|
|
| Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? (268071) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 7 |
||
|
| (269625) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 09:42:17 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Fytton on Wed Jun 21 04:05:38 2006. I think this subthread is being unduly negative about the Manchester Metrolink, which is actually a success story, in terms of passenger loadings. "Half a loaf is worse than no bread" seems to be general line of argument.It is worse when it's built in such a way as to preclude ever being able to sort out the other half, which is essentially what the street running has done. The money would have been far better spent on new trains and sorting out all the awful track layouts, particularly through Stockport. I don't deny that Metrolink works for the Bury and Altrincham lines when taken in isolation, but it has effectively removed any possibility of sorting out rail in large parts of Gtr Manchester. Ultimately, it was a scheme worthy of 19th Century robber barons, not 20th Century planners. The Birmingham system is a disappointment but of course only the first phase has got built so far. But I totally disagree with the proposal to close half its stations - one of the merits of light rail is that it can have closely-spaced stops for maximum passenger convenience - the idea being to attract people from cars, not to provide a suburban rail service. O.K., it slows it down, but it's still a lot faster than a bus, and British provincial cities are quite compact urban areas anyway, so the overall journey times are pretty acceptable even from othe outer termini. You're completely misunderstanding where the route goes. It doesn't really serve Birmingham at all. It's only stations in Birmingham are: a) City Centre stations: Snow Hill, St Paul's, Jewellery Quarter b) Stations in an area in which virtually no-one lives (which is why the railway line is there in the first place): Soho, Winson Green, Booth Street [if anything, these stations have simply worsened service on the number 101 bus] c) An interchange station on the city boundary: The Hawthorns. The line actually provides service to the Black Country, which is a collection of towns between Birmingham and Wolverhampton ranging from the medium-sized to the very small. These are compact urban areas in miniature, so it makes absolutely no sense to stick extra stops in the gaps and then claim it's convenient - you're just slowing down the service for the stops which people actually live near. And this slowing down is precisely the reason why people will not get out of their cars. Even if one were travelling between extremly convenient-for-metro pairs of points such as from Lichfield Street, Bilston, to Livery Street, Birmingham, it would be quicker to simply drive along the A463, A454, M6, and A38(M). With roads like those, you don't want to mess up your transit line with extra stops. As for your assertion that it's faster than the bus, it has an element of truth to it. There are, however, notable cases where it doesn't apply, mainly between Wolverhampton and Bilston, and for local journeys between intermediate points and West Bromwich and Birmingham. Of course, simply being faster than a bus isn't good enough. The 64 was faster than the conventional 61, 62, and 63, but that just meant that longer distance bus riders got on a different bus (if it came), with virtually no modal shift towards buses. There are actually good reasons for making the line "Light Rail". Firstly, it allowed electrification and consequently better acceleration than the diesel Class 150s. Secondly, steeper gradients can be included (for flyovers on the cheap). And thirdly, it keeps it out of the hands of Westminster, Whitehall, and their cronies. The problem is that it's a type of Light Rail wholly unsuited to the Black Country (there are distinct parallels to the system of local government some clown imposed in 1974, but that's another matter). There are actually plenty of corridors in the West Midlands Conurbation (Birmingham, the Black Country, Wolverhampton, and various adjoining areas) which would work very well for close-stopping conventional light rail, notably certain Birmingham radials (the Walsall Road (51), Kingstanding Road (34), Tyburn Road (67/114), Bordesley Green (96), Coventry Road (57/58), and Bristol Road (62/63) corridors) and some rather awkward to describe routes focussed on the southern part of the Black Country: 
|
|
|
