Coventry Very Light Rail vehicle tested on new slab track

[Adlington]

I don't think a Coventry Very Light Rail thread exists...

THE battery-powered Coventry Very Light Rail (CVLR) vehicle being developed in the West Midlands region of Britain has been successfully tested on a new design of slab track that avoids the need for expensive and time-consuming utility diversion.

Thinner than conventional light rail track, the new design can be laid only 300mm deep into the road surface, reducing the need to divert all underground utility pipes and cables, which can add significant cost and delay to light rail projects.

Source (International Railway Journal)
More information about CVLJ can be found on the Coventry City Council page.

 

[Russel]

This project is confusing, is this just a proof of concept thing, or are they actually building a VLR route in Coventry?

 

[fairlie]

They say they're going to build one but it'll be a long time before there are any spades in the ground.

 

[Russel]

They say they're going to build one but it'll be a long time before there are any spades in the ground.

So this can be counted as one of those 'it'll never happen' things then.

 

[fairlie]

Quite possibly.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its got £40m of funding from the WMCA so should be at least some form of test track in Coventry built.

 

[Taunton]

Thinner than conventional light rail track, the new design can be laid only 300mm deep into the road surface, reducing the need to divert all underground utility pipes and cables, which can add significant cost and delay to light rail projects

The reason for the utilities diversions is not so much from the depth of the rails, more from the need to divert them away from the tracks. Otherwise any time there is a water main leak, or a building needs a new telephone connection, anywhere from one end to the other, the street-digging required shuts the system down.

And the real issue with various "Ultra Light Vehicles" is they typically do not have the collision resistance required by regulation. Even if they are only on the streets, they need impact resistance against lorries etc. And once such promoters get the idea of sharing railway tracks with trains, it's a whole new ballpark. The German Maglev accident showed what happened when a lightweight Maglev vehicle, which had always been presented as on a unique separate right of way, happened to strike a straightforward maintenance vehicle, a combination which all the project brains had somehow never thought about.

 

[edwin_m]

The reason for the utilities diversions is not so much from the depth of the rails, more from the need to divert them away from the tracks. Otherwise any time there is a water main leak, or a building needs a new telephone connection, anywhere from one end to the other, the street-digging required shuts the system down.

And the real issue with various "Ultra Light Vehicles" is they typically do not have the collision resistance required by regulation. Even if they are only on the streets, they need impact resistance against lorries etc. And once such promoters get the idea of sharing railway tracks with trains, it's a whole new ballpark. The German Maglev accident showed what happened when a lightweight Maglev vehicle, which had always been presented as on a unique separate right of way, happened to strike a straightforward maintenance vehicle, a combination which all the project brains had somehow never thought about.

It is claimed that a concrete panel can be removed and replaced very quickly if it becomes necessary to do work underneath, so although a shutdown would be needed, it would be short. Presumably this would involve cutting and re-welding rails.

I don't know what crashworthiness standards are applied for the VLR vehicle, but they are probably the same ones as for normal street trams which share roadspace with other vehicles and have a proven safety record over many years. Tram-trains do generally have greater structural strength, but not to the full heavy rail standards, and safety is instead maintained by enhancing train protection to reduce the likelihood of a collision that might be more severe if it took place. The people behind the VLR have also produced a vehicle designed for lightly-used branch lines, but (perhaps ill-advisedly) they didn't attempt to meet full heavy rail standards, so it would require the extra train protection or some other safety mitigation unless confined to one of the few routes that are 100% self-contained like the Stourbridge branch.

 

[WatcherZero]

Thats the limit of the very light track construction, they cant take the weight of normal trams/tram-trains (maxes out at axle weight of 5-8 Tons) so the trams that operate on them have to be lighter too using fixed hollow axles rather than bogies. The VLR vehicles are designed to withstand collisions with HGV's and each other and heavier trains at level crossings not heavier rail vehicles at speed (EN 15227: Lorry at 68mph or 80 ton freight train at 22mph). The VLR for Coventry is 11-16 tons vs a normal tram that might be 37-45 tons.

 

[edwin_m]

Thats the limit of the very light track construction, they cant take the weight of normal trams/tram-trains (maxes out at axle weight of 5-8 Tons) so the trams that operate on them have to be lighter too using fixed hollow axles rather than bogies. The VLR vehicles are designed to withstand collisions with HGV's and each other and heavier trains at level crossings not heavier rail vehicles at speed (EN 15227: Lorry at 68mph or 80 ton freight train at 22mph). The VLR for Coventry is 11-16 tons vs a normal tram that might be 37-45 tons.

What counts more for track is the weight per axle. I believe the VLR has four and the normal tram would typically have six, so on those figures there's still quite a difference.

The greatest damage to the track may well be due to HGVs crossing rather than anything caused by the trams.

 

[P Binnersley]

The last time Very Light Rail was discussed by the council (October 2021) it was reported that:

Deliver a first route for Coventry linking the Rail Station, City Centre, and University Hospital, with an operational section in place by late 2025.

No proposed route has been published yet. I would have thought that to have an "operational section" by late 2025 they would need to be putting in a Transport & Works Act application before the end of the year.

The Simulator Video shows it running along Queen Victoria Road/Corporation Street/Hales Street in the city centre.

 

[P Binnersley]

Coventry Council have issued a consultation on City Centre changes (including VLR) with a map.

We are getting the city centre ready for some exciting developments. This includes a short route for Coventry Very Light Rail and a fully segregated cycleway. These will help reduce air pollution and make the city centre a healthier and safer place.

The Coventry Very Light Rail route will go from Warwick Road to the former IKEA building initially, and later to Pool Meadow bus station. The cycleway will connect the Railway Station to Pool Meadow bus station. It will also link to some of the new routes coming into the city centre from Coundon and Foleshill.

Phase 1 of the Very Light Rail (VLR) is Warwick Road bridge (outside Railway Station) to the former IKEA Building (Croft Road) - c800m
Phase 2 will continue to Pool Meadow Bus station c850m).

The phase 1 route is mostly dual carriage way.

No mention of a depot, but Phase 1 terminus is next to an entrance to the ground floor car park in the former IKEA building (now council owned).