Railway Forum

Railway Forum (https://www.railwayforum.net/index.php)
-   Light Rail and Metros (https://www.railwayforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Introducing the UK's first Tram-Train (https://www.railwayforum.net/showthread.php?t=13006)

emilymainzer 20th January 2014 07:38

Introducing the UK's first Tram-Train
 
Yes UK's first tram-trains is subjected to approval, the new Tram-Train will run on the Sheffield Supertram network and on Network Rail from 2016. More details can be found here:
http://www.railway-technology.com/fe...-rail-4149853/

Silver Fox Phil 20th January 2014 10:46

The way to go for sure. Its convenient and efficient and moves people about fast and cheaply. I hope it is a great success and is rolled out across the country. Looking back now, how short-sighted we were when we scrapped trams from our cities!!
Bring it on
Cheers Phil

pbowler 20th January 2014 12:43

And trolley busses too Phil!

ianrail 20th January 2014 20:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbowler (Post 79413)
And trolley busses too Phil!

I've raised the point on this Forum before that trolleybuses seem a far cheaper and more flexible form of transport than trams but there seems to be an official determination that they won't make a comeback.

Regarding the original post, I'm a bit confused. Hasn't this sort of "train-tram" been running for decades now in Manchester? I'm sure I remember coming down the railway line from Bury in it, then turning out of Victoria station and running down the street - surely my memory isn't playing tricks with me?

johnmoly 20th January 2014 22:04

Your right Ianrail. Metrolink has been using this sort of transport from the early 1990's using the old railway line from Bury to Altrincham and later into the City Centre. Now has other routes. The 'Ski jump' on the Bury to Heywood section of the East Lancashire Railway crosses over the Metrolink.

Daniel Pyke 18th February 2014 00:13

The difference to the Metrolink Bury line is that the tram train is designed to share infrastructure with "normal" trains rather than a converting the track to just run trams.

hereward 18th February 2014 08:51

Where I was born there were three routes served by trolleybuses, the excuse for getting rid of them was that they were not versatile enough because they could not be used on other routes. Then they began to paint the routes on the side of diesel buses: from x to y every 10 minutes and route numbers etc. It was said that it cost 1 old penny to run a trolleybus for 3 miles. My father would say that Wolverhampton got rid of their trolleybuses because Guy Motors of Wolverhampton made diesel buses.

wyvern 18th February 2014 11:27

Derby might even now have trolley buses. However when the inner ring road was constructed it was felt too expensive to reinstate all the wiring. Also a stretch in Kedleston Road, and probably elsewhere, needed new poles (It was said they'd rotted with the dogs peeing against them). The benefits over the oilers were not then so obvious.

hereward 18th February 2014 11:43

Until the 1968 Transport Act changed everything, vehicles were put into alphabetical groups for driving licence purposes, Diesel buses and lorries were heavy motor cars but a trolleybus was classed as a light locomotive. Passing a driving test in a trolleybus would not licence the holder to drive any other vehicle, except perhaps an electric milk float. Buses, coaches and fire engines required an additional PSV licence (public service vehicle) but oddly, I believe, trolleybus drivers didn’t need a PSV.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:58.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.