Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Moonshot]

That's because all of those 'issues' are entirely of the making of the people who want all the good stuff for themeselves in London; the DfT. There's one perfectly simple solution to increase passenger use that has just been pointed out; investment in new stock and infrastructure.

Well the investment in trams has certainly paid dividends in Manchester.

 

[muz379]

Well the investment in trams has certainly paid dividends in Manchester.

just out of interest do you think the tram going to the airport was a wise spend ?

 

[Moonshot]

just out of interest do you think the tram going to the airport was a wise spend ?

A wise spend.....hmm thats an interesting one, though I have noticed the piece on the BBC news website thats its opening early.

Whether it proves to be a wise spend wont be known for years to come.....and I m not privy to the BCR for it. But I cant knock the fact that the tram has been a significant factor in re generating Manchester , particularly after the aftermath of an IRA bomb in 96

 

[Starmill]

I'll wager that if the HST's end up on a completely different route to those they're on now, say, Tpe maybe or maybe even the E-W services when they get displaced. The cast off thread would probably not reach two pages. No one is getting anywhere with this north-south arguing so lets make the best of these units, and hopefully the next northern franchise will have much better maintenance standards. That for me is the main problem. Also, I bet all the west midlands posters on this forum are probably all smug reading this thread. After all, they've done rather well recently with new stock haven't they!!

Very true. Everyone seems to forget there are pacers in the South West but there aren't any in the Midlands!!! The West Midlands as you say also have hardly any sprinters.

I think you're right; I'm going to make the final call on just how 'just' or sensible (or otherwise) this move has been when I have had a few rides on these things. The main outrage is that they are a) not being refurbished to the expected standards (see 321 Demonstrator for definition of this) and b) might not even be technically modified to operate at their most effective in their new setting - this is really important!

 

[muz379]

A wise spend.....hmm thats an interesting one, though I have noticed the piece on the BBC news website thats its opening early.

Whether it proves to be a wise spend wont be known for years to come.....and I m not privy to the BCR for it. But I cant knock the fact that the tram has been a significant factor in re generating Manchester , particularly after the aftermath of an IRA bomb in 96

It has played some part yes . But taking it to the airport when there are already good train ,bus and road connections to the AP ?

 

[Moonshot]

It has played some part yes . But taking it to the airport when there are already good train ,bus and road connections to the AP ?

Of course the airport is just its final stop after meandering through Wythenshawe etc....

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It has played some part yes . But taking it to the airport when there are already good train ,bus and road connections to the AP ?

At risk of continuing the off-topic diversion, it should be borne in mind when discussing the Metrolink Airport line that one of the principal reasons for providing the link is not so much for passengers to catch their flights as for airport staff to commute to work. As a result, those rail and road connections to the airport should become less congested, more resilient and more reliable for those that have a plane to catch!

 

[Moonshot]

At risk of continuing the off-topic diversion, it should be borne in mind when discussing the Metrolink Airport line that one of the principal reasons for providing the link is not so much for passengers to catch their flights as for airport staff to commute to work. As a result, those rail and road connections to the airport should become less congested, more resilient and more reliable for those that have a plane to catch!

As a side note, Class 319s will not be able to share the same platform with each other at the airport.....assuming they are used for that purpose of course !!

 

[deltic08]

Put it this way - (as one who was just a little involved) - the NW Triangle electrification would not have happened without the idea of the 319's - so it all went a bit wrong in timings , due to the financial crisis etc. etc.)

I wont say be grateful , and so on - though tempted to - better an old 319 (perfectly acceptable to those paying 3K+ a year from say Harpenden if it gives them a seat) , than a 14x or a 15x for the commuters and travellers up North. A tad weary of this bouncing of issues - especially from those who do not use the things. Akin to Daily Mail commentators who (from St Tropez or Australia) comment on the iniquities of the NHS. Rant over.

At last, someone in the South who agrees that NW electrification would not have happened had there not been surplus 319s to find a home for.

