Talk:Manchester Metrolink/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Old discussions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Zones 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of Trams by name and number 

message: 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?
8 is 9 was a typo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.39.214 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Flexity Swift's Ordered 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Stagecoachmetro.gif

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Stagecoachmetro.gif

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Perhaps adding it under the heading trivia would suffice --AJFurnell (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  fictitious viaduct 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think the term "routes" is more fitting than "lines". GMPTE often refer to the present system consisting of "1 and a half lines" with "3 routes", not lines. When the system was constructed the original line opened in 1992 when complete it consisted of just one line and 3 routes. Bury - Altrincham, Bury - Piccadilly and Altrincham - Piccadilly. When the "Eccles line" opened although they classed it as a new line, the plans (only now being constructed) were meant to include an extension beyond Piccadilly towards Ashton-Under-Line taking passengers to the City of Manchester Stadium. I understand this part of extension was not viable at the time due to Manchester's failed bid to host the 2000 Olympic Games - so the Eccles extension (linking Salford Quays which was starting to grow) was the only part of the new line built, hence why it is referred to as having "one and a half lines" at present. --Spacepostman (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of lines 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: It's called Deansgate-Castlefield. Never been called Central. changing it now. - --Selbs101 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  between Central and Victoria ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Glorious future 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Route map: Eccles in the north?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Route map 2008 

message: Is it actually called Manchester Metrolink in any official literature? I realise we have to disambiguate the article, but AFAICT, it's officially called (or at very least branded) Metrolink. Can anybody enlighten me? --Jza84 |  Talk   15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick look shows that http://www.metrolink.co.uk/ Metrolink] itself and GMPTE refer to it simplay as Metrolink, I don't think any further sources are needed. Shall we move this article to Metrolink, Manchester or Metrolink (Manchester)? Nev1 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't realise the second one was already a blue link. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I can't be certain, but I think references to the service within Greater Manchester call it simply "Metrolink". Sources outside Manchester seem to refer to it either as the Metrolink in Manchester or "Manchester Metrolink". This includes references by official bodies such as the Department for Transport. Road Wizard (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, there's no need for Manchester organisations who work with and for Mancunians to remind everyone where it is. There are some occassions where it's refereed to simply as Metrolink by the DfT, but it looks like shorthand and the full "Manchester Metrolink" seems more common. No move needed then I guess. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad I asked then! Any objections if I put a mention of this into the lead? (I'm thinking "Manchester Metrolink (branded Metrolink) is..." or something simillar. --Jza84 |  Talk   16:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None at all, seems a good ieda to me. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the various uses of 'Manchester Metrolink' are by analogy with 'London Underground'. It seems fairly clear that the system is not (and never has been) properly known as anything more than Metrolink. David Arthur (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please define "properly known"? As I mentioned earlier, sources outside Manchester appear to always qualify references to "Metrolink" with the city name somewhere in the text and often use the term "Manchester Metrolink". In what way is this not proper? Road Wizard (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for one thing, when the usage by both the authorities and ordinary people in Manchester agrees, I'd say that more or less by definition takes precedence as a 'common name' over what it's called elsewhere. When the DfT say 'Manchester Metrolink', they're essentially disambiguating the name, which is reasonable given that the name could refer to practically anything (there are many things with similar names around the world), but doesn't re-name the system itself. David Arthur (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps the opening sentence should be reversed to something like "Metrolink (often called Manchester Metrolink by people outside of the Manchester area)..." Would that or a similarly worded sentence be acceptable? Road Wizard (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although I don't know that it's really necessary — is ‘Metrolink is a tramway in Manchester’ likely to produce any confusion? David Arthur (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're thinking of renaming the article, please be careful not to cause confusion with the Metrolink commuter rail operation in Los Angeles, or the Brisbane ferries in Australia, or the MetroLinks in Missouri and Nova Scotia! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, Metrolink is a disambiguation page. You can see that alternative names were suggested earlier, however it's unlikely that the article will be moved. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just curious... 

