Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
As a marketeer, I politely beg to differ that it will easily transfer as a brand. That isn't to say that it couldn't be used in the way that people are suggesting, but it won't transfer the existing brand value that exists.
Firstly, virtually everyone in this forum has an interest or a professional involvement in transport and rail. What we know and what we are aware of, isn't the same as that the average paying bus / train / tram customer. Metrolink is one of the few known brands in the area, mainly because they are the only operator of the tram system - Metrolink *is* the tram. The brand is centered around the tram, not transport. Similarly, Metrolink isn't exactly a universally loved brand either based on previous research (although last data I saw was from 2018), so why take a name that is a negative to some of the public and apply it to something else? It doesn't make sense.
Finally, to roll it out to other modes of transport will potentially cause confusion for a while and the inherent value of the Metrolink brand won't easily shift over to other forms of transport just because it is used.
If you are creating a newly aligned, integrated transport system, then I would suggest that you more likely need a new brand because you are trying to build something new and that is easier to explain with a launch, rather than trying to get people to re-appraise a brand / removing any brand scarring.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I remember them well, as they launched back during my school years and I used them for a while on my regular bus route down to Stockport. They only lasted for a few years with their original buses, but the fact that they are well remembered 30+ years later says a lot for them.
There is also an original Bee Line Buzz bus, in the Museum of Transport, Greater Manchester at Cheetham Hill. Worth a visit as and when COVID conditions allow.
Good points and I will take your level of expert in the field over mine. I should have perhaps been more clear in my thoughts on the post you quoted, because I was intending to emphasise the word ‘Manchester’ moreso than ‘Metrolink’. Taking the TfL approach, there are common themes such as the roundel and fonts etc. Therefore let’s say the bus network would be ‘Manchester Buses’ rather than ‘Metrolink’ or ‘Metrolink Buses’. There could be a broadly common livery, I.e. the metrolink logo is grey dots fading from left to right in a diamond shape on a yellow background. ‘Manchester Buses’ could have the same but with an Orange background. If there was a metro tunnel that was used to link the various metrolink lines that run on old heavy rail routes, I doubt that would change from ‘Metrolink’ however.
I assumed that it was like the Eurostar yellow - intended to comply with UK heavy rail requirements without being as ugly as painting the front yellow with no connection to the rest of the colour scheme (in case Metrolink ever ended up on heavy rail lines at some future stage)
I just of the opinion it was intended to be bold, modern and highly visible (it was quite something when it first appeared, compared to the old and slightly dated Aquamarine scheme), nothing more complicated than that. A bit of a "rebrand" to coincide with the new fleet replacing the T68s (Although when the plan was to keep some T68s, they would've got the same colour scheme)
Good points and I will take your level of expert in the field over mine. I should have perhaps been more clear in my thoughts on the post you quoted, because I was intending to emphasise the word ‘Manchester’ moreso than ‘Metrolink’. Taking the TfL approach, there are common themes such as the roundel and fonts etc. Therefore let’s say the bus network would be ‘Manchester Buses’ rather than ‘Metrolink’ or ‘Metrolink Buses’. There could be a broadly common livery, I.e. the metrolink logo is grey dots fading from left to right in a diamond shape on a yellow background. ‘Manchester Buses’ could have the same but with an Orange background. If there was a metro tunnel that was used to link the various metrolink lines that run on old heavy rail routes, I doubt that would change from ‘Metrolink’ however.
Meh, it’s Greater Manchester Police and Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue. All the NHS primary care organisations are coalescing around a ‘Manchester’ brand. GMPTE isn’t new either. When the Atherton line is eventually converted to tram-train, it’ll be Manchester Metrolink.
Meh, it’s Greater Manchester Police and Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue. All the NHS primary care organisations are coalescing around a ‘Manchester’ brand. GMPTE isn’t new either. When the Atherton line is eventually converted to tram-train, it’ll be Manchester Metrolink.
Exactly. Wiganers, Boltonians, Salfordians etc are OK with "Greater Manchester" but not "Manchester". "Greater" has to be in there.
Metrolink is not branded "Manchester Metrolink", that's just what people call it. Indeed the original operating company was called "Greater Manchester Metro Ltd" (GMML)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I just of the opinion it was intended to be bold, modern and highly visible (it was quite something when it first appeared, compared to the old and slightly dated Aquamarine scheme), nothing more complicated than that. A bit of a "rebrand" to coincide with the new fleet replacing the T68s (Although when the plan was to keep some T68s, they would've got the same colour scheme)
I still don't and never will subscribe to Bletchleyite's Manchester S-Bahn plan until he can tell me a reasonable proposal for long distance trains. So, get red pilling me.
I still don't and never will subscribe to Bletchleyite's Manchester S-Bahn plan until he can tell me a reasonable proposal for long distance trains. So, get red pilling me.
In conjunction with HS2, NPR will enable capacity to become free on the existing network, to facilitate better services going across Manchester east-west, and the through and terminating services from the south.
But the consensus view is NPR is at best 20 years away. How do you solve the problem now?
Also I concur with use of the word Metrolink given how many of the rail corridors serve substantial populations outside GM (Chester, Crewe, Liverpool, Southport, Warrington etc)
Calder Valley to south Manchester, not necessarily the Airport. Why should the smaller Southport market get what it wants when we have been denied access to Castlefield despite several promises?
Option C, I guess. There doesn't seem to be a viable "S-Bahn" option that uses the infrastructure we have now, because it seems to result in Victoria just having the Castlefield problem instead.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Calder Valley to south Manchester, not necessarily the Airport. Why should the smaller Southport market get what it wants when we have been denied access to Castlefield despite several promises?
The answer there would potentially be to connect at Victoria into a 4tph Stalybridge to south Manchester* S-Bahn service over Ordsall. But not until other things come off Castlefield onto NPR to fit it in!
Blackpool/Bolton to Ringway would be part of the S-Bahn service, potentially coming together with other stuff to provide 4tph from Bolton to south Manchester via the S-Bahn core. The Scotland services would need to go somewhere else, e.g. an improved Victoria with more west-facing capacity, or possibly rebuild the curve on the other side of Picc to allow them to call at Vic then run into and terminate in Picc main trainshed.
* It probably would make sense for this to be the only service to Ringway, on a 4tph all stations basis, as it would offer good connections to there from all central Manchester stations, ideally including new platforms at Salford C. One of the four (or maybe even two) could continue to Crewe.
1) A stable timetable
2) Sufficient capacity on all routes
Arguably Option A, B or C, with train lengthening, does this.
The next step is then to analyse:
-Aspirational frequencies on all routes to provide connectivity (e.g. 4tph via Atherton, as an example)
-Aspirations for cross-Manchester connections.
And I don't think those can be solved properly by anything other than something "big ticket" (e.g. NPR or a "S-Bahn tunnel)
I think the Bolton-Rochdale corridor should be linked up in to a ‘U-shaped’ cross city line like in Birmingham, focussing on Victoria. Then we can have Stalybridge-Airport as another cross city line, focussed on the Ordsall Chord. Finally we have Warrington-Airport cross city line focussed on the Castlefield corridor. The fast and semi-fast services need to for around that.
As a marketeer, I politely beg to differ that it will easily transfer as a brand. That isn't to say that it couldn't be used in the way that people are suggesting, but it won't transfer the existing brand value that exists.
Firstly, virtually everyone in this forum has an interest or a professional involvement in transport and rail. What we know and what we are aware of, isn't the same as that the average paying bus / train / tram customer. Metrolink is one of the few known brands in the area, mainly because they are the only operator of the tram system - Metrolink *is* the tram. The brand is centered around the tram, not transport. Similarly, Metrolink isn't exactly a universally loved brand either based on previous research (although last data I saw was from 2018), so why take a name that is a negative to some of the public and apply it to something else? It doesn't make sense.
Finally, to roll it out to other modes of transport will potentially cause confusion for a while and the inherent value of the Metrolink brand won't easily shift over to other forms of transport just because it is used.
If you are creating a newly aligned, integrated transport system, then I would suggest that you more likely need a new brand because you are trying to build something new and that is easier to explain with a launch, rather than trying to get people to re-appraise a brand / removing any brand scarring.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I remember them well, as they launched back during my school years and I used them for a while on my regular bus route down to Stockport. They only lasted for a few years with their original buses, but the fact that they are well remembered 30+ years later says a lot for them.
There is also an original Bee Line Buzz bus, in the Museum of Transport, Greater Manchester at Cheetham Hill. Worth a visit as and when COVID conditions allow.
Good points and I will take your level of expert in the field over mine. I should have perhaps been more clear in my thoughts on the post you quoted, because I was intending to emphasise the word ‘Manchester’ moreso than ‘Metrolink’. Taking the TfL approach, there are common themes such as the roundel and fonts etc. Therefore let’s say the bus network would be ‘Manchester Buses’ rather than ‘Metrolink’ or ‘Metrolink Buses’. There could be a broadly common livery, I.e. the metrolink logo is grey dots fading from left to right in a diamond shape on a yellow background. ‘Manchester Buses’ could have the same but with an Orange background. If there was a metro tunnel that was used to link the various metrolink lines that run on old heavy rail routes, I doubt that would change from ‘Metrolink’ however.
