Sheffield Tramlines

Michuel

I rode into Sheffield from Socksbridge/Oughtibridge on 23mm tyres when it had just rained today. I found plenty of space betewwn kerb and tramline and rode there. But as this reduced crossed to riding between tramlines. As a bus came up behind me I decided to ride near the kerb and cross a tramline to do so. I had plenty of time and was riding atabout 8mph and judged I was OK but my bike slid from under me when touching the tramline and I hit the road..

Tramined roads must be more dangerous than normal roads. Yet I can't remember any protests from cyclists or organisations about Sheffield, Manchester or the proposed Uxbridge road tram.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

You are pulling the preverbial, right?

We should get everyone off the trams and into cars, it would make the place much safer.

Seriously though, and I don't mean to sound rude, but learn how to ride the roads you choose to ride on. Attack the tramlines at a less acute angle, or pop the front wheel over them, or you could fit some bigger tyres which would help a little.

Far better to help yourself than moan about every little thing you don't like in the world.

Michuel

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

You are pulling the preverbial, right?

We should get everyone off the trams and into cars, it would make the place much safer.

Seriously though, and I don't mean to sound rude, but learn how to ride the roads you choose to ride on. Attack the tramlines at a less acute angle, or pop the front wheel over them, or you could fit some bigger tyres which would help a little.

Far better to help yourself than moan about every little thing you don't like in the world.

I welcome replies with factual data. Yours is a mixture of bias, assumption and emotion.

formerlyknownasbonj

yes, DON'T go over them almost parallel!! (unless you've got at least 2.25" tyres!)
I once did this when i had a carrera subway on its original tyres and came off but not due to slippiness but the front tyre getting stuck in the rail!
If you need/really want to cross them, flick a little shimmy at slow speed - I find it works fine on my 23mm conti ultra sport tyres.
The other option, of course, which I would recommend, is sod the bus behind you - let him wait until it's safe for him to pull onto the other side of the road to overtake.
He'll probably only be pulling in at a stop anyway soon, as will a tram (which obviously can't overtake anyway, but hey). IIRC, most of middlewood road heading in towards hillsborough is downhill anyway isn't it? so you're probably going to be going almost as fast as bussy-boy anyway, probably faster considering its stops.
PLEASE remember - you're by no means obliged to ride a foot from the pavement (i.e. to the left of the left rail), and more importantly, it's not your responsibility to be overtaken, or to 'allow' vehicles behind you to overtake, it's their responsibility to overtake safely if they want to. If that means waiting, then that's tough on them. I personally find sheffield buses aren't ever really too aggressive. They sometimes get a bit close behind if i'm riding in the middle of the road, but never dangerously so, and they won't beep you to get out of the way if you do this. Try it. I've once been beeped by a car for doing this, but only once in about 3 years, and then it was a teenage barryboy in a little shitty hairdryer powered shopping trolley - which made me almost want to slow down to annoy him, but I didn't i just carried on pedalling on and ignored him, but I generally find sheffield motorists to be quite considerate when i'm cycling.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

Seriously though, and I don't mean to sound rude, but learn how to ride the roads you choose to ride on. Attack the tramlines at a less acute angle, or pop the front wheel over them, or you could fit some bigger tyres which would help a little.

Far better to help yourself than moan about every little thing you don't like in the world.

Matt, I think it's fairly easy to feel a bit aggrieved at something when you weren't aware it could be dangerous in such a way and have come a cropper due to it.

dondare

Tramlines do make roads dangerous for cyclists and this is not something to just accept.
I have never encountered any yet and so if I cycled to a place that had them (or they were introduced in London) it would not be possible for me to have learned how to deal with them. The road infrastructure should be safe fo all users at all times and hazards such as this should be tackled by their removal or redesign; not by expecting cyclists to know how to "pop" over them.

