Tramways: Which towns and cities would benefit most?

[edwin_m]

An 80% underground 12.6km mini-metro line costs about €1bn (hard to get an exact figure in English) going by Rennes Line B. With 15 stations.

I imagine we might get economies of scale if we started spamming them, but it is something to think about given the rather large cost of recent tram systems.

Not sure how sending anyone junk mail reduces the price, but never mind.

The figures you quote suggest that York would have to spend over £2bn to connect its park and rides by such a system. The problem with these is that they have to be either elevated (usually unacceptable in an existing built-up area especially a historic one) or underground (very expensive). Any surface sections cause community severance because they can't be crossed freely. A heavy rail line does the same but these have been there for long enough that the local geography has mostly adapted to them.

This illustrates the scalability problem with intermediate capacity systems. A mini-metro requires most of the infrastructure of a full metro, but carries far fewer people, so the capital cost per person carried is much higher. So probably is the operating cost, even assuming both systems are driverless, due to needing more vehicles and the energy loss in rubber tyres. So for cities that are too small to generate the demand for a full metro, and whose street layout is unsuitable for trams, there isn't really a solution that looks cost-effective.

 

[HSTEd]

Not sure how sending anyone junk mail reduces the price, but never mind.

Amusing, but I was just pointing out that a lot of infrastructure projects are full of things that are unique architectural statements.
Like bespoke stations where they even make bespoke passenger shelters for platforms that fit the corporate branding of the system (see Manchester Metrolink as an example)

A dozen identical systems with identical vehicles, standard station components, identical depot designs etc etc could significantly reduce costs.
Look at the costs of the Besançon tram as an example.

The figures you quote suggest that York would have to spend over £2bn to connect its park and rides by such a system. The problem with these is that they have to be either elevated (usually unacceptable in an existing built-up area especially a historic one) or underground (very expensive). Any surface sections cause community severance because they can't be crossed freely. A heavy rail line does the same but these have been there for long enough that the local geography has mostly adapted to them.

The gradients a rubber tyre system are capable do hold out the possibility of shallow or near surface stations even if the majority of the route has to be in a bored tunnel. 8-12% makes it much easier to pop up shallow for a cheaper station and then dive down again than even an all-axle steel wheel systems can manage.

Cut and Cover is only really expensive where you have to pay for lots of disruption and utilites realignment, which is not the case in open terrain.

This illustrates the scalability problem with intermediate capacity systems. A mini-metro requires most of the infrastructure of a full metro, but carries far fewer people, so the capital cost per person carried is much higher. So probably is the operating cost, even assuming both systems are driverless, due to needing more vehicles and the energy loss in rubber tyres. So for cities that are too small to generate the demand for a full metro, and whose street layout is unsuitable for trams, there isn't really a solution that looks cost-effective.

Well given our current situation we are going to have to find one.
And to be honest given realistic public borrowing costs, I think it is probably just swallow the costs of the metro and hope the costs can be reduced through series production.

 

[edwin_m]

Amusing, but I was just pointing out that a lot of infrastructure projects are full of things that are unique architectural statements.
Like bespoke stations where they even make bespoke passenger shelters for platforms that fit the corporate branding of the system (see Manchester Metrolink as an example)

I was involved in the Metrolink Phase 3 design and I can assure you that all the stations were built from a common modular kit of parts, put together in different ways to suit each site. With around 50 stops and probably several hundred shelters the extra cost of specifying something specific to the project (not bespoke to each stop) would have been pretty small.

A dozen identical systems with identical vehicles, standard station components, identical depot designs etc etc could significantly reduce costs.

True, but Metrolink adopted a standard vehicle design from Germany as well as the standardised stations. Depots are built up from standard components and machinery but in an urban area it's pretty unlikely to find two sites exactly the same shape to allow identical depots, and the cost saving of doing so would be small as site-specific design is always going to be needed.

Not sure why you have such a downer on Metrolink Phase 3 - they four times as much tramway as Edinburgh for twice as much money, even though Edinburgh also bought an off-the-shelf vehicle design. It is in fact a good example of the cost savings possible from standardisation and adopting a no-frills approach.

