Manchester Metrolink: how could it be improved?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just as a matter of interest, I was on the tram stop at Wythenshawe Town Centre and the Manchester-bound trams had destination boards stating "Victoria via Market Street" which seems to be quite explicit.

 

[Driver12345]

I really don’t understand what Metrolink have got against route numbers.

I'm not againsit this, I use trams all over the world and a few use route numbers. 1 issue I can think off is that under the normal service pattern we run Eccles to Ashton via MediaCityUK and Bury to Piccadilly, but if the Eccles line is closed or has a service change (Remeberance Sunday comes to mind when Eccles is turned short until dinner time and then only runs to Piccadilly for the reminder of the day) and the service pattern comes Bury to Ashton, how will this be put as a route number as its only now and again so would it need a number its in on right or would there need to a "special" route number. It could get confusing if there is mutiple changes like that.

Somehting like the Bury to Piccadilly service is running Whitefield to Piccadilly could easily be identifed bu using a / throught the route number. From my expericnce, this works well as it shows its the normal X route but terminating short.

There is no reason TFGM couldn't have the same though, looking at the bigger picture signage is cheap and can make a big difference.

Even just more prominent "This Platform for Bury" or similar signage would be a welcome addition.

Most staions aleady have this dont they? Alhtough i thhink they say trams towards the City on the inbound platforms. They cant put trams towards X on them as if there a service pattern change for improvement works this could cause issues for passangers that dont use the network regulary and touritsts as they would be looking for a tram that say X but they all say Y.

Would be more helpful if displays at stops were like train station displays by listing all calling points, rather than destination!

How long woud that take to scroll, espcially on a service like East Didsbury to Rochdale. Like somone else has metioned, just key stops would be better.

 

[VT 390]

I'm not againsit this, I use trams all over the world and a few use route numbers. 1 issue I can think off is that under the normal service pattern we run Eccles to Ashton via MediaCityUK and Bury to Piccadilly, but if the Eccles line is closed or has a service change (Remeberance Sunday comes to mind when Eccles is turned short until dinner time and then only runs to Piccadilly for the reminder of the day) and the service pattern comes Bury to Ashton, how will this be put as a route number as its only now and again so would it need a number its in on right or would there need to a "special" route number. It could get confusing if there is mutiple changes like that.

I think a temporary route number or letter would be fine for amended services, while it is a smaller network when the South Yorkshire Supertram had closures a few years ago they had a temporary Green route which is not normally used and it appeared to work fine.

 

[Russel]

Most staions aleady have this dont they? Alhtough i thhink they say trams towards the City on the inbound platforms. They cant put trams towards X on them as if there a service pattern change for improvement works this could cause issues for passangers that dont use the network regulary and touritsts as they would be looking for a tram that say X but they all say Y.

To be honest, I'm not sure, if they do, it certainly isn't obvious.

My gripe is mostly with the city centre stops like Picadilly Gardens and St Peters Square where you have multiple lines and services converging but very little to point you in the right direction, even network maps seem limited to those on the ticket machines, which usually have a crowd of people around them.

I think the system has grown but signage and wayfinding hasn't kept up and needs a rethink.

 

[HSTEd]

If you assigned the Tram system bus route numbers starting with a "T" prefix, even two digits would allow enough numbers to be used for any number of contingency options.

It would be a question of map design to succinctly convey this to the passenger.

 

[croydontangle]

Croydon Tramlink, a far simpler tram network, gave up on route numbers years ago because they were thought to be confusing.

Tramlink was confusing because it had too many routes for its size and really weird timings that made it hard to plan around reliably.

Spoiler: Explanation of the Tramlink route simplification

Tramlink used to have four routes (all times are from the Monday-Friday timetable):

• Line 1: Elmers End-Croydon-Elmers End, every 14 minutes
• Line 2: Beckenham Junction-Croydon-Beckenham Junction, every 10 minutes
• Line 3: New Addington-Wimbledon, every 7/8 minutes
• Line 4: Elmers End-Wimbledon, every 14 minutes (Line 4 shared a timetable with Line 1 and filled in the gaps to give a service every 7 minutes to/from Croydon)

In 2018 this was simplified to the current network:

• Elmers End-Wimbledon, every ten minutes (ish, there are some odd dropped ones)
• Beckenham Junction-Wimbledon, every ten minutes (alternating with the trams from EE)
• New Addington-Croydon-New Addington, every seven minutes

Some trams run around the loop from Elmers End in the evening, but broadly speaking there's a tram between Croydon and Wimbledon and vice versa every five minutes rather than every two to eight.

I don't think it would've made sense to keep the route numbers after they cut the network down but I wouldn't say the numbers themselves were the confusing part of the old system.

