Super tram extensions

[dutch 68]

The Rotherham extension is nothing to do with demand.

 

It is a trial to try out the tram-train vehicles on heavy rail track and tram track and assess how they perform.

 

When I was little I also played with train tracks with all sorts of trains on it. Gues that was not as expensive or serious as this experiment will be. I will certainly try out the new trams and see what they are like when they come and I have the time for it, it probably will be nicer to use them than the X78 or ancient old northern trains.

 

---------- Post added 09-05-2015 at 16:01 ----------

 

The tram train will follow the current yellow tram route from Cathedral to Meadowhall South/Tinsley (via Nunnery Square Park & Ride, Attercliffe, Arena and Valley Centertainment) then run fast to Rotherham Central station and on to a terminus at Parkgate retail world.

 

It is a pity it does not connect to the main meadowhall bus/train station directly.

 

Since I have not seen how it works yet I really hope this project does not affect the main meadowhall trams too much, it could help to get more trams from Cineworld to city centre they are often too full in the evening.

Edited May 9, 2015 by dutch

[TheRightWay 10]

Straight sections MAY have a long life, bends and intersections will have a short life. Remember what happened at Hatfield when they tried to prolong the life of rails on a bend. That track was only about 5 years old.

 

---------- Post added 09-05-2015 at 02:41 ----------

 

 

To be honest, the people of Rotherham don't want the tram. We have seen the man made chaos it causes in Sheffield and can quite happily manage without that.

The gross mismanagement of the system from the start has to be a major factor in the decision to turn down every extension plan point blank.

The fact that massive amounts of money were written off (transferred to the taxpayer) and the backdoor subsidies given to the operator indicate the system is flawed.

To right the system is flawed if it doesn't hit the main hospitals , and its ok 4 Stannington to have a tram/bus link from Malin Bridge , but what about Loxley/Wisewod or is the S6 a piece meal to Hillsborough interchange that ends at 18.05 , earlier on a Saturday and no service Sunday .

Edited May 10, 2015 by Jeffrey Shaw
Textspeak emended

[Guest busdriver1]

I also question the demand for the Rotherham extension but maybe that could change once it is in place.

There are many other places in Sheffield that have a much higher need for this investment.

 

Given that originally all the people of South Yorkshire originally paid for the tram system then when the PTE's incompetence came to light all the Tax payers in the UK had to pick up the tab for it, why should any further extensions be paid for by non benefitting areas?

 

Mind it could be argued that Sheffield does not totally benefit as there are areas on the tram system that have been made virtual no go areas for other road users due to the priority measures put in place to make the tram seem competitive. The man made delays in the Hillsborough area spring to mind. Without those "tram priorities" the tram would be found to be slower than other means of travel due to its extended route.

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2015 at 07:25 ----------

 

To right the system is flawed if it doesn't hit the main hospitals , and its ok 4 Stannington to have a tram/bus link from Malin Bridge , but what about Loxley/Wisewod or is the S6 a piece meal to Hillsborough interchange that ends at 18.05 , earlier on a Saturday and no service Sunday .

 

Look at the lay of the land near both hospitals. Both are no go areas for trams unless we create more bottle necks by running trams down narrow streets. Surely we have learned that one if we have learned nothing else.

It cant serve everywhere, there are plenty buses from both major operators that serve both hospitals.

[Planner1 438]

Given that originally all the people of South Yorkshire originally paid for the tram system then when the PTE's incompetence came to light all the Tax payers in the UK had to pick up the tab for it, why should any further extensions be paid for by non benefitting areas?

It was originally paid for by Government grant, that's how most major transport schemes are funded.

[Guest busdriver1]

It was originally paid for by Government grant, that's how most major transport schemes are funded.

 

So where did the loans that were defaulted on come from then?

[cookingfat50 10]

the whole supertram lay out wants rethinking, it misses eccy road abbydale road, fullwood road prince of wales, south road, the wicker, Attercliffe road, the council should look at were the old tram tracks went and follow them much room for improvement

[Andy C 86]

the whole supertram lay out wants rethinking, it misses eccy road abbydale road, fullwood road prince of wales, south road, the wicker, Attercliffe road, the council should look at were the old tram tracks went and follow them much room for improvement

 

The tram line to Meadowhall runs parrallel to Attercliffe Road, it also serves Manor Top and Gleadless Townend.

 

There is little demand for public transport these days on Prince of Wales Road - just look at the few buses left - 6 and 38.

 

Ecclesall Road - no room for segregated track, it would have to run on street - pointless!

 

Abbeydale Road - again no room for a tramway, but there is a main line railway running parrallel which is probably where the investment should be for that corridor.

[Guest busdriver1]

 

Abbeydale Road - again no room for a tramway, but there is a main line railway running parrallel which is probably where the investment should be for that corridor.

 

It should have gone there in the first place but far too logical.

[Planner1 438]

So where did the loans that were defaulted on come from then?

I don't recall any loans being defaulted on.

 

There were some borrowings by the PTE as part of their contribution to the scheme costs and some of that debt remains. See: http://www.rothbiz.co.uk/2014/03/news-3979-supertram-spending-could.html

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Abbeydale Road - again no room for a tramway, but there is a main line railway running parrallel which is probably where the investment should be for that corridor.

Nonsense. If you mean Abbeydale Road South, its upper ['woods'] carriageway was tramtracked for many years pre-1960.

Its lower ['park'] carriageway carried two-way traffic.

[Bilge 34]

Nonsense. If you mean Abbeydale Road South, its upper ['woods'] carriageway was tramtracked for many years pre-1960.

Its lower ['park'] carriageway carried two-way traffic.

 

No he means the whole of Abbeydale Road. Clearly there is no room for trams on the bit nearer town. So, as in the plans that were shelved, it would run alongside the mainline rails until Millhouses Park where it crosses over to the bit you mentioned where there is plenty of room next to the road.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

No he means the whole of Abbeydale Road. Clearly there is no room for trams on the bit nearer town.

But equally there's no "main line railway running parallel" (or even remotely nearby) where Abbeydale Road forks off London Road at Highfield.

 

Hence I supposed the post to mean Abbeydale Road South.