![]() | 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 |
Hello.
I propose that a map of the Midland Metro be made for this article. I am proposing this because I haven't seen such a map for the article. MattFisher 19:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm maing such a map right now, including the proposed extensions and stations (as of 2004). ivers 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the maps on this page be templates? Andy Mabbett 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
An article in Local Transport Today (April 2007) stated that a new development adjacent to Snow Hill Station in Birmingham will be implementing a viaduct that will eventually be used by the Midland Metro to access the City Centre of Birmingham. Until that time it will be used as a public footway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.65.150.50 ( talk) 12:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
One or more Anon users has recently dumped a pile of text here, which might be copyvio, or might be new content, intended for use in the article. Either way, it's not discussing the article, so I have moved it to a page where it can be looked over, and used or deleted as appropriate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed "The former railway on the Metro Line was closed between 1972 and 1992" because of uncertainties about exactly when the northern section actually closed to freight. Haskanik ( talk) 01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The table on this article says 'operating speed 35km/h / 22mph' - well glancing through the drivers window today I saw that needle above 50km/h - besides, 22mph is ridiculously slow, those trams do at least 40mph, which is over 60km/h. Tom walker ( talk) 19:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not question the accuracy of the data, but the tone of the eace seems relentlessly negative. Is there really NOTHING good to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 ( talk) 13:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there should be some mention to the fact that Tram Number 9 is named Jeff Astle in his honour? His name appears on Tram 9, which is the Number he was famous for wearing when playing for West Bromwich Albion
A reversion complaint about the behaviour of Haskanik has been raised Alan Cox ( talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's some information about some "opinionated statements".
Statement: "Details of any payments made are not known."
Explanation: Centro have not disclosed what money was paid by Altram in respect of late opening.
There's a fog surrounding the topic
http://www.nce.co.uk/big-bill-for-late-midland-metro/832833.article
and as that in itself affects Line 1's cost, it justifies the statement "The outturn cost of Line 1 is also not known".
The cost was further obfuscated by moving items from the construction phase, to post-opening 'major' and 'minor' works capital programmes
Statement: "However, no evidence of need, or cost saving, was offered."
Explanation: Centro's press release doesn't explain how track sharing saves "up to 20 per cent", nor does it explain why the scheme is necessary.
Nor, if it was necessary, why there'd be a need to build extra track, if sharing was not used.
Statement: "In the construction of Line 1, "Centro took a contrary view of track sharing, having an expensive flyover built at Handsworth"
Explanation: One of the most expensive structures on Line 1 is the viaduct at Handsworth, created solely to avoid trams sharing tracks with heavy rail.
Centro aren't too keen on disseminating their original estimate for Line 1 ridership.
However, a reference to "up to 15 million" passengers a year can be found at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1850372.stm
Statement: "The fare scale was originally intended to be broadly comparable with buses, but this proved to be unfinanceable".
There's some background at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2736605.stm
where it states "Fares are now set to rise to recoup some of the revenue."
Statement: "In 2006 Councillor Gary Clarke, chairman of Centro-PTA, stated that Metro would 'make a real impact on our campaign to cut congestion for everyone'."
Actuality: Midland Metro patronage amounts to two journeys per inhabitant per year (
http://centro.journalistpresslounge.com/centro/uploads/research/Annual%20Stats%202005-06.pdf).
I hope that will do for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haskanik ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll be happy to provide a Third Opinion, per request. however, I'd like to make a couple of requests while I review the debate:
thanks! -- Ludwigs2 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone stated that
"For that reason, Midland Metro carbon dioxide emissions are likely to be significantly higher than portrayed"
amounted to crystal ball gazing. However, it's based on historical data, for which references are given. There's no getting away from load factors in emissions comparisons.
Haskanik (
talk)
01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately load factors have little to do with emissions. Load factor per vehicle versus intended load factor per vehicle does - but the Metro is reaching that quite clearly. Load only matters if you run lots of excess half empty services which they don't.
There are lots of factors that matter significantly - weight of vehicle per passenger carried, existence of regenerative braking, stops made, gradients, efficiency of power supply and vehicle drive mechanisms etc.
The vehicles are not under-loaded - in fact they are usually near full, most journeys are long (so you don't get the case of the vehicle being empty for half the jouney as is common on many routes).
Basically the comparisons are dubious - the Midland Metro actually operates like a Metro not a tram service and you want metro style comparative data (or in fact even better would be real published data).
In short the claims about carbon emissions in the article are bunkum and pure speculation.
The journey data tells a rather more intersting story of course - most people travel the full length of the line, so in fact they'd have been far more sensible to have just put the railway back with a few less stops than the tram, "route sharing" for freight would just work and the vehicles would have been cascaded standard railway stock.
81.2.110.250 ( talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
One way to find out - FoI request made: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_on_midland_metro
This should give the required answers fairly quickly providing WMT are in a helpful mood, or a bit longer if not Alan Cox ( talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A large number of edits were made an anonymous user on 17 to 19 January 2010. Unfortunately, many of them were detrimental to quality.
Here's some examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338654258
annotated by the anon user with "The 1999 study is questionably valid with modern electromagnetic track brakes but the general points I've left as accurate"
Material removed at this edit included a link to a general study of tram safety in streets. Topics mentioned in the study included vehicle mass, stiffness, and geometry, and injuries caused to pedestrians.
The statement, "The 1999 study is questionably valid with modern electromagnetic track brakes" is irrelevant. The report is concerned with a range of tram-related safety issues, not the safety aspects of electromagnetic track brakes.