The gradients a rubber tyre system are capable do hold out the possibility of shallow or near surface stations even if the majority of the route has to be in a bored tunnel. 8-12% makes it much easier to pop up shallow for a cheaper station and then dive down again than even an all-axle steel wheel systems can manage.

Yes they do, and that would save a bit of energy too, although if the stations can be near the surface you have to question why the rest of the route can't also be. But a shallow sub-surface station still needs all the paraphanalia of lifts and probably escalators and possibly emergency exits as well (though some lateral thinking might help scale down that requirement, for example having the track useable as an emergency walkway). On a segregated mini-metro even stations have to be multi-level as people can't cross the track like a tramway.

Cut and Cover is only really expensive where you have to pay for lots of disruption and utilites realignment, which is not the case in open terrain.

If you're in open terrain, why not just run on the surface?

Well given our current situation we are going to have to find one.

Maybe so, but I don't think we have found it yet.

And to be honest given realistic public borrowing costs, I think it is probably just swallow the costs of the metro and hope the costs can be reduced through series production.

The VAL you mentioned is in fact a very standardised system, with the same vehicle designs and infrastructure used in multiple places. Modern tramways are also fairly standard but unlike VAL the interfaces are open and materials for extension and replacement can be procured from multiple suppliers. So when the system is hopefullly successful and to be extended the promoting authority is not locked in to proprietary technology. It's significant that despite the supposed advantages of VAL and similar technologies, they have made little progress except in France and countries with a strong French influence, and as airport shuttles where the market dynamics are somewhat different.

 

[HSTEd]

Not sure why you have such a downer on Metrolink Phase 3 - they four times as much tramway as Edinburgh for twice as much money, even though Edinburgh also bought an off-the-shelf vehicle design. It is in fact a good example of the cost savings possible from standardisation and adopting a no-frills approach.

Does that include the track that was converted from Network Rail?

But saying you did better than Edinburgh is not particularly high praise is it?

But a shallow sub-surface station still needs all the paraphanalia of lifts and probably escalators and possibly emergency exits as well (though some lateral thinking might help scale down that requirement, for example having the track useable as an emergency walkway). On a segregated mini-metro even stations have to be multi-level as people can't cross the track like a tramway.

Well if we can go shallow enough we can probably get the station into a semi-open trench which does not qualify as an underground station, and use ramps to avoid the escalators.

Going deep is important because it allows us to avoid interfering substantially with the foundations of buildings above the alignment.

We are unlikely to be ever allowed driverless trams with people crossing the track on the flat unfortunately.

If you're in open terrain, why not just run on the surface?

The locals probably aren't too fond of the idea of running a tram on the surface through the middle of a park.

The VAL you mentioned is in fact a very standardised system, with the same vehicle designs and infrastructure used in multiple places. Modern tramways are also fairly standard but unlike VAL the interfaces are open and materials for extension and replacement can be procured from multiple suppliers.

A large scale programme is likely to have sufficient leverage to be able to obtain licences for manufacturing of parts and the like.
(A dozen or more lines across multiple cities, to start with).

So when the system is hopefullly successful and to be extended the promoting authority is not locked in to proprietary technology. It's significant that despite the supposed advantages of VAL and similar technologies, they have made little progress except in France and countries with a strong French influence, and as airport shuttles where the market dynamics are somewhat different.

Well one of the largest metro systems in the western world, and the one of the only ones to have been built entirely since the invention of rubber tyre metro technology, Mexico City, is dominated by the rubber tyre technology.

I think that in the intermediate capacity range, what matters most is the headways.
Because the shorter the headways, the shorter each vehicle can be for a given capacity.
The shorter each vehicle is the shorter the platforms and the smaller the station circulating spaces have to be because of the smaller number of passengers moving through the station at any given instant.

 

[edwin_m]

Does that include the track that was converted from Network Rail?

Yes, but the ratio of converted to new track wasn't much different from other British tramways. And the conversion was more of a total rebuild in a lot of ways.

Well if we can go shallow enough we can probably get the station into a semi-open trench which does not qualify as an underground station, and use ramps to avoid the escalators.

In the sort of city you are talking about, where streets are too narrow/busy for a street running tramway, open trench wouldn't work either. I did see a report that treated it as an option in the historic Georgian part of Dublin, but it was dismissed fairly quickly...

