Talk:Manchester Metrolink/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Next: History of Manchester Metrolink

If there are any editors willing to take the baton and spend some time bringing History of Manchester Metrolink up to standard, that would be great. I'm thinking we could copy the current main history over from this article to that, and then add more detail? I think it's a chance to use more images and go into the original proposals with more depth? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Could develop into a very interesting article. I remember adding some historical 1980s maps of the original plans a couple of years ago (illustrating the Glossop Line proposal), but unfortunately despite valid fair use rationales these were obliterated by deletionists and I sort of gave up after that. So if you want any images like this, someone needs to draw them from scratch. Wikidwitch (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

We now have SVG maps for the current network. I intend to work on creating a series of maps which show the timeline of the various lines opening. It would also be possible to create maps of the various proposals made in the 1980s too. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be great. JPG, SVG whatever. The original proposals can be seen in this 1986(?) brochure - trams to Marple and Glossop! Two years later the plans were updated to include Salford Quays. (25 years later and the good folk of Didsbury are still waiting!) These maps are actual scans of genuine GMT publicity - I think these are very interesting for comparison, especially the way the designs deliberately emulate London Underground maps. Just a shame they are not allowed to be included on Wikipedia, not even for critical commentary (for some reason, this image is allowed but Metrolink isn't). Wikidwitch (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The existing history section on the main article is now quite long - I'd suggest a substantial reduction so that it summarises the key events, since all the detail is to be covered by the new history article. Seem OK? Wikidwitch (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just about to start a GA review, it was going to be tomorrow (see the section two below). If you can do it in a day or so (well less than on week max.), I'll wait; otherwise you'll need to persuade Jza84 to withdraw this GAN nomination and then resubmit it when its finished. I'm certainly not going to waste my time reviewing an article that is being proposed for a major rewrite/substantial reduction. Pyrotec (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep the history section here. Articles are meant to be stand alone pieces of work, and it would be a requirement of the WP:FA criteria too should we ever want to take it there. I'm actually coming round to the idea of changing the History of Manchester Metrolink into a timeline, like Timeline of the London Underground, which would be much easier to maintain, and able to integrate things like accidents with simplicity. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh OK, could work. I thought the aim was to reduce the main article by lifting the bulk of the history section into the history article (as with History of the London Underground)? I don't know what's best, I'll leave it to you.Wikidwitch (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes the main split that created the History page occured because it was good content but longer than the main article itself and was a jarring sidetrack to the reader when the focus of the article is the present, we agreed at the time to leave a paragraph summary and redirect to the history article for more detail.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WatcherZero (talk • contribs)

I've done a very quick mock-up of what it could look like at User:Jza84/Sandbox2 (again - sorry!). I believe it could be completed in its entirety within 24-48 hours with a little bit of teamwork. ;) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm only interested in Manchester Metrolink, sorry to put it that way, so if the changes only affect History of Manchester Metrolink then my comments above about time frame have no relevance. P.S. I'm happy to help on the latter, but I've almost no knowledge at all of its history. Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Droylsden updates

Hello all,

I've prepared a modified version of the article in readiness for the East Manchester line to Droylsden opening on Monday 11 Feb. It is located in my sandbox, and has all th e necessary updates and references to the new line and stops. It also has new maps courtesy of Nilfanion, which I think are great. I'm not likely to be around at midnight-ish on Sunday, so if someone would be kind enough to copy and paste it over nearer or at that time, then that would be great. When pasting just needs the categories restoring, and the Metrolink brand in the infobox making visible again, other than that it's all done in readiness. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite the Metrolink website and the MEN saying the line is opening on Monday, it is already in service - I travelled to Droylsden on it today (it's an extension of the Bury-Piccadilly service). This MEN article says Droylesden residents could start using it for free from yesterday (Friday, 8th), but they were certainly checking tickets on-board today It was very well loaded, too. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to update the article then in that case. I've googled it and the forums about Metrolink seem to confirm this. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the updated version of the line is great. Lots of work has gone into producing those maps. Look forward to seeing it once the full expansion has occurred. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The maps are excellent work, well done. Wikidwitch (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