It is not even clear what the anon user means by "modern" electromagnetic track brakes, or how they are better than older ones of the same type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338649257
annotated by the anon user with "Actually no the references are about the original line 1 (Feb 1991) not as claimed the extensions - remove it"
Material removed at this edit included a link to a record of Parliamentary debate on Midland Metro extensions, strongly suggesting that the anonymous user has not read or understood the reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338648716
annotated by the anon user with "Remove bias and strange claim about 'obscure parliamentary', keep the ref as its right for the dispute".
Again, the anon user apparently hadn't read or understood the linked article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338658759
annotated by the anon user with "(Walking and cycling:) Remove speculative and irrelevant material"
Encouragement of walking and cycling is a goal stated in Centro documents, but there are no specifics.
Removal of relevant material about this topic is not good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338661073
annotated by the anon user with "Put in the true top speed not a fake one"
The 'true top speed' was already in the article, under "Vehicles and services". The anonymous editor entered the same maximum speed in the operating speed field in the infobox. On the talk page it was stated, "Fixed to match other Wikipedia pages/styles".
Not all light rail articles follow the anon user's preference. 'Operating speed' is an ambiguous term.
Manchester Metrolink page infobox: does not have an operating speed value. Has an average speed and a maximum speed.
Sheffield Supertram page infobox: does not have an operating speed, average speed, or maximum speed.
If it's important to have the 'top speed' in the infobox, I'd suggest creating a labelled field for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338655024
annotated with "(Line Two (Wednesbury - Brierley Hill): remove biased 'sieze' replace with compulsory purchase)"
The word "seize" is in the linked article.
"As well as the compulsory purchase at Dudley Port, another £10 million would be used to compulsory purchase other land required for the Brierley Hill extension."
This is grammatically incorrect, and not necessarily understood outside of the British Isles.
The article was better before these edits.
Haskanik (
talk)
01:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
A large number of edits were made by an anon user from 81.2.110.250, and User: Alan Cox. It seems that two users are making edits in concert, or more likely, that the same person is responsible for the whole frenzy. For ease of reference, I will refer to the author(s) as '81AC' or 'AC81'.
81AC's edits have had a deleterious effect on both accuracy and readability, and the sheer number makes detailing and unpicking too lengthy to be practicable. As of revision 340174131
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340174131
the page has
I'll give some examples (not a comprehensive list).
Broken links:
See the mess at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340174131#References
Baffling continuity:
"Currently (2010) the Midland Metro is described as "Zero emission at point of use" (that is emissions occur at the power station) and references to green power have been dropped.[54].
Centro has (or publishes) virtually no information about their extent."
Misspelling:
"Centro Stategic Case"
"neccesarily"
Irrelevant, wrong, and invented claims:
"No mention is made in the study of Evergreen 3 which will see many local trains currently using Snow Hill terminate at Moor Street Station instead."
(Irrelevant. In any case, the future use of bay platforms at Moor Street has not been settled, as there are competing claims by Bordesley Curve trains)
"According to official government data 17% of passengers moved from car to metro in the first year of operation with the figure rising to 37% in 2006. This represents a 20% modal shift from car to metro or about 600,000 journeys."
(Wrong. The 37% isn't "official government data", it's Linda Waltho getting her facts wrong in public. I don't know Walt Hon earth is wrong with her.
And if 600,000 journeys represents a "20 per cent modal shift", that puts total usage as 3,000,000, not 5,000,000.)
Alan Cox ( talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
"One of the most notable incidents took place in the summer of 2001, when electrocution risks due to improperly installed cabling forced closure of the Wolverhampton section"
(Invented. The linked article makes no reference to cables having been improperly installed.)
Edit 340028886
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&direction=next&oldid=340028886
saw AC81 asserting Midland Metro has seen 8% compound growth for several years:
"Midland Metro carries about five million passengers annually (2005), with an 8% year on year increase from 2003, about one third of that predicted by Centro in the planning stage."
and a few hours later, contradict his own edit (340118419):
"Midland Metro carries about five million passengers annually and this number appears to have reached a plateau, about one third of that predicted by Centro in the planning stage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340118419
All this added nothing to users' understanding. The 8% compound growth was pure invention. And 'reaching a plateau' implies ascent to a certain level, followed by constancy. The time series reality does not correspond with the claim.
There's no reason to leave the page in such a state. Users, and other editors, deserve better.
Haskanik (
talk)
22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Reverted. Please stop vandalising the page. You have replaced large amounts of corrected material with broken links, incorrect data and defamatory material. (PS 81.2.110.250 and Alan Cox are the same, I just had to go dig my password out as I lost it for a while) .
I have reversed your vandalism. If you wish to fix typographical errors then change them by editing the page further. If you continue in your current fashion then this will have to go to the Wikipedia dispute resoolution process. Alan Cox ( talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Guys, I'm trying to help you out here, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop arguing with each other and give me the info I need for a proper 3O. otherwise I'm going to have to give up and suggest that you seek informal mediation. I don't want to offer an opinion in the middle of a knock-down-drag-out. -- Ludwigs2 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Additional to those mentioned earlier.
"The BCCE includes heavy and complex pedestrian cross-traffic, narrow streets, difficult gradients, and abrupt turns.[citation needed] which must be considered to reduce the risk of an Tram Accident."
Um, abrupt turns reduce the risk of a tram accident?
It shows stops at 'St Chads' and 'Snow Hill'.
Why?
"The current cost estimate is £55 million for the new route and £65 million for nineteen new trams and for platform extension works[30]."
In that case, how much is for
Haskanik ( talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
checked against:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=345099037
There are various problems with the content of linked articles changing or disappearing altogether, clumsy and difficult prose, and factual accuracy.
"Line 1's trams have a minor exemption from the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 as they do not have suitable handrails in all required locations."
If someone depends on an accessibility feature that isn't present, its absence isn't a "minor exemption".
"Minor" is POV of the author.
