Sheffield Tram-Train

[pemma]

And either way, if we're having both platform at Navvy Rd for both types of service,

You can't. Freight is not permitted on the same lines as T68s and M5000s trams, unless you're proposing no trams on the Altrincham line and only tram-trains, which does have logic to it.

why would you want to have two types of tram-train operating when you can have one type that is Dual Voltage?

I'm not sure why you're asking that question.

would mean that we could stop wasting a path between Stockport and Manchester by terminating the service off the Mid Cheshire at Stockport.

In theory there is no path for the terminating services to go to Manchester via Heaton Chapel as Virgin stole some of Northern's paths in the December 08 timetable change, having previously stolen some of FNW's paths when the Pendolino timetable became live. The Chester-Stockport terminators are scheduled to return to Newton Heath ECS via Denton.

However, in the event of an emergency a maximum capacity line can still have diverted or ECS moves squeezed in even though it can't have any more scheduled passenger services squeezed in. This happened when the Denton line was closed due to a track problem and the ECS move via Denton became an ECS move via Heaton Chapel.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Tram drivers currently get around 23k. Would tram-train drivers get heavy rail drivers salaries ?

Tram-train drivers would get the standard driver rate for their employer. If they are employed by Supertram/Metrolink they will get less than with Northern Rail. However, if they are with Supertram/Metrolink they'd only sign a few short routes and 2 or 3 types of vehicle while if they were with Northern they would sign quite a few routes and quite a few different types of traction.

 

[notadriver]

That's a good question. 32k is the current salary for Tyne & Wear but still short of what NR drivers get.

 

[notadriver]

Deleted

 

[WatcherZero]

Now that the Sheffield tram-train trial has been approved the Mid Cheshire Rail Users Association (MCRUA) is putting together a business plan for their own tram-train proposal to interleave existing services.

 

[WestRiding]

is there a planned start date for works to comence? il still beleive it is going ahead when they start planting the OLE in the ballast.

 

[WestRiding]

Must say, i am really surprised that there is so little interest in this tram train thing in sheffield, as it promises to revolutionise tram systems in the uk. All we ever hear about on here is Manchester this and Manchester that. Is it really so un-interesting, or just so hard to find anything out different from the announcement last month?

 

[martin2345uk]

It's weird, I love trams, I like trains, but for some reason tram-trains leave me completely cold!

 

[tbtc]

Must say, i am really surprised that there is so little interest in this tram train thing in sheffield, as it promises to revolutionise tram systems in the uk. All we ever hear about on here is Manchester this and Manchester that. Is it really so un-interesting, or just so hard to find anything out different from the announcement last month?

I think it just reflects the number of posters on here. There's a lot more speculation/ argument about Metrolink, and a lot more happening too (several extensions built or being built or proposed over the last twenty years, compared to Sheffield which hasn't seen any new track/trams since it was built.

Compared to the Manchester schemes this is a pretty tiny scheme (under five miles, I'd guess), but could be more significant as it might see a number of lines elsewhere in the UK converted to light rail.

One question I've not seen asked is - what if it doesn't work? If trams cannot work on the same lines as heavy rail (e.g. signalling problems) then what are we going to do with quiet branches? Instead of replacing Pacers with lightweight cheap "tram" based units we'd have to consider either replacing them with "big trains" or closure. Don't get me wrong, I hope it works, but is there a "plan B"?

 

[WatcherZero]

One question I've not seen asked is - what if it doesn't work? If trams cannot work on the same lines as heavy rail (e.g. signalling problems) then what are we going to do with quiet branches? Instead of replacing Pacers with lightweight cheap "tram" based units we'd have to consider either replacing them with "big trains" or closure. Don't get me wrong, I hope it works, but is there a "plan B"?

The alternative if tram-train fails is full Stourbridge Line like conversions to isolated non-conflicting light rail lines with freight and diversion routes removed (or relegated to night time only).

 

[WestRiding]

Im sure it will work, it works all over the world. That said, this will probably be the country to make it fail. The current plan for the min, is for Woodburn, Woodhouse, Beighton signal box to be put on to Sheffield PSBs A panel, which will also control the tram train conection from Tinsley Meadowhall South, sending the trams down onto C panel. Plans will change by next week though knowing the railway.

 

[tbtc]

The alternative if tram-train fails is full Stourbridge Line like conversions to isolated non-conflicting light rail lines with freight and diversion routes removed (or relegated to night time only).

That'd be a pretty bleak future (e.g. Huddersfield - Barnsley running as a stand alone 139, rather than the current arrangement of through trains to Meadowhall).

