Manchester If Only

[johnnychips]

I've opened a new thread on this in the general section, as Manchester (non-) underground doesn't seem to be the best place for it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well, you know my thoughts on every village in northern England requiring an hourly link to Manchester Airport just for those annual holidays .....And, yes, how do other airports manage without so many trains?

This shows how good that Manchester Airport is at marketing its undoubted advantage of being a two-runway airport with motorway links to the national motorway system, excellent rail and coach links, a bus interchange and in 2016, a connection to the Manchester Metrolink system. But you already know my thoughts on this matter...

 

[tbtc]

This shows how good that Manchester Airport is at marketing its undoubted advantage of being a two-runway airport with motorway links to the national motorway system, excellent rail and coach links, a bus interchange and in 2016, a connection to the Manchester Metrolink system. But you already know my thoughts on this matter...

...and yet plenty of other airports seem to manage okay without having trains from everywhere in a fifty mile radius serving them... how do Edinburgh/ Glasgow/ Leeds etc cope?

If we are serious about improving capacity in/around Manchester, we have to tackle the Gordian Knot of every village needing a direct link to Manchester Airport.

 

[johnnychips]

1 London Heathrow Airport 65,881,660
2 London Gatwick Airport 31,375,290
4 Manchester Airport 17,759,015
3 London Stansted Airport 18,573,803
5 London Luton Airport 8,738,717
6 Edinburgh Airport 8,596,715
7 Birmingham Airport 8,572,398
8 Glasgow International Airport 6,548,865
9 Bristol Airport 5,747,604
10 Liverpool John Lennon Airport 5,013,940
11 Newcastle Airport 4,356,130
12 East Midlands Airport 4,113,501
13 Belfast International Airport 4,016,170
15 Aberdeen Airport 2,763,708
14 London City Airport 2,780,582
16 Leeds Bradford International Airport 2,755,110

These are 2010 figures for passengers; Manchester has since overtaken Stansted. Apologies for anomolies in rank. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busiest_airports_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_total_passenger_traffic for 2011 figures.

 

[YorkshireBear]

1 London Heathrow Airport 65,881,660
2 London Gatwick Airport 31,375,290
4 Manchester Airport 17,759,015
3 London Stansted Airport 18,573,803
5 London Luton Airport 8,738,717
6 Edinburgh Airport 8,596,715
7 Birmingham Airport 8,572,398
8 Glasgow International Airport 6,548,865
9 Bristol Airport 5,747,604
10 Liverpool John Lennon Airport 5,013,940
11 Newcastle Airport 4,356,130
12 East Midlands Airport 4,113,501
13 Belfast International Airport 4,016,170
14 Aberdeen Airport 2,763,708
15 London City Airport 2,780,582
16 Leeds Bradford International Airport 2,755,110

These are 2010 figures for passengers; Manchester has since overtaken Stansted.

Could you provide a link for that? i believe you, just that i cant use you as a reference and this information could provide useful to a project im currently on.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

...and yet plenty of other airports seem to manage okay without having trains from everywhere in a fifty mile radius serving them... how do Edinburgh/ Glasgow/ Leeds etc cope?

Perhaps the marketing skills of these other airports you cite are vastly inferior to that of Manchester Airport. How many runways do these other airports possess and what are their airline passenger loadings like in comparison to that of Manchester Airport ?

Manchester Airport railway station is scheduled to have a fourth platform in the recent proposals and the matter of through running in the future has already been discussed on many threads since 2011.

In answer to your final query, ask yourself why people from many settlements actually want to use Manchester Airport in preference to those other airports that may well be nearer to them. Do the TOC's see this as a reasonable financial matter to build into their coming franchise bids...if this ever sees such matters being addressed in the foreseeable future. Does not the matter of pathing availability come into play. Another point to bear in mind that the Styal line carries a good number of containerised freight train services that require their own guaranteed paths.

 

[John55]

Could you provide a link for that? i believe you, just that i cant use you as a reference and this information could provide useful to a project im currently on.

The CAA publishes such data;
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2011Annual/Table_10_3_Terminal_Pax_2001_2011.pdf

 

[HSTEd]

The problem is the capacity of trains on the Airport-Piccadilly line is excessively more than what is required for the current number of passengers, yet the plan is to provide even more capacity post-Ordsall Chord because it's believed that the major towns and cities in the north of England need direct links to the largest Airport outside the South East.

