PresTram

[PR1Berske]

Or, I dunno, GuildTram, PresToTram, LanxLine-2000.....


http://www.lep.co.uk/news/right_on_track_for_tram_bid_1_1641084

 

[37401]

Or, I dunno, GuildTram, PresToTram, LanxLine-2000.....

www.125group.org.uk/

 

[WatcherZero]

Nice Idea, wrong vehicle and company behind it. Its interesting how Merseyside Trampower has morphed into Preston Trampower 'A wholly local company' now. This is the same vehicle that burst into flames in Blackpool two weeks from carrying passengers and which the RAIB said was not of a design suitable to carry passengers. Though the rebuild from a burnt out shell the company euphorically calls 'refurbishment'.

This is also one of the worst renders ive seen in my life, compare the person on the right for scale.

 

[plannerman]

Trams, whoever's behind them, always always end up costing the taxpayer an absolute fortune. And the public and politicians know it. In the current climate this has absolutely zero chance of going ahead.

 

[90019]

http://www.lep.co.uk/webimage/visual_1_1_1641083!image/3972702057.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/3972702057.jpg

This is also one of the worst renders ive seen in my life, compare the person on the right for scale.

It appears to be braking quite hard as well

 

[Deerfold]

It appears to be braking quite hard as well

I'd just assumed it was on fire.

 

[Lampshade]

If Fishergate gets tram lines then I'm the Queen of Sheba hock:

 

[90019]

I'd just assumed it was on fire.

I was more looking at the angle it's at

 

[lancastrian]

Well as someone who grew up in Preston, I must admit I was supprised at hearing about this Preston Tram idea. I my opinion it is a complete waste of time, and as for sending trams down Fishergate, things were bad enough in the 60's before it became mainly buses only.

What is really needed is to reopen the old railway line up through Deepdale and Ribbleton, through to Red Scar. Stations could be reopened at Deepdale, for North Ends football ground, Ribbleton for commuters into the city and at Red Scar where a Park & Ride station could be built near the M6, Junction 31A.

The service can be an extension of the current Ormskirk to Preston service, so as to save platform 1 (ex 3) at Preston is not blocked as the service reverses.

I know that these ideas are "pie in the sky", but I feel far more likely than a Preston Tram service.

 

[Newman83]

1. Trampower are currently issuing everything as "Preston Trampower" because that is what the project is called. This HAS been communicated to the public on numerous occasions and Trampower as a company continues as it always has.
2. The Trampower website currently runs for those who are technically minded and have an interest in the construction, engineering and manufacturing of trams. The Preston Trampower website is for the local businesses and residents. This may in fact help you to understand why attention hasn't been made to rendering, it is to allow the people of Preston to visualise how trams will operate in the city. It also provides a dedicated FAQ section and news section so people are kept informed at all times.
3. Why would the taxpayers have to pay anything? This is a private funded project and is only praised by the council as they believe it to be of significant benefit to the city, the project will not only link key areas of the city but will also help utilise park and ride areas, which are currently not operating to its maximum potential.

There are huge transport problems in cities across the UK, mainly Preston which suffers from congestion at peak work times. There is an opportunity to offer an alternative form of transport, encouraging more people to park their cars outside of the city, easing the current problems.

If anyone would like further answers to questions, rather than making statements that are incorrect, please visit the PRESTON website, look at the FAQ's and call or email if you are still unhappy.

 

[WatcherZero]

Im so sorry that negative comments hurt your PR. However none of your complaints raised actually stand up, the visualisations are poor (not to scale) but then thats to be expected as the measurements dont agree either trampower site says platform height 300mm, preston trampower site says 250mm, the company is in denial of the fire ever having taken place claims the tram recieved HMRI approval (it didnt).