There's a lot more riding on this "trial" in Sheffield than some people realise. Many in Sheffield see it as just an extension of our trams, many elsewhere seem to see it as a foregone conclusion that it'll be seen to work, but just because things work in the rest of the world doesn't guarantee it'll get past the bean counters etc here.

 

[SuperOwl86]

I am looking forward to see how the tram-trains pans out, I hope it is a great success.

If it is a success I can see further routes in Sheffield eg to Stocksbridge and Woodhouse with a park and ride at Waverly.

 

[Mattmatt]

Also if it works, it will be coming over the hills to Manchester too, on the Marple line; this line is now crying out for some investment and a better service.

 

[WestRiding]

Vossloh, has officialy been awarded the contract for building and supplying 7 tram trains for this project. According the 'The Transport Briefing'.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This happened when the Denton line was closed due to a track problem and the ECS move via Denton became an ECS move via Heaton Chapel.

Was this the track changes/renewals at Heaton Norris Junction a few months ago ?

 

[WestRiding]

MARCH 2013 - END OF GRIP 4 / START OF GRIP 5 (DETAILED DESIGN)
FEBRUARY 2014 - START ON SITE
JUNE 2014 - OLE GOES LIVE
OCTOBER 2014 - SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION
DECEMBER 2014 - DELIVERY OF FIRST TRAM TRAIN / START OF TESTING
JUNE 2015 - ENTRY INTO PUBLIC SERVICE

This is also assosiated with re-signalling of Woodburn box that will be taken over by Sheffield PSB
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A few more key features will be;

700m plus Plainline track at Tinsley and Parkgate
3 light rail turnouts
1 light rail fixed diamond
2 heavy rail turnouts
Raised check rails
9 transition panels
300m plus track slew
Single 20mm track lower
Potential for modified switch blades

11km plus Trolley Wire
140 Cantilevers
3km plus Return Conductor
16 balance weights and anchors
Substation at Parkgate

5 mainline signals
6 tram line signals
TPWS at 14 signals
44 track circuits
31 location cases
12 spts
Closure of Woodburn Signal box and re-control into Sheffield

1x 40m double face low level platform at Tinsley/Meadowhall South
2x 50m Low level platform extensions at Rotherham Central
1x 40m Low level platform at Parkgate

 

[eastwestdivide]

...
2x 50m Low level platform extensions at Rotherham Central
...

Presumably at the Sheffield end rather than under the bridge? Would this need the Sheffield-bound signal to be moved?

 

[WestRiding]

yes it would mean the signal at the end of Rotherham central would be moved closer to the junction, giving it a shorter overlap than the standard 200 yards, I presume. If so, this would mean the route is locked ahead of the signal if a train approaches it at danger, until it times out for a couple of mins, killing the swinging overlap.

 

[34D]

yes it would mean the signal at the end of Rotherham central would be moved closer to the junction, giving it a shorter overlap than the standard 200 yards, I presume. If so, this would mean the route is locked ahead of the signal if a train approaches it at danger, until it times out for a couple of mins, killing the swinging overlap.

Or I wonder would the heavy rail signal remain where it is, and the trams be allowed to pass it on account of the better brakes? We shall see.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anyone any info on ticketing intentions? Would be good to see any rail ticket destination/origin Rotherham inter-available on the new trams, otherwise it's not such a useful "doubling" of the service.
e.g. you're coming back to Rotherham, just miss the train (despite being 3 an hour, they're not regularly spaced at 20 minutes), and have the option of getting the next tram instead.

Quite, yes. When this opens to passengers we will be in the next northern franchise, so ample opportunity to specify joint ticketing, and full compliance with the Yorcard smartcard.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I assume that there will be no problems if ever the MML gets electrified?
I realise that they are using the freight line but would the mainline divert route from Chesterfield be considered for wiring as well?

Also is the proposed idea of using these Tram Trains on the Penistone line dead in the water? or just in abeyance?

Infill 25kva electrification of the old road from Chesterfield to Rotherham would seem sensible (low marginal cost) though we must remember that electrification North from Sheffield even to to South Kirkby is NOT a foregone conclusion.

 

[WestRiding]

Scheme now running 6 months late.

 

[pemma]

Scheme now running 6 months late.

DfT should look at a simple replacement scheme for a trial. For instance, tram-trains replacing trams on Piccadilly-Altrincham services and then being extended by short distance on National Rail to Hale.

 

[tbtc]

DfT should look at a simple replacement scheme for a trial. For instance, tram-trains replacing trams on Piccadilly-Altrincham services and then being extended by short distance on National Rail to Hale.