Say you proposed South TPE would terminate at Piccadilly or go to Liverpool instead, that's one change for some people but others like those in Rotherham have already made one change to board a TPE service, so then it becomes two - with luggage and possibly young children, so the train becomes a lot less attractive.

The rail passengers only make up a relatively small proportion of the people travelling to Manchester AIrport from the centre of manchester, there are two wel used bus routes from central Manchester to the airport (there may be others but I don't know), however the primary modal shift would be from the bus to the skylink due to it being far faster than the bus but slower than the train. (44 minutes end to end offpeak and over an 1hr in the peak for the bus, comapred to 25 minutes at all time for the funitel, and ten minutes from Owens Park Campus to Picadilly Gardens compared to god knows how long now).

With your plan being from Oxford Road to the Airport, would trains like Blackpool-Manchester Airport terminate at Oxford Road for a connection to a 'skylink'? If so it would also make onward connections for people from places like Bolton and Salford less attractive. Also would through ticketing be available to onward rail stations?

One positive about that idea would be that something like that would be popular with tourists as it's not something you have in every city.

I would propose to extend beyond Oxford Road to the vicinity of Picadilly Gardens to allow it to tie in more with the huge network of bus services that connect together there.

Through tickets are an interesting question... do they currently have those on the London Underground?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm sure that the people who will be most committed to developing this scheme will be those whose job it is to plan for economic and development growth in the area. That's the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, who ware planning for 150,000 new jobs and 87,000 new jobs over the next 15 years, a body now replaced by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

Here's what they have to say:

AGMA’s plans for Greater Manchester include:
working through strong partnerships with house builders
• to bring forward at least 87,000 new homes by 2016, including at least
10,016 extra through the Growth Point
• supporting the development of more high quality affordable and family homes
to provide a balanced housing offer across the city region and build sustainable
mixed communities
• tackling significant barriers to development by increasing the supply of power,
mitigating against flood risks, and dealing with ground contamination
• in line with the spatial focus of draft RSS NW, a substantial increase in
housing numbers to repopulate the deprived areas at the core of the Greater
Manchester conurbation, through an integrated strategy with continuing
housing market renewal and other key regeneration initiatives
• delivering major regeneration schemes in East Manchester including the
creation of a new family friendly urban quarter at Holt Town where 4600 new
homes will be constructed over the next ten years alongside new community
facilities and leisure opportunities, and Miles Platting where 1000 new homes
will be built along the Ashton Canal Corridor
• accelerating development in key priority areas of Central Salford, including
Lower Broughton and Charlestown/Lower Kersal
• bringing forward further development in Trafford: in Partington; the Trafford
Rectangle; Old Trafford/Gorse Hill and specifically sites around Pomona and
Lancashire County Cricket Club
• an exemplar, environmentally sustainable urban village in the heart of Bolton,
providing town centre living to complement the transformation of the town’s
business, commercial, retail and cultural offer

Source : Partnerships for Growth

That document seems to have forgotten the bit about the underground Railway, so then I looked through the more recent Local Transport Plan and its Integrated Strategy by Transport for Greater Manchester:

Better buses for Greater Manchester

 Delivering key investment schemes that will enhance the role and image of bus
services in Greater Manchester, including:
 Cross City Bus Package
 Leigh-Salford-Manchester Busway
 Altrincham Interchange
 Bolton Interchange
 Rochdale Interchange
 Wythenshawe Bus Station
 A future scheme for a new Stockport Interchange and associated town
centre access improvements
 Continuing to improve passenger facilities and physical accessibility at bus
stations and bus stops
 Identifying where additional bus priority measures can improve reliability
 Enhancing the role of bus in providing feeder services to rail and Metrolink
 Delivering orbital bus routes where these contribute to wider objectives
 Delivering improved working arrangements, either through partnerships or
contracts, to drive up service standards with bus operators, including:
 Code of Conduct for bus operators to ensure improved reliability and
punctuality, better vehicles, improved cleaning, information, best practice
driving standards and more careful driving
 Simplified fares systems and easier ticketing choices, supported by the
introduction of electronic Smartcards
 New performance targets for punctuality and reliability
 Improved vehicle standards
 Improved network coverage, particularly in the evenings and Sundays
 Quality Partnership agreements on Manchester-Hazel Grove and Leigh-
Bolton corridors

