Talk:Manchester Metrolink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello all,

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

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

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

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

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

This review is transcluded from Talk:Manchester Metrolink/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 13:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the lack/absence of comments here. I've now read through the article once, quite rapidly, but I've not checked anything in the way of references, citations, copyright, etc, and on first impressions only I'd put the article somewhere between GA and FA, but I could be wrong.

I'm now going to work my way through the article, slowly, section by sections, starting at the History section and finishing with the WP:Lead. This will probably take the whole of the weekend, perhaps longer. Pyrotec (talk)

• History -
  • Origins -

• Quite a reasonably comprehensive and well referenced subsection. I have no great objections to what is stated here: Piccadilly and Victoria were built in the 1840 and where unconnected and located at opposing edges of its city centre (my paraphrasing) and that is true today (but their names changed over time, these are the modern ones), but there was Central in 1880 (gone as a station) and several schemes for linking-lines on viaducts, some of which were built. However, what is written is perhaps quite adequate and fit for purpose. Pyrotec (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2013‎ (UTC)Reply

• • Phase 1 -

• I moved the link from T68 to T-68, since the former was clearly wrong.
• Otherwise, this subsection appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

• • Phase 2 -

• Perhaps a minor point, but I have no idea where Eastlands is (well its in Manchester I presume on fairly strong grounds). All the other name places I could find more information via wikilinks.
• Otherwise, this subsection appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

• • Phase 3 -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

This subsection appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

• Operator -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

This section appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

• Infrastructure, Travelling & Patronage -

These three sections appear to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

• WP:Lead -

• This is quite a long article and this lead at four-paragraphs in length makes a reasonable attempt to meet the requirements (of WP:Lead). There are one or two (perhaps four) small points that the lead does not cover, but it can't cover everything, so I'm going to mark this as "compliant". Pyrotec (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

FYI Eastlands is the general area around the former Bradford Colliery and the sporting complex based on the City of Manchester Stadium. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very for that information. In that case I've not been there. Pyrotec (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative and well-referenced article. I've certainly learnt much about the system as a result of this review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:  

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:  

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  

   C. No original research:  

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:  

   B. Focused:  

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:  

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:  

I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA-status and I believe that it has the potential to progress through WP:FAC. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you sir! Much appreciated. Work continues to perfect the article using your feedback as a guide. Thanks again, --Jza84 |  Talk  12:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

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

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

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

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

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

As an attempt to clean this up this section has been described as 'butchering' I will explain the rationale for changes:

1) Just because an article is flagged as a 'Good Article', doesn't mean further work is not required, Edinburgh Trams was similarly flagged, yet it was the opinion of most editors that the article had major issues. Achieving GA status does not insulate an article from major rewrites.

2) WP:LEADCITE states that as the lead should be repeated in the body, it best to cite in the latter...unless it is controversial and likely to be challenged, which given the subject matter, not likely

3) WP:LEAD states the lead should be a concise overview, detail that officially termed as LRVs, but known as trams is 'nitty-gritty' detail best covered in the body, likewise the history of liveries

4) background of how the line came to be, while certainly relevant and rightly covered in the Origins section, is a bit detailed and cumbersome for a lead

5) states fleet is composed of 94 trams, incorrect statement as these are still in the process of being delivered, and with a further order will total 104

6) statement that line is the 'largest light rail system', followed by statement that extensions will make it the 'largest light rail system' is clumsy, if already the biggest additions aren't going to change this

7) current line is 78 kilometres long and additions will bring it up to 60 miles (97 kilometres), measurement styles need to be consistent throughout

While not suggesting my changes are perfect, they do address the issues mentioned above. Mo7838 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes in principle I think you're right. Personally I think the intro could usefully (and briefly) mention that the light rail system was conceived as a way of bridging a north-south gap in railway connections across the city, and that it was formed by converting suburban heavy rail lines to light rail operation, joined by a small on-street system in the middle... or words to that effect. But I don't disagree with the principle of what you're saying. Maybe some collaboration from other editors rather than reverting might help. Cnbrb (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

My problem is that the article - including introduction - was peer-reviewed and adjudged to be of Good Article. Therefore unless you have a very, VERY good reason there is no reason to remove so much. From my perspective, the introduction has been butchered. Yes it was text heavy but you don't have to remove as much as you did. You say you have made it simple but it just reads like an incoherent set of lines. I politely disagree with and would favour reversion to something similar to the original introduction. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

To obtain Good Article status requires only one peer review, so its not as if GA status is necessarily the result of a consensus reached by a broad range of editors. As stated before GA status does not shield an article from further enhancement.