| (269632) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 10:12:53 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 20 15:36:01 2006. Not at all. Metrolink's Atrincham and Bury lines replaced infrequent, unreliable BR services with ten trams an hour - to the city centre, rather than either of the decrepit, out-of-the-way terminals served previously.And THERE is the reason why it's pathetic. Because of the street running section, it couldn't serve any of the lines out of Piccadilly. I suspect considerably more people using Metrolink are travelling to the city centre as a destination, rather than using it to connect to onward heavy-rail lines. Thus the majority benefit from the street running in the centre which deposits them closer to their eventual destination. In any case there's an easy transfer at both Piccadilly and particularly Victoria to main-line rail anyway. The Eccles Line is a screw-up because they had to build high platforms for it because they decided to bolt it onto Metrolink. It would have been better with kerb height boarding and segregation from Metrolink. Considering transport funding for projects that don't happen to be in the south east, I think that if the Eccles line hadn't been tacked on to Metrolink it wouldn't have happened at all. If it had been segregated with kerb-height boarding where would it have terminated? Short of building more, separate street running in the city centre it would have ended up on the fringe of the CBD, requiring passengers to make a transfer/walk to get to where they want to go. Passenger numbers are low enough as it is, if this was the scenario it would have never gotten off the ground. |
|
|
| (269634) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 10:16:06 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 20 15:42:40 2006. Especially when this "ten trams an hour" turns out to be theoretically spaced at 9 and 3 minute intervals.Where does this theory come from? Metrolink's timetable states every six minutes for both Bury and Altrincham. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (269638) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 10:28:28 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Max Roberts on Tue Jun 20 11:53:05 2006. The Bury and Altrincham lines both ran every 15 minutes off-peak, so I wouldn't characterise these as being infrequent, no worse than many London Underground branches. They may or may not have been reliable, but street-running adds an extra variable to the equation.Fair enough with the frequency comment, but every six minutes is still far superior to every 15, with the added benefit that Metrolink serves the city centre - where most people are actually going to, I would suspect.... I'd also think that early morning, late evening and Sunday service is far superior now compared to BR days. The 'street running' that is often mentioned is bollocks. The extent of 'street running' (taking 'street running' as meaning sharing the road with other vehicles) on the Bury and Alty lines is from St Peter's Square, down Mosely Street to by the bus station at Piccadilly Gardens - a distance of perhaps a third of a mile. The remainder of the supposed street running in the CBD takes the form of separate rights-of-way inaccessible to motor vehicles, or a small distance through a pedestrianised are. |
|
|
| (269646) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 10:53:04 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 10:16:06 2006. Where does this theory come from? Metrolink's timetable states every six minutes for both Bury and Altrincham.That's a summary, not a timetable. There's a better description of what really goes on on Wikipedia. What underlies this problem is that the routes which actually run 6 minutes apart are the Piccadilly-Eccles and Piccadilly-Alrincham routes. |
|
|
| (269649) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 10:54:36 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 10:28:28 2006. The 'street running' that is often mentioned is bollocks. The extent of 'street running' (taking 'street running' as meaning sharing the road with other vehicles) on the Bury and Alty lines is from St Peter's Square, down Mosely Street to by the bus station at Piccadilly Gardens - a distance of perhaps a third of a mile. The remainder of the supposed street running in the CBD takes the form of separate rights-of-way inaccessible to motor vehicles, or a small distance through a pedestrianised are.The point is that you couldn't run the same thing on the East and Slow Lines out of Piccadilly and on whatever excuse you want to make for what *is* ultimately street running. |
|
|
| (269662) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 11:51:05 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 10:54:36 2006. "....whatever excuse you want to make for what *is* ultimately street running."Excuse? Hardly. I was addressing the point that street running adds another variable to reliability - which, as most of the so-called street running is along private ROWs, is not really a valid concern as there is no other traffic to get in the tram's way, save for that at traffic light-controlled intersections. |
|
|
| (269664) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 11:55:21 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 10:54:36 2006. "The point is that you couldn't run the same thing on the East and Slow Lines out of Piccadilly...."James.... sorry to burst the bubble, but Metrolink exists to serve passengers, not a railfan's sense of what is traditional and what is the 'proper' way to do things. More people benefit from having it run through the city centre - so what if it can't operate out of Piccadilly? I am making no 'excuses' for street running. Why would I want to? Just because you don't seem to like it doesn't mean it's a wank way of doing things. It works for Metrolink in its limited application, as you would see if you ventured into flat-cap territory and had a look. |
