Don valley Railway

[RollingJ]

9 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

 

 

I am not digging myself in anywhere. You and ECCO think if you stick an engine on a tram that it becomes a bus. That is absurd.

I'm totally confused as to where you get that idea, but it is funny, just the same.

[Meltman]

I think you are wrong and evading the issue on several points there. You picked on Chesterfield, I did say possibly Chesterfield,  and existing services to Chesterfield use a completely different route to what is being discussed anyway, with a completely different catchment area. I  don't see the importance of your classification of the people who live in Waverly as being relevant, the fact that they have 2 cars means twice the amount of pollution if they need to travel every night to ballerina classes. The existing tram runs to near Beighton but reopening Beighton railway station would benefit more people from areas such as Fence, Swallownest and Aston (particularly if there was a park-and-ride . 

There are lots of places that a tram could physically operate all over Sheffield but I suspect you are too young to know about that.

[Bargepole23]

23 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

Chesterfield currently has 5-6 six train services per hour, for six days a week and then 3-4 services per hour on Sundays, linking it to Sheffield, Leeds, Edinburgh and beyond. I cannot see a market for a tram to Chesterfield, especially with the new X17 bus route and the 43/44 providing services that drop people on the doorstep. Woodhouse again is well served. Waverley seems to be populated by working class people from Rotherham who managed to better themselves and all have cars. The 73 bus rarely picks up any trade on that estate. The tram already runs to Beighton. The only practical places a tram could physically operate would be to Stocksbridge, Hunter's Bar and possibly along Prince Of Wales Road.

 

I am not digging myself in anywhere. You and ECCO think if you stick an engine on a tram that it becomes a bus. That is absurd.

Yep, definitely the only three possible places a tram could operate in Sheffield.....or along Woodseats, or to Totley, or Fulwood or Firth Park.

[Irene Swaine]

4 minutes ago, Meltman said:

I think you are wrong and evading the issue on several points there. You picked on Chesterfield, I did say possibly Chesterfield,  and existing services to Chesterfield use a completely different route to what is being discussed anyway, with a completely different catchment area. I  don't see the importance of your classification of the people who live in Waverly as being relevant, the fact that they have 2 cars means twice the amount of pollution if they need to travel every night to ballerina classes. The existing tram runs to near Beighton but reopening Beighton railway station would benefit more people from areas such as Fence, Swallownest and Aston (particularly if there was a park-and-ride . 

There are lots of places that a tram could physically operate all over Sheffield but I suspect you are too young to know about that.

I am not young at all. I agree with you that there is scope for improving services in Swallowest and Aston. 

 

When the trams ran in the 50s and 60s, the roads were different places, with less traffic, different layouts and signalling. There are so many traffic islands, no right turn no left turn zones, that it makes it tricky. You could, I suppose run a tram Train to Woodhouse on the mainline and then have it branch off through the fields to Swallowest, I suppose, if the farmer would be willing to give up some of his land.

[Irene Swaine]

1 minute ago, Bargepole23 said:

Yep, definitely the only three possible places a tram could operate in Sheffield.....or along Woodseats, or to Totley, or Fulwood or Firth Park.

Glossop Road would prove tricky, at the busy junction of Manchester Road (where The York is). Woodseats Road bridge would probably not be strong enough to hold a tram and Queen's Road has too complicated a layout to have tram tracks on it. I do suppose Totley could be possible, if you run a tram down Eyre Street and somehow across Saint Mary's. That said, us in the South West are often treated as an after thought. Firth Park would not be reachable, with the one way traffic on Waingate, the junctions on Spital Hill and Hucklow Road only just fits buses down it, let alone trams.

[Meltman]

2 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

I am not young at all. I agree with you that there is scope for improving services in Swallowest and Aston. 

 

When the trams ran in the 50s and 60s, the roads were different places, with less traffic, different layouts and signalling. There are so many traffic islands, no right turn no left turn zones, that it makes it tricky. You could, I suppose run a tram Train to Woodhouse on the mainline and then have it branch off through the fields to Swallowest, I suppose, if the farmer would be willing to give up some of his land.

Some of the roads now are very similar to in the 50s and 60s, it's the volume of traffic and traffic restrictions which are different. As you say, no right turns, different layouts at junctions etc. but many of these came about due to the increased traffic volume and the planners trying to keep it moving. Many of the original routes would be doable if other traffic was restricted/removed....but as we all know  that won't happen. 

A train to Woodhouse doesn't have to go through some fields to get to Swallownest  it stays on the existing track. Swallownest nearly had a railway station, it was planned but never got built but it appeared in a rail time table for a few months believe it or not, probably in your lifetime if you are not young. 

[ECCOnoob]

17 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

I am not young at all. I agree with you that there is scope for improving services in Swallowest and Aston. 

 

When the trams ran in the 50s and 60s, the roads were different places, with less traffic, different layouts and signalling. There are so many traffic islands, no right turn no left turn zones, that it makes it tricky. You could, I suppose run a tram Train to Woodhouse on the mainline and then have it branch off through the fields to Swallowest, I suppose, if the farmer would be willing to give up some of his land.

You claim to be in your 20s love.  For the majority of people that's still young.

 

Oh dear. Forgotten what character you're playing tonight?

[Irene Swaine]

1 minute ago, Meltman said:

Some of the roads now are very similar to in the 50s and 60s, it's the volume of traffic and traffic restrictions which are different. As you say, no right turns, different layouts at junctions etc. but many of these came about due to the increased traffic volume and the planners trying to keep it moving. Many of the original routes would be doable if other traffic was restricted/removed....but as we all know  that won't happen. 

A train to Woodhouse doesn't have to go through some fields to get to Swallownest  it stays on the existing track. Swallownest nearly had a railway station, it was planned but never got built but it appeared in a rail time table for a few months believe it or not, probably in your lifetime if you are not young. 

Yes, that is what I meant, a tram Train could move on to the mainline where the tram depot is at Nunnery Square and then run to Woodhouse on the mainline. I cannot see Northern/National Rail/ORR going for a station at Swallowest, after they cut Mexborough and Conisbrough down to one train per hour, small stations don't seem to be on their agenda. That Oliver Coppard is going to effectively be in charge of the tram network after spring next year, if I understand correctly, as the trams are going back under SYMCA operation. They helped get funding for the Parkgate extension, so I don't see why they couldn't for Swallowest/Aston. 

1 minute ago, ECCOnoob said:

You claim to be in your 20s love.  For the majority of people that's still young.

 

Oh dear. Forgotten what character you're playing tonight?

I am 28 years of age. I remember smoking in pubs, Sunwin House, when people used phone boxes to call someone whilst out and I have seen how the city has changed over nearly 3 decades. 

[Meltman]

Just to make it clear  ....no farmers land would be needed to get a  train to Swallowest  they go near enough already. I don't expect that a station would be considered now but it was and train times, stopping times etc were all planned. 

Why don't you be more precise with your location rather then just 'South West ' as that encompasses quite a large area.

[hackey lad]

2 minutes ago, Meltman said:

Just to make it clear  ....no farmers land would be needed to get a  train to Swallowest  they go near enough already. I don't expect that a station would be considered now but it was and train times, stopping times etc were all planned. 

Why don't you be more precise with your location rather then just 'South West ' as that encompasses quite a large area.

Are the sidings still at Beighton ?  From there its about a 10 minute walk to Swallownest .