I'm not sure that was the main issue with the proposal!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Aspirations for TPE at Rotherham from 2014?
- Thread starter johnnychips
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure that was the main issue with the proposal!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
tbtc
Veteran Member
No.
The tram-train would run on the current Supertram infrastructure along the lower don valley from Ponds Forge to Meadowhall South, where the parallel NR freight branch splits off under the M1 to Rotherham Central.
Trams from Sheffield would either run from the city centre to Meadowhall via Meadowhall South or from the city centre to Rotherham via Meadowhall South.
And Meadowhall South is a fair way from the Network Rail station of Meadowhall.
AFAIK there are no plans to build a chord allowing trams to go from Meadowhall to Rotherham.
I took a picture of Meadowhall South a few weeks ago - I'll try to upload it when I'm home tonight to explain better.
Philip Elliott
Member
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2009
- Messages
- 807
A history lesson required I think...
Rotherham Central is on the South Yorkshire Railway (SYR) line from Victoria to Doncaster via Woodburn Jn, Attercliffe Jn, Tinsley West, Rotherham, New Swinton, Mexborough etc. At Aldwarke, a short section of the route is missing hence the trains having to run on the North Midland Railway line - http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?...archp=ids.srf&dn=595&ax=445420&ay=396005&lm=0 The Holmes Chord was built in the 1980s using the junction for the original line into Rotherham Westgate station (a further section of the route survives into Booth's scrap yard).
OK I'm getting phase 2 of the original plan (where tram-trains would have left the Penistone line) mixed up with the current plan.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Does anyone have to hand, the final amount of the refurbishment works at Rotherham Central that were concluded earlier this year ?
eastdyke
Established Member
I looked for that too. Project £8.5m, 18 months late but no out-turn found.
Perhaps there is still some debate about who pays for the over-run and other issues?
eastwestdivide
Established Member
"concluded" in the sense of "still working on the car park and canal frontage" !
While it would be handy for local people to have TPE stopping at Rotherham, there's already 3 trains an hour, and outside of peak hours and Saturday shopping, the station isn't wildly busy in my experience.
Could be a bit of a catch-22 though, as better services to Doncaster/Manchester might bring more people on board, and although it's 3 trains an hour in the Sheffield direction, they aren't at 20-minute intervals.
silvermachine
Member
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 42
Another option would be to create more paths by running direct from Rotherham to Sheffield by the freight line and Nunnery Curve.
Of course this would mean missing Meadowhall which has developed into a parkway station for Sheffield and Rotherham and would be unattrcative to TPE.
Of course this would mean missing Meadowhall which has developed into a parkway station for Sheffield and Rotherham and would be unattrcative to TPE.
sheff'd victoria
Member
Common sence and SYPTE have never gone hand in hand
As most people have said the single line which is the Holmes Cord is a bottleneck at the best of times
With the start of the new tram-train services ( which most people dont want ) Rotherham Central will have to have new platforms again just a few years after a rebuild of the station
eastwestdivide
Established Member
In fact, apart from a few hundred yards at Aldwarke, there's an alternative route all the way from Mexborough to Sheffield Nunnery.
On the down side, as well as missing the interchange at Meadowhall, it's somewhat slower than the main line, and also single track in a number of places.
You'd also displace the "crossover" conflicts closer to Sheffield, to Nunnery ML Junction, which is even busier than Holmes due to services from the Barnsley and Retford directions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do we know for certain that most people don't want it? Any surveys etc?
tbtc
Veteran Member
With the start of the new tram-train services ( which most people dont want ) Rotherham Central will have to have new platforms again just a few years after a rebuild of the station
I'd dispute the "most people don't want", but then I'd also dispute the claim that the rebuild of Rotherham Central has finished!
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Whilst noting the comments regarding the car park and the canal frontage, what parts of the station building infrastructure itself are still in need of further works?
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,857
I believe the rest of the project has been completed (about 18 months overdue I think!), only work on the frontage and car park remains.
Waverley125
Member
A better solution would be a simple split of local services into Central and long-distance services into Masborough?
So XC services to Newcastle/Scotland, TPE services to Cleethorpes, EMT services to Leeds, Northern services to Hull through Masborough. Stoppers to Doncaster & Leeds through Central.
There's also definitely space for an MSCP on the site adjacent to the Sheffield avoiding line & Millmoor.
So XC services to Newcastle/Scotland, TPE services to Cleethorpes, EMT services to Leeds, Northern services to Hull through Masborough. Stoppers to Doncaster & Leeds through Central.
There's also definitely space for an MSCP on the site adjacent to the Sheffield avoiding line & Millmoor.
johnnychips
Established Member
That's what happens now if you mean not stopping. If you mean the other services should stop at Masborough, I don't see any point at all in spending a fortune on reopening a station whose concept would be a 'Parkway' and slowing down and stopping trains to serve it, when Meadowhall is so close, and a much more desirable destination than Rotherham (sorry!) in its own right.