This North-South thing has only occurred since it was announced 319s would not be refurbed before entry into service. I was all for 319s in April (see Manchester-Liverpool Electrification #1612) but when Northerners were criticised for this disappointment we had to fight back leading to no holds barred war of words.

Could this post above lead to hands across the divide?

 

[Starmill]

Metrolink is certainly a shining example of a great high-frequency low-cost system of local transport that's efficient. But it's not without it's issues: lack of adequate integration with the national network - especially as it took over operation from a large number of places that were once served by the national network as far as through-ticketing and the guarantee of a through-service are concerned. This should be remedied ASAP though and it could be, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

The lack of conveyance of certain types of suitcase, bicycles and byelaws which prevent eating also do no favours.

 

[edwin_m]

At risk of continuing the off-topic diversion, it should be borne in mind when discussing the Metrolink Airport line that one of the principal reasons for providing the link is not so much for passengers to catch their flights as for airport staff to commute to work. As a result, those rail and road connections to the airport should become less congested, more resilient and more reliable for those that have a plane to catch!

It gives a wide area of south Manchester good access to the airport either as passengers or as employees. Assuming HS2 goes ahead as planned, TfGM will probably build the rest of of the Wythenshawe Metrolink loop (they already have powers) which will link the same area to the HS2 airport station.

 

[Starmill]

A bit "quick and dirty" for a rebrand!

Very Northern! The 322s have First seat covers too (though, I think - newer design ones than the 319s?)

 

[muz379]

At risk of continuing the off-topic diversion, it should be borne in mind when discussing the Metrolink Airport line that one of the principal reasons for providing the link is not so much for passengers to catch their flights as for airport staff to commute to work. As a result, those rail and road connections to the airport should become less congested, more resilient and more reliable for those that have a plane to catch!

perhaps .

its an expensive project just for a few airport workers to get to work though . I know the rhetoric behind connecting communities to employment opportunities etc . But Manchester is already reasonably well connected by public transport to the airport . dont see how aiport staff using the current public transport takes away from its reliability or resilience .I mean a train or a bus will break down regardless of what type of passengers it is carrying . As for the less congested how do we know that congestion is a big problem already ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As a side note, Class 319s will not be able to share the same platform with each other at the airport.....assuming they are used for that purpose of course !!

Why not? The platforms are long enough (and take 2x4-car 350s).
Is there a technical problem?

 

[Moonshot]

Metrolink is certainly a shining example of a great high-frequency low-cost system of local transport that's efficient. But it's not without it's issues: lack of adequate integration with the national network - especially as it took over operation from a large number of places that were once served by the national network as far as through-ticketing and the guarantee of a through-service are concerned. This should be remedied ASAP though and it could be, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

The lack of conveyance of certain types of suitcase, bicycles and byelaws which prevent eating also do no favours.

I ve got no issues with integration.....the other week I got a tram to Picc...2 mins later Im on a Pendolino heading south.

 

[muz379]

Why not? The platforms are long enough (and take 2x4-car 350s).
Is there a technical problem?

local instruction to do with not being able to allow permissive working if there is already a 4 car unit in the platform .

 

[tbtc]

One could have gone to an East German car dealership and chose the best of the Trabants they had in stock...but at the end of the day, they would still be Trabants.

What is it about your experience of 319s that leads you to make this comparison?

I'm not sure what relevance 308s in West Yorks has to anything

It's an example of old "London cast off" EMUs coming to northern England when a line was electrified to replace Pacers, and passengers seeming to prefer the old EMUs - so I'd suggest that it's got a lot more relevance than most of the things that we are arguing about in this thread.

Who says that will be the service pattern? I've not heard anyone except a few enthusiasts including yourself say that all Southport services will be routed via Atherton . Also who says they'll be 3tph between Bolton and Wigan rather than the current 2tph or that they'll be 4tph between Bolton and Preston rather than the current 3tph. Will there be enough paths through Salford for that level of increase in services? If you've overestimated the current number of services then that's 8 carriages less per hour.

