• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Sheffield/Rotherham Tram-Train update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

button_boxer

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
1,270
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-34473670

Sheffield to Rotherham tram-train scheme delayed by year

A £58m project to run trams on railway lines in South Yorkshire is a year behind schedule.
The tram-trains service, linking Sheffield, Meadowhall and Rotherham via local tram routes and Network Rail lines, was due to start this year.
Network Rail apologised and said it was waiting for approval from the transport secretary to build 150m (164yd) of track at Tinsley.
It said the full tram-train service would "not be introduced until 2017".
An application to connect both the tram and rail networks at Tinsley was submitted on 13 March.
In a statement, Network Rail said: "The combination of the complexity of the project, added to the need to apply for powers to build the link between the two networks means that the full tram-train service will not be introduced until 2017.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
My fear is that some "officers" in the West & South Yorkshire City Regions are seeing tram-train as a replacement Pacer - it's clearly not !

Have they still not got that message? It's really quite simple - a conventional train is always going to be a better cost-benefit than a tram-train, unless the service has a good reason to go off the existing railway line.
 

Harpers Tate

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2013
Messages
1,679
Hmmmm.

In its original form, the tram-train trial was to be diesel powered (feasible with this style of vehicle, I gather) and operate between Huddersfield and Sheffield. The thinking was that a substantial part of this route has nothing running on it except these local services - no heavy freight or long-distance trains - yet other parts of it are mixed traffic. And that the T-T, being a lighter vehicle, might allow for reduced maintenance budget on dedicated routes. That was what was to be evaluated. I don't think the intent was to run it onto the tramlines - merely to see the impact on track costs on the dedicated part of the route whilst inter-operating with heavier traffic on the remainder.

If those (unproved) assumptions are in fact true, then perhaps the converse IS the case - that a tram-train (on a largely exclusive route) might well be more cost-effective overall.
 
Last edited:

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
Have they still not got that message? It's really quite simple - a conventional train is always going to be a better cost-benefit than a tram-train, unless the service has a good reason to go off the existing railway line.


I'm hopeful that message is there with the decision makers - and absolutely, I can see Tram-train working on a Sheffield - Dore Village service, perhaps even an extension up to Stocksbridge, but not as a cheap Doncaster to Robin Hood shuttle on the ECML !
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
My fear is that some "officers" in the West & South Yorkshire City Regions are seeing tram-train as a replacement Pacer - it's clearly not !


I think that is not at all clear cut and depends on what form the tram train takes. I would definitely rather something like a Metrolink high floor tram than a Pacer, say.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
I think that is not at all clear cut and depends on what form the tram train takes. I would definitely rather something like a Metrolink high floor tram than a Pacer, say.
If you had experienced the violent shaking motion that often afflicts Metrolink M5000 trams at their top speed of 50mph, you might revise that view! Articulated vehicles seem to be prone to "hunting" problems at speed.

Bear in mind that tram-trains generally have a maximum speed of 100kph/60mph. The compatibility of such a restriction with main line pathing has been exhaustively discussed in the Class 230 thread.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
Something that I've just realised too... Team-trains may also come into conflict with the crash testing standards in that they can't pass the 110kph test - that's a tangle I'd rather not get my head around !
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Hmmmm.

In its original form, the tram-train trial was to be diesel powered (feasible with this style of vehicle, I gather) and operate between Huddersfield and Sheffield. The thinking was that a substantial part of this route has nothing running on it except these local services - no heavy freight or long-distance trains - yet other parts of it are mixed traffic. And that the T-T, being a lighter vehicle, might allow for reduced maintenance budget on dedicated routes. That was what was to be evaluated. I don't think the intent was to run it onto the tramlines - merely to see the impact on track costs on the dedicated part of the route whilst inter-operating with heavier traffic on the remainder.

If those (unproved) assumptions are in fact true, then perhaps the converse IS the case - that a tram-train (on a largely exclusive route) might well be more cost-effective overall.

The original proposal was for bi-mode vehicles which would run on the Sheffield Supertram network on the DC, and then diesel from Meadowhall to Huddersfield. It was attempted to sell this to the people of Huddersfield and its Southern rural hinterland by offering the possibility of street-running into Huddersfield Town centre too, but I don't think anyone fell for that! The issues with that plan were that running almost 50 miles on diesel on each return trip would require large fuel tanks, which add to the weight. Also there would need to be extra loops added to increase frequency, without which the changes would seem very much like a downgrading compared to the current setup. It would also have been very tricky to build a link from the existing tramway to the Barnsley/Huddersfield lines at Meadowhall.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Something that I've just realised too... Team-trains may also come into conflict with the crash testing standards in that they can't pass the 110kph test - that's a tangle I'd rather not get my head around !

