This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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
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
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)
Thanks — I’ve added the zones to my map. David Arthur 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
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).
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?
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)
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)
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. citation 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- Jotel ( talk) 17:20, 27 November 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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Metrolink (Manchester) seems a good article title — for a comparison, see SkyTrain (Vancouver), which is often referred to as the Vancouver SkyTrain by non-resident 'railfans'. David Arthur ( talk) 13:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
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:
Anyway it's all fascinating, especially the forgotten plans for Metrolink to Glossop...! Wikidwitch ( talk) 13:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Bravo Wikidwitch, a very useful addition to the page:--
Mapmark (
talk)
14:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
No objections here from a Metrolink map lover/creator -- Mapmark ( talk) 12:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
Well I've done a graphical version anyway so I hope it's to everyone's taste. Thanks, by the way to Secondarywaltz for the transparent version - the yellow was, in retrospect, a little much. Wikidwitch ( talk) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
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
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)
Just thought everyone would like to know that GMPTE have redesigned their website, and the Metrolink section has now been merged with [3].
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)
83.104.138.141 ( talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
There seems to be some confusion among some contributors as to what Metrolink actually is. Thus, although most references to the rolling stock refer to the vehicles as "trams" there are odd references to "trains" here and there, which is inconsistent if nothing worse! By general international standards Metrolink is light rail, in the subcategory of tram. Light rail systems which are not tramways are entirely segregated: in GB the main examples are Tyne & Wear Metro and Docklands Light Railway. In London, indeed there is both segregated light rail (DLR) and a separate tram system (London Tramlink, formerly Croydon Tramlink.)
The confusion may have come about because large sections of the original Metrolink lines were formerly heavy rail. London Tramlink and Midland Metro (to take just two British examples) also have substantial former heavy rail sections, but nobody suggests they are anything other than tram systems. Most tram networks have segregated track somewhere along their routes -- particularly modern ones, which don't encroach on the highway unless they must. The test though, is: "Do the vehicles run on a track, anywhere along their routes, which is not segregated from the highway?" If the answer is yes then it's a tramway.
One anti-tram editor has alleged that Metrolink is "officially light rail". Indeed it is, but it's tramway light rail, not segregated light rail. Someone even wrote that Metrolink vehicles run in the highway "like a tram". What a coincidence. Could that be because they are trams? See the Transport & Works Act 1992 for the most official definition of what trams and tramways are that you could hope for.
Also see the Metrolink website front page reference to "Manchester's iconic tram system", in complete contrast with the early nineties when GMML tried very hard indeed not to use the word tram at all. Apparently the Chairman thought the term was old-fashioned. He hadn't been around Europe very much, if so, where in several countries (esp. Germany) trams never went out of fashion.
Metrolink trams are trams. Why try to insist otherwise?
Just a note that some of the new-style, yellow trams are now operational in Manchester (example here). -- Jza84 | Talk 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Performed Split WatcherZero ( talk) 13:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Might eventually want to connect Main article, History, two tram pages and route template into a box like this: Template:Undergroundconnect
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 question the neutrality of this article, on the basis that there is a section devoted to Criticism of the system, but there is nothing in the article in support of the Metrolink network to balance this out. I'm the first to say the Metrolink has its problems, but from a purely encyclopedic point of view, I find it hard to believe that every piece of PR about the system has been negative. Thoughts? 81.141.73.29 ( talk) 21:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay 79.69.229.57 ( talk) 01:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little perplexed about a paragraph in the introduction section, debating the Metrolink's status as a "tram:"
“The system is neither a tram nor a metro system. It is operated as a tram in the City Centre but more as a metro when outside of the Centre. There are no underground stations although Piccadilly Station is located underneath the main National Rail station. This means that the station feels and looks like a true metro station.″
I think it's pretty certain that the system isn't a 'metro' system, as per the wikipedia article , since that typically denotes an underground system. As for questioning its status as a 'tram', well even the Metrolink website refers to it as a tram, as do the GMPTE.
