Ok, we have a bustling city, full of life, traffic, noise, pollution, thriving night life, thriving businesses, full of people living, full of new developments, full of life.

We also have a few busy areas like Deansgate, Portland Street and all arteries leading into town in peak times, this to me is normal and has been there since I was a little kid going to nursery, and rarely over the course of my life have these traffic hotspots changed.

To me congestion in my city is easily resolved. You advertise the ring road more; you use electronic signs to indicate the quickest routes to and from the city, with ETAs and all that shit. You redirect the shuttle buses to ensure they can breeze through the city centre traffic. You redefine the bus routes in the city and ensure that buses have terminuses around the city centre and not in the city centre. You encourage more fringe city centre parking, with better advertised shuttle services . This is common sense. But I fear we don’t want to hear common sense because we need funds for a tram route, and apparently the only way to do this is to tax road usage more.

This will have a negative effect unless all cities do the same; Manchester is not a tool for trials that could cost the city dearly.

We already have the parking farce on the way, this could be the cherry. If Manchester is the only city in the region to do this, it would be damaging and would see us lose out to our rivals. We live in a capitalist Britain, with competition encouraged; do we not face a disadvantage in the market place with this charge?

Put it this way, there’s no point having a mass tram system running through the city centre if your city centre is as competitive as Stoke or Preston.. I bet places like Warrington cannot wait for this.

So sorry Metrolink, I don’t offer any solutions to the system’s funding gap, I just think we should protect what we have created so far and let other cities fuck themselves over with this charge and let Manchester reap the rewards, I think that way you’ll fill the funding gap in another imaginative way

Grand - but we're getting congestion charging anyway, why not make the most of the chance to invest in public transport at the same time?

Come on skit, you dont really believe that do you?
Green houses are environmentally sound. They are just glass used to trap heat. They have no influence on the environment.
Fertiliser can be organic too you know.
Smaller trucks are not necessarily less economical.

Now shipping goods by sea for thousands of miles. Unloading on the South coast onto a truck and driving them hundreds of miles up the motorway - how can that be less damaging to the environment than using locally sourced goods.

It can be cheaper, yes. Thats why the supermarkets do it. But its not better for the environment in any stretch of the imagination.


I know this isn't metrolink related so i'll keep it short.

Major, of course your right but i was just pointing out that it wasn't as black and white as some pressure groups and politicans makes it out to be.

The best way to help the environment would be to only buy food that in season. Out of season foods are going to cost more in transporting or heating (if produced in this country)

Read this Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,632-2530546,00.html)

Of course if we all shop in town and then take our food home on the tram then that would prob ofset all those tonnes of carbon used to produce and transport the food in the first place. So, take the tram to save the environment:okay:

Grand - obvious point, but when Warrington gets congestion charging, it is going to start to be very uncompetitive compared to Manchester if Manchester has a tremendous public transport system linking together the region, whereas Warrington that hasn't had the oppurtunity to invest in public transport offers no alternative but paying the charge.

Grand - obvious point, but when Warrington gets congestion charging, it is going to start to be very uncompetitive compared to Manchester if Manchester has a tremendous public transport system linking together the region, whereas Warrington that hasn't had the oppurtunity to invest in public transport offers no alternative but paying the charge.

So you've just admitted that Manchester will be less competitive (compared to Warrington or wherever) if it introduces charging first. But then all the country introduces the charging so it evens itself out.
Except on that arguement it makes the whole country less competitive compared to other countries without the charging. So why the hell do it in the first place.

No not at all.

I accept that Manchester is currently less competitive compared to Warrington at the moment since it's got terrible congestion problems.

I simply point out, that we're going to have the advantage of both the congestion charging and the better public transport, whereas Warrington will only have the charges.

But Manchester hasnt got terrible congestion problems.
Yes, it gets some congestion in some areas. But on the most part its ok. Its not gridlocked.

Yes, there are congestion problems affecting about 15 corridors, hence the charge affecting 15 corridors.

Two parts of the world that I am familar with in the morning and evening rush hour - the A56 and the M56.

I am 100% sure that the congestion on those roads during the rush hour is a disincentive for business to invest in those areas.

If nothing is done, the areas which are affected will increase over time.

Yes, there are congestion problems affecting about 15 corridors, hence the charge affecting 15 corridors.

And hence the future congestion affecting 15 alternative corridoors.

I think you'll find it is. traffic is terrible at the moment. If i need to travel across town for any reason it would be quicker for me to walk it

Major - that'll have to be the trick - manage the scheme such that the problem is simply not displaced - something I have talked to those involved in the project about, and am confident they are on top of.

Out of interest major - you haven't explained what you'd do if you were int he shoes of those at the PTE.

Do you accept given the circumstances it is sensible to be a pilot site for the charging, whether or not you agree with the prinicipal of the national scheme.

But its daft to drive from one side the city centre to the other.

Do you not see that its excessive to charge £6 a day. People will be forced to pay this or similar amounts on public transport. Thats an hours pay for many people. Or 12.5% of a full days pay. Imagine income tax going up by that amount.

Carefully Major manages to avoid answering the question.

Out of interest major - you haven't explained what you'd do if you were int he shoes of those at the PTE.

Do you accept given the circumstances it is sensible to be a pilot site for the charging, whether or not you agree with the prinicipal of the national scheme.

In the enforced situation they find themselves in it is their only option yes. (Though i wont use the word sensible)

Right - so why are you having such a go at the PTE about their proposals?

If you have a problem with the idea of congestion charging, your anger should be aimed at the national government, and the DfT policy, which appears now to be policy of all three main policial parties.

Carefully Major manages to avoid answering the question.

Post 1975 was in responce to skit.
Give me chance to reply to your posts before you tarnish my good name :)

Right - so why are you having such a go at the PTE about their proposals?

If you have a problem with the idea of congestion charging, your anger should be aimed at the national government, and the DfT policy, which appears now to be policy of all three main policial parties.

I'm voicing my opinions against congestion charging.
This is the thread on which we are discussing congestion charging.

I'm having a 'go' at congestion charging, not the PTE.

This thread is discussing the PTEs response to the DfT policy, and how that will affect the people, and transport, in Manchester.

I get the impression that people will be opposed to this policy, without understanding that the whole country will be impacted, and that in the given circumstances that PTE will be ensuring we go into the future in the most advantageous way.

Andy - what is your great plan to stop congestion from harming the local economy?

Actutally this thread is discussing the Metrolink.
But this is the question you asked earlier - which i replied giving alternate ways to congestion charging.

ok, but Metrolink will be directly affected by the TiF bid - hence putting the story in this thread.

The question to Andy maybe should have read...

Andy - what is your great plan to stop congestion from harming the local economy given the circumsatnces we find ourselves in?

But its daft to drive from one side the city centre to the other.

Do you not see that its excessive to charge £6 a day. People will be forced to pay this or similar amounts on public transport. Thats an hours pay for many people. Or 12.5% of a full days pay. Imagine income tax going up by that amount.

I think we need to look at the big picture here.
It costs money to live, work and get around a city center, the reason is that city centers are where people want to be.

For too long now roads have been the same price everywhere which seems wrong to me because the cost of roads in city centers are much higher, in terms of pollution, space, cost to maintain etc.
Public transport doesn't have the luxury of being cheap.

So we have a situation where roads are abnormaly cheap to use compared to every other mode of transport. So the best solution is to increase the cost of using roads so that public transport has a level playing field.
Why should it be free for us to drive into the city?

As an aside i only drive across town to get to football from my flat. Cross town public transport is no existant which is an issue that isn't really being look at at the moment

The question to Andy maybe should have read...

The answer to that would be - There is no great plan, since our hands are tied and our options limited.

I think we need to look at the big picture here.
It costs money to live, work and get around a city center, the reason is that city centers are where people want to be.

For too long now roads have been the same price everywhere which seems wrong to me because the cost of roads in city centers are much higher, in terms of pollution, space, cost to maintain etc.
Public transport doesn't have the luxury of being cheap.

So we have a situation where roads are abnormaly cheap to use compared to every other mode of transport. So the best solution is to increase the cost of using roads so that public transport has a level playing field.
Why should it be free for us to drive into the city?

As an aside i only drive across town to get to football from my flat. Cross town public transport is no existant which is an issue that isn't really being look at at the moment

I could understand that if the congestion charge was needed to pay for the maintainance of the roads. But thats not why it is being introduced, and so should not enter the argument.

What would you like to see to improve cross town transport?

right, but given the circumstances, if as you say our hands are tied, etc etc, then as far as I can see it's a no-brainer to do what the PTE are doing.

right, but given the circumstances, if as you say our hands are tied, etc etc, then as far as I can see it's a no-brainer to do what the PTE are doing.

Yes. Trying to get some good out of a bad situation.

I'd have a sliding scale of congestion charges with mums driving chelsea tractors containing school age children during the hours of 7 - 10 am and 3 - 6 am charged the heaviest, and the longer and wider the vehicle, the more you pay

Here, here!! Get's my friggin goat. I leave Altrincham at 4.30 to drive back to Manchester & it actually takes me longer to get out of Alty than the drive to Whalley Range afterward.

Tax the mothers!! Literally!

and the Haulage companies that clog up the lanes next to the hard shoulder...

Will have to disagree about the 'bad situation' but that is for another day as I have wasted enough of my day on here already.

Will have to disagree about the 'bad situation' but that is for another day as I have wasted enough of my day on here already.

Okey dokey, have fun Metrolink.
Nothing like a good debate to cheer up a day anyway.

What would you like to see to improve cross town transport?

A bigger metrolink complete with our own version of the circle line (london underground).

At the moment the metrolink is desinged purely for comuters too and from the city center. Hopefully one day the metrolink will become more like the underground or other european tram systems. With more lines and more interchanges the metrolink could be used more by people who want to travel to other areas of our fine city.

I can already see how Ponoma could become such a tram interchange. Maybe linking with sports city. Now that would be handy

Core blimey, nearly 2000 posts, 18months since the thread started.

Wonder what we'll be up to in 18months once construction has started.

I'm sceptical about congestion charges and I'm anti car. How are the PTA going to stop avoidance ? Are they going to block streets making it more difficult for residents and the emergency services to access their own homes. If not are they going to have zones along the corridors, say a mile square. to make the effort of avoidance a little more difficult.

I think the government is in fact blackmailing Greater Manchester by waving the carrot of congestion charging in return for Metrolink funding. i don't believe the PTA have a viable plan in place because it never wanted it in the first place. It just wanted the expansion money with no strings attached.

Congestion charging has probably never been part of Greater Manchester's transport plans and the fact that they are not going to follow the example of London suggests to me that there is no real alternative plan in place, just a soundbite to keep the ministers happy.

Manchester's "congestion charging corridors" are untried, untested and potentially very dangerous to the economy of the urban region.

Isaac, I think that the corridors will not be one road, but rather a strip of land, and all roads along that strip would be charged.

For example, I live just of Dane Road in Sale, it runs parallel to the M60 between J6 and J7 -I suspect that both the M60 and Dane Road will both have some sort of charge on them - not necessarily the same amount,but I believe they'll both be charged.

i don't believe the PTA have a viable plan in place because it never wanted it in the first place. It just wanted the expansion money with no strings attached.


Originally, many moons ago, the plan was for all of Metrolink to be funded from government as projects used to be in the olden days, however, since 2004 it has been aparent that would not be the case.

The PTA/E have had consultants in for quite some time, spending the £2m 'priming fund' money investigating the options. Members of the PTA/E have also visited other cities around the world that have different forms of congestion charging.


Congestion charging has probably never been part of Greater Manchester's transport plans and the fact that they are not going to follow the example of London suggests to me that there is no real alternative plan in place, just a soundbite to keep the ministers happy.

Sorry don't understand your logic here.

Most other countries have gone away from the London model (see Germany), and business in Greater Manchester always made it clear they didn't want a London style system.

Now the technology has been proven in Germany, it gives the PTA/E much more oppurtunity to fine tune the system to Manchester's needs, as opposed to a system that was designed for a city that is very different from Manchester.

Manchester's "congestion charging corridors" are untried, untested and potentially very dangerous to the economy of the urban region.

Which is why they will only happen if the business community of Greater Manchester agree that this will not harm the economy - see the BBC article.

Core blimey, nearly 2000 posts, 18months since the thread started.

Wonder what we'll be up to in 18months once construction has started.

Metrolink, when is the start date for constuction?

I don't really understand your German example, isn't that the GPS system used for charging lorries on the Autobahns and wasn't it scrapped ?

Isaac, any problems with the German scheme were not related to the technology.

The technology worked, and has shown it can be used to charge cars / lorries.

Zim - around spring / summer next year I'd suspect.

2000 wooo hooo.

1999

2000 wooo hooooooo.

that all went a bit tits up.

anyway, 2,000 up 3,000 here we come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_toll_collection

more cities charge than you may imagine...

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/img/congestion_charge_map.pdf

shows the corridors.

The vast majority of those examples are toll roads or bridges, they are not toll zones. I don't believe that Greater Manchester has any viable options when it comes to road charging. There are no natural barriers that restrict entry into the city over a bridge or through a tunnel. All Manchester's motorways go round the city and not into the city, with the exception of the M602.

Zim - around spring / summer next year I'd suspect.

brillient cheers for that Metrolink. Going slightly of topic, late spring is when construction is due to start of Edinburgh's tram system as well. So the UK could have two big tram constuction projects on the go at the same time. It's been a long wait but at last we have something to cheer about.

now that is complicated...

I'd love someone to give examples of prices for different roads on that diagram.

That map suggests that the whole of Greater Manchester is one congestion charging zone, divided into subzones with no gap between each. The impression gained from that is that wherever you drive, you will pay.

Zim - indeed, come late 2010 and onwards, the new lines will be opening new sections at a right old rate.


Looking at that map - presuming the different 'corridors' have different charges, I'd like to see corridor 11 charged highly.

Indeed, Isaac, that is the impression I've got and held for a long time.

Remember the quotes from the DfT previously stating that every road in the UK would be charged between 2p and £1.34 / mile.

The 'red routes' - presumably the more expensive routes, look to be the routes best served my existing or planned transport, i.e. light or heavy rail.

To expensive, you will need satellite tracking for that and a huge amount of litigation will occur. If Manchester is a pilot area then someone living in wigan will drive to Liverpool to do their shopping, someone living in Bolton will go to Preston and people living in Rochdale and Oldham will head towards Yorkshire.

It just seems unviable, especially as an isolated pilot.

