs.
A shortlist of four bidders has been drawn up for the supply of trams, and another five companies have been invited to bid to renew the track.The timescale envisaged for the project is:

Track renewal completed Autumn 2007
New vehicles in service Autumn 2008
existing vehicle modifications , stop and equipment improvements delivered under a new concession from January 2007 onwards.

Metrolink Phase 3

In July 2004 the Secretary of State withdrew funding for the Phase 3 Metrolink extensions owing to the rise in cost of the project. A ministerial working group was set up with DfT to find a way forward and met between September and December 2004. The Government subsequently confirmed that the original offer of £520m was still available for Metrolink expansion in Greater Manchester.

In April 2005, the countywide Integrated Transport Strategy, developed by GMPTA and AGMA, was submitted to DfT. This reaffirmed Metrolink as the most appropriate solution for the Oldham/ Rochdale, Ashton and South Manchester/ Manchester Airport corridors and set the light rail proposals in a multi-modal context, with supporting behavioural change strategies. It also included a revised procurement strategy for Metrolink. Following more detailed appraisal, the South Manchester/Manchester Airport scheme was modified and only the eastern section of the loop which travels through Wythenshawe to Manchester Airport is now included in the current scheme. The revised scheme is £40M cheaper than the original, and makes the line the best performing of the proposed extensions in terms of costs and benefits. The powers that would enable the western part of the loop to be built will , however , be retained, in order to improve transport links to Wythenshawe Hospital further, and to serve proposed developments in the Davenport Green area. (see Fig 5.3)

Metrolink Phase 3 has now been identified as a priority for regional funding allocation in the regional prioritisation process. We are now exploring other funding sources, including the Transport Innovation Fund, and prudential borrowing. Dialogue with DfT is continuing.

An increase in Metrolink patronage of 11% between 2003/04 and 2010/11 with the completion of
the phase 1 and 2 enhancements

They're expecting the 8 new trams will mean 22m people a year use the system compared to the current 20m.

Kurt - hopefully enough works been done and we should hear official news-spurts on this in the very near future - they better as I've had the entire tram grid (inclusive of phase 3) tattooed (at Rambo's next to shudehill transport interchange :) ) on my back bottom parts.

Quick question though - where the flippin heck will the Withington stop be? I've struggled to locate the darned spot.
Cheers fella.

Taken from

http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/Didsbury_Stockport.html


Withington stop will be on the east side of Princess Road, near to the south–eastern corner of Hough End Playing Field. It will be close to residential properties east of Princess Road. The houses off Arrowfield Road would be a short walk away. Many bus routes use Princess Road, allowing easy interchange.

Cheers Kurt.

Long term plan includes...

Development of rapid transit systems including busways and tram-train for some non-Metrolink
corridors

Cheers for that metrolink, when I get time I'll have a proper look at that, especially the long term plans.

I'm on page 21 - some of it is very heavy going.

I've only read the first 40 odd pages of the transport plan, but it is very obvious that loads of studies have been carried out that say the economic boom in Manchester is going to continue to accelerate, however, congestion could slow this down, and how phase 3 is absolutely required to allow Manchester to fulfil it's potential.

Astoundingly high figures for people entering the city centre by non-car means - 65% at the moment, will rise to 69% by 2011 WITHOUT phase 3!!!

From memory, no other city (other than London which is 85%) is over 50%.

tram/train corridors for some non-metrolink?
What does that mean? :?

There has been talk about running trams down the line through Alty to Natwich and Crewe, on train tracks, tracks that will also be used by heavy trains.

However, VERY unlikely, health and saftey exec and national rail are VERY anti-tram/train.

http://www.gmltp.co.uk/pdfs/2006/GMLTP2.pdf

Page 100 - nice picture of Stockport town centre, can see the tram coming in through a arch under the viaduct.

http://www.gmltp.co.uk/gmltp2_html/images/283.jpg

Shit resolution - but can see the Lowry Spur is still included in Phase 3 - I'm very surprised by this.

I guess in comparison to the rest of the project, it wont cost much to build.

More from the LTP...

5.10.1 Metrolink
The GMITS identifies the expansion of the
Metrolink network and renewal of the existing
system as a priority. Metrolink has been proven
to be very effective in achieving modal shift, which
will become increasingly important as the
sub-regional economy expands.
Metrolink Phase 1-2 Renewals
A key element of the Metrolink Phase 3 scheme
was a programme of upgrades to the existing
Metrolink lines. In July 2005, the Secretary of State
conditionally approved proposals which had been
submitted in January 2005 for the allocation of
£58m of the agreed £520m to fund 8 additional
trams, improvements to stops (including lighting,
information and accessibility, along with new ticket
machines) and major infrastructure works including
the upgrade and renewal of the sections of former
railway lines and other works in Manchester city
centre. The approval of this spend is subject to a
number of conditions being met, in particular that
there will be no increases in cost. The £44M
balance of the programme will be funded by
GMPTE. The total funding package will deliver
the following improvements to the existing
network:
capacity improvements/system reliability
works – primarily 8 additional trams together
with the associated facilities/upgrades
Infrastructure works – including Disability
Discrimination Act/personal safety works ,
track improvements , new ticket vending
machines , together with associated project
management, design and contingency costs.
A shortlist of four bidders has been drawn up for
the supply of trams, and another five companies
have been invited to bid to renew the track.The
timescale envisaged for the project is:
Track renewal completed Autumn 2007
New vehicles in service Autumn 2008
existing vehicle modifications , stop and
equipment improvements delivered under a
new concession from January 2007 onwards.

Metrolink Phase 3
In July 2004 the Secretary of State withdrew
funding for the Phase 3 Metrolink extensions
owing to the rise in cost of the project. A
ministerial working group was set up with DfT to
find a way forward and met between September
and December 2004. The Government
subsequently confirmed that the original offer of
£520m was still available for Metrolink expansion
in Greater Manchester.
In April 2005, the countywide Integrated Transport
Strategy, developed by GMPTA and AGMA, was
submitted to DfT. This reaffirmed Metrolink as the
most appropriate solution for the
Oldham/Rochdale, Ashton and South
Manchester/Manchester Airport corridors and set
the light rail proposals in a multi-modal context,
with supporting behavioural change strategies. It
also included a revised procurement strategy for
Metrolink. Following more detailed appraisal, the
South Manchester/Manchester Airport scheme
was modified and only the eastern section of the
loop which travels through Wythenshawe to
Manchester Airport is now included in the current
scheme. The revised scheme is £40M cheaper
than the original, and makes the line the best
performing of the proposed extensions in terms
of costs and benefits. The powers that would
enable the western part of the loop to be built will
, however , be retained, in order to improve
transport links to Wythenshawe Hospital further,
and to serve proposed developments in the
Davenport Green area. (see Fig 5.3)
Metrolink Phase 3 has now been identified as a
priority for regional funding allocation in the
regional prioritisation process. We are now
exploring other funding sources, including the
Transport Innovation Fund, and prudential
borrowing. Dialogue with DfT is continuing.


Metrolink Extensions to Stockport and Trafford
Park
The Metrolink extension to Stockport was
submitted in 2001 as a priority major scheme for
Greater Manchester. Since then discussions have
concentrated on the funding of the Airport, Oldham
and Rochdale, and Ashton Lines, but DfT did not
reach a conclusion on the Stockport extension.
Once an agreed way forward is reached on the
Phase 3 lines, further consideration will be given
to this scheme, which we are committed to
implementing. The proposed extension to Trafford
Park remains as a scheme for which future
Metrolink tenderers would also be asked to submit
quotations. This scheme would be financed by
the private sector.

There has been talk about running trams down the line through Alty to Natwich and Crewe, on train tracks, tracks that will also be used by heavy trains.

However, VERY unlikely, health and saftey exec and national rail are VERY anti-tram/train.
To be honest, I'm not so keen on the sound of that myself.

The Germans do it quite successfully to join smaller towns together across the countryside.

To be honest, I'd rather heavy rail was concentrated on with the likes of Crewe and Nantwich at the moment, maybe when we have better heavy rail services we can start to think about putting trams on as well.

There is no line to Crewe via Alti, it goes to Chester, so any train tram would be a new route. I've heard about Alti-Northwich, which makes a lot more sense, especially given that the Chester-Manc via Alti line is very isolated from the main national network.

It was my understanding that Marple-Manchester (via Bredbury) was high up on the list for conversion to Tram-Train operation, although the costs of electrification would result in diesel-electric hybrid vehicles to improve the BCR. There will be serious issues with NR but some lessons can certainly be learned from the Sunderland Metro extension.

Long-Term vision (lets get Phase 3 first!) but the following is taken from the Greater Manchester Strategic Rail Study Final Report (June 2001)

Accordingly we consider that the following routes should be regarded as priorities for conversion to Metrolink/tram-train:
• Wigan via Atherton;
• East Didsbury via the Styal line corridor; and
• Eastern Lines to Glossop/Hadfield, Marple and Rose Hill.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e50/b4mmy/disease-00029.jpg

"Ensign Kim. Open up a com link to Northwich. When the transporters have been reconfigured, create a plasma coil induction field and start getting our people out of there!"

"Yes ma'am"

Will we ever seem trams linking Salford and Bolton? How about a circular tram line linking Eccles , Bolton, Radcliffe, Bury, Heywood, Rochdale, Oldham, Ashton, Hyde, Stockport, Wythenshawe, Altrincham etc... That would be a dream of mine.

We'll have photon torpedoes and cloaking devices before any further expansion beyond Phase 3. Still, it's always nice to dream!

Personally, I'd be in favour of leaving the heavy rail network as it is, until such time as a a proper urban s-train type system is affordable. The idea of tram-trains operating as far as Crewe and Chester on heavy rail lines is not an attractive proposition. It harks back to those cheap trains (buses on a rail bogey) that you still see in Bredbury/Marple and Ashton.......