Rotherham is a simple trial though, its a couple of miles beyond Meadowhall South (a lot of which is on a freight line that can be electrified with minimal disruption) and can be run with only a handful of additional units.

 

[WillPS]

Does anybody know what route the tram train will take after passing Hyde Park? Will it go in to town? To the station? Where will its other terminus be?

 

[tbtc]

Does anybody know what route the tram train will take after passing Hyde Park? Will it go in to town? To the station? Where will its other terminus be?

AFAIK it'll terminate at the Cathedral (and not run on to Hillsborough or anywhere else).

But if we are getting a couple of new trams at the same time* then there may be a whole recast of services

* - Sheffield still only has the trams it got twenty years ago, there's been no increase in vehicles since then despite them getting busier over the last couple of decades

 

[anthony263]

Tram-trains would be good for certain routes on the Cardiff Valley lines network as has been proposed as part of the south wales metro.

With the valley lines being electrified it might be a good opportunity.

 

[Greybeard33]

DfT should look at a simple replacement scheme for a trial. For instance, tram-trains replacing trams on Piccadilly-Altrincham services and then being extended by short distance on National Rail to Hale.

I believe Manchester was rejected as being unsuitable for the tram-train pilot, due to the Metrolink system having too many unique features derived from heavy rail standards (high platforms, NR railhead and wheel profiles, Track Circuit Block signalling with coloured light signals). Supertram is more typical of existing and proposed "pure" tram systems elsewhere.

 

[edwin_m]

In particular NR wanted to use as close as possible to an off-the-shelf vehicle design for the trial, as the costs of a bespoke design for a fleet of five or so would be exorbitant. This effectively means a low floor vehicle with low platforms.

 

[pro4600]

It could be that the Rotherham service is added on to the purple route that runs cathedral to herdings park.

 

[pemma]

Rotherham is a simple trial though, its a couple of miles beyond Meadowhall South (a lot of which is on a freight line that can be electrified with minimal disruption) and can be run with only a handful of additional units.

In particular NR wanted to use as close as possible to an off-the-shelf vehicle design for the trial, as the costs of a bespoke design for a fleet of five or so would be exorbitant. This effectively means a low floor vehicle with low platforms.

I'm aware of DfT chosing Sheffield over Manchester because of wanting to use low floor tram-trains. Initially they proposed to use the whole Penistone line and to have multi-level platforms at most of the stations to not prevent 2 car DMUs from being used but at the same time allowing low-floor tram-trains to be used, which would have probably incurred more expense than ordering high floor tram-trains.

Some DB Regio trains are designed to call at both stations with ordinary platforms and stations with no platforms (you step up to the platform from the train instead of down like in the UK) so I imagine something similar could be done for tram-trains.

I think the Rotherham proposal misses a key point of the testing. Without a regular passenger heavy rail service you can't really test how frequent a tram-train service can be on a line that also has a regular heavy rail passenger service. We already know that trams can operate on both NR specification track and light rail specification track and run under NR signalling and tram signalling - the Altrincham to Manchester Metrolink service, for example, ticks all those boxes. The thing it doesn't do is allow for trams running in between Northern DMU services, which have longer dwell times and slower to accelerate. Unless DfT are planning to crash freight trains in to tram-trains in Rotherham to test the crash worthiness of tram-trains I don't see a lot that the proposed scheme can prove that hasn't already been proven.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

* - Sheffield still only has the trams it got twenty years ago, there's been no increase in vehicles since then despite them getting busier over the last couple of decades

What happened to the order of additional trams that an invitation to tender was put out for by Stagecoach at around the same time as the tram-train one? I remember Stagecoach had to withdraw it and reword it to make it 100% clear that the invitation to tender was for additional trams for existing services and not related to the to tram-train tender.

 

[edwin_m]

The tram-train will share track with Northern passenger trains between Rotherham Central and Parkgate and with freight and diverted trains over the whole rail section.

As already mentioned Metrolink shares some technical standards with trains, particularly something like wheel profile. So Metrolink can't say anything about how well a wheel profile will wear over time, if it has to be suitable for both street* tramway and railway running. Or indeed how much wear such a profile causes to the track.

Trains or trams equipped for dual-height platforms wouldn't be acceptable in the UK. They would have to have an internal wheelchair lift and I can't see any operator wanting to take responsibility for that.

I believe it is still the current intention to order more tram-trains than strictly needed for the Sheffield-Rotherham service. The others will strengthen services elsewhere on Supertram, as well as providing spare vehicle cover if the tram-train has problems.

*Manchester street track has a larger groove to account for the wheel profile, although it still wouldn't take a heavy rail flange.