|
Manchester tram and others
I see the people of Manchester are uspet about the shelving of their
tram extensions, and quite rightly. But what exactly are the costs that can't be quantified in this and other projects? M. |
Manchester tram and others
"marcb" wrote in message
... I see the people of Manchester are uspet about the shelving of their tram extensions, and quite rightly. But what exactly are the costs that can't be quantified in this and other projects? Spending money "oop norf" is politically bad. Unless is wasting it on a scottish parliament. -- Everything above is the personal opinion of the author, and nothing to do with where he works and all that lovely disclaimery stuff. Posted in his lunch hour too. |
Manchester tram and others
Paul Weaver wrote:
"marcb" wrote in message ... I see the people of Manchester are uspet about the shelving of their tram extensions, and quite rightly. But what exactly are the costs that can't be quantified in this and other projects? Spending money "oop norf" is politically bad. Unless is wasting it on a scottish parliament. -- Everything above is the personal opinion of the author, and nothing to do with where he works and all that lovely disclaimery stuff. Posted in his lunch hour too. Well that's not it - look at the empty track bed where East London Line Ext should have been running by now. M. |
Manchester tram and others
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:49:39 +0000 (UTC), marcb
wrote: I see the people of Manchester are uspet about the shelving of their tram extensions, and quite rightly. But what exactly are the costs that can't be quantified in this and other projects? M. Originally it was about £500m with £300m coming from central government. Now it is up to about £1000m with £500m coming from central government with costs still rising... Furthermore, GMPTE are requesting increased annual funding for maintenance. Darling has got cold feet (on light rail in general) and has pulled the plug on it in its current form (which, to be fair to the PTE is largely down to the state insisting the private sector takes all the risk thus inflating prices). GMPTE are miffed because their entire public transport strategy appears to be built around Metrolink to the detriment of everything else (IMHO). Metrolink has done well where they have converted heavy rail lines to LRT (eg Altringcham-Manchester-Bury) and very badly on the largely on-street section from Cornbrook to Eccles as it is much slower than the corresponding rail and bus services and much more expensive (Eccles-Manchester is 25 minutes by tram and 8 minutes by rail!). Furthermore, heavy rail conversion is much cheaper than on-street stuff. No need to move utilities etc. Expect to see some pruning of the project! -- ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Please reply to the group Replies to this address will bounce! ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø |
Manchester tram and others
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:18:31 +0100, "Paul Weaver"
wrote: "marcb" wrote in message ... I see the people of Manchester are uspet about the shelving of their tram extensions, and quite rightly. But what exactly are the costs that can't be quantified in this and other projects? Spending money "oop norf" is politically bad. Unless is wasting it on a scottish parliament. That's why they've spent £7 billion upgrading the West Coast Main Line, then...? -- ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Please reply to the group Replies to this address will bounce! ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø |
Manchester tram and others
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:02:01 +0100, Cheeky wrote:
GMPTE are miffed because their entire public transport strategy appears to be built around Metrolink to the detriment of everything else (IMHO). snip I'd agree with that. The main reason, as I see it, is that Metrolink (and, for that matter, the majority of the shoddy bus service) does not require an ongoing operational subsidy, while the regular local heavy rail operation does. IMO, the best solution for the Oldham Loop, for example, is not trams, but 25kV overhead line and new, high-acceleration heavy rail EMUs to form a German-style S-Bahn. The trams have their place, but it is not in taking over a perfectly good heavy rail system, increasing fares and slowing journeys. It is also not (in the case of Eccles) in operating routes that are substantially faster by bus! The comparison with the far more professional, heavy-rail-friendly and pro-integrated-transport PTE Merseytravel just 30-odd miles down the M62 could not be more marked. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To e-mail use neil at the above domain |
Manchester tram and others
"Cheeky" wrote in message
... On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:18:31 +0100, "Paul Weaver" wrote: "marcb" wrote in message ... I see the people of Manchester are uspet about the shelving of their tram extensions, and quite rightly. But what exactly are the costs that can't be quantified in this and other projects? Spending money "oop norf" is politically bad. Unless is wasting it on a scottish parliament. That's why they've spent £7 billion upgrading the West Coast Main Line, then...? To help people that need to get to London. -- Everything above is the personal opinion of the author, and nothing to do with where he works and all that lovely disclaimery stuff. Posted in his lunch hour too. |
Manchester tram and others
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:25:48 +0100, "Paul Weaver"
wrote: "Cheeky" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:18:31 +0100, "Paul Weaver" wrote: "marcb" wrote in message ... I see the people of Manchester are uspet about the shelving of their tram extensions, and quite rightly. But what exactly are the costs that can't be quantified in this and other projects? Spending money "oop norf" is politically bad. Unless is wasting it on a scottish parliament. That's why they've spent £7 billion upgrading the West Coast Main Line, then...? To help people that need to get to London. Or from Manchester to Birmingham/CUmbria/Scotland etc... -- ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Please reply to the group Replies to this address will bounce! ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø |
Manchester tram and others
|
Manchester tram and others
|
Manchester tram and others
Cheeky wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:14:14 GMT, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:02:01 +0100, Cheeky wrote: GMPTE are miffed because their entire public transport strategy appears to be built around Metrolink to the detriment of everything else (IMHO). snip I'd agree with that. The main reason, as I see it, is that Metrolink (and, for that matter, the majority of the shoddy bus service) does not require an ongoing operational subsidy, while the regular local heavy rail operation does. Indeed. It's notable that the entire Greater Manchester heavy rail network carries fewer passengers than Metrolink but when you see the state of it and the total absence of any marketing from GMPTE it's no real surprise. IMO, the best solution for the Oldham Loop, for example, is not trams, but 25kV overhead line and new, high-acceleration heavy rail EMUs to form a German-style S-Bahn. The trams have their place, but it is not in taking over a perfectly good heavy rail system, increasing fares and slowing journeys. It is also not (in the case of Eccles) in operating routes that are substantially faster by bus! Agreed. Although even half-decent DMUs would improve services on the Oldham loop.... Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at Mumps and Werneth stations. -- Stephen I'm gonna go trade my cow for some beans. No one else is seeing the funny here. |
Manchester tram and others
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:21:43 -0400, Stephen Farrow
wrote: Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at Mumps and Werneth stations. Perhaps not - but I'd be interested in how much a free shuttle bus service, like the successful Metroshuttle services in Manchester City Centre, would affect this and whether it would overall be a better (value?) solution. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To e-mail use neil at the above domain |
Manchester tram and others
Cheeky wrote:
Originally it was about £500m with £300m coming from central government. Now it is up to about £1000m with £500m coming from central government with costs still rising... My question is why costs keep rising for schemes that I feel shold be capable of being costed pretty accurately. After all we are not building anything that hasn't been done before. M. |
Manchester tram and others
Neil Williams wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:21:43 -0400, Stephen Farrow wrote: Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at Mumps and Werneth stations. Perhaps not - but I'd be interested in how much a free shuttle bus service, like the successful Metroshuttle services in Manchester City Centre, would affect this and whether it would overall be a better (value?) solution. It'd certainly cost less. Whether or not it would attract as many riders is another question. There'd need to be some upgrading of the (very unreliable) train service, for a start - and it's doubtful whether such a scheme would bring with it the regeneration investment for the town centre and Westwood that Oldham council are hoping will come with Metrolink (which, given the borough's depressed economic state, is an important consideration). -- Stephen Maybe it was lint. Maybe it was evil lint! |
Manchester tram and others
|
Manchester tram and others
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:27 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote: Needing to change vehicles, without a general transfer ticket system, reduces the value of such connections in the UK. No need for ticket transfers if it is a *free* bus like it is in Manchester City Centre. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To e-mail use neil at the above domain |
Manchester tram and others
|
Manchester tram and others
marcb wrote in message ...
Cheeky wrote: Originally it was about £500m with £300m coming from central government. Now it is up to about £1000m with £500m coming from central government with costs still rising... My question is why costs keep rising for schemes that I feel shold be capable of being costed pretty accurately. After all we are not building anything that hasn't been done before. Its not really the building costs that rise its the cost of financing the building as under PFI/PPP the builder is responsible for the cost of raising money and factoring in risks like if the government suddenly deceide to nationalise the system as in the case of Railtrack. The figure will also contain an element for operation and maintenance, somthing you rarely see in the capital costs for non PFI/PPP contracts. ie. the £450M? or so for the scottish parliament probably doesnt contain the ongoing costs of running the thing. Also the PFI/PPP contract will be over a set period (Ten years?)and the builder will have to make sure they pitch at a price that recoups all their costs plus whatever profit they trying to get within that period. This is what makes me so annoyed; the government make tram projects jump through a series of increasingly costly hoops until it reaches a point where they say its too expensive and abandon it. London does come out better usually but watch Crossrail constantly being put off for more consultation or retuning or even more reports and enquiries by the great and good. I predict another year of that before they cancel it again, maybe less if the Olympic bid goes bad. |
Manchester tram and others
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:21:43 -0400, Stephen Farrow
wrote: Agreed. Although even half-decent DMUs would improve services on the Oldham loop.... Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at Mumps and Werneth stations. True... they are not ideally located for the centre. However it is debatable whether a slower, more expensive service from Manchester to Oldham would be an improvement either.... As other posters have suggested a bus like the freebies in Manc may be a better VFM solution. -- ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Please reply to the group Replies to this address will bounce! ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø |
Manchester tram and others
(Neil Williams) wrote in message ...