Absolutely inappropriate for a growing metropolitan area of c. 3 million people, where 69% of people enter the city centre by non-car means (didn't know that, metrolink)

Why convert the three lines mentioned above to tram-train when 2 of them are electrified (mostly) already and the third already takes high capacity/frequency diesel trains.

(Edit - Hadfield/Glassop, Wilmslow via Styal, Wigan via Atherton)

The LONG-term solution is to electrify the lot, bore a tunnel under the city and have a network exactly like Strathclyde's. Patronage would rocket.

Has anyone seen the Amsterdam line from Isolatorweg to Gein via Amsterdam Zuid and Duivendrecht?? Bloody excellent piece of infrastructure, and all that in a city of just over 1m.

Imagine what that figure (the number entering the city centre by non car means) will be like after phase 3 - we'll be getting towards the same figures they have in London - as a rough guess it'll be between 75% and 80%!!!

How about this for a map!!!

http://www.gmltp.co.uk/pdfs/Fig5_1_Scheme_Locations.pdf

When it loads you can see what is below the key in the top right corner, however, once the entire image has loaded it's no longer visible - can you get rid of that with Adobe Reader?

Phase 3 is going to have a massive impact on the perception of public transport amongst Manchester's travelling public. It's all about social cohesion.

Sometimes I drive 10 miles to Trafford Bar, park up and use metrolink, just so I don't have to worry about parking costs and 2 hour limits in town. In future, I'll be doing the same thing but hopefully via a park-and-ride station on Ashton Moss. (The point is that if petrol head's like me want to use metrolink, then the prospects are really good)

Exactly - and would you do the same to get a 'guided bus'?

I doubt it.

I have to say though while im massively pro metrolink i do hope the stop planned at the bottom of my road doesnt reduce the frequent, cheap and very quick 216/231/232 etc service that I currently have into town. I cant afford £75+ a month for a metrolink pass (esp if its only an every 12 minute service).

I have to say though while im massively pro metrolink i do hope the stop planned at the bottom of my road doesnt reduce the frequent, cheap and very quick 216/231/232 etc service that I currently have into town. I cant afford £75+ a month for a metrolink pass (esp if its only an every 12 minute service).
It wont. I live in Sale/Alti area and there are still loads of buses and they are still very busy in the morning and the roads are still packed. Without Metrolink it would be nearly impossible to move during rush hour and when United are playing

Exactly - and would you do the same to get a 'guided bus'?

I doubt it.

Probably not, you're right.

Re the pdf. image. Nothing disappears when I use it (?), and I've got no idea if you can get rid of it using Adobe. Suspect not...

In the top right corner do you have a key - describing what all the symbols are?

Beneath that there is further map.

It wont. I live in Sale/Alti area and there are still loads of buses and they are still very busy in the morning and the roads are still packed. Without Metrolink it would be nearly impossible to move during rush hour and when United are playing

I get the 263/114 to work though and the service is despicable and horrendously expensive compared to the 216. It also finishes pretty early. I guess we'll just have to wait and see but I do like the 216 service that I have now.

Metrokurt - that 'withington' stop is more Chorlton - it's almost two miles from the village high street! Park and Ride scheme on Hough End playing fields perhaps?

North, I think that is still most definatley Withington, not just the 'village' part most people associate it with. I think the stop is the Withingnton side of Princess Parkway, just before Southern Cemertary.

Here's one for the future,

The Wigan line via Swinton and Atherton, have the tram going down Chapel Street to Salford Cresent, then have the tram join the existing line there.

It gets Wigan into the county proper, and gives Chapel Street the breath of fresh air it needs, also links the students more easily with Town.

Personally, I'd be in favour of leaving the heavy rail network as it is, until such time as a a proper urban s-train type system is affordable.
I must disagree. Although Manchester's suburban rail network is extensive, it lacks the integration that other urban transport networks such as Merseyrail have. In a few decades, I would like to see Manchester have a fully integrated suburban rail network using either a third rail system or something like the Metro in Newcastle, with it going underground in the city centre.

Any ideas of what the lines will be for the new network, Ive read on another thread that Cornbrook is gonna be a terminus for Ashton and Rochdale lines,

I must disagree. Although Manchester's suburban rail network is extensive, it lacks the integration that other urban transport networks such as Merseyrail have. In a few decades, I would like to see Manchester have a fully integrated suburban rail network using either a third rail system or something like the Metro in Newcastle, with it going underground in the city centre.

Extend Merseyrail into Manchester. A bit like the Rhein Ruhr S-Bahn.

Here's one for the future,

The Wigan line via Swinton and Atherton, have the tram going down Chapel Street to Salford Cresent, then have the tram join the existing line there.

It gets Wigan into the county proper, and gives Chapel Street the breath of fresh air it needs, also links the students more easily with Town.

It's going to be a guided busway to Leigh. ;)

Doesnt sound too bad... does it?

They had the guided bus concept and exhibition in Albert square a couple of years ago.
If i remember rightly the route would follow the old rail bed from Wigan until it hit the the East Lancs around Swinton and then came in along the A6 into town. Looked great but heard nothing since

It was still in a GMPTE transport document issued in 2005 I think Longford. And no Accy, it makes far more sense than a Metrolink line.

I just did a quick search, and yes, it was 2005.

In 2001 GMPTE submitted an application for a Transport and Works Act (TWA) Order for the Leigh Guided Busway. The purpose of the TWA Order was to obtain powers to construct, operate and maintain the busway. Where land was not to be acquired by agreement, compulsory purchase powers were sought. Traffic Regulation Orders for bus priority from Leigh Bus Station to the start of the busway were also included in the draft order. The Order application included a request for deemed planning permission which would, in effect, be outline permission on the basis of the TWA application and subject to the approval of detail by the local planning authority.

A public inquiry was held during September 2002 and the Inquiry Inspector submitted his report to the Secretary of State in March 2003. The Public Inquiry Inspector's report recommended that powers should be granted stating that the scheme met all relevant policies and was robust economically. The Inspector found that the scheme would deliver important benefits, particularly in reducing social exclusion, and that no other alternative would deliver these benefits as cost effectively or within a quicker timescale.

An interim decision letter was issued by the Secretary of State in October 2003 in which he requested that further surveys be carried out and that the detailed mitigation measures be approved before he gave his final decision. These related, in particular, to the design and approval of mitigation measures for Great Crested Newts (GCN) and an Environmental Assessment of the additional works necessary for the extension of the bridleway along the full length of the guided busway.

This further work was undertaken during Summer 2004 and the evidence was re-submitted to the DfT. In February 2005 the DfT confirmed that it did not intend to re-open the inquiry and in August 2005 the Secretary of State granted the TWA powers for the guided section. Please click here for link to the Greater Manchester 'Leigh Guided Busway' Order.

The Timescale
GMPTE received provisional funding approval for the scheme from the DfT in December 2000. The earliest a decision is expected on full funding approval is March 2006, which would mean services could commence in three to four years.

For more information on the L-S-M QBC, contact

Juli Wileman
QBC Project Co-ordinator
GMPTE
9 Portland Street
Piccadilly Gardens
MANCHESTER M60 1HX
Direct Line 0161 242 6067
Email Juli.Wileman@gmpte.gov.uk

http://www.salford.gov.uk/council/pressreleases/pressrelease.htm?id=50559

The order: http://www.gmpte.com/pdf/lsm_busway_order05.pdf

I can't find the 2005 PDF I remember reading straight off, and as I'm getting over 500 hits on the Google search for it, I can't be arsed at this time of night. :)

Guided bus ways are a fad made by the govenment to make like they are improving Transport. Buses are designed for roads and trams are designed for guides. End of story.

Metrolink Project details from the LTP...