|
|
| (269673) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 12:43:33 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 11:51:05 2006. "....whatever excuse you want to make for what *is* ultimately street running."Excuse? Hardly. I was addressing the point that street running adds another variable to reliability - which, as most of the so-called street running is along private ROWs, is not really a valid concern as there is no other traffic to get in the tram's way, save for that at traffic light-controlled intersections. Yes. Excuse. The reliability issue is really a red herring, as it shouldn't occur if the traffic engineers have half a brain cell between them, which thankfully they seem to have. The real issue is that because of the on-street running, the lines into Piccadilly have essentially been condemned to have a poor service forever. |
|
|
| (269680) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 12:55:43 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 11:55:21 2006. "The point is that you couldn't run the same thing on the East and Slow Lines out of Piccadilly...."James.... sorry to burst the bubble, but Metrolink exists to serve passengers, not a railfan's sense of what is traditional and what is the 'proper' way to do things. More people benefit from having it run through the city centre - so what if it can't operate out of Piccadilly? The point is precisely that Metrolink fails to serve over half the passengers that the Picc-Vic tunnel would have. Yes, it gives the one busiest line east out of Victoria (but none of the others) access to the City Centre, but it does absolutely nothing for improving access to the City Centre for passengers on the lines out of Piccadilly. It's at best a one-third solution that has caused more problems. Take off your rose-tinted spectacles and see that the passengers have been short-changed by the Metrolink scheme. I am making no 'excuses' for street running. Why would I want to? Just because you don't seem to like it doesn't mean it's a wank way of doing things. I don't know why you want to, but you clearly do seem to like it so much that it's horrendous incompatibilities don't seen to bother you. It works for Metrolink in its limited application, as you would see if you ventured into flat-cap territory and had a look. The point is that it condemns Metrolink to being a limited application forever. |
|
|
| (269681) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 12:56:51 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 12:43:33 2006. The real issue is that because of the on-street running, the lines into Piccadilly have essentially been condemned to have a poor service forever.Opinion based on a traditional railfan's viewpoint, nothing more. The real issue is not whether the line uses a traditional right-of-way to the edge of the CBD (i.e. Piccadilly) - it's the fact that it serves the heart of the city centre which I would assume is where the majority of passengers are heading. If you can provide evidence/proof to back up your assumption that the Metrolink will suffer from poor service until the end of time, thanks to a small amount of street running, feel free.... Or perhaps Metrolink runs through the streets as the initial budget constraints prevented it from doing anything else, save end at a remote terminal of no use to anyone? This isn't London, remember.... |
|
|
| (269684) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 13:03:49 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 12:55:43 2006. Uhh.... regarding the tunnel thing - I'd never mentioned that. You seem to forget that (as pointed out by, I think, Fytton) there was never any realistic chance of said tunnel being built. In any case, passengers have not been short-changed in this central section at all - the previous attempt at a central Manchester link was a bus. Thus your point that it does nothing to improve access for Piccadilly passengers is wrong, the current Metrolink set-up is far superior to the previous bus application.horrendous incompatibilities Incompatible with what? Main-line rail? So what, it does what it's supposed to, and considerably better than what was there previously - both to Bury and Alty, and within the city centre. |
|
|
