Talk:Nottingham Express Transit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Still happening?
Given what happened to Merseytram, is phase 2 really still going ahead? Morwen - Talk 00:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Very likely, it appears. But we'll have to wait and see until it's finished! :) Sladen 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Speed?
Only 50mph? I'll have to borrow a satnav and hop on board again at some point but I'd swear they go much quicker than that, particularly when on the more regular railway-line type track. I have no evidence for this than my own experience but it feels compelling; I ride most days on a commuter train that manages 60-70mph peak, and the tram felt at least as much of a rapid thrill ride at peak speed (possibly due to the low floor?); also, the speed restriction signs visible beside the track in many places (particularly on roadways and pedestrianised areas, but also besides plain track) go as high as "80" - though of course, this may be in kilometres per hour, but that seems unusual for a UK rail service... and is also at odds with some of the posted limits (I doubt the local drivers would be too happy with a street tram regularly limited to speeds around "25", i.e. 15mph on public highways where the private vehicle restriction is twice that)
They do make a most awesome whining noise, also, that became almost ultrasonic at full pelt!
-Mark P
- I've only had the pleasure of riding on them on one occasion, so bear that in mind. However, I'm sure that the limits are in km - which is not unusual for modern systems (even the 1980s Tyne and Wear Metro is all metric).
- Lower floors do give a greater feeling of speed than when you are further off the ground - if you look out the window of a plane as it comes into land you will notice how until you are very near the ground you appear to be going much slower than any road traffic you can see, then all of a sudden you realise that you are going at a couple of hundred mph! Also, compare the speed that you feel in a go-kart compared to a road car. I don't know why this is (possibly paralax?) - but now you've got me thinking about it I'll ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk!
- Regarding the differing speed limits, I've never driven in Nottingham but I'd be suprised if traffic ever got up to anything like 30mph. You've also got to remember there is a big difference between a compartively small vehicle with rubber tyres on tarmac and a very long (33 metres) and heavy (37.3 metric tonnes when empty) vehicle running on steel wheels on steel rails.
- Road speed limits and rail speed limits are also very different - road limits should be (and, before speed camera madness, generally were) the 85th percentile speed (the speed 85% of drivers do not exceed) rounded to the nearest multiple of 10mph. Thus the road speed limit plus approximately 5-10% should be the maximum safe speed in good conditions in the area covered by the speed limit. Built up areas are generally just given a blanket speed limit of 30mph - but given constraints of visibilty, traffic, other road users, road design, corners, junctions, pedestrians, obstructions, parked cars, weather, etc, etc, the 85th percentile speed is normally very much lower.
- In contrast with a rail speed limit you know exactly what the design of the route is, what the space is like, what the gradients are, what the visibility is, what junctions are like, etc. The rail speed limit is also not a rough approximation of the safest maximum speed, it is a speed that will not be exceeded and if distance between stops allows it is the speed at which the trams will travel. On an 80km/h stretch of tram line the trams will travel at between about 75-80km/h. On an equivalent stretch of 50mph road, safe drivers in free-flowing traffic in good conditions will be travelling between about 40 and 60 mph depending on various things. Drivers who do not know the road will be driving much slower than someone who drives it every day - on the tram network all drivers have extensive route knowledge. Sorry for the very long reply, but basically you are comparing apples and oranges! Thryduulf 00:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signalling Comment
I've removed the following:
- and extensive works will be needed to ensure that the power supply for the trams does not interfere with the railway signaling system.[citation needed]
from the main article regarding the construction works around the central railway station. It doesn't appear to make sense, although if somebody can substantiate this I'm happy for them to add it back. The railway and tram lines will be on a completely different level, one above the other and not connected. Sladen 03:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Weasel words etc
There seems to be a lot of weasel words and opinion in this piece; any chance there could be some more references given to whether it truly exceeded expectations (what were they?) and how that compared to other tram systems? I'm removing the bit saying "Nottingham is an excellent showcase for integrated transport" because that's not only bias, but both uncited and overstated. (One single tram line does not 'integrated transport' make, generally.) Kylotan 08:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Interlaced track?
According to the Gauntlet track article, there is some interlaced track near Forest tramstop (one of only two places in the UK, the other being on London Tramlink at Mitcham). Is this true? 194.80.106.135 12:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this is true: there are 3 "platforms" at forest, which mainly hold a spare tram during Goose Fair, and to nesseciate this, there is a small amount of interlaced track with the mainline at each side, so that it could be accessed from both ends, and both mainlines. Bluegoblin7 17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template and categorisation
The use of Template:Transdev UK bus divisions appears to automatically place this article in Category:Current bus operators in England, which isn't really appropriate. Does anyone know if there is a way to disable this from happening? I didn't want to remove the template, which does have some relevance, so wondered if any more experienced editor than me knew of a workaround. Quackdave (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Problem solved! Bluegoblin7 had added a note regarding this on the template page, but failed to remove the category when they did it. I have taken it off now though. After doing this, I went through all the articles and checked they have the category anyway, which they all did. Slight mishap, but not the biggest category cock-up I have ever seen! -- Arriva436 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)