81.2.110.250 (
talk)
19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The original wording didn't imply anything. It just stated Line One vehicles didn't meet accessibility regulations. As previously indicated, the lack of such features is "serious" for people who are depending on them to be provided.
Haskanik (
talk)
23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"People living near Line 1 have attempted to obtain compensation for noise, vibration, and antisocial behaviour, but what settlements have been reached is unknown as Centro do not report any claims and the concessionaire has signed confidentiality agreements with the small number of complainants involved."
Though described as "small" in the linked document, the number of complainants involved appears to be as unknown as the claim details themselves. "Small" appears to be conjectural POV.
"The 20% saving estimate was established in a joint study with Network Rail, however the report also stated that 'the potentiality of the plan is yet to be known since there are still more issues to be resolved regarding the dangers of track sharing'"
The link is to a press release about the report - not the report itself, whose content appears to be secret.
And it's unclear where the quote
"the potentiality of the plan is yet to be known since there are still more issues to be resolved regarding the dangers of track sharing"
comes from.
At the time of writing, the quote isn't usable - the title/authors/publisher of the document aren't even known.
Haskanik (
talk)
23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"Very large cost escalations encountered in British light rail projects, and doubts about economic and transport benefits have led to the demise of Centro's phased large scale development. Studies on behalf of the authority place the blame with central government policy [45]"
The link isn't to a study "on behalf of the authority".
It's to the opinion of a private individual.
"The transport and works orders for most of the routes expire in 2010, and will need to be renewed by parliament or the powers in them lapse."
This statement isn't correct.
Midland Metro opened in 1999.
The operator, Travel Midland Metro, claimed "Metro is green!" in 2008.
So far as is known, Travel Midland Metro has not rescinded the claim.
Consequently, the phrase "Originally the Midland Metro claimed be 'green'", appears to be inaccurate.
81.2.110.250 (
talk)
19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"...on a regular basis as documented to the Department for Transport"
"Measurement" of noise and vibration generally involves systemic quantification.
I'm not sure how sending someone on a tram, without equipment, every two months, amounts to a measurement system for noise and vibration.
"...about noise and vibration, especially on the street running section, workers re-ground rails over four nights in December 2007."
Logic problem. Whether customer complaints were the sole or primary reason for remedial action, isn't ascertainable from the link.
"By January 2010, reference to the Five Ways section had been removed from the project page on the Centro website.[27]. The revised business case states that this section has been dropped from the current plan as the New Street to Snow Hill section was the priority for investment [28]."
The claim isn't supported in the linked document, which mentioned Five Ways not once.
"which will see many local trains currently using Snow Hill terminate at Moor Street Station instead [29]"
The linked page doesn't mention Snow Hill once.
Haskanik (
talk)
23:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
http://birminghamcentral.blogspot.com/2010/01/evergreen-moor-street.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.110.250 ( talk) 22:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I posted some notes on edits made on 21 March by Mr Cox.
He appears to have ignored (or not read) them, resuming his editing bout on 22 March, with familiar consequences.
(On previous occasions, Mr Cox has failed to read or understand references. The evidence is on this page.)
I'll give a couple of examples - as usual, there's too many to detail.
Haskanik ( talk) 02:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Haskanik: Please read up on Wikipedia policy !
I've replaced various bits of referenced material removed by Haskanik because it apparently doesn't suit his personal worldview. I've also removed various "implies..." weasel wording, bogus quoting and other style violations. I've removed some uncited claims that are potentially defamatory. Material of that nature *needs* references. The "per metre" claim I've also deleted because the cost isn't for just new route so it isn't per metre and makes no sense to compare it with that when presenting a balanced viewpoint.
The entire life cycle section is unreferenced and still contains an "implies". It needs to be referenced or removed. This is an encyclopedia not a discussion of future research topics.
Other point - the Book reference for the study on the effect of the tram needs a date and context. If as it seems it predates the actual data then it needs putting into context as a prediction not as data.
Alan Cox ( talk) 20:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
PS: I note that the reference for the car journey conversioncost claim doesn't even contain the words "car journey" or anything that appears to back this up. Can you clarify where this claim comes from or remove the section
Alan Cox ( talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The noise section also appears to be incorrect, in that the 2007 DFT response explains precisely how noise is handled. Nor would there be a reason for Centro to put noise info on their website anyway. That area needs reworking perhaps to extract the detail from the report.
Alan Cox ( talk) 20:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
which btw also covers the basic requirements for the extensions (NIR etc) Alan Cox ( talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the Amsterdam study reference again and replaced it with a UK one that shows quite different things. The Amsterdam one is simply not relevant to the UK or indeed for statistical purposes to anything as it studies only 12 cases
Specificially - It studies 12 accidents so isn't remotely statistically valid - Of those 12 the road design (ie local factors) where the main cause of ten of the accidents studied. - The paper merely quotes the reference being used (the RvTx study) - The RvTx study it references is again largely about local factors and between 10 and 20 years ago
It would be interesting to find if there are any general studies into fatalaties/accident for trams but Wikipedia TramAccident doensn't seem to have any. Alan Cox ( talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Still digging on this. I'm not entirely happy with the table in the new reference either as it appears to have questionmarks but in the other direction. Basically we seem to have
DoT 2007 Light Rail lumped in with rail and very safe but not that year as safe as busses. They give figures on deaths/journey km etc and travel time per 1 in a million chance of accident. This one doesn't break out light rail but its a serious study with proper academic analysis.
French data - but they lump light rail in with guided busways etc - shows its very safe
Amsterdam 1980-99 data says somewhat different things but puts a lot of them down to local road layout and the like
UK report - says the light rail is fantastically safe but doesn't have much to say on methodology or origin of data for light rail alone. Also comes from the PTEs as evidence for a government report which is about light rail. while its simply accepted in the report that seems of lower quality than the DoT data.
