Search results

The risk of losing one's livelihood, mortgage etc., is a more pressing matter for most tram drivers, I imagine. The deterrent from reporting fatigue is the risk of being pushed down the disciplinary route by managers who are often seen as invincible, and ultimately losing that. That's even...

If I'm not mistaken, there was evidence of braking before reaching the curve, just too late - so we're not talking about a sudden, deep sleep, we're talking about a "microsleep" and subsequent loss of situational awareness, not regained until the last second. It's a risk that's quite widely...

Carrying on straight ahead would put a "runaway" tram with anything coming around the curve in the outbound direction, and almost immediately onto the double track formation curving away and continuing along the same alignment.

It was dark, and raining heavily, and the hazard was almost immediately beyond the exit from a relatively well-lit tunnel, marked only by a small sign and with rails presumably visible beyond the junction carrying on straight ahead on the same alignment. I wouldn't call that ample warning of the...

On Nottingham's network, Lincoln Street LC has the trams passing outside the barriers, which obviously needs greater separation between the two. Incidentally, the operation of the level crossing is still interlinked with the tram system (and the crossroads immediately adjacent on the other side)...

You can (on the railway) let one in without the staff/token to assist a failure (or evacuate passengers or remove a portion of a divided train etc.), but that's all. A lost/damaged token or failed instruments would require Pilotman working to be implemented, and a wrong-ended staff would need to...

That's definitely an interesting contrast with the railway equivalent - a 'wrong ended' staff (under staff and ticket) or Pilotman would have to be moved to the other end of the section, regardless of the extent of the delay so caused. Perhaps verbal authority is considered acceptable on the...

A stop board would suffice, surely?

Rather than going to the trouble of having a staff made up and finding two handsignalmen (or the tramway equivalent!), is there any reason they couldn't give one of them a red armband, call him a pilotman and introduce the equivalent of Single Line Working?

Indeed - I'll generally go to great lengths to accommodate those lumbered with such a large or heavy vehicle, so it's frustrating when I then end up sitting behind another two (the minority, I suspect) who clearly have little regard for the desire of others to make reasonable progress! Still...

Easy really - either the overtaking vehicle eases off a bit to pull back in behind the first vehicle, or the first vehicle eases off a bit to let the other one get past more quickly. I accept that neither vehicle wants to lose momentum, and that a slight difference in speed can make quite a...

Personally, I'd much rather briefly sit behind an empty wagon swiftly overtaking a loaded (and slow) one on the hill than be stuck behind the same combination on the flat when there's not much difference between them. Unfortunately I'd suggest that it's the behaviour of a tiny minority of...

Exactly! If overtaking were to be banned because a minority choose to take unacceptable risks overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic (frustrated, perhaps, by the lack of suitable opportunity to get past a slow driver), then surely we should ban, for example, right turns from a minor road, on...

I doubt those who drive dangerously now would really take much notice of a ban on overtaking. They can be prosecuted for various offences if caught driving dangerously, so I don't think there's a need to specifically ban one particular action that's not generally dangerous.

Rubbish. Overtaking in the correct circumstances, with sufficient forward visibility and an awareness of potential hazards, is no more dangerous than other actions that motorists routinely carry out. The opportunities to do so much less than in times gone by, I'm sure, but as an example I...

That's the thing though - the bus service is running in direct competition with the train service. This might also partly explain the unreliable connections with the 350 at Barton, as it's in Stagecoach/RoadCar's own interests to push passengers away from the train and onto their own parallel...

I don't really see the point in providing this extra capacity anyway. Doesn't past experience show that providing extra capacity generally leads to an increase in demand/traffic until the road's once again 'full'? Since nothing appears to have been done to increase capacity on routes leading...

It's a bit more complicated when it comes to trains waiting for buses! The train will end up out-of-path if it's held more than a couple of minutes for a delayed bus, which will first have an effect at Ulceby, and then (more importantly!) at Habrough Jn., where the Barton unit could well be held...

Who knows...they might actually start waiting for connecting trains at Barton one day...!

So you're saying we should allow these vehicles to speed towards a set of points that may or may not be correctly detected by the time it gets there? And what if the points don't detect? Whether there's a physical signal or not - you can't 'assume' that the points will change, or you're going to...