4.8 Metrolink Extensions
Scheme Name Metrolink Extensions
Promoting Authority Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority
Location of Scheme Four extensions to the existing Metrolink Network:
Manchester City Centre to Rochdale via Oldham;
Manchester City Centre to Ashton-under-Lyne via Droylsden;
Trafford Bar to Manchester-Airport;
St Werburgh’s to East Didsbury
The extensions cover the following districts: Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside,
Trafford.
The extensions project would involve design, construction and operation of services
from the new routes to and through the existing Metrolink infrastructure in Manchester
City Centre:
Scheme Description
Manchester City Centre to Rochdale via Oldham consists of conversion of the existing
Oldham Loop rail line to light rail operation with new-build sections in Oldham and
Rochdale town centres (24km, 19 stops);
Manchester City Centre to Ashton-under-Lyne via Droylsden consists of new
segregated routes from Manchester Piccadilly station to Clayton and Audenshaw to
Ashton town centre with a mixed street-running and segregated section through
Clayton and Droylsden (10km, 11 stops);
Trafford Bar to Manchester-Airport consists of former rail alignment from Trafford Bar
to St Werburghs with a new-build largely segregated route from St Werburgh’s to
Manchester Airport via Sale Moor, Northern Moor, Baguley and Wythenshawe town
centre (19km, 22 stops);
St Werburgh’s to East Didsbury consists of former rail alignment (6km, 5 stops);
The extensions would connect the major town centres, residential areas and
development sites in each corridor with each other, Manchester city centre and the
other corridors to form the core of a high quality city-wide public transport network.
Segregated sections are provided wherever possible to ensure attractive journey
times.
Local & Regional Policy a) Economic objectives (if applicable).
Objectives addressed by
Scheme – Please Reference Regional Policy (RPG13):
Metrolink is a scheme of regional significance. It will extend the provision of high
quality public transport throughout Greater Manchester, in accordance with Regional
Transport Strategy (SD9), and provide for improved integration of public transport,
both for direct cross-city journeys using Metrolink and also with improved interchange
to bus and rail services. (Integrating Transport Networks in the North West (T1)). The
network would provide direct access to Manchester Airport from much of the region
(to support transport links to the Region’s airports (T5)).
Local Policy (provisional LTP2):
The Network extensions are also key to the achieving several of the LTP2 policies
with regards to the economy. The network would provide direct access by high quality
public transport from each of the four corridors to the regional centre and between
each of the existing and proposed Metrolink corridors, thereby creating a step-change
in the accessibility of existing centres of employment, regeneration sites and of the
labour market to employment opportunities. As such, it clearly assists the following
LTP2 policies.
LTP2 Technical Appendix 27
Major Schemes Summaries 4
Scheme Name Metrolink Extensions
(i) To support increased levels of activity in the Regional Centre, town and
district centres and key employment areas and improve their environment,
attractiveness, accessibility or safety.
(vi) To support increased levels of activity in the Regional Centre, town and
district centres and key employment areas and improve their environment,
attractiveness, accessibility or safety.
(vii) To improve links with the wider Greater Manchester travel to work area,
the rest of the country and the rest of the world, for both passengers & freight,
in ways which are consistent with other objectives and in line with PSA objective
1.
The proposed network makes efficient use of existing underused rail alignments and
dis-used rail alignments. It enhances use of the investment in Phases 1 and 2 of the
network and in the Ground Transportation Interchange at Manchester Airport. Overall,
the scheme offers very good value for money with a BCR of over 2:1. It clearly accords
well with LTP policy:
(viii) To maintain, improve & make the best use of the existing transportation
infrastructure & ensure all schemes offer long-term value for money.
(b) Social objectives (if applicable).
The accessibility improvements afforded by the Metrolink Network extensions are
widespread. The network would serve many areas which exhibit high levels of
deprivation and would provide much improved access to jobs and community facilities
from these areas. The network would, by effecting a transfer from road use to public
transport, lead to a reduction in the level of road accidents. The network, would also
be designed and operated to create a safe, secure environment within which to travel.
As such it meets the following regional and local objectives:
Regional Policy (RPG13):
Promoting Social Inclusion through Urban Accessibility and Mobility (UR3)
Local Policy (LTP2):
(ii) To improve road and community safety, particularly for the most vulnerable
users of the transport network
(v) To improve accessibility by ensuring that the county’s transport system
meets the needs of all sections of the community, promotes social inclusion &
widens choice.
c ) Environmental objectives (if applicable).
The attraction of car users to an extended Metrolink network would contribute to efforts
reduce car use and dependency in each of the corridors and in town centres and the
regional centre. The network would also support sustainable patterns of developments
less dependent on car access. As such it would fit well with the following regional
and local objectives.
Regional Policy (RPG13):
Air Quality (EQ2); Traffic pollution should be addressed by efforts to reduce
the need to travel, reduce dependency on private cars and encourage the use
of public transport.
Local Policy (provisional LTP2):
(i) To support increased levels of activity in the Regional Centre, town and
district centres and key employment areas and improve their environment,
attractiveness, accessibility or safety.
28 LTP2 Technical Appendix
4 Major Schemes Summaries
Scheme Name Metrolink Extensions
(iii) To minimise the environmental damage caused by transport, particularly
in terms of air quality, thereby improving the quality of life & the health of the
population in line with PSA Objective 3.
(iv) To develop complementary land use and transport policies which increase
the proportion of trips by non car modes by: providing a high quality integrated
public transport network; providing safe pedestrian and cycle facilities; ensuring
new development can be served by public transport & by reducing the number
of trips to non-central locations.
(vi) To support increased levels of activity in the Regional Centre, town and
district centres and key employment areas and improve their environment,
attractiveness, accessibility or safety.
The extensions are designed to a high level of detail and capital costs reflect the views
of private sector Bidders from the procurement exercise that concluded in 2004. The
Phase 3 extensions originally had funding awarded in 2000 by DfT. Following the
Secretary of State’s announcement in July 2004, GMPTA has submitted its GMITS
and is working with Government on the delivery of Metrolink as part of that strategy.
Scheme Status – (Conceptual,
Business Case etc)
Cost £ (a) Please state capital cost and price base.
£813m (2006 prices) (excluding optimism bias)
(b) Does cost include any optimism bias and if so what percentage?
18% is added to the above costs for the economic appraisal of the scheme (and thus
benefit:cost ratio)
(c) Is private sector funding available for scheme, and if so, what proportion of the
total capital cost?
£50m from Manchester Airport plc as a commitment of 20% of the cost of the Airport
line.
Scheme Benefits:Cost Ratio 2.30:1 over 60 years operation from 2012
Wider Economic Benefits Has an assessment been made of Wider Economic Benefits?
An Economic Impact Report has not been prepared. However, the planned network
is integral to planned regeneration and supports employment growth in the city region.
Key sites served include New East Manchester, Central Park, Ashton Moss and
Kingsway Business Park on Phase 3 together with Manchester city centre and Salford
Quays (via the existing Network). The network would also serve many deprived areas
and Housing Renewal areas.
As part of a future TIF bid, the impacts on GDP of the extensions are being assessed
using emerging DfT guidance. They are likely to be significant.
Primary Legislation (a) Is Primary Legislation required for the scheme?
No
(b) If legislation is required, has it been applied for?
N/A
LTP2 Technical Appendix 29
Major Schemes Summaries 4
Scheme Name Metrolink Extensions
(c) Has Primary Legislation been enacted? N/A
Transport & Works Act (a) Are Transport & Works Act Powers required to deliver to the scheme?
Yes
(b) If TWA powers are required, have they been applied for?
Yes
(c) Have TWA powers been awarded?
Yes
State if scheme will involve any deterioration to the environment e.g. use of green
belt or demolition of listed buildings etc.
Environment & Other
No major adverse impacts would occur. The extensions do not pass through
conservation areas or impact on listed buildings. Environmental impacts during
construction and operation would be minor and appropriate mitigation measures are
planned.
Please include any additional facts which may assist the Regional Transport Forum
to assess this scheme against strategic fit and deliverability.
Supporting Information
The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) and GMPTE have worked
together for many years to develop an integrated approach to address economic and
social problems within Greater Manchester and to plan for the future development of
the area. Transport, land use planning and economic strategies have been developed
in parallel and in conjunction with Regional Planning Guidance and the Regional
Economic Strategy. The Local Transport Plan for 2006-11 sets out the transport
strategy to deliver the broader aims for the sub-region. Metrolink investment is a
priority to deliver these objectives.
It should also be noted that:
Metrolink is a key component of GMITS.
The network’s strong fits with national, regional and local policies has previously
been established in funding proposals approved by DfT.
The network serves many deprived wards in Greater Manchester
The physical deliverability of the system has been tested through the
procurement process and considerable enabling works have already taken
place.

Some highlights...

Phase 3 is 3.5 lines - i.e. includes the Didsbury spur

Rochdale line 24km - 19 stops
Ashton 10km - 11 stops
Airport 19km - 22stops
Didsbury 6km - 5 stops

i.e. 49km extra track and 57 new stops.

total cost £813m - i.e. down by £183m cheaper, with an additional half line - this is also the 'worst case' cost.

18% 'optimisim basis' (i.e. a cost to cover any over optimistic predicitions to do with passengers / construction costs etc) has been added

Manchester Airport (that subsidised airport :D ) is paying £50m (20%) of the costs of the airport line (up from £34m last time reported).

Cost benifit of the whole scheme of 2.3 this is VERY high. Other recently rejected shemes were below 1.5 as far as I know. This is calculated over 60 years, which is quite long for such a scheme - maybe the DfT and GMPTE have come to an agreement to spread the value over 60 years instead of 30 which has reduced the cost???

The good news is all TWA's and legislation is in order - can go when given the go ahead.

It is key to the city region, sub-region and region in the future transport plans.

taken from http://www.gmltp.co.uk/pdfs/2006/Major_Schemes_Summaries.pdf

also, talk of using guided buses on routes that don't justify trams - i.e. to improve the current buses - we'll see I suppose.

57 current stops plus the existing 37 stops gives us a very impressive 94 stops.

taken from http://www.gmltp.co.uk/pdfs/2006/Major_Schemes_Summaries.pdf

also, talk of using guided buses on routes that don't justify trams - i.e. to improve the current buses - we'll see I suppose.
So running a bus through a concrete set of lines instead of a road, is going to run a better service. I really dont think so.

I agree 100% andy, I suspect this will be well down on the priorities list of things to do.

I haven't read all of the LTP, but it is repeated over and over again how key phase 3 is to the future of GM.

I agree 100% andy, I suspect this will be well down on the priorities list of things to do.

I haven't read all of the LTP, but it is repeated over and over again how key phase 3 is to the future of GM.
I hope so, but I think its just the boss of stagecoach that wants to do that. I remember him saying he wants to replace trams with guided buses, want a cock.

Next he'll be saying I want to run a route over the Atlantic and replace planes with buses.

There is a a rather scathing reply to the Stagecoach owner in the LTP - cannot remember it just now, but basically says not going to happen.

I saw an incredibly impressive guided busway in Rouen, France (a city which also has an extensive tram network). The problem is that peoples perceptions of the systems in this country have been hindered by the cheap crappy versions in places like Leeds and Bradford. If anybody remembers the exhibition for guided busways on the Leigh route, the buses there were far more impressive. Fuel efficient road vehicles which looked like supertrams.

Any ideas of what the lines will be for the new network, Ive read on another thread that Cornbrook is gonna be a terminus for Ashton and Rochdale lines,

I believe the plan a while back was to go with 5 trams per hour (rather than 6tph):
Rochdale/Shaw - Airport (every 12mins Rochdale & 6mins Shaw)
Bury - Ashton (12mins)
Alti - Ashton (12 mins)

Plus Alti - Bury (12 mins) and Eccles - Piccadilly (12 mins)

This gives the Airport line, Rochdale line (as far as Shaw) and Ashton line a tram every 6mins but I'm not sure this is still the case given the inclusion of the Didsbury extension in Phase 3. I could be way off!

Altrincham line every 12 mins? Hope this doesn't apply to the rush hour it's jam packed as it is. Part of me says they should get this line right before expanding.

