Talk:Manchester Metrolink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Old discussions

Can anybody contribute details of the Metrolink 'Zones'? The pricing system used on Metrolink uses these zones (A to G I think) but the posters that are on platforms no longer show them. :( - Ericthefish 13:35 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That do you? :) Arwel 13:57 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Nice one! Thats a damn good article. - Ericthefish 14:04 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to (and easily identified by the contrasting aquamarine coloured doors required by late 1990s disability regulations) about the Eccles line trams, now they've taken to painting the doors of the older trams the same! -- Arwel 22:20, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I added the small part about the ride provided based upon personal experience - hope it fits the NPoV ideal, but if not I apologise. As a regular user of these infernal machines, I can only say that I pity the inhabitants of Oldham and Rochdale if they should have the misfortune to have their "proper" railway network replaced by the Metrolink. - MJ

Made a bit more neutral. I've heard about the track quality before, so I think the comments should stay in some form. -- 9cds(talk) 16:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I quite agree, the ride can be fairly jolty. I think that problem is caused by old track which hasn't been touched since c1990 when it was taken over from British Rail. I recall hearing somewhere that they were going to renew the track before too long. G-Man * 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And not before time, assuming it's true. I've seen quite a few track gangs on the line lately, so that might indicate that they're about (finally) to renew the line, but I don't hold out too much hope. Also, I can't help thinking that some of that line's a lot more than 15 years old; the entire line from Victoria to Bury, so far as I recall, still uses bull-head rail, which (again IIRC) ceased manufacture in the late '50s. Although I know that BR cascaded older rail from the main lines to less heavily-used ones, that still makes me think that those metals are a lot older than they ought to be. - MJ

[edit] Zones

Are the zones listed under ‘Fare structure’ still valid? The Metrolink web site doesn’t seem to mention any of them except for the City zone. And if so, which zone is Cornbrook in? David Arthur 19:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Last time I was in Manchester (about a year back) they were still valid and charges were based on them. Cornbrook isn't in a zone, as you can't buy a ticket too/from it (although I heard rumours about them making it a proper station when the area is regenerated) Paul Weaver 18:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


The GMPTE website still contains a detailed zone map. Also, having tested the ticket price tool on the Metrolink website, they are definitely still charging based on the zone system. Road Wizard 00:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks — I’ve added the zones to my map. David Arthur 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fares

For what it's worth, despite the signs the Metrolink machines can actually give more than £7 in change (I've got £17 back from them). Perhaps this could be changed. (comment left by 194.80.32.9 00:09, 1st May 2006).

Thank you for the information, but do you have any way to verify it? If we say here that passengers can get more change than the signs say, Wikipedia will be left open to criticism if someone acts on our information and loses money in the machine. Also, please place new conversation topics at the bottom of a discussion page, as this helps editors to spot new additions more quickly. Thanks. Road Wizard 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I was told by a Metrolink Inspector when I inquired, and so I tried it out. However, I understand that this mightn't be the most valuable verification ever. Also, it might not be at every Metrolink stop for all I know. Stefan 18:34, 4 May 2006


The edit i added to the Fares section was removed for some apparent reason and i have no idea why.

Edit was as follows: Currently, the Metrolink does not offer Fares for students over 18, unlike other similar rail based rapid transit systems (Sheffield and Nottingham) which offer discounted tickets to students. This is currently leaving many students of Manchester (the city with the largest student population of europe) paying full adult fare, the same as a full-time commuter. A petition for students campaigning for student fares on the Metrolink has recently sprouted up on the popular social-networking site Facebook.

Since all of it is factual, why would this be removed? Or could its removal possibly be by the company themselves trying to save face?