I'm not sure any of this really adds t the Midland Metro article any way so perhaps the best would be to lose it. Nothing is certainly far more accurate than the bogus use of the Amsterdam data
Alan Cox ( talk) 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
(to 21 May 2010)
(1) In an edit summary on 21 May
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&action=historysubmit&diff=363372966&oldid=363372757
AC81 (Mr Cox) stated, "One of the points of the BCCE is to link the railway stations so please stop removing the info"
I think it's fairly obvious that these details are already well indicated. For example, the 20 May version
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=363270990)
has
"However, by September 2008, the council's interest had shifted from the 'full' BCCE to a shortened version providing a link between New Street and Snow Hill stations (which do not have a connecting train service)"
Haskanik (
talk)
23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
(2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&action=historysubmit&diff=362411654&oldid=361799512
introduced the wording
"In 2003-4, Centro submitted plans for the full Birmingham City Centre Extension to a public enquiry. At the time it was costed at £72 million"
But this isn't correct.
At the time of the public enquiry (sic), Centro were using figures of around £55 million for the BCCE.
The figure of £72 million became known, after inquiry submissions had closed.
Haskanik (
talk)
23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
(3) In an edit summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&diff=next&oldid=363270990
Mr Cox objected to the wording "but no source was given" stating "If you want that there you need to add it to almost every other Post reference".
In most cases, references to Birmingham Post articles allow a statement to be sourced to someone or something.
But in this instance, the Post's phrasing
"It is estimated that the increases in service will take an estimated 420,000 car journeys off the road each year"
doesn't allow identification as to who is doing the estimating.
Haskanik (
talk)
23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Other item where you aded a {{
cite}}
tag I'm not sure we need one given the project start date is in the article but we could cite the various sources that construction started in 1995.
eg
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/midland/. I suspect that even if it had not then the metro was created by an act including noise rules while the noise regs are a regulation so the act would trump it (express will of parliament over implied will).
81.2.110.250 (
talk)
22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
PS: Any reason for keeping the blank 'Technical Data' section 81.2.110.250 ( talk) 22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
"DeltaRail states that the concessionaire has paid off a small number of complainants. The settlement is linked to a confidentiality agreement so the exact numbers are unknown."
This is conflation of separate issues. Why would confidentiality agreements include a term forbidding the concessionaire from disclosing the quantity of agreements?
Haskanik (
talk)
21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The confidentiality agreement chooses to do so. Why it does so isn't documented. I can think of several reasons but I have not found the actual intent (evil or otherwise) documented. 81.2.110.250 ( talk) 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
"For comparison modal shifts to bus are typically in the 5-6% range"
That range is the view of one contributor, contained in the report referenced by Mr Cox (AC81)
(online at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtran/378/378ii.pdf).
Another contributor (to the same report) gave different figures for trolleybuses in Arnhem and Salzburg.
And the Commission for Integrated Transport quoted differently as well.
So the comparison is rather more involved than portrayed.
Are the comparisons being made with a segregated trolleybus, or a minor Centro 'Showcase'-type bus scheme?
Haskanik (
talk)
21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - Perhaps we need an 'estimates for the modal shifts from bus are in the range of A-B ? 81.2.110.250 ( talk) 22:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Might be worth talking about the New Street to Snow Hill bus shuttle as evidence that we also walk if it all goes right as that got axed in 2008 through lack of use.
Other bits on the status of extensions
81.2.110.250 ( talk) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
See Modal shift to bus, above
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2010/11810.pdf
http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/344
Haskanik (
talk)
21:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone removed text, stating, "Removed info about St Georges/Snow Hill having no bike parking. Who would cycle to the city to catch the metro?!"
Well, there's (well used) bike parking at Birmingham New Street, and Wolverhampton High Level station. So I'm sort of baffled by the contributor's reasoning. If someone can explain it, there's white space a-waiting.
Haskanik (
talk)
22:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:BSicon uABZa.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
The tram is usually crowded when I get on it. Last time, it was quite a squeeze! So, unless the designers got confused about how many passengers it could carry, I don't see how they could have made such a bad estimate. So can we have a source for these figures? -- Sam 18:16, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The offical Department for Transport ridership figures for Midland Metro published on 26 August 2004 show the following: 1999/00: 5.4 million; 2001/02: 4.8 million; 2002/03: 4.9 million; 2003/04: 5.1 million. (what happend to the 2000/01 figures I have no idea).
Ian.
What does the letter 'S' in a Green Circle on the map / line diagram indicate? There is no mention of it on this page, nor on the legend which the map links to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojo29 ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 24 April 2007
I want to once again raise the issue of neutrality in the article. Recent additions have been relentlessly negative, and it would be appreciated if some of the claims could be checked against the sources and any original research or unsourced material be removed. I also wonder if some of the information is unencyclopaedic in nature or goes to an unnecessarily high level of detail.
I have flagged the article as requiring a neutrality review, and would appreciate any help in reviewing it. If the Midland Metro is really the failure that an editor of this article believes, I would also expect there to be other reliable sources or articles which state this. NRTurner ( talk) 10:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Haskanik ( talk) 00:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this article is in need of a serious rewrite. It reads like a denunciation of the Midland Metro and Centro at present. It is in serious breach of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH at the moment I would say. G-13114 ( talk) 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(od)I see Haskanik is identifying themselves as the author of "particular facts". I don't take a dislike to particular facts, but here they were weaved into an article like this was, researched and edited with a great deal of effort and skill over a period of years, when the author hasn't made significant contributions to other articles. -- Ning-ning ( talk) 06:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
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:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 NotifyOnline 11:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Midland Metro. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Midland Metro. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Midland Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:10, 9 November 2016 (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 |
Hello.