dondare

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

yes, DON'T go over them almost parallel!! (unless you've got at least 2.25" tyres!)
I once did this when i had a carrera subway on its original tyres and came off but not due to slippiness but the front tyre getting stuck in the rail!
If you need/really want to cross them, flick a little shimmy at slow speed - I find it works fine on my 23mm conti ultra sport tyres.
The other option, of course, which I would recommend, is sod the bus behind you - let him wait until it's safe for him to pull onto the other side of the road to overtake.
He'll probably only be pulling in at a stop anyway soon, as will a tram (which obviously can't overtake anyway, but hey). IIRC, most of middlewood road heading in towards hillsborough is downhill anyway isn't it? so you're probably going to be going almost as fast as bussy-boy anyway, probably faster considering its stops.
PLEASE remember - you're by no means obliged to ride a foot from the pavement (i.e. to the left of the left rail), and more importantly, it's not your responsibility to be overtaken, or to 'allow' vehicles behind you to overtake, it's their responsibility to overtake safely if they want to. If that means waiting, then that's tough on them. I personally find sheffield buses aren't ever really too aggressive. They sometimes get a bit close behind if i'm riding in the middle of the road, but never dangerously so, and they won't beep you to get out of the way if you do this. Try it. I've once been beeped by a car for doing this, but only once in about 3 years, and then it was a teenage barryboy in a little shitty hairdryer powered shopping trolley - which made me almost want to slow down to annoy him, but I didn't i just carried on pedalling on and ignored him, but I generally find sheffield motorists to be quite considerate when i'm cycling.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

Seriously though, and I don't mean to sound rude, but learn how to ride the roads you choose to ride on. Attack the tramlines at a less acute angle, or pop the front wheel over them, or you could fit some bigger tyres which would help a little.

Far better to help yourself than moan about every little thing you don't like in the world.

Matt, I think it's fairly easy to feel a bit aggrieved at something when you weren't aware it could be dangerous in such a way and have come a cropper due to it.

Funny you should say that.

formerlyknownasbonj

dondare wrote:

Funny you should say that.

and why would that be

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Michuel wrote:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

You are pulling the preverbial, right?

We should get everyone off the trams and into cars, it would make the place much safer.

Seriously though, and I don't mean to sound rude, but learn how to ride the roads you choose to ride on. Attack the tramlines at a less acute angle, or pop the front wheel over them, or you could fit some bigger tyres which would help a little.

Far better to help yourself than moan about every little thing you don't like in the world.

I welcome replies with factual data. Yours is a mixture of bias, assumption and emotion.

Are you still taking the piss?
What do want factual data on? You didn't ask any questions!

I offered three pieces of advice for your benefit, take them or leave them, it doesn't bother me, I'm not the one silly enough to fall off riding on wet metal (quelle surprise, eh?) and then tell everyone about it!


Honestly, what was the point of your post?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

dondare wrote:

Tramlines do make roads dangerous for cyclists and this is not something to just accept.
I have never encountered any yet and so if I cycled to a place that had them (or they were introduced in London) it would not be possible for me to have learned how to deal with them. The road infrastructure should be safe fo all users at all times and hazards such as this should be tackled by their removal or redesign; not by expecting cyclists to know how to "pop" over them.

Oh really?

highway code wrote:

278: Cyclists and motorcyclists should take extra care when riding close to or crossing the tracks, especially if the rails are wet. It is safest to cross the tracks directly at right angles.

Suggesting that you have never encountered wet metal and the fact that it can be very slippery is quite something.
Try getting off the soapbox and having a look inside; it might be where your common sense is hiding.

pigman

i've ridden the sheffield tramlined roads and the problem is that you have a nice area to the left that keeps you away from traffic. Then suddenly as you approach a tramstop, the kerb juts out, meaning you have to cross the kerbside rail. Middlewood road is a main road, meaning a right angled traverse is usually not feasible. the feasible choices are
1. stop, get off and manually reposition the bike
2. stay to the left of the lines and risk clipping your pedal at the tram stop, falling and looking a right berk
3. crossing whilst travelling forward (like michael did) and again looking a berk.

I've seen some well seasoned roadmen fall off. i personally adopt the "ride between the lines" approach and sod 'em
incidnetally, I think the worst road is White Lane, gleadless.

Michuel

pigman wrote:

i've ridden the sheffield tramlined roads and the problem is that you have a nice area to the left that keeps you away from traffic. Then suddenly as you approach a tramstop, the kerb juts out, meaning you have to cross the kerbside rail. Middlewood road is a main road, meaning a right angled traverse is usually not feasible. the feasible choices are
1. stop, get off and manually reposition the bike
2. stay to the left of the lines and risk clipping your pedal at the tram stop, falling and looking a right berk
3. crossing whilst travelling forward (like michael did) and again looking a berk.

I've seen some well seasoned roadmen fall off. i personally adopt the "ride between the lines" approach and sod 'em
incidnetally, I think the worst road is White Lane, gleadless.

dondare wrote:

Tramlines do make roads dangerous for cyclists and this is not something to just accept.
I have never encountered any yet and so if I cycled to a place that had them (or they were introduced in London) it would not be possible for me to have learned how to deal with them. The road infrastructure should be safe fo all users at all times and hazards such as this should be tackled by their removal or redesign; not by expecting cyclists to know how to "pop" over them.

Exactly.

Tramlines make the situation worse for cyclists. In Sheffield, Manchester there are miles of them. It's not just one bit of metal in the road but the metal is everywhere. As I said rain makes them deadly.

I understand that Sheffield's tramway system is unprofitable and they can't extend it. I think Manchester also is at a loss.

There is real danger in tramlines for cyclists. Especially the inexperienced, the young and the old. To say cyclists must miss them if they don't like them is in effect excluding cyclists from road access.

I cannot understand why the CTC did not oppose them.

dondare

I've encountered metal, wet and dry, including cattle grids and railway tracks at level crossings, but never tram lines. As I understand it, these usually run along the road so it is hardly practical to cross them at right angles every time, whatever the HC suggests. The HC contains much "helpful" information for cyclists which is really a load of crap.
It is a well established fact that tramlines are a particular hazard for cyclists and it is not just my opinion that this should be taken into consideration when determining where and how they should be sited. The example given above sounds like culpable negligence by the road planners.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

I'm not disputing the fact that they are a hazard, but what are you suggesting in their place?
Rip up the tramlines and put everyone back in polluting cars and buses? :?

dondare

I have used the tram in Manchester and I cannot see what could replace it; to move the same number of people without putting more vehicles on the road. However, the tracks could be laid on the road in a way that did not require cyclists to cross them except at junctions (where it would be possible to cross at right angles); the tracks could be designed to be bicycle-wheel-friendly; or they could be replaced with a tram that didn't need it's own tracks, similar to the old trolley buses which had rubber tyres whilst taking their power from overhead wires.

buddha

I regularly have to cross the tram-rails of the Croydon (home of the chav) tramline. Which are, of course, slippery when wet. And should only be crossed at 90deg etc...

What peevs me is that the plonker that designed the cycle path that should 'follow' the tramline, created a path that crosses a straight tramline three times in less than 150 metres on a fast and blind section.
There is also the locally infamous section of cycle route / tramline outside East Croydon Station that is so poorly designed that one cyclist was almost killed there a few years ago

Having said all that, I think the trams have reduced local congestion significantly. Especially the number of busses on the roads.

orienteer

At least they no longer use the conduit power collection system as the London trams did (up until 1952). This involved a central slot, down which a bicycle wheel could readily drop!

The West London tram scheme has effectively been scrapped, due mainly to pressure from the car-owning masses. It would have been an effective means of moving people, but despite the enormous cost, did not solve the problem of the bottlenecks on the route.

BigWomble

Michuel wrote:

I rode into Sheffield from Socksbridge/Oughtibridge on 23mm tyres when it had just rained today. I found plenty of space betewwn kerb and tramline and rode there. But as this reduced crossed to riding between tramlines. As a bus came up behind me I decided to ride near the kerb and cross a tramline to do so. I had plenty of time and was riding atabout 8mph and judged I was OK but my bike slid from under me when touching the tramline and I hit the road..

Tramined roads must be more dangerous than normal roads. Yet I can't remember any protests from cyclists or organisations about Sheffield, Manchester or the proposed Uxbridge road tram.

I hope you're okay.

There were no protests (that I'm aware of) because many of the general public have learnt by heart the Animal Farm style rules for transport.

Two wheels good, four wheels bad (except if they're buses).
Buses run on pixie dust, 4x4s on pure vitriol.
Trams are the work of the Lord - airplanes are the work of Satan.

It is of course, in reality, a little bit more complicated than that. Tram lines are a problem for cyclist everywhere that they are laid down. I guess that in continental Europe they'd had tram lines for longer, and they've had longer to get used to them.

BigWomble

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

I'm not disputing the fact that they are a hazard, but what are you suggesting in their place?
Rip up the tramlines and put everyone back in polluting cars and buses? :?

It shouldn't have to be cars-or-buses-or-trams. The public want private transport that can take them door-to-door, at a time of their choosing. Leaving aside the fact that it will be unlikely to be the case in the future that people will be park their car right outside everywhere where they want to go...there are other forms of private transport like bicycles and motorbikes and motorscooters which could be developed a lot further.

Buses and trams were developed at a time when most people couldn't afford a car. They are in effect shared cars. The original name for the bus, of course, was the Omnibus (we all travel together). Most families today can afford at least one car, and they really don't want to use public transport around town.

BigWomble

dondare wrote:

I have used the tram in Manchester and I cannot see what could replace it; to move the same number of people without putting more vehicles on the road. However, the tracks could be laid on the road in a way that did not require cyclists to cross them except at junctions (where it would be possible to cross at right angles); the tracks could be designed to be bicycle-wheel-friendly; or they could be replaced with a tram that didn't need it's own tracks, similar to the old trolley buses which had rubber tyres whilst taking their power from overhead wires.

I think that tramlines will always be a slip-hazard in the wet. If a cyclist turns left or right, instead of going straight on at a crossroads, they will cross the tramlines at an angle of less than 90 degrees. The slots in the road are necessary to take the wheel flanges.

The limitation with regular buses is the number of people you can get onto them , which is why articulated buses are increasingly popular. The problem with articulated buses (bendy buses) is that beyond a certain length the front end goes right, the back end goes left, and the centre bit slithers down the road. The tried a scheme like that in Nancy (?), and it wasn't successful. This had a single rail down the middle of the road for the bus to lock onto for part of the route, and no rail elsewhere where it behaved like a bus. When the vehicle moved from the rail to the non-rail part it tended to come unglued from the road surface. Tramlines provide a positive control for the direction of the vehicles; and even then, if the tramline contours are incorrect, the trams can pop off the rail and slide all over the place.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

BigWomble wrote:

It shouldn't have to be cars-or-buses-or-trams. The public want private transport that can take them door-to-door, at a time of their choosing. .

I use public transport frequently, though I cannot use it for commuting as the service doesn't exist. I ride or drive depending on wether or not I'll be off to see customers.

My missus used to get the bus to work, but it's now noticeably cheaper for her and a friend to drive in.

I think there is a demand for decent public transport, it's just that we don't have it.

Random Vince

dondare wrote:

I have used the tram in Manchester and I cannot see what could replace it; to move the same number of people without putting more vehicles on the road. However, the tracks could be laid on the road in a way that did not require cyclists to cross them except at junctions (where it would be possible to cross at right angles); the tracks could be designed to be bicycle-wheel-friendly; or they could be replaced with a tram that didn't need it's own tracks, similar to the old trolley buses which had rubber tyres whilst taking their power from overhead wires.

the problem with trolly busses is you'd have at least one per day that came off the overhead wires and blocked the road for a few hours.


just to add my two pence,

the ctc proberbly didnt have much chance to protest it, trams existed before the ctc did and its been re-instating them.

ok, the tracks do run down the road and so are harder to cross, but a 45deg angle should make it doable, you do need to slow down and be careful, in teh same way you need to be careful with road line markings

Michuel

BigWomble wrote:

I hope you're okay.

Thanks I am OK. The bus driver was some distance behind but I got up straightaway.

I don't have a car and all my transport is by public transport or cycling. The cycling bit leaves me exposed to riding in cities or busy A roads. At home in West London I can minimise city bike journeys by public transport but obviously not A road journeys.

I was impressed by the public transport drivers on the Sheffield tramway roads - they were obviously careful of cyclists. Here in 'London the buses go very fast often driving next to the kerb.

aurelio_-_banned

Michuel wrote:

I rode into Sheffield from Socksbridge/Oughtibridge on 23mm tyres when it had just rained today. I found plenty of space betewwn kerb and tramline and rode there. But as this reduced crossed to riding between tramlines. As a bus came up behind me I decided to ride near the kerb and cross a tramline to do so. I had plenty of time and was riding atabout 8mph and judged I was OK but my bike slid from under me when touching the tramline and I hit the road..

Tramined roads must be more dangerous than normal roads. Yet I can't remember any protests from cyclists or organisations about Sheffield, Manchester or the proposed Uxbridge road tram.

There have been protests and even claims for compensation, but it seems that, whatever the relevant Highways Acts say about local authorities having a responsibility to endure that roads are safe for use by all users, including cyclists, all too often the attitude is that cyclists must use the public road on and 'as seen' and 'own risk' basis.

The real irony is that the High Court has already ruled that should a motorist skid and crash on tram lines, the authority is liable! For example see the case of Roe V Sheffield City council at the link below:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1.html

See also the following story from the Sheffield press:

Legal victory after wet tram line crash

18 January 2003

Tragic road accident victim Bill Roe has won an Appeal Court victory which has the potential to cost Sheffield Council and the operators of the city's Supertram tens of millions of pounds in compensation bills.

Mr Roe, aged 42, was injured when his car went out of control after coming into contact with wet tram tracks which stood two millimetres proud of the road surface in Norton Avenue, Sheffield, in May, 1995.

The former second row forward for Sheffield Tigers Rugby Club is seeking around £1m in compensation and scores of others who say they were injured in similar accidents are also intending to sue.

Mr Roe's injuries meant he had no recollection of the accident, but a witness had seen him lose control of his Ford Sierra and collide with one of the Supertram's electric pylons on the central reservation.

In December, 2001, at Barnsley County Court, Mr Justice Holland said that Mr Roe was in no way to blame for the accident and ruled the Supertram's operators, South Yorkshire Light Rail Ltd, liable to pay him compensation.

But the company - since renamed Supertram Operating Company - took the case to the Appeal Court and Mr Roe's case has since been bogged down in costly legal wrangling over who, if anyone, is liable to compensate him. Now the Appeal Court judges ruling opens the way for Mr Roe to pursue his claim against both the operating company and the council.

The council was exonerated in 2001 by Mr Justice Holland, from all liability to pay Mr Roe damages. But the Appeal ruling means he can now pursue his claim that the accident was caused, at least in part, by the council's alleged breach of the duty it owed him under the 1980 Highways Act.

Lord Justice Pill said: "The combination of the differences in level between rail and concrete, the left-hand bend, the road markings then in place and the speed at which the vehicles were likely to use the road provides evidence of hazardous conditions for drivers. It is strongly arguable that the state of knowledge at the time of the accident was such that the extent of the hazard was, or should have been, known to the company."
Mr Roe's case will now go back to Mr Justice Holland for a decision to be made on the remaining issues in the case - including whether the council is liable under the Highways Act and whether the operating company was negligent.

Mr Roe's lawyers said he was now "confident" of success. His barrister, Mr Gary Burrell QC, said: "This is a landmark case as there has not been a tram case decision for over half a century."

BigWomble

the problem with trolly busses is you'd have at least one per day that came off the overhead wires and blocked the road for a few hours.

The old trolley buses had contacts mounted on pickup prongs, which sometimes came away from the wires. If the driver was lucky, he could get out of his cab, go round the back, and prod at the pickups with an insulated hook. If he was unlucky, the pickups would trash the wiring.

Modern trolley buses are much better. The wiring is sprung, so that the trolleybus is much less likely to lose contact. If it does, the bus driver can reconnnect from within his cab. Also, on the modern system, the pickups are limited in how far they can reach up, so protecting the system. If all else fails, a backup engine allows the bus to move a short distance.

The biggest problem with trolleybuses, from my point-of-view, is how ugly the wiring gets when routes join. It becomes a real cat's cradle.

notanotherusername

The worst example is actually a full blown railway line that runs around the Quay in Weymouth. It hasn't been used for many years but it is still there and is a hazard for cyclists.

It snakes along the middle of a busy road with parked cars on either side. On certain occasions you have to go across one or other of the lines at ninety degrees, something of a surprise to cars following you.

It is seen as a bit of Weymouth's heritage but it serves no useful, has not had a train on it in years, and will never see another train run along it.

Sorry - I'll stop ranting now.

marmitecp

Trams and cycles seem to rub along OK in Amsterdam.

Anyone know what they do differently?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

aurelio wrote:

There have been protests and even claims for compensation, but it seems that, whatever the relevant Highways Acts say about local authorities having a responsibility to endure that roads are safe for use by all users, including cyclists, all too often the attitude is that cyclists must use the public road on and 'as seen' and 'own risk' basis.

The real irony is that the High Court has already ruled that should a motorist skid and crash on tram lines, the authority is liable! For example see the case of Roe V Sheffield City council at the link below:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1.html

Sensationalist nonsense, it was because the tram lines were not laid correctly, not that the defendant was in a car. :roll:

marmitecp wrote:

Trams and cycles seem to rub along OK in Amsterdam.

Anyone know what they do differently?