Altrincham line every 12 mins? Hope this doesn't apply to the rush hour it's jam packed as it is. Part of me says they should get this line right before expanding.

No what Uncle Remus was saying was that, Altrincham would have a tram every 6 minutes split between 2 services

Altrincham line every 12 mins? Hope this doesn't apply to the rush hour it's jam packed as it is. Part of me says they should get this line right before expanding.

Altrincham will still retain a 6min service frequency once Phase 3 goes live, the only difference would be the Piccadilly service continuing through to Ashton.

From Alti there would be a tram every 12 mins to Ashton via Piccadilly and a tram every 12mins to Bury. Hopefully if fleet availability improves when the 8 new vehicles come on-line in 2008? then more services in the peaks can be 'doubled' and reduce peak over-crowding on the existing lines. That's certainly the hope.

Will there be 15 trams an hour between Ashton and town? It will need to be to compete with the bus route which must be the second busiest in Manchester after the 42

Good point but I would rather wait that extra few minutes for a tram from Ashton than get a 216 "pushchair express" that seems to stop every 15 yards.

I must disagree. Although Manchester's suburban rail network is extensive, it lacks the integration that other urban transport networks such as Merseyrail have. In a few decades, I would like to see Manchester have a fully integrated suburban rail network using either a third rail system or something like the Metro in Newcastle, with it going underground in the city centre.

The reason I say the rail network should be left as it is, is because what specifically I don't want to see is a half-hearted attempt to improve it. We've had a few of these before, and they've always been complete shit, to be honest. What happens when you get a little bit of investment in dribs and drabs here and there, is that it is then deemed to be enough to last 20 years, so the chances of creating a proper urban rail network just diminish and get more and more remote.

I'd love to see the whole network installed with a third rail, or electrified overhead, integrated properly, linked up under the city, with decent 10/15 minute frequencies.

I could write a book about what's wrong with Manchester's rail network (yawn!) and without a £2 billion investment in stations, trains, tunnels, some new rails and real integration, there's no point tinkering around the edges, which is what's always happened before.

(edit - sorry, just realised I'm in the metrolink thread!)

The reason I say the rail network should be left as it is, is because what specifically I don't want to see is a half-hearted attempt to improve it. We've had a few of these before, and they've always been complete shit, to be honest. What happens when you get a little bit of investment in dribs and drabs here and there, is that it is then deemed to be enough to last 20 years, so the chances of creating a proper urban rail network just diminish and get more and more remote.

I'd love to see the whole network installed with a third rail, or electrified overhead, integrated properly, linked up under the city, with decent 10/15 minute frequencies.

I could write a book about what's wrong with Manchester's rail network (yawn!) and without a £2 billion investment in stations, trains, tunnels, some new rails and real integration, there's no point tinkering around the edges, which is what's always happened before.

Manchester's rail network is toss. Unfortunately it was built to shift cotton bails from the docks to Oldham and spun cotton from Oldham to Bolton via Rochdale and Bury.

I didn't know that plase 3 included the Didsbury spur. Very pleased to hear this. I'd imagine it'll have a 12 minute frequency, and it'll be popular to avoid the bloody awful car and bus jam that is Wilmslow Rd.

Manchester Airport will also be only the second airport in the world to be served by TWO local rail sytems..........the other one being Heathrow.....I think.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/cotuit/Boston/TheT/Silver003.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/2/3519702_ab02dd70aa.jpg
Electric underground/overground busway Boston.

I really like Boston. In some ways it's quite ugly (all those 90s MIT/office buildings from Cambridge to the centre, Back Bay etc) but it's pleasant without seeming dead. I think the transport system is something that Manchester could aspire to in time as well.

I really like Boston. In some ways it's quite ugly (all those 90s MIT/office buildings from Cambridge to the centre, Back Bay etc) but it's pleasant without seeming dead. I think the transport system is something that Manchester could aspire to in time as well.

I like Boston Common and Back Bay is a fantastic Edwardian district on a par with London or the New York brownstones. Boston's a great sporting city as well if you enjoy North American sports. I've seen the Red Sox play the Yankees at Fenway and nobody was actually watching the game, everyone just chatting, eating, drinking and relaxing.

Baseball in an old stadium gives the city a certain sophistication.

And the tram goes underground too (sorry Metrolink :) )

Wow. Now that's a bus station.

Manchester's suburban rail network is a difficult one as the remaining routes are mainly shared with intercity lines so they can't really be intergrated into a localised system very well at all, although much of the work to do this has already been done and planned with Metrolink using old local rail lines.

MerseyRail already uses the Manchester-Liverpool line but that too is shared with other national services.

London's tube trains don't connect on all lines, but is branded as a city-wide network that is joined together through inter-connecting stations. It makes sense to at least brand Manchester's GMPTE trail services as Metrolink lines even if the network is a combination of Heavy and Light Rail....

http://www.ladzmag.com/spacepostman/metrolink express1.jpg hehe

That's a bit shocking, it's diesel!!

Manchester's suburban rail network is a difficult one as the remaining routes are mainly shared with intercity lines so they can't really be intergrated into a localised system very well at all, although much of the work to do this has already been done and planned with Metrolink using old local rail lines.

There's always been the potential for segregated local and national lines out of Manchester.

1) South. Local and Express lines (4 in total) from Piccadilly to Cheadle Hulme. Local services to Alderley Edge, Crewe, Wilmslow via Styal and express line Cheadle Hulme to Macclesfield and onwards to Birmingham, London i.e. Virgin West Coast and Virgin XC. Macclesfield line able to accommodate less frequent local sevices.

2) East. Four, with two express to Stalybridge, Leeds, Sheffield via Woodhead, and local lines to Glossop, Marple, Hyde etc.

3) North. Again, two express to Bolton and onwards to Glasgow, Windermere and Barrow, with two local towards Blackburn, Clitheroe, Wigan, Atherton, Southport.

These three lines are pretty much operational, dissecting local services from longer distance ones wouldn't take much investment, because either the lines or the trackbed are already there.

Some rather bad news re policing of the the Metrolink:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4896684.stm

If they can't have police then in my opinion they should have conductors, making people feel safe is a key part to getting them to use public transport.

Bloody joke our govenment, we are ment to have all these extra officers but in Manchester numbers and funding has gone down 3 years in a row. Maybe it just means Manchester is a safer place no wait, we have a number of stabings and shootings every week and places near clubs turn in death traps after hours.

Oh no that means that idiot Hazel Blears will be putting some spin on it.

Tram cops axed to save cash

POLICE bosses are to scrap a specialist Metrolink unit - because they can no longer afford to keep the team together.

The Greater Manchester police authority, which has already agreed to cut police numbers by 216 and freeze recruitment as part of cuts totalling £14.5m during this financial year, will scrap the Metrolink unit on October 1.

The dedicated team - based at tram headquarters in Queens Road, Cheetham Hill - has an inspector, three sergeants, 24 constables and a civillian communications officer who sits in the Metrolink control room.

Advertisement your story continues below
Police, who are also retiring 35 out of their 150 dogs to save money, say the officers will be redeployed. They insist that the decision is not a bid to force more cash out of operators Serco and owners Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority who agreed to pay around £500,000 a year to keep the unit following a two-year wrangle six years ago. GMP had initially demanded £1.2m.

'Politics'

"It is simply a question of budget cuts. We cannot afford to keep the unit," said a spokesman.

But Blackley MP Graham Stringer accused chief constable Michael Todd of "playing politics" as local elections approach next month.

"I do not believe this is a sensible or objective way to behave. They should not just abandon whole areas of Greater Manchester. It is a ludicrous policy.”

Chief Supt Phil Hollowood, head of the force’s Specialist Operations Branch, said: “The force will continue to respond to any incidents that may occur on the tram system.”

Relationship

The transport authority’s acting director general, Geoff Inskip, and Serco Metrolink’s managing director, David Godley, said in a statement: “We have enjoyed a good working relationship with Greater Manchester Police and are obviously disappointed that they have had to withdraw resources from the system due to budget cuts.

“Maintaining Metrolink’s excellent reputation for safety and security remains a priority for us and, over the next few months, we will be working with GMP to look into alternative measures.”

GMP was unable to give figures for the number of crimes solved on the system by the unit but Metrolink says crimes fell from 375 in 2001 to 141 last year.

Muggers

The unit has been on high alert until recently following the London Tube bombings and also carries out undercover operations on muggers and pickpockets.

Passsenger transport authority chairman Roger Jones said: “I am obviously disappointed and some will say why should we have to pay the police at all to do their job.

“But we have six months and we are looking at whatever we can do to make sure there is some kind of force in place by then.” For the past two years Metrolink has had its own “public safety officers” who patrol in teams of two.

Tram cops axed to save cash

There's always an alternative.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e50/b4mmy/intelitubediagram.jpg

I like Boston Common and Back Bay is a fantastic Edwardian district on a par with London or the New York brownstones. Boston's a great sporting city as well if you enjoy North American sports. I've seen the Red Sox play the Yankees at Fenway and nobody was actually watching the game, everyone just chatting, eating, drinking and relaxing.

Baseball in an old stadium gives the city a certain sophistication.

And the tram goes underground too (sorry Metrolink :) )

I thought that was Beacon Hill, with the odd little streets. Whatever it's called that's a great little area. I meant the area around a station (which I though was called Back Bay) which is rank as. To be honest I've completely lost my Boston bearings now. No bastard would let me look at a map. I can remember everything if you give me a map.

A reply to an email I sent to the DfT ages ago...



Mr Kurt Stephen
By e-mail

***** ******
Policy Advisor
Regional and Local Major Projects
Light Rail Team
Department for Transport
3/18 Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR

Web Site: www.dft.gov.uk

13 April 2006





Dear Mr Stephen


Thank you for your e-mail of 8 March to the Secretary of State for Transport, regarding Manchester Metrolink. Your correspondence has been forwarded to me for reply. I would like to begin by apologising for the delay in responding.

