Sheffield Supertram replacement.

[lumitumey12345]

With the Siemens-Duewag Supertram stock approaching nearly 30 years in service, have there been any plans for there replacement?

 

[TC60054]

Yes, from 2024 when the concession renews.

 

[Thirteen]

The Stadler Citylink which TfW are getting would be an option for the Supertram.

 

[the sniper]

The Stadler Citylink which TfW are getting would be an option for the Supertram.

The Stadler Citylink they've already got would be a better option, as the TfW ones are high floor...

 

[TreacleMiller]

The Stadler Citylink they've already got would be a better option, as the TfW ones are high floor...

Spoke with one of their managers last week and its all up in the air due to public ownership looming - but the current fleet they have from Stadler they want to expand as part of any "replacement" fleet order.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Spoke with one of their managers last week and its all up in the air due to public ownership looming - but the current fleet they have from Stadler they want to expand as part of any "replacement" fleet order.

Interesting. In that case, would there be much of a saving to be made if a replacement "core fleet" didn't have the improved crashworthiness required for running to Parkgate? Or would simply having an entirely uniform fleet (wheel profiles aside) be more of an advantage?

 

[WatcherZero]

Their request to Dft in 2019 was for £600m for renewal of the infrastructure and 24 trams, last year they received £570m for renewals with plans to operate a fleet of 30. There is at present 25 Siemens and 7 Class 399's for a total of 32.

 

[TreacleMiller]

Interesting. In that case, would there be much of a saving to be made if a replacement "core fleet" didn't have the improved crashworthiness required for running to Parkgate? Or would simply having an entirely uniform fleet (wheel profiles aside) be more of an advantage?

It isnt just the structure, but AWS, GSMR and 25kv compatibility that is costly.


Could easily see them having a few more 399s and then a cheap off the shelf tram. Issue is, the current stock are custom built and platforms etc all take that into consideration.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It isnt just the structure, but AWS, GSMR and 25kv compatibility that is costly.


Could easily see them having a few more 399s and then a cheap off the shelf tram. Issue is, the current stock are custom built and platforms etc all take that into consideration.

My point was more about where the "tipping point" is between the cost of the vehicles and the efficiency of a uniform fleet.

If the advantages of having a fleet composed entirely of Stadler Citylink vehicles (a single spares pool, less training for drivers and technicians etc.) outweigh the lower procurement costs of having a mixed fleet with the majority being cheaper simple tram vehicles, then that would be the better option. Even allowing for a subfleet with the additional equipment required for operation on NR, and the differently-profiled wheels.

 

[DanNCL]

There won’t be a need for two separate wheel profiles, as once the full network track renewal project is complete the tram-train wheel profile will be compatible with the full network. So one order for 25x additional 399s would do the job.

I can’t see there being any desire for two separate fleets when they don’t need them. If they do opt for something different from the 399s then I think we’re looking at an off-the-shelf product. However it would need to be a custom version for Sheffield, because of the non-standard 37.5cm entrance height of the Sheffield network vs the much more common 30cm entrance height used elsewhere.

The obvious contenders for an off-the-shelf product are the Alstom Citadis and Siemens Avenio. Both are established reliable platforms and are offered in customised versions to suit individual networks.

Another possibility would be the new Stadler TINA, but it would make more sense to order more 399s if the order is going to Stadler anyway.

They’d be mad to go with CAF after the issues Birmingham and Sydney have had!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There won’t be a need for two separate wheel profiles, as once the full network track renewal project is complete the tram-train wheel profile will be compatible with the full network. So one order for 25x additional 399s would do the job.

Cheers for the correction- I was under the impression that the only track modifications for tram-trains were what has already been done.

 

[DanNCL]

Cheers for the correction- I was under the impression that the only track modifications for tram-trains were what has already been done.

You’re right in that they were the only modifications done specifically for the tram-trains. The rest of the network is becoming able to take the tram-train profile gradually as track is replaced during the ongoing track renewal project. A lot of it is already done, but not yet enough to allow any of the three coloured routes to use tram-train profile vehicles.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes its been a piece meal process modifying sections during regular track renewal.