We are unlikely to be ever allowed driverless trams with people crossing the track on the flat unfortunately.

If we can get driverless cars then we can get driverless trams. Actually they're simpler because the control system only has to determine speed, not steer as well.

A large scale programme is likely to have sufficient leverage to be able to obtain licences for manufacturing of parts and the like. (A dozen or more lines across multiple cities, to start with).

The problem with several cities clubbing together is that if one of them has to drop out for some reason, the loss of economies of scale may sink all the others. I agree that's a problem with the way we do things in the UK, but I don't think many other countries do it differently. The closest we get is manufacturers supplying standard products, which certainly happens in light rail.

Well one of the largest metro systems in the western world, and the one of the only ones to have been built entirely since the invention of rubber tyre metro technology, Mexico City, is dominated by the rubber tyre technology.

The most recent line in Mexico City appears to have adopted traditional steel wheel technology. There are plenty of metros using steel wheel that have opened since the first line in Mexico (1969) or are under construction, the vast majority using steel wheel. Excluding airports, the lists on Wikipedia show 27 rubber-tyre systems out of about 150 in total opening since then.

I think that in the intermediate capacity range, what matters most is the headways.
Because the shorter the headways, the shorter each vehicle can be for a given capacity.
The shorter each vehicle is the shorter the platforms and the smaller the station circulating spaces have to be because of the smaller number of passengers moving through the station at any given instant.

You are correct - for short urban journeys the headway should ideally be five minutes or better and a technology that has much bigger vehicles running at longer intervals or running nearly empty is not optimal for that city. But it doesn't change my point that a vehicle half the size will cost somewhat more than half as much, and the infrastructure for those vehicles will cost a good deal more than half as much. So the cost per passenger carried will be higher in a city with fewer passengers even if the vehicle size and technology achieves exactly the optimium load factor for that demand level.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, but the ratio of converted to new track wasn't much different from other British tramways. And the conversion was more of a total rebuild in a lot of ways.

I understand that much of the infrastructure had to be extensively worked on.

But it still meant they were in posession of a right of way that was already clear, and could have tracked laid upon it without astronomical sums on locating and moving other buried services, and without huge traffic disruption problems.

In the sort of city you are talking about, where streets are too narrow/busy for a street running tramway, open trench wouldn't work either. I did see a report that treated it as an option in the historic Georgian part of Dublin, but it was dismissed fairly quickly...

The trench would be rather short however, because the platforms would be very short and half the platforms could be covered in anyway without causing legal issues with regards to underground stations.

If we can get driverless cars then we can get driverless trams. Actually they're simpler because the control system only has to determine speed, not steer as well.

And yet a tram, despite magnetic track brakes, still has considerably worse braking performance than a car.
It can also not consider swerving as an evasive action.

The problem with several cities clubbing together is that if one of them has to drop out for some reason, the loss of economies of scale may sink all the others. I agree that's a problem with the way we do things in the UK, but I don't think many other countries do it differently. The closest we get is manufacturers supplying standard products, which certainly happens in light rail.

And this is why localism is a disastrous way to run these schemes.
Since virtually all funding will inevitably be provided by central government, procurement and construction should be run by central government so a council can't get cold feet and kill the entire scheme as a result.

You are correct - for short urban journeys the headway should ideally be five minutes or better and a technology that has much bigger vehicles running at longer intervals or running nearly empty is not optimal for that city. But it doesn't change my point that a vehicle half the size will cost somewhat more than half as much, and the infrastructure for those vehicles will cost a good deal more than half as much. So the cost per passenger carried will be higher in a city with fewer passengers even if the vehicle size and technology achieves exactly the optimium load factor for that demand level.

5 minutes is a ludicrous long headway.
We should be looking at headways in the vicinity of 60-90 seconds.

Let's take an example buried trench station.

The guideway is 5m below ground level, the length of the platform is 22m, to fit a two-car VAL type vehicle.
Since a lift would have to be provided for wheelchair users, we can provide a staircase at each end of the 22m platform for passengers, a lift that meets the minimum requiremetns for railway stations has a width of 1100m for the car, which is much narrower than all reasonable island platforms, so we can provide a lift at both ends.

A staircase to rise five metres, and apparently a reasonable staircase angle si about 60% gradient (250mm going, 150mm rise), we don't need ramps since we are providing two passenger routes and two lifts.
Descending five metres thus takes eight metres at each end. Taking our "box" length to roughly 38m so far.
We will then need 3m or so at each end for gatelines.
So our final station box length will be 44m, or 11m beyond each end of platform.

What will the guideway be doing?
The minimum vertical curve radius for VAL technology is approximately 200m according to Siemens, which means that going to a maximum 12% gradient from the flat consumes something like 6m.
So 5m of 12% descent, and 6m of transition on each end.
If we just average across the transition that is like 8m (at 12%).... one metre.

Which means by the end of the box the guideway is 6m below ground level. Which puts the roof of the vehicles ~2.3m below ground level and descending rapidly.

It is wider than a tram stop because you can't walk on the track, but is considerably shorter than a Metrolink platform, so excluded surface area is about comparable in both cases I think.
Up to half the platform length can be covered without causing underground station issues, and the guideway adjacent to the staircases can obviously be covered.

By the time we reach the 60m length of the Metrolink platform we are going to have a vehicle roof something like 3.3m below ground level.

The short length of the vehicles (made possible due to very short headways) and the extreme gradients they are capable of lend themselves to compact stations.

 

[takno]

I understand that much of the infrastructure had to be extensively worked on.

But it still meant they were in posession of a right of way that was already clear, and could have tracked laid upon it without astronomical sums on locating and moving other buried services, and without huge traffic disruption problems.


The trench would be rather short however, because the platforms would be very short and half the platforms could be covered in anyway without causing legal issues with regards to underground stations.


And yet a tram, despite magnetic track brakes, still has considerably worse braking performance than a car.
It can also not consider swerving as an evasive action.

And this is why localism is a disastrous way to run these schemes.
Since virtually all funding will inevitably be provided by central government, procurement and construction should be run by central government so a council can't get cold feet and kill the entire scheme as a result.


5 minutes is a ludicrous long headway.
We should be looking at headways in the vicinity of 60-90 seconds.

Let's take an example buried trench station.

The guideway is 5m below ground level, the length of the platform is 22m, to fit a two-car VAL type vehicle.
Since a lift would have to be provided for wheelchair users, we can provide a staircase at each end of the 22m platform for passengers, a lift that meets the minimum requiremetns for railway stations has a width of 1100m for the car, which is much narrower than all reasonable island platforms, so we can provide a lift at both ends.

A staircase to rise five metres, and apparently a reasonable staircase angle si about 60% gradient (250mm going, 150mm rise), we don't need ramps since we are providing two passenger routes and two lifts.
Descending five metres thus takes eight metres at each end. Taking our "box" length to roughly 38m so far.
We will then need 3m or so at each end for gatelines.
So our final station box length will be 44m, or 11m beyond each end of platform.

What will the guideway be doing?
The minimum vertical curve radius for VAL technology is approximately 200m according to Siemens, which means that going to a maximum 12% gradient from the flat consumes something like 6m.
So 5m of 12% descent, and 6m of transition on each end.
If we just average across the transition that is like 8m (at 12%).... one metre.

Which means by the end of the box the guideway is 6m below ground level. Which puts the roof of the vehicles ~2.3m below ground level and descending rapidly.

It is wider than a tram stop because you can't walk on the track, but is considerably shorter than a Metrolink platform, so excluded surface area is about comparable in both cases I think.
Up to half the platform length can be covered without causing underground station issues, and the guideway adjacent to the staircases can obviously be covered.

By the time we reach the 60m length of the Metrolink platform we are going to have a vehicle roof something like 3.3m below ground level.

The short length of the vehicles (made possible due to very short headways) and the extreme gradients they are capable of lend themselves to compact stations.

So it's kind of like buses running through a sewer then?

 

[HSTEd]

So it's kind of like buses running through a sewer then?

Just as much as the tube is a toy train running through a sewer?

 

[edwin_m]

I understand that much of the infrastructure had to be extensively worked on.

But it still meant they were in posession of a right of way that was already clear, and could have tracked laid upon it without astronomical sums on locating and moving other buried services, and without huge traffic disruption problems.


