{"id":839,"date":"2012-05-12T18:01:47","date_gmt":"2012-05-12T18:01:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/?p=839"},"modified":"2012-05-12T18:01:47","modified_gmt":"2012-05-12T18:01:47","slug":"another-broken-down-tram-causes-metrolink-delays","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/?p=839","title":{"rendered":"Another broken down tram causes Metrolink delays"},"content":{"rendered":"

Friday 4th<\/sup> May saw another broken down T68 causing delays in Manchester City Centre as the ongoing problems with the older vehicles makes headlines in the City.\u00a0 This time the guilty parties were 1008+1005 <\/strong>which were running as a coupled unit on the Altrincham-Bury direct route. Although they were moved fairly quickly there were knock on delays until the evening rush hour.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The trams failed at around 1315 between Market Street and Mosley Street 2001<\/strong>, 1019<\/strong> and 2005<\/strong> all queued behind at Market Street with 3012<\/strong> also out of service at Shudehill. Engineers on the scene were attending to the coupling between the vehicles and seemingly managed to fix the issue as shortly after the incident they resumed on their way towards
\nAltrincham. They ran out of service as far as Timperley where they reversed and formed a service back as far as Victoria.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

The guilty parties! Engineers take a look at the coupler between 1005 and 1008 at Piccadilly Gardens. (Photo: Ian Buck)<\/p><\/div>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Another view of 1008 (coupled to 1005) in Manchester City Centre having failed and caused chaos. (Photo: Ian Buck)<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

A queue of trams at Market Street waiting for the failed trams to be cleared. (Photo: Ian Buck)<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Friday 4th May saw another broken down T68 causing delays in Manchester City Centre as the ongoing problems with the older vehicles makes headlines in the City.\u00a0 This time the guilty parties were 1008+1005 which were running as a coupled … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[17],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/839"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=839"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/839\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":844,"href":"https:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/839\/revisions\/844"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.britishtramsonline.co.uk\/news\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}