Manchester Metrolink - Speculative ideas on how to improve it?

[The exile]

There have been a certain number of postings made that make reference to non-regular users and users from other area regions exterior to the Manchester Metrolink system. That is all well and good and looks kindly upon those individuals, but surely the actual regular users of the system who should be those who are catered for and for these travellers, the existing system that has platform PID and tram destination display is quite adequate.

So - in what way would regular (and semi-regular) users be put at a disadvantage by the introduction of route numbers in addition to showing destination? I accept that not having them is, at the current complexity of the system, just about “adequate” - but it would be so easy to introduce a system that has been proven to be a lot more than “adequate” in rather a lot of places . Do it the next time there’s a software update or change to route patterns and the additional cost can also be minimised.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So - in what way would regular (and semi-regular) users be put at a disadvantage by the introduction of route numbers in addition to showing destination? I accept that not having them is, at the current complexity of the system, just about “adequate” - but it would be so easy to introduce a system that has been proven to be a lot more than “adequate” in rather a lot of places . Do it the next time there’s a software update or change to route patterns and the additional cost can also be minimised.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on this matter, but I do ask you if it has so much to recommend it, why has those charged with running the Manchester Metrolink system have never put such ideas into operation in the years that the system has been operational?

Other areas run systems that those charged with running their systems seem content with, so let that be the case that they continue to run the systems they do and let those charged with the running of the Manchester Metrolink run the systems in the manner that they do.

 

[The exile]

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on this matter, but I do ask you if it has so much to recommend it, why has those charged with running the Manchester Metrolink system have never put such ideas into operation in the years that the system has been operational?

Other areas run systems that those charged with running their systems seem content with, so let that be the case that they continue to run the systems they do and let those charged with the running of the Manchester Metrolink run the systems in the manner that they do.

As I have said, at the current level of complexity - the current system is adequate. I would grade the necessity of route numbering roughly:
Pointless: only 1 route (eg Edinburgh)
Unnecessary: a very limited number of routes with only 2 “via” permutations.
Desirable: larger number of routes but with only 2 “via” permutations.
Essential: any number of routes but with more than 2 “via” permutations (ie trams from A to F can go by either B or C and D or E).
To me, the Manchester system has reached the third stage, so it’s hardly the most pressing thing on Metrolink’s agenda. If there were ever to be a third way of getting across the city to be added (and I suspect that this will be necessary if there is to any significant expansion - if only to avoid single points of failure), then it shifts rapidly into stage 4.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is it true that the Croydon Tramlink are to discontinue route numbering and if so, how many other tram operators use a numbering system?

 

[cool110]

Well Blackpool have just introduced route numbers in preparation for the North Station extension opening.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Is it true that the Croydon Tramlink are to discontinue route numbering and if so, how many other tram operators use a numbering system?

Croydon discontinued the use of route numbers in 2018. It isn’t a new development.

Only Sheffield publicly use any kind of ‘on tram’ route identifier.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Croydon discontinued the use of route numbers in 2018. It isn’t a new development.

Only Sheffield publicly use any kind of ‘on tram’ route identifier.

Many thanks for that information. It seems like one of the large tram operators do not share some of the expressed posting view of the essentiality of route numbers expressed in a number of postings on this thread.

 

[AndrewE]

going back to the OP "ideas on how to improve it" I would say look at the most densely used routes and convert them to heavy rail - leaving a street-running tram in parallel if it is justified!
Also do something to get the excess of trams off the streets in the city centre. Maybe go to double-deckers to reduce the amount of road and junction time taken up?

 

[Mothball]

Many thanks for that information. It seems like one of the large tram operators do not share some of the expressed posting view of the essentiality of route numbers expressed in a number of postings on this thread.

In what way is Croydon and Metrolink comparable in complexity?

going back to the OP "ideas on how to improve it" I would say look at the most densely used routes and convert them to heavy rail - leaving a street-running tram in parallel if it is justified!
Also do something to get the excess of trams off the streets in the city centre. Maybe go to double-deckers to reduce the amount of road and junction time taken up?

The question there is, are the routes going to remain busy enough to warrant the parallel service without the street running sections? Double deckers would bring in a whole wave of issues with gauging, I can't think of any lines that would be able to accommodate the higher vehicles without major infrastructure modifications.

 

[Ethano92]

going back to the OP "ideas on how to improve it" I would say look at the most densely used routes and convert them to heavy rail - leaving a street-running tram in parallel if it is justified!
Also do something to get the excess of trams off the streets in the city centre. Maybe go to double-deckers to reduce the amount of road and junction time taken up?

This suggestion is somewhat ironic given that Metrolink began following the conversion of the Bury and Altrincham heavy rail routes to light rail. The increased frequency, branding, and efficiency in bringing people direct to the very city centre (e.g., Market Street/ St Peter’s Square rather than Victoria/Piccadilly) is the reason the system is so successful. Patronage on those lines (and Rochdale via Oldham) increased significantly following the conversion to light rail and the benefits that it brings regarding frequency and ability to get people right to where they want to be rather than a mainline terminus and onward connection or walk/cycle last mile.