So how will this affect residents? considering i live on regent road.
Although i use a motorbike so i'm hoping i'll be exempt.

PTE press release...

http://www.gmpte.com/news.cfm?news_id=5024475

Greater Manchester takes next step in major transport funding bid
Published on Wednesday, 24 January 2007
AGMA / GMPTA NEWS RELEASE

Greater Manchester leaders will meet on Friday (26 January) to consider a report on the next step towards their July bid to the Government's Transport Innovation Fund, which could be worth over £1 billion in transport improvements for the city region.

The report to the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) outlines plans for a major public consultation in the spring. Residents, businesses and other stakeholders will be given the opportunity to have their say on plans to radically improve local transport aimed at securing Greater Manchester's ongoing economic success.

The ten district leaders will also consider a set of principles which will provide the basis for the design of the charging scheme which will need to be fully evaluated as a next stage. A prerequisite for a charging scheme will be a range of public transport alternatives. The combined package would need to pass four robust tests set by AGMA (see Note to Editors) as well as being accepted by the public and businesses.

Work undertaken so far has established the key principles for the development of a 'Smart Charging' scheme. It would take advantage of the latest technology to target the car trips causing the greatest degree of congestion ? whether to or from Manchester city centre or on other busy routes across the city region.

AGMA has already agreed that any such scheme would not be introduced on roads until those affected have a reliable, integrated public transport system which provides a genuine alternative to the car.

Lord Peter Smith, Chair of AGMA, said: "Greater Manchester has the fastest growing economy outside London and we want to build on this by creating more than 210,000 jobs over the next decade. Unchecked congestion is already starting to take its toll on both the economy and our environment and doing nothing is not an option. Whatever we do, we must satisfy ourselves that the growth path of the economy is protected and enhanced and that the measures we take to manage congestion maximise benefit for the local and global environment.

"We are developing ambitious plans to improve Greater Manchester's transport network so that it offers a realistic alternative to the car for some journeys. The proposition which we are promoting is that car users who congest our roads should be required to pay back in a way that will benefit the economy and the environment. This will also help to ensure that they can make more informed decisions about how they travel."

Chair of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, Councillor Roger Jones, said: "We want the Transport Innovation Fund to revolutionise public transport in Greater Manchester by giving us access to over £1billion funding. We know that people will use buses, trains and trams if they are reliable and affordable and I am confident that ? given the right levels of investment ? we can achieve this.

"At the same time, it's clear Government will only make this funding available if Greater Manchester makes a serious commitment to tackle the growing congestion on our roads. We need to make a strong bid that will help us deliver a first class public transport network to bolster the local economy."

Leader of Manchester City Council and Deputy Leader of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, Sir Richard Leese said: "It's clear that a London-style charging scheme - which imposes cost irrespective of time of day, length of journey, origin and destination - is not right for Greater Manchester.

"If road charging is to work in this area, we have to tackle congestion both now and in the future. Any charging scheme must therefore take into account the time of day, length of journey, origin and destination as well as the impact on communities and key workers. Greater influence over the bus network, local rail and the strategic highways network is also a vital pre-requisite.

"There will be a major public consultation in the spring so that residents, businesses and other stakeholders can give an informed opinion about our proposals for the charging scheme and for the improvements to the public transport network."

The report states that if no action is taken to address road congestion and improve public transport, Greater Manchester can expect to underachieve employment growth by up to 30,000 jobs in the next decade.

The fact is that in comparison with all other major European countries we already have fewer miles of motorway and dual carriageway per head of population. Our public transport facitities are considered poor, the trains are already becoming overcrowded. This government is looking for a cheap option and not the best and I have no doubt that the Big Bang will be inadequate probably from day one. I would like to know the commutors/tram seat numbers anticipated particularly at rush hour. Its quite obvious that the 'authorities' will rake it in from desparate motorists and I don't believe all this will be reinvested in public transport. The correct solution is to put in the investment upfront to encourage growth, the north has suffered enough from a lack of inferstructural spend.

That map suggests that the whole of Greater Manchester is one congestion charging zone, divided into subzones with no gap between each. The impression gained from that is that wherever you drive, you will pay.

As I read the story, the intention is to introduce the charge on selected coridors initially - mainly using tag-and-beacon technology; but then the extend it through the whole of Greater Manchester, once the satellite GPS technology is proven.

So the corridors function primarily to define phased introduction, but also to allow differential charging to the areas with most congestion.

The implication too - I presume - is that traffic that stays on the motorway is exempt - a pity, as i would n't mind GMPTE taking £3 off every vehicle using the M6 at Wigan.

It would not surprise me if the first coridors to get the treatment were not 1, 2, 3 and 4 - together with 8, 9,10, and 11 - i.e. the ones into which the Metrolink extended services will be going.

AGMA has already agreed that any such scheme would not be introduced on roads until those affected have a reliable, integrated public transport system which provides a genuine alternative to the car.

We know that people will use buses, trains and trams if they are reliable and affordable and I am confident that, given the right levels of investment, we can achieve this.

Greater influence over the bus network, local rail and the strategic highways network is also a vital pre-requisite.

It would be desirable to have an integrated Oyster-style system in place by the time that charging goes live IMO. As stated above there definately needs to be all-day integrated ticketing for public transport in the region should RUC go ahead. Having a decent network is one thing, but being able to use the component modes effectively is another thing all together. Integration is the key!

.....and a PROPER Metro is what we need. Somwthing like Amsterdam or Stockholm would suit us very well.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Stockholm_subway_radhuset_20050808_002.jpg/800px-Stockholm_subway_radhuset_20050808_002.jpg

I would love to see that but Greater Manchester's population is too spread out and is clustered around town centres. The only way a metro could be built would be as part of a huge re alignment of the population, e.g. levelling Rochdale until it is fields once more and replacing it with a linear new town strung along a metro line into Manchester.

Love to see it happen but it's fantasy.

Roger Jones :

"Before all the extensions we want are done, we would reach capacity in the city centre. And I think we should have a new line in the city centre in the next 5 years so we can keep expending."

Roger Jones :

"Before all the extensions we want are done, we would reach capacity in the city centre. And I think we should have a new line in the city centre in the next 5 years so we can keep expending."

does this refer to the tram-train proposals - and the idea of linking the Marple and Wigan services across the city centre?

Roger Jones :

"Before all the extensions we want are done, we would reach capacity in the city centre. And I think we should have a new line in the city centre in the next 5 years so we can keep expending."

We should get that carved into a massive stone tablet and have it set up outisde GMPTE Towers, just to remind them what they're aiming for :)

Roger Jones :

"Before all the extensions we want are done, we would reach capacity in the city centre. And I think we should have a new line in the city centre in the next 5 years so we can keep expending."

Rocket Science

Roger Jones :

"Before all the extensions we want are done, we would reach capacity in the city centre. And I think we should have a new line in the city centre in the next 5 years so we can keep expending."

The plans for second city centre line have been in place for a while, linking Victoria to Cornbrook via Deansgate I believe.....

The plans for second city centre line have been in place for a while, linking Victoria to Cornbrook via Deansgate I believe.....

That sounds like a total suicide mission.

The plans for second city centre line have been in place for a while, linking Victoria to Cornbrook via Deansgate I believe.....

A tram line... down Deansgate... :nuts:

That sounds like a total suicide mission.

So does attempting to run 20+ trams per hour via one city centre route. Take a look at a map. Realistically there are only two possible routes for a 2nd City line.
From Victoria via Deansgate and the A56 towards Cornbrook
OR
Corportation Street, Cross St, Albert Square and Mount Street to GMEX.

You could probably run an 20 extra trams an hour on the current route quite easy with the correct planning. Realistic any other European city or any other world city planning to send all its metro/subway traffic through the centre of the city would not send it by road. Alot of Manchester Streets are very busy during the day. Deansgate is one of the worst of the lot. Its just a mass of traffic from about 6/7 in the morning until midnight or later. If you want a route down there the best thing to do is put it underground and it would be the same with Oxford Road. It will never happen, even if its smartest thing to do.

If you want a route down there the best thing to do is put it underground and it would be the same with Oxford Road. It will never happen, even if its smartest thing to do.

Think about what you have just said - if the PTE ever wanted to have anything like the money to do such a thing, how do you think they could pay for it?

Clue - have a look at the last 2 days MEN front pages.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/lightrail/

You could probably run an 20 extra trams an hour on the current route quite easy with the correct planning. Realistic any other European city or any other world city planning to send all its metro/subway traffic through the centre of the city would not send it by road.

I agree it's not an ideal situation but I think it's folly to rely on one cross city route when capacity and reliabilty are the key, particulary if and when RUC comes in to play.

If you want a route down there the best thing to do is put it underground and it would be the same with Oxford Road. It will never happen, even if its smartest thing to do.

I'd love that, I really would, but at the end of the day it all comes to down deliverability. Sending a line underground is unlikely to survive any form of economic assessment. The costs will outweigh any extra benefits that may be gained. Simple as. It could well be that the PTE spend their own money on the scheme (like the east manchester line) but the money they would spend could buy a significant amount of infrastucture elsewhere.

You could probably run an 20 extra trams an hour on the current route quite easy with the correct planning. Realistic any other European city or any other world city planning to send all its metro/subway traffic through the centre of the city would not send it by road. Alot of Manchester Streets are very busy during the day. Deansgate is one of the worst of the lot. Its just a mass of traffic from about 6/7 in the morning until midnight or later.

The completion of the inner ring road was supposed to ease the traffic on Deansgate, but it seems most people still use it. I think a tram is totaly feasable down deansgate, especialy if trams are given priority. You could have two tram track down the middle which would be free off traffic, most of deansgate is quite wide even if a lot of it is turning lanes. So get rid of the turning lanes and set the lights to work in favour of trams and pedestrians. I think it could work.

In fact i.m going to creat a detailed deansgate plan this weekend to show how it could work.

Great idea Skit. Do usone of thosse maps :)

Think about what you have just said - if the PTE ever wanted to have anything like the money to do such a thing, how do you think they could pay for it?

Clue - have a look at the last 2 days MEN front pages.

I haven't seen them so I couldn't tell you. :bash:

The point is, money from congestion charging could *eventualy* pay for such bold ideas including subways.

The point is, money from congestion charging could *eventualy* pay for such bold ideas including subways.


I think having control of your own spending within a city region, ie what places like hamburg have, will ensure this too

This is all part of what we are eventually moving towards. GMPTE and the Local Authorities need to jump through a few hoops for the government and please them before they will hand over more power.

I think having control of your own spending within a city region, ie what places like hamburg have, will ensure this too.

IMHO local control is the key. People then debate and vote for good ideas, and if they don't work, they debate and vote some more then change them or scrap them.

This is all part of what we are eventually moving towards. GMPTE and the Local Authorities need to jump through a few hoops for the government and please them before they will hand over more power.

It'll never happen. Don't swallow that one. Local authorities in places like Manchester are under an eternal thumb. Look at the Police Authority fiasco for Whitehall's true desire to disenfranchise local people from local government.

The following is taken from a GMPTA report which I wasn't aware was in the public domain. May well have been posted on here previously given the length of this thread and Metrolink's dedication to the cause!

I'm sure TIF funding will go towards this (providing there's some left after Phase 3b of course).

Manchester – Marple line tram-train

2.10 The tram-train concept could potentially be applied on several local rail
lines in Greater Manchester. It is sensible that the first line to be given the
tram-train treatment should be one where there are relatively few difficulties to
be overcome. Of the potential lines, the Manchester – Marple via Bredbury
route has the following three important points in its favour as the location of a
trial of the tram-train concept in Greater Manchester.
• There is scope for limiting interactions with heavy rail services.
• It supports the recommendations of SEMMMS.
• No additional routes within the Regional Centre are needed, since it is
expected that Metrolink (both before and after implementation of the
planned future phases) will include some departures that operate
through the Regional Centre and then terminate at Piccadilly Station.
These departures can be extended onto the Marple line without using
up any Metrolink street-running capacity in the city centre.

2.11 GMPTE therefore decided to investigate further the potential for tramtrain
operation on the Manchester – Marple line route and consultants were
commissioned to carry out a study.

2.12 The study concluded that operation of diesel-electric tram-trains on the
Manchester – Marple via Bredbury line was feasible and would prove to be
good value for money. By contrast, upgrading the existing train service to
replicate tram-train benefits as far as possible was found not to be good value
for money. The capital cost of the most promising version of the tram-train
scheme is estimated at £119m (2002 prices). After inflating the capital costs
by the DfT’s recommended “optimism bias”, the estimated benefit to cost ratio
is 1.8.

2.13 Fares revenue from tram-trains is forecast to substantially exceed
operating and renewals costs. Therefore there may be substantial scope for
private sector funding, reducing the amount of DfT funding required.

2.14 The study also concluded that there were considerable challenges to
be overcome and that these were more institutional than technical.

2.15 Network Rail has responded positively to the proposal and has added
the scheme (plus the longer term proposed line to Wigan via Salford and
Atherton) to their business plan.

2.16 In order to meet DfT Guidance on value-for-money, an alternative to
tram-train which would involve converting the Manchester – Marple line into a
busway has been appraised. The busway option also appears to represent
good value for money, but there are some concerns about feasibility. Further
work is underway to compare tram-train and busway options on an equitable
basis.

2.17 Overall, the work carried out to date on tram-train on the Manchester –
Marple line has supported the view that tram-trains have the potential to
transform under-performing parts of the local heavy rail network into a
Metrolink-type service, and making a very important contribution to the
transformation of public transport in Greater Manchester.

2.18 The key piece of infrastructure which would facilitate tram-train on the
Marple line is the “Piccadilly Link”, a new section of LRT line between
Ashburys and Piccadilly Undercoft Metrolink Station. This bypasses the
congested section of rail line on the eastern approach to Piccadilly and
facilitates a high frequency service on the tram-train route.

2.19 The new line passes through the rapidly developing area of New East
Manchester. For this reason, urgent action may be required to agree
alignments with developers and with the development agency. GMPTE
officers propose to take whatever cost-effective actions are necessary to
preserve the alignment before a decision is made on whether or not to take
forward the scheme to a Transport and Works Act Order Application.