 

[TheGrew]

I was just having another look at the map for possible Metrolink extensions and just thought that the former Glazebrook East Junction-Skelton Junction Line. Might make for quite an interesting extension.
I would start by taking what currently looks like a siding and creating a ramp to bring it to the overpass bridge at Deansgate Junction before continuing along the old alignment and over the ship canal (likely on a new bridge structure!). Before bringing it back to street level at Liverpool Road and taking it up to a terminus somewhere near Irlam Station for intermodal connectivity.
Appreciate some fairly major civil works to replace the. ship canal bridge, but it seems like much of the rest of the alignment is still there, and it would link Partington with a very useful public transport connection.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would start by taking what currently looks like a siding and creating a ramp to bring it to the overpass bridge at Deansgate Junction before continuing along the old alignment and over the ship canal (likely on a new bridge structure!). Before bringing it back to street level at Liverpool Road and taking it up to a terminus somewhere near Irlam Station for intermodal connectivity.
Appreciate some fairly major civil works to replace the. ship canal bridge, but it seems like much of the rest of the alignment is still there, and it would link Partington with a very useful public transport connection.

Will the cost of bringing this aspiration into fruition be irreconcilable with the benefits it purports to serve?

 

[daodao]

I was just having another look at the map for possible Metrolink extensions and just thought that the former Glazebrook East Junction-Skelton Junction Line. Might make for quite an interesting extension.
I would start by taking what currently looks like a siding and creating a ramp to bring it to the overpass bridge at Deansgate Junction before continuing along the old alignment and over the ship canal (likely on a new bridge structure!). Before bringing it back to street level at Liverpool Road and taking it up to a terminus somewhere near Irlam Station for intermodal connectivity.
Appreciate some fairly major civil works to replace the. ship canal bridge, but it seems like much of the rest of the alignment is still there, and it would link Partington with a very useful public transport connection.

Even if the Glazebrook to Skelton Junction line could be revived without inordinate expense, I fail to see its usefulness as a potential public passenger transport route.

It does not provide good connectivity at either end. Glazebrook and Irlam currently have limited heavy rail services with a fairly low frequency. There is no easy way to link the eastern end to the current Metrolink line from Altrincham to Manchester, and the link onto the existing rail line towards Northenden is of limited usefulness.

Former stations at Cadishead, Partington and West Timperley are poorly sited. The existing TfGM 247 bus service provides better connectivity between Partington (serving the housing estate) and Altrincham (serving the town centre as well as the retail park); the area between these 2 places is largely rural. The proposed route wouldn't reduce the relative isolation of the deprived town of Partington.

Metrolink expansion should focus on radial routes into Central Manchester, such as the ex-GC line from Piccadilly via Reddish to Marple Roase Hill, which was part of the original proposals in the 1980s. This could make use of existing capacity in the city centre, as services currently terminating at Piccadilly undercroft could just be extended onto it via a short new surface light rail link from there to Ashburys.

 

[lowe1409]

Even if the Glazebrook to Skelton Junction line could be revived without inordinate expense, I fail to see its usefulness as a potential public passenger transport route.

It does not provide good connectivity at either end. Glazebrook and Irlam currently have limited heavy rail services with a fairly low frequency. There is no easy way to link the eastern end to the current Metrolink line from Altrincham to Manchester, and the link onto the existing rail line towards Northenden is of limited usefulness.

Former stations at Cadishead, Partington and West Timperley are poorly sited. The existing TfGM 247 bus service provides better connectivity between Partington (serving the housing estate) and Altrincham (serving the town centre as well as the retail park); the area between these 2 places is largely rural. The proposed route wouldn't reduce the relative isolation of the deprived town of Partington.

Metrolink expansion should focus on radial routes into Central Manchester, such as the ex-GC line from Piccadilly via Reddish to Marple Roase Hill, which was part of the original proposals in the 1980s. This could make use of existing capacity in the city centre, as services currently terminating at Piccadilly undercroft could just be extended onto it via a short new surface light rail link from there to Ashburys.

Could an extension be used to justify new housing or development around Carrington? Build the transport first before the houses, a model not seen very much in the western world.

From glazebrook you have the option to extend towards Wigan too serving actually useful end to end orbital connections (Stockport to Wigan) once again opening up more options for development within Wigan along the route of the line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could an extension be used to justify new housing or development around Carrington? Build the transport first before the houses, a model not seen very much in the western world.

Carrington is not an area that many people would see as an ideal place to live. New social development brings to mind a song that I sang in the late 1960's with our folk group that was based on what my old chum Mike Harding wrote that started....
"Oh dear, what can the matter be
Some silly buggar has sent us to Hattersley
We've been up Hattersley three weeks this Saturday
Eeh how I wish we wern't here"

Two lads whose name I now cannot recall, in the mid 1960's also wrote a song about people being moved the the periphery areas, the first verse is......
"A fella from the Corpy, just out of Planning School
Has told us that we're being moved right out of Liverpool
Don't want to go to Kirkby or Skelmersdale or Speke,
Don't want to go, from all I know, in Back Buchanan Street"

How much financing would be required to bring this aspirational Metrolink line into fruition? I do recall that in 2025, Trafford Council had a project called "New Carrington Masterplan" which was part of the strategic "Places for N Everyone". Any news on that project, a year later in 2026?