Tramways: Which towns and cities would benefit most?

[duffield]

A mass of overhead wiring does tend to draw attention to this is not a normal road though.
But the real answer to prevent access to guided busways is retracting bollards activated by the approach of the buses.

Day 1: Shiny new bollards activated successfully.
Day 2: Motorist follows bus 'too close', bollards rise under car, car stranded and bollard damaged so it won't retract.
Day 3: Faulty bollard rises up under bus...
After 3 months: spiralling repair costs and service disruptions due to repeated occurrences of the above lead to bollards being removed/disabled.
(Something very like this happened to the retractable bollards preventing unauthorised access to certain pedestrianised areas in Nottingham; I believe this is why they were not considered for the relevant parts of the tram system).

 

[HSTEd]

Day 1: Shiny new bollards activated successfully.
Day 2: Motorist follows bus 'too close', bollards rise under car, car stranded and bollard damaged so it won't retract.
Day 3: Faulty bollard rises up under bus...
After 3 months: spiralling repair costs and service disruptions due to repeated occurrences of the above lead to bollards being removed/disabled.
(Something very like this happened to the retractable bollards preventing unauthorised access to certain pedestrianised areas in Nottingham; I believe this is why they were not considered for the relevant parts of the tram system).

The alternative could just be a more traditional rising barrier.
But I suspect the solution would be proper checking of the bollard after the car gets stranded and an enormous fine for the driver concerned.

 

[edwin_m]

A mass of overhead wiring does tend to draw attention to this is not a normal road though.
But the real answer to prevent access to guided busways is retracting bollards activated by the approach of the buses.

Yes, you're probably right. Fixed bollards don't work so well as for trams, as before the bus gets to the guided section its path is not absolutely defined so the gap between them needs to be much wider. And if the bollards are after the start of the guided section then the illegal vehicle has probably grounded on the guideway before it gets there. You've stopped the vehicle but also stopped the bus service for however long it takes to drag it out (although worse with trams as they can't divert).

 

[cnjb8]

Yes, you're probably right. Fixed bollards don't work so well as for trams, as before the bus gets to the guided section its path is not absolutely defined so the gap between them needs to be much wider. And if the bollards are after the start of the guided section then the illegal vehicle has probably grounded on the guideway before it gets there. You've stopped the vehicle but also stopped the bus service for however long it takes to drag it out (although worse with trams as they can't divert).

I think bollards of some sort would be needed. The amount of cars that get stuck between the tracks on Nottingham tram which is bollard-less is so big it doesn't make the news anymore.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Something very like this happened to the retractable bollards preventing unauthorised access to certain pedestrianised areas in Nottingham; I believe this is why they were not considered for the relevant parts of the tram system.

That's strange. Cardiff's pedetrianised areas are controlled by retractable bollards and they seem be very effective end efficient. Maybe they're a more modern system or something.

 

[duffield]

That's strange. Cardiff's pedetrianised areas are controlled by retractable bollards and they seem be very effective end efficient. Maybe they're a more modern system or something.

Maybe, the Nottingham experiment was quite a few years ago.

 

[JKF]

There is a substantial part of Leeds to the North East which must generate a fair number of car journeys as its difficult by bus, no train and worse still the residents are very well healed and often have multiple large cars. Thinking here of places around Collingham, Wetherby, Boston Spa, Tadcaster, Sherburn-in-Elmet etc. Perhaps reopening old heavy rail route Cross-gates to Harrogate with park and ride might help?

Problem with that line is that from Cross Gates up to Wetherby there isn’t much there to generate traffic, and formation has been built on in some villages. A tram route out through Seacroft or Roundhay would pass through more densely populated areas.

I think the failure of previous metro/trolleybus proposals have in part come about through the council’s determination to squeeze a route through Headingley to the north of the city, requiring expensive landtake, use of already crowded roads and upsetting the many nimbys out that way. Other cities have succeeded by using old rail corridors initially which are far less disruptive, and once these first phases have proven themselves it becomes easier to build a case for more ambitious stages. Although there are no wholly disused formations radiating from the centre of Leeds, there are several lines that have been reduced from four tracks to two leaving space for something else. A Pudsey (or Bradford) to Cross Gates/Thorpe Park cross-city scheme could utilise much of this formation, allowing fast segregated running and serving some of the more run down areas of the city such as Wortley, Armley, Osmondthorpe (with a regeneration benefit). Start with that, do the bold stuff later.

 

[CaledonianBlue]

Rothesay? Could help give the place a boost, even if largely a tourist attraction?

 

[randyrippley]

Day 1: Shiny new bollards activated successfully.
Day 2: Motorist follows bus 'too close', bollards rise under car, car stranded and bollard damaged so it won't retract.
Day 3: Faulty bollard rises up under bus...
After 3 months: spiralling repair costs and service disruptions due to repeated occurrences of the above lead to bollards being removed/disabled.
(Something very like this happened to the retractable bollards preventing unauthorised access to certain pedestrianised areas in Nottingham; I believe this is why they were not considered for the relevant parts of the tram system).

