City's on wrong track with tram
NOW that the Government has given support to the extension of the Nottingham tram system and the pro-tram fanatics will be going all out to construct Lines 2 and 3 in spite of the fact that Line 1 is losing money, it is a good time to repeat a very simple question for the fourth time.
My three previous enquiries went unanswered, so I direct my question to the leader of Nottingham City Council, Councillor Jon Collins.
-
'Light rail': Nottingham's tram system will be extended
It is: If the tram is so wonderful, why did Nottingham get rid of it with over 70 years ago, also, why do you think that it is a good idea to reintroduce something that outlived its usefulness in 1936?
The Nottingham electric tram service opened in January 1901, it was successful, it had the road to itself, in those days travel within the city meant walking, cycling or horse, there were few cars.
The amount of road traffic grew year by year, until by the early 30s the tram had become a menace to all other forms of road transport and had to go.
The tram is a form of light rail. It has many disadvantages. It is noisy and causes a lot of vibration to property along the route.
Gas, water, electricity and telephone cables, drains and sewers etc under its tracks cannot be accessed for repair or maintenance without difficulty. They have poor brakes; the modern version cannot bypass a vehicle parked at the kerb edge as shown twice recently when Line 1 was closed by fire engines attending a fire.
In the case of a breakdown the old tram had to be towed to the depot. There were numerous accidents caused by poor braking and cyclists getting wheels jammed in the tracks. I remember one fatal accident caused by this.
In heavy snow, the rails became choked, causing derailments. It needed a maintenance crew to keep the track in order.
In Nottingham the tram was replaced by the Trackless, later known as the Trolley Bus. This is a normal road vehicle running on rubber tyres, superior to the tram it replaced.
It was designed so as not to suffer from any of the faults outlined above, it was almost silent, vibration less, faster, more comfortable, more manoeuvrable, with brakes which conformed with the Road Traffic Acts.
It could bypass stationary vehicles and it did not require the expensive track layout.
Nottingham needs a co-ordinated public transport system, our city roads and streets are becoming gridlocked, the volume of traffic today is higher than in the 30s, constructing Lines 2 and 3 will not solve that problem, it will only make it worse, if the time and effort put into this project was put into the Trolley Bus it would make far more sense.
Come on Councillor Collins, admit you are human, everyone is allowed one mistake as long as they learn by it, put your effort into the Trolley Bus.
The Line 1 was a mistake and I believe will never pay for itself, so why compound the issue?
D ARAM
Elms Park
Ruddington
28 Comments
View all
by Gordon, Compton Acres
Saturday, November 27 2010, 11:02AM
“I see that universities and schools are making MASSIVE losses. Let's close them all down.
Along with the Police Force.
And the hospitals.
And the Army.
And the Navy.
And the Air force.
None of them make a profit.
Can't possibly allow loss making public services to exist, now can we?
Just thimk how better off we'll all be when we've got rid of every "loss making" public service.
Lower taxes.
More money to spend.
Let's just hope we never need the police, armed forces, hospitals, public transport, universities, schools.”
by m, gedling
Saturday, November 27 2010, 2:04AM
“mr sensible wrote
"A lot of the major cities throughout this country have light rail systems, and if Nottingham wants to see itself as a major city it should do the same. "
hmm that was the same answer that some backwater councilor stated,so you think we should have trams just because other councils have them ?
"Second, the point about trams not being able to get round fire engines ETC is beginning to get more than a bit repetitive. If we followed that to its logical conclusion we would not have railways. "
do we get a lot of fire engines clogging up the railways ? do we get a lot of burning buildings on the railtracks for that matter ?
"And if the tram is making losses, might that be something to do with the fact that at the moment it is only 1 line? "
yep , obviously 2 more lines would create twice as many losses (but we can consolidate line one losses into the gov paid line two and three and hey presto ,we have a thriving new business with no bad history and more importantly no bad credit)
"they can be prone to getting stuck in traffic - a situation which is about to get worse if County Hall get rid of the bus plug. "
i cant go on i am losing the will to live,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,”
by m, gedling
Saturday, November 27 2010, 1:45AM
“Not so poor, nottingham
hey its not my fault, i guess the council deems "not car owning" people as ....
"persons who need to rely on public transport"
so thats why they chose to run it through hucknall/bulwell/hyson green instead of say west bridgford ? (after all at the time they had county council as allies),
demographics as they say.”
by Mr. Sensible, The Real World
Friday, November 26 2010, 9:24PM
“D Aram thank you for the history lesson.
However, there are several issues with what you say here.
First and foremost, if the trolley bus is as you claim almost silent, that in itself presents a safety issue, particularly for disabled people.
Second, the point about trams not being able to get round fire engines ETC is beginning to get more than a bit repetitive. If we followed that to its logical conclusion we would not have railways.
And if the tram is making losses, might that be something to do with the fact that at the moment it is only 1 line?
I'm afraid all the points about benefits ETC were gone over at public inquiry.
If as you claim traffic has significantly increased, that is all the more reason to invest in our public transport network and, whilst buses have their place, they can be prone to getting stuck in traffic - a situation which is about to get worse if County Hall get rid of the bus plug.
A lot of the major cities throughout this country have light rail systems, and if Nottingham wants to see itself as a major city it should do the same.
And Simon i'm afraid it is just wrong to use the tram as a scapegoat for these cuts to frontline services. Indeed, this is the kind of project that can help the local economy.
And Wurrows how do these computer-operated systems you talk about work? I would rather it was controled by a human being who is there and can react directly to what is going on.”
by Dave, Kimberely
Friday, November 26 2010, 5:20PM
“The 'underground trams' in Lille, are driverless, cheap, reliable. Never get the need to divert to buses. Furthermore, they are powered by local rubbish, burned in furnaces, which provide the electricity specifically for the 'metro'.
'wurrows' is correct.
Shame the City Council didn't spend a cheap day return to Lille instead of blowing money on expensive yacht cruises in the Mediteranean.”
by wurrows, Nottingham
Friday, November 26 2010, 5:11PM
“doug, munich
Buses are trams without tracks.”
by graham healey, sherwood
Friday, November 26 2010, 3:59PM
“I have been a commuter into Nottingham for the last three years and I use train, tram and bus every day. All three have had their problems. If as people say the trams make a loss, then I just offer one observation: sometimes even when the tram is not very busy, there can be up to three ticket collectors who spend most of the time talking to each other.”
by Not so poor, nottingham
Friday, November 26 2010, 3:31PM
“M GEDLING less affluent .Is that all the people who use the trams on the two routes from say Huchnall ,Bulwell on one route and say Kimberly,Nuthall Watnall on the other?. Methinks a poor choice of words.”
by doug, munich
Friday, November 26 2010, 1:00PM
“Simon, the money for the tram comes from central government and wpl. It does not affect the jobs of local council workers.”
by Simon, Mapperley
Friday, November 26 2010, 12:38PM
“In these hard times with councils having to make cuts and lose staff I think the millions being poured into lines two and three could be better spent.
Personally i'm not affected by these further tram lines and i'v never been on the tram but I don't think telling some ex council employee sitting at home on benefits or some old dear who's seeing an unafordable rise in home care services that never mind at least two shiny new tram lines are being built will offer much comfort.”