Meh, it’s Greater Manchester Police and Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue. All the NHS primary care organisations are coalescing around a ‘Manchester’ brand. GMPTE isn’t new either. When the Atherton line is eventually converted to tram-train, it’ll be Manchester Metrolink.
Conversely (and I hope I'm not drifting too far off topic) in West Yorkshire we had Metro as the marketing name from the start. That then led into MetroBus from the late 1970s, MetroTrain from 1979, MetroCard, Metro-National, MetroLine, Metro SaverStrip. From MetroConnect (early 2000s) onwards it got a bit confusing (MetroConnect FreeCityBus), MetroTrain was dropped in favour of West Yorshire's Rail Network and MetroCard was dropped in favour of MCard.
I wouldn't extend Metrolink as a brand name simply it doesn't scream 'tram' at me; a wholescale rebrand would be in order to cover bus, tram, train, integrated ticketing, whatever.
Conversely (and I hope I'm not drifting too far off topic) in West Yorkshire we had Metro as the marketing name from the start. That then led into MetroBus from the late 1970s, MetroTrain from 1979, MetroCard, Metro-National, MetroLine, Metro SaverStrip. From MetroConnect (early 2000s) onwards it got a bit confusing (MetroConnect FreeCityBus), MetroTrain was dropped in favour of West Yorshire's Rail Network and MetroCard was dropped in favour of MCard.
I wouldn't extend Metrolink as a brand name simply it doesn't scream 'tram' at me; a wholescale rebrand would be in order to cover bus, tram, train, integrated ticketing, whatever.
I actually quite like the idea mentioned upthread of calling the system as a whole "the Bee" - it slightly apes some of the US cities that call their transit system "the T" but with a Manchester twist.
I've often thought about how to get a metro system into Manchester.
My current favoured solution is a Copenhagen esque metro style job with box stations, but just running at very high densities to increase capacity.
A metro running 30tph with 39m trains is considerably cheaper than one running 10tph with tube length trains (120m)
I've often thought about how to get a metro system into Manchester.
My current favoured solution is a Copenhagen esque metro style job with box stations, but just running at very high densities to increase capacity.
A metro running 30tph with 39m trains is considerably cheaper than one running 10tph with tube length trains (120m)
Just putting Metrolink underground in the manner of the Haagse Tramtunnel would be a really easy way to do it. Operation could remain on sight so allow for a very high throughput. The stations would just have to be as long as a double tram which is about what you're suggesting (a bit longer).
That doesn't solve the Castlefield problem, though, because other than Warrington post-NPR most routes that use it aren't ripe for Metrolink conversion as they run to far beyond Manchester or interact with other services in a way that would make Metrolinking them non-viable.
Just putting Metrolink underground in the manner of the Haagse Tramtunnel would be a really easy way to do it. Operation could remain on sight so allow for a very high throughput. The stations would just have to be as long as a double tram which is about what you're suggesting (a bit longer).
That doesn't solve the Castlefield problem, though, because other than Warrington post-HS2 most routes that use it aren't ripe for Metrolink conversion as they run to far beyond Manchester or interact with other services in a way that would make Metrolinking them non-viable.
Supposedly the VDV in Germany are working on a 120km/h tram train.
And 100km/h tram train with a toilet module could reach Wigan without too much difficulty on the Atherton line, indeed I think it can reach top speed over the vast majority of it.
If you can unload the rest of the Manchester routes, you can shuffle things around to ease the load on the Castlefield corridor.
And 100km/h tram train with a toilet module could reach Wigan without too much difficulty on the Atherton line, indeed I think it can reach top speed over the vast majority of it.
If you can unload the rest of the Manchester routes, you can shuffle things around to ease the load on the Castlefield corridor.
The Atherton Line does not (presently*) run onto Castlefield. Nor do the Hadfields or the Marples, or Chester via Northwich, the other lines ripe for conversion. I'm in favour of more conversion, but the most you could take off Castlefield with it is 2tph from Warrington, and only then if NPR is built to give Warrington an alternative fast service.
* Option C does to be fair propose one peak extra that does, and TfGM proposing 1tph that does, but as things stand it doesn't.
I've often thought about how to get a metro system into Manchester.
My current favoured solution is a Copenhagen esque metro style job with box stations, but just running at very high densities to increase capacity.
A metro running 30tph with 39m trains is considerably cheaper than one running 10tph with tube length trains (120m)
If such a metro tunnel ever happens I think it will be more like the new Tyne & Wear metro trains, with services connecting the Bury, Atherton, Altrincham, Glossop/Hadfield and Rise Hill lines. Tram trains will share the tracks outside the city centre like the Airport line flowing on to the East Didsbury line and the Middleton, Oldham & Rochdale services running alongside the Bury trains.
If such a metro tunnel ever happens I think it will be more like the new Tyne & Wear metro trains, with services connecting the Bury, Atherton, Altrincham, Glossop/Hadfield and Rise Hill lines. Tram trains will share the tracks outside the city centre like the Airport line flowing on to the East Didsbury line and the Middleton, Oldham & Rochdale services running alongside the Bury trains.
Keeping the vehicles, electrification system etc the same as Metrolink would add flexibility, such as (Den Haag does this) diversion onto the street running sections (or vice versa) for engineering works.
There is only about 13 miles of roujte between Manchester and Southport rated over 60mph, and that is 70.
A 120km/h tram train could definitely keep to time, indeed a 60mph one might be able to given the number of stops
As for Kirkby, its got a higher proportion of 70mph running, but still not that much in the grand scheme of things, again with the stops even a 100km/h tram train can probably keep up.
Buxton is only 60mph or less throughout, at least south of Stockport.
The Atherton Line does not (presently*) run onto Castlefield. Nor do the Hadfields or the Marples, or Chester via Northwich, the other lines ripe for conversion. I'm in favour of more conversion, but the most you could take off Castlefield with it is 2tph from Warrington, and only then if NPR is built to give Warrington an alternative fast service.
* Option C does to be fair propose one peak extra that does, and TfGM proposing 1tph that does, but as things stand it doesn't.
Well there is no need to commit to a purely tram tunnel.
We could always embrace something along the lines of the Zwickau model, or even just ultra high density signalling.
EDIT:
We can fit heavy rail trains with magnetic track brakes and other suitable accroutrements of tram operation, or just fit the CBTC or similar for 30+tph in the central section.
We could always embrace something along the lines of the Zwickau model, or even just ultra high density signalling.
EDIT:
We can fit heavy rail trains with magnetic track brakes and other suitable accroutrements of tram operation, or just fit the CBTC or similar for 30+tph in the central section.
Kirkby needs to be Merseyrail to the bay at Wigan. Atherton should be Metrolink terminating at Wigan (possibly a new on-street loop rather than Wallgate). Warrington, post NPR, should be Merseyrail and Metrolink. "IC" services (Barrow/Windermere/Scotland plus probably Clitheroe) should go to a revived Victoria with new west-facing platforms and better platform facilities. TPE onto NPR.
That (on the west side) basically leaves the "heavy rail metro" - Chat Moss, Blackpool and maybe Southport via Bolton - which would fit Castlefield provided the style of things was the same as Thameslink - long trains, doors at thirds. The CAF stock is actually already suitable for that. Half to Stockport (new bay) and half to Ringway, all stations? (Post HS2 for paths on the WCML, I guess). Plus 4tph Stalyvegas to Ringway again all stations.
Overused, more like. There's a tendency to do that in the UK. The Merseyrail loop carries 14tph, why is it reliable? Because the whole setup was designed for 30tph.
Good points and I will take your level of expert in the field over mine. I should have perhaps been more clear in my thoughts on the post you quoted, because I was intending to emphasise the word ‘Manchester’ moreso than ‘Metrolink’. Taking the TfL approach, there are common themes such as the roundel and fonts etc. Therefore let’s say the bus network would be ‘Manchester Buses’ rather than ‘Metrolink’ or ‘Metrolink Buses’. There could be a broadly common livery, I.e. the metrolink logo is grey dots fading from left to right in a diamond shape on a yellow background. ‘Manchester Buses’ could have the same but with an Orange background. If there was a metro tunnel that was used to link the various metrolink lines that run on old heavy rail routes, I doubt that would change from ‘Metrolink’ however.
Absolutely agree with your comments. Personally, I think you start with something new and build it from there, with consistent cross-transport branding, naming etc. There are also some other very good suggestions and builds from others in the past few hours as well.
Finally, the 'Manchester' naming part does start to cause issues as you reach parts of Greater Manchester (and Lancashire etc) that don't consider themselves as in Manchester. I've had a project recently on a National campaign with localised Out of Home media being used. Most towns and cities are fine, but for Greater Manchester and in the Salford area in particular, it was quite contentious agreeing which poster sites should mention Salford, which ones Manchester etc. It is one of those debates where you'll never please everyone consistently!
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
