Croydon Tramlink

[D_Sims97]

hey!
so i want to hear your thoughts on this and if this is possible or not but

do you think they could maybe upgrade and update the tramlink in Croydon
seeing how it is still the same and as it was in 1997 when it was first constructed to take over Coombe Road and Addiscombe railway services (whatever it's called)

and also seeing how it's been untouched since then besides some altercations to the stock itself and engineering works etc. etc. (not going into detail)
i thought they could upgrade the tracks that are single (if possible) and update plaforms to accomodate maybe 4 or 6 car trams and that flyover bit where southern trains go under as soon as leaving West Croydon and also making it like Sheffield (where trains share platforms with trains even in places like Rotterdam where trains also share platforms with trams) between Arena - Beckenham Junction where it branches off from the line to Elmers End (if that's the correct station)

so in short terms anything that is possible with trams to make sure there is frequent trains lots of capacity high capacity too and maybe update and upgrade the signalling

anyways images are below and let me know what you guys think

would you say it's possible?
do you think it should be allowed?
and if not could this be used for any possible future projects like the proposed Watford & Croxley - St Albans Abbey tram thing? or the one for crossing from Darford and Grays to Gravesend? or crossrail extension to Gravesend?

That's All
Would Be Much Appreciated if you gave a good reason and also back up your answer so we don't have any problems where someone clashes with someone else over a point you get the jist of it anyway i trust you

Thanks!

Image 1 - Rotherham Central Station


Image 2 - A Station In Rotterdam Owned By Randstad Rail (other lines owned by RET do not share platforms with trams and only with Randstad Rail Trains)

 

[Domh245]

I'd quibble the "untouched" description, especially for the Wimbledon Branch. A lot of the original single lines (Mitcham - Mitcham Junction - Beddington Lane) have been doubled, plus fairly substantial alterations at Wimbledon itself to accomodate a higher frequency (though it would be lovely to eliminate the last long stretch of single track on the branch between Morden Road - Phipps Bridge but there's not enough space AIUI.

I think Tram/Train as in Sheffield (and Amsterdam) are non-starters because of the use of electrified third rail on the National Rail tracks around the tramlink lines - I don't think there'd be sufficient clearance between the bottom edge of the tram vehicles & the third rail! I'd also suspect that you could increase capacity with another order of new trams and upping the frequencies before looking into running double formations.

 

[edwin_m]

There have been several proposals to expand Tramlink over the years, including (in no particular order) up the hill to Crystal Palace, southwards to Sutton and an extra loop between East Croydon and Wellesley Road to increase terminating capacity. There have probably been others I don't immediately recall, but those three were certainly looked at in some detail. Crystal Palace was cancelled by Boris Johnson soon after he became Mayor, Sutton has probably fallen foul of TfL's run-ins with Covid, Grayling and Shapps, and extra capacity in the centre isn't really necessary unless extra outer branches are added (I'd guess central Croydon is Britain's busiest piece of tramway that isn't in Manchester).

As well as the third rail issue, most of the trains round Croydon are much longer than those around Manchester and Sheffield so tram-train would be a reduction in capacity. Also most of the places people want to go to in Croydon are much closer to the station, and a lot of people on those trains are heading for central London where you certainly wouldn't want to send a tram-train or force them to make an extra change.

 

[Thirteen]

I imagine TfL won't be replacing the CR4000s until the 2030s or 2040s at the earliest.

 

[Mojo]

I’ve noticed over the summer there have been a lot of periods Minor delays have been advertised due to a shortage of available Trams.

 

[Thirteen]

I’ve noticed over the summer there have been a lot of periods Minor delays have been advertised due to a shortage of available Trams.

That was due to supply chain issues with getting spare wheels, I assume that it mostly affected the CR4000s rather than the newer Variobahns:

Croydon trams facing weeks of disruption due to shortage of wheels

EXCLUSIVE: A hold up in the supply chain means fewer trams are able to run, and this will take weeks to resolve

www.mylondon.news

 

[Western Sunset]

Will the tram in the tragic Addiscombe accident ever re-enter service?

