Your Sheffield Transport Solutions

[Irish Blood English Heart]

Reading that document it is hilarious that when Metrolink and Supertram were both built the feeling was that Supertram would carry nearly twice as many people despite the fact it was:

a) running entirely new routes with no history of rail transport (unlike metrolink taking over established routes).

b) in a much smaller city

c) OK had 3 lines from the city rather than 2 but one of these is to a big mall with few people living there. And of the other two one runs to one place with a population (Hillsborough) while the other meanders through lots of sprawling suburbs.

Manchester's metrolink linked big towns and huge suburban districts as well as two big stations, and all in a much larger city, over an established railway route.

It's hilarious that the forecasts were so wrong, I don't think Supertram has been a failure for a second it is a great system, but whoever forecast 22m users was living in cloud cuckoo land.

[LNGCats]

It would never have been funded with predictions of 15m passengers. Also, given initially the ridership was lower still and these numbers are achieved with very low fares it is very easy to see why the DfT and treasury were both burnt by Supertram (just as the private sector was burnt bt Metrolink Phase 2).

[Steel City Suburb]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

It would never have been funded with predictions of 15m passengers. Also, given initially the ridership was lower still and these numbers are achieved with very low fares it is very easy to see why the DfT and treasury were both burnt by Supertram (just as the private sector was burnt bt Metrolink Phase 2).

Not low fares any longer.

Supertram needs to be extended to make it worth while, its a success but only in certain scenarios.

Extension down Prince of Wales > a stop at the lower Don Valley via Darnall is a heavily congested commuter route. Would work very well.

Other major commuting flows?

[LNGCats]

Not low cost?

I paid £6 this morning on Metrolink. What is the most expensive you'll pay on Supertram? £3:70?

[Steel City Suburb]

£6!?

£3.70 is more expensive than the train to Meadowhall (priced at £2.30 return)

[LNGCats]

Yes £6 for a peak day saver as I need to do a lot of journeys after work.

A single from Alty to town is £3:80 a peak return is £5:60.

As I said, Supertram is cheap as chips and you can see why the finacial issues have arisen.

[LNGCats]

In fact go to www.metrolink.co.uk and the `Ticket selector` to see some eye watering season ticket prices.

Historically price rises have been used to stem overcrowding. The same policy could be used in Sheffield if it really as bad as you make out.

[Steel City Suburb]

At peak times it is, every tram is packed.

Unlike the metro link the Supertram needs low prices to compete with bus services. As most busses terminate in Sheffield, whereas metrolink connects many towns with their own centres.

[Steely_Blade]

Considering the government have to make the country a greener place it's surprising they aren't looking to push greener transport.

The tram is just electricity so it all depends on how the power is generated, I'm genuinely surprised that the routes have never been extended.
I suppose it's the cost of putting extra track down.

Ideally the tram would go up Ecclesall Road, up to Meadowhead and toward Dronfield and Chesterfield and out to Rotherham etc.

But it's not going to happen.

I think the future will be greener buses.
I suppose like when the tram was ditched the first time the buses can go to more places and if they are just as green as the tram then what's the need for more?

I'd argue that the Tram is far more reliable, that it's different experience, and far better in the weather's.

[arepeejee]

I've always been surprised Stagecoach don't employ trolley buses (like the MUNI in San Fran) to provide additional capacity. They'd also work when something breaks down on City Road and the tram can't move around it.

Is the power system and overhead cabling the same for tram as well as trolley bus?

[Steel City Suburb]

Pacer safety now continuing. Get rid!

Fresh safety fears over ageing trains

SAFETY concerns about old trains running on local services around South Yorkshire have now been raised by the rail regulator - nearly six months after the issue was revealed by The Star.

Northern Rail’s Pacer trains, which date back to 1985 and were built in the style of buses, were branded unsafe 10 years ago by the Railway Inspectorate because of their poor crash-resistance - but there are no plans to replace them.

They are used on Sheffield to Leeds, Doncaster to Worksop and Penistone and Hope Valley lines.

Safety concerns arose in 1999 when a Pacer set collided with an inter-city train in Winsford, Cheshire.

The smash demolished one of the Pacer’s two carriages although the express had braked to 50mph on impact.

Northern says its fleet underwent work to strengthen the trains after the Winsford crash and they are safe.

But the rail regulator has now said: “There is particular concern over the ongoing use of Pacers beyond their intended design life.”

It says there have been some ‘notable incidents’ including failure of drive shafts that transmit power from the engine to the wheels. The trains were only intended to last around 20 years.

Concern over use of the trains was voiced by Sheffield MPs including Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

All Northern’s trains used in South Yorkshire date from at least 1989.

The firm pays millions of pounds each year to bank-owned leasing companies, which are supposed to invest in new trains - but none have materialised.

