Talk:Nottingham Express Transit

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)

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 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)

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.

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)

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)

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.  Bluegoblin  7   17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Future Lines
Much of this seems to be speculation without refs. Due for removal? SovalValtos (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I say go for it!, It's been unsourced for long enough. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  21:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref added to article: Evening Post article. --palmiped | Talk  22:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Lede/Lead out of balance?
There seems to be too much about the commercial side of things, and not enough about what exists and how it is used. Comments please.SovalValtos (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Lines 1, 2, 3?
There's confusion in the article about the line numbers. The Hucknall to Toton Lane route is referred to as Line 1 and the Phoenix Park to Clifton route is referred to as Line 2 in one part. In another the Hucknall/Phoenix Park to Station Street route is referred to as Line 1, while Nottingham Station to Clifton is referred to as Line 2 and Nottingham Station to Toton Lane is referred to as Line 3. So will there be three lines or two? 188.29.165.70 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Mango
Article should mention Mango smartcards in place of tickets. John a s (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the line 1 terminus in Chilwell, Toton or Stapleford?
Chris,

Can I just point out that the location of the Toton Lane tram stop that you have 'corrected' back to Chilwell (from my correction to Stapleford) is incorrect. The reference that you cite https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/ actually shows that the tram stop and park and ride site are in the district ward of "Toton and Chilwell Meadows". Chilwell Meadows lies about 1KM south east of the tram stop whereas Toton borders the southern side of the park and ride. It would be more accurate to say the tram stop and park and ride are located in Toton than Chilwell which - to a local like me - doesn't make sense.

The site now occupied by the tram used to host Stapleford Circus. Google Earth still has it on their database http://www.titsham.co.uk/images/staplefordcircus.jpg. The footpath to the south of the circus is the Stapleford/Toton border. Whilst I concede that the electoral boundaries have been changed (for political reasons), and that the tram stop is within the Toton and Chilwell Meadows electoral ward, it is certainly not in Chilwell.

The only debate is whether the tram stop and park and ride site is in Stapleford or Toton. http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nottingham-tram-Confusion-cleared-location-Toton/story-27681744-detail/story.html Politically it is in Toton, but Historically it is in Stapleford.

Nevertheless, In April this year (2016) Broxtowe Borough Council erected a new sign welcoming people to Stapleford on the historic border, ignoring political ward boundaries. Anyone approaching the entrance to the tram park and ride would assume it is in Stapleford and not Toton - certainly not Chilwell.

http://www.staplefordcommunitygroup.org.uk/2016/04/21/welcome-to-stapleford/

Please consider this and update the Nottingham Express Transit page accordingly.

Tookey2k (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC) (Copied from my talk page)


 * Hum, that is interesting. As you have probably already inferred, I'm not local, although half a lifetime ago I did spend three years at Nottingham Uni, so the area is not totally alien either. I originally took the location as Chilwell from NET's own leaflet, which says:


 * The project to extend Nottingham's tram service to the south and south west of the city to Chilwell via the QMC and Beeston and Clifton via Wilford is nearing completion. -


 * So NET clearly think (or perhaps thought) that Toton Lane is in Chilwell. Or perhaps, given that the line does unquestionably go through Chilwell, they were just being a bit sloppy in their use of the word 'to'. However the Nottingham Post article you cite does suggest that the terminus isn't in Chilwell.


 * Actually the one thing we can be reasonably clear on is that it is not in Stapleford, because Stapleford is a civil parish and therefore has well defined boundaries, and the tram terminus isn't in them. Note this is nothing to do with wards, which get changed regularly to make sure they are of similar size, and which I would therefore never cite as saying anything useful about place boundaries (indeed my own adopted home town names all its wards after landmarks rather than suburbs to emphasise their arbitrariness). But civil parishes are normally much more stable and authoritative. If you look at the OS election map I cited, and select 'civil parishes' rather than 'wards' you will see what I mean. But that doesn't help us determine between Toton, Chilwell or even Beeston, as these are all unparished areas within Broxtowe, and don't really have formal, stable boundaries. One man's Toton can just as easily be another woman's Chilwell.


 * I think the best thing to do is go lowest common denominator, and say it is in Broxtowe, and near to Chilwell, Toton and Stapleford. I will update the article accordingly. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The address for the neighbouring Bardill's garden centre is Toton Lane, Stapleford, Nottingham NG9 7JB. This suggests a Stapleford terminus.  Possibly using A52 Stapleford bypass or 'Bardill's Island' would be cleaner?  Red Jay (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change.

I still think using the civil parish boundary is dubious as Stapleford was only parished in 1987 so it makes sense that it would follow the A52 rather than the historic public bridleways. But, as Red Jay states, Bardill's garden centre is - and always has been - located in Stapleford. The land that the tram terminus sits on was purchased from Bardill's. Also, by your method of looking at the parish boundary to determine the location of a place, Bramcote crematorium, which resides within the parish of Stapleford on the northern tip, should be renamed Stapleford crematorium.

