Roger Mexico Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 3 hours ago, Two-lane said: I have mentioned this here before, much to the disagreement of some parties. Moving the tram tracks into the pedestrian area is a new installation, and therefore surely must comply with modern standards. I do not think that it would. A couple of times, after a new minister has been appointed, I have written to the new Minister and the head of DoI asking if a safety analysis has been carried out. No response. It wasn't just that moving them completely would cause problems. Any change to the current layout would open the system to needing to be assessed for safety from scratch. The original layout was 'grandfathered in', so even if it didn't meet current standards, there was no need to have it reassessed unless a change was made. The DoI management clearly found having the horse trams there an inconvenience and decided to move them without considering this. They then were told that they had to put in ridiculous clunky traffic lights as the best way of coping with their daft schemes. Presumably they thought they could do the usual DoI thing and that rules, laws and regulations were for other people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 19 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said: carry a new light city trams There is a photo somewhere, from the time the rails were being plumbed in at the northern end. A diesel had been moved onto the tracks so that a test run could be made (weight and all that stuff). Longworth was not at his desk, but was at the controls. The rail installation was slightly damaged as a result of this venture, as far as I recall. [I am informed that the diesel was driven down from the MER yards down to Derby Castle. Longworth told them just to remove the barriers at the end of the track. His intention was just to drive the diesel off the end of the tracks, over the tarmac and then run onto the horse tram rails. This did not work out too well, so presumably they had to crane it in. I wish I has been there with my camera. This is from someone who I regard as being a reliable source] I always had suspicions about running electric trams down to the War Memorial, mostly because of the need for the overhead cables. Somewhere in the documentation you will find that they intended to run battery-operated trams. I suppose the batteries would make it a not-light tram system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 6 hours ago, Happier diner said: Correct. And we all know that the last section of horse tramway was kicked into the long grass and everyone knows it will never be done That would be the long grass where the horse trams will/maybe built, aka dog toilet, running from the end of Bottleneck Car Park to Gaeity. And that section where the tram moves from centre of the road to the walkway is just an eyesore. Can't wait to see the proposed £1 million+ horse tram interchange so they can share a single track. Also looking at Google maps the tram tracks will go right through the middle of both roundels. Which be interesting as you wait to turn right up Broadway or Finch Road and a horse tram overtakes. Oh and there is a time portal on Google maps. Some of the street views date back to 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 36 minutes ago, CallMeCurious said: Also looking at Google maps the tram tracks will go right through the middle of both roundels. Which be interesting as you wait to turn right up Broadway or Finch Road and a horse tram overtakes. No they won’t run through the roundels. They already move to the seaward/walkway side of the southbound carriageway at Castlemona Avenue, for the current temporary terminus. They will, if extended, continue there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 (edited) 4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: They then were told that they had to put in ridiculous clunky traffic lights as the best way of coping with their daft schemes. Presumably they thought they could do the usual DoI thing and that rules, laws and regulations were for other people. Well everything I have seen on the prom neither looks or conforms to any design of the highway rules and regulations. The shared space schemes every where else all seem to have fallen by the wayside as unworkable and dangerous, the roundels only seem to work as every one treats them as roundabouts. The only crossing that looks like it has not been designed with crayons is the puffin, no idea what the grey mock crossing are supposed to be but if you are standing there waiting for me to stop you will be waiting a while. It remains to be seen like after an injury the legality of the road markings are, up till then its like wacky tacky race track. Edited June 2 by Dirty Buggane 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casta Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 12 hours ago, John Wright said: DOI transferred the money in the authorised budget to cover the tram tracks to the sea terminal to cover budget shortfalls/spending over runs on other parts of the scheme. The new funding for the Villa to Sea Terminal was to be the subject of further budgetary approval in the following financial year. By then we had had covid and the Liverpool Terminal and Ranson and a dozen other overspends, unexpected contingencies, Manx Care, and have run out of cash. Or as Sir Humphrey might add "in other words, an almighty cock up". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 7 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said: Well everything I have seen on the prom neither looks or conforms to any design of the highway rules and regulations. The shared space schemes every where else all seem to have fallen by the wayside as unworkable and dangerous, the roundels only seem to work as every one treats them as roundabouts. The only crossing that looks like it has not been designed with crayons is the puffin, no idea what the grey mock crossing are supposed to be but if you are standing there waiting for me to stop you will be waiting a while. It remains to be seen like after an injury the legality of the road markings are, up till then its like wacky tacky race track. What are these rules and regulations that you are quoting? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emesde Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: What are these rules and regulations that you are quoting? In the UK there are very strict requirements for zebra crossings and all the other types. I'm sure there are rules here too but whether they are similar you would have to check with DOI. I once queried a similar situation with DOI regarding legality of some road signage. And was told that if it didn't comply they would get the rules changed so that it did . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barlow Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 21 hours ago, Happier diner said: I think it's blatantly obvious. They had run out of time and money. Something had to give. If they had continued with the original plan for the horse trams they would have probably still been at it now. The walk way will need to be replaced sometime soon. Maybe the horse trams will be put there then, as per various options. I wasn't too sure why there was such a fuss against that originally. I think it would be rather jolly and would give more real estate to the promenade roadway. Edited June 3 by Barlow 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 2 hours ago, emesde said: In the UK there are very strict requirements for zebra crossings and all the other types. I'm sure there are rules here too but whether they are similar you would have to check with DOI. I once queried a similar situation with DOI regarding legality of some road signage. And was told that if it didn't comply they would get the rules changed so that it did . We do not live in the UK The zebras and pelicans provided do comply with UK specifications The other grey block paved things are not crossings but merely provide a place where you might chose to cross. Therefore there is no 'strict' requirement. They are common place in Europe and beyond. If all of these were pelicans then the whole prom would be one great pelican crossing IMO - There is no issue apart from all the blocks are coming out of all the crossings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 14 hours ago, John Wright said: No they won’t run through the roundels. They already move to the seaward/walkway side of the southbound carriageway at Castlemona Avenue, for the current temporary terminus. They will, if extended, continue there. My bad, thought that was why there was a stretch of red tarmac/concrete down the middle of the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 29 minutes ago, Happier diner said: The other grey block paved things are not crossings but merely provide a place where you might chose to cross. Therefore there is no 'strict' requirement. They are common place in Europe and beyond. If all of these were pelicans then the whole prom would be one great pelican crossing So if someone steps out in front of you it'd be treated the same as anywhere else on a road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 minute ago, CallMeCurious said: So if someone steps out in front of you it'd be treated the same as anywhere else on a road. That is always the case. If a pedestrian is on the road you have to yield to them. This is regardless of what crossing (legal/Illegal/Non existent or not a crossing at all). You cannot run people over just because they are not on a proper crossing. The only difference is that with the 'non crossings' you don't have to stop if the pedestrian is not actually on the 'non crossing' but only waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 5 minutes ago, Happier diner said: That is always the case. If a pedestrian is on the road you have to yield to them. This is regardless of what crossing (legal/Illegal/Non existent or not a crossing at all). You cannot run people over just because they are not on a proper crossing. The only difference is that with the 'non crossings' you don't have to stop if the pedestrian is not actually on the 'non crossing' but only waiting. What I meant was if someone was stood at a zebra with a clear intent to cross then you have to give way or yield the road to them. If someone is standing at a non-crossing also with a clear intent to cross, you don't have an obligation to yield unless they decide to step out? I wasn't suggesting you have a right to run over anyone who steps out wherever it happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 10 hours ago, Casta said: Or as Sir Humphrey might add "in other words, an almighty cock up". That defied the defined use of the funding granted by the democratic will of Tynwald. Twice. Mere bagatelle to the DOI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.