I have emboldened the phrase Team-trains in your quote above and possessing something of a quirky sense of humour, what came to mind was a wheeled vehicle pulled by a well-trained team of huskies...:D
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
The original proposal was for bi-mode vehicles which would run on the Sheffield Supertram network on the DC, and then diesel from Meadowhall to Huddersfield. It was attempted to sell this to the people of Huddersfield and its Southern rural hinterland by offering the possibility of street-running into Huddersfield Town centre too, but I don't think anyone fell for that! The issues with that plan were that running almost 50 miles on diesel on each return trip would require large fuel tanks, which add to the weight. Also there would need to be extra loops added to increase frequency, without which the changes would seem very much like a downgrading compared to the current setup. It would also have been very tricky to build a link from the existing tramway to the Barnsley/Huddersfield lines at Meadowhall.

The Penistone Line trial failed because they were unable to source a bi-mode vehicle that met diesel emission standards at the time and the potential cost of such a vehicle if it did due to limited production high design costs. Ironically all those commentators who said it never would be possible to have a compliant diesel multiple engine for a rail vehicle that would fit we have had several Multiple/locomotive engine designs since that do meet the standards.

They did shop around the rolling stock manufacturers but none were able to offer and affordable solution.
 
Last edited:

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
I have emboldened the phrase Team-trains in your quote above and possessing something of a quirky sense of humour, what came to mind was a wheeled vehicle pulled by a well-trained team of huskies...:D


Obviously being in Sheffield, we would have to be using only huskies that were members of a recognised trade union ;)
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Something that I've just realised too... Team-trains may also come into conflict with the crash testing standards in that they can't pass the 110kph test - that's a tangle I'd rather not get my head around !

Not sure what standard you're referring to there, but tram-trains don't have to pass railway standards for crashworthiness. The risk is managed instead by accepting the greater severity of collision and reducing the likelihood of that collision by providing extra TPWS and longer overlaps.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think that is not at all clear cut and depends on what form the tram train takes. I would definitely rather something like a Metrolink high floor tram than a Pacer, say.

The tram-train might (or might not) be more comfortable for the passenger than a 30-year-old train. But the issue is that it's a lot more expensive per seat than a modern equivalent train, and this is very unlikely to be offset by a slightly lower operating and maintenance cost.

So to be worth doing the tram-train needs to attract more passengers than a modern equivalent train, and that means using the off-rail capability to provide a service to somewhere people want to go but can't get to by train. Or, possibly, bypassing the rail network near a major town station where capacity is restricted, so that a suburban service can run at a higher frequency.
 

eastwestdivide

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Messages
2,532
Location
S Yorks, usually
Meanwhile, there are piles actually driven into the ground, visible from the bridge at Bessemer Way near Magna in Rotherham, currently with temporary wooden covers, with the corresponding overhead line masts are lying close by.
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
Not sure what standard you're referring to there, but tram-trains don't have to pass railway standards for crashworthiness. The risk is managed instead by accepting the greater severity of collision and reducing the likelihood of that collision by providing extra TPWS and longer overlaps.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The tram-train might (or might not) be more comfortable for the passenger than a 30-year-old train. But the issue is that it's a lot more expensive per seat than a modern equivalent train, and this is very unlikely to be offset by a slightly lower operating and maintenance cost.

So to be worth doing the tram-train needs to attract more passengers than a modern equivalent train, and that means using the off-rail capability to provide a service to somewhere people want to go but can't get to by train. Or, possibly, bypassing the rail network near a major town station where capacity is restricted, so that a suburban service can run at a higher frequency.

Overall TfGM are reckoning that tram-trains will generate an operating surplus; and hence - as the commuter heavy rail services that they are intended as replacing are heavily subsidised (at least in Manchester), that the savings on the latter will partly pay for the conversion costs for the former.

As you say, much of this is due to projected passenger growth. The conversion of the Oldham/Rochdale line to tram operation has more than trebled peak period demand, and more than quadrupled off-peak demand. Since fare levels are, if anything, a bit higher on the tram; that is a lot of extra revenue.

Costs of course are lower; specfically due to driver-only operation; and lower maintainance and staffing costs at tram-stops compared to train stations. And there are no lavs to maintain and clean; either on the trains or the stops.

And also capital costs per passenger place are lower (which is contrary to your supposition above). This is mainly achieved by the simple expedient of expecting that most passengers at peak periods will travel standing up (while paying the same fare or higher). For journeys of less than 30 minutes, most users appear very happy with this. Typically a tram-train carries around a third of peak-period passengers seated - compared to a quarter on a conventional metro or tram.