I appreciate you need to be as accurate as possible, and perhaps I'm being pedantic here, but I believe I have given you accurate information that you wouldn't necessarily find on the internet, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookey2k (talk • contribs) 15:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The simple solution to this puzzle is knowing where Toton Lane actually is. Toton Lane runs from the centre of Stapleford to the border with Toton at which point it becomes Stapleford Lane (Toton). With this in mind there is no doubt that the park and ride site is in Stapleford.

The Chilwell confusion comes from the fact that the tram line was built to serve Beeston and Chilwell, terminating at Toton Lane, Stapleford. Indeed, the residents of Stapleford received consultation notices during the planning stage of this line.

Also, the new Stapleford sign erected this year is a replacement for the old sign that was removed whilst the road widening and electrical works took place. 153.2.246.33 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

MORE evidence to confirm that Toton Lane is in Stapleford: http://www.titsham.co.uk/images/IMG_0103.JPG

The same signage is also posted on the opposite side of the road at the spot where the new "Welcome to Stapleford" sign stands. This is also a new sign - the new "Welcome to Toton" sign stands just to the right of this spot.

Tookey2k (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

More evidence that the stop is in Stapleford http://www.nottinghampost.com/cheers-tram-leaves-toton-lane/story-27671487-detail/story.html

86.9.4.125 (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

86.9.4.125 (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nottingham Express Transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120805170119/http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/netphase2/index.aspx?articleid=16948 to http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/netphase2/index.aspx?articleid=16948

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Uk tram icon.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Uk tram icon.png

Accidents and incidents
In response to 10mmsocket, I think the incidents should be included as they are very similar to the incidents on 18 July 2017 and 31 October 2018 (the latter is even at the exact same point as the 5 March 2023 incident) which are included.

Are there any baselines for whether an incident should be included? I.e., does it take derailment? Or injury? I’d be grateful to know for the future 🙂 80.7.161.36 (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I partly agree with 80.7.161.36, the overhead power line failure was a major incident with the network affected most of the day so should be included, the car hitting the tram I am not sure wether it should be included.   palmiped Talk  11:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm quite fond of the ten-year test: will it matter in ten years? Or, if we were writing a history of the NET in 2033, would we include every incident that resulted in a one-hour suspension of service or a tram hitting a car? Fatalities probably pass the ten-year test, and I would say anything that resulted in a full-blown RAIB report (as opposed to just a digest) probably would, and anything that resulted in a change of procedures. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 12:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Top Speed
I have just changed the top speed section. Now from reading the changes log i see there is some recent back and forth. So as a Tram driver in Nottingham (shh don't tell anyone) i think you can trust me to tell you the exact facts of how the system operates (and yes unfortunately i have no resources to back me up on this because no one writes articles online on the exact speeds of the Nottingham tramway except on Wikipedia).

The highest speed you will see on the network on the speedboards is 70 Km/h. It used to be 80 Km/h but due to the citadis trams excessive noise, wear and tear and damage to the track (due to their fixed bogie design) it was decided that the trams will only travel at 70 Km/h even though theoretically they can go up to 80 Km/h. The 70 Km/h is backed up by this article (https://railway-news.com/alstom-delivered-final-citadis-tram-nottingham/). A combination of that and a general trend (discussion on rail forum https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/reduced-tram-speed-limits.208098/) of reducing speed to save energy and wear and tear on the vehicles and track (the Incentro's are around 18-19 years old!) has as far as i know lead to the reduction of the maximum system speed from 80 to 70 km/h. The Incentros can do 80km/h but for the reasons stated above they do not (anymore at least). If anyone can think of a way to prove the max speed is 70 kph im all ears and will help anyway i can. A good resource is to watch the cab ride videos on youtube, the newer ones do have the correct 70 kph speed limit on the speed boards between Wilkinson street-Highbury Vale-Hucknall or Wilford Village- Ruddington Lane (the only sections where the tram reaches 70Km/h). Luky-h2 (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just have a couple of thoughts/reservations on this.
 * First, thanks for coming to the talk page and not edit-warring like some editors do!
 * Second, about the sources you've given. The first (railway-news.com) is great to use on WP - I've already plopped that into the infobox (which I meant to do last night to replace the YouTube one, which as I pointed you to, isn't reliable). The second Rail Forums one isn't reliable, because it's a forum.
 * A side thought I had whilst reading this was that, as a driver of the system, you may find it helpful to place a WP:COI template on your user page, such as this one:
 * - which can be inserted with the code.
 * This may well save you from any arguments later with other editors...! Although you are discouraged from editing pages in this sort of relationship, finding and inserting reliable sources is absolutely okay, like has happened here.
 * I hope that makes sense - and if you wish to work in more areas (perhaps in UK transport more widely), feel free to come over to WP:UKRAIL and sign yourself up to the WikiProject. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have seen the whole warning about talking about myself / employer which is why i would like to steer away from it and just edit the hard facts and thank you for helping me with that and understanding which sources are okay to use. I will definitely checkout the UK transport WikiProject and try and help there (without my work bias ;) ). Thanks again! Luky-h2 (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have seen the whole warning about talking about myself / employer which is why i would like to steer away from it and just edit the hard facts and thank you for helping me with that and understanding which sources are okay to use. I will definitely checkout the UK transport WikiProject and try and help there (without my work bias ;) ). Thanks again! Luky-h2 (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)