David Jackman wrote:

(Neil Williams) wrote in
:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:02:01 +0100, Cheeky wrote:

GMPTE are miffed because their entire public transport strategy
appears to be built around Metrolink to the detriment of everything
else (IMHO). snip

I'd agree with that. The main reason, as I see it, is that Metrolink
(and, for that matter, the majority of the shoddy bus service) does
not require an ongoing operational subsidy, while the regular local
heavy rail operation does.

IMO, the best solution for the Oldham Loop, for example, is not trams,
but 25kV overhead line and new, high-acceleration heavy rail EMUs to
form a German-style S-Bahn. The trams have their place, but it is not
in taking over a perfectly good heavy rail system, increasing fares
and slowing journeys. It is also not (in the case of Eccles) in
operating routes that are substantially faster by bus!

The comparison with the far more professional, heavy-rail-friendly and
pro-integrated-transport PTE Merseytravel just 30-odd miles down the
M62 could not be more marked.

Neil


Isn't the difference that Liverpool Central is actually in the centre (as
is Lime Street, just about) which can't really be said for either
Manchester Victoria or Piccadilly (or Oldham Mumps/Werneth for that
matter)?

Metrolink actually takes people to where they want to go - it would
transform useage of the Oldham Loop in a way no heavy rail solution ever
could.

Exactly. Metrolink on the Oldham Loop would bring huge benefits to Oldham town centre, Westwood and
Butler Green (though, yes, it would increase journey times north of Shaw).

If Metrolink doesn't come to Oldham, it will be a huge blow for the borough's efforts at
regeneration. It's a very, very depressed place with a hell of a lot of problems, and Metrolink is
one of the main tools they've been using to try and attract badly-needed investment and industry to
the town.

--
Stephen


I know I'll miss the intellectual thrill of spelling out words with my arms.

Cheeky wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:14:14 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:02:01 +0100, Cheeky wrote:

GMPTE are miffed because their entire public transport strategy
appears to be built around Metrolink to the detriment of everything
else (IMHO). snip

I'd agree with that. The main reason, as I see it, is that Metrolink
(and, for that matter, the majority of the shoddy bus service) does
not require an ongoing operational subsidy, while the regular local
heavy rail operation does.

Indeed. It's notable that the entire Greater Manchester heavy rail
network carries fewer passengers than Metrolink but when you see the
state of it and the total absence of any marketing from GMPTE it's no
real surprise.

IMO, the best solution for the Oldham Loop, for example, is not trams,
but 25kV overhead line and new, high-acceleration heavy rail EMUs to
form a German-style S-Bahn. The trams have their place, but it is not
in taking over a perfectly good heavy rail system, increasing fares
and slowing journeys. It is also not (in the case of Eccles) in
operating routes that are substantially faster by bus!

Agreed. Although even half-decent DMUs would improve services on the
Oldham loop....

Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at Mumps and Werneth stations.

--
Stephen


I'm gonna go trade my cow for some beans. No one else is seeing the funny here.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:21:43 -0400, Stephen Farrow
wrote:

Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at Mumps and Werneth stations.

Perhaps not - but I'd be interested in how much a free shuttle bus
service, like the successful Metroshuttle services in Manchester City
Centre, would affect this and whether it would overall be a better
(value?) solution.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

Cheeky wrote:
Originally it was about £500m with £300m coming from central
government. Now it is up to about £1000m with £500m coming from
central government with costs still rising...


My question is why costs keep rising for schemes that I feel shold be
capable of being costed pretty accurately. After all we are not building
anything that hasn't been done before.

M.

Neil Williams wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:21:43 -0400, Stephen Farrow
wrote:

Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at Mumps and Werneth stations.

Perhaps not - but I'd be interested in how much a free shuttle bus
service, like the successful Metroshuttle services in Manchester City
Centre, would affect this and whether it would overall be a better
(value?) solution.

It'd certainly cost less. Whether or not it would attract as many riders is another question.
There'd need to be some upgrading of the (very unreliable) train service, for a start - and it's
doubtful whether such a scheme would bring with it the regeneration investment for the town centre
and Westwood that Oldham council are hoping will come with Metrolink (which, given the borough's
depressed economic state, is an important consideration).

--
Stephen


Maybe it was lint. Maybe it was evil lint!

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:21:43 -0400, Stephen Farrow
wrote:

Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at
Mumps and Werneth stations.

Perhaps not - but I'd be interested in how much a free shuttle bus
service, like the successful Metroshuttle services in Manchester City
Centre, would affect this and whether it would overall be a better
(value?) solution.

Needing to change vehicles, without a general transfer ticket system,
reduces the value of such connections in the UK.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:27 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

Needing to change vehicles, without a general transfer ticket system,
reduces the value of such connections in the UK.

No need for ticket transfers if it is a *free* bus like it is in
Manchester City Centre.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

In article ,
(marcb) wrote:

My question is why costs keep rising for schemes that I feel shold be
capable of being costed pretty accurately. After all we are not building
anything that hasn't been done before.

Prescott's "safety whatever it costs" after the Paddington crash. The
money to pay for it that he promised has of course vanished into thin air.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

marcb wrote in message ...
Cheeky wrote:
Originally it was about £500m with £300m coming from central
government. Now it is up to about £1000m with £500m coming from
central government with costs still rising...


My question is why costs keep rising for schemes that I feel shold be
capable of being costed pretty accurately. After all we are not building
anything that hasn't been done before.

Its not really the building costs that rise its the cost of financing
the building as under PFI/PPP the builder is responsible for the cost
of raising money and factoring in risks like if the government
suddenly deceide to nationalise the system as in the case of
Railtrack. The figure will also contain an element for operation and
maintenance, somthing you rarely see in the capital costs for non
PFI/PPP contracts. ie. the £450M? or so for the scottish parliament
probably doesnt contain the ongoing costs of running the thing. Also
the PFI/PPP contract will be over a set period (Ten years?)and the
builder will have to make sure they pitch at a price that recoups all
their costs plus whatever profit they trying to get within that
period.

This is what makes me so annoyed; the government make tram projects
jump through a series of increasingly costly hoops until it reaches a
point where they say its too expensive and abandon it. London does
come out better usually but watch Crossrail constantly being put off
for more consultation or retuning or even more reports and enquiries
by the great and good. I predict another year of that before they
cancel it again, maybe less if the Olympic bid goes bad.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:21:43 -0400, Stephen Farrow
wrote:


Agreed. Although even half-decent DMUs would improve services on the
Oldham loop....

Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at Mumps and Werneth stations.

True... they are not ideally located for the centre. However it is
debatable whether a slower, more expensive service from Manchester to
Oldham would be an improvement either....

As other posters have suggested a bus like the freebies in Manc may be
a better VFM solution.
--

ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
Please reply to the group
Replies to this address will bounce!
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø