Sheffield/Rotherham Tram-Train update

Harpers Tate · 17 Jan 2018

Goldie said:
...the omission of a stop at Magna (is) an even stranger decision.

Darn right, it is. Idiotic, IMO.

RailUK Forums

eastwestdivide · 17 Jan 2018

Goldie said:
I had chance to have a look at the route from Parkgate to the Tinsley Chord early on Sunday morning - the resulting photos are above (including bonus blurry tram photo to finish). As you can see, there was a ballast train - complete with Class 66 - parked on the Sheffield bound line just outside Rotherham Central, so presumably there is still work taking place to the track itself somewhere along the route. ...

I was down there in daylight a few hours after you - a Network Rail chap taking pictures said they were lowering the track on the Doncaster-bound line under Greasbrough Road bridge, and coming back in a few Sundays to do the same to the Sheffield-bound line.

DimTim · 17 Jan 2018

My understanding is the retail park want very little to do with the tram. Parkgate Retail World will not tolerate Park and Ride - signage clearly stating parking is for shopping only.

D365 · 17 Jan 2018

The decision to not build a stop at Magna was not taken lightly - because it’s Network Rail line at that point they won’t allow a foot crossing. The expenditure required for a footbridge has not been justified sufficiently.

Xenophon PCDGS · 18 Jan 2018

DimTim said:
My understanding is the retail park want very little to do with the tram. Parkgate Retail World will not tolerate Park and Ride - signage clearly stating parking is for shopping only.

I wonder how the intu Trafford Centre with its vast car parking capacity view the new Manchester Metrolink line to there currently under construction?

Harpers Tate · 18 Jan 2018

D365 said:
The decision to not build a stop at Magna was not taken lightly - because it’s Network Rail line at that point they won’t allow a foot crossing. The expenditure required for a footbridge has not been justified sufficiently.

....and because the nice, clever people at the PTE were all busying themselves designing the wonderful Bus Rapid Transit scheme which serves exactly the same area as the tram line for much of its route. Because, as we all know, the public will flock onto a First Double Decker that is (for the majority of its route) sitting in the same traffic congestion as the 90% of people who choose their car. Not.

eastwestdivide · 18 Jan 2018

Paul Sidorczuk said:
I wonder how the intu Trafford Centre with its vast car parking capacity view the new Manchester Metrolink line to there currently under construction?

For those unfamiliar with the area, Parkgate Retail World isn't really on the same level as the Trafford Centre. It's more about local shops for local people than "big day out" shopping. If you want that round here, you go to Meadowhall.
I've long thought that Parkgate was chosen as the tram terminus primarily because it's a convenient point to lay a separate turnback siding and platform using existing railway land. Yes, you could turn trams around at Rotherham Central with a bit of new signalling, but using Parkgate avoids potential congestion caused by a tram tying up one platform for the duration of the turnaround. In the event, the proposed timetable now visible on opentraintimes has turnarounds of only a few mins at Parkgate, but the separate line gives you flexibility in times of disruption, and more timetabling/pathing options generally.

61653 HTAFC · 18 Jan 2018

Harpers Tate said:
....and because the nice, clever people at the PTE were all busying themselves designing the wonderful Bus Rapid Transit scheme which serves exactly the same area as the tram line for much of its route. Because, as we all know, the public will flock onto a First Double Decker that is (for the majority of its route) sitting in the same traffic congestion as the 90% of people who choose their car. Not.

It seems that PTEs have a bit of a problem with their priorities in general. See also the proposed White Rose Centre station in Leeds.

Goldie · 18 Jan 2018

D365 said:
The decision to not build a stop at Magna was not taken lightly - because it’s Network Rail line at that point they won’t allow a foot crossing. The expenditure required for a footbridge has not been justified sufficiently.

I'm amazed that a safety case couldn't be / wasn't made on the basis of fitting the crossing with gates that lock automatically for a minute or so before / after any train passes. That's the solution used at Seamer, near Scarborough. It's robust and low cost, and I would have thought that finding solutions to the challenges of operating tram trains on Network Rail lines that fit that description would have been part of the scope of the trial. I might fire off an email to SYPTE and see what their take on it is...

skifans · 18 Jan 2018

Hope to get something back to them. I'd just sort of assumed there would be a a stop a magna. Seems silly that there isn't, how possible would it be for one to be added in later?

Goldie · 18 Jan 2018

skifans said:
Hope to get something back to them. I'd just sort of assumed there would be a a stop a magna. Seems silly that there isn't, how possible would it be for one to be added in later?

I'm no railwayman, but I'd have thought it would be straightforward. The design of the Supertram platforms is the same all over the system, including at Parkgate. Any issues with how they slot in next to a heavy rail line will be worked out with the extended platforms at Rotherham Central. As D365 says, a footbridge would allow access to the Rotherham bound platform, even if Network Rail won't allow level access over the tracks - it's just a question of who will pay for it. What about the signal system though? Would that need to be altered?