 

[D_Sims97]

Will the tram in the tragic Addiscombe accident ever re-enter service?

yes i also question when 2551 will come back too anyone have any info? (unless you meant a different accident then my sincerest apologies)

also thank you to everyone who replied some very amazing and interesting points!

hey!
so i want to hear your thoughts on this and if this is possible or not but

do you think they could maybe upgrade and update the tramlink in Croydon
seeing how it is still the same and as it was in 1997 when it was first constructed to take over Coombe Road and Addiscombe railway services (whatever it's called)

and also seeing how it's been untouched since then besides some altercations to the stock itself and engineering works etc. etc. (not going into detail)
i thought they could upgrade the tracks that are single (if possible) and update plaforms to accomodate maybe 4 or 6 car trams and that flyover bit where southern trains go under as soon as leaving West Croydon and also making it like Sheffield (where trains share platforms with trains even in places like Rotterdam where trains also share platforms with trams) between Arena - Beckenham Junction where it branches off from the line to Elmers End (if that's the correct station)

so in short terms anything that is possible with trams to make sure there is frequent trains lots of capacity high capacity too and maybe update and upgrade the signalling

anyways images are below and let me know what you guys think

would you say it's possible?
do you think it should be allowed?
and if not could this be used for any possible future projects like the proposed Watford & Croxley - St Albans Abbey tram thing? or the one for crossing from Darford and Grays to Gravesend? or crossrail extension to Gravesend?

That's All
Would Be Much Appreciated if you gave a good reason and also back up your answer so we don't have any problems where someone clashes with someone else over a point you get the jist of it anyway i trust you

Thanks!

Image 1 - Rotherham Central Station
View attachment 120356

Image 2 - A Station In Rotterdam Owned By Randstad Rail (other lines owned by RET do not share platforms with trams and only with Randstad Rail Trains)
View attachment 120357

one thing i also forgot to mention about was New Addington

 

[507 001]

I would be very surprised if 2551 ever reappears.

 

[busesrusuk]

I'd quibble the "untouched" description, especially for the Wimbledon Branch. A lot of the original single lines (Mitcham - Mitcham Junction - Beddington Lane) have been doubled, plus fairly substantial alterations at Wimbledon itself to accomodate a higher frequency (though it would be lovely to eliminate the last long stretch of single track on the branch between Morden Road - Phipps Bridge but there's not enough space AIUI.

I think Tram/Train as in Sheffield (and Amsterdam) are non-starters because of the use of electrified third rail on the National Rail tracks around the tramlink lines - I don't think there'd be sufficient clearance between the bottom edge of the tram vehicles & the third rail! I'd also suspect that you could increase capacity with another order of new trams and upping the frequencies before looking into running double formations.

I suspect there is enough room to double that remaining stretch but it may encroach on National Trust land in the shape of Morden Hall Park. The opposite side is Deer Park Road which is one way and could probably manage if it was narrowed (wouldn't need much). I need to check but I think that particular stretch also crosses the Wandle which might entail rebuilding/strengthening a bridge which might be a tad expensive (if it isn't already wide enough and designed for double track).

However, if you try and push more trams to Wimbledon, the single track approach into Wimbledon Station itself may become a constraint which would be very expensive to resolve.

 

[Domh245]

I suspect there is enough room to double that remaining stretch but it may encroach on National Trust land in the shape of Morden Hall Park. The opposite side is Deer Park Road which is one way and could probably manage if it was narrowed (wouldn't need much).

Deer Park road is but one of the obstacles on that side of the line (for around 280m of the ~800m) but with a noticeable height difference and given the industrial nature of Deer Park Road and the traffic that entails, probably not something you want to narrow - you've also got (North to South) a large warehouse, short stretch of greenery, and then a whole load of gardens, a wood/lumber yard, and then a whole row of gardens. The other 'advantage' to expanding to the south towards Morden Hall is that single track is definitely on the Croydon-bound alignment, with the Wimbledon-bound track very clearly coming over at Phipps Bridge and going back over at Morden Road - but slewing the whole alignment if needed shouldn't be impossible!

I need to check but I think that particular stretch also crosses the Wandle which might entail rebuilding/strengthening a bridge which might be a tad expensive (if it isn't already wide enough and designed for double track).