Delivering the Metrolink vision

 Delivering new Metrolink lines to:
 MediaCityUK;
 East Didsbury;
 Ashton-under Lyne;
 Oldham and Rochdale (including extensions to the town centres); and
 Manchester Airport via Wythenshawe
 Delivering a second Metrolink route across Manchester City Centre, from
Manchester Central to Victoria
 Delivering an additional depot at Old Trafford to support the expansion of the
system
 Completing a programme of passenger facility stop improvements across the
current system, and completing the roll-out of new ticket machines
 Delivering passenger information screens at stops
 Providing additional Park and Ride capacity
 Completing the roll-out of additional trams
 Developing the proposals for an extension to the Trafford Centre
 Developing longer-term options for additional ‘rapid transit’ routes, including to
Stockport town centre

A rail system for our future economy

 Developing effective working systems with DfT, Network Rail and train operators
to ensure delivery of Greater Manchester requirements, particularly:
 Additional rolling stock to alleviate overcrowding
 Increased network capacity in the Northern Hub
 Upgrade of key stations
 Electrification
 Improved service patterns and frequencies
 Improved train and station standards
 Future High Speed Rail
 Promoting major station improvements, at Manchester Victoria and elsewhere, to
complement the economic growth of Greater Manchester
 Funding important local information, safety /security and accessibility
improvements at many commuter stations
 Delivering additional capacity for park and ride
 Developing options for the future potential use of East Lancashire Railway, to
enhance transport links
 Fares, tickets and information about sustainable travel
 Agreeing simplified fares systems across bus, rail and tram systems and simpler
day/season ticket options, supported by an electronic Smartcard
 Continuing to develop local travel information services
 Developing the role of new technology in promoting travel information
 Developing new information and marketing tools that support residents,
businesses and commuters to develop travel plans that help people to travel in a
more sustainable manner
 Developing integrated systems of support to help residents, businesses and
commuters to develop sustainable travel plans
Fares, tickets and information about sustainable travel
 Agreeing simplified fares systems across bus, rail and tram systems and simpler
day/season ticket options, supported by an electronic Smartcard
 Continuing to develop local travel information services
 Developing the role of new technology in promoting travel information
 Developing new information and marketing tools that support residents,
businesses and commuters to develop travel plans that help people to travel in a
more sustainable manner
 Developing integrated systems of support to help residents, businesses and
commuters to develop sustainable travel plans

A new future for walking and cycling

 Developing a network of key routes linking to local centres and facilities
 Prioritising other local improvements to cycle routes, pedestrian facilities and
Rights of Way
 Ensuring better maintenance in support of road safety, walking and cycling
 Developing highway management systems that encourage walking and cycling
 Delivering more and better cycle parking at public transport interchanges
 Promoting the health and environmental benefits of walking and cycling
 Prioritising Speed reduction where there is a clear community need

Managing our highways

 Optimising traffic signals, traffic regulation orders and traffic lane usage on
strategic routes to key destinations to improve reliability
 Delivering new roads where these benefit the economy (Ashton Northern Bypass,
Stage 2, SEMMMS Relief Road, Wigan Inner Relief Road)
 Delivering an integrated transport solution ( Longdendale Integrated Transport
Strategy) to address the traffic and transport problems within the Longdendale
area..
 Developing a Traffic Control Centre for incident and routine management
 Making accurate, reliable and up-to-date travel information available for in-car
and in-cab systems
 Providing strategic traffic management for road works, developers’ works and
major events to maximise the efficiency and reliability of the network
 Ensuring better enforcement of parking and moving traffic offences on key routes
at key times
 Implementing local neighbourhood traffic management and parking schemes and
environmental improvements for local centres
 Providing a single maintenance standard for the strategic highway network
 Ensuring that local street maintenance is targeted at local priorities
 Requiring maintenance works to be included in the network management permit
scheme to manage and minimise traffic disruption

Securing healthy and safe travel options

 Delivering measures to encourage ‘active travel’
 Providing local road safety training and education
 Supporting travel training for disabled people
 Providing local safety projects to minimise traffic conflicts
 Providing driver improvement programme
 Travel and safety information campaigns
 High risk routes/times prioritised for enforcement of safety related offences
 Air Quality Action Plan to reduce emissions
 Pedestrian priority and lower speeds where there is a community need and in
new development
 Maintaining and improving access for people with disabilities