I propose that a map of the Midland Metro be made for this article. I am proposing this because I haven't seen such a map for the article. MattFisher 19:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm maing such a map right now, including the proposed extensions and stations (as of 2004). ivers 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the maps on this page be templates? Andy Mabbett 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
An article in Local Transport Today (April 2007) stated that a new development adjacent to Snow Hill Station in Birmingham will be implementing a viaduct that will eventually be used by the Midland Metro to access the City Centre of Birmingham. Until that time it will be used as a public footway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.65.150.50 ( talk) 12:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
One or more Anon users has recently dumped a pile of text here, which might be copyvio, or might be new content, intended for use in the article. Either way, it's not discussing the article, so I have moved it to a page where it can be looked over, and used or deleted as appropriate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed "The former railway on the Metro Line was closed between 1972 and 1992" because of uncertainties about exactly when the northern section actually closed to freight. Haskanik ( talk) 01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The table on this article says 'operating speed 35km/h / 22mph' - well glancing through the drivers window today I saw that needle above 50km/h - besides, 22mph is ridiculously slow, those trams do at least 40mph, which is over 60km/h. Tom walker ( talk) 19:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not question the accuracy of the data, but the tone of the eace seems relentlessly negative. Is there really NOTHING good to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 ( talk) 13:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there should be some mention to the fact that Tram Number 9 is named Jeff Astle in his honour? His name appears on Tram 9, which is the Number he was famous for wearing when playing for West Bromwich Albion
A reversion complaint about the behaviour of Haskanik has been raised Alan Cox ( talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's some information about some "opinionated statements".
Statement: "Details of any payments made are not known."
Explanation: Centro have not disclosed what money was paid by Altram in respect of late opening.
There's a fog surrounding the topic
http://www.nce.co.uk/big-bill-for-late-midland-metro/832833.article
and as that in itself affects Line 1's cost, it justifies the statement "The outturn cost of Line 1 is also not known".
The cost was further obfuscated by moving items from the construction phase, to post-opening 'major' and 'minor' works capital programmes
Statement: "However, no evidence of need, or cost saving, was offered."
Explanation: Centro's press release doesn't explain how track sharing saves "up to 20 per cent", nor does it explain why the scheme is necessary.
Nor, if it was necessary, why there'd be a need to build extra track, if sharing was not used.
Statement: "In the construction of Line 1, "Centro took a contrary view of track sharing, having an expensive flyover built at Handsworth"
Explanation: One of the most expensive structures on Line 1 is the viaduct at Handsworth, created solely to avoid trams sharing tracks with heavy rail.
Centro aren't too keen on disseminating their original estimate for Line 1 ridership.
However, a reference to "up to 15 million" passengers a year can be found at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1850372.stm
Statement: "The fare scale was originally intended to be broadly comparable with buses, but this proved to be unfinanceable".
There's some background at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2736605.stm
where it states "Fares are now set to rise to recoup some of the revenue."
Statement: "In 2006 Councillor Gary Clarke, chairman of Centro-PTA, stated that Metro would 'make a real impact on our campaign to cut congestion for everyone'."
Actuality: Midland Metro patronage amounts to two journeys per inhabitant per year (
http://centro.journalistpresslounge.com/centro/uploads/research/Annual%20Stats%202005-06.pdf).
I hope that will do for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haskanik ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll be happy to provide a Third Opinion, per request. however, I'd like to make a couple of requests while I review the debate:
thanks! -- Ludwigs2 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone stated that
"For that reason, Midland Metro carbon dioxide emissions are likely to be significantly higher than portrayed"
amounted to crystal ball gazing. However, it's based on historical data, for which references are given. There's no getting away from load factors in emissions comparisons.
Haskanik (
talk)
01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately load factors have little to do with emissions. Load factor per vehicle versus intended load factor per vehicle does - but the Metro is reaching that quite clearly. Load only matters if you run lots of excess half empty services which they don't.
There are lots of factors that matter significantly - weight of vehicle per passenger carried, existence of regenerative braking, stops made, gradients, efficiency of power supply and vehicle drive mechanisms etc.
The vehicles are not under-loaded - in fact they are usually near full, most journeys are long (so you don't get the case of the vehicle being empty for half the jouney as is common on many routes).
Basically the comparisons are dubious - the Midland Metro actually operates like a Metro not a tram service and you want metro style comparative data (or in fact even better would be real published data).
In short the claims about carbon emissions in the article are bunkum and pure speculation.
The journey data tells a rather more intersting story of course - most people travel the full length of the line, so in fact they'd have been far more sensible to have just put the railway back with a few less stops than the tram, "route sharing" for freight would just work and the vehicles would have been cascaded standard railway stock.
81.2.110.250 ( talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
One way to find out - FoI request made: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_on_midland_metro
This should give the required answers fairly quickly providing WMT are in a helpful mood, or a bit longer if not Alan Cox ( talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A large number of edits were made an anonymous user on 17 to 19 January 2010. Unfortunately, many of them were detrimental to quality.
Here's some examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338654258
annotated by the anon user with "The 1999 study is questionably valid with modern electromagnetic track brakes but the general points I've left as accurate"
Material removed at this edit included a link to a general study of tram safety in streets. Topics mentioned in the study included vehicle mass, stiffness, and geometry, and injuries caused to pedestrians.
The statement, "The 1999 study is questionably valid with modern electromagnetic track brakes" is irrelevant. The report is concerned with a range of tram-related safety issues, not the safety aspects of electromagnetic track brakes.