Other tram-train lines

2.20 Other lines with potential for tram-train operation include:
• Manchester – Salford – Atherton – Wigan. This route would require
new LRT track in the city centre from Piccadilly Station to Salford to
enable it to link with the Marple route. It is likely to be crucial to the
case for investing in the new city centre LRT track that it should be
used by services from two corridors rather than just one. Hence the
case for Manchester – Salford – Atherton – Wigan tram-train is likely to
depend on building the more straightforward Marple tram-train route
first.• Manchester/Stockport – Altrincham – Chester/Crewe. This route would
utilise the Manchester – Northwich – Chester line, with a possible
branch to Crewe via Middlewich. It would need to be developed in
partnership with local authorities in Cheshire.

Yes it's been posted a few times before along with the rest of the strategy. It's a kind of old document now and was produced before the Dft pulled the plug on the 'big bang' project so I think the document has been put on a back-burner for now. If you read it fully you'll also see that it doesn't fully endorse many of the more exciting options, infact it endorses taking up the tracks to Marple and replacing them with a guided busway - not even a tram line! Ludicrous.

Yes it's been posted a few times before along with the rest of the strategy. It's a kind of old document now and was produced before the Dft pulled the plug on the 'big bang' project so I think the document has been put on a back-burner for now. If you read it fully you'll also see that it doesn't fully endorse many of the more exciting options, infact it endorses taking up the tracks to Marple and replacing them with a guided busway - not even a tram line! Ludicrous.

Apparently the 'tram-train' would be a new vehicle which are 'dual-equipped' to travel on both the existing Metrolink lines and diesel train lines - as existing metrolink trams will never been able to go on the diesel lines obviously and the regional rail routes cannot be repaced with metrolink.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Avg-898-00.jpg/800px-Avg-898-00.jpg
German Tram-Train

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/NewarkLightRailExt.jpg
Newark, US Tram-Train


Personally I don't think tram-trains will work in Manchester, Metrolink as a system is too basically flawed to support even trams rom another country (the san-fran tram) and there are allsorts of safety hang-ups (remember we were supposed to get the extra centre carriage - not any more!).

Yes it's been posted a few times before along with the rest of the strategy. It's a kind of old document now and was produced before the Dft pulled the plug on the 'big bang' project so I think the document has been put on a back-burner for now. If you read it fully you'll also see that it doesn't fully endorse many of the more exciting options, infact it endorses taking up the tracks to Marple and replacing them with a guided busway - not even a tram line! Ludicrous.


the report is dated November 2005: i.e. 15 months after the plug was pulled on the "big bang". It was referred to in last month's response of the PTA to Network Rail's current consultation. It is there stated that a TIF bid is being considered to fund the Marple-Manchester tram-train, separate from (and presumably for later implementation to) the phase 3b bid.

So aspect of this report probably do represent the thrust of current PTA thinking of developments beyond phase 3 or Metrolink. It also makes clear that the busway proposals are included for the Marple route only because DfT guidelines require them to be costed in comparison with any tram proposal. The priority busway proposal in current thinking appears to be from Atherton and Leigh into Salford (where it would link to any Wigan - Salford tram-train).

In effect the Wigan - Salford - Manchester - Marple tram-train proposal replaces the former Strategic Rail Authority proposal to run a tram-train line from Wigan, along Chapel Street through the City Centre and down Kingsway.

I actually think tram-train would be a good idea for these routes, but a lot would depend on installing a signalling system which would allow light rail and heavy rail to run with safety on the same tracks.

Personally I don't think tram-trains will work in Manchester, Metrolink as a system is too basically flawed to support even trams rom another country (the san-fran tram) and there are allsorts of safety hang-ups (remember we were supposed to get the extra centre carriage - not any more!).

That the Boeing tram's didn't work in Manchester is scarcely surprising, as they didn't work in San Francisco either. Reports on the recent tendering for the extra 8 vehicles, seems to suggest that the basic Metrolink concept remains reasonably robust - high floor trams on standard gauge rails and 2.65m width. Just such vehicles are being ordered now for Frankfurt, Cologne and Bonn. Why do you think the system is basically flawed?

Yes it's been posted a few times before along with the rest of the strategy. It's a kind of old document now and was produced before the Dft pulled the plug on the 'big bang' project so I think the document has been put on a back-burner for now. If you read it fully you'll also see that it doesn't fully endorse many of the more exciting options, infact it endorses taking up the tracks to Marple and replacing them with a guided busway - not even a tram line! Ludicrous.

Wrong document - did you read the post?

The BRT option was requested by the DfT as they will do with any proposed tram scheme to ensure that scarce public money is spent in the most optimal way. Ask Leeds what happens when the DfT aren't happy with the assessment.

The tram-train option produced better economic results compared to the BRT hence why proposals for tram-train were progressed and prepared for a TiF bid.

As Nerd rightly says, the comments in the recent response to the NW RUS suggest that the proposals are fairly well advanced and should the TIF money become a reality then I'd expect this to be progressed quickly given that it provides metro-style service on one of the proposed charging corridors.

The line would also serve Beswick and will further boost an area of East Manchester which has received some very good news only yesterday.

Yup my mistake, I was thinking of something very similar.

I thought originaly GMPTE were applying for powers to have the the Stockport branch of the Didsbury Metrolink extension to extend from Stockport Bus Station to Marple in the future? Either way, it's looking good for Marple.

The Altrincham to Stockport tram-train route is very interesting, as this route will not only intersect with the southern alignment of the Altrincham line but will also cross (as the existing rail line does) the Manchester Airport Metrolink line at Baguley, and continue all the way to Stockport train station possibly creating a southern 'Loop' for tram-trains.

Yes, I recall reading this as well. But surely any route from Stockport to Marple would involve significant on street running. Using the dedicated former/underused railway lines directly into the city makes far more sense to me.

http://www.u-to-us.com/semm/SEMMMS%20Generic.pdf
All that is needed before the order application can be made is authorisation from the Department for Transport that the scheme meets a government economic appraisal test. Planning work has also now
started on developing two other Metrolink proposals that were in the consultants SEMMMS strategy final report. These are
for expansion of Metrolink from Stockport town centre to Marple and from Stockport town centre to the Airport.

But I wonder how much of it was Stockport Council driven - with a view to protecting the town centre. Improved access directly into the city centre would surely see many folk from marple bypassing Stockport TC altogether - working, playing and shopping in the city. Obviously these people would be less inclined to do this if they had to interchange in Stockport first.

there is much talk of tram-train in the LTP2 and GMITS documents

www.gmltp.co.uk
www.gmpta.gov.uk

tram-train implies dual-mode vehicles such as bombardier's "flexity link" that can operate on both heavy rail, and light rail lines

the points where these systems would interlink would be interesting, because the documents refer to maps which I have not been able to locate online...

IIRC the Frankfurt, Köln and Bonn systems were to use bombadier units such as the "flexity link" units that we discussed way back on page 90

A direct Metrolink route from Stockport to the Airport could also be damaging for Manchester City Centre as travellers from the south and east could change in Stockport instead of the City Centre. That is a very odd proposal, I wonder what the route is.

Yup my mistake, I was thinking of something very similar.

I thought originaly GMPTE were applying for powers to have the the Stockport branch of the Didsbury Metrolink extension to extend from Stockport Bus Station to Marple in the future? Either way, it's looking good for Marple.

The Altrincham to Stockport tram-train route is very interesting, as this route will not only intersect with the southern alignment of the Altrincham line but will also cross (as the existing rail line does) the Manchester Airport Metrolink line at Baguley, and continue all the way to Stockport train station possibly creating a southern 'Loop' for tram-trains.

My interpretation is that the inclusion of Stockport-specific proposals is something of a sop. Stockport have always opposed the upgrade of the direct Marple-Bredbury-Brinnington-Manchester line, unless there is also a link from Bredbury into Stockport town centre. And indeed that is duly mentioned in the document. But I think it is clear that the Marple-Piccadilly route is the one that will be put as a priority.

Equally, Stockport are keen to have the Metrolink line extended from East Didsbury along the Mersey valley. But this will be very high cost (it has to bridge the river three times) - and I cannot see it meeting DfT tests of economic viabillity.

Realistically Stockport should be pressing for busways rather than Metrolink.

I'm not sure that transit passengers en route to the airport make much of an economic impact in the town which they change. I'm sure that the shops at piccadilly could handle a couple of newspaper/coffee sales (most likely without even noticing). My point was that Marple residents would chose to shop/work/eat in Manchester instead of Stockport. But that is by-the-by.

I understand there is a little used freight railway line from Stockport to Altrincham that passes through Cheadle Heath and crosses (but dosn't connect with) the airport spur at Gatley. I guess that would be the obvious route for any Stockport - Airport route using a tram/train.

Isn't that the existing Chester-Altrincham-Stockport line? It carries passenger traffic too, the slow route to chester.

Just been looking here http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/stockport.html and it does seem that beyond East Didsbury the prospect of a Metrolink extension to Stockport would be a tough project, and the Marple option makes more practical sense.

Hmm, yes. I think you are right.

It's not an area I know particularly well - not as an adult anyway. I did live in Edgeley for a couple of year as a kid though - and I think that nugget of information I just regurgitated on the internet was something I picked up at the local primary school at some point in the early 80's.

I clearly recall our teacher telling us about the glory days of steam in South Manchester. The flagship Manchester (Central Station) - London service apparently made just one stop in Cheadle Heath and apparently made it to London much much quicker than the British Rail trains of the 80's. I'm sure that in his lament he told us the line had been degraded to a single track line and was 'now' used purely for freight.

Dam. Don't you just hate it when those truths you have carried with you since childhood are exposed as nothing more than fabrications and lies.

Hmm, yes. I think you are right.

It's not an area I know particularly well - not as an adult anyway. I did live in Edgeley for a couple of year as a kid though - and I think that nugget of information I just regurgitated on the internet was something I picked up at the local primary school at some point in the early 80's.

I clearly recall our teacher telling us about the glory days of steam in South Manchester. The flagship Manchester (Central Station) - London service apparently made just one stop in Cheadle Heath and apparently made it to London much much quicker than the British Rail trains of the 80's. I'm sure that in his lament he told us the line had been degraded to a single track line and was 'now' used purely for freight.

Dam. Don't you just hate it when those truths you have carried with you since childhood are exposed as nothing more than fabrications and lies.

i recon that was the line that went via chorlton. there are still remanants of it in stockport. it joined the line into piccadilly arround ashton someware

Hmm, yes. I think you are right.

It's not an area I know particularly well - not as an adult anyway. I did live in Edgeley for a couple of year as a kid though - and I think that nugget of information I just regurgitated on the internet was something I picked up at the local primary school at some point in the early 80's.

I clearly recall our teacher telling us about the glory days of steam in South Manchester. The flagship Manchester (Central Station) - London service apparently made just one stop in Cheadle Heath and apparently made it to London much much quicker than the British Rail trains of the 80's. I'm sure that in his lament he told us the line had been degraded to a single track line and was 'now' used purely for freight.

Dam. Don't you just hate it when those truths you have carried with you since childhood are exposed as nothing more than fabrications and lies.

No - your teacher was mostly right.

The Central station to London line did run through Cheadle Heath - and then non-stop to St Pancras. The Metrolink to East Didsbury follows this line down as far as the Mersey Bridge (which no longer exists). It then carried on through Hazel Grove, Disley and Buxton to Monsall Dale and then on to Derby.

The Hazel Grove to Cheadle Heath bit is still used for freight. It carries along Westwards along the Mersey valley, and joins the Altrincham lline near the Sharston refuse centre. But it goes nowhere near either Stockport or the Airport.

Off on a tangent but when the west coast line was being done there was a service that ran to London that went via the Hope Valley and then Chesterfield and then straight down through Nottingham et. It sounds a ball ache it was actually a really fast and pleasant route. Not much slower than the (old) west coast line and more picturesque.

The Hazel Grove to Cheadle Heath bit is still used for freight. It carries along Westwards along the Mersey valley, and joins the Altrincham lline near the Sharston refuse centre. But it goes nowhere near either Stockport or the Airport.

This used to be the line that ran through Stockport Tiviot Dale and on through Bredbury & on to Woodley (connecting with the railway running out to Marple). When the old M63 was being built in the early 80's (between jns 1 & 24) the railway tunnel was damaged, so the line was then taken out of use & the track lifted.

Off on a tangent but when the west coast line was being done there was a service that ran to London that went via the Hope Valley and then Chesterfield and then straight down through Nottingham et. It sounds a ball ache it was actually a really fast and pleasant route. Not much slower than the (old) west coast line and more picturesque.

I adored the couple of years that train existed; I’m originally from Wellingborough which is on the Midland Mainline route and that train took me direct from Manchester with only Stops in Stockport, Leicester, Market Harborough and Kettering in about 1:50; it was a full length 125 and the vast majority of the time it pretty much deserted, a couple of times I was literally the only person on the entire train between Leicester and Stockport, my own Royal train! By comparison the normal route, changing in Sheffield and Leicester takes 3h upwards, and that’s if the connections match smoothly. They had to make special announcements at Stockport and Leicester to make sure people didn’t end up very far from where they wanted to be, but I still saw muppets do it.

I wouldn’t hear a bad work said about the railways while that ran, who can complain at such personalised service! Ughh back to reality……

So is it just me, or has any one else found it disturbing quite how many people (especially from Manchester) have said on the casino thread something to the effect of “Cant see people getting the bus to it” or at best ”don’t you think they should build a Metrolink line out to it”. It makes me wonder if most people actually read a damn thing that’s posted here; how is it possible to be so clueless!

Thankyou guys

I really do believe there is no Manchester related question that the collective wisdom of this forum can't answer within 24 hours.

I salute you http://www.webhostingtalk.com/images/smilies/ukflag.gif

it was hell getting into town today took an hour from alty usualy takes 30 mins all due to the crack they found in the track at cornbrook so everyone who cund't get a met was getting the busses and was so annoyin all the chavs gettin on the bus and wasting time everyone was getting well annoyed

The used to be an alternative service to London that ran from Manchester Victoria not so long ago, anyone remember this?

I think it was a round the houses job that ended up in Paddington. Was basically a terminating cross country service I think, not really intended to be a Man-Lon link. Had wondered about its history though, was it like the Vegas-Stockport ghost train; running purely to pretend there was still a service?

Stockport-Vegas you mean. It doesn't ever run the other way.

Yup, had forgotten that part. Always wanted to take it but never got around to it.

So do we recon that with the casino being plonked right next to the Sportcity Metrolink station, and that station already being planned to have a town facing terminal platform, that the oft discussed possibility of Piccadilly terminal trams actually continuing to here before turning. Could provide both the stadium and the casino with an unrivalled level of service.

Yup, had forgotten that part. Always wanted to take it but never got around to it.