The Government's commitment to help improve Manchester's transport links has been highlighted by the work it has undertaken with the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) on the Manchester Metrolink scheme.

On 30 June 2005 Derek Twigg, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State with responsibility for light rail, announced that conditional approval had been given to refurbish Manchester Metrolink. This scheme includes the renewal of existing tracks on the line and the purchase of eight new vehicles to reduce overcrowding on the Metrolink system.

GMPTE produced their Integrated Transport Strategy for Greater Manchester in April 2005. That incorporated proposals for Metrolink extensions into a wider package of measures. Officials and Ministers from this Department have had a number of discussions with GMPTE as their proposals have developed.

Departmental officials are currently working closely with GMPTE on their extensions proposals. The have sought additional information on GMPTE's proposed funding and procurement approach as well as on the value for money case.

An announcement will be made in due course, once the Department has received and considered the full business case, including the additional information we have sought.


Yours sincerely






***** ******

Koln trams, so we'll be getting something like these Metro? Vast improvement if we do!
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j159/rolybling2/100_0720.jpg
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j159/rolybling2/09220010.jpg

Yep -they're the ones - 8 for the upgrade and a further 55 for phase 3.

I think we may be getting a stretched, higher capacity, version.

What on earth could that shop be selling in the second picture?

oh my! never noticed that Mr Longford :dance2:

On 30 June 2005 Derek Twigg, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State with responsibility for light rail, announced that conditional approval had been given to refurbish Manchester Metrolink. This scheme includes the renewal of existing tracks on the line and the purchase of eight new vehicles to reduce overcrowding on the Metrolink system.


I've always found it interesting how an operator like Serco, having charged exorbitant fares and run overcrowded and popular trams, can't afford to finance their own improvements. It seems to me that they've never invested much in anything, from operational ticket machines, to new trams (give or take the odd San Francisco one).

It's probably got something to do with servicing debts.

No need to answer this one Metrolink. You probably feel like you spend half your life explaining the semantics of the thing anyway.

Moving on, stretched Koln trams.......very smart, they'll look really good.

I've always found it interesting how an operator like Serco, having charged exorbitant fares and run overcrowded and popular trams, can't afford to finance their own improvements. It seems to me that they've never invested much in anything, from operational ticket machines, to new trams (give or take the odd San Francisco one).

It's probably got something to do with servicing debts.

No need to answer this one Metrolink. You probably feel like you spend half your life explaining the semantics of the thing anyway.

Moving on, stretched Koln trams.......very smart, they'll look really good.

Those Koln trams are much better than our current ones. Look like the Nottingham trams. Wonder if they are the same manufacturer?

Those Koln trams are much better than our current ones. Look like the Nottingham trams. Wonder if they are the same manufacturer?

A vast improvement. Especially stretched, they'll look less dwarfed by the station infrastructure on the Altrincham - Bury line, and also on Oldham/Rockerdale.

Would be nice to think that they'll put the old ones on Eccles - Cornbrook - Ashton services, i.e. routes projected to be less busy.

Wouldn't the Manchester trams need to be quite different from the Koln ones? There's a 750mm (ish) difference in floor level as far as I can see.

Using Koln ones is possibly an approximation of what ours will look like. They're not the same trams.

Haven't we all gone reet posh and cosmopolitan, saying Koln instead of Cologne?!

We'll know when we're a truly cosmopolitan European city, we'll be able to pronounce Basle.

bar-zell

You've reached dizzy heights when pronoucing the country's largest city as "Züri'"

Using Koln ones is possibly an approximation of what ours will look like. They're not the same trams.

Haven't we all gone reet posh and cosmopolitan, saying Koln instead of Cologne?!

Köln.

Colne :puke:

Cologne, Nelson, Burnley, East Lancashire's golden triangle........

Last time I was in Germany, the trams had TV's. There were short news announcements (national news+travel), adverts and puzzles (simple crosswords, the like). The TV's must pay for themselves through the adverts, I wonder why Metrolink hasn't thought of this.

Cologne, Nelson, Burnley, East Lancashire's golden triangle........
More synonimous with the Bermuda Triangle without the weather...

Metrolink eight years away?

From this weeks South Manchester Reporter.

Scanned in two sections

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/metro1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/metro2.jpg

Nice bit of Dwarf punching action on John Leech there.

Couple of comments on that story...

1 - Most importantly, John Leech is a politician you works by trying to scare his electorate - he got elected (beating one of the best Labour MPs in the area) in 2005 by making up clams that Christies was going to close - he distorted reality greatly to fit his agenda, and it won him his seat. Bare this in mind when reading any of his comments.

2 - The airport are paying £50m towards phase 3 - specifically towards the construction of the airport line - I doubt the airport would agree to this if the line was not going to get that far.

3 - With regards the timescales - 18months of tendering from June / July 2006 will take us to EARLY 2008 - previously I had a slight concern that 2008 would mean Novermber / December 2008. However, we do not know how the consortia that wins the bid will want to build the lines. They may decide to build all at once, or one at a time, or even part of one - get it open - then part of another, then go back to the part built one at a later date.

If they all get built at once, then 2010 will be the date it's all done by (easily), however, if they are built one at a time, then chances are 2014 will be closer to the mark than 2010.

on, one final thought.
Roger Jones will have been in discussions with the bidding consortia, John Leech will not have.

As such, Roger Jones is much more likely to know what the construction timetable would be rather than John Leech.

Not entirely true.

I'm normally a Labour voter but wrote to Bradley after the decision was made to ditch the Metrolink expansion and told him that he'd lost my vote as a direct result of broken promises by his government.

I voted for Leech.

To be honest I'm not surprised that Labour are now looking to get the expansion funded as I think they were taken aback by the reaction, not least Bradley losing his seat.

And I know that Iraq and the Chorlton vegitarian anti-war lesbian alliance probably has a bit to do with it too.

Chorlton - Bradley was the MP foremost in the Back on Track campaign.

He was the one beating a path to Darling (probably wanting to do more than just talk to him at first!!!), he was the MP the galvanised, and organised the Back on Track campaign from the political point of view (including organising THE LABOUR PARTY funding 40k postcards being sent to Blair as part of the back on track campaign).

I appreciate you voted against the party (as opposed to Bradley) and in a way this probably in a perverse way has helped, but lets not confuse anti-Labour attitudes wit anti-Bradley attitudes, or in anyway shape or form giving any credence to Leech's comments.

If he thought people would believe him, he'd say the Labour council was going to house peadophiles next to every school.

I've no doubt you're right. I'm sure Bradley was shitting himself well before the election (I wrote as soon as the decision to cancel the extensions was announced). And I'm sure he was a decent enough MP.

I was just pointing out that Leech didn't win because of the Christies thing - that was just Labour spin after the event. It was never even mentioned around my way. Metrolink and Iraq very much were.

Leech is my MP. He is a snivelling, lying, careerist, cynical little shit.
Up to the election we got newsletters almost daily spreading lies and half truths about Christies. We got one or two election leaflets from labour. If i was low IQ-ed swinging voter i would have voted for him simply cos it looked like Labour didnt care (which they didnt seem to).Leech got in by preying on peoples fears and blanket marketing of his 'cause'. labour were too arroagant.
Leech will be out come the next election.

As I said Leech plays on peoples fears - and the original post I posted about him was pointing out any quotes he makes about phase 3 should be taken with a rather large pinch of salt - there is an election coming up, and he is up to his old tricks again.

Sounds dangerous. Experience tells me that if people believe him and vote LibDem instead of Labour, there's a higher chance that what he's saying will come true. That's probably his game plan.

Wouldn't the Manchester trams need to be quite different from the Koln ones? There's a 750mm (ish) difference in floor level as far as I can see.

Koln has a mixture of low and high floor trams made by Bombardier. I've visited the Koln region a few times now and their public transport network is one any city would be proud of. The Bombardier Flexity trams would certainly offer a step-change in quality from a passenger’s perspective if indeed they are under consideration for Manchester.

Roger Jones comments in this months Tramsways and Urban Transit give a clue to where the additional 'missing' money is coming from....

Basically, an independent agency will now examine the impact of the extensions, and the expected positive result will unlock further money from the TIF.

He's quoted We'll make promises on what putting in a tram will deliver, and we're happy to be judged on that.

It's also suggested that the scheme will be built 'in stages', the regeneration effect seemingly having a big impact on the decision to be moving forward again.

I noticed the concrete flyover going over the Oldham Line at it's junction with the old LYR line to Leeds. Signs still up advertising phase 3.

Personally I don't see the need for the line to go to Rochdale. Rochdale is on the main line and points north of Oldham could easily be served by a diesel shuttle.

Isaac - as we've discussed manymany times before, all options have to be considered - this is not simply some wish by the people at the PTE.

I suspect this line will be like the Alty and Bury lines, and will generate lots of traffic between stops along the route as opposed to going all the way to either Rochdale or Manchester.

I have a friend, lives right by Milnrow station, works in Manchester and supports City. At the moment he drives everywhere, with your proposals he would as well, with phase 3, 6 days a week he'll be using the tram to get to work or Eastlands.

Bare in mind that the track requires replacing on this line as it is, and putting new tram track down would be much cheaper than putting heavy rail tracks for your deisel trains.

Also, the trams will penetrate Oldham and Rochdale town centres - boosting both, relatively poor, areas.

Look at Central Business Park - expected soon to home to 10k skilled jobs - for this site to fulfil it's potential it is dependent upon the trams going there (see the £35m station already built).

As I say, this is not some toy that some politician wants to build for prestige (unlike what some people on here like to propose), these proposals are well thought out and offer the best available option to the region.

You're right in saying that most people up in Rochdale will continue to use the faster route into Manchester, the heavy rail option, however, the extra benifits it'll bring along the route are numerous.

If this route was being planned in either London, or most other european cities there would be no question at all in it being built.