Also what about what Network Rail said about needing to source units suitable for 6 car EMU operation or continuing to use 3 car DMUs on the Bolton corridor post-electrification so that 6 car formations can remain?

Or what the Northern/TPE consulation proposes about having mainly Windermere/Barrow-Lancaster/Preston services but occasional through services?

I think people who expect to see every possible service revision to maximise use of OHEs will be disappointed when the specification of the next Northern and TPE services are published. I expect it'll be a compromise whereby non-electrified branches get a reduction in through trains rather than losing all their through trains.

Are you sure that Bolton to Wigan is only two trains an hour? I thought it was three?

The suggestions of chopping/changing routes that we've seen recently seem aimed along the lines of tidying up routes in line with electrification and with an eye on CP6 electrification.

This could not be further from the truth, it's a fact that modern passengers value comfort and facilities. If what you say is true, why do we not have trains which are just metal tubes with bare steel interiors and no fittings (like seats) whatsoever?

If you ask people whether they want a toilet, they'll say yes. Just like if you ask people if they want a table they'll say yes, if you ask people if they want a perfect view out of the window at every seat they'll say yes, if you ask people if they want the option of First Class they'll say yes, if you ask people if they want catering options then they'll say yes, if you ask people if they want 3+2 seats they'll say no... essentially train design is a compromise between accommodating enough people, providing a good enough level of "comfort" and providing something that's vaguely affordable

Wrong. In the latest ORR station usage figures 2012/13, growth slumped to 1.7% in Northern Trains area. In fact many stations had their first negative growth since privatisation. Perhaps Pacers, crush loading, grubby interiors and cancellations is beginning to bite

Good news that we are getting a number of four coach EMUs to improve capacity then (with the "freed up" DMUs being kept in "the north" to improve capacity on other lines)?

'Passengers do not care if the train has toilets or not.'

Is this a statement you honestly believe? We aren't even talking about 319s or any other stock in the North here, I just can't believe you think this

I drink 6+litres of water every day. I cannot believe someone possibly suggested no one cares if a train has no toilets! I use train toilets on short and long journeys, all the time, every time.

Every train should have a toilet, without exception

Mancunians cope with relatively long tram journeys without a toilet, just like Londoners cope with Underground journeys without a toilet and Scousers cope with Merseyrail journeys without a toilet.

Hypothetical means less than logic or reality. If every passenger hypothetically had a colostomy stoma and bag with bladder catheterization and bag then toilets would not be necessary on your hypothetical train. But we live in a real world where conditions such a irritable bowel and benign enlargement of the prostate abound as well as sudden involuntary projectile vomiting. Get real.

We have a number of trains with fewer than one toilet per coach, and I'm not aware of many examples of projectile vomiting on units like 333s (with one toilet per four coaches)?

Northern are not the most subsided franchise - Scotrail and ATW are the two most subsided franchises but Scotrail, ATW, Merseyrail and LO don't appear on the DfT list of subsides because the franchises are not directly let by the DfT. How many new trains have Scotrail received?

LM, EMT and Southeastern are also heavily subsided franchises

• LMT = 14.6p per passenger mile subsidy
• EMT = 14.1p per passenger mile subsidy
• SE = 13.0p per passenger mile subsidy
• Northern = 40.7p per passenger mile subsidy

...not even in the same ball park.

If you think the most profitable franchises should get the new rolling stock then SWT should be getting the new EMUs, not getting cascades from Southern with Southern getting new trains.

Well, SWT were promised new trains (450s), those trains got built but SWT weren't allowed them (they became 350s and moved elsewhere), SWT's consolation after a number of years is to get cascaded stock from TSGN...

...but you don't see the same number of complaints about "cast offs" from those in SWT-territory as you do from those around Manchester.

