Revolution Very Light Rail demonstrator

[rf_ioliver]

I came across this article about the Revolution Very LIght Rail Demonstrator: https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/r...options-for-branch-line-revival/60076.article

So, this got me thinking, where could these be used, or more importantly could these be used to stimulate demand or provide for some kind of, eg: interconnecting service, for lightly used lines. Now some of the ideas might take a bit of change in law and political will but let's see where this could take us. For example, Aberdare-Hirwaun, Ystrad Mynach-Bedlinog, Machen-Newport, the lines from Neath are a few that come to mind. Minimal investment in infrastructure needed, eg: single train in steam operation - tose lines don't see that much freight traffic so easy to schedule. I was also thinking of taking some ideas from Finland where they have the idea of a very low cost, modular wooden platform - one has been built in the town of Nikkilä for the Porvoo Museum line (actually it is on a freight line, so fully connected and used by the national railway network) as a demonstrator.

The idea runs something like this: a private operator (not for profit, for profit, whatever) gets a section of line, a VLR demonstrator vehicle and permission to build a few [temporary] platforms. Say we take Ystrad Mynach-Bedlinog as an idea - platforms are placed at Ystrad Mynach, Tredomen, Nelson up to Bedlinog. You get freedom to set a reasonable timetable, reduced fares but link into the local fare system with the idea of feeding into that system. If there's demand, green credentials etc then it becomes something more permanent, otherwise you take those vehicles and platforms elsewhere.

Of course there are many reasons why this won't work, eg: busses, money, poltical will etc etc, but that's not the point here - I'm more wondering how such an idea could be implemented.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I can't read the link as there is a pay-wall after so many free articles have been read. I assume it's related to the Coventry plan? https://www.coventry.gov.uk/verylightrail
This concept is one I have often read about, the old Perry People Mover plans were in a similar vein. Carpet track and small lightweight trams to get a tramway operation fast and cheap in a smaller town. In theory it could work anywhere, it's just not been properly tested yet.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I can't read the link as there is a pay-wall after so many free articles have been read. I assume it's related to the Coventry plan? https://www.coventry.gov.uk/verylightrail
This concept is one I have often read about, the old Perry People Mover plans were in a similar vein. Carpet track and small lightweight trams to get a tramway operation fast and cheap in a smaller town. In theory it could work anywhere, it's just not been properly tested yet.

Revolution VLR is different and is not related to the Coventry plan which is urban VLR

 

[AngusH]

This is the cheap-ish 153/pacer replacement experiment:

LAUNCHING REVOLUTION VERY LIGHT RAIL (RVLR) - Revolution VLR

Eversholt Rail and Transport Design International are delighted to announce the launch of the RVLR Demonstrator vehicle at Ironbridge today.

revolutionvlr.com

A demonstration vehicle actually exists and can move (as shown in the video)

 

[daodao]

Examples of successful "Restoring Your Railway" bids where this technology could be useful include:

• To reintroduce passenger services between Clitheroe and Hellifield
• Reopened lines and new passenger services, Kemble - Cirencester
• Reopened lines and new passenger services, Stratford Upon Avon - Honeybourne
• Reopen the Darlington - Weardale line to passenger services [west of Bishop Auckland]
• Reopen the Middlewich line to passenger services [between Northwich and Sandbach only]
• Reopen the Gaerwen – Amlwch line, Anglesey to passenger services [with re-opening Gaerwen station so the service would be self-contained]
• Reopen the Oswestry - Gobowen line

The last example (Oswestry-Gobowen) seems a particularly suitable one to try as the line is still extant and relatively short.

Any comments?

 

[edwin_m]

Revolution VLR is different and is not related to the Coventry plan which is urban VLR

It is developed by some of the same people but I agree it is a different thing.

This is the cheap-ish 153/pacer replacement experiment.

The important difference is that it won't be certified to use the same tracks as other heavy rail trains, due to lower structural strength. This is quite a major restriction for use on the existing network, as few branches are totally segregated and those that are would need some kind of depot facility, although the vehicle is designed for easy maintenance.

Examples of successful "Restoring Your Railway" bids where this technology could be useful include:

• To reintroduce passenger services between Clitheroe and Hellifield
• Reopened lines and new passenger services, Kemble - Cirencester
• Reopened lines and new passenger services, Stratford Upon Avon - Honeybourne
• Reopen the Darlington - Weardale line to passenger services [west of Bishop Auckland]
• Reopen the Middlewich line to passenger services [between Northwich and Sandbach only]
• Reopen the Gaerwen – Amlwch line, Anglesey to passenger services [with re-opening Gaerwen station so the service would be self-contained]
• Reopen the Oswestry - Gobowen line

The last example (Oswestry-Gobowen) seems a particularly suitable one to try as the line is still extant and relatively short.