TC60054 · 18 Jan 2018

New record with 399s in service today, with 203 and 205 starting the day on yellows, 204 on blues and 206 on purples. Believe 206 failed yet again earlier though which has left 204 and 205 somehow on purples.

marcouk2 · 18 Jan 2018

203/4/5/6 still out this evening, on a variety of services.

DimTim · 18 Jan 2018

An issue with Supertram is the height of platforms. Control gates could be fitted but people will just step down from the Sheffield bound platform & step up onto the Rotherham platform.
It will be interesting how this will be supervised at Rotherham Central. There is the similar issue at Parkgate but from memory I recall the terminus is fenced off from the main line.

edwin_m · 18 Jan 2018

DimTim said:
An issue with Supertram is the height of platforms. Control gates could be fitted but people will just step down from the Sheffield bound platform & step up onto the Rotherham platform.
It will be interesting how this will be supervised at Rotherham Central. There is the similar issue at Parkgate but from memory I recall the terminus is fenced off from the main line.

I think it's less of an issue at Rotherham Central because access to the low platforms is at one end, down from the elevated building and along the high platforms. There's no "desire line" for someone to cross the track unless they've descended to the wrong platform and don't realise until they reach the low part of the platforms, or perhaps have missed their stop and are looking for a tram in the other direction. This could be very different at a station where the entrance was at platform level onto one platform and anyone wanting the opposite platform had to use a footbridge. There would be the obvious temptation for people to step across the track instead, which would probably need mitigations such as staggering the platforms so they aren't opposite or putting some kind of deterrent measure on or between the tracks.

Goldie · 19 Jan 2018

edwin_m said:
I think it's less of an issue at Rotherham Central because access to the low platforms is at one end, down from the elevated building and along the high platforms. There's no "desire line" for someone to cross the track unless they've descended to the wrong platform and don't realise until they reach the low part of the platforms, or perhaps have missed their stop and are looking for a tram in the other direction. This could be very different at a station where the entrance was at platform level onto one platform and anyone wanting the opposite platform had to use a footbridge. There would be the obvious temptation for people to step across the track instead, which would probably need mitigations such as staggering the platforms so they aren't opposite or putting some kind of deterrent measure on or between the tracks.

Staggering the platforms sounds like a really sensible and pragmatic way of discouraging stepping across the tracks. Make the safe route also the most convenient route. I'm sure there will be locations where space is tight, where this might be difficult to achieve. But at Magna there's basically unlimited space, and certainly enough to accommodate staggered platforms.

Goldie · 24 Jan 2018

I got in touch with Parkgate's management and asked about the date when they expected services to start, and the provision of signage and pedestrian access to the stop. Here's the reply:
"The tram / train service is looking at a start date of July 2018. I am just awaiting the proposed
We are currently in the process of planning the pedestrian route which yes will be safe and will cross our current service road to the shops. Signs and directionals will be there and it will be a very easy route."

eastwestdivide · 24 Jan 2018

The Rotherham Advertiser local newspaper dated 19th Jan had an article about the Carillion collapse and this project - Network Rail said it wouldn't affect progress, as they've come to an arrangement with the Official Receiver. Also mentioned an opening date of Summer/Autumn 2018.

Edited - wrong date for newspaper.

Goldie · 25 Jan 2018

Here's what SYPTE had to say about a stop at Magna:

"I can confirm that while it was not included as part of the pilot project, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) has conducted an initial feasibility study to determine if an additional stop at Magna is possible.

SYPTE is aware that Magna Science & Adventure Park is very supportive of a proposed stop at this location and the next steps will include the development of a business case and efforts to secure funding."

D365 · 27 Jan 2018

Goldie said:
Here's what SYPTE had to say about a stop at Magna:

"I can confirm that while it was not included as part of the pilot project, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) has conducted an initial feasibility study to determine if an additional stop at Magna is possible.

SYPTE is aware that Magna Science & Adventure Park is very supportive of a proposed stop at this location and the next steps will include the development of a business case and efforts to secure funding."

Did they make any comment about the situation regarding the likely need for a passenger overbridge?

Harpers Tate · 28 Jan 2018

Surely that would come out in the business case.

Goldie · 6 Feb 2018

D365 said:
Did they make any comment about the situation regarding the likely need for a passenger overbridge?

No - but I'll e-mail them and ask when I've got five minutes

Goldie · 6 Feb 2018

eastwestdivide has posted some more recent photographs showing work on the extension on the excellent RMWeb thread covering the tram train project.

eastwestdivide · 6 Feb 2018

Goldie said:
eastwestdivide has posted some more recent photographs showing work on the extension on the excellent RMWeb thread covering the tram train project.

