On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:49:39 +0000 (UTC), marcb
wrote:

I see the people of Manchester are uspet about the shelving of their
tram extensions, and quite rightly. But what exactly are the costs that
can't be quantified in this and other projects?

M.

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... Furthermore, GMPTE are
requesting increased annual funding for maintenance.

Darling has got cold feet (on light rail in general) and has pulled
the plug on it in its current form (which, to be fair to the PTE is
largely down to the state insisting the private sector takes all the
risk thus inflating prices).

GMPTE are miffed because their entire public transport strategy
appears to be built around Metrolink to the detriment of everything
else (IMHO). Metrolink has done well where they have converted heavy
rail lines to LRT (eg Altringcham-Manchester-Bury) and very badly on
the largely on-street section from Cornbrook to Eccles as it is much
slower than the corresponding rail and bus services and much more
expensive (Eccles-Manchester is 25 minutes by tram and 8 minutes by
rail!). Furthermore, heavy rail conversion is much cheaper than
on-street stuff. No need to move utilities etc. Expect to see some
pruning of the project!


--

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

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

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

(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.

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.

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....

Also where are all the people in Wythenshawe and Northern Moor going
to find the cash to use the tram? £8 per week for an all (stagecoach)
services bus ticket compared to £30-ish for a tram ticket. It's a
no-brainer.

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

Quite. I live in the Manchester and used to live in (West) Yorkshire
and GMPTE are by far the worst of the bunch, in my experience


--

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

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

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