Metrolink to / from Etihad

[East Level 2]

Piccadilly gardens and station out of use from tomorrow until August 10.

Just those two stations or all the line to Ashton?

 

[anyoldblu]

Just those two stations or all the line to Ashton?

From Tuesday 3 June to end of service on Sunday 10 August, no tram services will run via Piccadilly Gardens.

• Trams on the Altrincham/Bury lines won’t serve Piccadilly Gardens or Piccadilly. Services will run between Altrincham and Bury via Market Street.
• All trams from Ashton and Etihad Campus will terminate at Piccadilly.
• Eccles services (via MediaCityUK) will run to Victoria via Market Street.
• MediaCityUK – Etihad Campus peak time services will NOT run during these works. There will be extra double trams on the Eccles – Victoria via MediaCityUK service.

 

[bluwes]

Just those two stations or all the line to Ashton?

Ashton trams will terminate at Piccadilly train station.

 

[East Level 2]

Ashton trams will terminate at Piccadilly train station.

Do they have a depot east of Manchester or are they just going to be roaming the streets at night?

 

[chesterbells]

Precisely. Metrolink get a pretty penny from the matchday crowd, and now concert go ers as well. The fans get a raw deal in return. Shite.

Well you say that, but have you ever seen ticket checkers on those rammed trams pre and post match/concert?
As @mancityvstoke said, they are all over it on mid-morning weekdays when it’s all very civil and half-empty, but on a weekend? Do they even work weekends?
With the deal on those packed trams, I’m not sure customers should be paying for that level of “service”

 

[bluwes]

Do they have a depot east of Manchester or are they just going to be roaming the streets at night?

They’ll set up a remote turn back I presume. They’ve done it in the past.or they’ll feed the trams through at slow speed past the work site out of service during the night

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

They’ll set up a remote turn back I presume. They’ve done it in the past.or they’ll feed the trams through at slow speed past the work site out of service during the night

What’s a “remote turn back” out of interest?

I read that they’ll do your second option every so often.

 

[Gray]

Does this happen on the London Underground with lengths of track out of use for weeks?

And don’t get me started on that fast track rubbish, that is discriminating against other users.

Metrolink is not fit for purpose.

 

[Roachy]

Well you say that, but have you ever seen ticket checkers on those rammed trams pre and post match/concert?
As @mancityvstoke said, they are all over it on mid-morning weekdays when it’s all very civil and half-empty, but on a weekend? Do they even work weekends?
With the deal on those packed trams, I’m not sure customers should be paying for that level of “service”

Agree, not seen them on event days. Don't think you can get on a tram though at the Etihad post event without a ticket due to the set up. Obviously going is a different matter. The level of service in relation to the schedule, and also unforeseen occurrences like tram and equipment faults can be appalling at times no doubt. However, there's no excuse for big time cheap skates not paying to travel.

 

[bluwes]

What’s a “remote turn back” out of interest?

I read that they’ll do your second option every so often.

They’ll basically park some of the up at Ashton overnight as and when required. Staff will service them there

 

[anyoldblu]

And don’t get me started on that fast track rubbish, that is discriminating against other users.

What's your problem? I pay for my Metro Season Ticket, and I get to use a fast track, which seems fair to me. You're welcome to do the same.

There is a separate pathway for those who can't use the stairs or require assistance with boarding.

 

[DTKOAG]

What's your problem? I pay for my Metro Season Ticket, and I get to use a fast track, which seems fair to me. You're welcome to do the same.

There is a separate pathway for those who can't use the stairs or require assistance with boarding.

Couldn’t have worded it better.

 

[Roachy]

What's your problem? I pay for my Metro Season Ticket, and I get to use a fast track, which seems fair to me. You're welcome to do the same.

There is a separate pathway for those who can't use the stairs or require assistance with boarding.

Nail on head. Basically doesn't want to pay for what others are prepared to stump up for. This is from a few months back.

Read the small print:

• (5). MMST holders have no precedence over other passengers and Keolis Amey Metrolink accepts no liability for loss, expense or inconvenience arising as a result of lack of accommodation for MST holders at any place or time.

So creating a fast track lane at the stadium actually flies in the face of their own conditions.

Many thanks for alerting me to this, I shall be taking things further.

 

[anyoldblu]

Nail on head. Basically doesn't want to pay for what others are prepared to stump up for. This is from a few months back.

Indeed. I suspect, as this was some months ago, there was little progress on their complaint. Here's my understanding for @Gray. They're right to point out that introducing a fast-track lane for MMST holders appears to be a technical breach of clause (5) of the Manchester City matchday season ticket terms. That clause clearly states MMST holders have "no precedence over other passengers," which implies a general equality in the experience facilitated by the ticket.