Resignalling of the 'Castlefield Corridor', along with extra platforms at Piccadily and the remodelling of those at Oxford Road will provide the extra capacity required by the Northern Hub - with so many different types of train using that section of line automation would be impractical.

Chris

All of these 319s (plus using the freed-up Pacers/Sprinters on other routes around Manchester as extra coaches on existing services) should improve the capacity too, of course

Fighting an injustice is NOT having a chip on my shoulder

Injustice?

Where is the justice of £2700 per head spend in London compared to £300 per head in Yorkshire on rail infrastructure? That makes a mockery of your argument about fare subsidy being greater in the North

It's a carefully skewed set of figures that only uses carefully selected data - only using the infrastructure costs and not the subsidy per passenger mile makes a huge difference (all of those forty pences per mile on Northern add up - compared to the Network South East franchises that are roughly at the break-even mark).

Also, the figures don't have years attached to them, but presumably are designed to be too late to include investment like Leeds First but cut off so that they don't include the cost of the electrification that we'll see around Huddersfield/ Leeds/ York/ Selby in the next few years as TPE is wired up.

 

[Moonshot]

Why not? The platforms are long enough (and take 2x4-car 350s).
Is there a technical problem?

yes there is ( and i did this on purpose ) - as per Local Instructions in the sectional appendix, 2 4 car trains cannot share the same platform at MIA !! The platforms will accomadate an 8 car train however !! Looks like Muz beat me to it however !!

Are u sure they take 2 4 car 350s?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

perhaps .

its an expensive project just for a few airport workers to get to work though . I know the rhetoric behind connecting communities to employment opportunities etc . But Manchester is already reasonably well connected by public transport to the airport . dont see how aiport staff using the current public transport takes away from its reliability or resilience .I mean a train or a bus will break down regardless of what type of passengers it is carrying . As for the less congested how do we know that congestion is a big problem already ?

When I mentioned reliability, perhaps the term I should've used was "dependable"- if airport workers are on the trams rather than driving to work, the roads (the M60 through Stockport can be pretty much nose-to-tail at present) will be less congested for families off on their 2-weeks jollies in Spain. Likewise, a family of four with suitcases will be more likely to use the train if they can be fairly certain of getting a seat, rather than having to stand all the way from,say, Liverpool with their luggage.

 

[muz379]

When I mentioned reliability, perhaps the term I should've used was "dependable"- if airport workers are on the trams rather than driving to work, the roads (the M60 through Stockport can be pretty much nose-to-tail at present) will be less congested for families off on their 2-weeks jollies in Spain. Likewise, a family of four with suitcases will be more likely to use the train if they can be fairly certain of getting a seat, rather than having to stand all the way from,say, Liverpool with their luggage.

And how many Manchester airport staff are commuting from say Liverpool on a daily basis to fill up the train ? I suspect the people filling up the trains are regular commuters going to their regular jobs in the cities during peak hours .
As for the M60 round stockport . the metrolink running between areas of south manchester and the airport is not going to alleviate traffic westbound on the M60 through stockport

 

[Moonshot]

And how many Manchester airport staff are commuting from say Liverpool on a daily basis to fill up the train ? I suspect the people filling up the trains are regular commuters going to their regular jobs in the cities during peak hours .
As for the M60 round stockport . the metrolink running between areas of south manchester and the airport is not going to alleviate traffic westbound on the M60 through stockport

As i work that route ....yes they are. I never worked a crush loaded service between the airport/pic and vice versa no matter what time of day.

 

[tbtc]

I hate to burst your hypocritical balloon, but London Underground is subsidised by £3m a day of public money according to the latest published figures. For every £2.80 fare, £1 is subsidy to the tune of £1billion annually

I think that the Northern figures are 35p of ticket price plus 40p of subsidy per mile - i.e. the passengers aren't even paying half of the "true" cost.

Whereas, if your London figures are correct, passengers are paying around two thirds of the "true" cost?

Considering the population of the Northern franchise area is 13 million and London is only 7 million, that is six times more subsidy per head than the North. How do you square that one.