GA feedback

I know this article is going to GA at the moment and from my cursory flick through it stands a good chance. Two key points need to be addressed:

• The History section with the origins, phases etc. is too long. One of the criteria of a Good Article is the Broad in its coverage which addresses the main aspects of the topic and does not go into unnecessary detail. The Manchester Metrolink page should just focus on providing a balanced overview of the system's history, stations, rolling stock, usage numbers, branding etc. A History of Manchester Metrolink page already exists and history section prose which is cut from could quite easily go into this page. It would be welcomed as the History page needs some attention too.

• Metrolink are in the process of constructing a new Airport Line from St. Werburgh's Road which will be open by 2016. At no point in the article does it mention that the Airport Line is under construction and due for opening in 2016. Same with the Rochdale extension. The future expansion should be made more clear.

Aside from those key main points which need to be addressed - the service route map is fantastic, layout is fine and a thorough reference list. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Stevo1000 - much appreciated. I'm confident too that this is or at least very nearly a Good Article.

You're right about the Airport Line - I'll try and box that off this weekend if nobody else does. I also think the contribution from the Man City squad for the EML is also worth a mention in the Branding and Public relations section.

With regards to the History section, it's roughly the same size as the one at London Underground, and is actually aimed at the WP:FA criteria, which requires articles to be comprehensive, omitting no major facts or details by being well-researched and thorough. I'd be comfortable and happy to lend support to shifting information to the History of Manchester Metrolink, but on two counts - 1) it that is completely rewritten, and goes beyond a cut-and-paste of material here (i.e. genuinuely discusses more detail), and 2) We also create a Timeline of Manchester Metrolink. For me that preserves the information for editors and provides the best all-round coverage and options for readers. That's not my 1st preference, but I'm trying to be collaborative and consensual. Thoughts? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a very good article. I applaud your efforts. It's a very interesting read. Regarding the history section - it's up to you really. If your pushing for the Metrolink to be a featured article then it's probably worth keeping the detailed history prose. My thinking was that it's a bit heavy on the history for a GA and that some of the text could be better used in the History of Metrolink article.

Sadly I don't get as much time as I wish I could on Wikipedia these days so I'd be lying if I said I could collaborate with you on the improvement of Metrolink pages. I just visited the Metrolink page a few weeks ago and noticed it had changed considerably so I thought I would give some feedback. Also might be worth mentioning in the Ticketing section that passengers who travel from Greater Manchester on the train can use the Metrolink for free around the City Zone. I believe it is called the Freedom of the City scheme by TfGM [1]. Regards. Stevo1000 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Rochdale updates

In light of the news that Metrolink will open up to Rochdale on 28 Feb, I have repeated the same trick done earlier in the month and prepared a ready-made updated version of the article at User:Jza84/Sandbox3. It has all the necessary updates throughout the article, including maps, services and (finally) a reference with an accurate network length. If I don't manage it on the evening of the new service, any editor is welcome to copy and paste it over for a seemless transition. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

missing word?

A small point, but is there a year missing in the phrase, "this pattern was modified in to a twelve-minute service"? Thanks for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It should probably be "this pattern was modified to a twelve-minute service". Ta! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

New map

If anyone is willing and able to resolve the request at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Metrolink this week, I'd be very grateful. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Phase three

Will someone put in a intro para explaining what the hell phase three is. It immediately goes into waffle. I was no better after reading some of it to what the extension is.