I do agree that the system does warrant being underground in the city centre. I believe long term TfGM are looking to build a tunnel between Cornbrook and Piccadilly. On the Piccadilly end, this would lead to further conversion of heavy rail suburban lines to light rail. This would be a huge improvement considering much of southeast Manchester is served by hourly/half hourly services which are currently simply not attractive due to their poor frequency and distance from Piccadilly to busy destinations in the city centre. These services can’t currently increase in frequency due to the congested Piccadilly approach lines.

 

[JJmoogle]

The 2cc should have been a vienna style cut and cover tunnel, would have connected the former heavy rail sections and allowed them to run longer(90-120m instead of 60), but still light rail vehicles.

As it is, that didn't happen.
My ideas are to actually crack on with the constantly spoken about ideas that are in the big strategy document(stockport, middleton and bolton extensions, finishing the airport loop etc etc) until most of the boroughs are connected and served, and the whole thing is at bursting point through the city centre.
I do worry about tram-train given the complexity of Manchesters heavy and light rail networks, it seems like such an obvious solution but I shudder about the idea of spreading delays into the network brought about through delays because of street running or similar.

They are at a point now where they should be considering more clear indication of the routes, it's really on the cusp of actually being quite confusing, especially if you're in a bit of a rush and/or there's disruption on so your services are being termimated somewhere unexpected.

 

[Russel]

I have to say, I was initially sceptical of the need of the ideas being suggested in this thread, but after using the Metrolink a few times this year after not visiting Manchester for almost 10 years, I do find the network to be confusing, especially in the city centre, I'd recommend station announcements in the city centre and much, much more wayfinding signage and network maps, the lack of large, clear network maps in prominent places on the platforms, as you get on the tube, really is poor.

 

[DiscoSteve]

In my simple survey of one my wife has no clue which tram to take or even which platform in the undercroft at Manchester Piccadilly - I always have to tell her - take the platform towards City Centre/Altrincham/Bury blah blah (NOT Ashton/Etihad platform) and then say (if we're headed towards Deansgate) get ANY tram headed towards Altrincham/East Didsbury/Airport - do NOT get on a Bury tram. This is total nonsense for non-regular users of the Metrolink. If people can't see this is wrong then they are trapped in their little know-it-all bubble when it comes to Metrolink.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The 2cc should have been a vienna style cut and cover tunnel, would have connected the former heavy rail sections and allowed them to run longer(90-120m instead of 60), but still light rail vehicles.

The attraction of Metrolink is that it is at street level. The Brussels pre-Metro is an annoying faff to use, tunnelling the 2CC would have been the same.

This is total nonsense for non-regular users of the Metrolink. If people can't see this is wrong then they are trapped in their little know-it-all bubble when it comes to Metrolink.

When it was just one line with a spur to Piccadilly it didn’t need numbers or route colours or route names. Now it’s been really successful and reached the stage where it does.

It’s a bigger network than in Munich and heading towards the same size as Brussels, Berlin, and Vienna. I don’t know why numbers would be so controversial, unless it is a case of “not invented here” syndrome.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When it was just one line with a spur to Piccadilly it didn’t need numbers or route colours or route names. Now it’s been really successful and reached the stage where it does.

It’s a bigger network than in Munich and heading towards the same size as Brussels, Berlin, and Vienna. I don’t know why numbers would be so controversial, unless it is a case of “not invented here” syndrome.

Not being fully au fait as most on the thread concerning the Metrolink system, but actually being a resident in the Manchester area in my very much younger days, I do have an idea where areas are in what is now classified as Greater Manchester that are served by the Metrolink are, also to even to knowing where lesser-known settlements such as Doffcocker, Affetside, Syke and Denshaw are...

 

[HSTEd]

The Croydon Tram system consists of one line with two short branches including a branch of a single station!

It is nothing like the Manchester system in complexity terms.

 

[JJmoogle]

The attraction of Metrolink is that it is at street level. The Brussels pre-Metro is an annoying faff to use, tunnelling the 2CC would have been the same.

One line and at most couple of stations being downstairs wouldn't have been too great a faff imo, especially with the improvements to large swathes of the network that such a piece of infrastructure would allow.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

One line and at most couple of stations being downstairs wouldn't have been too great a faff imo, especially with the improvements to large swathes of the network that such a piece of infrastructure would allow.

When it was decided to bring a light rail cross-city middle section in Manchester as a connecting link for the former heavy rail railway lines of Altrincham to Manchester and Manchester to Bury, to enable the original Manchester Metrolink system from Altrincham to Bury, many agencies were consulted and the view that the intermediate new city-centre stops would be at street level prevailed, supported by a number of different bodies.

Over the years, many internet website threads on different forums have discussed matters appertaining and one particular view that I recall was that of a reminder that the cross-city section is for the benefit of the passengers and not to meet the perceived operational niceties. It appears that such views are still being discussed, so many years later.

 

[JJmoogle]

I think the discussions will continue forever, I can completely understand those reasonings for the first crossing however.