I have given the rationale for changes made, please feel free to challenge them. No suggestion that my work is the finished product, Cnbrb's suggestions for example are worth taking on board. Mo7838 (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I do plan to revert a lot of the edits that have occurred over the last month or so. Although well-meaning, it's actually spoiled a lot of the factual elements of the article and doesn't actually fall in line with source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Jza84 You appear to have reverted to superceded ridership statistics; please explain why; or restore as it was. TomHennell (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Now that these are history ( and considering that they have their own article T-68 ) might it not be the time to excise all detailed discussion of the T68s from this article, just noting their previous use and retirement in a sentance or two? TomHennell (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Agree Mo7838 (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

as discussed; I have removed the text below. I leave it to others whether some of this material might be incorporated into the T-68 article. TomHennell (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

, but also used Ansaldo Firema T-68/T-68As between 1992 and 2014. These vehicles were originally termed LRVs (light rail vehicles),^[1] but have become widely known as trams.^[2]

The T-68s were Metrolink's original passenger fleet. They were in passenger service from the opening of Metrolink in 1992, and were phased out between April 2012 and February 2014.^[3] They were 29 metres (95 ft) in length by 2.65 metres (8.7 ft) wide, weigh 48 long tons (54 short tons) and have a top speed of 50 miles per hour (80 km/h).^[4][5][6] The nominal capacity of each T-68 was 201 passengers, of whom 86 are seated; the maximum crush load capacity is 270 passengers.^[7] Each unit was given a number from 1001 through to 1026;^[8][6] number 1000 was given to a half length mockup displayed to the public before opening, and now exhibited at the Greater Manchester Museum of Transport.^[8] Each T-68 was also to have a nickname referencing the personalities, history and culture of Greater Manchester as chosen by the public. The names chosen in 1987 were Sylvia Pankhurst, Sir Matt Busby, Ben Brierley, The Lancashire Fusilier, Sir John Barbirolli, Pat Seed, John Greenwood, Squire Clark, Our Gracie, and C. P. Scott. Despite assurances they would all be applied, few were ever used,^[9] with a sponsorship naming scheme (to provide additional income for Metrolink) taking preference (for example, vehicle 1002 was named the "Manchester Arndale Voyager" to promote Manchester Arndale and its Voyager food court).^[10]

In 1999, Metrolink's passenger fleet was bolstered by six new vehicles to run on the Eccles Line.^[11] Numbered 2001 through to 2006, these T-68A vehicles were based on the original T-68s, but had modifications replacing destination rollblinds with dot matrix displays, and retractable couplers and covered bogies necessary for the high proportion of on-street running close to motor traffic.^[11] Three of the earlier T-68 fleet were similarly equipped,^[11] and were known as T-68Ms.^[12] Mechanically and electrically the T-68M vehicles remained essentially a T-68, but had modifications to its brakes, mirrors, and speed limiters to suit the Eccles Line.^[12] Initially only these vehicles were permitted to operate the Eccles line but the entire fleet was modified between 2008 and 2012 for universal running,^[11] under a program known as the T-68X Universal Running programme.^[13] The T-68As were retired on 30 April 2014.^[14]

I think this was a bad move. We've lost this information entirely from Wikipedia with this deletion of referenced source material. I think this was an important aspect about the history and infrastructure of Metrolink and had value. It was well researched and referenced and had no detrimental effect on the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

There are numerous figures for line length and system length in the article, sourced from various publications at different dates; some of which were originally expressed in miles, some in km. They are not consistent (the post 3A system length is variously given as 59 miles and 60 miles); and the line lengths do not add up to the system lengths. There are clearly tricky issues with using particular quoted figures (whether a quoted Oldham/Rochdale line figure is pre or post the town centre extensions; whether an Eccle line figure includes the Mediacity spur). But from TfGM sources - specifically the TWAO application for the 2CC line - it appears that the successive total system lengths, rounded to the nearest km, were; 40 km for Phases 1 and 2, including Mediacity and Chorlton; 32 km for Phase 3a; 28 km for Phase 3b, including the Airport line but not 2CC. The application then quotes a total system length of 97 km for the post Phase 3b system; allowing that 3 km of track converted in 3a were taken out of commission for 3b. That might imply a total system length of 98 km when 2CC (1.3 km) is added, and of 104 km when the Trafford line (5.5 km) is added. But does anyone have a more precise and consistent set of figures with good authority? TomHennell (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Consultations/Metrolink2cc/Documents/Documents/13.%20Transport%20Assessment/13.%20Transport%20Assessment.pdf

I see there is much more devotion and love for this article since I revamped it last year. This is great.

However, let's be careful. Take a look at successive revisions which show that source material is being misappropriated or not included at all. In some cases, references have been removed altogether! Where is the 2013/14 ridership figure from? Who says that the vehicles are universally known as trams (not true - a book published just this year says otherwise!!!)? And the speculative routes/services/colours need to go. I plan to make corrections to these soon, but would appreciate support. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply