No, I don’t not have those stats. What agency points to the population of a city that has a dog and/or a bike that needs to use public transport with their dog and/or bike? I have a dog; I’m not not taking him on the train. As for a bike, I don’t cycle but I would if I had the confidence of cycling on our roads. However, the fact that a bike is allowed on a jam packed train makes taking a bike on a train pointless.
In fact more pressing than bikes is an inadequate infrastructure set up for wheelchair users. People who cycle can use their legs. Try getting on a train with a wheelchair... no chance. At least metro link has completely accessible stations and trains, which our completely inadequate heavy rail network can’t do.
However, what would improve Manchester’s rail network isn’t solved by allowing bikes on the trams (how often do you use the tram?)
What would assist in solving the rail problems in Manchester is doing things like terminating Sheffield services at Piccadilly, rather than head off to Liverpool, building HS2, building NPR, expanding metrolink, etc etc.
As a dog owner, why do you not feel comfortable taking him on the train? This kind of insight is needed by TfGM and others in making their vehicles more dog-friendly. As for cycling on our roads, it’s counter intuitive that you have to take a different route when cycling than when driving, to avoid cars.
The infrastructure for wheelchairs has been improved on Merseyrail largely due to Stadler’s innovation of sliding steps and the T&W Metro will follow for the same reason. I don’t understand why lifts were provided at Formby, which already had step free access to both platforms, before certain other stations that were not accessible at all, namely Hillside, but Merseyrail apparently accounts for 2% of all heavy rail platforms in Great Britain and with the promise that all of them will be step free by 2028, it’s looking good for accessibility in the north. To say that level boarding could not be provided on Crossrail and Thameslink in London were just outright lies.
Without knowing that rail services in Greater Manchester HAVE to be improved, due to Castlefield unreliability and capacity issues etc, providing additional facilities for passengers on rail services in Greater Manchester including resolving the Metrolink dog/bike issue still constitutes a considerable improvement for those passengers who choose to bring dogs and/or bikes on trams, which they may have a very legitimate reason to do. While it is clearly not as much of a priority as resolving Castlefield or building HS2/HS3, it could be solved overnight with so much as a rule change, not requiring any of the complex infrastructural work Castlefield, a high speed line, a tunnel or even any more Metrolink conversions will.
But if you do both of these things, the frequencies and train lengths can be improved and you don't require conversion of lines to Metrolink. As I have said before, Metrolink should focus on street running and using disused alignments, bringing back my previous examples of up the Bury New Road and along the busway to Leigh. I do agree that improvements are needed but rushing in and Metrolinking everything without a care in the world isn't the answer.
Blindly Metrolinking everything except the Leigh Guided Busway…
I went on the Leigh Guided Busway recently and I don’t understand why it’s so hilly when it’s supposed to be a disused rail alignment. Shouldn’t it be fairly level? Unfortunately I will never be able to cycle along the Leigh Guided Busway because I am unable to take my bike to Leigh.
If the Metrolink focuses on street running and bringing back disused alignments, there’s no need for it to run a downgraded service on former heavy rail lines is there. Those could easily run into a tunnel and resume proper service.
Well you do still need metrolink. It’ll evolve over time with a tunnel, to become a hybrid network of tram-trains and metro trains. It also creates more capacity for services on the WCML.
I’d like to see this evolution. What does the Metrolink do to the WCML?
Tramways are not comparable with heavy rail level crossings. Trams cross junctions in amongst the road traffic - the tram signals are controlled by the UTC traffic light controllers. So a 28m single tram does not delay the road traffic significantly. The issue is that a 56m double length formation occupies the junction too long, blocking turning traffic and causing congestion.
I doubt that a 56m tram every 12 minutes is the greatest source of congestion on the roads. Another one might be the sheer number of cars above what most road junctions were designed for, or the use of temporary traffic lights.
The Altrincham and E Didsbury lines will not be converted back to "proper" heavy rail. The former alignment of the Altrincham line at Cornbrook Junction is now buried under the A56 Bridgewater Way, as is the former western end of the South Manchester line where it joined the CLC line at Throstle Nest Junction. Heavy rail vehicles, metro or otherwise, could not negotiate the steep gradients and tight curves of the replacement Metrolink flying junctions at Cornbrook and Trafford Bar.
I bet something more reasonable could be done with them, involving reconfiguring the waste ground and car park adjacent to Talbot Road and the depot. The one at Cornbrook doesn’t look quite as sharp.