message: I unearthed some old publicity from the 80s which unveiled the first ideas for a light rail system. I'm adding old maps and artists' impressions as it give a bit of historical depth to the article. I was a bit unsure of the dates as the brochures are undated but have roughly worked it out:
*brochure 1: 1984 - it says the system will take 5 years to build and envisages a 1989 start of operation
*brochure 2: 1987 - a little less clear, but it mentions that the competitive tender would be decided in 1989, so powers have already been obtained, placing this publication around 1987 or 88.
Anyway it's all fascinating, especially the forgotten plans for Metrolink to Glossop...! Wikidwitch (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early proposals 

message: The current route map is excellent and very useful for the article but I feel it's a bit large at the moment, with neighbouring text running into a narrow column and it feels slightly cramped. Does anyone object if we use the alternative version, (with the Eccles line pointing upwards) as this shape seems more suited to right-alignment? Wikidwitch (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the original vertical version is definitely much more convenient – I always liked the way it fit on the page, but some people didn't like the way it distorts the geography. I'll probably have to go to a purely geographic layout when some of the new extensions open and make the system more complicated, but at the moment I have no objection to reverting to the original. David Arthur (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route map diagram 

message: An editor has replaced the current logo on the page with this one. I don't object to this changing to reflect Met branding but I feel it's jumping the gun slightly - although this branding was unveiled, I'm not aware that it is in use anywhere except on some signs Piccadilly station. As far as I know isn't in use on the trams (correct me if I'm wrong), it's not used on the official website, or anywhere as far as I can see except. So unless anyone objects I'd prefer to stick with the old one for now.
If/when the article does adopt the new logo, could someone make a graphical version instead of a photo taken in the station? It would look so much better. Wikidwitch (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branding & logo 

message: Now that the content of the current extensions is a bit clearer, the mileages for the extension lines need to be adjusted, and a consistent figure should be given for the prospective total system.  I think the distances are as below
:- the airport line is shown as 20.9km; I think this is the distance from the city centre, the extra from Chorlton is (I think) 14.5km, with the Chorlton spur itself being 3km to Trafford Bar.
: - the East Didsbury line is 4.5km; the further extension to Stockport should be moved from this sub-head,
: - the phase 3a to Oldham and Rochdale is 22.5km, with the town centre links being 2.4km and 1.1 km, respective, but the Werneth line is not now to be converted.
: - the line to Droylesden is I think 6.3km, with a further 3.9km to Ashton.
I am not sure that all these numbers are the most up-to-date; if anybody knows better, could they adjust the numbers (and all the references to the eventual system in the text), so that the total no longer includes the Stockport and Trafford Park lines, but does give an estimate for the Second City Centre line. TomHennell (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These distances are estimates of the routes proposed as there is no published maps. Deansgate Option would leave the present Altrincham line between Trafford Bar stop and Cornbrook underpass/junction. It would then run on street along Bridgewater Way, Chester Road, Deansgate, Fennel Street and Corporation Street where it joins the present line into Victoria Station, this is around 3-3.4km. Cross Street Option would use the existing route through G–Mex stop and down to road level. It would then run along Windmill Street (part), Mount Street, Lloyd Street (part), Albert Square, Cross Street and Corporation Street joining the present line into Victoria Station, just over 2km. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  need to revise mileages 

message: Just thought everyone would like to know that GMPTE have redesigned their website, and the Metrolink section has now been merged with .
This means a lot of reference links in articles may have broken, so please make any updates as necessary. If the pages you link to cannot be found, you may be able to replace the links by pointing instead to the GMPTE pages on the web archive or Metrolink pages on the web archive.
Wikidwitch (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to have reorderd the layout from directorys to files e.g. http://www.metrolink.co.uk/tickets/concession/index.asp is now http://www.metrolink.co.uk/tickets/concession.asp
 83.104.138.141 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GMPTE website relauchned 

