Talk:Manchester Corporation Tramways

Please note most of the factual information has been taken from a souvenir brochure published on the day of the last tram. Called "A History of Manchester's Tramways" published by the Manchester Corporation Transport Department it does not have any online details from it so cannot be linked. I have found the following links which show that the thing really exists apart from sitting on my desk! EG:
http://www.gmts.co.uk/collections/archives/brochures.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Manchesters-MANCHESTER-CORPORATION-TRANSPORT-DEPARTMENT/dp/B0011JCO62

If anyone can tell me how to cite this as a reference I'd be grateful!--Mapmark (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have done for you. Edit text to see how its done. I first found a reference on World Cat to get the details. The GMTS link is no longer valid due to website changes --Keith 12:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be some inconsistency on wikipedia & elsewhere about the true size of of Britains heritage tram systems. When I first wrote this article the perceived wisdom was that after amalgamating the figures for the various tram operators in the capital, London had over 400 miles of tram routes. While the Glasgow Corporation Tramways wiki page gives no figures, it is claimed Glasgow had the second most extensive system. I'm now challenging this figure. 100 route miles of double track was recorded there in 1900 (http://www.semple.biz/glasgow/jubilee1922.shtml) by 1906 this is noted as 144 route miles in the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C04E2DC103EE733A25753C2A9679C946797D6CF). A post here claims Glasgow has 258 miles of track (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=250791) the same figure is repeated elsewhere as route miles - but track miles and route miles are different beasts. The Manchester figures are all quoted from the official documents of the Corporation so I believe we can be confident that there were indeed 292 track miles operated by that corporation at peak. It would appear that Manchester therefore possessed more track miles than Glasgow did (and note this does NOT include the track miles of Salford and other neighbouring boroughs). We have a route milage of MCT of 163 miles. But while I quoted 170 route miles for Glasgow, I cannot find a completely accurate figure for Glasgow. My supposition is that there were in fact more route miles in Manchester than in Glasgow, though at present I cannot back this up. Any facts and figures and research on these points greatly appreciated.

We should also consider a paragraph on the size of the adjoining networks.--Mapmark (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think your on a hiding to nothing unless you can find some contemporary publication of the time. With penchants to quote "track" or "route" mileage, and different dates, comparison is very difficult.

One of the books on Manchester's Tramway, I forget which, does quote the local mileages, but again, is it similar dates to the ones you quote. Different systems reached their peak at different times. --Keith 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to all the wikans who contributed towards tidying up this article. Was really surprised to see it didn't exist a while ago but as I'm not such an expert at the Wiki style that many of you have injected, I'm really pleased to see what a good quality article it's now become. Gonna try and locate some copyright free images now of old trams etc to brighten it up a bit. Then hopefully we can improve its rating from C class! --Mapmark (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reinstated deleted reference to 765's stay at Crich. Whilst I dont have details to hand, it was there twice, the second time for over 2 years. This information from HPT website. Therefore the reason for deletion is invalid. Also standardised some references --Keith 12:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

First time was sometime in the Sixties, when the TMS asked the MTMS to remove it as it was "An eyesore". Second time was for 'testing' in 77 & 78, before arriving at HPT in 79. However, it is most associated with HPT. Hey, it had a three year stint in Blackpool, let's mention that too!</sarcasm>. In all seriousness, including that is out of place & not really relevant. Finally, there is a very contentious relationship in place regarding 765 - don't even try getting into ownership, both organisations think they own it, and so it is best to just solely call it a HPT tram and ignore the Crich references - especially on a 'un-notable' such as 765. BG^7even 20:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You wil learn that snippets like it was at Crich, and Blackpool for periods are bread and butter of some articles. History details of 765, as one of the few remaining vehicles of M.C.Tramways are quite valid for this article. If I had relevant house mags with details, then they would be used. Please do not start denigrating the article with sarcasm, for no good reason. As for the ownership question - why mention it? It is neither stated, nor matters, who owns it! --Keith 21:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Manchester Tramway Album, published by the Manchester Transport Museum Society (no date, but in the 1960s, since the price is in shillings) suggests that during the war some abnadoned Manchester routes were actually rewired and reopened, but gives no details. It would be useful if anyone knew about this - I have a distinct recollection from childhood of having seen trams in parts of Stretford where the routes had been converted to buses in the 1930s, before I was born, and I'm curious.2.123.184.48 (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manchester Corporation Tramways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006081546/http://www.heatonparktramway.btik.com/ to http://www.heatonparktramway.btik.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply