Sheffield to Rotherham tram-train scheme delayed by year
A £58m project to run trams on railway lines in South Yorkshire is a year behind schedule.
The tram-trains service, linking Sheffield, Meadowhall and Rotherham via local tram routes and Network Rail lines, was due to start this year.
Network Rail apologised and said it was waiting for approval from the transport secretary to build 150m (164yd) of track at Tinsley.
It said the full tram-train service would "not be introduced until 2017".
An application to connect both the tram and rail networks at Tinsley was submitted on 13 March.
In a statement, Network Rail said: "The combination of the complexity of the project, added to the need to apply for powers to build the link between the two networks means that the full tram-train service will not be introduced until 2017.
A number of interested bodies, such as TfGM, are awaiting the eventual results of the trials.
My fear is that some "officers" in the West & South Yorkshire City Regions are seeing tram-train as a replacement Pacer - it's clearly not !
Have they still not got that message? It's really quite simple - a conventional train is always going to be a better cost-benefit than a tram-train, unless the service has a good reason to go off the existing railway line.
My fear is that some "officers" in the West & South Yorkshire City Regions are seeing tram-train as a replacement Pacer - it's clearly not !
If you had experienced the violent shaking motion that often afflicts Metrolink M5000 trams at their top speed of 50mph, you might revise that view! Articulated vehicles seem to be prone to "hunting" problems at speed.I think that is not at all clear cut and depends on what form the tram train takes. I would definitely rather something like a Metrolink high floor tram than a Pacer, say.
Hmmmm.
In its original form, the tram-train trial was to be diesel powered (feasible with this style of vehicle, I gather) and operate between Huddersfield and Sheffield. The thinking was that a substantial part of this route has nothing running on it except these local services - no heavy freight or long-distance trains - yet other parts of it are mixed traffic. And that the T-T, being a lighter vehicle, might allow for reduced maintenance budget on dedicated routes. That was what was to be evaluated. I don't think the intent was to run it onto the tramlines - merely to see the impact on track costs on the dedicated part of the route whilst inter-operating with heavier traffic on the remainder.
If those (unproved) assumptions are in fact true, then perhaps the converse IS the case - that a tram-train (on a largely exclusive route) might well be more cost-effective overall.
Something that I've just realised too... Team-trains may also come into conflict with the crash testing standards in that they can't pass the 110kph test - that's a tangle I'd rather not get my head around !
The original proposal was for bi-mode vehicles which would run on the Sheffield Supertram network on the DC, and then diesel from Meadowhall to Huddersfield. It was attempted to sell this to the people of Huddersfield and its Southern rural hinterland by offering the possibility of street-running into Huddersfield Town centre too, but I don't think anyone fell for that! The issues with that plan were that running almost 50 miles on diesel on each return trip would require large fuel tanks, which add to the weight. Also there would need to be extra loops added to increase frequency, without which the changes would seem very much like a downgrading compared to the current setup. It would also have been very tricky to build a link from the existing tramway to the Barnsley/Huddersfield lines at Meadowhall.
I have emboldened the phrase Team-trains in your quote above and possessing something of a quirky sense of humour, what came to mind was a wheeled vehicle pulled by a well-trained team of huskies...
Something that I've just realised too... Team-trains may also come into conflict with the crash testing standards in that they can't pass the 110kph test - that's a tangle I'd rather not get my head around !
I think that is not at all clear cut and depends on what form the tram train takes. I would definitely rather something like a Metrolink high floor tram than a Pacer, say.
Not sure what standard you're referring to there, but tram-trains don't have to pass railway standards for crashworthiness. The risk is managed instead by accepting the greater severity of collision and reducing the likelihood of that collision by providing extra TPWS and longer overlaps.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The tram-train might (or might not) be more comfortable for the passenger than a 30-year-old train. But the issue is that it's a lot more expensive per seat than a modern equivalent train, and this is very unlikely to be offset by a slightly lower operating and maintenance cost.
So to be worth doing the tram-train needs to attract more passengers than a modern equivalent train, and that means using the off-rail capability to provide a service to somewhere people want to go but can't get to by train. Or, possibly, bypassing the rail network near a major town station where capacity is restricted, so that a suburban service can run at a higher frequency.
The risk is managed instead by accepting the greater severity of collision and reducing the likelihood of that collision by providing extra TPWS and longer overlaps.
And also capital costs per passenger place are lower (which is contrary to your supposition above). This is mainly achieved by the simple expedient of expecting that most passengers at peak periods will travel standing up (while paying the same fare or higher). For journeys of less than 30 minutes, most users appear very happy with this. Typically a tram-train carries around a third of peak-period passengers seated - compared to a quarter on a conventional metro or tram.
An EMU typically costs about £1.1m per coach (20m or 23m long). A tram about 30m long (and a bit narrower, also with cabs each end) costs over twice that. For longer formations, the costs of both go up roughly in proportion to their length. A tram-train costs quite a bit more than a tram of the same size, due to needing special features and being produced in small batches rather than tens or hundreds as is typical for modern trams.
So the cost per square metre of passenger space will be significantly more for the tram. It's possible that the cost divided by the capacity would be similar, but only if the tram is laid out for mostly standing and the train for mostly seated, and that isn't really a fair comparison.
The tram-train might (or might not) be more comfortable for the passenger than a 30-year-old train. But the issue is that it's a lot more expensive per seat than a modern equivalent train, and this is very unlikely to be offset by a slightly lower operating and maintenance cost.
So to be worth doing the tram-train needs to attract more passengers than a modern equivalent train, and that means using the off-rail capability to provide a service to somewhere people want to go but can't get to by train. Or, possibly, bypassing the rail network near a major town station where capacity is restricted, so that a suburban service can run at a higher frequency.
Costs of course are lower; specfically due to driver-only operation; and lower maintainance and staffing costs at tram-stops compared to train stations. And there are no lavs to maintain and clean; either on the trains or the stops.
And also capital costs per passenger place are lower (which is contrary to your supposition above). This is mainly achieved by the simple expedient of expecting that most passengers at peak periods will travel standing up (while paying the same fare or higher). For journeys of less than 30 minutes, most users appear very happy with this. Typically a tram-train carries around a third of peak-period passengers seated - compared to a quarter on a conventional metro or tram.
Indeed, should not comparisons between the operating and capital costs of tram-trains versus EMUs, for the same line, be carried out on a like-for-like basis? The Northern ITT specifically permits bidders to propose "metro-style" rolling stock for short distance commuting.I was very careful to refer to cost "per seat" for that very reason. If you can get away with higher numbers of standing passengers on a tram then you can do the same with train journeys of a similar length, as seen on most metros. The problem would be ensuring that those trains are kept on diagrams with short journeys and don't find their way onto longer ones.
I am not convinced that TfGM's tram-train proposals satisfy either of edwin_m's criteria that I have bolded above, considering that the Northern Hub implementation will increase platform capacity for commuter services at the Central Manchester stations.
Ah, in which case I am happy to amend my opinion and respect your greater knowledge of this subject.Seeing I did a lot of the background work for TfGM's proposals, I'll have to disassociate myself from that opinion...
I didn't get involved with the business case side of things, but the TfGM proposals have a lot to do with creating capacity. This is still restricted around Piccadilly even after Northern Hub and bypassing some of the more congested sections via tramway lets more services run on the less congested parts.
Regarding the capacity issue, I suspect the argument will be along the lines of...the emu may be nearly 3 times longer but we can run tram-trains at more than 3 times the frequency. Therefore an increase in capacity.
A DMU unit length versus far improved tram frequency matter that was often cited as a subject for discussion when the respective merits of the heavy rail DMU and the Manchester Metrolink trams on the Oldham loop line was being discussed in past days on this website,
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Could it be, the "Tram-Train" fad is because we don t like building Interurban Tramway infrastructure in this country? So, we think use the existing Railway.......Trouble is, the Railway is already running near full capicity already. Either convert the rail line to tramway standard, like Metrolink OR extend the Railway (More expensive). Mixing the two modes will cause delays to the railways.