Are trams a good substitute for 'proper' trains

[yorksrob]

Definitely shorter - two Metrolink trams are far shorter than any mainline platform would now be built to. I suspect Metrolink stations will indeed cost a little more due to the high platforms, a decision I suspect they now regret but are stuck with.

A little bit more money, but not enough to change how you would run the railway.

We need to look at the difference between the new stations at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge and get back to enabling something more like the original WYPTE stations.

 

[Grumpy]

Historically trams were regulated by the Tramways Act 1886 and light railways by the Light Railways Act 1896.

David-thank you for that

 

[edwin_m]

So in answer to your question there is probably no current legal definition of the difference between a tramway and a railway.

The one in the ROGS regulations guidance is probably as good as any: https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/2567/rogs-guidance.pdf

'Tramway' means a system of transport:

 which is used completely or mainly to carry passengers;

 where the maximum speed allows the driver to stop a vehicle in the distance he can see to be clear ahead; and

 which uses parallel rails which:

- support and guide vehicles carried on flanged wheels; and

- are laid completely or partly along a road or in any other place to which the public has access (including a place where the public has access only after making a payment).

(the rest of the definition excludes parts of the main line railway that otherwise qualify as tramways)

 

[DavidGrain]

The one in the ROGS regulations guidance is probably as good as any: https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/2567/rogs-guidance.pdf
(the rest of the definition excludes parts of the main line railway that otherwise qualify as tramways)

Thanks for that information. I think it is safe to say that there is still some blurring to the definition but the fact is that if it looks like a tram then it is a tram. The Sheffield to Rotherham service is obviously a tram when it is running from Sheffield city centre to Meadowhall but is then a train when it goes on to Rotherham.

I was in Amsterdam a couple of years ago and in my travels in the city I did travel on tram no. 5 but did not go out as far as the suburban section when it actually runs on the same tracks as the Metro.

I see one writer on the internet about the trams in Sydney defines a tram as having the electrical gear under the floor but a light railway has the electrical gear on the roof. Having seen many low floor tramways in operation I cannot agree with this.

 

[DavidGrain]

Continuing on the definition of the distinction between a tram and a light railway. I think we would all agree that the DLR is a light railway yet the cars which originally ran on the DLR were sold to Essen in Germany and are now running as on-street trams.

 

[geoffk]

There was a plan to convert the Abbey Flier (Walford - St. Albans Abbey) to light rail, with an intermediate crossing loop, but this has been abandoned. This seemed to have more to do with problems over fares and ticketing than any technical issues - the "tail wagging the dog", it seems to me.

 

[VT 390]

There was a plan to convert the Abbey Flier (Walford - St. Albans Abbey) to light rail, with an intermediate crossing loop, but this has been abandoned. This seemed to have more to do with problems over fares and ticketing than any technical issues - the "tail wagging the dog", it seems to me.

Just because it is light rail is there a reason why it could still not be operated by the West Midlands Trains franchise with ticketing remaining as it is?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just because it is light rail is there a reason why it could still not be operated by the West Midlands Trains franchise with ticketing remaining as it is?

Well, quite. Operation by a contractor in the manner of the Stourbridge Shuttle might well work.

 

[edwin_m]

Several of the light rail operators are on PlusBus, which may be a simpler way to have through ticketing than being a full member of the national scheme.

 

[Mathew S]

Definitely shorter - two Metrolink trams are far shorter than any mainline platform would now be built to. I suspect Metrolink stations will indeed cost a little more due to the high platforms, a decision I suspect they now regret but are stuck with.

Given TfGMs ambition to run tram/train services or take over current heavy-rail routes, the high-floor option would seem to be an advantage, if anything. I don't imagine new line construction costs are much different whether low or high floor tbh. I'm guessing, but in the grand scheme of things I'm sure the platforms are far from the biggest costs.

 

[edwin_m]

The main disadvantage with high floor/platform is the difficulty of providing platforms on street sections, as a high platform and ramps needs more space and can't really be part of the general footway as a low platform can. This isn't really an issue for tram-train in the Manchester area, as the city centre platforms are already there (although they do limit tram-trains to about 60m long). The benefit for tram-trains is that they can serve the same platforms as conventional trains if necessary, rather than having to provide a dual-height platform as at Rotherham Central, which costs money and may be difficult to do at some stations. A high floor tram train can also have a better seating layout, as the seats don't have to fit round the running gear that projects above the floor on a low-floor vehicle.

All the railway stations converted to Metrolink in Phase 3 had the platforms ripped out and replaced, so building them for high floor would have been a smidgen more expensive than for low floor, due to more concrete in the platforms and in most cases longer approach ramps. I doubt this was more than a tiny percentage of the cost of the station.

 

[Sweetjesus]

Surely for urban commuters, connectivity & frequency matters more than journey time as long as the journey time is not excessive?

I live close to an inner city rail station and I often find myself using buses & trams instead simply because it is more convenient even if it's slower.

 

[Mathew S]

as long as the journey time is not excessive

That's the key though. One of my two main concerns about, for example, swapping the Atherton line to Metrolink operation is that it would mean all services would stop at all stations. Currently, the Southport-Leeds, and Southport-Blackburn services are important, fast commuter links between one end of Greater Manchester and the other. I'd be in favour of mixed tram/train operations, in principle, with heavy rail operating fast services and trams the stoppers; but only if there is fully integrated ticketing.

 

[option]

I think that perhaps some of the regulation around things such as new stations needs to be assessed in relation to tram line costs. While there may be some differences, I don't see that a similar structure performing a similar function (such as a station) should cost so much more on a heavy rail line.

Higher level platforms mean supports, which means foundations. (tram platforms can be ground level)
You need a way of crossing the line, stairs + lift, or good access to both platforms from the same access point, again stairs + lift or ramps. (tram lines can be crossed on the level)

 

[edwin_m]

Higher level platforms mean supports, which means foundations. (tram platforms can be ground level)
You need a way of crossing the line, stairs + lift, or good access to both platforms from the same access point, again stairs + lift or ramps. (tram lines can be crossed on the level)

Low floor light rail has platforms at the floor level of the vehicles for level boarding, which is around 350mm above top of rail. There might be slightly less material than for a high platform but it still requires foundations etc. The Metrolink Phase 3 high platforms were assembled on site from pre-fabricated sections.