But this reflects a key area where the UK tram-train proposals depart from their continental (mainly German) examples. German tram-train typically travel at train-like frequencies (usually 2 tph, and not more than 4 tph) and are expected to share track with heavy rail along most of the route. UK proposals appear to envisage tram-like frequencies (5 tph up to 10 tph); sharing only short sections of track with regular classic passenger services - but running mainly over dedicated lines, or conventional tram lines.
 
Last edited:

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
The risk is managed instead by accepting the greater severity of collision and reducing the likelihood of that collision by providing extra TPWS and longer overlaps.


Ah, that's interesting to hear, thanks. On that basis then, slotting "tram-trains" onto the ECML would still be a fools errand ?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
And also capital costs per passenger place are lower (which is contrary to your supposition above). This is mainly achieved by the simple expedient of expecting that most passengers at peak periods will travel standing up (while paying the same fare or higher). For journeys of less than 30 minutes, most users appear very happy with this. Typically a tram-train carries around a third of peak-period passengers seated - compared to a quarter on a conventional metro or tram.

I was very careful to refer to cost "per seat" for that very reason. If you can get away with higher numbers of standing passengers on a tram then you can do the same with train journeys of a similar length, as seen on most metros. The problem would be ensuring that those trains are kept on diagrams with short journeys and don't find their way onto longer ones.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
An EMU typically costs about £1.1m per coach (20m or 23m long). A tram about 30m long (and a bit narrower, also with cabs each end) costs over twice that. For longer formations, the costs of both go up roughly in proportion to their length. A tram-train costs quite a bit more than a tram of the same size, due to needing special features and being produced in small batches rather than tens or hundreds as is typical for modern trams.

So the cost per square metre of passenger space will be significantly more for the tram. It's possible that the cost divided by the capacity would be similar, but only if the tram is laid out for mostly standing and the train for mostly seated, and that isn't really a fair comparison.
The tram-train might (or might not) be more comfortable for the passenger than a 30-year-old train. But the issue is that it's a lot more expensive per seat than a modern equivalent train, and this is very unlikely to be offset by a slightly lower operating and maintenance cost.

So to be worth doing the tram-train needs to attract more passengers than a modern equivalent train, and that means using the off-rail capability to provide a service to somewhere people want to go but can't get to by train. Or, possibly, bypassing the rail network near a major town station where capacity is restricted, so that a suburban service can run at a higher frequency.
Costs of course are lower; specfically due to driver-only operation; and lower maintainance and staffing costs at tram-stops compared to train stations. And there are no lavs to maintain and clean; either on the trains or the stops.

And also capital costs per passenger place are lower (which is contrary to your supposition above). This is mainly achieved by the simple expedient of expecting that most passengers at peak periods will travel standing up (while paying the same fare or higher). For journeys of less than 30 minutes, most users appear very happy with this. Typically a tram-train carries around a third of peak-period passengers seated - compared to a quarter on a conventional metro or tram.
I was very careful to refer to cost "per seat" for that very reason. If you can get away with higher numbers of standing passengers on a tram then you can do the same with train journeys of a similar length, as seen on most metros. The problem would be ensuring that those trains are kept on diagrams with short journeys and don't find their way onto longer ones.
Indeed, should not comparisons between the operating and capital costs of tram-trains versus EMUs, for the same line, be carried out on a like-for-like basis? The Northern ITT specifically permits bidders to propose "metro-style" rolling stock for short distance commuting.

Regarding operating costs, EMUs, like tram-trains, can be Driver Only Operated; but for either type of vehicle, there may be specific operational reasons for carrying a conductor (as on the Sheffield Supertram). Equally, there is no good reason why the same station need have higher maintenance and staffing costs if served by an EMU as opposed to a tram-train.

For commuter lines into Manchester, 8-car EMUs, 160m long, might realistically be used to satisfy future traffic growth, whereas the maximum allowable length of a street-running tram-train is only about a third of that. So a tram-train operation providing similar capacity would need three times as many drivers, further increasing costs.

I am not convinced that TfGM's tram-train proposals satisfy either of edwin_m's criteria that I have bolded above, considering that the Northern Hub implementation will increase platform capacity for commuter services at the Central Manchester stations.
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
Regarding the capacity issue, I suspect the argument will be along the lines of...the emu may be nearly 3 times longer but we can run tram-trains at more than 3 times the frequency. Therefore an increase in capacity.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I am not convinced that TfGM's tram-train proposals satisfy either of edwin_m's criteria that I have bolded above, considering that the Northern Hub implementation will increase platform capacity for commuter services at the Central Manchester stations.

Seeing I did a lot of the background work for TfGM's proposals, I'll have to disassociate myself from that opinion...

I didn't get involved with the business case side of things, but the TfGM proposals have a lot to do with creating capacity. This is still restricted around Piccadilly even after Northern Hub and bypassing some of the more congested sections via tramway lets more services run on the less congested parts.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Seeing I did a lot of the background work for TfGM's proposals, I'll have to disassociate myself from that opinion...