 

[90019]

the visualisations are poor (not to scale)

As much as I hate them, it's interesting to do a comparison between the visualisations for this and for Edinburgh;

A couple of roughly comparable images;
Edinburgh
Preston

Edinburgh
Preston


The Edinburgh ones have been done properly and actually look fairly realistic.
In the Preston ones, well, in the first one the lines appear to have been drawn in crayon, with a crude, out of scale render badly pasted onto it at the wrong angle. The second one just looks strange, with a tram that appears to be about 4' high and seems to have come from a cartoon.

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

There are huge transport problems in cities across the UK, mainly Preston which suffers from congestion at peak work times. There is an opportunity to offer an alternative form of transport, encouraging more people to park their cars outside of the city, easing the current problems.

Do you mean to say that Preston has worse problems than elsewhere in the UK? Im pretty sure Newcastle (has Metro), Leeds, Glasgow and many other cities match it, most likely with worse conditions in some areas - yet do not have a tram system.

 

[PR1Berske]

Nobody in Preston really believes that this TramSham is going ahead. The 'trial' is going on at the back of beyond, nobody has yet explained how the Trams will run from the new bus station (behind a warehouse and nightclub car-park) to the current railway station (at the bottom of a very busy shopping street)

The tax-payer is BOUND to have the costs added for consultancy, construction, etc, etc.

I'd be happier, frankly, if the Tram idea was killed before birth, and all the money and attention was focused on keeping our bus station from senseless destruction.

 

[Nonsense]

I'd be happier, frankly, if the Tram idea was killed before birth, and all the money and attention was focused on keeping our bus station from senseless destruction.

What does that awful bus station have to do with a privately funded tram trial? And why should private investment funds be focused on saving such a bus station.

I don't know a great deal about tram power, but I find the negativity peculiar on a rail forum such as this. So one of their trams caught fire on trial in Blackpool? Seriously, so what? I imagine that investigations were undertaken, reports written and lessons learned.

I have no doubt that the ultimate aim behind tram power is to make money, but doing so by trying to demonstrate that light rail is a viable transport option in uk towns and cities, with minimal tax payer involvement should be applauded, shouldn't it?

 

[TramEngineer]

No one gives a spit that their tram caught fire. Many trams have ignited before and there will likely be many more to come.
No one is denying the original CityClass tram caught fire, they are merely choosing to get the repairs done and get on with their work.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/tram-catches-fire-in-melbourne-cbd-20090115-7hvp.html

http://www.blackpoolcitizen.co.uk/photos/tramfire/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/80337174@N00/1372572396

 

[WatcherZero]

So your comparing a fire on a vehicle that was over 60 years old with a new vehicle being tested to recieve certification to enter service and for which RAIB descibed the design and choice of materials as 'not fit for the conveyance of passengers'.

RAIB/Transport and Marine Safety Investigation reports into causes of fire:
CityClass cause: Poorly designed (sparking) 24v electrical systems contained in a flammable wooden box. (Though Blackpool Tramway recieved a lot of blame for testing new technology without a safety inspection or safety Strategy/safeguards in place).
W Class cause: Poor maintenance leading to failure of wiring insulation combined with a massive oversupply of current caused by the circuit breakers in a substation having recently had their tripping tolerances massivley increased.

 

[TramEngineer]

Oh here is a link to a modern tram that was completely destroyed by fire. This one was tested,certified, and was in public service.
Translohr Clermont-Ferrand Fire

Trampower's original vehicle was not certified by HMRI for passenger service. Now they have rebuilt it and getting ready to try again.

 

[WatcherZero]

Mmm, was hard to track down the cause of that fire on what according to the french sites I read was a very unpopular 'Tram Bus' system (due to open 2014) (rubber tires, single guide rail) though arguably as it cant leave the guide rail it is a rail vehicle. Anyway cause was brakes on one axle froze, the friction of dragging the unspinning rubber tires around caused the fire.

 

[Nonsense]

Not sure how the fire impacts this trial.

 

[WatcherZero]

Doesnt really, just their claim that it was already certified to carry passengers.