I doubt the trams will penetrate Oldham or Rochdale town centres, I was in Rochdale last Saturday and saw the poster with the trams going down the street. I think it will be too expensive to be honest. And no amount of regeneration will save Rochdale centre, it seems like an American town where everyone has moved out. Lightweight diesel trains running on the Shaw/Newhey section at a high frequency would offer a cheaper alternative to electrifying the system. The money would be better used improving the stations which are horrendous. A covered interchange at Mumps with staff would attract people to the system. An electric tram stopping at a bus-shelter will not be a great crowd puller.

Changing at Mumps is only like changing from rail to tube at Vauxhall or Stratford or Finsbury Park or many other points I could bore you with.

I cannot see the sense in upgrading north of Oldham until there is the market for it. The train I caught from Victoria had about 10 people on it.

For me the Ashton Line should come first, there are so many buses that could be replaced by a tram and Ashton has always seemed more a part of Manchester than Rochdale.

Little by little should be the plan for Metrolink, build it by stealth rather than all at once and upgrade the existing facilities to make it more attractive to motorists.

I doubt the trams will penetrate Oldham or Rochdale town centres

http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/Oldham_Rochdale.html

....The new Oldham town centre line begins just to the west of Werneth station, it almost immediately turns north towards Middleton Road where it then turns east for about 200 metres which will include the Westwood stop. After crossing Richmond Street the line will turn to run alongside the Oldham Way slip road before passing beneath Manchester Street to a stop within the roundabout....


....From here trams will run on–street along Maclure Road and Drake Street, with an intermediate stop at Drake Street and terminate in the heart of Rochdale by the town’s bus station.


You're obviously right, neither Oldham nor Rochdale town centres will be better servred by Metrolink than by the existing trains / your ideas would they?


I think it will be too expensive to be honest

Really???? Despite this line offering a very high cost benifit ratio - better than any of the proposals in Liverpool, Leeds or Portsmouth recently. I like the idea that somehow trams are not too expensive - yet you much more expensive idea of the underground is somehow not (please don't start talking about undergrounds - we're not getting one).

Out of interest - how much do you think this line is going to cost? How much would your proposals cost and how much would doing nothing cost?

Lightweight diesel trains running on the Shaw/Newhey section at a high frequency would offer a cheaper alternative to electrifying the system.

Would it? Are you seriously planning on not replacing the totally worn out track?
If so, the £5m - £10m a year will have to continue to be spent on the track to allow the piss poor 15 min service that operates now to continue - try increasing the service and you'll find those costs go higher and higher.

If you do decide to replace the track - isn't it a great opportunity to electricfy the line since you'll be taking all the track up anyway?

high frequency would offer a cheaper alternative

Just about sums up your ignorance on the subject - explain to me why the service operates the frequency it does at the moment, then explain how you're going to increase the frequency without replacing all the track.

A covered interchange at Mumps with staff would attract people to the system. An electric tram stopping at a bus-shelter will not be a great crowd puller.


You're obviously spot on, those 6m people that used to use the manned stations on the Alty / Bury line have sure all left the system since the stations turned into unmanned bus shelters haven't they? (Wonder where the new 9m passengers a year on the line came from???)

In case you haven't noticed, Oldham Mumps is no where near Oldham town centre - have a read of the GM Local Transport Plan - it'll give you an idea about how the conurbation - through many different policies - not just transport, wants to be able to get people from where they live to where they work much more efficiently - having the town centre stop a good distance from the town centre does not encourage people to use the train, however, having the trams going down the main shopping street does.

I cannot see the sense in upgrading north of Oldham until there is the market for it. The train I caught from Victoria had about 10 people on it.

How many people used to travel on the Alty - Piccadilly line in 1990?

Even the most pessimistic predictions for passenger numbers on this route provide for a very good cost / benifit ration.

For me the Ashton Line should come first,

Thought you wanted the lines that'd carry the most passengers - this (of the three lines) is expected to carry the least of them all, why not apply the same conditions to this route - i.e. wait for demand to grow. More than the other lines this route is aimed at regeneration, similarly to the Eccles line.

Ashton has always seemed more a part of Manchester than Rochdale.

What has that got to do with anything? Most people from Rochdale will not use the tram to go to Manchester, they'll use the line to travel to one of the 20 odd other stops most likely, and not even get to Manchester.

Little by little should be the plan for Metrolink,

What????

Airport line and Rochdale line have been in the planning for about 25 - 30 years, Ashton line for about 20 years, given we have to take all that we can, and looking at how other cities have struggled to get anything like what they've been planning for doesn't it make perfect sense to get as much as we can when we can?

Out of interest, how do you build a tram line by steath in this country?

Given whenever the GMPTE want to spend ANY money they have to get approval (which normally takes several years) from the DfT - how do you suggest these lines are built without anyone knowing?

I do notice you have failed to mention the Central Business Park - I work for Fujitsu, they moved there on the promise of the tram line, the trams haven't turned up yet - there is huge dissatisfaction - the park remains practically empty - however, other companies want to move in, but will not until the trams arrive. Now given the old line does not server Central Business Park, are you suggesting we don't try our hardest to fulfil these business's requirements, and let them head for another city in the country that can?

Personally, given the chance, I want the authorities in Manchester to work as hard as possible to get those trams going through the business park, to attract the business - there is a similar story at the Kingsway Business Park - the people in power would be locked up from criminal neglect if they didn't fight as hard as possible for these proposals.

:) I'm not going to talk about undergrounds, that's just my personnal fantasy.

However you can pontificate as much as you like, but the plans will have to be pared back because the money appears not to be available.

Nobody lives in Oldham or Rochdale town centre. People will still have to catch a bus from the suburbs/estates to each town centre to catch a tram.

The tram stop in Ashton will be adjacent to the bus station making interchange very easy. That is why I believe it will see more use. It will also travel through a busy bus corridor. Change these routes slightly and terminate them at the tram stations on the route rather than.

As for Rochdale/Shaw yes the track will have to be replaced and doubled too. The main reason the frequency is so poor is because it's single track. But double tracking and doubling the number of diesels is still cheaper than electrifying and double tracking and adding extra trams. (I would think)

Don't take me too seriously. I used to be a big train freak, bought loads of mags (Modern Tramways when it was small A5) I'm just spouting opinions based on laymans knowledge and a knowledge of North Manchester which even though I live in London is still better than yours.

Isaac, are you being deliberately awkward and confrontational again?

New idea - Isaac goes on Ignore list.

What's so confrontational about having an opinion. I would like to see Metrolink expand but it appears that people with the real power do not share my opinion or Metrolink's opinion.

I'm just suggesting that the expansion should be pared down. Nothing more.

If anyone has a direct line to the Minister of Transport then tell me what he is thinking. I don't know, and I believe nobody else here knows either.

:)
Nobody lives in Oldham or Rochdale town centre. People will still have to catch a bus from the suburbs/estates to each town centre to catch a tram.

But Isaac, this is the beauty of the thing. This line will effectively become the a high frequency suburban line not just for one town, but for three....! Consider it a Manchester line, a suburban Oldham one and a south Rochdale one, and everything in between. I don't know the passenger projections/usage for it, but it's going to be extremely popular, even more so with adequate park-and-ride facilities.

I'm familiar with north Manchester too, and in which way can people catch a bus to connect with trains at Rochdale or Oldham Mumps stations at the moment? They can't. How many people catch a bus from Norden to Rochdale, then hike up horrible Drake St to get to the station? Very few.

The tram stop in Ashton will be adjacent to the bus station making interchange very easy. That is why I believe it will see more use. It will also travel through a busy bus corridor. Change these routes slightly and terminate them at the tram stations on the route rather than.

The tram stations in Oldham and Rochdale will be next to their respective bus stations too.

As for Rochdale/Shaw yes the track will have to be replaced and doubled too. The main reason the frequency is so poor is because it's single track. But double tracking and doubling the number of diesels is still cheaper than electrifying and double tracking and adding extra trams. (I would think)

If they provided high-frequency diesels on the Rochdale - Mumps section, connecting to trams, it wouldn't become any more popular, so no more people would use it. It'd still be useless for accessing Oldham Town Centre, and equally useless for Oldhamers wanting to get anywhere else.

Don't take me too seriously. I used to be a big train freak, bought loads of mags (Modern Tramways when it was small A5) I'm just spouting opinions based on laymans knowledge and a knowledge of North Manchester which even though I live in London is still better than yours.

If you want to see a good heavy rail suburban network, as I do, then think in terms of Marple, Glossop, Stockport and lines, Bolton and Wigan!!

You make a good point about it being a suburban line for 3 towns but buses already adequately serve Oldham and Rochdale town centres from all points, not just Shaw, Newhey and Milnrow.

In my opinion this should not be the plan for Metrolink. It should be built to serve Manchester only and buses should connect with the system at Mumps in an interchange. Somebody living in Waterhead will still have to catch a bus between their house and Oldham town centre to access the tram whether the tram stops at Mumps or West Street. The same is true for somebody living in Royton, Hathershaw, Moorside, Lees Abbeyhills etc.

Utilize the existing infrastructure more economically. Build an interchange at Mumps, build another station in between the Werneth and Oldham tunnels and route the buses using Ashton Road past that station.

It's got to be cheaper and more realizable than digging up the road between Werneth and Mumps.

I just don't believe the money will be available to run the trams through the towns.

Surely it is better to put a basic system in place as soon as possible rather than put all the eggs into the Phase 3 basket only to see them all smashed.

All good points, but people won't use buses. At least not over the age of 25. I'm generalising of course, but my contemporaries, all with busy lives and kids, WILL NOT use a bus!!!! I won't. Trains and trams we like and we do use on occasion, but buses.....no chance!

If they were every 5 minutes, and there was an easy and understandable integrated fare system, then maybe we would, but there isn't. (totally unlike transport provision in inner London)

If you're not going to use the bus then you're not going to use the tram. It's just too easy to get in the car. A tram cannot take you everywhere. It's fair enough, If I bought a car I wouldn't want it sitting idle outside my house.