Today’s Railways magazine editor Paul Abell said: “If they are on a very good track they are OK, but a lot of them are used on secondary lines where the track isn’t so good and at times they are particularly noisy, uncomfortable and draughty. They are the railway equivalent of an old banger.”

A spokeswoman for Northern Rail, which operates a fleet of 95 Pacer trains, said: “Pacer trains have a good safety record and they, along with all the other types of train Northern operates, are subject to strict regular safety and maintenance checks.

“With the renewal processes we have also undertaken, the mechanics of all these trains are no more than five years old. We have a safety certificate which embraces all operation and maintenance of our fleet of trains.”

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/...ains_1_3902608

[Irish Blood English Heart]

Was thinking about this yesterday and even at £220m over 15 years works out as a subsidy of £1 a passanger which I bet compares pretty well with social bus services or most train routes in the North. This isn't including any economic benefits the system brings in terms of social mobility, employment, regeneration, congestion cutting etc.

Light Rail systems might never make a profit when you factor in construction costs but surely there is an argument that they are a device that is useful for society and well worth such a small initial outlay in the great scheme of things.

An investment of £1bn a year (tiny in the scheme of things when you compare it to the waste of the NH/MOD computer systems, trident etc) would give the top 20 cities in the UK full tram systems within a decade; crazy.

[Irish Blood English Heart]

Originally Posted by arepeejee

I've always been surprised Stagecoach don't employ trolley buses (like the MUNI in San Fran) to provide additional capacity. They'd also work when something breaks down on City Road and the tram can't move around it.

Is the power system and overhead cabling the same for tram as well as trolley bus?

I have seen an article about this very thing showing buses running through town using the power from the tram wires.

Saying that the new green buses in the 120 route are excellent.

At least Stagecoach seem to be investing in Sheffield unlike First.

[LNGCats]

Originally Posted by Steel City Suburb

At peak times it is, every tram is packed.

Unlike the metro link the Supertram needs low prices to compete with bus services. As most busses terminate in Sheffield, whereas metrolink connects many towns with their own centres.

The difference is one had a specfic policy to raise prices to reduce overcrowding as new trams were not happening.

Metrolink has much more competition from operators, about 50 of them. Do not forget that Stagecoach are not going ti comoete with themselves in Sheffield.

When you have multiple stops with people not able to board them trams for prolonged periods of the day you can say overcrowding is a serious issue. As it stands everyone gets the first tram that comes along which is far better than many light and heavy rail systems across the UK.


Btw, the vast vast majority of people commute into town, hence why people are left a few stops each morning whilst several trams go passed.

[LNGCats]

Originally Posted by Irish Blood English Heart

I have seen an article about this very thing showing buses running through town using the power from the tram wires.

Saying that the new green buses in the 120 route are excellent.

At least Stagecoach seem to be investing in Sheffield unlike First.

The infrastructure is not compatible.
Trolley buses require two power lines due to having rubber tyres.

[LNGCats]

Originally Posted by Irish Blood English Heart

Was thinking about this yesterday and even at £220m over 15 years works out as a subsidy of £1 a passanger which I bet compares pretty well with social bus services or most train routes in the North. This isn't including any economic benefits the system brings in terms of social mobility, employment, regeneration, congestion cutting etc.

Light Rail systems might never make a profit when you factor in construction costs but surely there is an argument that they are a device that is useful for society and well worth such a small initial outlay in the great scheme of things.

An investment of £1bn a year (tiny in the scheme of things when you compare it to the waste of the NH/MOD computer systems, trident etc) would give the top 20 cities in the UK full tram systems within a decade; crazy.

Maybe, but asking for £235m, saying you will pay it all back and it will benefit 22m people, then only paying back a tiny fraction and carrying far fewer passengers is no way to make friends and influence people.

[WillPS]

I regularly catch the tram from Park Grange at 0840 (I should really walk but I'm terrible for snoozing and catching the tram) and have never failed to get on. I normally aim for the Purple Route one though as it's quieter.

I sort of think the best thing to do with the tram would be to hold on until the whole fleet is ready for renewal. They're almost half way through their service life at present - getting involved in microfleets (as Croydon Tramlink are about to) will massively increase costs.

[LNGCats]

Indeed, they are designed to carry 250 people under crush loads and would be expected to in the rush hour.

Chances are, since people are not being left behind, they are carrying fewer than their designed capacity.

This is almost certainly how it was designed to be!

[arepeejee]

More like Will's just been lucky, just wait til it rains and people cant be arsed with the buses.

The other day I was heading to Meadowhall after work and 4 trams came past on 'unload only'.

[Steel City Suburb]

Got a little idea..

How about reducing the blue line to Halfway - Cathedral? Put the tram it frees up on the much busier yellow route. This involves getting rid of Malin Bridge as a stop, extending the supertram link to Hillsborough Barracks.