We had bollards protecting a short bus lane in Lancaster. After a year they were permanently locked out of use after regular weekly failures.
The problem was after the bus had passed the local kids would jump on them and try to ride them as they rose. The motors weren't powerful enough and burnt out on a regular basis. The idea they would damage a car is laughable

 

[duffield]

The motors weren't powerful enough and burnt out on a regular basis. The idea they would damage a car is laughable

The ones in Nottingham did damage vehicles (at least the Evening Post reported that they did).

I don't think it matters how weak the motors are, they would rise up and stop as soon as they fouled the underside of the vehicle, but the vehicle is still going forward so the bollard could then catch on a lower hanging part (e.g. the exhaust), get pulled out of alignment and jam, causing further damage as the vehicle tries to go forward.

 

[d9009alycidon]

Rothesay? Could help give the place a boost, even if largely a tourist attraction?

Didn't actually realise that Rothesay had a tramway system at one time, but the Rothesay and Ettrick Bay Light Railway operated trams on a 4ft gauge line from Rothesay to Port Bannatyne, it closed in 1936.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I do wonder if London itself has any further scope for tramlines? I think the Victoria-Cambridge Circus-Clerkenwell Corridor could be a good one, or the Edgware Road Corridor. Trouble is getting anything from Victoria/South West London to the West End is impossible because Buckingham Palace and Whitehall is in the way. The Cross River Tram, although a nice idea, would probably have been massively overcrowded and a victim of its own success like the DLR and Tramlink.

 

[edwin_m]

One of the problems with inner London trams is finding space for a depot without massive demolition and land costs. For that reason a tram line probably needs to extend out into the suburbs, where demand may not strictly justify it. Also many of London's roads are too narrow to provide dedicated tram lanes. If it has to run with general traffic a tram is slower than a bus, because it can't overtake parked vehicles and cyclists.

 

[AlbertBeale]

One of the problems with inner London trams is finding space for a depot without massive demolition and land costs. For that reason a tram line probably needs to extend out into the suburbs, where demand may not strictly justify it. Also many of London's roads are too narrow to provide dedicated tram lanes. If it has to run with general traffic a tram is slower than a bus, because it can't overtake parked vehicles and cyclists.

The answer, for central/inner London, could be trolleybuses...

 

[edwin_m]

The answer, for central/inner London, could be trolleybuses...

Unlikely. They have no more capacity than motor buses, and although electric they still have emissions of tyre particulates. And the overhead line is more obtrusive than for trams. With improvements in battery technology a battery bus will probably soon come close to the environmental performance of a trolleybus in low-speed areas like London.

 

[HSTEd]

Unlikely. They have no more capacity than motor buses, and although electric they still have emissions of tyre particulates. And the overhead line is more obtrusive than for trams. With improvements in battery technology a battery bus will probably soon come close to the environmental performance of a trolleybus in low-speed areas like London.

Battery buses have inherent productivity issues however, they will either require lots of buses to deal with the recharging issues, or they will have to have enormous high power charging infrastructure installed, or both.
Trolleybuses have much lower peak power demands, and can also more easily be used with things like air conditioning, which are a neccesity if buses are actually to become attractive public transport offers.

(Battery buses with air con will die if they ever get into a traffic jam)
"with improvements in battery technology" is unfortunately mostly just desperate Thatcherites hoping technology will bail them out of the inherent problems in their worldview.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Battery buses have inherent productivity issues however, they will either require lots of buses to deal with the recharging issues, or they will have to have enormous high power charging infrastructure installed, or both.
Trolleybuses have much lower peak power demands, and can also more easily be used with things like air conditioning, which are a neccesity if buses are actually to become attractive public transport offers.

(Battery buses with air con will die if they ever get into a traffic jam)
"with improvements in battery technology" is unfortunately mostly just desperate Thatcherites hoping technology will bail them out of the inherent problems in their worldview.

Perhaps hybrid battery/trolleys - which exist elsewhere - are a good compromise here, in terms of the advantages of trolleybuses but the possibility of installing a bit less infrastructure. Yes trams can have higher capacity than buses/trolleybuses, but only because you effectively string several vehicles together. In terms of use of roadspace, a double-decker bus/trolleybus is fine. And also you get more variety of routes than pinning down long vehicles on a track. The better manoeuvrability and variety of routing in a place like inner London suggests to me that trolleybuses make more sense than trams.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes trams can have higher capacity than buses/trolleybuses, but only because you effectively string several vehicles together.

This is true, but in a city centre like London it's important to consider that the relationship of the number of people carried to the amount of roadspace used doesn't just depend on the size of the vehicle itself. Every moving vehicle needs a piece of empty road in front of it, and the size of that piece doesn't depend much on what kind of vehicle it is.

At a speed where the safe separation is 20m, a tram 30m long will carry about 200 people and use 50m of roadspace so four people per metre. A bus 10m long will carry about 80 people and use 30m of roadspace so about 2.7 people per metre.

But I think we're largely agreed that trams aren't going to happen in inner London. So the alternative for surface transport is the self-powered bus in whatever form it takes in the future.

