Coventry VLR

[P Binnersley]

A planning application (PL/2024/0000288/FULM) has been submitted for the Coventry VLR (Very Light Rail) demonstration line.
The link gives access to all the documents submitted with the application, including scheme drawings and the "planning statement".

Proposed City Demonstrator section of the Coventry Very Light Rail Project that includes installing new track, two temporary platform stops, a depot building and stabling area along with ancillary highways and junction works to facilitate the creation of a Very Light Rail vehicle testbed

The VLR route will extend some 1.5km through Coventry city centre from Warwick Road railway bridge, west of Coventry Railway Station, northwards to Millennium Place west of Pool Meadow Bus Station. The depot and stabling area for the CVLR test vehicle will be located just north of Eaton Road.

From the planning statement.

The Scheme has been designed as a single scheme of approx. 1.5km of track but will be constructed in two phases (these phases relate to the release of funding):
Phase 1: Coventry Railway Station [Warwick Road] to Collection Centre (old Ikea building)[Queen Victoria Road]; and
Phase 2: Collection Centre to a point just west of the Pool Meadow Bus Station [Hales Street].

The document gives estimated completion dates "Early 2025" for phase 1 and "Q3 2025" for phase 2.

The battery-operated light weight vehicle, weighing around 11 tonnes unladen, would have capacity for approximately 56 passengers and requires no overhead infrastructure.

Don't expect to ride on it any time soon:

As noted above, the Scheme is purely to test that the concept of CVLR works. Therefore, it will likely run a limited, ad-hoc timetable and will not be for public use.

 

[Energy]

I do not understand the point of the VLR. Its selling point is that it doesn't require utility redirection when laying tracks which trams require due to their weight. But given their low 56 passenger capacity I can't see much advantage over a bus lane and dual door single deck buses, or those VanHool Exquicity things in Belfast.

Edit: here's the map for the demonstrator, only 2 stops with the depot around Eaton Road/Coventry Rail Station.

Image Description: A map from the planning application of the VLR demonstrator with Coventry Rail Station and Paul Meadow Bus Station annotated.

 

[Basil Jet]

Is there a reason it doesn't quite go to Coventry's only tourist attraction, the Cathedral(s)?

 

[stuu]

I do not understand the point of the VLR. Its selling point is that it doesn't require utility redirection when laying tracks which trams require due to their weight. But given their low 56 passenger capacity I can't see much advantage over a bus lane and dual door single deck buses, or those VanHool Exquicity things in Belfast.

Edit: here's the map for the demonstrator, only 2 stops with the depot around Eaton Road/Coventry Rail Station.
View attachment 154017
Image Description: A map from the planning application of the VLR demonstrator with Coventry Rail Station and Paul Meadow Bus Station annotated.

The concept of not moving the utilities for the tracks is a big part of the supposed benefits, so I would assume that if proven, there is nothing to stop the vehicles being run in multiple or redesigned into more conventional segmented trams

 

[hacman]

Whilst, on the whole, I view anything that allows towns and cities to install rail-like infrastructure as a positive, I can't help but think this has the potential to be one of these schemes that seems excellent in the short-term but a few years or decades down the line lumbers the public with something that to remain adequate needs reconstruction at a higher cost than had a traditional solution been implemented to start with.

If not having to move utilities is the primary selling point, I'd have thought approaching this from the perspective of finding a method of laying tram tracks over the top of said utilities via new PW products and methods would be a far more lucrative endeavour!

 

[edwin_m]

The concept of not moving the utilities for the tracks is a big part of the supposed benefits, so I would assume that if proven, there is nothing to stop the vehicles being run in multiple or redesigned into more conventional segmented trams

I did ask them about larger vehicles at a conference in 2019, but they had no plans to do so at that time.

 

[Energy]

The concept of not moving the utilities for the tracks is a big part of the supposed benefits, so I would assume that if proven, there is nothing to stop the vehicles being run in multiple or redesigned into more conventional segmented trams

I did ask them about larger vehicles at a conference in 2019, but they had no plans to do so at that time.

If it was bigger or coupled vehicles I'd get it, but in all their promotional material it's a single car.

Whilst, on the whole, I view anything that allows towns and cities to install rail-like infrastructure as a positive, I can't help but think this has the potential to be one of these schemes that seems excellent in the short-term but a few years or decades down the line lumbers the public with something that to remain adequate needs reconstruction at a higher cost than had a traditional solution been implemented to start with.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, the tracks are left unused and bus rapid transit is run instead.

If not having to move utilities is the primary selling point, I'd have thought approaching this from the perspective of finding a method of laying tram tracks over the top of said utilities via new PW products and methods would be a far more lucrative endeavour!

Agreed.