[edit] The Warning

Is this really necessary to the article?, as it strictly speaking isn't a tourist guide. DannyM 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've toned the wording down a bit and out it into the gernal 'fares/tickets' section --Spacepostman 11:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fantasy/Public Proposals

I see someone added a link to a Metrolink fansite with proposals for an underground extension to Metrolink. It has recently been removed for 'not being relevant'. I see both sides of the argument, however I do think the concept could be intergrated into the article someone as the near and distant future of Metrolink and Greater Manchester's Public Transport becoming more intergrated and developed is currently the topic of much public discussion (See: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=235489 ) as well as rumours of advanced 'future developments' (such as the hand over of more local rail lines to Metrolink), room being reserved for the line to be continued past Stockport by the local council and the same in Salford down Chapel Street, calls for street running trams down Oxford Rood corridor. I propose someone writes a new section in the article on this sort of thing (with sources) and put the link to this 'MetroTube' and others within it. Come on guys, those with an interest, archiving this kind of thing in the public arena will increase interest in Metrolink by the powers that be and get them thinking about it's true potential! --Spacepostman 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to read the policy on WP:NOT a crystal ball. Generally we cannot include speculation on what the future may hold unless it has been well documented by reliable sources. Certainly "fantasy" proposals fall far short of that requirement. If there is a genuine, well documented proposal to build a tunnel network or even to convert additional rail lines to Metro use, then these can at least get a mention. However, given that not all of the officially sanctioned Metrolink extensions have received funding as yet, I doubt that any more long term plans have gone beyond the stage of idle speculation. Road Wizard 01:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence "Similar proposals for a Monorail system, the Manchester Duorail, connecting the underground in the city centre were also drawn up by GMPTE but were abandoned for the same reasons. [citations needed]" from the construction history paragraph. While I don't live in Manchester, I have lived in the NW region for going on 40 years and can't remember hearing any mention of this on "Northwest Tonight" or "Granada Reports" or their predecessors, and there are no Google hits on it either. The Picc-Vic tunnel plan was a well-discussed and planned project, but Duorail seems to have been someone's back-of-a-fag-packet pipe dream. -- Arwel (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're staying in regards to the speculation content, and I agree that the article shouldn't include that from what you've explained about the crystal ball|WP:NOT a crystal ball]] guideline. Howver the Duorail plans were very real, the source is from an article from the respected Manchester Civic Society News Letter which I am sure you agree wouldn't get something like that wrong. It's this kind of little-known emerging histoical information that Wikipedia is here to document. If you like I could do a bit more research into this before we add it to the article again?--Spacepostman 04:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Past proposals that are well sourced are quite welcome. However, the source you have identified does not provide many details. In particular, there is no mention of which person or group made the proposal, what the proposed system was (all it says is that it was different to the monorail proposal), and whether it was initially accepted or just rejected outright. What the source does support is a sentence like:
In 1966 there was a proposal to build a light rail system from Manchester Airport to Bury via the city centre, but it was never implemented.
If you want to identify further sources to expand the detail of the proposal, then you are welcome to do so. As the route of the proposed system is quite similar to that of the modern Metrolink, its presence in this article can be easily justified. Road Wizard 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] update map

could someone please update the map to the more up-to-date version on http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/metrolink_phase3_stops.pdf I'm not sure how. thank you very much.

[edit] List of Trams by name and number

In the list, trams no. 1007, 2002 and 2006 have the same name: Sony Centre Arndale. Ditto, 1002, 1009 and 1016: Virgin Megastores. Looks weird - mistake ?? --Jotel 13:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Flexity Swift's Ordered

This article states that 9 new Flexity Swift trams have been ordered "In April 2007 9 new trams were ordered for the Metrolink. These will be Flexity Swift" but the Flexity Swift article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexity_Swift) sates that 8 have been ordered. "In April 2007 8 new Flexity trams were ordered for use on Manchester Metrolink." Which number is correct?

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Stagecoachmetro.gif

Image:Stagecoachmetro.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Stagecoachmetro.gif

Image:Stagecoachmetro.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fictitious viaduct

The "Transport Interchanges" section contains the following statement: Trams pass along the fictious Viaduct in the Coronation Street soap opera opening titles. Three issues here:

  • typo - easy to sort out
  • if the viaduct is fictitious, how can anything pass along it ?
  • this statement, even if/when clarified, has nothing to do with interchanges.