So do we recon that with the casino being plonked right next to the Sportcity Metrolink station, and that station already being planned to have a town facing terminal platform, that the oft discussed possibility of Piccadilly terminal trams actually continuing to here before turning. Could provide both the stadium and the casino with an unrivalled level of service.

I think it's both logical and likely that the Eccles trams will continue through to Sportcity once the East Manchester line is complete, particulary given the Casino decision and plans for Holt town.

As far as I'm aware the service pattern for Phase 3a will be very similar to what's operated now. The Bury and Altrincham services to Piccadilly will continue on to Droylsden so there will be 15 trams an hour from SportCity towards town should the Eccles service be extended. That's certainly a high quality service.

This sort of transport intergration will hugely increase the potential for business and property along its eastern gateway corridor, you may even find affluence one day in East Manny!!

I am hearing from within the GMPTA meetings exactly what Vince has said in regards to Eccles to Aston/Droylsdon but they are debating if the Oldham/Rochdale route should continue directly to the Airport and not via Piccadilly so passengers will need to change. It makes sense the Airport/Chorlton line doesn't need to directly be linked to Picc as anyone wanting to get to the Airport via Metrolink from town or further afield is best getting on the train As the Phase 3 maps show, they have almost agreed on 3 route descrirptos - Red for Oldham/Rochdale/Airport route, Green for existing Bury/Alty route and Blue for the Eccles/Ashton route - and names are in the pipelines as well as line numbers but this is going to be confirmed in the brief for the new contractors. Announcement imminent!

I've just been having a look at the company Keolis. One of the new contractors put forward to run the Metrolink after Serco are gone. Some interesting information. They are majority owned by 3i a large London Based company and SNCF(the guys who run the TGV) is a minority shareholder. 3i are one of them big investment companies who fund and buy out other companies. They operate 1/3 of French Urban Transport and operate in loads of other countries including our own. The Looks like we are in safe hands if we go with them. Or we can go with Stagecoach the Manchester Tram Haters.

I'm in the pro Keolis camp personally

Not sure about the east line but I'd guess at July 2012 for that as well -maybe 2011 for Sport City?

Chorlton (South Line)

St Peter's Square-St Werburgh's Road Jul 2011

Oldham/Rochdale Line

Victoria-New Manchester Business Park Jul 2011
New Manchester Business Park-Werneth Jul 2012
Werneth-Oldham Mumps Jul 2012
Oldham Mumps-Shaw and Crompton Jul 2012
Shaw and Crompton-Rochdale Railway Station Jul 2012

I know there is a dock-off Sainsburys and a large student halls development to stop the Fallowfield Loop from ever being again.

But, is it really that much of a ball ache to dig up a mile of asphalt?!

The tramline could carry on from chorlton; along the loop, and end with a terminus not 100 yards from the old Fallowfield Station.
(Plenty of room to add 'turn-around tracks' too)

Here-where the block of trees are. (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=St+Werburgh%27s+Road&sll=53.480732,-2.234507&sspn=0.153641,0.462799&ie=UTF8&z=17&ll=53.441043,-2.221448&spn=0.002403,0.01075&t=k&om=1)

It amazes me that this has never been proposed. Is asphalt [I]That heavy!? Really though, any clues anyone?
Surely a massive asset to the Manchester Student population and an obvious tool to help to market Manchester as 'Knowledge capital' even further.

I'm purely speculating here, but maybe this would be low on the GMPTE's priority list due to a large amount of the bus-passengers on this route only going so far as university, not to town, therefore they would be able to use a tram.

I suspect the percentage of Fallowfied-Uni journeys on the 42/43s will be even higher if the tram does get built to Wythenshaw and Didsbury.

I'd love to see it happen though - it seems such a waste of a rail-bed, and surely it would only require the most measly of tunnels to cirumnavigate sainsbury's etc..

If it went beyond Fallowfield, where would it end up? How long is the loop? I've read that Paris are constructing a 'rail ring-road' for cross-suburb jorneys, that's be nice to have, in an imaginary if-only-the-government-invested-in-public-transport kind of way.

I know there is a dock-off Sainsburys and a large student halls development to stop the Fallowfield Loop from ever being again.

But, is it really that much of a ball ache to dig up a mile of asphalt?!

The tramline could carry on from chorlton; along the loop, and end with a terminus not 100 yards from the old Fallowfield Station.
(Plenty of room to add 'turn-around tracks' too)

Here-where the block of trees are. (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=St+Werburgh%27s+Road&sll=53.480732,-2.234507&sspn=0.153641,0.462799&ie=UTF8&z=17&ll=53.441043,-2.221448&spn=0.002403,0.01075&t=k&om=1)

It amazes me that this has never been proposed. Is asphalt [I]That heavy!? Really though, any clues anyone?
Surely a massive asset to the Manchester Student population and an obvious tool to help to market Manchester as 'Knowledge capital' even further.

If it went beyond Fallowfield, where would it end up? How long is the loop?

It carries on through Gorton to a junction with the Guide Bridge line. It may be possible to link it back to Manchester either by a junction with the Marple line or by using a disused canal bed to join to the Ashton line.

Hurrar!

Manchester - Bury Line Closures:

Bury - Whitefield
Saturday 26th May - Monday 10th September

Whitefield - Crumpsall
Thursday 21st June - Monday 10th September

Crumpsall - Manchester Victoria
Monday 23rd July - Monday 10th September

Total Closure Time - 15.3 Weeks

------------------------------

Manchester - Altrincham Line Closures

Altrincham - Old Trafford
Monday 2nd July - Saturday 25th August

Old Trafford - Cornbrook
Friday 27th July - Saturday 25th August

Total Closure Time - 7.7 Weeks

This will effect FC attendances, that defo Local Lad?

I think so, i found it on another forum to do with the Steam railway at the Bury end of the Metrolink, they seem to have the inside knowledge haha.

This will effect FC attendances, that defo Local Lad?

Won't effect attendances too much. Seems most of the work is planned during the off season. I'm sure this was a consideration for the Old Trafford works.

When its finished hopefully it will be like a brand new line. It does say on the GMTE site ...

"The work to replace track on the Bury line is due to begin in May next year and to be completed by the end of September. Work on the Altrincham line is scheduled to start in July and to be finished by the end of August."

http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=103073&news_id=4553518

So those dates seem right.

I know it needs doing, but that's gonna be a major ball-ache for me - I'm on the tram to work and back each day from Bowker Vale to town - am I gonna have to get the 135 bus? :bash:

Parts of the track are up to 50 years old, not really another option. Will make the system much better and is quicker and less disruptive than piecemeal patching, which was all that happened when the lines switched to Metrolink.

Those dates were posted on here months ago, surprised its come as such a shock. I suppose it’s a shame GMPTE aren’t more widely publicising what is going to happen, why its needed and what the benefits are.

I know it needs doing, but that's gonna be a major ball-ache for me - I'm on the tram to work and back each day from Bowker Vale to town - am I gonna have to get the 135 bus? :bash:

They are putting on a bus replacement service along the routes. A proper fleet of busses as well so you shouldn't notice much difference except in the time it takes.

They are putting on a bus replacement service along the routes. A proper fleet of busses as well so you shouldn't notice much difference except in the time it takes.

Oh cool - the tram stop is 2 minutes away but the bus stop is a good 10 minute walk so that's a relief. I was also concerned that the buses would be absolutely packed with both regular bussers and us trammers cramming in.

Some info from the Bolton news
THERE'S one crumb of comfort for Metrolink passengers who face months of misery when the Bury-Manchester line closes later this year for track renewal work.

Replacement buses to ferry commuters between stations will escape disruption - because of a moratorium on roadworks along the route.

The ban was outlined by a Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) official at a meeting of Prestwich Area Board at Heaton Park Primary School on Monday.

advertisementMetrolink local authority co-ordinator Mr Roger Tripp said utility companies had been asked not to start any roadworks for the duration of the Metrolink line renewal between May and September. He added it was hoped that the frequency of buses would mirror that of the current tram services, saying: "We also hope to replicate timings of the trams as we see it today."

Mr Tripp defended the Metrolink work, stressing that some of the Bury to Manchester line was more than 50 years old in places. "We have to do it this way," he said.

The area board heard work would begin in May, leading to partial closures, before the whole line shuts between June and September.

Councillor Tim Pickstone said: "What worries me is the absolute chaos there is going to be." He inquired whether passengers using the replacement buses would have to pay the same rates as the trams but was told by Mr Tripp that the prices would be lower.

And from the GMPTE site

Will you be providing an alternative service?
Yes. We will provide replacement bus services for Metrolink customers while the work takes place. There will be some services which stop at all the Metrolink stops and some direct services between Bury and Manchester city centre and between Altrincham and the city centre. We will publish the timetable and details of where each service stops nearer to the time of the work.

Oh cool - the tram stop is 2 minutes away but the bus stop is a good 10 minute walk so that's a relief. I was also concerned that the buses would be absolutely packed with both regular bussers and us trammers cramming in.

The 135 is always packed regardless, and regularly stops picking up passengers half way through Cheetham Hill. I've heard the trams are packed also at rush hour. I wonder what the actually passengers numbers are for this corridor?

I hope they increase capacity from Bury to Manchester, because there's nothing so sure as that they could fill it up.

The 135 is always packed regardless, and regularly stops picking up passengers half way through Cheetham Hill. I've heard the trams are packed also at rush hour. I wonder what the actually passengers numbers are for this corridor?

I hope they increase capacity from Bury to Manchester, because there's nothing so sure as that they could fill it up.

Yep - can't argue with that - used to get the 135 to school in Bury too. Standing room only - for this I have to thank for my shapely calves.

The 135 is always packed regardless, and regularly stops picking up passengers half way through Cheetham Hill. I've heard the trams are packed also at rush hour. I wonder what the actually passengers numbers are for this corridor?

I hope they increase capacity from Bury to Manchester, because there's nothing so sure as that they could fill it up.

Not sure, but you can tell the Bury line is the busiest of all three lines, I just wish the Alty line was as reliable. I usually see three Bury trams going north before just one turns up for the Alty line, I'm going to bloody move to Bury It is probably quicker to get to Bury than Sale. Doesn't Bury have 2 express bus services as well -the number 90 and the X35. I once got the bus home when the Alty line was off one night last year , never again it took me over an hour to get back to Sale, there is no express bus service from Sale to the city.

I have seen the X35 bus service on the motorway it looks bloody quick, I reckon the X35 service could give the Bury tram a run for it's money on a good day. Anyone up for the challenge ? :banana:

Not sure, but you can tell the Bury line is the busiest of all three lines, I just wish the Alty line was as reliable.

More passengers on the Altrincham line than the Bury Line. Take a look at Page 86/87 in this report. Page 78 is also a good one!

http://www.gmtu.gov.uk/reports/gmtu_report_1138_transport_statistics_greater_manchester_2005.pdf

More passengers on the Altrincham line than the Bury Line. Take a look at Page 86/87 in this report. Page 78 is also a good one!

http://www.gmtu.gov.uk/reports/gmtu_report_1138_transport_statistics_greater_manchester_2005.pdf

Good work Vince, I'm dreading them taking the trams off! I would presume once the new tracks are done and new vehicles sourced that we can expect a more reliable service other than on match days at OT.:lol:

Good work Vince, I'm dreading them taking the trams off! I would presume once the new tracks are done and new vehicles sourced that we can expect a more reliable service other than on match days at OT.:lol:

Hopefully. The quality of the track is terrible on the Bury line - the ride quality is shockingly bad for a supposed modern rapid transit system. The new trams should reduce overcrowding but I'm not sure how long the resulting spare capacity will last. I don't use the metrolink regularly, certainly not in the peak times, but I have a good idea from speaking to others how badly overcrowded it can be. It wouldn't suprise me that there are a lot of people who would like to use metrolink but don't due to the uncertainity/stress of getting on a overcrowded tram and poor reliability.

If you improve capacity and reliability then some of those people which currently avoid Metrolink will return and before long you're back to where you started with overcrowding. It's intersting to note that patronage on the Bury line peaked around 1998/1999 and has actaully been in decline for some time, particularly the inner stations where patronage is almost down to 1992 levels. (see table 83/page 88)

Having commuted from Timperley to Town Monday to Friday last year I have to say that while in someways the Met is a brilliant system it's capacity constraints at rush hour are a travesty. I've commuted on the tube before (and will soon be doing so again, joy of joys) and have never encountered anyting as bad as having to physically wedge myself inside the door at St Peter's Square.

Thinking about the number of commuters from the Altrincham area who still drive and the aspiration of forcing them on to public transport, is the metrolink feasible long term. I don't want to start another dreary "Let's build a super powered magic magnetic lazer undeground super metro for £5" discussion, but want to know what practical measures could be taken to allow metrolink to keep functioning at acceptable levels, were ridership to increase for the next 25 years?

Having commuted from Timperley to Town Monday to Friday last year I have to say that while in someways the Met is a brilliant system it's capacity constraints at rush hour are a travesty. I've commuted on the tube before (and will soon be doing so again, joy of joys) and have never encountered anyting as bad as having to physically wedge myself inside the door at St Peter's Square.

Thinking about the number of commuters from the Altrincham area who still drive and the aspiration of forcing them on to public transport, is the metrolink feasible long term. I don't want to start another dreary "Let's build a super powered magic magnetic lazer undeground super metro for £5" discussion, but want to know what practical measures could be taken to allow metrolink to keep functioning at acceptable levels, were ridership to increase for the next 25 years?

Buy some more trams?
Mad idea i know but it might just work!

Sorry, I should have clarified, how many trams can you fit on any line before the whole system grinds to a halt. And then what do you do? Greater capacity encourages demand. When we have eight new trams full up, and no space in the city centre because of the new lines, are their longer trams, or new routes, or more demand management, or a magical rainbow bridge down Deansgate.

Buy some more trams?
Mad idea i know but it might just work!

It would certainly work in the sense that it would increase capacity and reduce overcrowding in the peaks but what's more difficult is making it work economically. When public money is spent it has to be shown to be value for money.

Lets say that a strategic decision was taken by the PTA to ensure every service that is operated in the peaks consisted of 2 trams coupled together. The financial benefit would be an increase in operational revenue due to an increase in patronage. The cost would be the purchase and operating costs of x additional trams.

The additional revenue generated through extra capacity is not that large - what you are doing is effectively providing more space and less stressful conditions for existing passengers (which is a benefit which is hard to quantify financially) and attracting some new journeys (increased revenue).