Any comments?

Of these, I think Clitheroe to Hellifield would be unsuitable, because the service from the south runs north of Clitheroe to reverse (which could be changed), and freight and excursions still use the rest of the route (which would be more difficult to deal with). Darlington to Weardale would actually have to start from Bishop Auckland with a change of train there - probably not very attractive. Northwich to Sandbach carries freight. From my (imperfect) knowledge of the others, they could be made segregated, but the segregation issue does make this concept less suitable for re-openings where the track still exists, which ought to be easier.

Please note I'm only talking about technical suitability, not considering the major issue of whether there's enough demand to warrant running any of these services.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Any comments?

How about unsuccessful "Restoring your Railway" bids ?

Afterall wasn't "Restoring your Railway" for heavy rail schemes?

Using this technology surely changes the economics of a number of schemes that failed to make the grade for heavy rail.

Looking at the full list there is one on an existing preserved line that wouldn't therefore need relaying. The KWVR between Oxenhope and Keighley.

I like this one as it already connects into the national rail network at Keighley whilst still being fully independant from it!

The main problem I can see is that whilst Keighley is well connected with pretty poor parking Haworth is also well served by bus and there no large car park at any of the stations to make them into a park and ride

If that could be addressed then I think there might be a good case for a service using VLR.

 

[PeterC]

Unless you are going to run three or four in multiple what's the point? An electric bus would do the same job as a single unit without the cost of dedicated infrastructure.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Unless you are going to run three or four in multiple what's the point? An electric bus would do the same job as a single unit without the cost of dedicated infrastructure.

They will be seen as trains I.e much more reliable than buses only without the expensive maintence costs associated with heavy rail.

I guess later we may see a multiple carriage variant as for now this is a demonstrator unit that has been trialled!

 

[javelin]

I don't really get the strategy of this vehicle.

It can't share track with other trains, so effectively it's just like any normal light rail vehicle, just without the street-running capability. So why not use an independently-powered tram from an existing light rail manufacturer? For the same capacity it would cost roughly the same.

I don't know if they plan variants with different traction but the demonstrator is pure DMU, which is becoming rapidly unpopular. Given that any lines Revolution would work are likely to be short branches with totally new track, it's hard to see new DMU being acceptable. Old cast off 230s perhaps, but not totally new pure DMU.

Lastly, these old alignments are in places where supporters of reopening tend to be very keen on "heritage" vehicles. So why design a very modern-looking carriage?

I just can't see many places where this vehicle is likely to be used.

 

[pdeaves]

Afterall wasn't "Restoring your Railway" for heavy rail schemes?

No, Kemble-Cirencester was always 'light' rail.

• Reopened lines and new passenger services, Kemble - Cirencester

At present, the promoters are looking at Coventry-a-like vehicles.

 

[edwin_m]

It would be interesting to know its minimum radius and maximum gradient, as a reopened route might have to have some short sections of severe geometry to get round sections that have been built on.

 

[yorksrob]

If like to see one tried on Ashford Kent to Lydd Town. Could revolutionise public transport on the Romney Marsh.

 

[30907]

If like to see one tried on Ashford Kent to Lydd Town. Could revolutionise public transport on the Romney Marsh.

Thought it wouldn't be permitted on NR in normal use? Bay platform at Appledore?

Looking at the full list there is one on an existing preserved line that wouldn't therefore need relaying. The KWVR between Oxenhope and Keighley.

I like this one as it already connects into the national rail network at Keighley whilst still being fully independant from it!

The main problem I can see is that whilst Keighley is well connected with pretty poor parking Haworth is also well served by bus and there no large car park at any of the stations to make them into a park and ride.

Not sure VLR would make a significant difference to the business case compared with a railbus or pacer though.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Thought it wouldn't be permitted on NR in normal use? Bay platform at Appledore?


Not sure VLR would make a significant difference to the business case compared with a railbus or pacer though.

Going by the intention it should be as easy and cheap as a bus to maintain I know Pacers are referred to as 'buses on rails' but they were still heavy rail trains!

 

[MarkyT]

I don't really get the strategy of this vehicle.

It can't share track with other trains, so effectively it's just like any normal light rail vehicle, just without the street-running capability. So why not use an independently-powered tram from an existing light rail manufacturer? For the same capacity it would cost roughly the same.