The trench would be rather short however, because the platforms would be very short and half the platforms could be covered in anyway without causing legal issues with regards to underground stations.


And yet a tram, despite magnetic track brakes, still has considerably worse braking performance than a car.
It can also not consider swerving as an evasive action.

And this is why localism is a disastrous way to run these schemes.
Since virtually all funding will inevitably be provided by central government, procurement and construction should be run by central government so a council can't get cold feet and kill the entire scheme as a result.


5 minutes is a ludicrous long headway.
We should be looking at headways in the vicinity of 60-90 seconds.

Let's take an example buried trench station.

The guideway is 5m below ground level, the length of the platform is 22m, to fit a two-car VAL type vehicle.
Since a lift would have to be provided for wheelchair users, we can provide a staircase at each end of the 22m platform for passengers, a lift that meets the minimum requiremetns for railway stations has a width of 1100m for the car, which is much narrower than all reasonable island platforms, so we can provide a lift at both ends.

A staircase to rise five metres, and apparently a reasonable staircase angle si about 60% gradient (250mm going, 150mm rise), we don't need ramps since we are providing two passenger routes and two lifts.
Descending five metres thus takes eight metres at each end. Taking our "box" length to roughly 38m so far.
We will then need 3m or so at each end for gatelines.
So our final station box length will be 44m, or 11m beyond each end of platform.

What will the guideway be doing?
The minimum vertical curve radius for VAL technology is approximately 200m according to Siemens, which means that going to a maximum 12% gradient from the flat consumes something like 6m.
So 5m of 12% descent, and 6m of transition on each end.
If we just average across the transition that is like 8m (at 12%).... one metre.

Which means by the end of the box the guideway is 6m below ground level. Which puts the roof of the vehicles ~2.3m below ground level and descending rapidly.

It is wider than a tram stop because you can't walk on the track, but is considerably shorter than a Metrolink platform, so excluded surface area is about comparable in both cases I think.
Up to half the platform length can be covered without causing underground station issues, and the guideway adjacent to the staircases can obviously be covered.

By the time we reach the 60m length of the Metrolink platform we are going to have a vehicle roof something like 3.3m below ground level.

The short length of the vehicles (made possible due to very short headways) and the extreme gradients they are capable of lend themselves to compact stations.

Haven't got time to argue technical details, except to note you're out by a factor of 4 on your vertical curve lengths. My fundamental point, which you have not addressed, is that the cost per passenger for these smaller-scale systems will be quite a lot higher. So they are that much more difficult to justify than classic light rail, which is hard enough in the UK to start with. As to centrally directed procurement and funding - I can't see either the cities or central government being the slightest bit interested.

 

[HSTEd]

Haven't got time to argue technical details, except to note you're out by a factor of 4 on your vertical curve lengths. My fundamental point, which you have not addressed, is that the cost per passenger for these smaller-scale systems will be quite a lot higher.

But given the very low cost of government borrowing this is not necessarily a showstopper.

So they are that much more difficult to justify than classic light rail, which is hard enough in the UK to start with.

A fully segregate mini-metro will indeed cost much more than classic light rail.... but you get a fully segregated mini-metro, which has inherently better timetable resilience and safety, and is not constrained to fully match the existing road layout.

As to centrally directed procurement and funding - I can't see either the cities or central government being the slightest bit interested.

Well that is just the political class being in denial about the scale of the challenge and the work necessary to stop it.

Stopping runaway climate change is going to require the biggest industrial mobilisation since the war.
Whilst the political class continues to deny that and desperately try to solve this problem with the toolbox of the 90s and 2000s, they will get nowhere.

 

[John Griffiths]

Milton Keynes - nice wide roads for the bits linking the communities together. Could extend to Newport Parnell and a link to the coaches interchange. And the original North Bucks plans were for a monorail based New Town!

 

[John Griffiths]

Agree also re Newcastle, though problems with topography: there's quite a bit of up and down in the Metroless west of the city.

 

[geoffk]

Surprised nobody's mentioned Cardiff, where a (very) short tram-train route is planned. I think that should be expanded, taking FLIRTs off the Coryton line and putting them on the longer journeys (to Aberdare/Treherbert/Merthyr) freeing up the tram-train units for more on-street sections and extension of the Coryton line to Taff's Well (which should be the furthest north the (toiletless) tram-train units should work).