There definately needs to be an integrated ticket structure for trams and buses. Trams and buses seem to compete with each other in Manchester. Is that the fault of the Government, the local authorities, who ? There needs to be something like the Oyster Card or the old Clipper Cards they used to have in Greater Manchester. One ticket in various pricing regimes for use on all modes of Transport. Last Saturday I bought a £6.50 Daysaver TBM for use on Train, Bus and Metrolink. A bus driver on one bus hadn't seen the ticket before. There needs to be a cheaper version of this ticket, perhaps for all bus zones but only one tram route as stated on the ticket. (handy for weekday commuting and local buses at the weekend) The authorities need to get creative.

If you're not going to use the bus then you're not going to use the tram.

Is that right? How come the existing Metrolink has attracted many people onto the services from both car and buses?

Have a read of the report generated by the consulting company that effectively killed off the Leeds Supertram - it was seen as a very very pro bus report - however, even that didn't try to claim that buses were anywhere near as good at attracting people out of their cars as trams are.

Have a look at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtran/378/37805.htm#a7

the table that compares the bus and tram solution for Greater Manchester - this report was generated by a DfT consultancy and NOT a GMPTE one.

Trams would take 5.6m car journeys off the road compared to just 2m by the bus solution - you'll also see that the trams are the only option that actually don't require a subsidy in the long term - the operating costs are lower than the running costs.

Is that the fault of the Government, the local authorities, who ? There needs to be something like the Oyster Card or the old Clipper Cards they used to have in Greater Manchester. One ticket in various pricing regimes for use on all modes of Transport. Last Saturday I bought a £6.50 Daysaver TBM for use on Train, Bus and Metrolink. A bus driver on one bus hadn't seen the ticket before. There needs to be a cheaper version of this ticket, perhaps for all bus zones but only one tram route as stated on the ticket. (handy for weekday commuting and local buses at the weekend) The authorities need to get creative.

As Jongeman says, Manchester is not London - we have no autonomy over anything. The DfT says we have a deregulated bus service, we have a deregulated bus service.

A bus company (we have about 65 in Manchester) says they don't want to join in any fare scheme (and most don't) then they don't have to.

Isaac - honest question, do you think that the people who have put together these plans (over the last 30 odd years) have not done their hardest to make sure that they deliver the best possible option for the region?

All your comments seem to insinuate that the plans have been developed on a whim, and practically no thought has gone into it.

There has been public consultation, political counsultation, many bus / tram / train consultants have been asked there opinion, and 4 routes (Rochdale, Ashton, Airport and Stockport) the result of this work has been that by far the best option is trams.

They don't always say trams are best, look at the Leigh Guided bus route - many of us may question the suitability of this option, but apparently the guided bus option was most suited to the corridor in question, and as such I trust the PTE in what they are saying - why would they not tell the truth - they are hardly making life easy for themselves are they?

You seem to be missing what I'm saying. I believe, and it is only an opinion, that the Government will not give the money for phase 3 in it's present format. Otherwise it would be almost built by now. The PTA have it seems, played a game of brinkmanship with the Government by going ahead with preliminary work for phase 3. The Government it appears to me (remember this is just opinion) have called the PTA's bluff.

Now there may be a number of reasons for this, 1. The Government is short of money. 2. The government are unhappy with the plans and do not believe it will provide value for money.

Whatever you believe the facts seem to be that there is less money on the table than originally budgetted for.

This can only mean a reduced system.

And if the buses are so deregulated how come my mum and dad can travel for free after 09:30 and how come I can buy a daysaver TBM.

We'll see soon enough.

I too suspect that the initial announcement will not give enough money from the project to get to completion, however, I am also confident that the government would not allow the project to start unless they were confident it'll complete.

With regards the over 60's travel, Whitehall has given all local authorities in the country a bucket load of money to fund free public transport for over 60's.

GMPTE have implemented this one year early, basically giving each bus operator a certain amount of money everytime they carry an OAP - similarly Metrolink has been given such funding.

Unless someone is going to get all the operators to agree to a flat charging scheme (not going to happen - look at the 192 wars at the moment in the city centre), then getting a convientient ticketing system is not easy.

The reason you can buy a TBM for £6.50 is because the GMPTE have gone to great efforts to try and get some sort of order in the buses - not all bus companies accept them, only those in a particular scheme do.

Are you aware for example if you buy a return ticket on some routes, you can not get the same company bus back as you got on the outward jounrey, meaning that the cost goes through the roof.

Have a look at http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=102865 for a list of companies (all after a profit and competing with each other) for an idea of the complexity.

Look at initiatives like the MetroShuttle bus for how GMPTE have developed successful bus solutions were suitable.

You will know better than me about all the local ticketing, I'm coming from a very narrow angle I will admit. What I cannot understand though is what power does GMPTE have over it's bus companies. Do they grant them licences to run or is it a free for all. If they grant them licences or franchises on each route, how come they have no power over ticketing ?

Practically a free for all (especially on the profitable routes).

Those routes that are not money makers are funded by the PTE (they basically pay a company to run a specific route at a certain frequency).

There has been talk (with all the city region stuff) about a TfM being setup, along the London TfL model, which would give the power back to the local authority to runt he buses.

At present in Manchester there is a totally voluntary scheme (called Integration I seem to remember) that some buses sign up to - not all though.

Since you're in London chances are you are not aware of the mad state of affairs we have with the extremely profitable 192 route.

Basically each company keeps blocking the major routes out of Manchester (to all traffic) so that their buses can sweep up all the waiting passengers)

This is causing traffic chaos, for cars, buses and even trams on some nights.

Who funds the PTE ? is it Central Government or the 10 local authorities ? or both.

Who appoints the members of the PTE ?

PTE is funded by the PTA ( :) )

The PTE basically gets it's priorites and stratergies set by the PTA.

The PTA (in Manchester) is made up of 33 councilors from the 10 boroughs.

The funding for day to day services comes from local resources i.e. local income tax - however, some local funding does come via central government.

For the PTE to spend any money they need to gain approval from the DfT.

The PTE basically implement the PTA's wishes, when the DfT agree.

The budget for the GMPTE is in the region of £200m a year, most of which goes towards concession fares.

The HUGE difference in London is they don't have to go cap in hand to Whitehall every time they wanted to spend a penny.

Even if a city had £1bn spare in a cupboard, and wanted to build a tram network, the DfT could still say no, you're having buses if they felt like it.

This is NOT the case in London, meaning loads of money can be saved by not having to employ millions of consultants to justify every project that we ever want.

Give us city regions with power over transport and we'd be on the way.

Interesting, however I've never paid local income tax before, who builds the bus shelters and stations, is that the local authorities ? and who are the PTA if that is different to the PTE and why is there duplication.

TFL still have to ask Whitehall for money, remember the infrastructure is owned by two private companies who do all the repairs/refurbishment etc., Metronet closed the Central Line for 4 days over Easter only to say that due to unforseen circumstances they couldn't do any work.

Don't forget that TfL is a (central) Government department unlike GMPTE.

PTE are basically a load of people who are paid up normal people.

The PTA are a group of 33 councillors that meet every so often to set down what they want implemented by the PTE - not really duplication.

TfL may have to ask for money, but money raised locally can be spent as they like - when the DLR gets extended, if they have the money they just get on with it and build it.

There is an interview in this months Tramways and Urban Transit with the leader of TfL - when he discusses the difference in his freedoms and anywhere else in the country it's outstanding.

For example, GMPTE had £80k raise locally they wanted to spend on doing up Alty train station, the DfT said no - this simply could not happen in London.

In London you have the Oyster card that can be used on any form of transport, you effectively have one bus company, you would never get to the situation where one bus company runs one direction down a route, and another the return direction - and the tickets are not valid on each other's buses.You have 2 companies, wooppee doo, we have 65 bus companies, multiple train companies, and the trams.

You try getting from Sale to Ashton (probably about 10miles) before 9am, see how much that costs.

we have 65 bus companies, multiple train companies, and the trams.

You try getting from Sale to Ashton (probably about 10miles) before 9am, see how much that costs.

I once got a return evening ticket from Stalybridge to Picc, went out in town, got a bit pissed and missed the last TransPennine train to Stalybridge. So I thought I'd get a train to Newton (Hyde) - same distance, and stagger the two miles home. I got thrown off this train at Guide Bridge, because my ticket was TransPennine and I was using a FirstNorthWestern service.

Fuck this, I thought, and boycotted public transport for about a year after this little humiliation.

It's shit. They should call it preventative transport instead, not public.

Exactly - could you imagine this in London?

If the tube drives threaten to go on strike it's headline news on the BBC, if Liverpool / Leeds / Portsmouth get a fundemental part of their future prosperity scrapped not a word - this country is fucked.

In London you have the Oyster card that can be used on any form of transport.I wish. If you live in places like South London where the tube don't go (as the majority of Londoners actually do) then you can't use your oyster card on the overland, and the inspectors take great pleasure in fining people who perfectly innocently use them to get into the system at London Bridge and don't realise that although they're allowed onto the station, they're not allowed to actually take a train.

If my mate in Hammersmith wants to go to a Central London tube station he just has to buy a ticket, if I want to I have to pay over twice as much because I need two tickets because I'm travelling on two separate systems. It's usually cheaper for me to get a one day all London travelcard (of the type that also exists in GM) than to pay for a return journey to Oxford Street.

That said, I completely agree with your main point that the increased independence that TfL has got over the last couple of years has been a huge benefit, and that the other large conurbations should have something simillar. The capital's often-overlooked nether regions could do with a bit more of it in places too.

I agree 100% - I am not saying the capital is perfect, compared to places like Berlin it's crap.

However, until the likes of Manchester and the other major cities get some control over our transport we're always struggling to keep up.