This then has to be compared with the cost of purchasing the vehicles and their ongoing operational costs. The government considers a benefit to cost ratio of 2:1 to be good value for money. The provision of extra trams is unlikely to reach this level, hence why it is commonplace to see overcrowding on any UK rail/tram network. Thankyou to Mr Brown and his micro-management at the Treasury.

Is reduced road congestion not counted as a benefit?

Sorry, I should have clarified, how many trams can you fit on any line before the whole system grinds to a halt. And then what do you do? Greater capacity encourages demand. When we have eight new trams full up, and no space in the city centre because of the new lines, are their longer trams, or new routes, or more demand management, or a magical rainbow bridge down Deansgate.

I guess you improve the signalling so you can carry more trams, which is what they are doing on the Jubilee line in London but any line will have a natural capacity on that system even with the best signalling in the world, and if that capacity is reached then great from the angle it is being used and gives Manchester a great business case for more lines.

In terms of economic assessments, reduced road congestion is a NEGATIVE benefit. This is because less cars means less fuel consumption means less tax for the government means negative number goes in the appraisal box. Also, the remaining cars on the network move more quickly. They therefore operate closer to there optimum efficiency (usually around 50mph) and consume less fuel per mile. This is also a negative number in the box.

Sad but true

In terms of economic assessments, reduced road congestion is a NEGATIVE benefit. This is because less cars means less fuel consumption means less tax for the government means negative number goes in the appraisal box. Also, the remaining cars on the network move more quickly. They therefore operate closer to there optimum efficiency (usually around 50mph) and consume less fuel per mile. This is also a negative number in the box.

Sad but true


I'm not sure this is an issue though.
The government has virtually banished smoking despite it having been a huge income for the government. I think it's also fair to say that the campaign to reduce smoking has been a great success story for the goverment, so just maybe they will succeed in weening us off cars as well.

I'm thinking petrolium patches.

Horses and carts are carbon neutral, and a regular h & c shuttle service between Prestwich and Sale would ensure that the financial/revenue benefit to the PTA would be immense and the Treasury would only have to provide the cost of a few fillies and sit back and wait for the tax to roll in.....perfect micro-managerial brilliance.

Horses and carts are carbon neutral, and a regular h & c shuttle service between Prestwich and Sale would ensure that the financial/revenue benefit to the PTA would be immense and the Treasury would only have to provide the cost of a few fillies and sit back and wait for the tax to roll in.....perfect micro-managerial brilliance.

You could also offset the cost of carrots by selling the equine post-colonic waste.

Sorry, I should have clarified, how many trams can you fit on any line before the whole system grinds to a halt. And then what do you do? Greater capacity encourages demand. When we have eight new trams full up, and no space in the city centre because of the new lines, are their longer trams, or new routes, or more demand management, or a magical rainbow bridge down Deansgate.

Good question, I've vaguely read proposals for a second cross-city line to cope with future numbers.

I wonder what the viability would be in replacing city centre lines underground?

When the current fleet of trams needs replacing I'd imagine longer trams would be scoped out.

Does anyone think the Metrolink should eventually absorb the rest of the Greater Manchester heavy rail suburban services?

Kind of make it Manchester's answer to the Karlsruhe S-Bahn.

Good question, I've vaguely read proposals for a second cross-city line to cope with future numbers.

I wonder what the viability would be in replacing city centre lines underground?

When the current fleet of trams needs replacing I'd imagine longer trams would be scoped out.

Does anyone think the Metrolink should eventually absorb the rest of the Greater Manchester heavy rail suburban services?

Kind of make it Manchester's answer to the Karlsruhe S-Bahn.

As Longford says - the easy anwer is to buy more trams,

- and that - very late in the day - is exactly what is being done,; in that the PTA has approved the purchase of an additional 8 tram units specfically meet peak-time capacity, and the contract is out to tender. We are expecting the winning provider to be announced very soon.

The system is currently designed to operate throughout with linked twin tram units, but at the moment there are no more than 2 'spares' available for dual running. With the extra 8, his would allow 10 tram services in each peak-hour to be run with linked units.

Doing a bit of calculation around the illustrative figures given for the Phase 3a and 3b, I would estimate that the scope for linked unit running would then rise to about 18.

As to whether the trams could replace the heavy rail commuter services, that appears at the moment to depend on demonstrating the viablility of tram-train i.e. tram-style vehicles that can run under diesel power over railway tracks, and overhead power on tram tracks.

But of course, that would rule out any idea of putting Metrolink underground, as diesel vehicles cannot be used safely in underground stations.

As to whether the trams could replace the heavy rail commuter services, that appears at the moment to depend on demonstrating the viablility of tram-train i.e. tram-style vehicles that can run under diesel power over railway tracks, and overhead power on tram tracks.

But of course, that would rule out any idea of putting Metrolink underground, as diesel vehicles cannot be used safely in underground stations.

What about additional OHE?

Sorry, I realise we live in a financially constrained country when it comes to transport investment.

Does anyone think the Metrolink should eventually absorb the rest of the Greater Manchester heavy rail suburban services?

Kind of make it Manchester's answer to the Karlsruhe S-Bahn.

If the existing cross-city lines were used to better effect, by which I mean Ardwick through to Deansgate/Salford Crescent and Ardwick to Victoria/Salford Quays via Sportcity, there'd be no need for tram-train/Metrolink absorption/underground.

With electrification, metro/S-bahn frequencies across much of the heavy rail network, proper clearly-defined interchange stations, and greatly increased park-and-ride facilities and new stations, there'd be a huge exponential increase in patronage.

It wouldn't cost nearly as much as other more grandiose schemes, and would have the same effect. Manchester's heavy rail network needs only a 15 or 10 minute off-peak frequency to achieve this.

If the existing cross-city lines were used to better effect, by which I mean Ardwick through to Deansgate/Salford Crescent and Ardwick to Victoria/Salford Quays via Sportcity, there'd be no need for tram-train/Metrolink absorption/underground.

With electrification, metro/S-bahn frequencies across much of the heavy rail network, proper clearly-defined interchange stations, and greatly increased park-and-ride facilities and new stations, there'd be a huge exponential increase in patronage.

It wouldn't cost nearly as much as other more grandiose schemes, and would have the same effect. Manchester's heavy rail network needs only a 15 or 10 minute off-peak frequency to achieve this.

Heavy rail upgrading of that sort is prohibitively expensive - compared to light rail/trams. That is why it is called "heavy rail" - the infrastructure has to satisfy much higher standards of operating speed and vehicle weight.

Added to which Network Rail (Railtrack as was) employ the most risk-averse lawyers in the business - so even a simple bus-stop style shelter will cost a hundred thousand to erect.

And even when built, heavy rail outside London invariably requires a continuing operating subsidy to hold ticket prices down to economic levels. The nice thing about trams (from the perspective of pollicymakers) is that once the capital cost is paid for, they can be planned to run at a profit.

Earlier in this thread is a report of a study done on the Marple to Piccadilly route - showing that the tram-train option was economically feasible - where the counterpart heavy rail upgrade was not.

Earlier in this thread is a report of a study done on the Marple to Piccadilly route - showing that the tram-train option was economically feasible - where the counterpart heavy rail upgrade was not.

All very true nerd, but I have a general principled problem with 'economic feasibility' and 'public transport' as being connected in some way. Of course, post-Thatcher, everything has to be subject to an economic feasibility test, and with the possible exception of spending gargantuan amounts of money on anything connected with war and destruction, very little is deemed feasible.

We're constantly being told that we can't afford increasing congestion, and yet we also can't afford the right of mobility provided by good public transport. We can't afford to leave the house, and that confuses the hell out of me.:hammer:

If Gtr Manchester experienced a three-fold increase in rail patronage, would heavy rail still require a prohibitive operating subsidy? It's a rhetorical question, but I doubt it.

All very true nerd, but I have a general principled problem with 'economic feasibility' and 'public transport' as being connected in some way. Of course, post-Thatcher, everything has to be subject to an economic feasibility test, and with the possible exception of spending gargantuan amounts of money on anything connected with war and destruction, very little is deemed feasible.

We're constantly being told that we can't afford increasing congestion, and yet we also can't afford the right of mobility provided by good public transport. We can't afford to leave the house, and that confuses the hell out of me.:hammer:

If Gtr Manchester experienced a three-fold increase in rail patronage, would heavy rail still require a prohibitive operating subsidy? It's a rhetorical question, but I doubt it.

Heavy rail in Greater Manchester is now running at close to - and indeed over - full capacity at peak times along most routes; and given the restrictions on the infrastructure - and the expansion of inter-city rail travel - there is little scope for expanison without enormous investment. Essentially, something like a Manchester Cross-rail to double the capacity of the viaduct between Piccadilly and Deansgate.

The attraction of tram-train is that it takes traffic off this highly congested inner network, and puts it onto the Metrolink, which has much greater spare track capacity - and at much less cost.

We cannot provide all the puplic transport that people want - so we need to put investment into the forms that suits most of the people most of the time. That essentially means priority bus-routes and trams.

Heavy rail in Greater Manchester is now running at close to - and indeed over - full capacity at peak times along most routes; and given the restrictions on the infrastructure - and the expansion of inter-city rail travel - there is little scope for expanison without enormous investment. Essentially, something like a Manchester Cross-rail to double the capacity of the viaduct between Piccadilly and Deansgate.

The attraction of tram-train is that it takes traffic off this highly congested inner network, and puts it onto the Metrolink, which has much greater spare track capacity - and at much less cost.

We cannot provide all the puplic transport that people want - so we need to put investment into the forms that suits most of the people most of the time. That essentially means priority bus-routes and trams.

Yep. The last time I was in Amsterdam my jaw dropped when I saw the infrastructure provided at Duivendrecht and Amsterdam Zuid, which I think allow trains on the busy Weesp - Den Haag corridor to bypass Centraal Station. I think we just have to accept that this is not how we do things in the UK! Having said that, rail provision in Manchester has improved dramatically in the last 20 years, but seemingly with the minimum of development funds.

I was just thinking with my proposal (for a Manchester light-rail S-Bahn network) that seeing as the trams already serve places a fair hike from the city centre there is little/no point having heavy-rail trains doing the same aswell. So let the trams run to places such as Glossop, Bolton, Buxton, Wilmslow etc. Could run stoppers and express services to get the right balance of speed and accessibility.

Yep. The last time I was in Amsterdam my jaw dropped when I saw the infrastructure provided at Duivendrecht and Amsterdam Zuid, which I think allow trains on the busy Weesp - Den Haag corridor to bypass Centraal Station. I think we just have to accept that this is not how we do things in the UK! Having said that, rail provision in Manchester has improved dramatically in the last 20 years, but seemingly with the minimum of development funds.

Main factors are:

- the frequency of the service.
- the speed of the service.
- the intervals between stops.

these substantially determine a key variable - the distance that commuters will walk to catch a service. Most bus commuters live within 400 metres of their bus stop. Tram commuters will walk more than twice as far - 800 metres or more (mainly because they can make up extra walking time by the increased speed of their journey). Train commuters will walk a bit further still, but not much.

Against that, bus-stops are usually set around 100 - 150 metres apart, tram stops are usually 500 to 1,000 metres apart (Metrolink stop intervals are unusually wide). Commuter train stations are more usually 1.5 to 3 km apart - although characteristically intervals tend to increase in the inner suburbs (as the old railway companies tried to discourage working people from riding their trains).

It is fairly simple geometry to see that - assuming that the population is evenly spread - running buses, trams and trains along the same alignment; trams have the maximum residential population accessibility, with buses a little more than half as accessible - and trains some way behind still.

A similar calcualtion applies for the workplace accessibility; again commuters will walk roughly twice as far from a tram-stop in town to their place of work, as they would from a bus-stop. Train commuters tend to have further to walk, and car commuters will often walk even further i.e. from their car-park to their workplace.

It is this combination of high levels of residential accessibility and workplace accessibility; that particularly favours trams in urban environments such as Manchester - and results in the conclusion that, for a given level of investment, the greatest increase in passenger patronage is likely to come from investment in tram services.

I visited Manchester last month and rode the Metrolink from Altrincham to Bury. It is starting to show considerable wear and tear but when you realize it's been chugging along for about 17 years with none to minimal upkeep, it's nothing short of an urban miracle.
I travelled out of the peak times but it's plain to see that this is a well-used and needed system in Gtr Mcr. The tracks between Victoria and Bury were the old electric line which goes back about a hundred years. This is quite evident as it can be 'white knuckles' especially the section in Prestwich between Heaton Park and Whitefield where it felt like a fairground ride.
I hope they upgrade this before we have a 'derailment event'.;)
All in all I have to congratulate Metrolink for hanging in vehemently for the much needed funding for upgrades and more importantly, expansion to the other metro districts.
I'm not sure if Metrolink has a need to include the airport though as I also rode the silky-smooth (and frequent) electric service to Piccadilly. You are extremely fortunate for MAN to have a mainline rail station right in the airport.
I have friends and neighbors from Yorkshire, the midlands and the northeast who always opt for MAN when flying from Toronto because of the rail links.
It truly is a priceless asset that is probably little appreciated locally.

I was in Cologne last week, great trams, tickets available onboard, always two units coupled together, moveable steps, bigger than ours and underground sections in the city centre, we really could learn from the Germans again.

^^ Eh up Mozza.
Did you ever make it to Berlin? Same story there with regard to clockwork transport.

^^ Eh up Mozza.
Did you ever make it to Berlin? Same story there with regard to clockwork transport.

I have been to Berlin, the public transport there is excellent.

I'm not sure if Metrolink has a need to include the airport though as I also rode the silky-smooth (and frequent) electric service to Piccadilly.

It truly is a priceless asset that is probably little appreciated locally.

I see what you mean but places like Chorlton and Wythenshawe needs Metrolink to go to the Airport and it has more financial backing and private sector support that way.

Totally agree with you re the Airport rail station, and it is beggining to be used more and more by local people in the Wythenshawe area, I use it myself to get to work from Salford every day.

If there ever had been a derailment (touch wood it never happens, especially before the line upgrade), but if there was one, would the government have been liable due to their under inverstment in the system? Or Serco/GMPTE?

That bit of line between Bury and Prestwich is horribly un nerving, and its obvious that it needed upgrading years ago.

When I sit there being rattled to fuck on my way to FC, I start feeling really resentful towards Tony Blair and Mr Darling. Am i wrong to?

The tram has derailed a few times in Salford quays (Ordsal lane/trafford road).