The population of "the north" is going to be around thirteen million at all times of the day in that case - so the subsidy is spread over those people.

Whereas, the population of London (which you could use about a dozen definitions of, to find the figure you want) goes up significantly due to the hundreds/ thousands/ millions commuting in - most of whom will use TfL when in the capital - so it's skewed stats to only share the London subsidy amongst the people who live within the city

The actual up-to-date population of London is not high on my priority list as it is a horrid place. I try not to go there

Your bias doesn't show

We are only getting 319s as that balances the books better for Thameslink new 700s than scrapping.

No, the NW electrification scheme only got past the Treasury on the basis that new trains would not be needed as well.

Exactly, just what I said. The 319s needed a home so NW electrification was authorised as it looked better on a balance sheet than scrapping. Where else would they have gone?

Put it this way - (as one who was just a little involved) - the NW Triangle electrification would not have happened without the idea of the 319's - so it all went a bit wrong in timings , due to the financial crisis etc. etc.)

At last, someone in the South who agrees that NW electrification would not have happened had there not been surplus 319s to find a home for

Yup - if Thameslink wasn't freeing up dozens of EMUs then there'd be no "Lancashire Triangle" getting electrified.

Presumably if the 319s weren't moving north then they could be kept in Network South East areas to replace older/shorter trains like 313s/ 315s/ 442s/ 456s or to provide additional capacity on lines that desperately need it like SWT (why spend huge money converting 460s into 458s when you could snap up a large supply of 319s?).

I suspect that many ordinary passengers in the north would rather the 319s go into service straight away to provide additional capacity than have to wait until whatever time they are fully refurbished, and come out with less seating capacity even should all be converted to 2+2 seating. It is easy to just sit here and moan, but in real life priorities are very much different on the ground. :roll:

Agreed.

I think that the 3+2 issue is overplayed by some. Posters in "the north" like to praise the wonderful modern 333s and like to talk about the capacity/acceleration of 323s but both of these EMUs have 3+2 seats, as do some Pacers/Sprinters. The idea that people won't cope with 3+2 seats on 319s seems odd.

when was the last time new electrification and new rolling stock went hand-in-hand? Just about the only example I can think of in my own lifetime is the ECML- where there was nothing suitable to be cascaded anyway- for related services where there was (the North Berwick branch and Leeds-Doncaster locals) cascaded stock WAS used (305s and 307s respectively).

I've tried to make this point, but I think that it gets missed due to all of the threads that we end up having the same arguments on.

Apart from the CTRL/HS1 (where there clearly weren't any 140mph dual voltage EMUs to cascade, and certainly nothing that could run through the Tunnel!) and the ECML (again, nothing to cascade, so 91s built), almost every electrification scheme in my lifetime has seen cascaded stock. This includes "southern" electrification like 86s on the GEML to Norwich.

About the only two examples of brand new stock are 350/4s for Lancashire and 323s for the short spur to Manchester Airport - basically the rule is that electrification of one line sees stock cascaded from another line. Even in Scotland (that land of milk and honey, according to some) newly electrified lines have seen old stock (314s/318s etc to Paisley Canal, 334s to Bathgate).

I don't know why people assume they'll get brand new EMUs.

That's because all of those 'issues' are entirely of the making of the people who want all the good stuff for themeselves in London; the DfT. There's one perfectly simple solution to increase passenger use that has just been pointed out; investment in new stock and infrastructure.

By "simple" I take it you mean "hugely expensive thing to do on loss making franchises that don't even take half of their costs through the fare box"?

Nobody is denying that new stock and improved infrastructure would increase passenger numbers, but there's a "C" in "BCR" too.

Very true. Everyone seems to forget there are pacers in the South West but there aren't any in the Midlands!!!