Despite travelling through both Cardiff and Swansea on heavy rail services many times, I've not spent much time looking around the cities (so am not an expert on travel patterns there etc.), but I think Swansea ought to have a tram link between the main railway station ('Swansea High Street') and the bus station ('Quadrant'). Of course that doesn't make a tram system by itself, so other routes would be needed too. Other topics on here previously have discussed the impossibility of reopening the Mumbles railway, but as a tram service with on-street sections it ought to be possible. From looking at maps / Google Earth, the following also look interesting:

• Llangennech-Bynea-Llanelli Bus Station-(Llanelli)-Gowerton-Dunvant-Killay-Sketty-Swansea,
  
• Swansea-Landore (for stadium)-Morriston (perhaps the trickiest) and
• Swansea-(Fabian Way P&R)-(Jersey Marine)-(Neath Abbey)-Neath

Llanelli, Fabian Way P&R, Jersey Marine and Neath Abbey are in brackets above as these look like being sections where a tram-train sharing heavy-rail infrustructure could be helpful. I'd suggest low-floor tram-trains like Sheffield's for this, since there would only be four stations (Llanelli, Swansea High Street, Fabian Way P&R and Neath Abbey) served by both heavy rail and the new tram-train system. Heavy rail services at Fabian Way P&R would run to Morriston/Clydach (via Llandarcy) and Aberdare/Cardiff (via Glynneath and Hirwaun). Ideally these would run through to Swansea High Street rather than passengers having to change onto a tram at Fabian Way P&R, but I used to think this wasn't possible (the suggestion by Prof. Mark Barry of using the route through Jersey Marine for services to London now has me wondering whether heavy rail could link into High Street after all).

Coryton (extended back on-street to an M4/A470 Parkway) - Queen St - Bute Road/Cardiff Bay - past the Millennium Centre to join the Penarth line near Cogan. If extra tracks could be provided between Heath Jn (this section used to be four tracked) and Queen St this could be a straight tram, not tram-train. It's a while since I was in Cardiff though!

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Coryton (extended back on-street to an M4/A470 Parkway) - Queen St - Bute Road/Cardiff Bay - past the Millennium Centre to join the Penarth line near Cogan. If extra tracks could be provided between Heath Jn (this section used to be four tracked) and Queen St this could be a straight tram, not tram-train. It's a while since I was in Cardiff though!

Cardiff Council recently announced plans for two new Tram/Train lines. The first nicknamed the "Circle Line" would link the Coryton line with the TVR at Morganstown while the second, "Crossrail", would utilise the goods branch from the SWML to Cardiff docks and the old Llantrisant number 1 railway alignment to provide east-west services with the two linked by street running in the city centre.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48869196

 

[geoffk]

Cardiff Council recently announced plans for two new Tram/Train lines. The first nicknamed the "Circle Line" would link the Coryton line with the TVR at Morganstown while the second, "Crossrail", would utilise the goods branch from the SWML to Cardiff docks and the old Llantrisant number 1 railway alignment to provide east-west services with the two linked by street running in the city centre.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48869196

Interesting.

 

[Roavin]

Leeds and possibly York. Leeds simply inherently deserves one as it's the largest city in Europe without such a system. Could run several routes into the town centre from surrounding suburbs, towns and cities (most obvious one being Bradford). I could also see the trams running underground in the centre, copying Cologne and Bonn in Germany.

 

[AndyHudds]

Leeds and possibly York. Leeds simply inherently deserves one as it's the largest city in Europe without such a system. Could run several routes into the town centre from surrounding suburbs, towns and cities (most obvious one being Bradford). I could also see the trams running underground in the centre, copying Cologne and Bonn in Germany.

Thing is though no one wants to pay for it. Leeds City Council can't even stick bus lanes off Burmantofts Lane/Beckett Street with the acres of grass verge available to drive one through to speed up the buses.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Agree also re Newcastle, though problems with topography: there's quite a bit of up and down in the Metroless west of the city.

Hills aren't a problem for trams in Prague, or Sheffield.

