Qwertychops
Member
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 14
Used to work in Sheffield and lived in Rotherham, did the daily trip on the bus no. 69 , that was in the mid 80,s - That tram journey looks so much better
Yes, I have always found that the Supertram conductors are keen to check tickets!I stopped by at Rotherham today and since I was on a Sheffield regional ticket, took a ride up to Parkgate and back.
Very active ticket checker onboard - are they on the standard trams as well? Presumably to stop people using train tickets on the trams.
The announcements at Rotherham did still seem quite random, kept warning people to standback from platform 1 even when nothing was happening.
Very active ticket checker onboard - are they on the standard trams as well?
There are periodic ticket checkers who ask to see tickets and passes-often working in a small groups.They're ticket sellers, not just checkers - Supertram has no platform ticket machines (they did in the very early days but haven't now for many years), so single fares are always purchased on board, and day/week tickets are also available from the conductor.
The first incident involved a lorry going downhill along Staniforth Road and a tram train from City to Parkgate.From the pictures on the bbc website it looks as though, once again, it has involved a tram coming from meadowhall to sheffield at the staniforth rosd/woodburn road junction. At those lights there is a sharp curve on the meadowhall side which obscures the tram until it is very close to the lights. So anyone trying to beat the lights would have little time to get across before the tram was visible. Could the timing of the lights be altered to give a bigger delay so anyone trying to beat the lights would have a bigger safety margin? I'm not a driver or expert on traffic signals so don't know if this is a good idea or not.
At least this time they can stick the working bits of the trams/trains together by cutting and pasting- as they did in the past with the damaged Supertrams.
If you are referring to the incident on opening day, then I'm afraid you are mistaken. The tram(-train) was city bound. The grooves in the road surface are there as evidence - never mind the photographs taken at the time. And therefore, the lorry was going towards Darnall (up).The first incident involved a lorry going downhill along Staniforth Road and a tram train from City to Parkgate......
I am absolutely wrong and you are correct. My apologies.If you are referring to the incident on opening day, then I'm afraid you are mistaken. The tram(-train) was city bound. The grooves in the road surface are there as evidence - never mind the photographs taken at the time. And therefore, the lorry was going towards Darnall (up).
What is the impact of this in terms of maintaining the current service pattern?
Is there still enough vehicles to do this?
Sam
Silly question, what is the distance from Tinsley/Meadowhall South to Rotherham Central & to Parkgate?
A man will appear in court charged with driving without due care and attention following a crash between a lorry and a tram-train in Sheffield. The 60-year-old, from Rotherham, is due to appear at Sheffield Magistrates’ Court on February 14 following the collision on October 25 – the day the service welcomed passengers for the first time.
The crash happened at the junction of Woodbourn Road and Staniforth Road in Darnall. South Yorkshire Police said the man will also be charged with contravening a red traffic light.
Will there be a new vehicle built to replace the 2 damaged halfs or are the damaged halfs being repaired?The Two tram trains that have been involved in Accidents 399204 & 399202 In October & November.... The 2 good ends have been married up to make one good working Tram train entered traffic sometime in the last few weeks.....
SC 43090
Why would they be? It'd just cause two fully working units to be taken out of service unnecessarily. The only chance they'd have of returning to their original formations would be if they managed to both have serious collisions on their respective ends - very unlikely. It's also a process that's been made twice before on Supertram (102/111 in 1995, 118/120 in 2015) and neither of those have been returned to original formations, for the reason above.I gather from elsewhere (I forget where) that the two-into-one damaged unit is going back to Stadler to be fully repaired to as-new. Whether the parts will be re-martialled back to their original formations upon its return, I don't know.
Where are the assumptions? They will NOT return to their original formations unless someone's really plotting against Supertram and wrecks two ends of the same two units again, at around the same time. Simply, there is no business case for pulling a serviceable unit off service just to change a carriage around.As I say - I don't know. I could make assumptions as you clearly have, but that isn't the same as knowing.