Well, I didn't know what phase 3 was but the second sentence of the section tells me "...Greater Manchester's top transport priority was set as a third phase of Metrolink expansion, endorsing lines in key transport corridors running east to East Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyne, south to Wythenshawe and Manchester Airport, and northeast to Oldham and Rochdale." I read that as meaning that phase 3 consists of lines running east to East Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyne, south to Wythenshawe and Manchester Airport, and northeast to Oldham and Rochdale. Am I missing something? Richerman (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It starts like this ...."With Metrolink as a whole exceeding patronage targets and reducing traffic congestion on routes running parallel to its lines,[56] the system was considered a "phenomenal success" by officials and transport planners in Greater Manchester". It does not tell me up front what phase 3 is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.22.193 (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It explains that Metrolink was considered a success by transport planners because it was reaching/exceeding targets for passenger numbers and traffic congestion. The next sentence explains that the same planners wanted more of this by expanding the network. The sentence(s) after that explain those expansion plans to the reader. For me that's pretty crystal. What would you suggest? - if it's not right, then please help us --Jza84 |  Talk  16:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Having slept on this a couple of nights and re-read that section today, I've rewritten it. Hopefully this change addressed any confusion/concerns. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

East Didsbury updates

Hi all, the South Manchester Line is opening between St Werburgh's Road and East Didsbury on 23 May 2013. As such I'm in the process of updating the maps, and have (as per the last few extensions to the network) prepared an updated version of this article here ready to paste over next week. This newer version will have all the updates needed for the whole article to make sense and add up, and also includes the necessary modifications needed in light of the closure of Mosley Street Metrolink station on 17 May 2013. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Colour map - update

Hi all,

Would anybody be willing and able to update File:Metrolink route map w colour.svg with the new section of line to East Didsbury? File:Metrolink route map 23 May 2013.svg could be used to copy, paste and re-colour the new line in. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Transit type

Just a note that I've done a revert in accordance with WP:BRD here. The element about it being notable for picking up on-street running since Blackpool is POV, and probably better explained in the main prose. That said, the lead mentions that the system has both segregated and on-street running. The element about the transit type being tram does not tally with the source material out there. Page 30 of Holt's 1992 book Manchester Metrolink does not say this is a tram system, it says that somebody coined tram as a nickname (!) - the book is very, very clear that, despite popular references to trams, Metrolink is a light rail system. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Tram" and "Light rail" are not mutually excusive concepts. One may be regarded as a subset of the other: Tram systems are a form of light rail system. I recall that when the Manchester system was introduced there was a nervousness on the part of officialdom about referring to trams because it was thought the word had an old-fashioned image. None the less, the vehicles used in Manchester are undoubtedly trams, whatever Holt's book may say. It is absurd to suggest that this is just a "nickname". The people in Manchester call them trams because they obviously are trams. -- Alarics (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed so Alarics. It may also be added that the phased removal of block signalling, and its replacement by line-of-sight throughout the system, amounts to the extending of 'tram' functionality (as it is now understood) across the whole of the current Metrolink. In 1992, the only other light rail systems in the UK then were the wholly grade-seprated (and block-signalled throughout) Tyne & Wear Metro and Docklands Light Railway. The only functioning 'tram' system was Blackpool. Now, there is a substantial body of UK light rail systems where there is at least some on-street running, and much of the segregated track is at grade. Indeed Blackpool has now been remade to conform to this emerging standard. So it makes sense to distinguish 'light-rail' in the UK into two classes; 'light-metro' systems (block-signalled, grade separeated); and 'tram' systems (line-of-sight signalling, not grade-separated). Both Metrolink and Blackpool now sit clearly in the latter category. The 1992 reference is no longer relavant to this issue and should be removed. TomHennell (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What Alarics and TomHennell have said are both true. Jza84 you really need to take to account that a tram is any rail vehicle which is designed to travel across streets, whether it be complete street running or a combination of both street track or reserved railway, it is still a tram system. If the Metrolink system is completely grade seperated from road traffic but without being built to rapid transit specifications like the Tyne and Wear Metro and Docklands Light Railway, then only it would count as a complete light rail system as you're trying to state. Also, if the system is only referred as light rail in this wikipedia page, it can become quite confusing for some people who know the system more as trams than light rail as I have stated in your talk page so it makes sense to call it both tram and Light rail. Its a bit unfair if edits with true information are constantly being undone just because you may have a different opinion on the system, if there are no references for the information then it can be added and only untrue information can be removed or undone. I have now changed the transit type to Tram/Light rail with a proper reference saying that Metrolink is both Tram and Light rail and not that 1992 book reference.Broman178 (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The final edit is acceptable - it cites its sources. But sirs, this is pretty exasperating and I can just about crack out an apology for this rant... but for goodness sake, "any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add or delete content solely because they believe it is true." This is a very important principle of Wikipedia!!! You can spend all day defining the world away and disregarding source material, but that's for a website other than Wikipedia. Therefore, rather than mocking reputable published views and sources as "absurd" and obsolete, why not give credit to someone spending a lot of time and effort in improving this article by working within the guidelines, and and the end of the day just cite your sources please! --Jza84 |  Talk  20:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, Jz; you are quite correct to insist on the Wikipedia principle that all material added should have been published in a reliable source. But you should note that the obverse does not hold true; not all material published in a reliable source merits inclusion in a relevant Wikipedia article. That particularly applies to statements in an info box or lead para; where what should be stated is the predominant categorisation of transit type in published authoritative sources. Minority views, however reliable their source, may (but need not) be discussed within the body of the article. In this case, the predominance of current authoritative sources is not in dispute. Metrolink is a light rail system whose vehicles are trams http://www.metrolink.co.uk/futuremetrolink/Pages/new-trams.aspx. So the categorisation of Tram/Light rail is confirmed as the correct one. Moreover you may note, this is also the categorisation given in Wikipedia for Croydon Tramlink - and since in all relevant respects the two systems are clearly closely comparable - that makes sense. TomHennell (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Stops or Stations

This may well have been fully debated before, and I'm happy to go along with the consensus; but it does seem odd that the article consistently refers to the tramstops and 'stations'and never as 'stops'; whereas TfGM and all the official reference works go the other way round. Is there a general Wikipedia policy here that tramstops on light rail systems should always be designated stations? TomHennell (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The articles on the individual stations/stops pre-date my contributions. For me personally I'd go with "stops" as it's what TfGM go with. However, the articles are set up as "stations". Books seem to use the terms interchangably, and there's debates on Metrolink forums about which term is appropriate or correct. I've tried to get a compromise in this article mentioning both terms, and word individual station articles to say "X station is a stop on Y line" (for example, see Milnrow Metrolink station). --Jza84 |  Talk  21:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know for certain, but I suspect it arose from the fact that of the lines opened under Phase 1, a vast majority of the new Metrolink stops had previously been railway stations. Agreed it is very odd that Metrolink is the only tram system in Britain where we do this. The only light rail systems where 'station' seems appropriate to me are those with no street-running sections (Tyne & Wear, Docklands), and it is very strange that we are using a term here that neither the owner, operator nor passengers apparently would...--Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 08:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that if a tram halts at an actual railway station such as Victoria or Piccadilly, it should be called a station. Looking to naming conventions for London, where a railway station/tram/tube station are the same premises, the article title just refers to the whole thing as a "station" (e.e. Wimbledon station). It would be odd to refer to "Piccadilly tram stop". Then we have the former BR stations such as Timperley Metrolink station which are now tram-only - it would seem odd not to continue refer to these as stations, as they are station structures with buildings and platforms. But where there is an newer on-street construction consisting of a couple of platforms, like for example Droylsden Metrolink station, it's hard to see this as a station, and I'd personally be happy for these to be called "stops". It's an awkward distinction I know, and some more thought would have to go into it. Personally, I don't even know why there are individual articles about some of these minor tram stops - there's practically nothing distinctive anyone can write about something like Queens Road Metrolink station, but we still have a whole article about it! Cnbrb (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I confess don't see that at all Cnbrb. A tube station is still a 'station' not a 'stop' whether it interchanges with heavy rail or not. A bus stop is a bus stop even when it is located at a train station. By your logic, we ought to be referring to the 'Euston Bus Station'. So far as I coceive it personally, 'Piccadilly Station' refers to the building - and 'the Piccadilly tram stop' is what you find in the undercroft of the station; alongside 'the Piccadilly taxi rank'. Trams and buses have stops, trains and metros have stations.