It seems to me that debating whether the Metrolink is a 'tram' , is a little bit like debating whether the London Underground should be referred to as 'underground', since 55% of the network runs over ground. Can someone please shed some light on this? Thanks. Tong22 ( talk) 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I've widened the infobox slightly as it was making the diagram split (see [4]) - is there a better way of handling this? 81.142.107.230 ( talk) 10:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
There has been some route map changes that are not shown on the current map, if someone could update map that would be good Guyb123321 ( talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
Its growing too large and becoming unencyclopedic (table format doesnt help) while an occurence is notable when a rare event when it becomes a long list it loses notability. Propose removing. WatcherZero ( talk) 23:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been busy working on a complete rewrite of the Metrolink article, using London Underground as a template for layout, and have an unfinished draft at User:Jza84/Sandbox2. Intially, I'd like support from editors to be bold and replace the existing article with the new version, but (as it's such a collosal task), I'm also seeking editors to help sense-check, amend and complete the draft. An SVG route map for the infobox in the style of that at the Tube article would also be great.
Thoughts anybody? -- Jza84 | Talk 11:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Re 2, try something based around
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)(my text). The test sites were five in number on Mosely Street, and (if neccesary) you might add that the areas affected were the dual running sections. Mr Stephen ( talk) 00:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm at the point where I can say the draft is complete and potentially ready to be transferred over. Before I do so, are there any objections/burning issues/errors that anyone would like to raise/fix/address? Again, the draft is at User:Jza84/Sandbox2 and is open to editting. -- Jza84 | Talk 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It says in the lead "Metrolink uses a fleet of light rail vehicles – popularly known as trams". At the risk of igniting a war, are they trams or not? I looked at the Tram article for guidance and it's very unclear from that what is a tram and what isn't, although the main image for the article is of light rail vehicles. Looking at the Metrolink pages [5] they refer to "Tram times" so it would appear that they accept the term "tram" for the vehicles, at least - or are they just giving in to a popular misconception? Richerman (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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
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
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)
Thanks — I’ve added the zones to my map. David Arthur 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
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).
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?
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)
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)
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. citation 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- Jotel ( talk) 17:20, 27 November 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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Metrolink (Manchester) seems a good article title — for a comparison, see SkyTrain (Vancouver), which is often referred to as the Vancouver SkyTrain by non-resident 'railfans'. David Arthur ( talk) 13:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
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:
Anyway it's all fascinating, especially the forgotten plans for Metrolink to Glossop...! Wikidwitch ( talk) 13:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Bravo Wikidwitch, a very useful addition to the page:--
Mapmark (
talk)
14:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
No objections here from a Metrolink map lover/creator -- Mapmark ( talk) 12:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
Well I've done a graphical version anyway so I hope it's to everyone's taste. Thanks, by the way to Secondarywaltz for the transparent version - the yellow was, in retrospect, a little much. Wikidwitch ( talk) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
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
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)
Just thought everyone would like to know that GMPTE have redesigned their website, and the Metrolink section has now been merged with [3].
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)
83.104.138.141 ( talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
There seems to be some confusion among some contributors as to what Metrolink actually is. Thus, although most references to the rolling stock refer to the vehicles as "trams" there are odd references to "trains" here and there, which is inconsistent if nothing worse! By general international standards Metrolink is light rail, in the subcategory of tram. Light rail systems which are not tramways are entirely segregated: in GB the main examples are Tyne & Wear Metro and Docklands Light Railway. In London, indeed there is both segregated light rail (DLR) and a separate tram system (London Tramlink, formerly Croydon Tramlink.)
The confusion may have come about because large sections of the original Metrolink lines were formerly heavy rail. London Tramlink and Midland Metro (to take just two British examples) also have substantial former heavy rail sections, but nobody suggests they are anything other than tram systems. Most tram networks have segregated track somewhere along their routes -- particularly modern ones, which don't encroach on the highway unless they must. The test though, is: "Do the vehicles run on a track, anywhere along their routes, which is not segregated from the highway?" If the answer is yes then it's a tramway.