It is not even clear what the anon user means by "modern" electromagnetic track brakes, or how they are better than older ones of the same type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338649257
annotated by the anon user with "Actually no the references are about the original line 1 (Feb 1991) not as claimed the extensions - remove it"
Material removed at this edit included a link to a record of Parliamentary debate on Midland Metro extensions, strongly suggesting that the anonymous user has not read or understood the reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338648716
annotated by the anon user with "Remove bias and strange claim about 'obscure parliamentary', keep the ref as its right for the dispute".
Again, the anon user apparently hadn't read or understood the linked article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338658759
annotated by the anon user with "(Walking and cycling:) Remove speculative and irrelevant material"
Encouragement of walking and cycling is a goal stated in Centro documents, but there are no specifics.
Removal of relevant material about this topic is not good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338661073
annotated by the anon user with "Put in the true top speed not a fake one"
The 'true top speed' was already in the article, under "Vehicles and services". The anonymous editor entered the same maximum speed in the operating speed field in the infobox. On the talk page it was stated, "Fixed to match other Wikipedia pages/styles".
Not all light rail articles follow the anon user's preference. 'Operating speed' is an ambiguous term.
Manchester Metrolink page infobox: does not have an operating speed value. Has an average speed and a maximum speed.
Sheffield Supertram page infobox: does not have an operating speed, average speed, or maximum speed.
If it's important to have the 'top speed' in the infobox, I'd suggest creating a labelled field for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338655024
annotated with "(Line Two (Wednesbury - Brierley Hill): remove biased 'sieze' replace with compulsory purchase)"
The word "seize" is in the linked article.
"As well as the compulsory purchase at Dudley Port, another £10 million would be used to compulsory purchase other land required for the Brierley Hill extension."
This is grammatically incorrect, and not necessarily understood outside of the British Isles.
The article was better before these edits.
Haskanik (
talk)
01:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
A large number of edits were made by an anon user from 81.2.110.250, and User: Alan Cox. It seems that two users are making edits in concert, or more likely, that the same person is responsible for the whole frenzy. For ease of reference, I will refer to the author(s) as '81AC' or 'AC81'.
81AC's edits have had a deleterious effect on both accuracy and readability, and the sheer number makes detailing and unpicking too lengthy to be practicable. As of revision 340174131
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340174131
the page has
I'll give some examples (not a comprehensive list).
Broken links:
See the mess at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340174131#References
Baffling continuity:
"Currently (2010) the Midland Metro is described as "Zero emission at point of use" (that is emissions occur at the power station) and references to green power have been dropped.[54].
Centro has (or publishes) virtually no information about their extent."
Misspelling:
"Centro Stategic Case"
"neccesarily"
Irrelevant, wrong, and invented claims:
"No mention is made in the study of Evergreen 3 which will see many local trains currently using Snow Hill terminate at Moor Street Station instead."
(Irrelevant. In any case, the future use of bay platforms at Moor Street has not been settled, as there are competing claims by Bordesley Curve trains)
"According to official government data 17% of passengers moved from car to metro in the first year of operation with the figure rising to 37% in 2006. This represents a 20% modal shift from car to metro or about 600,000 journeys."
(Wrong. The 37% isn't "official government data", it's Linda Waltho getting her facts wrong in public. I don't know Walt Hon earth is wrong with her.
And if 600,000 journeys represents a "20 per cent modal shift", that puts total usage as 3,000,000, not 5,000,000.)
Alan Cox ( talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
"One of the most notable incidents took place in the summer of 2001, when electrocution risks due to improperly installed cabling forced closure of the Wolverhampton section"
(Invented. The linked article makes no reference to cables having been improperly installed.)
Edit 340028886
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&direction=next&oldid=340028886
saw AC81 asserting Midland Metro has seen 8% compound growth for several years:
"Midland Metro carries about five million passengers annually (2005), with an 8% year on year increase from 2003, about one third of that predicted by Centro in the planning stage."
and a few hours later, contradict his own edit (340118419):
"Midland Metro carries about five million passengers annually and this number appears to have reached a plateau, about one third of that predicted by Centro in the planning stage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340118419
All this added nothing to users' understanding. The 8% compound growth was pure invention. And 'reaching a plateau' implies ascent to a certain level, followed by constancy. The time series reality does not correspond with the claim.
There's no reason to leave the page in such a state. Users, and other editors, deserve better.
Haskanik (
talk)
22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Reverted. Please stop vandalising the page. You have replaced large amounts of corrected material with broken links, incorrect data and defamatory material. (PS 81.2.110.250 and Alan Cox are the same, I just had to go dig my password out as I lost it for a while) .
I have reversed your vandalism. If you wish to fix typographical errors then change them by editing the page further. If you continue in your current fashion then this will have to go to the Wikipedia dispute resoolution process. Alan Cox ( talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Guys, I'm trying to help you out here, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop arguing with each other and give me the info I need for a proper 3O. otherwise I'm going to have to give up and suggest that you seek informal mediation. I don't want to offer an opinion in the middle of a knock-down-drag-out. -- Ludwigs2 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Additional to those mentioned earlier.
"The BCCE includes heavy and complex pedestrian cross-traffic, narrow streets, difficult gradients, and abrupt turns.[citation needed] which must be considered to reduce the risk of an Tram Accident."
Um, abrupt turns reduce the risk of a tram accident?
It shows stops at 'St Chads' and 'Snow Hill'.
Why?
"The current cost estimate is £55 million for the new route and £65 million for nineteen new trams and for platform extension works[30]."
In that case, how much is for
Haskanik ( talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
checked against:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=345099037
There are various problems with the content of linked articles changing or disappearing altogether, clumsy and difficult prose, and factual accuracy.
"Line 1's trams have a minor exemption from the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 as they do not have suitable handrails in all required locations."
If someone depends on an accessibility feature that isn't present, its absence isn't a "minor exemption".
"Minor" is POV of the author.