A greener transport system

 Using of Travel Behaviour Change techniques (above) to promote sustainable
travel
 Ensuring a network of electric vehicle charging points is established to support
the take-up of electric vehicles
 Promoting eco driving
 Introducing more ‘green buses’ that reduce climate change and local air pollutant
emissions
 Encouraging the take-up of walking and cycling
 Improving street lighting management and the use of low energy technology
 Maximising the use of recycled, re-used and cold materials for highway
maintenance
 Collaborating for bulk purchase, optimal use of salt, storage, vehicles and staff
resources
 Delivering resilience plans for different weather, including adaptation and
mitigation measures
 Supporting environmental improvements in local neighbourhoods and centres
 Promoting rail and water borne freight where economically viable

Source: Integrated Assessments of draft strategy

Funny, but I still couldn't find any plans for an underground raillway in there.

But, look! They've also published 4 alternative strategies (I'll spare you by not pasting them all here), called :
Option 1: No LTP3 – the business as usual scenario
Option 2: A strategy in which the primary focus is to maximise
accessibility to the regional centre and other key centres
Option 3: A focus on transport investment to, from and in areas of
multiple deprivation
and
Option 4: A strategy that looks to prioritise delivery of a low carbon
and health transport strategy

So I read through each of these alternative plans. It's more puzzling now, that I still can't find reference to this underground railway.

Should someone on here tell them?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So I read through each of these alternative plans. It's more puzzling now, that I still can't find reference to this underground railway.

Should someone on here tell them?

The GMCA, TfGMC and TfGM now have the opportunity to have an ever larger role than any previous bodies and are very mindful on the grant monies for transport infrastructure that can be forthcoming. The project that is Manchester Metrolink has received much of this grant finance in the past and is one still currently going forward and it will make financial sense for any future grant monies to be seen into being channelled into into their flagship project. The only alternative project of note to recently be introduced is that of the Leigh Guided Busway project.

Given this, are you really surprised than an underground rail project in central Manchester seems notable by its absence in those reports you quote above.

Such are the espousing of any type of transport on this forum, I would not at all be surprised if a fleet of fast fly-shuttle boats from the Manchester Victoria area on the River Irwell to the Salford Quays complex would be such a suggestion...

 

[northwichcat]

This may be irrelevant but I believe there are advanced proposals to divert TPE services to stop at Rotherham Central from March 2015.

Rotherham was just an example in my post. There are plenty of other towns which are in the same situation.

Makes sense to me really, it's a large conurbation. I'm always intrigued with all these Manchester Airport link posts - I wonder just how many would indeed not travel by rail if it meant even a cross-platform interchange at Picc / Oxford Rd...

With Piccadilly set to get platforms 15 and 16 and a late running train at Oxford Road sometimes resulting in a platform alteration which involves passengers going up and down steps I doubt a cross-platform interchange will be that easy (assuming by cross-platform you mean moving to an adjacent platform that doesn't involve stairs.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Through tickets are an interesting question... do they currently have those on the London Underground?

Yes. You can buy tickets from any station to a London Underground zone.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, you know my thoughts on every village in northern England requiring an hourly link to Manchester Airport just for those annual holidays

Yes but I've not mentioned any village unless Rotherham's population has dropped by 90% and lost it's town charter.

Like I've said before where Airport trains go does need changing - Thirsk gets a direct train, yet places like Knutsford, Northwich, Warrington which are within a commutable distance of the Airport and could have people going to the Airport 5 days a week don't get a service.

 

[nerd]

According to http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/happiest_commuter_index.pdf 70% of arrivals into Manchester between 07:00 and 09:59 have spare seats (or, at least, have sufficient capacity for all standard class passengers to have a seat) - the figure is for 2011 but since then Northern have gained extra seats (albeit mainly Pacer seats!).

So, if 70% of peak arrivals into Manchester have spare seats I can't see a need for any new underground railway.

Thanks for that tbtc.

In fact, the proportion of services which are overcrowded arriving at the regional centre is well over 50%. The figure of 29% that you quote is the proportion where there are passengers standing when the train arrives at a Manchester station - Victoria, Oxford Rd, Piccadilly; but commuter trains from Bolton and Wigan (which are the most crowded) stop first at Salford Crescent or Salford Central, and many passengers get off at one of these. (If you follow through the links, you will see a note to that effect on the ORR tables.)

Though that doesn't contradict your basic point; Manchester has no need for an underground railway. What is needed is longer trains on the existing services; most of these services are run by two or three car units; but the Northern Hub proposals are specified as extending platforms to allow 8 car units to run through on all lines through the city centre.