message: The powers that be in Wikipedia are moving to delete the old schematic maps from the 1980s here and here as they are said to be an infringment of copyright, despite both having good fair use rationales. I have added rationales why they should not be deleted (mainly they are historical images which are allowed under fair use) but am not optimistic. If you like them, grab your own copy before they are killed off.Wikidwitch (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical maps to be deleted 

message: Anyone agree that the listing of Metrolink stops might be added to a new category, similar to the existing one made for the Midland Metro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Midland_Metro_stops)? --Mapmark (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers Divvy - I just added it at the bottom of the main 'Metrolink' page but on reflection perhaps it doesnt go there anyhow??? Obviously if I'm wrong please just delete it! --Mapmark (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Category needed perhaps? 

message: The Main article is getting too long, ive just split off part of the T68 article, created a M5000 page and improved both so hopefully we could move some material or ensure the main page doesnt become too full on those two sections. The main article itself is still a problem mainly with the History and Expansion sections. As it comes on stream we could reduce the expansion section by assimilating it into the main article body but it may still be a problem. The history section is the main issue which has relegated present information way down the page. Im therefore proposing an article split with a new page Manchester Metrolink History taking all but a few footnotes out of the main page and also sounding out a temporary expansion split though not personally in favour.
WatcherZero (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think splitting off the history, leaving just a summary here, would be a good idea. History of Manchester Metrolink would be a better title though, cf History of the London Underground. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, agree, a new article is needed, and History of Manchester Metrolink seems a perfectly sensible title. There is also more to add on this subject including some of the planned schemes pre-PiccVic so it makes sense. --Mapmark (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I've linked the history article in, and provided a 4-paragraph summary on the main page, in keeping with similar articles. NRTurner (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done Watcher/Turner. Big improvement. :-) --Mapmark (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Article split 

message: I was just wondering where the "average speed" entry in the infobox was sourced from. It may be roughly correct so I don't want to edit it, but should be backed up by some evidence. I wonder if the intention was to quote it as the max speed for the city centre section, as that is 30mph.  I'm not convinced that this information is very useful anyway, as the average speed for the city centre is probably about 15mph, and for the segregated lines perhaps 40mph, so it depends very much on which stops one is travelling between.
If such a figure is desired it could be calculated from the known line lengths and stop timing information available here in the pocket guide: http://www.metrolink.co.uk/accessibility/
although their site seems to have only an old version, I have seen newer versions in print
: I have corrected speed to the average service speed; that is to say speed including passenger stops and turnround times. TomHennell (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average Speed 

message: I've widened the infobox slightly as it was making the diagram split (see ) - is there a better way of handling this? 81.142.107.230 (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know a better way, ive adjusted it manually in the past for the same problem which tends to appear with long station names, sometimes ive been forced to tweak the template itself, the problem is also that your screen size will affect it too, it will look fine on one screen size and clip on another. WatcherZero (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox width 

message: http://www.rail.co/2011/11/21/manchester-metrolink-20-years-of-evolution/ interesting reading and worth using  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.52.37 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful 

message: There has been some route map changes that are not shown on the current map, if someone could update map that would be goodGuyb123321 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route Map Changes 

message: An unfamiliar lay person reading the opening description wanting to know what it was would be forgiven that Metrolink is a DLR type of light-rail system. It is not. It is a "tram" system that runs on segregated rails in parts. People identify the system as "trams". The word "tram" and a link to Tram inserted.
94.194.102.190 (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how you make that inductive leap re: DLR, there is no suggestion of similarity nor is DLR mentioned.  What makes you think that? Besides DLR itself is described more often as a metro than light rail.  Regarding Metrolink, it is actually the other way round to what you describe. It is a mid-capacity light rail system with some street running, it is not actually a tram no matter how much the average joe on the street may use the name colloquially.  A tram is a low-capacity system with negligible segregated track. ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description