 

[busestrains]

Simply ordering additional 399s would make the most sense. Then they would have one standard fleet that could be used anywhere on any line. It would also make maintenance easier.

If they decide to go for a standard Alsthom Citadis or Bombardier Flexity or CAF Urbos etc could they simply lower all of the platforms to the standard tram height? How easy or difficult would this be? I would think that lowering the platforms would be cheaper than getting one of these manufacturers to build a custom tram at a slightly higher height than their usual trams?

 

[DanNCL]

Simply ordering additional 399s would make the most sense. Then they would have one standard fleet that could be used anywhere on any line. It would also make maintenance easier.

If they decide to go for a standard Alsthom Citadis or Bombardier Flexity or CAF Urbos etc could they simply lower all of the platforms to the standard tram height? How easy or difficult would this be? I would think that lowering the platforms would be cheaper than getting one of these manufacturers to build a custom tram at a slightly higher height than their usual trams?

The 399s have the same entrance height as the older trams so Sheffield is stuck with it long term.

Siemens definitely offer the Avenio with a custom entrance height as they’ve provided such examples for Doha. I’d be very surprised if Alstom didn’t offer the Citadis with a custom entrance height too, seeing how many of them there are across the globe.

On further research it seems that Stadler no longer offer the 399s and the Citylink design has evolved. Which would mean either getting the newer version of the Citylink (as Karlsruhe has done for their own follow up order), or if they wanted standard trams from Stadler they’d be getting the new Stadler TINA.

 

[TC60054]

I somehow doubt with all the issues presented by the Citylinks, that they'd like to go for a homogenous fleet of them anyway. Even five years on since all seven finally entered service, there's still constant reliability problems caused by them - and the fact that the tram-train service has to run with a 50% spare margin, should say it all really.

 

[Snow1964]

I was in Sheffield about 3 weeks ago, and one of the 399s passed me in West Street, calling there and City on way to Cathedral.

So I assumed they do work the other lines, which seems to conflict with some of the above posts. Can anyone clarify

 

[TC60054]

I was in Sheffield about 3 weeks ago, and one of the 399s passed me in West Street, calling there and City on way to Cathedral.

So I assumed they do work the other lines, which seems to conflict with some of the above posts. Can anyone clarify

Four are dedicated for the tram-train service with the tram-train wheel profile. The remaining three are fitted with a conventional tram wheel profile and operate only on the conventional tramway.

 

[DanNCL]

I somehow doubt with all the issues presented by the Citylinks, that they'd like to go for a homogenous fleet of them anyway. Even five years on since all seven finally entered service, there's still constant reliability problems caused by them - and the fact that the tram-train service has to run with a 50% spare margin, should say it all really.

The tram-train runs with a 50% spare margin because of other factors (mostly funding), not vehicle availability.

I was in Sheffield about 3 weeks ago, and one of the 399s passed me in West Street, calling there and City on way to Cathedral.

So I assumed they do work the other lines, which seems to conflict with some of the above posts. Can anyone clarify

Four are dedicated for the tram-train service with the tram-train wheel profile. The remaining three are fitted with a conventional tram wheel profile and operate only on the conventional tramway.

399201-399204 are dedicated to the tram-train service. 399205-399207 are solely for use on the Blue/Purple/Yellow lines.

This hasn’t always been the case. Before the tram-train route opened 399201-399204 saw some use on the conventional tram network, whilst 399206 was for a while used on the tram-train service (whilst 399202 and 399204 were both out of action from accident damage).

 

[D365]

I somehow doubt with all the issues presented by the Citylinks, that they'd like to go for a homogenous fleet of them anyway. Even five years on since all seven finally entered service, there's still constant reliability problems caused by them - and the fact that the tram-train service has to run with a 50% spare margin, should say it all really.

Agree with this. With a fleet of seven tram-train capable units, that’s enough capacity for the remaining ~25 Siemens replacements to be tram only. Once Sheffield gets the money, that is.

 

[plugwash]

I remember when the tram-trains were first introduced, their ride quality on the non-train sections was awful. Have subsequent track upgrades fixed that?

 

[TreacleMiller]

Can't say I've ever noticed it be bad....