One anti-tram editor has alleged that Metrolink is "officially light rail". Indeed it is, but it's tramway light rail, not segregated light rail. Someone even wrote that Metrolink vehicles run in the highway "like a tram". What a coincidence. Could that be because they are trams? See the Transport & Works Act 1992 for the most official definition of what trams and tramways are that you could hope for.
Also see the Metrolink website front page reference to "Manchester's iconic tram system", in complete contrast with the early nineties when GMML tried very hard indeed not to use the word tram at all. Apparently the Chairman thought the term was old-fashioned. He hadn't been around Europe very much, if so, where in several countries (esp. Germany) trams never went out of fashion.
Metrolink trams are trams. Why try to insist otherwise?
Just a note that some of the new-style, yellow trams are now operational in Manchester (example here). -- Jza84 | Talk 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Performed Split WatcherZero ( talk) 13:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Might eventually want to connect Main article, History, two tram pages and route template into a box like this: Template:Undergroundconnect
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 question the neutrality of this article, on the basis that there is a section devoted to Criticism of the system, but there is nothing in the article in support of the Metrolink network to balance this out. I'm the first to say the Metrolink has its problems, but from a purely encyclopedic point of view, I find it hard to believe that every piece of PR about the system has been negative. Thoughts? 81.141.73.29 ( talk) 21:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay 79.69.229.57 ( talk) 01:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little perplexed about a paragraph in the introduction section, debating the Metrolink's status as a "tram:"
“The system is neither a tram nor a metro system. It is operated as a tram in the City Centre but more as a metro when outside of the Centre. There are no underground stations although Piccadilly Station is located underneath the main National Rail station. This means that the station feels and looks like a true metro station.″
I think it's pretty certain that the system isn't a 'metro' system, as per the wikipedia article , since that typically denotes an underground system. As for questioning its status as a 'tram', well even the Metrolink website refers to it as a tram, as do the GMPTE.
It seems to me that debating whether the Metrolink is a 'tram' , is a little bit like debating whether the London Underground should be referred to as 'underground', since 55% of the network runs over ground. Can someone please shed some light on this? Thanks. Tong22 ( talk) 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I've widened the infobox slightly as it was making the diagram split (see [4]) - is there a better way of handling this? 81.142.107.230 ( talk) 10:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
There has been some route map changes that are not shown on the current map, if someone could update map that would be good Guyb123321 ( talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
Its growing too large and becoming unencyclopedic (table format doesnt help) while an occurence is notable when a rare event when it becomes a long list it loses notability. Propose removing. WatcherZero ( talk) 23:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been busy working on a complete rewrite of the Metrolink article, using London Underground as a template for layout, and have an unfinished draft at User:Jza84/Sandbox2. Intially, I'd like support from editors to be bold and replace the existing article with the new version, but (as it's such a collosal task), I'm also seeking editors to help sense-check, amend and complete the draft. An SVG route map for the infobox in the style of that at the Tube article would also be great.
Thoughts anybody? -- Jza84 | Talk 11:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Re 2, try something based around
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)(my text). The test sites were five in number on Mosely Street, and (if neccesary) you might add that the areas affected were the dual running sections. Mr Stephen ( talk) 00:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm at the point where I can say the draft is complete and potentially ready to be transferred over. Before I do so, are there any objections/burning issues/errors that anyone would like to raise/fix/address? Again, the draft is at User:Jza84/Sandbox2 and is open to editting. -- Jza84 | Talk 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It says in the lead "Metrolink uses a fleet of light rail vehicles – popularly known as trams". At the risk of igniting a war, are they trams or not? I looked at the Tram article for guidance and it's very unclear from that what is a tram and what isn't, although the main image for the article is of light rail vehicles. Looking at the Metrolink pages [5] they refer to "Tram times" so it would appear that they accept the term "tram" for the vehicles, at least - or are they just giving in to a popular misconception? Richerman (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)