That was mostly the fault of large refuse trucks though. So technically it's SCC's fault

I've asked for the meeting minutes that are the third condition for approval for Phase 3a.

Below is a year old and taken from http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2007/january07/foimetrolinksys/pdfmetrolinkinfoapplet

it shows how constrained the PTE is by the DfT and how many hoops they have to job through to get the money required.


Geoff Inskip
Deputy Director General and
Director of Finance
Greater Manchester PTE
9 Portland Street
Piccadilly Gardens
Manchester
M60 1HX
Dear Geoff
MANCHESTER METROLINK PHASE 3A - ROCHDALE, OLDHAM AND CHORLTON
ROUTE
This letter is to inform GMPTE that the Secretary of State has agreed the joint
Programme Entry and Conditional Approval of the Rochdale, Oldham and Chorlton Route
within the DfT's Local Authority Major Schemes. This route forms part of GMPTE's
Manchester Metrolink Phase 3A proposals. As part of their Phase 3A proposals, GMPTE
intend to include work on the East Line to Droylsden which they intend to fund wholly
themselves.
This letter sets out the terms on which Conditional Approval is agreed and the conditions
which must be satisfied prior to Full Approval.
In agreeing this Conditional Approval the Department is undertaking, subject to the
conditions set out in this letter, to provide £244 million in grant funding towards the
construction of the scheme as described in your updated Major Scheme Business Case
dated May 2006, provided that:-
• the total cost of the project, following procurement, does not exceed £372m plus
up to 18% additional to cover optimism bias.
• the scope of the project remains unchanged
• the balance of financial risks between the public and private sector remain
unchanged
• you submit a compliant bid for Full Approval by April 2008 as described below.
Funding Level
The central Government funding contribution for the Rochdale, Oldham and Chorlton
Route, in line with your latest bid, is £244m in cash terms. This is based on a total capital
cost of £372m as set out in section C13 of your procurement and funding paper dated 9
June.
Alison Munro
Regional and Local Major Projects
Department for Transport
Room 3/16d
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SWIP 4DR
7 JULY 2006
Conditions
This offer is made subject to the following conditions
First, the offer of funding represents the Department's maximum contribution. Any
additional costs above the funding cap of £244m, for whatever reason incurred, will
need to be met locally.
Second, you must notify the Department immediately if, at any time, the estimated
total cost of the scheme rises above £372m, with details of the revised cost total
and confirm within one month of this notification whether or not you have the
intention and the means to meet the increase and, if so, provide details of how the
additional costs are to be funded. GMPTE must notify the Department immediately
if this subsequently changes. If the total cost estimate increases, even if only to
the local authorities concerned, before full approval is granted, the DfT may require
a re-appraisal to establish that the scheme still offers value for money for public
funds.
Third, in taking the scheme forward, the Department will expect to be kept informed
of the development of the programme. We will therefore have monthly project
meetings starting in August 2006. You will be responsible for providing a project
report seven days in advance of each meeting. The format of this report will be
agreed at the first meeting. We will also agree, at the first meeting, appropriate
timings for future meetings.
Fourth, you must notify the Department immediately in the event of any significant
changes to the scope of the project, or to any factors relevant to its value for
money case. Any of these changes may trigger the requirement to re-appraise the
scheme, although with the Department's agreement this re-appraisal may be
merged with the application for Full Approval.
Fifth, you will be required to carry out an evaluation of the success of the project
and to make the results of this evaluation available to the Department. It is likely
that the evaluation will be published. It will be the promoters' responsibility to
collect the necessary pre and post implementation information to carry out a robust
evaluation. The scope of the evaluation will be subject to the Department's
agreement prior to full scheme approval.
Sixth, we would expect you to discuss your proposals with the Department's
Mobility and Inclusion Unit (MIU) as soon as possible. Their early input can help to
ensure that all accessibility issues are addressed for the whole scheme. The
contact point in the MIU is John Bengough and he can be contacted on 020 7944
5035.
Seventh, given the relatively small number of light rail schemes being taken
forward in England, there is a need to ensure that relevant experience and
expertise is captured and made available for all future scheme promoters. It is
therefore a condition of approval that, so far as lawful, promoters share their
knowledge and experience with other potential promoters in response to
reasonable requests.
Eighth, in procuring the Phase 3A infrastructure, GMPTE intend also to seek to
obtain firm option prices for the proposed Phase 3B works. It is a condition of our
approval that GMPTE will select the successful contractors for Phase 3A based on
the bids for this element alone and that DfT will have transparency on this
assessment.
Ninth, if full approval is subsequently granted, central Government funding granted
under that approval must not be used to support any funding on the East Line. In
procuring the Phase 3A infrastructure we will require transparency as to exactly
where central Government's expenditure is being used. It is a condition of our
approval that GMPTE require bidders to provide separate costs for each line.
Central Government's funding will be allocated on achieving specific milestone
payments associated with the Rochdale, Oldham and Chorlton Route and the core
network modifications that arise from that route only. It is also a condition of our
approval that GMPTE maintains appropriate records to identify where and to what
purpose central Government funding is used.
Tenth, GMPTE must use a tried and tested project management tool and must not
launch any procurement until DfT has confirmed in writing that it is content with
GMPTE's approach to delivery. In addition, before launching any procurement,
GMPTE must undertake a Gateway 2 review, and confirm to the Department that
they have taken appropriate action to address any recommendations.
Eleventh, before we grant full approval, we will require letters from the PTE and the
PTA as well as S151 Officers of each of the Greater Manchester authorities, in
accordance with a template to be provided by DfT, confirming that they:
understand that central Government funding is capped; undertake not to come
back to the Department for additional funding; and accept that the PTE, PTA and
districts are together responsible for addressing any cost increases. In providing
these letters, S151 officers and the PTA should be made aware that the
Department has not carried out any due diligence work on the costs as presented
to us by GMPTE. In respect of the PTA and PTE letters, we will require
confirmation that the person signing each letter has the appropriate authority to
bind that body.
Twelfth, before we grant full approval, we will require evidence that all the
elements of the funding package are in place - including the ability of GMPTE to
prudentially borrow the sums they require.
Thirteenth, all future costs incurred on the development of the scheme remain at
the promoters' risk.
In relation to the above conditions, GMPTE must answer all questions that we may
reasonably put to it and provide information in response in a timely manner.
If any of the conditions outlined above are breached, the Department reserves the right to
withdraw approval of the scheme. If full approval is subsequently granted it may be subject
to further conditions. These are likely to include conditions as to the circumstances under
which grant payments may cease or may be suspended or under which the grant monies
may become repayable.
Within four weeks of the date of this letter, we will require written confirmation from the
PTA and the PTE that each body is content to accept Conditional Approval for the
Rochdale, Oldham and Chorlton Route according to the terms of this letter. We will
require confirmation that the person signing each letter has the appropriate authority to
bind that body.
Application for Full Approval
You are invited to make a further application for Full Approval which should include:-
• A brief report of the tender exercise with details of the preferred bidders firm and
final offer. This should include details of the allocation of financial risks and
liabilities.
• A revised estimated total scheme cost in light of the prices obtained following
procurement.
• Evidence that all the elements of the funding package are in place - including the
ability of GMPTE to prudentially borrow the sums they require.
• Letters from the PTE and PTA as well as the S151 Officers of each of the Greater
Manchester authorities confirming that they: understand that our funding is capped;
undertake not to come back to the Department for additional funding; and accept
that the PTE, PTA and districts are together responsible for addressing any cost
increases.
• Your confirmation that the broad scope and design of the scheme remain
unaltered, with details of any minor changes resulting from the detailed design and
procurement process.
• Your approach to monitoring and evaluation of the scheme.
• An up to date risk register and project plan with milestones.
• Your confirmation that other aspects of the Major Scheme Business Case (as
submitted with your bid for Conditional Approval) remain current, with revisions to
any areas that do not.
• Confirmation that a Gateway 3 Review has been completed and the necessary
remedial action has been taken in respect of any recommendations.
• Your confirmation and that of the PTA, that you take full responsibility to bear any
further increases in cost following Full Approval.
Finally
We look forward to continuing to work with you on this project.
Yours
Alison Munro

Something's just occurred to me. Maybe somebody can answer this.

If phase 3a includes the conversion of the Oldham/Rochdale line, and not access to either town centre, does this mean that they'll erect overhead gantries between Oldham Werneth and Mumps, only then to take them down after phase 3b??

If that's the case, it seems to be an incredible waste of money.

Something's just occurred to me. Maybe somebody can answer this.

If phase 3a includes the conversion of the Oldham/Rochdale line, and not access to either town centre, does this mean that they'll erect overhead gantries between Oldham Werneth and Mumps, only then to take them down after phase 3b??

If that's the case, it seems to be an incredible waste of money.

Don't worry they'll get a good 30 years use.

I think it would be wise to keep both routes in the future. I mean lets face it, you will have already been sat on the tram for at least 45 mins to an hour before reaching Oldham thanks to all those stations they want to open. At least people wanting to travel beyond Oldham will have some "express running" through the tunnels.

I think that is the idea.

They want to keep the 'express' route open, so not all trams go on the streets in Oldham, even when Phase 3b is open.

From memory, one of the 'headaches' on the oldham line is there is a tunnel in between Mumps and Werneth that is only just high enough right in the middle for the cables / pantograph etc, as such, there will need to be a single track section through the tunnel, with the trams running right down the middle of the tunnel, unlike what happens at the moment with the diesel trains running side by side.

I used the Metrolink to and from Old Trafford today! Never again it was a fucking joke! Its just not suitable. There we 1000s of people queuing down Warwick Road. The Manchester side was miles worse. I left just after the game ended and got to the front but I still waited 15 minutes on the platform before I could get on a tram. Every tram that came was nearly full!! The government need to sort them self's out and get us more and bigger trams. Why do people use cars? because they have their own space its as simple as that.

I used the Metrolink to and from Old Trafford today! Never again it was a fucking joke! Its just not suitable. There we 1000s of people queuing down Warwick Road. The Manchester side was miles worse. I left just after the game ended and got to the front but I still waited 15 minutes on the platform before I could get on a tram. Every tram that came was nearly full!! The government need to sort them self's out and get us more and bigger trams. Why do people use cars? because they have their own space its as simple as that.
^^ andy, I doubt there's a transit system on the entire fucking planet that could cope with 76,000 emptying out of a football stadium.

I realise all of them aren't on public transport but even one quarter of a crowd that big would be hard to shift in a hurry....

^^ andy, I doubt there's a transit system on the entire fucking planet that could cope with 76,000 emptying out of a football stadium.

I realise all of them aren't on public transport but even one quarter of a crowd that big would be hard to shift in a hurry....

True but, double trams and an increased service for an hour before the game and half an hour afterwards would make it a hell of a lot better.

True but, double trams and an increased service for an hour before the game and half an hour afterwards would make it a hell of a lot better.
There used to be a time when they provided extra 'match' buses. Are you telling me that they don't do that anymore?

I used the Metrolink to and from Old Trafford today! Never again it was a fucking joke! Its just not suitable.

They need to get that train station up and running.
Man United has it's own train station platform!

^^ andy, I doubt there's a transit system on the entire fucking planet that could cope with 76,000 emptying out of a football stadium.

I realise all of them aren't on public transport but even one quarter of a crowd that big would be hard to shift in a hurry....

The Northern Line on the London Underground carries nearly a million people per weekday. It's very possible to handle that sort of volume of passengers - not with tiny trams though.

There used to be a time when they provided extra 'match' buses. Are you telling me that they don't do that anymore?

No, there ARE extra match buses as well - all rammed and stuck in traffic. The easiest way (for me) to get to and from the match is by car. But I like a drink or two before the game so I'm stuck with public transport. The car being the better option is a bit shit when I live 5 minutes from a tram stop (Prestwich) and am going somewhere with several tram stop options (Exchange Quay, Trafford Bar, Old Trafford).

Same applies with work (Piccadilly) but, booze isn't an issue there, so I drive. Easier and cheaper than our very poor tram service.

^^ andy, I doubt there's a transit system on the entire fucking planet that could cope with 76,000 emptying out of a football stadium.

I realise all of them aren't on public transport but even one quarter of a crowd that big would be hard to shift in a hurry....

Mate you don't understand how much of a joke it was! A tram turned up and guess what? It was already full! The next one that came along was petty full as well but as I am me, I pushed on. 1000s of people where queuing down past the cricket ground to try and get a tram. I go every game and I normally take the car but I couldn't yesterday. Everyone was complaining about there not being enough trams. The day we get those 8 new trams will be a great day for Manchester.

The thing is SMP, if you attend a major stadium event in most continental cities, trains/trams/buses are actually waiting for the emerging crowd. I have been amazed at the scale of preperation for crowd disapation in Barca, Rotterdam, Munich and Amsterdam. We lag behind woefully, so to speak!

Yesterday was weird. It isnt usually that bad after the game. I had a drink afterwards and got to OT station about 1545 and the queue was huge, and wasnt moving. So I walked over to Pomona and waited but every tram was packed. In the end I got on a Eccles bound tram and changed at Salford Quays to come back on myself.

It's only a 25 minute walk to the city center you know!

There was also no public transport for maine road.

I think that is the idea.

They want to keep the 'express' route open, so not all trams go on the streets in Oldham, even when Phase 3b is open.

From memory, one of the 'headaches' on the oldham line is there is a tunnel in between Mumps and Werneth that is only just high enough right in the middle for the cables / pantograph etc, as such, there will need to be a single track section through the tunnel, with the trams running right down the middle of the tunnel, unlike what happens at the moment with the diesel trains running side by side.

I didn't know this (and I'd forgotten the word for a pantograph too!). It makes good sense seeing as Mumps has got quite a decent amount of parking space.

Mate you don't understand how much of a joke it was! A tram turned up and guess what? It was already full! The next one that came along was petty full as well but as I am me, I pushed on. 1000s of people where queuing down past the cricket ground to try and get a tram. I go every game and I normally take the car but I couldn't yesterday. Everyone was complaining about there not being enough trams. The day we get those 8 new trams will be a great day for Manchester.

They need to use them for the stops around OT only though on a matchday at the times (say an hour) after the match (before isn't really a problem). Basically, they don't stop anywhere before they either hit Trafford Bar, Old Trafford, or Exchange Quay in whatever direction they are going.

The first freight trains delivering materials for the renewal of Manchester's Metrolink tram network have started regular operations.