 

[Nean]

I remember when the tram-trains were first introduced, their ride quality on the non-train sections was awful. Have subsequent track upgrades fixed that?

I don't often end up on one of the Stadlers, however the complete lack of seat padding compared to the Siemens units really doesn't help things!

 

[ShadowKnight]

What's the particular modification to the tracks needed to ensure tram train compatibility across the network?

 

[WatcherZero]

The depth and width of the embedded tracks groove, its not deep enough for the flanges on the tram-train wheel profile.

Previous Sheffield embedded track grooves 23mm wide and 24mm deep.
Groove required to accomodate BR P8 profile compatible wheel flanges 28mm wide and 30mm deep

So they have been replacing the existing embedded track with compatible embedded track whenever a section is renewed.

 

[chiltern trev]

I can’t see there being any desire for two separate fleets when they don’t need them. If they do opt for something different from the 399s then I think we’re looking at an off-the-shelf product. However it would need to be a custom version for Sheffield, because of the non-standard 37.5cm entrance height of the Sheffield network vs the much more common 30cm entrance height used elsewhere.

And the cost to relay all the platforms at 30cm height might be how much? Too much?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And the cost to relay all the platforms at 30cm height might be how much? Too much?

I doubt adding spacers, lengthened mounts etc to suspension to make a low floor tram ride 7.5cm higher would be difficult or expensive. Vivarail, for instance, did it to the 230s to give slightly more clearance above rail level for engine installation - they ride about 5-10cm (I think) higher than LU D-stock. It would probably be cheaper than rebuilding all the platforms. It's not quite as big a thing as building for 960mm platforms as per Metrolink which has a major impact on centre of gravity, bodyshell etc.

We do talk about "off the shelf" but it isn't literally "go into the storeroom and get a few out", they are all built to order so this sort of minor variation isn't difficult.

I must admit, though, that I hope they do go for a design similar to the existing one or the Stadlers. I find the layout, with accessible end vehicles and an all-seater middle vehicle (or indeed vice-versa if easier to build), to be a much more flexible and comfortable approach than the more modern units based on short sections which seem to have very compromised interiors in terms of comfort and the amount of seating provided.

 

[DanNCL]

And the cost to relay all the platforms at 30cm height might be how much? Too much?

Regardless of the cost it's a non starter with the 399s remaining on the network with a 37.5cm entrance height. 37.5cm will be the entrance height of nay trams.

I doubt adding spacers, lengthened mounts etc to suspension to make a low floor tram ride 7.5cm higher would be difficult or expensive. Vivarail, for instance, did it to the 230s to give slightly more clearance above rail level for engine installation - they ride about 5-10cm (I think) higher than LU D-stock. It would probably be cheaper than rebuilding all the platforms. It's not quite as big a thing as building for 960mm platforms as per Metrolink which has a major impact on centre of gravity, bodyshell etc.

We're unlikely to be looking at ride height mods, more likely the door entrance height and floor around it will simply be 7.5cm higher. Most low floor trams don't have a floor height throughout of 30cm, just the door areas, floor height for most of the tram is likely around the 40cm mark.

We do talk about "off the shelf" but it isn't literally "go into the storeroom and get a few out", they are all built to order so this sort of minor variation isn't difficult.

Indeed. Taking all of the main "off the shelf" tram products into consideration, the Siemens Avenio, Stadler Citylink, Stadler Tina, Alstom Citadis, CAF Urbos etc, most builds of those are customised to suit their networks. Very few cities have identical trams to each other.

 

[eastwestdivide]

and the fact that the tram-train service has to run with a 50% spare margin

When the service was introduced, it was 3 per hour, requiring 3 units, and they had 4 fitted with TT profile wheels. Wasn't the total order for 7 to cover additional capacity for the main fleet anyway?
So would that make it a 25% margin in a fleet of 4? Or is that not what you meant?

 

[Shefftrams]

Personally, I think it'd make more sense for the SYMCA to go for Siemens units. They can be custom ordered to fit the platforms, if the previous Siemens-Duewag units are anything to go by then the Avenio would be leaps and bounds more reliable than the 399s have been. I've only been on a couple in the 5/6 years they've been operating and they are uncomfortable and unreliable.