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

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

(Neil Williams) wrote in message ...
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!

We seem to have a very strange attitude to city mass transport in this
country. In most other western countries (and the old USSR) a city the size
of manchester would have had its own proper underground system, never mind
some cut price tram system. The fact that it doesn't and neither do huge
connabations such as Birmingham is frankly laughable. Somehow Newcastle
managed to get one when the bean counters weren't concentrating for a moment
back in the 70s but other than that , the tinpot system in glasgow and of
course LU, this country is a joke for heavy mass transit in cities. No doubt
the usual cost excuses would be wheeled out if this was brought up with the
D.O.T but if they can afford to build a new lines in Uzbekistan:

http://www.urbanrail.net/as/tosh/tashkent.htm

for example I'm damn sure we can too.

B2003

(Boltar) wrote in message . com...
(Neil Williams) wrote in message ...
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!

We seem to have a very strange attitude to city mass transport in this
country. In most other western countries (and the old USSR) a city the size
of manchester would have had its own proper underground system, never mind
some cut price tram system. The fact that it doesn't and neither do huge
connabations such as Birmingham is frankly laughable. Somehow Newcastle
managed to get one when the bean counters weren't concentrating for a moment
back in the 70s but other than that , the tinpot system in glasgow and of
course LU, this country is a joke for heavy mass transit in cities. No doubt
the usual cost excuses would be wheeled out if this was brought up with the
D.O.T but if they can afford to build a new lines in Uzbekistan:

http://www.urbanrail.net/as/tosh/tashkent.htm

for example I'm damn sure we can too.

While I broadly agree with your sentiments, it ought to be pointed out
that land prices in Uzbekistan are not readily comparable to those in
any British city. I would guess that the balance of state power vs
private landowners' rights is probably more in favour of the state
there, too (Sufficiently delicately phrased, I hope ).

--
Larry Lard
Replies to group please

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.

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.