Ta. Link to most recent page: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/in...ram-trains-for-sheffield-to-rotherham/page-10

snowball · 15 Feb 2018

A couple of relevant posts on SSC:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=145336379&postcount=50754

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=145341633&postcount=50756

I suppose I'll have to quote them now or get told off:

Freel07;145336379 said:
I attended a talk at the IMechE Railway Division North Western Centre yesterday evening on the Sheffield Rotherham Tram Train Trial Project. It was a late change to the programme and the talk was to outline some of the interface issues they have had to resolve. It concentrated mainly on the wheel rail and vehicle to platform interfaces.

I was interested to note that some of the innovations they had devised had actually already been a part of Metrolink since its inception. Namely the use of a compromise heavy rail/tramway wheel profile alongside raised check rails and the investigation of the possibility that folding/retractable steps may have been needed to comply with Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations stepping distances for tram which are far tighter than for heavy rail. Sounds a little like reinventing the wheel to me (pun intentional). Having said that, the talk was a well presented and thought out explanation of the differences between the two technologies and the processes and hurdles that have had to be overcome.

One interesting thought that a former colleague and I had was that the interfaces between a Metrolink high floor tram train and a platform that may have to cope with both tram train and train will be a lot harder to deal with than the low floor interface in Sheffield. The most obvious solution would be a floor level sliding step arrangement to close the otherwise wide heavy rail gap. It would also require the vertical gaps to be maintained to tramway tolerances meaning that some platforms would need modification to raise them to high floor tram level.

My trip allowed a late afternoon/early evening photo session as well the results of which are posted here on the photo thread - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=145327317&postcount=267

Greybeard33;145341633 said:
On the other hand, the Rotherham low floor solution will only work if the station footprint is long enough to allow low level tram-train extensions to the existing heavy rail platforms. And this exposes passengers on the low level section to potential safety hazards from the exposed running gear of passing heavy rail trains.

At such locations, maybe a high floor tram-train could have a platform extension with Metrolink-style narrow gap, but with gauntleted track to enable heavy rail trains to pass at speed without risk of scraping the platform edge?

TC60054 · 15 Feb 2018

Overhead wire works on the Supertram side of Tinsley Chord are taking place on Saturday 24th and Sunday 25th February. Buses replace trams between Attercliffe and Meadowhall, with trams running between Middlewood and Valley Centertainment only.

https://www.stagecoachbus.com/media...8 tram train works_timetable poster.pdf?la=en

edwin_m · 15 Feb 2018

snowball said:
A couple of relevant posts on SSC:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=145336379&postcount=50754

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=145341633&postcount=50756

I suppose I'll have to quote them now or get told off:

Gauntleted (interlaced) track is used at one tram-train station in Baunatal, Germany, for stepping distance reasons. In this case it was so a conventional tram (less than 2.65m wide I think, and without moveable steps) could use the shared route. This area (Kassel) now has a more conventional tram-train too, but I think the same situation still exists at Baunatal.

I've looked at interlacing for two tram-train projects in the UK and it's a lot more difficult than it first appears. The main problem is that it's not possible to just offset the rails by the short distance needed to eliminate the stepping gap, as the lower part of the rails would be trying to occupy the same space. A much wider offset is needed, which may not be possible if the width available for the platform is limited. This also means a high-floor tram-train and a high-floor train wouldn't be able to use the same section of platform.

snowball · 16 Feb 2018

Another interesting post from SSC by Freel07:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=145350819&postcount=50758

You are right that the Metrolink wheel profile was changed to try to improve ride quality. The change was to the tread profile whereas the area I was referring to is the flange profile. Heavy rail wheel profiles have a fairly thick flange which is incompatible with grooved rail. Metrolink have overcome the potential problem by have a flange profile that is fairly thin at the tip but higher up where it is clear of the rail groove it assumes the heavy rail thickness and the check rails used at points and crossings on sleeper track are raised to interface with the thicker portion of the flange.

The diagram reproduced below shows a selection of wheel profiles from different networks. The top one is a typical heavy rail profile with deep and thick flange which would not be compatible with grooved rail. The others are all tramway/light rail from different networks. The Metrolink profile is the bottom one and you can hopefully see that the back of the flange starts to thicken nearer the inside edge of the tyre. I think the green one is the Sheffield profile with a squared off flange tip to allow for flange running through crossings. It also has a thickened flange back. The diagram is reproduced from a presentation a colleague and I gave to the IMechE in 2010.

To my surprise it lets me copy a diagram, though it works best if I leave it outside the quote tags:

TC60054 · 16 Feb 2018

All seven Citylinks are once again grounded following a major fault at a Shalesmoor earlier. Wonder how Supertram are going to try and run a 23 tram peak service with, erm, 23 trams available for service daily.

_toommm_ · 16 Feb 2018

TC60054 said:
All seven Citylinks are once again grounded following a major fault at a Shalesmoor earlier. Wonder how Supertram are going to try and run a 23 tram peak service with, erm, 23 trams available for service daily.

This new timetable isn't really helping them. Even on a Sunday morning commuting between University and Sheffield is a shambles!

Sheffield/Rotherham Tram-Train update

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member