Under a contract awarded by Carillion on behalf of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE), EWS Network will provide engineering trains for the upgrade of nearly 20 miles of track between Bury and Manchester Victoria, and between Altrincham and Trafford Park stations.

EWS Network will adapt its normal engineering services used on the traditional rail network for this contract. Tailor made operations with unique specialist equipment will be used for the renewal of the MetroLink by GMPTE as part of their £102 million investment in the network.

Over the coming months until late September 2007, EWS Network will operate freight trains for the haulage of ballast, railway sleepers and rails for stockpiling leading up to the start of upgrade work on the track. EWS Network will then provide locomotives, wagons and train drivers to work within the parts of the network closed for the upgrade. This includes specialist locomotives that can operate within the restricted clearances on the Metrolink network.

Mick Tinsley, EWS Network Market Manager Rail Industry Services, said: "This is an important renewal project for Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. The skills EWS Network has on the railway will be utilised to deliver innovative and value led services on the tram network. By using specialist machinery to fit within the unique size of parts of the tram network, we will be able to deliver to GMPTE and Carillion a full and reliable service as part of the overall project."

Mr Tinsley continued: "GMPTE, Carillion and EWS Network are visiting schools to warn children of the dangers of trespassing on a busy construction site. With the Easter holidays fast approaching we look to parents to remind their children of the dangers of trespass. The message is simple. Stay safe and keep off construction sites and the railway."

http://www.ews-network.co.uk/media_press7.html

The Northern Line on the London Underground carries nearly a million people per weekday. It's very possible to handle that sort of volume of passengers - not with tiny trams though.

Totally agree with you. But it's possible to grow. GMPTE need to think bigger in terms of longer term planning.

They need to consider trams with 4,5,6 carriages. It's a shame they can't even sort out getting just one extra compartment added to the middle of the existing trams apparently due to 'safety/fire risk'. One day I reckon this could happen and will certainly make the system more efficient and attractive.

Although we all know double trams work very well, I suspect they will have more joined units once they get the new trams.

Does anyone else think i'st a really bad example of common sense when you consider the number of light rail/mass transit systems in the country and in Europe that could have been planned to be a little more interchangeable with eachother? For example if the same types of trams and platforms could be used by different cities they could share maintainance costs and supply old units to other cities that need them? Like the S-Bahn in Germany.

Totally agree with you. But it's possible to grow. GMPTE need to think bigger in terms of longer term planning.

They need to consider trams with 4,5,6 carriages. It's a shame they can't even sort out getting just one extra compartment added to the middle of the existing trams apparently due to 'safety/fire risk'. One day I reckon this could happen and will certainly make the system more efficient and attractive.

Although we all know double trams work very well, I suspect they will have more joined units once they get the new trams.

Does anyone else think i'st a really bad example of common sense when you consider the number of light rail/mass transit systems in the country and in Europe that could have been planned to be a little more interchangeable with eachother? For example if the same types of trams and platforms could be used by different cities they could share maintainance costs and supply old units to other cities that need them? Like the S-Bahn in Germany.

there does seem some interchangeability happening by market operations.

Hence the Bombaidier Flexity Swift high-floor units for Cologne have also been ordered by Bonn (if the Bonn order had been intended to be fulfulled a bit quicker, Metrolink had put in an offer for old units). Similar units are on order for Frankfurt - and are widely believed to be one of the two designs being considered for the current Metrolink contract.

A feature of the Bombardier design is that standard (and reversible) powered end units are linked by a short middle section sitting on an unpowered bogie. Depending on the needs of a particular system, the central section can be made shorter or longer - but the powered units are mechanically interchangeable.

The partial low-floor version of the same design is used for Croydon, and was proposed for Merseytram.

On longer trams: The Docklands Light Railway employs two-section cars, which can be linked in threes - but they have no street-level running. Double linked trams are probably the limit for street-trams, otherwise a tram stopped at one junction might block the junction before. To inccrease capacity further, it is probably better to increase the frequency of service.

The current Metrolink units have a capacity of 200 (86 seated), whereas a Northen line tube train has a theoretical capacity of 900 (216 seated) - so double linked trams, run at twice the freqency of Tube trains would provide a similar passenger capacity (albeit at around half the speed).

Electric supply starts to become a major issue when increasing the number of trams on Metrolink at any one time.

The infrastructure simply could not supply enough electricity for a 4min double tram service, even if we had enough trams.

The Altringham Line should go back to heavy rail.

Would that use less electricty allowing for higher capacity on the line?

You'd be adding to the problems on the section of line between Deansgate and Piccadilly (presuming you re-routed them down the heavy line), that part of heavy rail route is already very very overcrowded, I am not sure what a 10 train an hour service to and from Alty would do to those problems.

Are you planning on not expanding Metrolink to Chorlton / airport?

It's taken 30 years to get this far with the propsals for that line, are you seriously suggesting that should now be abandoned? Otherwise, what route do you propose for the section between Firswood and Cornbrook.

Presumably you want to move the new Old Trafford depot whilst you are re-routing the airport line?

Do you not think that it may be more sensible, to improve the existing, highly successful line, for a fraction of the cost, to bring higher rewards?

Remember, the Alty line carries more than twice what the old heavy line did on that route - without the capacity constraints that it currently suffers from that number will probably only rise as well.

Manchester has put all it's eggs in one basket with Metrolink, a four car heavy rail train can carry far more than a double tram. The Altingham line should revert to heavy rail with dedicated 4 car electric trains following the old MSJ&A route to Stockport and this service should be supplemented by longer distance diesel units. An interchange with Metrolink's Eccles line would happen at a bigger Pomona station serving both the heavy rail line and the Metrolink. Tickets would be interchangeable as they are now.

The Line to the airport through Chorlton is not neccesary and would be a waste of money. Far better to run a line along Princess Parkway as was envisaged in earlier times.

As for the Alty line carrying twice as many people as before, this may be something to do with demographics as well as undoubtably improved connections with Central Manchester, which would not be compromised under this plan.

Maybe, not going to happen though is it?

http://www.thetrams.co.uk/midlandmetro/stops/hawthorns5.jpg

Not in Manchester no, it doesn't seem to have the imagination or foresight of Birmingham to be honest and that is a shame because as can be seen from the above picture of the tram side of "The Hawthorns" station, the infrastructure in Birmingham looks far superior and shows the beginings of a fully integrated transport system.

Something that Manchester can only dream of.

Maybe, but as we said, not going to happen in Manchester.

Maybe, but as we said, not going to happen in Manchester.

And that is a scandal really.

Maybe, wonder if the Brummies on their forum would agree with you?

http://www.travelwm.co.uk/about/twminfo.asp

I miss your point?

www.gmpte.com is ours, very similar, we have fewer bus passengers but more tram passengers, the point being?

http://www.travelwm.co.uk/cards/cardinfo/ticketinfo.asp?tickets=2

http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=1111589

and?

and?

A TWM bus and tram card is 55p cheaper.

or 75p cheaper

One ticket, one day, as many journeys as you like. Adult DaySavers start at just £3.70.

thought you wanted integrated tickets.

The GM one can be used on the trains in the region, the WM can only be used on Metro (all one line of it) and the buses.

or 75p cheaper

Can't use them on the tram though

no, and you cannot use their on the trains.

You can however, buy tickets in Manchester for tram/train and bus.

Given these schemes are voluntary, and could break down if any operator decided to pull out, it is hardly an example of either system being integrated.

no, and you cannot use their on the trains.

You can however, buy tickets in Manchester for tram/train and bus.

Given these schemes are voluntary, and could break down if any operator decided to pull out, it is hardly an example of either system being integrated.

7 pounds in Manchester

Yep, on peak.

How much is an on peak ticket on tram / train and bus in the WM?

Given that neither the WM nor GM PTE, (or PTA)s have any say whatsoever over the prices for buses, trains or tram (to a certain extent) I miss your point.

The cost of those tickets is effectively set by the market cost of the bus, train and tram tickets, not by any local agency.

http://www.networkwestmidlands.co.uk/TicketSales/New%20ticket/cc1d.htm

Manchester has put all it's eggs in one basket with Metrolink, a four car heavy rail train can carry far more than a double tram. .

.

not so actually. The Class 507 and 508 EMUs that are used on Merseyrail seat 192 - with limited extra standing capacity. Twin Metrolink trams would seat 172 (2* 86) plus around 230 standing.

true the Class 507 are three-car units, but they illustrate very well a standard heavy rail solution.

Which is not to say that heavy rail may not be the right answer for certain public transport corridors - but the fact is that those places are (outside London) relatively limited; and really only apply where some major barrier exists to restrict road routes (like the Mersey Estuary). Otherwise, heavy rail will always tend to be second choice to car use for most commuters - and hence fares have to be heavily subsidised to attract custom.

wow, so the economics of commercial companies in WM mean their day tickets are £1.20 cheaper than ours.

I will have to write to Roger Jones to complain, there is so much he can do to influence those prices after all isn't there?

wow, so the economics of commercial companies in WM mean their day tickets are £1.20 cheaper than ours.

I will have to write to Roger Jones to complain, there is so much he can do to influence those prices after all isn't there?

No it means that transport in WM is run better.

Does it.

So please tell me what policies the WM PTA have asked the PTE to implement that allow for this price difference?

not so actually. The Class 507 and 508 EMUs that are used on Merseyrail seat 192 - with limited extra standing capacity. Twin Metrolink trams would seat 172 (2* 86) plus around 230 standing.

true the Class 507 are three-car units, but they illustrate very well a standard heavy rail solution.

Which is not to say that heavy rail may not be the right answer for certain public transport corridors - but the fact is that those places are (outside London) relatively limited; and really only apply where some major barrier exists to restrict road routes (like the Mersey Estuary). Otherwise, heavy rail will always tend to be second choice to car use for most commuters - and hence fares have to be heavily subsidised to attract custom.

I use the same trains now and again out of Kings Cross, they are called class 315. There's much more standing room onboard them, there are six vestibules and the seats are much bigger. They are also ancient but still better than much of what runs around Greater Manchester.

Does it.

So please tell me what policies the WM PTA have asked the PTE to implement that allow for this price difference?

I don't know, I don't need to know.

You should direct this question to GM PTA because it appears they could learn a thing or two.

No, you clearly don't know.

An all day ticket on the Swindon buses costs just £3.50, what does this tell you Isaac?

Fucking hell, £14.50 for a one day ticket for tube (all zones), DLR, tram, train, bus and river boat.

Must be the worst ran transport system in the country costing that much!!!

I don't need to know, all I know is the infrastructure looks better in the West Midlands and the pricing structure more attractive.

I don't need to know, all I know is the infrastructure looks better in the West Midlands

I presume you mean the Hawthorns Metro station?

Metrolink was built on a shoe string - not the fault of the PTE, it was simply the only way that they could get the system built, as such, the stations and track are in a shody state.

I'd love to know what the PTE could have done over and above the vast quantity of lobbying for money to upgrade phase 1 of the Metrolink, something that they have been doing since Phase 1 opened.

the pricing structure more attractive.

and what exactly has that got to do with the actions of the PTE?

I use the same trains now and again out of Kings Cross, they are called class 315. There's much more standing room onboard them, there are six vestibules and the seats are much bigger. They are also ancient but still better than much of what runs around Greater Manchester.

I fully agree that the heavy rail commuter vehicles on may lines in Greater Manchester are a disgrace. It may well be that replacing them with more modern units has been blighted by the alternative attraction of Metrolink upgrading (or tram-train); which I can well be argued in support of your case.

But the fact remains that heavy rail commuting is likely to be the optimal solution for only a small proportion of potential travellers - the classic example being the Styal line along Kingsway. Comfortable, fast trains; running through a residential area; good connections to airport and Piccadilly. Yet it scarcely carries any commuter traffic - both because the number of stopping trains is constricted by airport shuttle and mainline traffic; and less affluent potential users on a budget will find the bus cheaper, while the more affluent will use their own cars.

I fully agree that the heavy rail commuter vehicles on may lines in Greater Manchester are a disgrace. It may well be that replacing them with more modern units has been blighted by the alternative attraction of Metrolink upgrading (or tram-train); which I can well be argued in support of your case.

But the fact remains that heavy rail commuting is likely to be the optimal solution for only a small proportion of potential travellers - the classic example being the Styal line along Kingsway. Comfortable, fast trains; running through a residential area; good connections to airport and Piccadilly. Yet it scarcely carries any commuter traffic - both because the number of stopping trains is constricted by airport shuttle and mainline traffic; and less affluent potential users on a budget will find the bus cheaper, while the more affluent will use their own cars.

But in the main, Manchester's solution is to put trams on the same lines as the trains and stop at the same stations as the trains.

I don't think trams are bad, I just believe they have their place in the transport mix. That place is not on old heavy rail lines but in the street, connecting the heavy rail to the city centre and serving those outlying areas where heavy rail doesn't go.

The line to Ashton is a good idea because the parallel rail line goes through open countryside about 2 miles out of Victoria until it reaches Ashton.

The line to Oldham though will use an existing line that has very few stations which are in inconvenient locations. An upgrade of the stations to make them more attractive and safer may have been a better way to spend the money here.

Just opinion.

Nah Isaac, you're wrong, or at least in the current climate. Trams will be more regular than the train, serve a greater number of communties, will serve the centre of Oldham and Rochdale, hopeful bringing some regeneration benefits to the towns' centres, will give them a direct connection to the regional rail hub at Picc and will reduce the capacity constraints on the congested Manchester rail hub (or at least not aggravate them as a heavy rail scheme would).

There is a future for rail in Manchester, but until the government/network rail/whoever is willing to upgrade the infrastructure properly then a metro-style rail network is off the cards due to sheer overcrowding.

But in the main, Manchester's solution is to put trams on the same lines as the trains and stop at the same stations as the trains.

Not entirely. All the train to tram conversions will (and already have) added a significant number of new stations along the routes.. plus linking old rail lines together that originaly were not connected to the network as they are now.
There's good and bad points to Metrolink and the former BR lines it has replaced but I don't think going back to the old system would be more expensive than improving metrolink to include all the benfits trains will never have.

The Line to the airport through Chorlton is not neccesary and would be a waste of money. Far better to run a line along Princess Parkway as was envisaged in earlier times.

???

Anything to do with the proposed Manchester Airport Western link?

???

The Line to the airport through Chorlton is not neccesary and would be a waste of money. Far better to run a line along Princess Parkway as was envisaged in earlier times.?

obviously you've never see the over crowding on the 85 or 86 bus in rush hour. even off peak there's lots of use of this line. If anything the Chorlton line would be the most self sustaining line of them all, especially if they get to extend it to w didsbury and didsbury village.