A pedant writes: Lincoln (Lincolnshire) and Retford/ Worksop (Nottinghamshire) see an hourly Pacer to Sheffield/ Doncaster, the Hope Valley stations in Derbyshire generally get 142s

(I don't know whether you count Scunthorpe as "north" or "midlands", and whether Cheshire is "north" or "midlands" but they get Pacers too)

This North-South thing has only occurred since it was announced 319s would not be refurbed before entry into service

The North/South arguments have been going on for many years on this Forum - well before 319s were announced as moving north.

 

[Starmill]

I ve got no issues with integration.....the other week I got a tram to Picc...2 mins later Im on a Pendolino heading south.

That's not all integrated transport is about unfortunately. With trains, there are published minimum connection times (I hope you didn't only leave 2 minutes!), but not with trams. This is because there is no tram 'timetable' or at least not a public one, or one that can be relied on, it is only the average frequency that is measured.

As such if you buy an Advance ticket from Manchester STNS to London Terminals and rely on the tram to get you to Piccadilly you have to leave a crazy amount of contingency time to wait for your tram, undertake the tram journey and any of it's necessary changes and then get to the platform. It also means you need to buy two tickets where you used to only need one, something which inevitably costs more (through tickets to national rail destinations outside of Greater Manchester aren't available from Metrolink ticket machines). This also means that if you book your advance and your tram gets stuck by a signal failure and you resultantly miss your train you are stuffed and have to buy a new ticket. There's an outside chance discretion might be applied to let you travel on a later service. If you pay the cost of a new ticket Metrolink won't reimburse you for it - in fact there's no delay compensation at all. If you do complain though, they might send you a free one day Metrolink travel voucher. You have exactly the same problem in the other direction; a London - Oldham ticket is no longer on sale where a few years ago one was at hardly more (the same? I don't know) than the cost of London - Manchester. Now you need two tickets (or if your journey starts in London a through ticket to, for example, OLDHAM CTRL MTLK is available, but it isn't reversivble and no discounts can be applied - and only comes in Off-Peak and Anytime types). Also, if you are delayed on the West Coast Main Line and miss the last tram connection from Piccadilly to Oldham (around 2300 Mon- Thurs) then you are also stuffed and need to cover the cost of your onward journey yourself. You could complain to Virgin about it but they are only obliged to get you to your final destination by rail - which, five years ago if you had a London - Oldham ticket would have been Oldham Mumps. Now it would just be Manchester Piccadilly.

 

[Moonshot]

As I said - I got the tram and then got a Pendolino. Unfortunately your post just looks like a copy of the Knutsford forumites ramblings. The trams are busy.....so are the trains. The only thing I would suggest as an improvement based on your observations is a travel smartcard.......which is already on the way anyway.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Are u sure they take 2 4 car 350s?

They've run 8 car 350s to and from Airport; another poster said the ban is on permissive working when there is already a 4 car unit in the platform, so an 8 car that's already an 8 car before it enters the station is not banned.

 

[Moonshot]

They've run 8 car 350s to and from Airport; another poster said the ban is on permissive working when there is already a 4 car unit in the platform, so an 8 car that's already an 8 car before it enters the station is not banned.

Sorry correct yes.....its late and my eyes are heavy!!

 

[IanXC]

• LMT = 14.6p per passenger mile subsidy
• EMT = 14.1p per passenger mile subsidy
• SE = 13.0p per passenger mile subsidy
• Northern = 40.7p per passenger mile subsidy

...not even in the same ball park.

Do these figures include the significant PTE subsidies? If so, it would be interesting yo see the "pure" DfT subsidy so as to make a like for like comparison.

I've always thought it would he interesting (particularly in the case of Northern) to see these kind of subsidy figures on a service group basis, but I don't think its available.

Getting back on topic... Do we have a full list of the 319s due to be transferred to Northern as yet?

 

[Moonshot]

Do these figures include the significant PTE subsidies? If so, it would be interesting yo see the "pure" DfT subsidy so as to make a like for like comparison.

I've always thought it would he interesting (particularly in the case of Northern) to see these kind of subsidy figures on a service group basis, but I don't think its available.

