Manchester If Only

[northwichcat]

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

Liverpool has Merseyrail which in reality is very similar to Metrolink phase 1 except in the city centre section. A plan for a tram-train between the Albert Dock and Liverpool Airport is still on the cards.

If the Harrogate line were to be converted to light rail with an extension in the city centre involving street running Metrolink style with Metrolink style ticketing, would it really be beneficial? In Manchester it's the students and long distance travellers who seem to complain the most about Metrolink with combined tram+train tickets not offering student/railcard discount and trams not being able to take large suitcases, while Headingley has a cricket ground which hosts internationals and a university campus.

 

[DarloRich]

I thought the proposed Leeds trams were ditched by the previous government

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The Leeds, Bristol, Liverpool and South Hampshire schemes were all scrapped by the DfT under Darling's time in charge of them I seem to recall.

 

[table38]

The Leeds, Bristol, Liverpool and South Hampshire schemes were all scrapped by the DfT under Darling's time in charge of them I seem to recall.

Not Alistair Darling, MP for Edinburgh South West... maybe that's where all the tram money went then

 

[Waverley125]

Manchester Metrolink needs extensions in addition to the latest enlargement, including the second city crossing between Victoria & St Peters.

 

[snail]

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

So your solution is not to fix the current system but to replace it with a vastly expensive underground! Many of the problems are related to the original trams no longer being fit for purpose. New trams are on order to replace these but can't be introduced until the tram management system is made compatible. A little more research before making sweeping statements would give your comments more credibility.

 

[kleb15]

So your solution is not to fix the current system but to replace it with a vastly expensive underground! Many of the problems are related to the original trams no longer being fit for purpose. New trams are on order to replace these but can't be introduced until the tram management system is made compatible. A little more research before making sweeping statements would give your comments more credibility.

Christ, touch a nerve did I. You clearly work for the Met. And to be honest if you'd decided to read from the beginning you would see that I proposed having an Underground along side the Met, not replacing it as you said. If you look at the map on the first page you'll see that. So maybe you should do a little bit more research on the thread before coming out with sweeping statements, it would give your comments more credibility.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

So maybe you should do a little bit more research on the thread before coming out with sweeping statements, it would give your comments more credibility.

Pot kettle black anyone?

 

[kleb15]

Pot kettle black anyone?

I honestly don't see what your problem is, you relaise this wasn't a serious suggestion, people are taking this far too seriously and just need to get a life, it was a map that i designed out of boredom on paint, that has somehow managed to turn into a major talking point that people are actually getting wound up about. Jesus, it's pathetic

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Shock horror, someone posts something on an internet forum and people discuss it. You seemed to argue your case quite passionately at the start, so now you're telling us you don't really care who says what. If you didn't mean it why come up with all the arguments, the facts and figures? Surely if you do this you must realise people are probably going to take it seriously I certainly didn't read it as a joke that way from your OP and badly drawn map or the way you've defended it since. I should have probably known it wasn't serious as it's such a ludicrous idea, but still...

 

[kleb15]

Shock horror, someone posts something on an internet forum and people discuss it. You seemed to argue your case quite passionately at the start, so now you're telling us you don't really care who says what. If you didn't mean it why come up with all the arguments, the facts and figures? Surely if you do this you must realise people are probably going to take it seriously I certainly didn't read it as a joke that way from your OP and badly drawn map or the way you've defended it since. I should have probably known it wasn't serious as it's such a ludicrous idea, but still...

Exactly mate, ludicrous is the word, cos there's not thousands of smaller cities all around the world that have less commuters yet still have an underground rail service and tram service are there

 

[telstarbox]

Have you asked Manchester City Council or Transport for Greater Manchester for their comments on your proposal?

 

[kleb15]

Have you asked Manchester City Council or Transport for Greater Manchester for their comments on your proposal?

Na, its pointless, cos i am aware how much Underground trains can cost, i alos read somewhere once the reason Manchester never went ahead and built an underground was because there is something already existing there that they can't build through/past, so if thats the case its pointless, plus they wouldn't get funding even if it was possible

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I also read somewhere once the reason Manchester never went ahead and built an underground was because there is something already existing there that they can't build through/past

You have intruiged me here with what you say. Exactly what is this obstruction and where is it ?

 

[nerd]

Na, its pointless, cos i am aware how much Underground trains can cost, i alos read somewhere once the reason Manchester never went ahead and built an underground was because there is something already existing there that they can't build through/past, so if thats the case its pointless, plus they wouldn't get funding even if it was possible

Not so; an urban myth. There is indeed a nuclear bomb-proof complex of tunnels under central Manchester - but it is a good 120 ft down, and would not have interfered with the propose Picc-Vic underground.