Where there may be confusion is in a future with heavy rail converted to tram-train operation. If trams and trains are pulling up at adjoining (or even the same) platforms, then we may have to see haw they become disignated in popular discourse and official nomenclature. But - for Metrolink - that is all hypothetical and a fair way into the future. For the moment, it would seem that Wikipedia is out of line with both popular usage and official terminology on this. TomHennell (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm just throwing in an idea. London Tramlink stops are all "stops". But if I go to one of the ex-BR Metrolink stations, it still feels more like a station than a stop, even if the parcels office and ladies' waiting room has long since vanished. :-) I think the conversion of old BR stations and the Metrolink name have both resulted in Metrolink being considered as a metro rather than a tram, if on a psychological rather than technical level. I don't know - there's a lot of ambiguity surrounding these terms, as discussed in the Light rail article. In many cities the distinction between U-Bahn and tram is so blurred you don't know what to call it (Frankfurt, San Fransisco). But yes, I agree re consistency and you could be right.Cnbrb (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Interview

Hi all,

There's an interview with Peter Cushing with the MEN here. It's quite in depth, but I'm not sure if there's anything in there that would be of value to pillage for the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is he going to apologise for the destruction of Alderaan? I think we should be told. 13:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Trafford Park Line

Following the decisions of the Combined Authority on 25th October - specfically to buy now the 10 extra M5000 LRVs required for the scheme ; should the Trafford Park line not now be moved out from section 3.5, to form a new section 1.6? http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/gmca_agenda_25_10_13_web_v2.pdf TomHennell (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we should hang back just a little longer. I suspect that 2CC and Trafford (Park) routes will be combined as a single expansion phase (4), using a single contract or contractor, meaning we can structure our article around how it pans out. Thoughts?

I noticed the change from "Trafford Line" to "Trafford Park Line". Is this now what they are going to call it? (I personally preferred the "North Trafford Line", but oh well!).

Incidentally, has anyone thought about watching and/or updating the Timeline of Manchester Metrolink too? There's been loads going on in the last month or so, including night testing in the town centres, and sign offs for the new projects, but we've not kept it bang up to date :S.--Jza84 |  Talk  13:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think 2CC and the Trafford Park Line can readily be put out to tender as a single contract, as the funding mechanisms are so different. Effectively, 2CC is now under way - the decision on the phasing was the key issue - and will form a part of Phase 3b. The Trafford Park Line cannot go ahead until the Earnback finance is confirmed as being accessible; which will take some time to do.

Which would be a good argument for holding back; but against it, the ten M5000s are being purchased next year. This is clearly an exercise in financial leveredging; nobody expects that these ten trams will eventually transfer back to the Trafford Park Line on its opening. TfGM are clearly hoping that, once in service, the ten trams will demonstrate sufficient extra business to pay their own way (not difficult, if each tram unit earns upwards of £750,000 year on average, and the purchase price is £3m). This is a device to keep the M5000 production line open another year, when another rationale will be found for another 10 tram order. Nevertheless, this will mean a spend of around £32m in advance payments against the Trafford Park Line, whichmakes it much more than just a current proposal. TomHennell (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

more on the timetabling of the project here; http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/archive/14691-tfgm-sets-date-for-trafford-metrolink-line.html . This report suggests that there will be a public consultation in spring 2014; I would suggest that, by that stage, the line would need to appear in section 1. TomHennell (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it with the article! Yes, it looks like the line is subject to the usual public inquiry and TWA. But assuming that goes through successfully next year, then I agree it should be at that point that we move it inot section 1, presumably in its own Phase 4 subsection. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

New Islington

New Islington Metrolink station has now been re-classed as in the City Zone according to the BBC.[2] Could the appropriate alterations to the article be made? Patyo1994 (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/manchester/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)