 

[kleb15]

Thanks by the way for eveyones input, who would have thought a map created on paint could have created such a talking point. Manchester Airport has several advantages over every airport in London except Heathrow anyway, the fact it has land to expand upon, the fact it has 2 runways already, whereas stansted for example only has one, also FTPE run services from Manchester Airport to York, Boro, Newcastle, Scarborough via Leeds all of these to name a few, and most people in these areas prefer to use Manchester Airport over say Leeds Bradford or even Newcastle. I'm currently living in York at the moment, and i'd say 85-90% of people i've spoke to who fly use Manchester over Leeds.

Anyway thats slightly off topic. I thought i'd post this link that has just been published as the main reason I came up with this idea was because of the terrible Metrolink system. Seems i'm not the only one who thinks that.
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve..._10000-complaints-about-metrolink-in-one-year

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Anyway thats slightly off topic. I thought i'd post this link that has just been published as the main reason I came up with this idea was because of the terrible Metrolink system. Seems i'm not the only one who thinks that.
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve..._10000-complaints-about-metrolink-in-one-year

This was mentioned on the BBC TV North-West News this morning, where the matter of "old trams being blameworthy" was stated, as it is at the bottom of the report in the link that you have provided.

 

[HSTEd]

I do think that using commuter rail loadings in teh area around Manchester as an argument against any form of non-road type mass transport system for Manchester is a little disengenuous since that is like saying Paris doesn't need a Metro because it the RER is not enormously overcrowded (not saying that that statement is true but aren't the roles of the two systems rather different?).

~30km gets you from the Airport to Bolton via Fallowfield, the Universities and Central Manchester and based upon the example of various London Underground lines would probably have close to 30 stations.

Making the same journey by rail now would give you around half as many stations.

 

[northwichcat]

the fact it has land to expand upon

Are you meaning the land that's been set aside for a 'business zone'?

There is very little room for the actual Airport to expand. The building of Runway 2 meant the controversial projects of knocking down listed buildings and moving them 1 mile down the road and relocating endangered species. The Airport put in a later planning application for an additional car park on land in Styal and that was rejected for various environmental reasons.

So for any real expansion, like an additional terminal or a third runway, the M56 would need to be re-routed or Wythenshawe will need to be destroyed. Even then any third runway would have strict restrictions on it. The second runway can't be used between 10pm and 6am except in an emergency or to allow for scheduled maintenance to runway 1 and also the Airport can't route planes landing on runway 2 over Tatton Park during planned special events, subject to the council/National Trust giving sufficient notice of events.

 

[HSTEd]

So for any real expansion, like an additional terminal or a third runway, the M56 would need to be re-routed or Wythenshawe will need to be destroyed.

Sounds good to me

 

[northwichcat]

This was mentioned on the BBC TV North-West News this morning, where the matter of "old trams being blameworthy" was stated, as it is at the bottom of the report in the link that you have provided.

Yet Northern have much older Pacers and 150s and don't constantly blame them for disruption in the same way that Metrolink keep saying it's all the T68s fault.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sounds good to me

I thought someone would say that!

Just don't build the replacement Wythenshawe on the border of Knutsford and Mobberley where the overflow Longridge estate was built. This was when Wythenshawe was part of Cheshire and the local council thought that it would be a good idea to put lots of jobless unskilled people on the edge of a relatively affluent town because there was some spare land there.

Of course Wythenshawe has a very good hospital which would need to be replaced if it were to be destroyed.

 

[Chris125]

Yet Northern have much older Pacers and 150s and don't constantly blame them for disruption in the same way that Metrolink keep saying it's all the T68s fault.

They might be older but the issue is reliability, not age.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

Manchester has no need for an underground railway. What is needed is longer trains on the existing services; most of these services are run by two or three car units; but the Northern Hub proposals are specified as extending platforms to allow 8 car units to run through on all lines through the city centre

Agreed - despite the huge amount of infrastructure improvements being spent in the Manchester area this decade, the "simpler" task of just extending existing services seems to be ignored.

Many routes have spare platform capacity to cope with much longer trains (with no need for fancy underground tunnels etc).

 

[joeykins82]

There's no point buying a load of new DMUs to extend services when the routes are in the process of being electrified; it's a fairly safe assumption that, post-knitting, the trains will longer both on the electrified routes and on the diesel routes once the stock is released.