 

[TramEngineer]

From what I have read, at
http://trampower.co.uk/city_class.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citytram
They had operated on the Birkenhead and Blackpool tramways with HMRI consent for testing purposes AND they were within 2 weeks of getting HMRI approval to carry passengers when the fire broke out.
I haven't seen any claims by them to say they had already gotten their license to carry the general public.
I agree with the earlier comments about their renderings, looks to me like they had the intern do them. But rather than talk spit about them, I drew up some of my own.
I still don't think mine are good enough. but they are better than the intern's.
My Trampower Renderings

 

[jopsuk]

whilst the PresTram offical randers are pretty damn awful, I've seen just as bad come out of Network Rail- one of the ones for Blackfriars for example appeared to show it being served by hover-HSTs

 

[Invincibles]

Well as someone who grew up in Preston, I must admit I was supprised at hearing about this Preston Tram idea. I my opinion it is a complete waste of time, and as for sending trams down Fishergate, things were bad enough in the 60's before it became mainly buses only.

What is really needed is to reopen the old railway line up through Deepdale and Ribbleton, through to Red Scar. Stations could be reopened at Deepdale, for North Ends football ground, Ribbleton for commuters into the city and at Red Scar where a Park & Ride station could be built near the M6, Junction 31A.

The service can be an extension of the current Ormskirk to Preston service, so as to save platform 1 (ex 3) at Preston is not blocked as the service reverses.

I know that these ideas are "pie in the sky", but I feel far more likely than a Preston Tram service.

I often think it would be good to re-open the line through Deepdale, but I would have the service as a stand alone, possibly with a PPM most of the day. The problem is that it would need to use platform 7 and that is the wrong side of the fast lines to extend any service of note.

As for the tram I would consider running the whole thing as a tram then going out over the car park (trams can turn at tighter angles) then off into Penwortham on the old track bed. Where needed it can run parallel to the new road (which OK is not new, but I can not remember the number of it now) The resulting cross Preston service would be very useful and of course the option to have heavy rail share the track would be good for odd occasions (31A to Manchester in the peak, maybe, certainly football supporters to Deepdale on police advice)

 

[TramEngineer]

whilst the PresTram offical randers are pretty damn awful, I've seen just as bad come out of Network Rail- one of the ones for Blackfriars for example appeared to show it being served by hover-HSTs

do you have a link for this?

 

[jopsuk]

No- it seems to have disappeared from Network Rail's website (possibly in shame- the earlier ones with the Connex-livery slammer in the new Blackfriars have gone too!). I'll dig deeper.

 

[TramEngineer]

If you find any please let me know, I am always looking for good and terrible examples.

 

[PR1Berske]

Negativity comes from watching millions of pounds being poured into a vanity project when 80 bus stands and 1,100 car parking places are being needlessly destroyed for the dubious pleasure of buying tat from John Lewis.

Trams will not be wanted, needed, or used in Preston. Utter waste of time and money.

 

[jopsuk]

If you find any please let me know, I am always looking for good and terrible examples.

This FCC 365 doesn't belong in Blackfriars, and the picture looks pretty ropey bigger than a thumbnail

Connex slammer at Blackfriars!

 

[Nonsense]

Negativity comes from watching millions of pounds being poured into a vanity project when 80 bus stands and 1,100 car parking places are being needlessly destroyed for the dubious pleasure of buying tat from John Lewis.

Trams will not be wanted, needed, or used in Preston. Utter waste of time and money.

I'll admit I know little about the plans for the bus station. And I don't know much about the transport corridor that the tram trial is utilising. But I have used Preston bus station on occasions when I've missed the last train north so the last word I'd use to describe its destruction is needless.

That still doesn't explain the negativity, or even why trams wouldn't be used in Preston. Is there some unique cultural bias? Or something in the water perhaps that stop Preston residents using a particular form of transport. What little information is available on the trial seems to omit the wanton destruction of the bus station and installation of tat merchants, so again, please clarify the negative reaction to private money being spent on trialling low cost tram technology.