It does - twice! Though the bridges are not particularly long (~20m x 2) but most definitely single track

However, if you try and push more trams to Wimbledon, the single track approach into Wimbledon Station itself may become a constraint which would be very expensive to resolve.

That would probably become the bottleneck, though I don't know how much of a practical bottleneck it would be - even the worst case to 10b isn't a hugely long blocker (more so when waiting at 10b for a tram to enter 10a than v.v.) but I feel like you'd be pushing 20tph before it becomes an issue (+5 from now) - and I don't know whether that would be completely necessary. What you could potentially do (with a bit more thought than I can give now!) is make use of the stump past 10b - with trams 1, 2, 3 arriving 10b (pull forward), 10a, 10b in rapid succession then departing 10a, 10b, 10b (from stub). At that frequency, the single tiny staircase at Wimbledon would probably be the biggest concern!!

 

[richardcoughla]

I would be very surprised if 2551 ever reappears.

If there is a slim chance of 2551 coming back they may renumber the unit? In wich I think that would be the case.

 

[Thirteen]

Was reading the TfL Investment report and it seems they will be replacing the CR4000s in due course as they are life expired which surprised me considering they're only 22 years old. I wonder which rolling stock they'll go for, I assume given the cracking issues that the CAF Urbos 3 will be ruled out, the Alstom Citadis which is used in a number of cities would be good.

 

[Nym]

Will the tram in the tragic Addiscombe accident ever re-enter service?

No. Aside from them not working out who should pay for it, there's no chance of repairing it.

 

[Thirteen]

Andy Byford mentioned at the London Assembly Transport Committee that trams are a priority alongside new Bakerloo line trains and roads.

 

[AY1975]

hey!
so i want to hear your thoughts on this and if this is possible or not but

do you think they could maybe upgrade and update the tramlink in Croydon
seeing how it is still the same and as it was in 1997 when it was first constructed to take over Coombe Road and Addiscombe railway services (whatever it's called)

and also seeing how it's been untouched since then besides some altercations to the stock itself

I presume you mean alterations rather than altercations!

I have noticed that the A217 London Road overbridge by Mitcham tram stop still has a sign asking you to contact the rail authority if you witness a vehicle striking this bridge, and alongside it there's a similar but smaller sign asking you to contact the London Trams Authority in case of such an incident.

I didn't think Network Rail had any jurisdiction over the Tramlink infrastructure apart from where it runs alongside NR metals: I always presumed that it came under TfL just like the London Underground, so I'm surprised that the sign asking you to contact the rail authority is still there, unless it has been there since heavy rail days but then it would have said Railtrack rather than the rail authority. Or maybe TfL/London Trams still leases the line, or at least the trackbed, from Network Rail because it used to be a BR/Railtrack line?

 

[Recessio]

I presume you mean alterations rather than altercations!

I have noticed that the A217 London Road overbridge by Mitcham tram stop still has a sign asking you to contact the rail authority if you witness a vehicle striking this bridge, and alongside it there's a similar but smaller sign asking you to contact the London Trams Authority in case of such an incident.

I didn't think Network Rail had any jurisdiction over the Tramlink infrastructure apart from where it runs alongside NR metals: I always presumed that it came under TfL just like the London Underground, so I'm surprised that the sign asking you to contact the rail authority is still there, unless it has been there since heavy rail days but then it would have said Railtrack rather than the rail authority. Or maybe TfL/London Trams still leases the line, or at least the trackbed, from Network Rail because it used to be a BR/Railtrack line?

Any oversights/mistakes in transfers during privatisation from BR to RailTrack or TfL were generally resolved when BRBR was abolished in 2011 under the bonfire of the quangos. (Notable exception: the mistake in the NR/LUL boundary at Wimbledon).

So I doubt the bridge would still be under NR jurisdiction today, even if it was from say 1997-2011?

Also re "but then it would have said Railtrack rather than the rail authority", if it was only rail track owned from 94 to line closure in 97, there's a chance they simply never updated the sign to say RailTrack? It was a very neglected stretch of line.

There's another thread somewhere about outdated signage and lots of bridge strike signs around the countrystill refers to RailTrack or the Railway Authority even today! (Let's just hope NR kept the same number that BR and RailTrack used!)