 

[tbtc]

There's no point buying a load of new DMUs to extend services when the routes are in the process of being electrified; it's a fairly safe assumption that, post-knitting, the trains will longer both on the electrified routes and on the diesel routes once the stock is released.

Yes, but even the EMUs aren't that long - the only doubled up 323 I've seen around Manchester was on an Old Trafford service

 

[northwichcat]

They might be older but the issue is reliability, not age.

Chris

Someone previously posted on here that reliability of the T68s is similar to that of 142s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's no point buying a load of new DMUs to extend services when the routes are in the process of being electrified; it's a fairly safe assumption that, post-knitting, the trains will longer both on the electrified routes and on the diesel routes once the stock is released.

Not sure about longer on diesel routes, the Northern Hub proposals include an increased frequency on a lot of lines.

The problem is that will still mean life-expired 142s will be in service even if more of them are doubled up.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Someone previously posted on here that reliability of the T68s is similar to that of 142s.

Does this not say anything about not further extending the life of either of these two units of transportation. Is it not better to have modern units rather than the perpetual usage of "relics from another age", despite the obvious charm that these exude in the eyes of some on this forum.

 

[transmanche]

Someone previously posted on here that reliability of the T68s is similar to that of 142s.

Does this not say anything about not further extending the life of either of these two units of transportation. Is it not better to have modern units rather than the perpetual usage of "relics from another age", despite the obvious charm that these exude in the eyes of some on this forum.

Although the T68s are only about 20 years old - which isn't that old really.

Compare with the original P86 stock for the DLR, which is still in service - albeit in Essen, rather than east London. (In fact unit 11 even went to Manchester in 1987 for evaluation trials.)

 

[northwichcat]

Does this not say anything about not further extending the life of either of these two units of transportation. Is it not better to have modern units rather than the perpetual usage of "relics from another age", despite the obvious charm that these exude in the eyes of some on this forum.

What I was getting at is every time Metrolink respond to a criticism about Metrolink punctuality or reliability it's starts with replacing the T68s and comments on the age of the trams being around 20 years old, which to the general public sounds old but to some EU operators of trams sounds young. The T68s are not to blame for 100% of Metrolink's problems - infrastructure failures, problems with M5000s, city centre traffic and any problems with drivers being off sick also have to be factored in. The way Metrolink are going on about the T68s makes it sound like they will never be a delay of even 1 minute once the network is operated by all M5000s.

 

[joeykins82]

Another good example of reliability vs age is the 1983 tube stock which got pulled because it was rubbish despite there being lots of older yet more reliable stock in service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Although the T68s are only about 20 years old - which isn't that old really.

What would be the life expectancy of these "modern style" T68 units have expected to be when they first entered service, as this would have been considered in the costings when first ordered. Admittedly, being first-generation in Manchester, there would have only been overseas usage to base such matters on.

One example of stock being given a long lease of life is the ex-London Underground stock now running on the services of the Isle of Wight, but that should be an isolated example owing to certain tunnels, rather than a justification for running old units in a British city.

Does anyone remember the final years of the Class 304 "slam-door" units running in the South Manchester area in the final years of their life? Not exactly a memory that I shall treasure, having had to travel on these for their final years.

 

[northwichcat]

What would be the life expectancy of these "modern style" T68 units have expected to be when they first entered service, as this would have been considered in the costings when first ordered. Admittedly, being first-generation in Manchester, there would have only been overseas usage to base such matters on.

When I visited Berlin and Potsdam in 2010 I used GT6Ns in Berlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_tram#GT6N and KT4Ds in Potsdam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_KT4

I certainly preferred the GT6Ns but it's worth noting the KT4Ds were built between 1974 and 1990 and some of the older ones have been sold by the Germans to other countries like Serbia, Croatia and Romania as they've been replaced by new trams, opposed to be written off. On the other hand the Manchester Metrolink units are later builds which the first withdrawn are being cannibalised and the later withdrawals will be written off apart from maybe one or two they might be preserved.

 

[neilmc]

I think the residents of Leeds or Liverpool would love to have the Metrolink!

Manchester seems to have done well for public transport links since I moved here in 1985, whereas my home city of Leeds has just gone down the tubes in the same period.

I would like to see a London-style oversight of the bus network, where operators have a common livery, inter-accessibility of cheap fares, and are forced to provide an adequate level of services on evenings and Sundays if they wish to bid to operate a particular route.