--Jotel (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it needs to be removed. The viaduct exists but it is part of the set and the Metrolink tram is superimposed onto it. I'll remove it now, thanks for pointing that out. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If they’re inserting trams into a fictitious area, though, that seems to show the importance of the trams in a way that’s interesting and worth mentioning somewhere (properly explained). David Arthur (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps adding it under the heading trivia would suffice --AJFurnell (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia so we could not add a trivia section, the only thing I could suggest is adding it to the history section. If there are any other things the metrolink is used in then maybe we could add a "Uses in popular culture section" but I can't think of anything else except Nicky Hambleton-Jones riding it on one episode of 10 Years Younger. And the Queen rode it when it opened. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Metrolink was definitely used in the ITV Series Cracker and I'm sure in the BBC Three series Sinchronicity --paypwip 10:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I did once hear of plans to de-rail a Metrolink tram so it skidded down Coronation Street but Serco said no as it would scare people off the trams. It was also shown as being in London on Drop Dead Gorgeous (TV series) where they also superimposed the London Eye onto Manchester's Skyline. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 10:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The CBeebies program 'Me Too' combines elements from Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Newcastle and Manchester into a fictitious city. The element from Manchester is Metrolink. --paypwip 10:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't Metrolink have a 'Metrolink in popular culture' section or something along the lines of? It's only right the trams are highlighted through their importance to Manchester as a world reknown location, there is a reason they are featured in so many pieces of media after all!

[edit] number of lines

Should the number of lines in the infobox be 2 or 3? One could argue there are three lines: Bury, Altrincham and Eccles. --Jotel (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As a user of the metrolink i definately think it should be classed as 3, since many trains run from piccadilly to the end of each of these separate lines. Such that you have these services running: Piccadilly - Bury Piccadilly - Eccles Piccadilly - Altrincham Bury - Eccles Bury - Piccadilly Bury - Altrincham Eccles - Piccadilly Eccles - Altrincham Eccles - Bury Altrincham - Bury Altrincham - Eccles Altrincham - Piccadilly

Some run a bypass line to miss out Piccadilly station when running a line which does not finish at Piccadilly, hence, they should really be classed as separate lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.224.80 (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] between Central and Victoria ?

The table in the Future developments sections mentions 'Additional route across Manchester city centre between Central and Victoria'. What is 'Central'?? Should it be GMex, or central Manchester or what? --Jotel (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"GMEX" was renamed "Manchester Central" a couple of months ago, being as it is the former Central Station TomHennell (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glorious future

The External links section has two links (at the end) to two different documents showing the future network. These documents differ as to the extent of the new routes. Could somebody who knows the origins of those add some information to the section to clarify what is what, or delete the link to the document which is now out of date? --Jotel (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Route map: Eccles in the north??

The route map in the Routes section is slightly confusing. It has North marked in the top l.h. corner, thus implying that Eccles is north of the city centre, somewhere near Bury.
This is meant to be a schematic diagram, so the compass points are unnecessary (and meaningless). May I ask somebody who knows how to edit .svg files to remove the North bit? --Jotel (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a schematic map, but even schematic maps are grounded in geography — look at the Thames running through the centre of London’s map. If you find it misleading, it should probably changed, but I don’t think removing the compass point is a solution in itself. I have an alternative version where Eccles is presented in a more geographical manner (in preparation for accommodating future expansion of the system), but the downside is that this involves include a large amount of space which is (at least for the moment) blank. This would mean that the map could no longer be displayed in a column at the right, but is it preferable? David Arthur (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It depends how schematic you want to be. Various route maps, in articles on canals and railway lines, show everything nicely lined up vertically, with a complete disregard for compass points and bends in the route. The existing Metrolink map is compact, fits nicely in a right-justified column, but the North indicator is unnecessary and confusing. --Jotel (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe you’re thinking of the railway/canal route diagram templates, which have a somewhat different purpose than a map like this; their function is to show the detailed characteristics of the line (junctions, tunnel entry/exit, and the like), whereas this focuses more on the parts that matter to a user of the system. The main purposes of the North indicator are to explain why the alignment is different from the official map, and to make this one more communicative (the official one isn’t really of any geographical use at all). David Arthur (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Route map 2008

I replaced the route map with the 2008 version, in a collapsible form. The new map is IMHO better, but a bit awkward to display 'uncollapsed' without creating a lot of whitespace. --Jotel (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)