I've never seen "proper" roadies with rizla thin tyres riding in Amsterdam city centre.

wjhall

I am sure I saw a well known CTC campaigner praising bendy buses in C+ on the basis that they were not trams. So there is obviously a race memory of tramlines as a source of problems.

Acutally the Manchester tram is largely based on conversion of two railway lines from neighbouring towns, so why it could not have been kept as a railway and routed across the city centre on the existing railway, which is not all that far from the on road route, is not at all clear. Then it would probably have been faster, and not subject to congestion such as the getting stuck in bus queues as describe in the press last year.

Fashion I suppose.

As many people have pointed out, trams are not intended to go anywhere fast, because they run in streets, and their are limits to how fast you can go in streets. In fact on of the road safety advantages of trams in the street sections is that they run steadily at about 15mph on a fixed track, instead of hurtling at 30 mph from one traffic light to the next like buses do, but this does mean they do not get anywhere very quickly, for that you need a dedicated route - or railway as they are known.

ynyswen24

I was living in Sheffield when the trams were being built and, working in Freewheel on West Street at the time (the tram ran right past what was the front door), myself and the rest of the staff and some of the regular punters, made sure to go and have a look at the plans and make any contribution to the consultation process that we could.

The bit I remember is the spokeman for the tram company who said that' tyres getting caught in the lines wouldn't be a problem as everybody had those mountain bike things with the big fat tyres thesedays'

As for the trams being eco friendly, aren't they just putting the pollution further away - out of the chimney of the power station rather than the exhaust of a car. Generally, I'd prefer the tram but I don't know if it's any greener than a bus carrying the same number of people.

Also, I went arris over teat on the lines myself, to the great amusement of my fellow workers.

BigWomble

ynyswen24 wrote:

I was living in Sheffield when the trams were being built and, working in Freewheel on West Street at the time (the tram ran right past what was the front door), myself and the rest of the staff and some of the regular punters, made sure to go and have a look at the plans and make any contribution to the consultation process that we could.

The bit I remember is the spokeman for the tram company who said that' tyres getting caught in the lines wouldn't be a problem as everybody had those mountain bike things with the big fat tyres thesedays'

As for the trams being eco friendly, aren't they just putting the pollution further away - out of the chimney of the power station rather than the exhaust of a car. Generally, I'd prefer the tram but I don't know if it's any greener than a bus carrying the same number of people.

Also, I went arris over teat on the lines myself, to the great amusement of my fellow workers.

Trams come in two sorts. The old style of tram was a single carriage. They didn't carry any more people than a bus, and so the cheaper and better buses wiped out the tram networks. Some commentators still believe that the trams were removed because of a conspiracy - just nostalgia, I think. They still run in places like Russia, and they want to remove them there as well.

The modern tram is a much bigger animal, like a lightweight train, although much heavier than a bus. The idea is to move more people per hour, at a lower cost per passenger, than a bus. Whether or not this all happens as predicted depends very much on the actual number of passengers, usually much less than the optimistic predictions. :oops:

Trams (and trolleybuses!) move the pollution away. This is good in two ways. Firstly, the sheep are getting a lungful, rather than the city population. Secondly, electricity can be made out of just about anything - coal, gas, biomatter, oil, nuclear, recyclables. So with electric vehicles, you can fill them up with whatever energy is at hand. With petrol and diesel vehicles, you can only use the right fuel, irrespective of spot-price or environmental concerns.

Trams are not necessarily quieter than buses. Where the track bed is old, the trams can crash over the rails. Also, trams don't have a differential gearbox - like trains, they have cone-shaped metal wheels which run on the track. As the tram goes round a corner, the centrifugal force pushes the tram out, and it rides higher up the wheel on the outside, and futher down the wheel on the inside, so the outside goes faster than the inside - a differential system. Unfortunately, if the tram goes round too fast, the flange makes contact with the rails, and it produces that horrible squealling noise.

BW

bigmug

Just picked up this thread - bit late but there were quite a few campaigns.

I remember many meetings with engineers and politicians warning of the dangers to thinner tyred cycles but all were overuled. I took a tumble even when I thought I'd got a good angle to the track. The biggest problem in Sheffield is that the tracks bend across the road to turn right etc. Usually at busy trafficked junctions (most of Sheffields track is in the main highway). So with two lanes of cars/busses/taxis bearing down on you it is not always easy to get the correct angle to cross the tracks- if in doubt I get off.

Nothing against trams (light railways) but good and safe design is key.