I didn't get involved with the business case side of things, but the TfGM proposals have a lot to do with creating capacity. This is still restricted around Piccadilly even after Northern Hub and bypassing some of the more congested sections via tramway lets more services run on the less congested parts.
Ah, in which case I am happy to amend my opinion and respect your greater knowledge of this subject.

Assuming that TfGM's highest priority tram-train line remains Piccadilly to Rose Hill Marple via Bredbury, as indicated in the public domain 2013 strategy document, this would remove some Northern Rail services from Piccadilly Platforms 1-3, in addition to the TPE North services that will be re-routed round the Ordsall Chord. Do you envisage that it would be the remaining Northern services on the Ashburys line that would get increased frequency as a result, or might the benefits extend to the Stockport line too?
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Regarding the capacity issue, I suspect the argument will be along the lines of...the emu may be nearly 3 times longer but we can run tram-trains at more than 3 times the frequency. Therefore an increase in capacity.

A DMU unit length versus far improved tram frequency matter that was often cited as a subject for discussion when the respective merits of the heavy rail DMU and the Manchester Metrolink trams on the Oldham loop line was being discussed in past days on this website,
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
A DMU unit length versus far improved tram frequency matter that was often cited as a subject for discussion when the respective merits of the heavy rail DMU and the Manchester Metrolink trams on the Oldham loop line was being discussed in past days on this website,

The frequency of the Sheffield-Rotheham service will be, I understand, 3 tph. This is higher than normal for counterpart German tram-train services; but rather lower than would be normal for a tram.

The German tram-train model responds to issues that are not so prevalent in the UK. Following German unification in the late C19 German railways were reconstructed; and most medium-sized cities lost their central terminus stations - with most services relocated to a through-station a kilometre or more distant from the central business district. Rail commuter services hence involved transfer to a short tram trip for the final km or so - and in the post-war period this led to dropping demand for commuter rail into these medium-sized cities. The logic of tram train was that, for the cost of short chord connecting heavy rail to tram alongside the station, commuter trains running at commuter frequencies could once more directly serve the city centre.

But the UK has no surviving city-centre tram networks; and the issue of 'distant' stations is less common; Cambridge might be a counterpart, but there that was due to the University preventing the original 1840s station from being built closer in. So our tram-train proposals are for cities with post-1990 LRV networks; which means metropolitan urban conurbations with conseqently much higher potential commuter flows, and hence the need for much more capacity on projected tram-train routes. Tram trains are proposed in the UK mainly in order to convert rail alignments mostly to dedicated tram running; but where cost or space constraints continue to require shared use with heavy rail along some sections of the route.
 
Last edited:

Searchlight

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2015
Messages
44
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could it be, the "Tram-Train" fad is because we don t like building Interurban Tramway infrastructure in this country? So, we think use the existing Railway.......Trouble is, the Railway is already running near full capicity already. Either convert the rail line to tramway standard, like Metrolink OR extend the Railway (More expensive). Mixing the two modes will cause delays to the railways.:oops:
 
Last edited:

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could it be, the "Tram-Train" fad is because we don t like building Interurban Tramway infrastructure in this country? So, we think use the existing Railway.......Trouble is, the Railway is already running near full capicity already. Either convert the rail line to tramway standard, like Metrolink OR extend the Railway (More expensive). Mixing the two modes will cause delays to the railways.:oops:

I don't know what your knowledge of the TramTrain in South Yorkshire is, for forgive me if I'm teaching you to suck eggs, but...

the railway already is running near full capacity already: No. The plan is to take the tram route from central Sheffield to Meadowhall South (on the existing Supertram route) then a junction onto the parallel railway from there towards Rotherham.

The line in question (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...15/11/05/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt) only sees one passenger train a day (an XC service for route retention knowledge around ten at night) plus a couple of freight trains during the daytime (and some ECS at obscure times)...

...it would then run through Rotherham Central (three passenger trains an hour in each direction plus the same handful of freight/ECS services a day. There should be plenty of scope to accommodate three "tram train" services an hour on this double track line.

It would then terminate at a siding next to the busy Parkgate Retail Park (which is pretty much the 21st century version of the kind of shops that used to be in Rotherham town centre, but isn't served by rail, despite being hemmed in on both sides by railway lines).

Convert the rail line to tramway standard, like Metrolink? That won't work, as the tram train is intended to run through central Rotherham on Network Rail tracks - there are no plans for heavy rail to abandon these lines.

Extend the Railway? The idea is to run tram services through to the heart of Sheffield City Centre (the current train station in Sheffield is some distance away, quite a walk up hill from the station to the main shopping area - nothing like as well located as stations like Leeds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top