81.2.110.250 (
talk)
19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The original wording didn't imply anything. It just stated Line One vehicles didn't meet accessibility regulations. As previously indicated, the lack of such features is "serious" for people who are depending on them to be provided.
Haskanik (
talk)
23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"People living near Line 1 have attempted to obtain compensation for noise, vibration, and antisocial behaviour, but what settlements have been reached is unknown as Centro do not report any claims and the concessionaire has signed confidentiality agreements with the small number of complainants involved."
Though described as "small" in the linked document, the number of complainants involved appears to be as unknown as the claim details themselves. "Small" appears to be conjectural POV.
"The 20% saving estimate was established in a joint study with Network Rail, however the report also stated that 'the potentiality of the plan is yet to be known since there are still more issues to be resolved regarding the dangers of track sharing'"
The link is to a press release about the report - not the report itself, whose content appears to be secret.
And it's unclear where the quote
"the potentiality of the plan is yet to be known since there are still more issues to be resolved regarding the dangers of track sharing"
comes from.
At the time of writing, the quote isn't usable - the title/authors/publisher of the document aren't even known.
Haskanik (
talk)
23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"Very large cost escalations encountered in British light rail projects, and doubts about economic and transport benefits have led to the demise of Centro's phased large scale development. Studies on behalf of the authority place the blame with central government policy [45]"
The link isn't to a study "on behalf of the authority".
It's to the opinion of a private individual.
"The transport and works orders for most of the routes expire in 2010, and will need to be renewed by parliament or the powers in them lapse."
This statement isn't correct.
Midland Metro opened in 1999.
The operator, Travel Midland Metro, claimed "Metro is green!" in 2008.
So far as is known, Travel Midland Metro has not rescinded the claim.
Consequently, the phrase "Originally the Midland Metro claimed be 'green'", appears to be inaccurate.
81.2.110.250 (
talk)
19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"...on a regular basis as documented to the Department for Transport"
"Measurement" of noise and vibration generally involves systemic quantification.
I'm not sure how sending someone on a tram, without equipment, every two months, amounts to a measurement system for noise and vibration.
"...about noise and vibration, especially on the street running section, workers re-ground rails over four nights in December 2007."
Logic problem. Whether customer complaints were the sole or primary reason for remedial action, isn't ascertainable from the link.
"By January 2010, reference to the Five Ways section had been removed from the project page on the Centro website.[27]. The revised business case states that this section has been dropped from the current plan as the New Street to Snow Hill section was the priority for investment [28]."
The claim isn't supported in the linked document, which mentioned Five Ways not once.
"which will see many local trains currently using Snow Hill terminate at Moor Street Station instead [29]"
The linked page doesn't mention Snow Hill once.
Haskanik (
talk)
23:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
http://birminghamcentral.blogspot.com/2010/01/evergreen-moor-street.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.110.250 ( talk) 22:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I posted some notes on edits made on 21 March by Mr Cox.
He appears to have ignored (or not read) them, resuming his editing bout on 22 March, with familiar consequences.
(On previous occasions, Mr Cox has failed to read or understand references. The evidence is on this page.)
I'll give a couple of examples - as usual, there's too many to detail.
Haskanik ( talk) 02:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Haskanik: Please read up on Wikipedia policy !
I've replaced various bits of referenced material removed by Haskanik because it apparently doesn't suit his personal worldview. I've also removed various "implies..." weasel wording, bogus quoting and other style violations. I've removed some uncited claims that are potentially defamatory. Material of that nature *needs* references. The "per metre" claim I've also deleted because the cost isn't for just new route so it isn't per metre and makes no sense to compare it with that when presenting a balanced viewpoint.
The entire life cycle section is unreferenced and still contains an "implies". It needs to be referenced or removed. This is an encyclopedia not a discussion of future research topics.
Other point - the Book reference for the study on the effect of the tram needs a date and context. If as it seems it predates the actual data then it needs putting into context as a prediction not as data.
Alan Cox ( talk) 20:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
PS: I note that the reference for the car journey conversioncost claim doesn't even contain the words "car journey" or anything that appears to back this up. Can you clarify where this claim comes from or remove the section
Alan Cox ( talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The noise section also appears to be incorrect, in that the 2007 DFT response explains precisely how noise is handled. Nor would there be a reason for Centro to put noise info on their website anyway. That area needs reworking perhaps to extract the detail from the report.
Alan Cox ( talk) 20:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
which btw also covers the basic requirements for the extensions (NIR etc) Alan Cox ( talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the Amsterdam study reference again and replaced it with a UK one that shows quite different things. The Amsterdam one is simply not relevant to the UK or indeed for statistical purposes to anything as it studies only 12 cases
Specificially - It studies 12 accidents so isn't remotely statistically valid - Of those 12 the road design (ie local factors) where the main cause of ten of the accidents studied. - The paper merely quotes the reference being used (the RvTx study) - The RvTx study it references is again largely about local factors and between 10 and 20 years ago
It would be interesting to find if there are any general studies into fatalaties/accident for trams but Wikipedia TramAccident doensn't seem to have any. Alan Cox ( talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Still digging on this. I'm not entirely happy with the table in the new reference either as it appears to have questionmarks but in the other direction. Basically we seem to have
DoT 2007 Light Rail lumped in with rail and very safe but not that year as safe as busses. They give figures on deaths/journey km etc and travel time per 1 in a million chance of accident. This one doesn't break out light rail but its a serious study with proper academic analysis.
French data - but they lump light rail in with guided busways etc - shows its very safe
Amsterdam 1980-99 data says somewhat different things but puts a lot of them down to local road layout and the like
UK report - says the light rail is fantastically safe but doesn't have much to say on methodology or origin of data for light rail alone. Also comes from the PTEs as evidence for a government report which is about light rail. while its simply accepted in the report that seems of lower quality than the DoT data.