That's true, the oyster card has replaced the travelcard which could be used on all forms of public transport so in that respect London has gone backwards. It's a shame that Greater Manchester doesn't itself have a Central Government Authority running transport. 33 councillors seems a lot of people to run local transport. A Central government run authority would be much quicker in delivery. Manchester is too poor to raise taxes for all it's transport and needs Central Government support.

Incidentally all Londons buses are private, my local buses are run by Metroline and Arriva.

I would question if the PTA are using all the powers they have.

It's true though that the regions are negelected and after 9 years of Labour government that is a terrible legacy.

taxis are handy, but only if booked through the operator.

Tories go for tram ticket
David Cracknell, Political Editor



DAVID CAMERON will this week launch his next big green idea: promising to bring back the tram as a mainstay of city life.
After returning from his trip aboard a husky-driven sled to a Norwegian glacier last week, the Conservative leader will head to Manchester to take a ride on the city’s Metrolink tram system.



Supporters of tramways point out that they are more convenient, cheaper, quieter and less polluting than trains. They can also provide politicians with useful photo-opportunities.

Senior Tories believe that regenerating urban transport is the key to happier, greener and more efficient city life. They point out that most of the modern tramways were built under the Thatcher governments, and that Labour has reneged on promises to carry on that legacy.

As part of a big launch ahead of the local elections on May 4, the Tories are to publish their ideas for a “new generation” transport strategy. The paper will spell out proposals for better parking, improved cycle lanes and more use of 20mph speed limits.

Party strategists say the document will be a blueprint for revitalising Britain’s cities.

Chris Grayling, the party’s transport spokesman, said: “The government has lost its way over transport and it is time for fresh, new thinking about how we tackle our transport problems.

“The government’s broken promises over trams and other modern urban transport systems are probably the best example of the way in which their 10-year plan for transport has been dumped in the past few years.

“There are now exciting new technologies in use in other countries, and being developed by firms in this country. It’s time we looked at how we can put some of these new transport options into use.”

In the early part of the 20th century nearly every city and large town had trams, but the rise of the car put paid to most. Only one Victorian tramway survives, in Blackpool.

The other seven in Britain were built after 1980, and mostly under the encouragement of Tory governments. They are in Croydon, London Docklands, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle upon Tyne and Nottingham — although there are some other schemes planned.

As part of his green strategy Cameron has also committed a future Conservative government to reducing car emissions by more than a third. He wants to make hybrid or “dual-fuel” vehicles — such as his new Luxus — the norm in Britain.

Cynical electioneering!
Its their fault public transport is goosed now so i would trust this posh twat as far i could throw him and his bloody bike.

Can't disagree with the tram point though.

Cynical electioneering!


It's completely bloody cynical of the Conservative Party to say anything about the North whatsoever, never mind Manchester's Metrolink. I don't believe a word of it.

When the next Tory government gets into power, as it invariably will, we'll possibly have to remind ourselves and hope that today's Tories are NOT the same people as the last lot!

It's completely bloody cynical of the Conservative Party to say anything about the North whatsoever, never mind Manchester's Metrolink. I don't believe a word of it.

When the next Tory government gets into power, as it invariably will, we'll possibly have to remind ourselves and hope that today's Tories are NOT the same people as the last lot!

The ones who were in power when Mertolink started ?

The ones who let my mum and dad buy their council house ?

The ones who invaded the Falklands, NOT Iraq, Afghanistan and bombed Serbia.

The ones who introduced anti union legislation that has not yet been repealed. The ones who privatised the railways that have not yet been re-nationalised.

The ones that DIDN'T introduce ID cards

They where nasty and arrogant but they weren't that bad.

The ones who had interest rates running at 15%

The ones who were responsible for over 3m unemployed

The ones who neglected Britains cities in favour of London

The ones who were responsible for de-valueing the pound

The ones who slung 30'000 Miners on the dole in one foul swoop

The ones who brought in Clause 28

Isaac

My memory of the last Conservative government is one of loathing, AND admiration.

It was an extremely difficult period in British history.

Nuff said?

The ones who had interest rates running at 15%

The ones who were responsible for over 3m unemployed

The ones who neglected Britains cities in favour of London

The ones who were responsible for de-valueing the pound

The ones who slung 30'000 Miners on the dole in one foul swoop

The ones who brought in Clause 28

:applause:

This isnt a patronising question isaac but how old are you?
Do you remember the 80's?
Trust me - things are better now.

Have the mines reopened ?

The world changes, there is a lot of hypocrisy here. I'm using a computer made in China, why because they make them cheaper over there, just like they dig coal cheaper in Poland and Columbia. If you want sky high electricity bills and to subsidize jobs that don't exist then fair enough. But don't go and buy cheap foreign goods if you feel bad about the miners, it wasn't just them that lost their jobs. The clothes on your back would have been made in a sweatshop in Morocco or Taiwan from thread spun in India, not Rochdale or Bolton.

If you want expensive computers then make them over here. I get a bit bored with people moaning about the Tories because rightly or wrongly they changed the economy of this country. Make no mistake you would find it very difficult to own a mobile phone if the only supplier was the Post Office which pre Thatcher it was.

There are still 2.4 million people on sickness benefit.

I'm rambling now but you know what I mean. Condemn the tories to your hearts content but don't buy anything foreign if you care so much about British jobs.

As for London, what's changed. Manchesters' heyday was in Edwardian times, when the Liberals were in :)

This isnt a patronising question isaac but how old are you?
Do you remember the 80's?
Trust me - things are better now.

I'm 41. I remember the 70's, the 80's the 90's. I even remember my first day at school in 1969.

Anyway got to go to sleep now, got work to go to, tax to pay and shirkers to subsidize. :)

Anyway got to go to sleep now, got work to go to, tax to pay and shirkers to subsidize. :)

That'll be me then!

Condemn the tories to your hearts content....

I'm with you I'iswell. The tories shook it up and for the first half did a good job. Poll tax, and corruption got the better of them, which was shame.

Isaac, it's ok saying what you're saying from the security of the South East. It's quite a new and rare phenomenon that things are so good 'up here'. You live in London. Do you ever ask yourself why.....? Is it out of choice? Or perhaps necessity?

Nobody disagrees with you about shirkers. This country is so full of fucking shirkers, that we're busy taking in Poles and Estonians and French and new EU citizens to do the jobs that our lazy compatriots won't do. And very welcome they are too.

My view on the Tories when it comes to public transport (this is not the place for discussions on Iraq / council housing etc).

I have to declare that I am a member of the Labour party (having quit them on a couple of occassions due to their failed transport policies).

Basically, the Labour party have failed in local public transport, they have done nothing to get control of the buses and other local transport into the hands of the local authorities - something that anyone who has looked at the situation outside of London always says is the most critical thing to do.

The Labour party have managed to p1$$ off huge swathes of their heart land by failing to manage the tram projects, the reason for the escalating costs of said projects is not down to local promoters, rather how both Labour AND the TORIES managed these projects.

Labour are putting far too many obstacles in the way, and making it very hard to meet very strict funding arrangements - much harder than buses or roads need to comply with.

However, and it's a HUGE however, much of the problems with getting tram schemes funded in this country is because the ones we built in the 90's were done on the ultra cheap, and put in place schemes that scared off private investors.

For example, if the Tories had have funded Metrolink properly (so far only £45m has gone into Phases1 and 2 from central government) and we had sufficient capacity etc, and the system did not have to pay for it's own construction costs through the fare box (imagine trying to do that with the Jubilee line!!!!) then Metrolink would have been a hugely successful (financially) system that private companies would have invested in. However, given the handicap the Tories gave the system in the early 90's it's now always going to struggle.

The way I see it, the Tories mismanaged public transport and were not willing to invest in it, but Labour are willing to invest in it, but are incapable of managing it to a situation where the funds are sufficient.

Last word - whilst the Tories have a director of an oil company as the environmental spokesman I'll treat anything they have to say on transport / the environment with a huge pinch of salt.

Hang on, hang on!

You can't shift the blame for the government's complete and utter fuck-up on public transport in this country from Labour (who have been in power now for 9 years) to the Tories (who haven't been in power for 9 years).

Whilst I agree that the Tories wouldn't be any better when it comes to public transport, I still think Labour are the bastards here as they promised all sorts back in the 1990s, got elected and then didn't deliver (and continue not to).

I simply cannot believe how London gets so much fucking money from the government for all sorts of wonderful transport projects, while up here in Manchester (which is only 4 times smaller, but gets about 20 times less money) a few tram lines is a task for the civil servants and ministers in Whitehall to grasp.

Grrrrrr!!

The ones who had interest rates running at 15%

The ones who were responsible for over 3m unemployed

The ones who neglected Britains cities in favour of London

The ones who were responsible for de-valueing the pound

The ones who slung 30'000 Miners on the dole in one foul swoop

The ones who brought in Clause 28

The ones who took over Britain at the end of the 1970s, a decade where the country almost totally broke down into anarchy and ruin.

The ones who then reformed the economy into a modern, effective western one, which continues to employ people to this day.

And of course Labour aren't favouring London too?

De-valueing the pound was neccersary. You do understand that if the pound was today above the $2 level we wouldn't be able to export anything?!

Oh yeah... coal mining. What a great industry to have in the 21st Century... :| It's called changing with the times - something socialists can't do.

Come on - the Tories did a lot of good during their 18 years in power (they created the wealthy nation we see today). They also went downhill from the late 1980s. But that was after 10 years in power.

Labour on the other hand did well for the first 3 years or so (1997-2000) and since have done absolutely fuck all.

Electioneering or not it will be nice to see trams being placed at the forefront of discussion. Such a climate might encourage councils to moot their own schemes hoping the tories will jump on their bandwagon if the govt rubbishes the idea.

wonder what Cameron thinks of ultraspeed...?

I feel pretty cynical about Labour, Conservative, and the LibDems. There's too much unproductive argument and point-scoring, and not enough consensus. I really really wish political parties had less clout. For example, I think it ought to be illegal to tell my MP how to vote, just as it's illegal to tell me how to vote.