 

[AY1975]

Any oversights/mistakes in transfers during privatisation from BR to RailTrack or TfL were generally resolved when BRBR was abolished in 2011 under the bonfire of the quangos. (Notable exception: the mistake in the NR/LUL boundary at Wimbledon).

So I doubt the bridge would still be under NR jurisdiction today, even if it was from say 1997-2011?

Also re "but then it would have said Railtrack rather than the rail authority", if it was only rail track owned from 94 to line closure in 97, there's a chance they simply never updated the sign to say RailTrack? It was a very neglected stretch of line.

"The rail authority" is what those signs normally say today (and have done since the early 2000s when NR superseded Railtrack).

 

[Bigchris]

I travelled from Wimbledon-East Croydon on the tram yesterday, only the 2nd time I've ever actually used it in fact. There were 2 trams visible but not identifiable at Therapia Lane depot, 1 in the shed visible from the Wimbledon end, and 1 outside the shed but behind the fence at the Croydon end. I know it's a long shot but would anybody happen to know which ones they were? I was hoping to see the remaining ones I needed out working but there were 4 that I didn't see out yesterday (not including 2551). Trams not seen yesterday were 2547/53/59/61, all others were noted working through East Croydon with the exception of 2530/50/60 which were stabled at Therapia Lane depot.
Cheers, Chris

 

[Bourlea]

I travelled from Wimbledon-East Croydon on the tram yesterday, only the 2nd time I've ever actually used it in fact. There were 2 trams visible but not identifiable at Therapia Lane depot, 1 in the shed visible from the Wimbledon end, and 1 outside the shed but behind the fence at the Croydon end. I know it's a long shot but would anybody happen to know which ones they were? I was hoping to see the remaining ones I needed out working but there were 4 that I didn't see out yesterday (not including 2551). Trams not seen yesterday were 2547/53/59/61, all others were noted working through East Croydon with the exception of 2530/50/60 which were stabled at Therapia Lane depot.
Cheers, Chris

From what I understand, 2547 is offsite and 2561 was last berthed outside the shed nearest Therapia Lane tram stop. I’m guessing the other two (53 & 59) may have been in the shed being worked on as there is space for four trams inside.

 

[Bigchris]

From what I understand, 2547 is offsite and 2561 was last berthed outside the shed nearest Therapia Lane tram stop. I’m guessing the other two (53 & 59) may have been in the shed being worked on as there is space for four trams inside.

I did consider jumping off the tram and having a walk down the road the other side of the shed, not sure if there's any decent view to be had from down there?

 

[themeone]

I haven't heard any talk about route extensions around Croydon for a long time, so imagine all past proposals are effectively dead. Not much of a case for Sutton anyway, as there's already a good rail service between Croydon and Sutton.

The extension which I'd say would bring the most benefit, and which I think was proposed at one time, was up to Streatham. The existing rail service can be confusing with trains going from East and West Croydon, and some serving Streatham, others Streatham Hill, and the only alternative is a slow bus ride up the congested A23. However, I've no idea where the tram line could be routed.

Might also be good to extend the other way to Purley.

 

[Intro298]

I haven't heard any talk about route extensions around Croydon for a long time, so imagine all past proposals are effectively dead. Not much of a case for Sutton anyway, as there's already a good rail service between Croydon and Sutton.

The extension which I'd say would bring the most benefit, and which I think was proposed at one time, was up to Streatham. The existing rail service can be confusing with trains going from East and West Croydon, and some serving Streatham, others Streatham Hill, and the only alternative is a slow bus ride up the congested A23. However, I've no idea where the tram line could be routed.

Might also be good to extend the other way to Purley.

Its a shame the crystal palace extension didn't happen, it seemed to be quite logical, and not that hard.

 

[Basil Jet]

The extension which I'd say would bring the most benefit, and which I think was proposed at one time, was up to Streatham. The existing rail service can be confusing with trains going from East and West Croydon, and some serving Streatham, others Streatham Hill, and the only alternative is a slow bus ride up the congested A23. However, I've no idea where the tram line could be routed.

I think the solution to that is to improve the railways. https://www.centreforlondon.org/publication/turning-south-london-orange/