 

[tasky]

Crossriver tram had the backing of TfL but was cancelled in 2008 by Boris Johnson. It ran from Camden Town via King's Cross to Brixton and Peckham

Given the growth of Peckham in the intervening years it's a shame it wasn't built, really

 

[option]

I'd just convert the Blackpool South branch to tram, adding stops on all Blackpool North services at Kirkham to connect.

Wonder if you could also loop back to Blackpool North, & have additional tram only stops along that route.

 

[Howardh]

Wonder if you could also loop back to Blackpool North, & have additional tram only stops along that route.

Kirkham > Lytham > Blackpool North/Central pier > Fleetwood > Poulton would be glorious and make so much sense. Maybe branch off at Broadwater to Poulton to follow the old line so shuttle trams between Poulton and Fleetwood? Without extension Poulton would be like Navigation Road, trains on one track, trams the other so a bit of a bottleneck.

Note; the No 14 now goes directly past Poulton station on it's Blackpool > Fleetwood route (used to be a 10-15' walk to the stop) which reads to me that there's a demand and a tramway could be well used.

 

[option]

Other cities have succeeded by using old rail corridors initially which are far less disruptive, and once these first phases have proven themselves it becomes easier to build a case for more ambitious stages.

This is an important point.
The base cost of starting a new tram system is very high because you need a depot, electrical supply, maintenance staff, back office staff etc. Therefore the cheaper you can do the first route the better. Additional routes will then be majority route cost.

Metrolink, Supertram, Midland Metro, NET, London Trams, all use pre-existing alignments on their first lines.

 

[Ianno87]

This is an important point.
The base cost of starting a new tram system is very high because you need a depot, electrical supply, maintenance staff, back office staff etc. Therefore the cheaper you can do the first route the better. Additional routes will then be majority route cost.

Metrolink, Supertram, Midland Metro, NET, London Trams, all use pre-existing alignments on their first lines.

But also justify a relatively small 'core' bit of infrastructure to bolt future extensions onto - e.g. Victoria/G-Mex/Piccadilly triangle for Metrolink.

 

[option]

But also justify a relatively small 'core' bit of infrastructure to bolt future extensions onto - e.g. Victoria/G-Mex/Piccadilly triangle for Metrolink.

Indeed.

Which is why the way to plan a tram/metro network is to map out everything you can possibly think of, no matter how speculative, & work out what the commonalities are.

 

[geoffk]

Metrolink also used pre-existing stations to save money and this tied them to high platforms for all subsequent extensions. With hindsight, was this the right decision?

 

[edwin_m]

Metrolink also used pre-existing stations to save money and this tied them to high platforms for all subsequent extensions. With hindsight, was this the right decision?

Probably not, though they can't really be blamed for this as low-floor or even step-floor trams didn't exist when the design decisions were taken in the late 1980s, so high floor with high platforms was the only solution offering level boarding.

The stations converted to Metrolink in Phase 3 were basically demolished and rebuilt, and doing so with low platforms would have been slightly cheaper due to less concrete and considerably easier due to shorter access ramps taking up less room and the possibility of integrating a low platform into the general footway. On the other hand, the tram-train extensions they are now thinking about would have been more difficult, as heavy rail stations would have to be converted to low platform or to dual height if retaining a train service. And high floor trams are potentially more suitable for longer distances (although the current Metrolink fleet isn't a good example of this) as the running gear doesn't project above floor so there is flexibility to choose the best seating layout.

 

[geoffk]

Probably not, though they can't really be blamed for this as low-floor or even step-floor trams didn't exist when the design decisions were taken in the late 1980s, so high floor with high platforms was the only solution offering level boarding.

The stations converted to Metrolink in Phase 3 were basically demolished and rebuilt, and doing so with low platforms would have been slightly cheaper due to less concrete and considerably easier due to shorter access ramps taking up less room and the possibility of integrating a low platform into the general footway. On the other hand, the tram-train extensions they are now thinking about would have been more difficult, as heavy rail stations would have to be converted to low platform or to dual height if retaining a train service. And high floor trams are potentially more suitable for longer distances (although the current Metrolink fleet isn't a good example of this) as the running gear doesn't project above floor so there is flexibility to choose the best seating layout.

Good points. One of the disadvantages of high platforms is that, on street-running sections, they they often have to be located away from the carriageway, meaning a dog-leg in the route and slower journey times - examples are on the Eccles and Ashton lines.

 

[edwin_m]

Good points. One of the disadvantages of high platforms is that, on street-running sections, they they often have to be located away from the carriageway, meaning a dog-leg in the route and slower journey times - examples are on the Eccles and Ashton lines.

Yes, as well as extra cost for land take and cost and delay due to needing traffic signals where they leave and re-join the highway.

 

[talltim]

The success of light rail in Manchester and Croydon has been partly due to mixing converting heavyrail and on street sections to balance speed and location of stops. Pure street running is not any faster than a decent priority bus system.

The other reason is that many people who wouldn't touch a bus with a bargepole will happily travel by tram.

 

[option]

Derby
linking with NET, which already gets to Basford & Bulwell, essentially something based on the old Derbyshire and Staffordshire Extension Railway.