Maybe an established manufacturer would be the same or cheaper for an equivalent size vehicle or maybe not. Maybe they simply wouldn't be interested in fulfilling a small order of one or two cars for a small branch line. Personally I'm pleased with the innovation and entrepreneurship of the organisations involved attempting to try something new, just as I was with Vivarail. Perhaps this project will succeed, perhaps it won't. Either way, it's good they are trying IMHO.
The video up-thread acknowledged that the demonstrator can't share with other vehicles at the moment, although suggests the vehicle could be equipped with cab signalling etc to allow that. Alternatively I'd suggest that 'time segregation' might be used as on some newer US passenger systems in smaller cities. While passenger services are running, no freight may run onto the branch and all wagons in sidings en route are safely secured behind trapped connections. Once the passenger vehicle is securely stabled in its own siding, freight operations can commence, usually overnight. In UK this can be enforced simply with a one train staff system.

I don't know if they plan variants with different traction but the demonstrator is pure DMU, which is becoming rapidly unpopular. Given that any lines Revolution would work are likely to be short branches with totally new track, it's hard to see new DMU being acceptable. Old cast off 230s perhaps, but not totally new pure DMU.

In the video, alternatives to the diesel were discussed. Like other modern and re-engineered trains the emphasis is on modularity, so an alternative power source might be swapped in.

Lastly, these old alignments are in places where supporters of reopening tend to be very keen on "heritage" vehicles. So why design a very modern-looking carriage?

I just can't see many places where this vehicle is likely to be used.

I don't think heritage style would be the main market, but it could probably be offered as an option fairly easily. There's a Californian battery tram manufacturer who does this: https://www.tig-m.com/

 

[edwin_m]

The video up-thread acknowledged that the demonstrator can't share with other vehicles at the moment, although suggests the vehicle could be equipped with cab signalling etc to allow that.

However all the other trains sharing the same track, not to mention the track itself, would also have to be equipped with cab signalling. The cost of doing that might make it cheaper just to stick with a more conventional train - at least until ERTMS fitment gets more widespread.

While passenger services are running, no freight may run onto the branch and all wagons in sidings en route are safely secured behind trapped connections. Once the passenger vehicle is securely stabled in its own siding, freight operations can commence, usually overnight. In UK this can be enforced simply with a one train staff system.

This has certainly been discussed over the years in the context of UK operation and there's no reason not to do it. However for most of the routes that share track, it's shared with a frequent passenger service at the junction, not with an occasional freight using the branch itself. So the usefulness of this measure might be rather limited.

 

[MarkyT]

However all the other trains sharing the same track, not to mention the track itself, would also have to be equipped with cab signalling. The cost of doing that might make it cheaper just to stick with a more conventional train - at least until ERTMS fitment gets more widespread.

Although more comprehensive TPWS fitment in the areas concerned (all signals, not just the ones with highest risk scores) might be acceptable in the short/medium term. My larger signalling worry is very short and lightweight vehicles disappearing from track circuits, possibly for long enough to disengage route locking applied to junctions and opposing movements. Axle counters are much safer in this respect (also after derailments that completely leave the rails).

This has certainly been discussed over the years in the context of UK operation and there's no reason not to do it. However for most of the routes that share track, it's shared with a frequent passenger service at the junction, not with an occasional freight using the branch itself. So the usefulness of this measure might be rather limited.

Agreed. The mooted Cirencester branch reinstatement for example would be far more useful and convenient if it could carry on to Swindon, perhaps stopping at a new halt or two en route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Examples of successful "Restoring Your Railway" bids where this technology could be useful include:

• To reintroduce passenger services between Clitheroe and Hellifield

This only makes sense in any way as an extension of Manchester services. Standalone a single taxi would more than suffice.

 

[javelin]

In the video, alternatives to the diesel were discussed. Like other modern and re-engineered trains the emphasis is on modularity, so an alternative power source might be swapped in.

Thanks, I thought I'd already seen that video but it must have been another one. Hopefully they'll get another demonstrator up and running, as alternatives are likely to be more in demand.

I don't think heritage style would be the main market, but it could probably be offered as an option fairly easily. There's a Californian battery tram manufacturer who does this: https://www.tig-m.com/

I only bring it up because I've been going through a lot of the different Restoring Your Railway proposals and it's significant how much promoters emphasise preserving the character of rural lines in their rolling stock proposals.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Another line, the Wensleydale line between Northallerton and Leeming Bar might be a good one although it would be after Northallerton station has been upgraded with the dive under taken out of use, with an additional Southern chord you could have Northallerton - Leeming Bar services!
Although even if progressed that would be a few years away.