I'm not sure any of this really adds t the Midland Metro article any way so perhaps the best would be to lose it. Nothing is certainly far more accurate than the bogus use of the Amsterdam data
Alan Cox ( talk) 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
(to 21 May 2010)
(1) In an edit summary on 21 May
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&action=historysubmit&diff=363372966&oldid=363372757
AC81 (Mr Cox) stated, "One of the points of the BCCE is to link the railway stations so please stop removing the info"
I think it's fairly obvious that these details are already well indicated. For example, the 20 May version
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=363270990)
has
"However, by September 2008, the council's interest had shifted from the 'full' BCCE to a shortened version providing a link between New Street and Snow Hill stations (which do not have a connecting train service)"
Haskanik (
talk)
23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
(2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&action=historysubmit&diff=362411654&oldid=361799512
introduced the wording
"In 2003-4, Centro submitted plans for the full Birmingham City Centre Extension to a public enquiry. At the time it was costed at £72 million"
But this isn't correct.
At the time of the public enquiry (sic), Centro were using figures of around £55 million for the BCCE.
The figure of £72 million became known, after inquiry submissions had closed.
Haskanik (
talk)
23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
(3) In an edit summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Midland_Metro&diff=next&oldid=363270990
Mr Cox objected to the wording "but no source was given" stating "If you want that there you need to add it to almost every other Post reference".
In most cases, references to Birmingham Post articles allow a statement to be sourced to someone or something.
But in this instance, the Post's phrasing
"It is estimated that the increases in service will take an estimated 420,000 car journeys off the road each year"
doesn't allow identification as to who is doing the estimating.
Haskanik (
talk)
23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Other item where you aded a {{
cite}}
tag I'm not sure we need one given the project start date is in the article but we could cite the various sources that construction started in 1995.
eg
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/midland/. I suspect that even if it had not then the metro was created by an act including noise rules while the noise regs are a regulation so the act would trump it (express will of parliament over implied will).
81.2.110.250 (
talk)
22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
PS: Any reason for keeping the blank 'Technical Data' section 81.2.110.250 ( talk) 22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
"DeltaRail states that the concessionaire has paid off a small number of complainants. The settlement is linked to a confidentiality agreement so the exact numbers are unknown."
This is conflation of separate issues. Why would confidentiality agreements include a term forbidding the concessionaire from disclosing the quantity of agreements?
Haskanik (
talk)
21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The confidentiality agreement chooses to do so. Why it does so isn't documented. I can think of several reasons but I have not found the actual intent (evil or otherwise) documented. 81.2.110.250 ( talk) 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
"For comparison modal shifts to bus are typically in the 5-6% range"
That range is the view of one contributor, contained in the report referenced by Mr Cox (AC81)
(online at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtran/378/378ii.pdf).
Another contributor (to the same report) gave different figures for trolleybuses in Arnhem and Salzburg.
And the Commission for Integrated Transport quoted differently as well.
So the comparison is rather more involved than portrayed.
Are the comparisons being made with a segregated trolleybus, or a minor Centro 'Showcase'-type bus scheme?
Haskanik (
talk)
21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - Perhaps we need an 'estimates for the modal shifts from bus are in the range of A-B ? 81.2.110.250 ( talk) 22:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Might be worth talking about the New Street to Snow Hill bus shuttle as evidence that we also walk if it all goes right as that got axed in 2008 through lack of use.
Other bits on the status of extensions
81.2.110.250 ( talk) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
See Modal shift to bus, above
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2010/11810.pdf
http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/344
Haskanik (
talk)
21:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone removed text, stating, "Removed info about St Georges/Snow Hill having no bike parking. Who would cycle to the city to catch the metro?!"
Well, there's (well used) bike parking at Birmingham New Street, and Wolverhampton High Level station. So I'm sort of baffled by the contributor's reasoning. If someone can explain it, there's white space a-waiting.
Haskanik (
talk)
22:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:BSicon uABZa.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
The tram is usually crowded when I get on it. Last time, it was quite a squeeze! So, unless the designers got confused about how many passengers it could carry, I don't see how they could have made such a bad estimate. So can we have a source for these figures? -- Sam 18:16, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The offical Department for Transport ridership figures for Midland Metro published on 26 August 2004 show the following: 1999/00: 5.4 million; 2001/02: 4.8 million; 2002/03: 4.9 million; 2003/04: 5.1 million. (what happend to the 2000/01 figures I have no idea).
Ian.
What does the letter 'S' in a Green Circle on the map / line diagram indicate? There is no mention of it on this page, nor on the legend which the map links to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojo29 ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 24 April 2007
I want to once again raise the issue of neutrality in the article. Recent additions have been relentlessly negative, and it would be appreciated if some of the claims could be checked against the sources and any original research or unsourced material be removed. I also wonder if some of the information is unencyclopaedic in nature or goes to an unnecessarily high level of detail.
I have flagged the article as requiring a neutrality review, and would appreciate any help in reviewing it. If the Midland Metro is really the failure that an editor of this article believes, I would also expect there to be other reliable sources or articles which state this. NRTurner ( talk) 10:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Haskanik ( talk) 00:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this article is in need of a serious rewrite. It reads like a denunciation of the Midland Metro and Centro at present. It is in serious breach of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH at the moment I would say. G-13114 ( talk) 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(od)I see Haskanik is identifying themselves as the author of "particular facts". I don't take a dislike to particular facts, but here they were weaved into an article like this was, researched and edited with a great deal of effort and skill over a period of years, when the author hasn't made significant contributions to other articles. -- Ning-ning ( talk) 06:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
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:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 NotifyOnline 11:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Midland Metro. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Midland Metro. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Midland Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)