However, as someone who doesn't hold an MMST, they're not a direct party to that specific contract. While the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 could allow them to enforce a term intended to benefit them, it's a very high bar. Practically speaking, if they were to sue for damages, proving quantifiable financial loss from a few minutes' delay would be incredibly difficult, likely resulting in only nominal damages, if any.

Alternatively, @Gray could apply for an injunction to force the closure of the fast track, but courts are generally reluctant to intervene in commercial operations for minor inconveniences. Moreover, the most likely first response from Manchester City and Transport for Greater Manchester would be to revise the terms and conditions to explicitly allow for a fast track, which they are legally entitled to do.

 

[DTKOAG]

Also our contract for the season ticket is with the club and NOT Metrolink.
The clubs info clearly states that fast track is part of the ticket.
If you want this option then it’s clearly available to purchase just like fast track at the airport.
Simple really.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Also our contract for the season ticket is with the club and NOT Metrolink.
The clubs info clearly states that fast track is part of the ticket.
If you want this option then it’s clearly available to purchase just like fast track at the airport.
Simple really.

I guess the unfair part comes in for those unable to get a season ticket or anyone buying matchday tickets for additional family or friends.

 

[Roachy]

Indeed. I suspect, as this was some months ago, there was little progress on their complaint. Here's my understanding for @Gray. They're right to point out that introducing a fast-track lane for MMST holders appears to be a technical breach of clause (5) of the Manchester City matchday season ticket terms. That clause clearly states MMST holders have "no precedence over other passengers," which implies a general equality in the experience facilitated by the ticket.

However, as someone who doesn't hold an MMST, they're not a direct party to that specific contract. While the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 could allow them to enforce a term intended to benefit them, it's a very high bar. Practically speaking, if they were to sue for damages, proving quantifiable financial loss from a few minutes' delay would be incredibly difficult, likely resulting in only nominal damages, if any.

Alternatively, @Gray could apply for an injunction to force the closure of the fast track, but courts are generally reluctant to intervene in commercial operations for minor inconveniences. Moreover, the most likely first response from Manchester City and Transport for Greater Manchester would be to revise the terms and conditions to explicitly allow for a fast track, which they are legally entitled to do.

What a great reply. I hadn't thought of it in any way near that depth. I certainly agree with most of the aforementioned posters views on the regular poor showing from Metrolink, especially on match days. However, the ire being shown to the fast track and those that have paid to access that privilege is unfounded. I suspect it's borne out of envy or possibly even jealousy, and furthermore there would be no benefit to those who who don't have access to it should it be removed.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

What a great reply. I hadn't thought of it in any way near that depth. I certainly agree with most of the aforementioned posters views on the regular poor showing from Metrolink, especially on match days. However, the ire being shown to the fast track and those that have paid to access that privilege is unfounded. I suspect it's borne out of envy or possibly even jealousy, and furthermore there would be no benefit to those who who don't have access to it should it be removed.

To me the main issue is really the queue management at the moment, especially when there’s a clash with Coop Live events. Sometimes the end of the queue is hard to locate and there are lots of instances of groups pushing in. Obviously the construction isn’t helping matters but hopefully they’ll introduce longer barriers and better signage eventually. Not everyone has access to the FastPass system and it wouldn’t make sense to open it up to matchday tickets buyers as there’d end up a silly queue there then, but there is an element of unfairness about it.

 

[Gray]

Indeed. I suspect, as this was some months ago, there was little progress on their complaint. Here's my understanding for @Gray. They're right to point out that introducing a fast-track lane for MMST holders appears to be a technical breach of clause (5) of the Manchester City matchday season ticket terms. That clause clearly states MMST holders have "no precedence over other passengers," which implies a general equality in the experience facilitated by the ticket.

However, as someone who doesn't hold an MMST, they're not a direct party to that specific contract. While the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 could allow them to enforce a term intended to benefit them, it's a very high bar. Practically speaking, if they were to sue for damages, proving quantifiable financial loss from a few minutes' delay would be incredibly difficult, likely resulting in only nominal damages, if any.

Alternatively, @Gray could apply for an injunction to force the closure of the fast track, but courts are generally reluctant to intervene in commercial operations for minor inconveniences. Moreover, the most likely first response from Manchester City and Transport for Greater Manchester would be to revise the terms and conditions to explicitly allow for a fast track, which they are legally entitled to do.

That was my point exactly, they are not applying their own terms and conditions.

 

[anyoldblu]

That was my point exactly, they are not applying their own terms and conditions.

So sue. They'll most likely change the T&C.