 

[stuu]

If not having to move utilities is the primary selling point, I'd have thought approaching this from the perspective of finding a method of laying tram tracks over the top of said utilities via new PW products and methods would be a far more lucrative endeavour!

That is the plan, the project has developed a new track structure to go with the lighter vehicles, which involves much less digging and moving stuff in the roads.

 

[hacman]

That is the plan, the project has developed a new track structure to go with the lighter vehicles, which involves much less digging and moving stuff in the roads.

I meant developing something that can be used by conventional tram/LRT vehicles.

 

[James Finch]

I meant developing something that can be used by conventional tram/LRT vehicles.

That is the plan, the project has developed a new track structure to go with the lighter vehicles, which involves much less digging and moving stuff in the roads.

I think I remember reading somewhere that the whole system is being designed and built with compatibility with the West Midlands system in Birmingham, So I would assume it would be able to support an Urbos 3 (assuming the correct track geometry)

 

[Energy]

I think I remember reading somewhere that the whole system is being designed and built with compatibility with the West Midlands system in Birmingham, So I would assume it would be able to support an Urbos 3 (assuming the correct track geometry)

Seems unlikely, if the track can support a proper tram I cant see why they'd bother with their pod things.

Perhaps you mean that the pods can fit on WMMetro tracks?

 

[hacman]

Seems unlikely, if the track can support a proper tram I cant see why they'd bother with their pod things.

Perhaps you mean that the pods can fit on WMMetro tracks?

This is the direction in which the compatibility is intended.

 

[edwin_m]

Seems unlikely, if the track can support a proper tram I cant see why they'd bother with their pod things.

The claimed logic for the "pod things" is that a full-sized tram would be too big for routes in cities like Coventry - it would either run mostly empty or run so infrequently that few people would bother to use it. However, although the costs are less with a smaller vehicle, the costs per passenger place won't reduce in proportion and may actually increase. If they achieve autonomous running that reduces the whole-life cost a lot, although if they do that I don't see why it couldn't be applied to larger trams too.

 

[Energy]

The claimed logic for the "pod things" is that a full-sized tram would be too big for routes in cities like Coventry - it would either run mostly empty or run so infrequently that few people would bother to use it.

But they are planning for a 3-4 min frequency, a proper size tram about 4 times the size of this could still run at 10-15 min frequencies.

I'd also be concerned about operational reliability. If one of the pods gets held up by passengers, bits on the track (its still going through a city centre), or something else for a short while it could end up with a few pods getting backed up and being difficult for each vehicle to clear.

However, although the costs are less with a smaller vehicle, the costs per passenger place won't reduce in proportion and may actually increase.

Yes, the cabs are a fixed price and cost a lot.

If they achieve autonomous running that reduces the whole-life cost a lot, although if they do that I don't see why it couldn't be applied to larger trams too.

If they can achieve autonomous running then I can't see why it can't be done with a bus. Getting a wheeled vehicle to follow a pre-determined route isn't especially difficult and has been done for decades, the difficult bit with autonomous vehicles is dealing with external factors (people and cars...) which this still has to contend with.

I can see the VLR technology being useful with a much bigger (3-4x the size) vehicle. I fear that the pods is going to end up like the Parry People Mover or the Heathrow Pods, neither of which have been particularly successful.

 

[edwin_m]

But they are planning for a 3-4 min frequency, a proper size tram about 4 times the size of this could still run at 10-15 min frequencies.

That's too long. The travel time from the centre to the edge of Coventry is likely to be under 30min.

If they can achieve autonomous running then I can't see why it can't be done with a bus. Getting a wheeled vehicle to follow a pre-determined route isn't especially difficult and has been done for decades, the difficult bit with autonomous vehicles is dealing with external factors (people and cars...) which this still has to contend with.

Indeed, though something that works for autonomous buses would also work for this with minimal adaptation - or indeed for a full size tram. The point is that for staffed vehicles the driver and the cabs are a bit part of the cost, and that is shared across fewer passengers for a small vehicle than for a larger one (at the same ratio of passengers to floorspace). With an unstaffed vehicle the playing field ls levelled to a large extent.

One of their cited reasons to go for a tram instead of an autonomous rubber tyre vehicle was to reduce energy useage. As well as being more sustainable this translates into a smaller battery and/or less charging time, both of which benefit the economics. But it would take a good hard look at the numbers to establish whether that outweighs the cost of the track and the extra cost of a tram compared with a bus.

 

[Northerngirl]

I really am struggling to see a point to this whole thing, unlike most vlr ideas it's not usable on branch lines, and its lower capacity than a bus, the track makes no sense as it can't handle proper trams, and still needs a road surface to put it on. Surely a bus is by far the better option

 

[AlastairFraser]

I really am struggling to see a point to this whole thing, unlike most vlr ideas it's not usable on branch lines, and its lower capacity than a bus, the track makes no sense as it can't handle proper trams, and still needs a road surface to put it on. Surely a bus is by far the better option

It's a speedier way of implementing tram service in areas with existing underused road infrastructure and potentially off road sections (plenty of areas in Cov like this).
A bus wouldn't cut the mustard, because it wouldn't be fast enough to take modal share off cars.

 

[stuu]

It's a speedier way of implementing tram service in areas with existing underused road infrastructure and potentially off road sections (plenty of areas in Cov like this).
A bus wouldn't cut the mustard, because it wouldn't be fast enough to take modal share off cars.

Why not just build bus lanes though?

 

[NIT100]

It's a speedier way of implementing tram service in areas with existing underused road infrastructure and potentially off road sections (plenty of areas in Cov like this).
A bus wouldn't cut the mustard, because it wouldn't be fast enough to take modal share off cars.

I think most members understand the idea behind VLR, they just don't understand the purpose of this specific test route. It is ripping up another significant part of Coventry City Centre again, doesn't use off road sections and is supplementing up to 15 buses an hour that run between Coventry Rail Station and Pool Meadow Bus Station (Includes both Stagecoach and NX). Even more than that run on Queen Victoria Road and Corporation Street. There is a place for VLR, but the test route is not it, this is the place for better bus priority, in my opinion.

 

[YorkRailFan]

It's a speedier way of implementing tram service in areas with existing underused road infrastructure and potentially off road sections (plenty of areas in Cov like this).
A bus wouldn't cut the mustard, because it wouldn't be fast enough to take modal share off cars.

I'm not against VLR, but on a short route like this there is little to no point when a bus lane can be used. On longer routes though, VLR is definitely a better option.

 

[stuu]

I think most members understand the idea behind VLR, they just don't understand the purpose of this specific test route.

I really don't know what the point is of it. It combines the weakness of buses (low capacity) with the weakness of trams (limited routes). Which seems sub-optimal, to put it mildly

 

[birchesgreen]

Its probably to spend a little (relatively) pot of money on something experimental, new (which is always exciting of course) and sexy on powerpoints. To be honest we would be better off if these various little pots of money were put together and used towards something more mainstream like main line electrification or another metro extension.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Why not just build bus lanes though?

Because a lot of the bus network is a deeply unattractive proposition in Coventry, due to ASB issues in part.

I think most members understand the idea behind VLR, they just don't understand the purpose of this specific test route. It is ripping up another significant part of Coventry City Centre again, doesn't use off road sections and is supplementing up to 15 buses an hour that run between Coventry Rail Station and Pool Meadow Bus Station (Includes both Stagecoach and NX). Even more than that run on Queen Victoria Road and Corporation Street. There is a place for VLR, but the test route is not it, this is the place for better bus priority, in my opinion.

Perhaps they are just testing the performance of VLR in a real-world environment, while providing a section that could be extended at either end as part of a wider network (perhaps towards the hospital in Wyken at the east end/Warwick University at the western end).

 

[Northerngirl]

I really don't know what the point is of it. It combines the weakness of buses (low capacity) with the weakness of trams (limited routes). Which seems sub-optimal, to put it mildly

Completely agree with this, atleast the class 139 was using existing rails, but this seems just a worse way of making a bus lane

 

[edwin_m]

Because a lot of the bus network is a deeply unattractive proposition in Coventry, due to ASB issues in part.

Not obvious why a tram should be any better, and if it's autonomous it could be a lot worse.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Not obvious why a tram should be any better, and if it's autonomous it could be a lot worse.

Easier to monitor using CCTV and dispatch local plod to the location if autonomous, rather than putting a driver at risk if they got involved.

 

[Energy]

Easier to monitor using CCTV and dispatch local plod to the location if autonomous, rather than putting a driver at risk if they got involved.

Buses have had CCTV for ages, its really no different.

I really don't know what the point is of it. It combines the weakness of buses (low capacity) with the weakness of trams (limited routes). Which seems sub-optimal, to put it mildly

Exactly. The technology could be useful but only if the vehicles were 3-4x the length.

 

[cool110]

Once the basic concept is proven it shouldn't be that hard to go on to develop a longer vehicle as long as the axle weights stay within limits.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Buses have had CCTV for ages, its really no different.

Monitored by a driver, rather than a control centre though, no?

 

[MarkyT]

Once the basic concept is proven it shouldn't be that hard to go on to develop a longer vehicle as long as the axle weights stay within limits.

Or multiple units could couple together to meet a demand surge. An incoming tram at a terminus could couple up to one or more spares parked at the buffer stop. Many full-size conventional tram designs are available in varying lengths, usually accomplished by joining the required number of standard modules together. I could see a very light tram design evolving in the same way.