The Heath government did propose to fund an urban transit system in each of Manchester, Liverpool and Manchester in the early 70s. Then, when all three schemes ran over budget, the Picc-Vic was axed and the other two went ahead. The key reason why the Manchester scheme was dropped was the determined and absolute opposition from Stockport MBC. Stockport (who had just completed the Merseyway shopping centre) insisted that no trains should go through central Manchester that did not also go through central Stockport.

Realistically however, the Picc-Vic line was an exceptionally poor scheme; and Manchester must be heartily glad that it was never built. Like Merseyrail, or the North Clyde line in Glasgow (and unlike the Tyneside Metro) it was essentially a tunnel under the city centre, linking suburban heavy rail lines. Other than in the city centre itself, there would have been very few stations actually within Manchester itself; so it is most unlikely that it would have contributed much to the citys' transport needs.

And - like the Tyneside Metro and Merseyrail, but unlike Metrolink - it would have required at least a 50% operating subsidy.

 

[Jonny]

What Manchester city centre largely lacks is any grade separation at all (except heavy/proper rail); only a few bits and bobs around Mancunian Way are grade separated for roads (with the exception of the occasional footbridge/pedestrian subway) and IIRC from having gone to Uni there, there is none at all for the Metrolink system between Piccadilly, Victoria and (almost) Deansgate-Castlefield. The potential for gridlock is obvious

 

[tbtc]

Exactly mate, ludicrous is the word, cos there's not thousands of smaller cities all around the world that have less commuters yet still have an underground rail service and tram service are there

By the same token, Leeds/ Bristol/ Newcastle/ Glasgow/ Cardiff etc should all have trams because Blackpool has got a tram?

 

[ainsworth74]

By the same token, Leeds/ Bristol/ Newcastle/ Glasgow/ Cardiff etc should all have trams because Blackpool has got a tram?

I think you could argue that cities the size of Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow and Cardiff probably could do with having a tram system (though perhaps less so Newcastle with the Metro already in place).

 

[tbtc]

I think you could argue that cities the size of Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow and Cardiff probably could do with having a tram system (though perhaps less so Newcastle with the Metro already in place).

You certainly could.

Maybe if we started with a blank sheet of paper (or MS Paint document!) we'd have got underground routes in many UK cities. But because the settlements were there long before underground technology, there's no realistic hope of any new Underground networks in the UK.

Manchester has hardly had a bad deal in terms of public transport investment though.

 

[northwichcat]

By the same token, Leeds/ Bristol/ Newcastle/ Glasgow/ Cardiff etc should all have trams because Blackpool has got a tram?

Blackpool has a first generation tram line. Most other towns and cities with one closed them down.

 

[John55]

You certainly could.

Maybe if we started with a blank sheet of paper (or MS Paint document!) we'd have got underground routes in many UK cities. But because the settlements were there long before underground technology, there's no realistic hope of any new Underground networks in the UK.

Manchester has hardly had a bad deal in terms of public transport investment though.

Surely the only reason an underground system is built is that the settlement came first and there was/is therefore nowhere to put a surface railway. If the route from Paddington to Kings Cross had been open fields the Metropolitan Railway line would not have been built underground at almost ruinous expense.

 

[tbtc]

Surely the only reason an underground system is built is that the settlement came first and there was/is therefore nowhere to put a surface railway. If the route from Paddington to Kings Cross had been open fields the Metropolitan Railway line would not have been built underground at almost ruinous expense.

Yes, but nowadays cities are far too "busy" underground for there to be space to put an underground.

When the London network was built, there was space under the ground for a railway to be built. With all the wires/ pipes etc under modern cities there's no space for a similar thing in Manchester.

About the only scope for a new Underground network would have been somewhere like Milton Keynes.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Blackpool might be a first generation tram but it just went through a huge upgrade. Nottingham will soon have a larger tram network than sheffield how is that fair?

Because this is not how life works. Manchester is doing just fine, the Northern Hub is basically the Manchster Hub (as it was known originally) and it has the largest tram network in the UK with extensions all the time. Ordstall curve will do some of the same jobs..

 

[northwichcat]

Blackpool might be a first generation tram but it just went through a huge upgrade.

Given it was decided that it was viable to keep it open for so long while in other places it wasn't viable to keep the old tramway open, the upgrade is long overdue.

Nottingham will soon have a larger tram network than sheffield how is that fair?

Nottingham's tram gets daily ridership of 2874 for every mile of tram line, while Sheffield's tram gets daily ridership of 2778 for every mile of tram line.

So Sheffield's system is performing more poorly on average and Nottingham has less tram line - so it sounds very fair for Nottingham to get more tramlines ahead of Sheffield.