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,686
I think he means services stopping at Rotheram Central take the tinsley avoiding line.
sheff'd victoria
Member
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511239
"If whoever lives in Rotherham wants to go to any of the places served by the current rail and tram network, why not just carry on doing that?
What another disappointing pile of crap token tuppence of a project!"
tbtc
Veteran Member
I wouldn't trust Sheffield Forum to tell me what today's weather was in the city, yet alone to be used as a Fair And Balanced example of the city's opinions on things (and definitely not representative of what people in Rotherham think).
So you think there's no need for a Tram-Train link to be built (because there are already train services in the area - despite this being a busy corridor and Rotherham having a pretty poor rail service), yet you favour a new chord at Gainsborough?
sheff'd victoria
Member
millions of pounds for a service that travels from Meadowhall to Rotherham with no stops in between, the tram should have been " street " running along the A6178 Sheffield Road this would have connected the urban area of Tinsley and Canklow , the tram would then terminate in Rotherham town center near the bus interchange.
Trains run to/from Rotherham to Meadowhall / Sheffield Midland around every 20 minutes, their then is of course is the well used X78 bus service that runs from Sheffield - Meadow"Hell"- Rotherham- Doncaster.
Yet again South Yorkshire PTE have lost the plot again with been involved with anything to do with the tram, people in Sheffield still can not forgive them for the massive cock up they did with running the tram system when it first started in 1993/4
tbtc
Veteran Member
Where the Supertram works, it works best by being segregated from traffic.
Running the tram along the A6178 would have made it much more expensive, much slower, wouldn't really serve the residential areas (just Magna and the industrial units), you'd have had to negotiate the roundabout at Junction 34...
...the "BRT" scheme was intended to provide the kind of "local" link that you are talking about - the tram-train was intended to provide a fast simple journey between the two connurbations.
Plus, as well as serving Rotherham Central (by the bus station), it will serve Parkgate too (which in many ways is the new Rotherham Town Centre).
Given the erratic nature of the X78s and the gaps in train services (two in ten minutes then nothing for half an hour), the tram should win a good share of the market between Sheffield and Rotherham, despite what the experts on SheffieldForum think.
sheff'd victoria
Member
It would not go round the roundabout at J34 , it would connect to the A6178 by a viaduct from the single line at the side of Meadowhall / Tinsley Viaduct, this would bring it out bang opposite the large Tinsley estate, what is the point of running to Parkgate , their is a " Free " bus that runs every 12 minutes from Rotherham Interchange to Parkgate Monday - Saturday.
I am not anti-tram far from it, I just think for the money the system and route could have been planned a little bit better, at the end of the day it is only going to be around for a few years before the penny will drop and they rip up the system
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Where does your view concerning the cost of "ripping up the system" have its basis from and if carried out, what fiscal amount do you think will be involved in carrying out this procedeure and reinstating matters back to their former self ?
This isn't a tram extension. This is a trial of tram-train technology. There's not much point in doing a trial of tram-trains if you then don't run the vehicles on any mainline railway.
It's somewhere convienient to terminate the service without blocking the route to other services, or building an additional platform at Rotherham Central.
sheff'd victoria
Member
It wont be long in the future that the line from Sheffield Midland / Rotherham Central / Masborough - Doncaster line is electrified at 25kv AC , the section of line from Rothertham Central to Woodburn Junction is a diversionary route so will have to be electrified at 25v AC.
At the end of the day the tram-train is just a trial.
Their was plans for the Tram to run to Dore Station using both street and train rails running but this was knocked on the head by the Labour government at the time
Last edited:
No, the plan was to lay additional tram-only tracks besides the mainline down to Dore station, with sections of single line / interleaved tracks where there wasn't sufficient space to fit in both new tracks. There has never been plans to run the Supertram (or any other modern tram for that matter) vehicles on the mainline.
sheff'd victoria
Member
I stand corrected then
However their was an outcry when this line was not given the green light to be constructed
eastwestdivide
Established Member
Yes, the station buildings and platforms appear to be finished. As for the remainder of the project, I was there an hour ago, and in fact the car park/taxi rank has now reopened (sometime in the last couple of weeks), while the canal frontage is part-way through planting up with shrubbery, seating area open, and just some builders' fencing right down at canal level.
Nearly there!
WestRiding
Member
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 1,014
At £58m it will be made to work and will be around forever. Regarding the voltage, the trams on order are duel voltage and will work under 25v AC if they are needed to.
Do we have any more information on this?
So these trams will work on diesel, take power from the supertram 750v dc overhead, and also take power from 25kv AC? Who is building them?
eastwestdivide
Established Member
As far as I can see, no plans (and no need) for diesel trams, and I can't find any source saying they'd be dual voltage either.
The extension is to be wired at 750V DC, according to http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...rham-tram-tram-project-funding-confirmed.html
which also has Vossloh as the "lead bidder".
- Status