 

[edwin_m]

Hills aren't a problem for trams in Prague, or Sheffield.

10% maximum gradient as a rule of thumb if all axles are motored. But they'll be quite slow on these sections so probably not great if widespread across the city.

 

[CaledonianBlue]

Milton Keynes - nice wide roads for the bits linking the communities together. Could extend to Newport Parnell and a link to the coaches interchange. And the original North Bucks plans were for a monorail based New Town!

Interesting to see how trams could benefit a place that never had them, was never designed for then, could be a model for elsewhere. and/or, is there already a model from elsewhere?

 

[CaledonianBlue]

I'd have a thought Glasgow waterfront could be worth a look (again)? It seems a place of still unfulfilled potential, with parts of both north and south banks still relatively remote from public transport.

 

[Clip]

Agree also re Newcastle, though problems with topography: there's quite a bit of up and down in the Metroless west of the city.

Its westgate road that is the main issue here and if that was too steep then going along westmorland road past cruddas park you could possible go up st johns road which isnt as steep but it ideally needs to go along Elswick road to serve the more built up areas

 

[takno]

I'd have a thought Glasgow waterfront could be worth a look (again)? It seems a place of still unfulfilled potential, with parts of both north and south banks still relatively remote from public transport.

Wouldn't you be better off running a boat? seems like you might run into a fair number of restricted clearances for trams, or places where you couldn't fit trams and pedestrians in

 

[CaledonianBlue]

Wouldn't you be better off running a boat? seems like you might run into a fair number of restricted clearances for trams, or places where you couldn't fit trams and pedestrians in

I did wonder about a boat (but that wasn't the question!). I see there have been proposals in the past for a water service to Glasgow Airport.

Clearances I don't know, it would depend on the route of course. But for starters, a route from either the Riverside Museum or Science Museum to the city centre could be made with no clearance issues. Double deck trams used to go under the Central Station bridge. As for trams and pedestrians, I'd be surprised if a solution could not be found, if there is the will.

 

[d9009alycidon]

Wouldn't you be better off running a boat? seems like you might run into a fair number of restricted clearances for trams, or places where you couldn't fit trams and pedestrians in

Some sort of boat service was tried in the not too distant past http://www.clydewaterfront.com/projects/clyde-wide/c15---clyde-clippers-river-link, and to go back a century or so Glasgow had the "Cluthas" which provided a service running up and down the River Clyde. They were introduced between Victoria Bridge and Whiteinch Ferry, taking about 45 minutes on the 3 miles (4.8 km) route which included 11 landing stages alternating on both sides of the river, competition from the original tram system from 1901 resulted in the Cluthas being withdrawn in 1903. I think in that historical description of both attempts lies the restriction that a water based service faces, it takes a lot more time to moor the boat to allow passengers on and off compared to train or tram.

 

[HSTEd]

I hate to say it because of all the hate that has been generated by it recently..... but a ropeway?

Going across water is no real problem for a ropeway and stations allow it to change direction through almost arbitrary angles.

 

[takno]

I hate to say it because of all the hate that has been generated by it recently..... but a ropeway?

Going across water is no real problem for a ropeway and stations allow it to change direction through almost arbitrary angles.

I've got images of Glasgow businessmen holding their briefcases over their heads crossing the Clyde on a death-slide now.

What exactly are you thinking of for a ropeway?

 

[HSTEd]

I've got images of Glasgow businessmen holding their briefcases over their heads crossing the Clyde on a death-slide now.

What exactly are you thinking of for a ropeway?

Something like that or that

8.5m/s maximum speed and several thousand people per hour in each direction is possible.

 

[takno]

Something like that or that

8.5m/s maximum speed and several thousand people per hour in each direction is possible.

Tbh I think Boris's folly might have permanently killed off the concept of a cable car for urban transportation in the UK. In terms of running one down the river in Glasgow specifically I'm struggling to see how you'd interface with the many and variously-heighted bridges.

 

[HSTEd]

Tbh I think Boris's folly might have permanently killed off the concept of a cable car for urban transportation in the UK. In terms of running one down the river in Glasgow specifically I'm struggling to see how you'd interface with the many and variously-heighted bridges.

By going over them, ropeways are capable of ascending at 40+ degree angles.