Yes, I'm sure that's what will have happened, or, at least, will have been scheduled to have happened. A 2251 journey from Starr Gate would have covered 2310 Talbot Square - North Station.
No, I think that what they said was probably correct.
It's hard to see how else it could be worked.
It hadn't occurred to me that it would do the 2200 Fleetwood, but I suppose it's obvious when you think about it. That's presumably why the 2125 ex Starr Gate runs, i.e. to get it to North Station to enable it to do the Fleetwood.
I did suggest (see my post #159, 10 June 2024) that the 2145 could be operated by the 2145 arrival ex Fleetwood - the 2200 Fleetwood could then be operated by the 2153 arrival ex North Station (2128 therefrom) but that would go against the usual rule of a minimum of five minutes recovery time at the end of a journey, so you may be correct, a tram comes out of depot to do the 2145. Only observation will settle the matter.
I agree with you that none of the options are particularly appealing. It looks to be a prospective rehash using the existing resources, and not adding any more.
I do agree with both you.
For the record, here are the three options.
.What option out of those 3 did you go for?
I'm Surprised that all 3 options require 11 Trams. I would have thought that Option 1 would have at least required 1 or 2 Extra Trams
I suspect option 1 would still just require 11 trams because they'd probably only sit for a couple of minutes at the station before setting off again, where currently the T3s sit for 15 mins. So the time "penalty" for every tram going there would be offset by the reduction in time spent at the station
I get the feeling that whoever devises the timetables doesn't actually travel by tram.
I went for Option 1, it seems the least of the three evils.
'Tramfan' has got the gist of the situation (below). In addition to the saving of the long lie-over at North Station (T3), there would be a similar saving at Starr Gate (T1). Previously I suggested that the above circuit would require only ten trams, the additional one is necessary as a consequence of BT's insistence that trams would take twelve minutes to go from Talbot Square to North Station and back, whereas I reckoned it would be done in fractionally over half that.
I disagree. I think it would certainly be an improvement over the shambles of a timetable that they're currently providing
I think the current timetable has made things worse than they were before.
I've made the point before, through passengers wouldn't be too impressed by the diversion via North Station, but they would either tolerate it or change their transport routine. If they were to change their routine (for instance, by changing to alternative bus services) it would at least relieve pressure on the tram route which, at the moment, is struggling to cope. To add to that, diverting all journeys via North Station would even out tram loadings - at the moment, on common sections, the T1 trams are carrying far more passengers than the T2s and T3s, simply because the T1s already have most of their passengers on when they reach those common sections. I ultimately voted for Option 1 on the survey (I was going to go for Option 3) because I saw Option 1 as being the one least likely to result in intending passengers being left behind.
The 5 min/25 min headway between North Pier and Starr Gate isn't a consequence of the tram timetable being split into three, it's something which BT has thrown in unnecessarily.
Agree that the elements would prevent the use of the loop but the area is secure with decent fences all round.
Conductors are recruited as seasonal staff but have all been retained for the last couple of years.
Not really. Only the sand pump and wash are inside the fence, the entire main curve is outside.
It certainly wouldn't require BT to buy more trams, but it would require them to run more trams in service - probably fifteen rather than eleven - and that's something BT appears to be vehemently opposed to doing.
Does anyone know when this survey closes?
That would be the same elements which affect the trams when they are in service? Or are there some other elements out there that only occur when parked up in star gate?
Time. Washing the salt off and storing them inside every night makes a significant difference.
Salt Corrosion, as well as potential Vandalism.
I was in Blackpool aswell today, saw a additional Pleasure Beach-Little Bispham running in the afternoon.
Last service: 14:16 Four Oaks to Redditch traveled from Birmingham New Street to Bournville (West Midlands Trains) 08.07.24
Over what section did the T3s look busy?
Train back from Bournville to Burton-on-Trent then a car up to Blackpool, I don't include trams in my last services. I had some family with me so it was much easier just taking a car, although some have left Blackpool already so I'm taking the train back up later this week.
You still managed to get from home to Birmingham New Street station without crossing the Scottish/English border by train, I'm interested in how you managed it.
The question was intended for JD2168, but the info is welcome, all the same.
Car to Burton-on-Trent, then train into Birmingham
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure you'd need 3/4 Trams to run a Half Hour frequency on the T3s , resulting in 14/15 Trams Total to run the full service
It does however you can throw them through the wash at any point during the day when not in service or when they come in at night or when they go out in the morning. Its not an insurmountable problem at all.
It takes 21 minutes in each direction to Little Bispham.