Because this is not how life works. Manchester is doing just fine, the Northern Hub is basically the Manchester Hub

Even though services with rising passenger numbers have seen peak time service cuts because they aren't enough paths in and around Manchester?

The Northern Hub does now include electrification east of Guide Bridge - which is mostly in Yorkshire, as well as proposals for additional Halifax-Leeds, Leeds-Selby and Leeds-Huddersfield services.

The original plans included additional Manchester-Sheffield services and Calder Vale-Manchester Airport services.

 

[snail]

You clearly work for the Met.

Oh dear. The classic symptom of a lost argument. If someone disagrees with you accuse them of working for the organization. As it happens, I don't.

 

[kleb15]

You have intruiged me here with what you say. Exactly what is this obstruction and where is it ?

Basically what nerd said. Thought that was the reason why, but apparantly it wouldn't have obstructed anything anyway

 

[ukrob]

Nottingham's tram gets daily ridership of 2874 for every mile of tram line, while Sheffield's tram gets daily ridership of 2778 for every mile of tram.

That is an interesting statistic. Where does it come from? Are they available for Manchester?

 

[exile]

That is an interesting statistic. Where does it come from? Are they available for Manchester?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/light-rail-tram-2011/

For Manchester - journeys 19.2 million per year = 54,900 per day. System length is 39km (24 miles) - so that's 2,158 per mile.

The stats for Nottingham and Sheffield should actually be 3,037 and 2,267.

I would have thought passenger km per route km would be more meaningful as it indicates how busy the line is on average, that is, the number of passengers that pass a random position on the route in a year - that stat for Manchester is 5.1 million per year, Sheffield 3.4 million and Nottingham 3 million (to complete the set - DLR 12.5 million, Tyne and Wear 5.3 million,
West Midlands 2.5 million, Croydon 5.2 million and Blackpool 272,000)

Or you can have passenger km per vehicle km - that is, the average number of passengers per tram - Manchester 53, Sheffield 41, Nottingham 38, DLR 88, Croydon 56, West Midland 30, Tyne and Wear 56 and Blackpool 10

 

[John55]

Yes, but nowadays cities are far too "busy" underground for there to be space to put an underground.

When the London network was built, there was space under the ground for a railway to be built. With all the wires/ pipes etc under modern cities there's no space for a similar thing in Manchester.

About the only scope for a new Underground network would have been somewhere like Milton Keynes.

So it would be impossible then to build the Jubilee Line Extension, Crossrail, the new underground water main & the new storm water sewer under London.....oh wait they all did get built or are being built!

While there can be problems under London finding a path sometimes it still seems as though routes can be found. There is a route for Crossrail 2 all waiting for its time. So if London can manage it I struggle to see how there is much of a problem elsewhere.

 

[tbtc]

So it would be impossible then to build the Jubilee Line Extension, Crossrail, the new underground water main & the new storm water sewer under London.....oh wait they all did get built or are being built!

While there can be problems under London finding a path sometimes it still seems as though routes can be found. There is a route for Crossrail 2 all waiting for its time. So if London can manage it I struggle to see how there is much of a problem elsewhere.

Spend £16 billion on one line (the cost of Crossrail?) and anything can be done.

But nobody can give me a real reason why Manchester would justify that kind of investment (on top of all the other investment its had/ getting)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nottingham's tram gets daily ridership of 2874 for every mile of tram line, while Sheffield's tram gets daily ridership of 2778 for every mile of tram line.

So Sheffield's system is performing more poorly on average and Nottingham has less tram line - so it sounds very fair for Nottingham to get more tramlines ahead of Sheffield

http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/light-rail-tram-2011/

For Manchester - journeys 19.2 million per year = 54,900 per day. System length is 39km (24 miles) - so that's 2,158 per mile.

The stats for Nottingham and Sheffield should actually be 3,037 and 2,267.

I would have thought passenger km per route km would be more meaningful as it indicates how busy the line is on average, that is, the number of passengers that pass a random position on the route in a year - that stat for Manchester is 5.1 million per year, Sheffield 3.4 million and Nottingham 3 million (to complete the set - DLR 12.5 million, Tyne and Wear 5.3 million,
West Midlands 2.5 million, Croydon 5.2 million and Blackpool 272,000)

Or you can have passenger km per vehicle km - that is, the average number of passengers per tram - Manchester 53, Sheffield 41, Nottingham 38, DLR 88, Croydon 56, West Midland 30, Tyne and Wear 56 and Blackpool 10

So Manchester gets fewer passengers per mile than Sheffield/ Nottingham, yet has had plenty of extensions?

Remember, Sheffield has still got the same trams (no new ones in two decades) and the same track.

Either way, I look forward to the "daily ridership for every mile of track" as a reason why Northern England cannot justify any investment, since Southern England has many more passengers per mile of track...