Got on the Met today onto the Bury line, I can now see why they are replacing the track on the Bury line first.It is shocking! It is far worse than the Alty line, which I thought was bad enough. There must be a thousands of commuters from the Bury side of Manny who arrive into work wide awake from the journey, there is no way by even tired commuter standards you could fall asleep on the the Bury line, well maybe after a skin full of Holts! :cheers:

The Bury line is a borderline roller coaster..

Sounds fairly promising (for the future), I think one report mentioned the ability to raise £5million per year would allow a £100million loan, so if we could raise £20million per year....

Wonder why Birmingham would only raise 7million with this 1p tax, and why Manchester would raise 20million? Just because comparing "Birmingam" city with "Greater Manchester"?

From the Telegraph:

Local authorities may levy extra business rates
By Richard Tyler
Last Updated: 1:08am GMT 22/03/2007



Local authorities should be allowed to charge businesses a supplementary tax to pay for local services and infrastructure improvements, the Lyons Review has concluded.

The much awaited report by Sir Michael Lyons, the former chief executive of Birmingham City council, stopped short of calling for the return of business rates to local authority control.

It also argued that the link between national business rate rises and inflation should be maintained.
advertisement


But Sir Michael did ask the Government to allow all local authorities to introduce a supplementary tax, after consulting on the rate and what it should be spent on.

He calculated that a 1p supplement would create a £7.7m fund for Birmingham and a £20.3m fund for Greater Manchester. He saw a 4p suppplement as the "upper end" of the tax range.

Sally Low, head of policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, was not impressed.

"Sir Michael Lyons' recommendation on supplementary business rates is essentially relocalisation by another name," she said.

"It is hard to imagine any local authority turning down the opportunity to raise more money from businesses, with consultation being nothing but a box ticking activity.

"What is being proposed will give local authorities the ability to levy an extra rate on businesses without any accountability and no guarantee that the extra revenue raised will be spent on projects that actually benefit those paying for them."

But London First, which is backed by 300 businesses based in the capital, welcomed the proposals.

Baroness Jo Valentine, chief executive, described them as "a watershed moment".

"We pressed for supplementary business rates for local infrastructure investment, building on the proven business improvement district model, subject to acceptance from business. We also argued that local authorities should receive a large share of business rate receipts from new development. In both cases, the Lyons report accepts our argument."

And the Guardian:

Other proposals are to go to consultation. They include a plan, exclusively reported in the Guardian yesterday, for a supplementary business rate to pay for huge transport projects such as London's Crossrail, and Manchester's expanded tram system.

We don't get many shots on this page so thought I would add one.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u180/markydeedroppics/297a76a8.jpg

for those interested in such things, some phase 3 preperation work will be happening today at Old Trafford stop.

Many of the trees around the station will be removed in advance of a re-modelling of the station in phase 3, as well as the new depot arriving behind the outbound platform.

for those interested in such things, some phase 3 preperation work will be happening today at Old Trafford stop.

Many of the trees around the station will be removed in advance of a re-modelling of the station in phase 3, as well as the new depot arriving behind the outbound platform.

:okay: Sounds Good!

So will there be 3/4 platforms at Old Trafford/Trafford Bar?

So will there be 3/4 platforms at Old Trafford/Trafford Bar?

the new depot will be directly behind the station, so there will be access sidings into the depot for trams travelling on both the inward and outward lines,

Isnt there a tunnel a little beyond the station, you could call it a fly under... Will they be using that i wonder? It heads towards the direction of the future airport line.

Local - do you mean the old track bed just south of Trafford Bar?

If so, that is exactly where the airport line will be, the line will seperate from the existing Alty line here and pass under the existing track (in bound) to join up with new track down below - this line is a right old mess and wil need a lot of tidying up.

Sorry i got confused between Trafford Bar and Old trafford stations. So the depot will be at Trafford bar and this work is being carried at old Trafford :nuts:

the deopt is practically as big as the gap between Old Trafford and Trafford Bar.

I will do some Google Earth painting - gve me 5mins.

You can clearly see the trees that must come down.

The area where the depot is going was cleared ages ago.

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2334/oldtrafforddepothv6.jpg

tbh, it would be nice to see if trams could leave the depot and be immediately inbound at OT station, this would be ideal for clearing OT station in a hurry after football etc, however, I suspect they don't have sufficient room to allow this.

post removed

tbh, it would be nice to see if trams could leave the depot and be immediately inbound at OT station, this would be ideal for clearing OT station in a hurry after football etc, however, I suspect they don't have sufficient room to allow this.

Yes, it would be nice, doubt it will happen though. Don't know why but, 'they' are not interested in sorting anything for match days. Unless they consider having staff on platforms in the city centre to quickly dispense £2 tickets for the match and the very occassional double tram as sorting it.

I tried a new tactic on Saturday... went to the pub for a couple more pints AFTER the game.... getting on for an hour after the final whistle by the time I went down to the tram stop.... trams still rammed full.

I wonder if they could open up platforms in the depot itself on match days?

Poor stagecoach!!!!

Am glad! Stagecoach said they wanted to see the Metrolink gone and replaced with concrete bus lanes! We are in good hands with Keolis running it.

with regards to match day.

I always have and always probably will go for a few pints after the match, why rush home at the same time as 76k other people?

they are in quite an unfortunate position, that with current infrastructure they cannot really do much about.

Believe it or not, on matchdays they do tend to have all available vehicles out.

Phase 3 will bring about upgrades to the electrical supply as well as extra trams, hopefully alond with the extension to media city (and more trams on the Eccles line) and potentially a line to the Trafford Centre stopping by the ground, there will be a significant improvement in tram access to OT.

EDIT - Spot the obvious mistake. Too early in the morning, I have got my track directions the wrong way around, red should be inbound, and blue outbound.

I'd imagine that the airport junction would be like this...

i.e. Blue being the new outbound line and passing under the existing Altrincham line (red line being airport inbound line).

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/53/airportjunctionjs0.jpg

I'd imagine (and hope) that once the OT depot is open (and loads of trams are on the door step of OT station) then the cross over junction shown below will be used a lot more to get trams out for inbound passengers.

The new junction from the depot to the outbound platform should supply trams for those heading south.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/9962/oldtraffordcrossoveruh6.jpg

To even things out for our misguided blue cousins, what will be the effect of both City and United playing at home at the same time have on the system once all built?

It would not cope, there would be riots on the trams, and everything would get broken.

Thankfully United and City never play at home on the same day, let alone at the same time.

To even things out for our misguided blue cousins, what will be the effect of both City and United playing at home at the same time have on the system once all built?

City and United will never play on the same day. The Police and local council's won't allow it.

City and United will never play on the same day. The Police and local council's won't allow it.

well then, let us suppose hypothetically that England were to bid to stage the World Cup - and that both CoMS and OT were designated as stadiums.

there might well be games at the same time on the same day - indeed for the final round of group matches, it is required.

well then, let us suppose hypothetically that England were to bid to stage the World Cup - and that both CoMS and OT were designated as stadiums.

there might well be games at the same time on the same day - indeed for the final round of group matches, it is required.



I don't think that would happen but if it did it would set up so Old Trafford was used on the Wednesday and Cities ground on a Thursday. The reason that United and City don't play on the same day is security issues. 70,000 odd United fans and 40,000 odd City fans moving around the City at the same time is not a good thing. A world cup through would be different. More than likely the fans wouldn't want to kill each other but I don't think the Police would risk having riots and fights in parts of the city.

We often have it where two Premiership Greater Manchester teams play on the same day, but never Manchester United and Manchester City due to the proximity of the rivalry and the fact that the "action" would more than likely occur in the city centre, rather than at the CoMs or OT.

going slightly off topic, until recent, I had not realised that if there are more than one Premiership game in the whole of London on the same day, then they all have to start at the same time.

You could not for example have Arsenal playing at 12:30am on Saturday, and Chelsea at 3pm (so I am told).

Poor stagecoach!!!!

http://www.gmpte.com/news.cfm?news_id=5205351

Stagecoach named preferred bidder to run Greater Manchester's Metrolink
Published on Tuesday, 03 April 2007
Transport bosses in Greater Manchester today announced Stagecoach Group Plc as their preferred bidder to take over the operation and maintenance of the Metrolink light rail network.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE), which owns the Metrolink system, will now begin the final negotiations.

The contract to operate Metrolink services will run for the next decade and the new operator is expected to take over within the next three months. It will also be responsible for the maintenance of the network, including the track and stops, for at least the next 7 years.

GMPTE's Interim Chief Executive, David Leather, said: "Metrolink is one of the most successful light rail systems in the UK. We attracted several high calibre bids from experienced European companies for the contracts to operate and maintain the Metrolink system.

"The bids have been rigorously evaluated to make sure that we get value for money - and that the new operator can continue to provide a high quality service on the Metrolink network.

"Stagecoach already has significant experience of operating a major UK tram system in Sheffield and I look forward to working with them to provide first class services for Metrolink passengers."

Passengers now make 55,000 journeys on Metrolink every day, and nearly 20 million each year. The new operator will take over the operation and maintenance of the Metrolink system from Serco, which has run services on the network since 1997. It will also be responsible for running services on the new Metrolink lines to Oldham and Rochdale, Droylsden in Tameside and Chorlton in South Manchester.

Metrolink opened in 1992 and services operate on three lines to Salford Quays and Eccles, Bury and Altrincham. Trams also run along streets and through pedestrian areas in Manchester city centre.

Media contact: Becky Marr or David Harris on 0161 244 1055, or by email at communications@gmpte.gov.uk

http://www.gmpte.com/news.cfm?news_id=5205351

Stagecoach named preferred bidder to run Greater Manchester's Metrolink
Published on Tuesday, 03 April 2007
Transport bosses in Greater Manchester today announced Stagecoach Group Plc as their preferred bidder to take over the operation and maintenance of the Metrolink light rail network.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE), which owns the Metrolink system, will now begin the final negotiations.

The contract to operate Metrolink services will run for the next decade and the new operator is expected to take over within the next three months. It will also be responsible for the maintenance of the network, including the track and stops, for at least the next 7 years.

GMPTE's Interim Chief Executive, David Leather, said: "Metrolink is one of the most successful light rail systems in the UK. We attracted several high calibre bids from experienced European companies for the contracts to operate and maintain the Metrolink system.

"The bids have been rigorously evaluated to make sure that we get value for money - and that the new operator can continue to provide a high quality service on the Metrolink network.

"Stagecoach already has significant experience of operating a major UK tram system in Sheffield and I look forward to working with them to provide first class services for Metrolink passengers."

Passengers now make 55,000 journeys on Metrolink every day, and nearly 20 million each year. The new operator will take over the operation and maintenance of the Metrolink system from Serco, which has run services on the network since 1997. It will also be responsible for running services on the new Metrolink lines to Oldham and Rochdale, Droylsden in Tameside and Chorlton in South Manchester.

Metrolink opened in 1992 and services operate on three lines to Salford Quays and Eccles, Bury and Altrincham. Trams also run along streets and through pedestrian areas in Manchester city centre.

Media contact: Becky Marr or David Harris on 0161 244 1055, or by email at communications@gmpte.gov.uk
If they pick Stagecoach some money has been flying around! I would hate to see a funny coloured Metrolink pulling up at my local stop with stagecoach on the front!

Can someone explain why we have 2 press releases saying diffrent companys have won the right to operate Metrolink?

UKlad. Looks like the Keolis announcement was erroneous. News of the Stagecoach victory is all over the web.

While it may feel like something of an absurdity to give this contract to Stagecoach, a company who just a few months ago were so publicly skeptical about light rail in Manchester, I suspect the passenger experience would be much the same regardless of the outcome.

I guess what is more important that the 'Metrolink: operated by....' tagline is the control and power exerted by GMPTE, and I think this is quite considerable.

At the end of the day most of us on this forum are nothing more than lay folk and passengers as far as Metrolink goes. I guess we need to place our faith in the experts at the PTE to get the best deal for the people of Greater Manchester (in much the same way we placed our faith in the experts at the CAP to decide the most appropriate location for the regional casino. I for one have every confidence that the GMPTE will have acted in the passengers best interst.

Interesting thought I had following this decision. While obviously the long term goal is a properly integrated public transport network with oyster-esque ticketing, I wonder if something like this (http://www.supertram.com/latestfromsupertram_1934.html) could become a reality from the summer? Obviously it would be of less value to folk in the northern sector of the city, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction until proper regulatory control of the buses is returned.

Expect publicity soon

That the Clerk and the Interim Chief Executive be authorised to conclude negotiations with Bombardier and proceed to the award of a contract on the basis of the terms detailed in paragraph 3.1 of the report submitted.

Stagecoach seem to run the Shefield trams well. They are not faded and dirty like ours. They are always repainted on the outside and are very clean inside. The ones here are dirty all the time outside and the floors inside are mostly filithy.

Stagecoach seem to run the Shefield trams well. They are not faded and dirty like ours. They are always repainted on the outside and are very clean inside. The ones here are dirty all the time outside and the floors inside are mostly filithy.
It's a sad excuse but that's probably why ours actually make a profit.

That and because they're overcrowded most of the time.

Just think how much more they'd make if everyfucker paid their fares....

I was told the other day that Leeds is the largest city in Europe to not have a metro. Another unwelcome UK transport statistic!

I was told the other day that Leeds is the largest city in Europe to not have a metro. Another unwelcome UK transport statistic!
I think Leeds became a victim of 'forced growth'.
In the seventies its area and population virtually doubled in size when the government went on a boundary redrawing campaign. Leeds finished up with a chunk of outlying villages and sheep country.
It's done quite well to come to terms with coming from a 3rd div. city to a 1st div one even though some of the larger areas of the city like Morley eg. don't want any part of it.
An integrated metro system must have been low on the list of priorities especially if the newly expanded city council weren't sure just what the priorities were in the first place.

I was told the other day that Leeds is the largest city in Europe to not have a metro. Another unwelcome UK transport statistic!

Oh come on, its not all bad:

http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/D4E9D75E-C688-4B66-B269-4DE5D8C9FD43/0/Low_res_Metro_guided_busway.jpg

;)

Oh come on, its not all bad:

http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/D4E9D75E-C688-4B66-B269-4DE5D8C9FD43/0/Low_res_Metro_guided_busway.jpg

;)

You looking a slap! That concrete thing is a insult to the British people!