| (269687) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 13:14:49 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 12:56:51 2006. Opinion based on a traditional railfan's viewpoint, nothing more. The real issue is not whether the line uses a traditional right-of-way to the edge of the CBD (i.e. Piccadilly) - it's the fact that it serves the heart of the city centre which I would assume is where the majority of passengers are heading.Again you are missing the point. Piccadilly is not the heart of the CBD, just as Oxford Road and Victoria aren't. Your argument therefore calls for Piccadilly services to be brought to a more central location just as much as it does Victoria and Oxford Road services. Metrolink is unable to do this because the section Victoria-Piccadilly is incompatible with the sections Piccadilly-Guide Bridge and Piccadilly-Cheadle Hulme (remember, it has already diverted through service off the MSJ&A). If you can provide evidence/proof to back up your assumption that the Metrolink will suffer from poor service until the end of time, thanks to a small amount of street running, feel free.... I have already explained the incompatibility. The Metrolink lines happen to be all right. It's all the other lines that suffer as a result of Metrolink's weak central section to which they cannot be connected. You have provided no evidence to suggest a manner in which they (or alternative routes serving the same areas with comparable journey times) could be connected to this central section, so I will continue in my "assumption" (i.e. my conclusion based on looking at the track diagrams) that they cannot. Or perhaps Metrolink runs through the streets as the initial budget constraints prevented it from doing anything else, save end at a remote terminal of no use to anyone? This isn't London, remember.... Nor is it Liverpool, which managed to get two underground link lines built. |
|
|
| (269690) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 13:25:52 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Deaks on Wed Jun 21 13:03:49 2006. Uhh.... regarding the tunnel thing - I'd never mentioned that. You seem to forget that (as pointed out by, I think, Fytton) there was never any realistic chance of said tunnel being built.Then how did Liverpool and Newcastle manage it? Or are Mancunians just the new victims of Britain? Incompatible with what? Main-line rail? Yes, which services to the Airport, Crewe (both via Stockport and via Styal), Macclesfield, Buxton, both Marple stations via both routes, Glossop, Hadfield, and Stalybridge *have* to be compatible with. So what, it does what it's supposed to They narrowed the brief. They moved the goalposts. They failed to leave provision for tackling the harder half of the problem. and considerably better than what was there previously - both to Bury and Alty, and within the city centre. That's not much of an achievement, given what was there before. |
|
|
| (270068) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Thu Jun 22 10:10:48 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 13:14:49 2006. LOL, this is being taken waaaay too seriously..... but anyway.Your argument therefore calls for Piccadilly services to be brought to a more central location just as much as it does Victoria and Oxford Road services. What? Preposterous my dear boy, it does nothing of the sort! Metrolink serves the heart of the CBD because it was able to. The main lines will never serve the CBD because they aren't able to. That is how it will stay, until.... You have provided no evidence to suggest a manner in which they (or alternative routes serving the same areas with comparable journey times) could be connected to this central section, so I will continue in my "assumption".... No, I haven't provided any 'evidence'. But neither have I even suggested that other routes could be connected to the central section, have I? However, the proposed Rochdale and Oldham routes will be converted from heavy rail to Metrolink standards, and you can bet your bollocks that these will serve the CBD. ....my conclusion based on looking at the track diagrams. See... that's the problem. You should come and ride the Metrolink for yourself, before being so quick to slaughter it. Liverpool, which managed to get two underground link lines built. Yup, they did.... but then they didn't really have the cheaper option of street running, short of inventing a train that's capable of floating on water. |
|
|
| (270078) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Thu Jun 22 10:19:11 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 21 13:25:52 2006. Then how did Liverpool and Newcastle manage it?Both Liverpool's and Newcastle's systems need to cross major rivers, thus either a bridge or a tunnel is a necessity. Manchester's does not - presumably therefore, the cheaper street-running option was chosen. Given budget constraints, I'm not surprised street running was chosed - a tunnel in Manchester would have been a 'lixury', rather than a necessity, as in Liverpool and Newcastle - and with such an expensive luxury it's unlikely that the project would have gone ahead. That's not much of an achievement, given what was there before. Correct, but the scale of achievement isn't under discussion - the degree of improvement over what was previous is. As it stands, Bury and Altrincham now have a level of service (provided by light-rail) far superior to that provided by the heavy rail service that was there before. |
|
|
| (270970) | |
Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail? |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Fri Jun 23 21:01:12 2006, in response to Re: Here comes Staten Is. Light Rail?, posted by Deaks on Thu Jun 22 10:10:48 2006. …short of inventing a train that’s capable of floating on water.Now, that’s a ferry good idea… Sorry… |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 7 |
||