Yes it would ...agreed on that. Maybe a FOI request might do the trick

 

[Starmill]

I think that the 3+2 issue is overplayed by some. Posters in "the north" like to praise the wonderful modern 333s and like to talk about the capacity/acceleration of 323s but both of these EMUs have 3+2 seats, as do some Pacers/Sprinters. The idea that people won't cope with 3+2 seats on 319s seems odd.

We'll cope with them in the same way we do with the very similar (same?) seats in the ex-LM 150s. They are really uncomfortable, have a poor view and no legroom. Hence they're moaned about, avoided and seen as 'crap Northern trains'. jcollins tried to explain this effect elsewhere with his anecdote about a Scottish passenger going to Liverpool from Manchester who got off the train saying he'd wait for the next one because the sprinter in question was so horrible, but he was quickly shouted down because it's only an few anecdotes. But my experience concurs with this - I've been planning trips with friends to places from Manchester and when I'm asked for train info the questions are "How much is it?" "How long does it take?" and "Is it a Northern train?" If it is they want guarantees about the stock's comfort, (which I'm categorically unable to give without risking egg on face, as we all know!) because even they know from experience if you get a pacer one of these 150s it's an uncomfortable journey!

By "simple" I take it you mean "hugely expensive thing to do on loss making franchises that don't even take half of their costs through the fare box"?

Nobody is denying that new stock and improved infrastructure would increase passenger numbers, but there's a "C" in "BCR" too.

Of course it's going to be expensive! But then, isn't Crossrail expensive? Thameslink? 10 car trains on SWT? Rebuilding Reading? The new King's Cross? Thousands of new Electrostar carriages? I could go on.
Chicken and egg. Poor service = few passengers. Investment in better service = more passengers. This applies in no way more in London than it does anywhere else in the country. The only other major factor is population density.

I take further exception to the use of the figures about subsidy to hang a weight around the neck of the North's passengers every time they want to do some investment that might reduce that subsidy. If a bit more investment had gone into the North in the past 20 years just like it has elsewhere operating costs would be lower now and so would subsidy. Also; you can choose those figures on subsidy per mile just as selectively as the figures about investment per head which you are so quick to dismiss. It has already been pointed out to you that ATW are more highly subsidised.

As for being 'the land of milk and honey' I think it's unfair to belittle their achievements. Transport Scotland squeeze passenger friendly concessions out of ScotRail and there is massive investment going into the Borders Railway in particular, but also right across Scotland and they have managed to secure this level of investment in infrastructure despite the crime of not being in London.

 

[Starmill]

As I said - I got the tram and then got a Pendolino. Unfortunately your post just looks like a copy of the Knutsford forumites ramblings. The trams are busy.....so are the trains. The only thing I would suggest as an improvement based on your observations is a travel smartcard.......which is already on the way anyway.

My post is one from somebody who knows what they are talking about when it comes to Metrolink - that's also likely to be the case for jcollins (as it would appear you are trying to have a go at as well as me) and I'd guess that's because the MCURA have an obvious incentive to co-operate with Metrolink and have dialogue with TfGM about it. (I can think of no other reason you'd bring up Knutsford other than to insult jcollins - I don't live there and Metrolink doesn't go there.)

You say the trams are busy - my post doesn't say capacity is one of Metrolink's failings? For the record it's my experience that overcrowding is worse on Metrolink than local rail, but that's because the more frequent service and better terminal point (Market St rather than Victoria and Piccadilly Gardens rather than Piccadilly) is better at attracting passengers than a train. It's well-permeated throughout the conscience of Mancunina that all the yellow trams are nice and new, too - unlike all those pacers and sprinters.

The smartcard is good and on the way - you are correct. But it doesn't begin to address any of the problems I listed in my post (through tickets are already available from and to stations within Greater Manchester, and the smartcard will just replace these, thus not solving the problems I outlined at all.)