I do believe, the network having now developed and expanded, and has aspirations for further development and expansion that putting the second crossing underground would have been an ideal.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Croydon discontinued the use of route numbers in 2018. It isn’t a new development.

That statement shows that the operator there saw the light even earlier over the matter of route number discontinuation.

 

[signed]

That would start clashing with bus routes

Just have a T prefix to tram route numbers? It is done in a lot of the non-UK tram networks and makes it extremely clear and doesn't clash.

Or if you have tram and no metro planned, just used straight up letters, if we remove the lookalike you have like 20 options of letters

how many other tram operators use a numbering system?

Most outside of the UK, I find it genuinely weird that anyone would remove any indication of your route on a tram system.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I find it genuinely weird that anyone would remove any indication of your route on a tram system.

I cannot recall of any recent statement of intent by TfGM to make any alterations to the existing PID or the tram destination displays.

 

[Mothball]

That statement shows that the operator there saw the light even earlier over the matter of route number discontinuation.

As you mentioned before and never answered - how is Croydon anywhere near comparable in complexity to Manchester?

I cannot recall of any recent statement of intent by TfGM to make any alterations to the existing PID or the tram destination displays.

Again, as you keep mentioning. Have you read the title of the thread?

The reality is, anyone with a basic understanding of the system isn't going to see it the same as somebody who might never have used public transport before.

My argument is, if done properly, what harm would it do?
Best case the map becomes easier for some to plan with. Worst case?

 

[Transilien]

The burial of Metrolink routes under the centre of Manchester would make the system more attractive as it would make journeys faster and give more space in the city centre to pedestrians especially in areas like Piccadilly Gardens.

 

[Russel]

The reality is, anyone with a basic understanding of the system isn't going to see it the same as somebody who might never have used public transport before.

The Metrolink is a confusing network, it's not just people who've never used public transport before that struggle...

I was stood on the platform at Piccadilly Gardens last Saturday trying to get to Trafford Park, there was trams coming and going in all directions and the only maps (that I found) were on the ticket machines that were swamped with people buying tickets, it was overwhelming, I ended up downloading a map on my phone and figuring it out from there, but it wasn't a smooth experience at all.

TfGM need to send some people to spend some time with TfL, they could learn a lot.

 

[AndrewE]

As you mentioned before and never answered - how is Croydon anywhere near comparable in complexity to Manchester?

The reality is, anyone with a basic understanding of the system isn't going to see it the same as somebody who might never have used public transport before.

My argument is, if done properly, what harm would it do? Best case the map becomes easier for some to plan with. Worst case?

I crossed Manchester Picc to Vic and vv earlier this week and I thought the schematic maps and coloured routes were a boon, even though I have watched the network grow and know the geography from being nearby for 40 yrs.

Yellow line would have done us in the morning - if only there hadn't been a blockage at Piccadilly Gardens, which we only found out about after we had touched in. Walked to Picc Gardens (Market St) for a Green or Blue line tram... to find nothing running because of another problem at Cornbrook! Walked to Vic where we touched out to avoid being charged the full network charge and I now have to try to get the fares back.

Coming home it worked as it should and I was glad not to have had to slog across the city centre again!

 

[daodao]

The burial of Metrolink routes under the centre of Manchester would make the system more attractive as it would make journeys faster and give more space in the city centre to pedestrians especially in areas like Piccadilly Gardens.

I disagree. Damp, dark and gloomy underground unstaffed Metrolink halts would be very unpleasant and dangerous to use. The visible penetration of the city centre with easily accessible and well-sited halts has helped to boost patronage, and the effective elimination of most other vehicular traffic in the city centre also helps. In any case, tunnelled routes would be unaffordable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I disagree. Damp, dark and gloomy underground unstaffed Metrolink halts would be very unpleasant and dangerous to use.

You are not the only one with those worries noting some of the "types" who will see such places as "happy hunting grounds"...

 

[Transilien]

I disagree. Damp, dark and gloomy underground unstaffed Metrolink halts would be very unpleasant and dangerous to use. The visible penetration of the city centre with easily accessible and well-sited halts has helped to boost patronage, and the effective elimination of most other vehicular traffic in the city centre also helps. In any case, tunnelled routes would be unaffordable.

London gets along fine with its tunnels and I think the underground wouldn’t be so well patronised if it ran on the street and went the same speed as Metrolink in the city centre. A tunnel under Manchester isn’t crazy for the third largest city in the country as smaller cities (like Liverpool, Newcastle and Glasgow) all have tunnels underneath their city centre. Even Manchester had a proposal for a city-centre tunnel which would have went ahead if the money hadn’t dried up. Also, staffing is a non-issue, just staff the city centre underground stations! I think an unstaffed underground station is safer than having passengers crossing over the tram track all the time with many opportunities to be ran over.

 

[Russel]

Don't all underground stations have to be staffed due to fire regs?

Am I right in saying Picadilly isn't actually underground, it's at street level and it's the mainline station above that's actually above street level?