IMO, the best solution for the Oldham Loop, for example, is not trams, but 25kV overhead line and new, high-acceleration heavy rail EMUs to form a German-style S-Bahn. The trams have their place, but it is not in taking over a perfectly good heavy rail system, increasing fares and slowing journeys. It is also not (in the case of Eccles) in operating routes that are substantially faster by bus! We seem to have a very strange attitude to city mass transport in this country. In most other western countries (and the old USSR) a city the size of manchester would have had its own proper underground system, never mind some cut price tram system. The fact that it doesn't and neither do huge connabations such as Birmingham is frankly laughable. Somehow Newcastle managed to get one when the bean counters weren't concentrating for a moment back in the 70s but other than that , the tinpot system in glasgow and of course LU, this country is a joke for heavy mass transit in cities. No doubt the usual cost excuses would be wheeled out if this was brought up with the D.O.T but if they can afford to build a new lines in Uzbekistan: http://www.urbanrail.net/as/tosh/tashkent.htm for example I'm damn sure we can too. B2003 |
Manchester tram and others
Cheeky wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:21:43 -0400, Stephen Farrow wrote: Agreed. Although even half-decent DMUs would improve services on the Oldham loop.... Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at Mumps and Werneth stations. True... they are not ideally located for the centre. However it is debatable whether a slower, more expensive service from Manchester to Oldham would be an improvement either.... Well, the frequency (10 trams per hour into Manchester from Oldham) would certainly be an improvement. There's a lot of support for Metrolink in Oldham. -- Stephen How about a movie? They're showing them in theatres now. I hear it's like watching a video with a bunch of strangers and a sticky floor. |
Manchester tram and others
(Boltar) wrote in message . com...
(Neil Williams) wrote in message ... IMO, the best solution for the Oldham Loop, for example, is not trams, but 25kV overhead line and new, high-acceleration heavy rail EMUs to form a German-style S-Bahn. The trams have their place, but it is not in taking over a perfectly good heavy rail system, increasing fares and slowing journeys. It is also not (in the case of Eccles) in operating routes that are substantially faster by bus! We seem to have a very strange attitude to city mass transport in this country. In most other western countries (and the old USSR) a city the size of manchester would have had its own proper underground system, never mind some cut price tram system. The fact that it doesn't and neither do huge connabations such as Birmingham is frankly laughable. Somehow Newcastle managed to get one when the bean counters weren't concentrating for a moment back in the 70s but other than that , the tinpot system in glasgow and of course LU, this country is a joke for heavy mass transit in cities. No doubt the usual cost excuses would be wheeled out if this was brought up with the D.O.T but if they can afford to build a new lines in Uzbekistan: http://www.urbanrail.net/as/tosh/tashkent.htm for example I'm damn sure we can too. While I broadly agree with your sentiments, it ought to be pointed out that land prices in Uzbekistan are not readily comparable to those in any British city. I would guess that the balance of state power vs private landowners' rights is probably more in favour of the state there, too (Sufficiently delicately phrased, I hope :)). -- Larry Lard Replies to group please |
Manchester tram and others
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:39:30 -0400, Stephen Farrow
wrote: Cheeky wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:21:43 -0400, Stephen Farrow wrote: Agreed. Although even half-decent DMUs would improve services on the Oldham loop.... Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at Mumps and Werneth stations. True... they are not ideally located for the centre. However it is debatable whether a slower, more expensive service from Manchester to Oldham would be an improvement either.... Well, the frequency (10 trams per hour into Manchester from Oldham) would certainly be an improvement. There's a lot of support for Metrolink in Oldham. Even those who currently use the train with an integrated bus/rail season ticket which won't be valid on Metrolink....? Seriously - I leave near the Altrincham line and rarely use it as it's so bloody expensive (even compared to Stagecoach!) and not integrated into the other PT modes. -- ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Please reply to the group Replies to this address will bounce! ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø |
Manchester tram and others
|
Manchester tram and others
Cheeky wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:39:30 -0400, Stephen Farrow wrote: Cheeky wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:21:43 -0400, Stephen Farrow wrote: Agreed. Although even half-decent DMUs would improve services on the Oldham loop.... Though they would not, in themselves, solve the location problems at Mumps and Werneth stations. True... they are not ideally located for the centre. However it is debatable whether a slower, more expensive service from Manchester to Oldham would be an improvement either.... Well, the frequency (10 trams per hour into Manchester from Oldham) would certainly be an improvement. There's a lot of support for Metrolink in Oldham. Even those who currently use the train with an integrated bus/rail season ticket which won't be valid on Metrolink....? There's not all that much traffic interchanging between buses and trains at Mumps, partly because pedestrian access to the railway station is so poor. Stephen |
Manchester tram and others
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk