Sheffield Tram-Train

[pemma]

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.

So the Alstom Coradias introduced on 'Fugger Express' DB Regio services in 2009 that have designated wheelchair bays, 2 accessible toilets per 4 carriage set and have a sliding step function available to allow for low and high platforms meet current EU and German disability regulations even without having a guard on every train but wouldn't be acceptable in the UK?!

 

[edwin_m]

It might be acceptable provided either wheelchair users could get in and out unassisted or there was some arrangement to provide assistance.

Trams in the UK are expected to provide unassisted level boarding for wheelchairs, pushchairs etc. Trains have an exemption because historic loading and structure gauges make it almost impossible.

 

[Greybeard33]

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

This Manchester Metropolitan University report, commissioned by the ORR in 2008, details the types of rail and wheel profiles used on UK tramways. It was based on this HSL report from 2006, which showed that there is no standardisation between the various UK light rail networks.

In fact Metrolink grooved track does not have a wider groove than other modern UK tramways. Originally Ri59-R10 rail was used, which has the same 42mm groove width as the Ri59-R13 used on Croydon Tramlink. More recently SEI35G has been used for Metrolink extensions and replacements - this is also used on the Midland Metro and has the same 36mm groove width as SEI35GP used on Supertram (NET SEI41GP rail has a 41mm groove).

Metrolink does not have flange tip running through points and crossings, but neither does Supertram, although Supertram has a typical tram-type wheel profile with a square flange tip. The unique feature of the Metrolink wheel profile is that it is compatible with the wider check rail spacing on NR points and crossings, provided raised check rails are fitted to engage with the stepped part of the flangeback, above railhead height. This potentially makes it suitable for tram-trains, although the MMU report concludes that tram-train wheel profiles are inevitably a compromise and would probably have to be different for each existing tram system.

 

[tbtc]

This Manchester Metropolitan University report, commissioned by the ORR in 2008, details the types of rail and wheel profiles used on UK tramways. It was based on this HSL report from 2006, which showed that there is no standardisation between the various UK light rail networks

This is a real bugbear of mine - things could have been a lot better if the various openings (Sheffield, Croydon, Wolverhampton, Nottingham... and one day Edinburgh!) had been compatible with those systems that had opened before, so that we could have seen follow-on orders of trams etc.

 

[pemma]

This is a real bugbear of mine - things could have been a lot better if the various openings (Sheffield, Croydon, Wolverhampton, Nottingham... and one day Edinburgh!) had been compatible with those systems that had opened before, so that we could have seen follow-on orders of trams etc.

So compatible with Blackpool or Manchester? There were already two very different schemes in operation before Sheffield opened.

I think making Manchester run to low floor platforms and less BR style would have meant the cost advantage of a Metrolink system over a RER or S-Bahn style system with an underground city centre section wouldn't have still been applicable. Then the bridges on the converted BR tracks wouldn't have allowed for double decker trams like in Blackpool.

On the other hand high floor trams in Nottingham would have increased the costs for introduction of that system.

Although I appreciate Nottingham and Sheffield could have been to the identical standards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Trams in the UK are expected to provide unassisted level boarding for wheelchairs, pushchairs etc. Trains have an exemption because historic loading and structure gauges make it almost impossible.

So does having a 'ramp' on the middle doors which can be operated by a button pressed by the passenger* meet that requirement?

* This is what I saw on an Augsburg tram last week. The middle doors had ordinary open buttons and an assisted opening button in a different colour underneath.

 

[edwin_m]

Manchester will always be non-standard for UK tramways because of the high platforms. I think this was at least partly to do with no reliable low-floor tram being available at the time the design was being done in the late 80s.

Nottingham will also always be non-standard in having a 2.5m vehicle width compared to 2.65m on all the others. This is to help it get through some of the narrow streets in the city centre, including an 18m radius curve whereas most of the others only go down to 25m radius.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So does having a 'ramp' on the middle doors which can be operated by a button pressed by the passenger* meet that requirement?

* This is what I saw on an Augsburg tram last week. The middle doors had ordinary open buttons and an assisted opening button in a different colour underneath.

In principle yes, provided the wheelchair passenger can use it without assistance and its gradient is not excessive for use by a wheelchair. However since the guidance gives a maximum gradient for wheelchairs of around 1 in 20 you'd need a rather large ramp to overcome the difference between a 914mm entrance height as on Metrolink and a low platform at 250mm or so above rail. Think how long the wheelchair ramps are on heavy rail where the height difference is much less.

 

[gordonthemoron]

The Fugger Express trains may have 2 disabled toilets, but the corridor from the door, past the toilet to the bike/wheelchair area looks a bit tight to fit a wheelchair. Also, the train is crap

 

[pemma]

Manchester will always be non-standard for UK tramways because of the high platforms. I think this was at least partly to do with no reliable low-floor tram being available at the time the design was being done in the late 80s.

Wouldn't rebuilding all of the existing platforms on the Altrincham and Bury lines to a lower height have been expensive compared to building a few high platforms in the city centre? I also imagine at Altrincham making platform 2 low-floor for trams and 3 high-floor for trains wouldn't have been easy.

provided the wheelchair passenger can use it without assistance

I think a small number of severely disabled passengers will always require assistance. If you can't use your arms or legs then level boarding requiring a button to be pressed for the door to open isn't accessible to you.

The Fugger Express trains may have 2 disabled toilets, but the corridor from the door, past the toilet to the bike/wheelchair area looks a bit tight to fit a wheelchair. Also, the train is crap

While I don't think the interior is great if you're used to 1980s Northern Rail units then it's decent in comparison.

 

[WatcherZero]

Even with modest standardisation all the bidders for construction/extension work tend to have partners who are manufacturers and naturally favour their own domestic products lightly modified for the UK which are rarely compatible. Competitive contract competition would naturally suffer and prices would be forced up.

Im not favouring one argument over the other but standardisation without bulk orders would raise rather than lower prices. If they set common standards they will have to back it up with purchasing muscle to actually realise the savings rather than force the bidders to make even more costly alterations from their product baseline.

The T68's and T69's for example were original products to meet UK specification as opposed to the Variotram, Flexity Swift and Flexity 2 which are basically off the shelf from various continenal domestic markets with little modification.

 

[edwin_m]

Wouldn't rebuilding all of the existing platforms on the Altrincham and Bury lines to a lower height have been expensive compared to building a few high platforms in the city centre? I also imagine at Altrincham making platform 2 low-floor for trams and 3 high-floor for trains wouldn't have been easy.

Phase 3 demolished every single railway platform on the Oldham/Rochdale line and replaced them with new ones. So I don't think the cost saving of re-using existing platforms is as much as you might think.

I think a small number of severely disabled passengers will always require assistance. If you can't use your arms or legs then level boarding requiring a button to be pressed for the door to open isn't accessible to you.

I agree. It's unlikely that Stephen Hawking would be able to make a tram journey without assistance. It's a question of what is a reasonable adjustment.

In Britain we have collectively decided that allowing wheelchairs to roll on and off trams is an essential requirement (it also helps pushchairs etc and contributes to shorter dwell times). In Germany for example they have a slightly different attitude, but only because they have had tramways continuously for many decades so people are used to them being inaccessible. However if a totally new route is built in Germany it will also have level boarding, and existing routes are gradually being upgraded in rather the same way as we are doing with the Underground.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even with modest standardisation all the bidders for construction/extension work tend to have partners who are manufacturers and naturally favour their own domestic products lightly modified for the UK which are rarely compatible. Competitive contract competition would naturally suffer and prices would be forced up.

Im not favouring one argument over the other but standardisation without bulk orders would raise rather than lower prices. If they set common standards they will have to back it up with purchasing muscle to actually realise the savings rather than force the bidders to make even more costly alterations from their product baseline.

The T68's and T69's for example were original products to meet UK specification as opposed to the Variotram, Flexity Swift and Flexity 2 which are basically off the shelf from various continenal domestic markets with little modification.

I'd say that proves the opposite. Standardisation makes it more likely that a small network will end up with a reliable vehicle.

If your infrastructure complies with standards like the German BOStrab you can choose from a range of proven reliable designs, as Croydon did from the start, Sheffield sort of did and Manchester has done with their new fleet. All of these vehicles have performed well in the UK. You also have the opportunity, as Croydon and Manchester have done and Sheffield hopes to, of piggybacking on someone else's order to obtain a small number of extra vehicles at a sensible price (the initial order of Manchester 5000s was only eight).

Procure your tramway from a consortium of infrastructure and vehicle supplier and unless you specify your interfaces carefully, and can persuade your funders that the cheapest may not be the best, you too may end up with the T69.

 

[WestRiding]

Sheffield tram/train has been put back 6 months to fit in with resignalling of Sheffield PSB, Woodburn, Woodhouse, Kiveton, and Beighton.

 

[Greybeard33]

Phase 3 demolished every single railway platform on the Oldham/Rochdale line and replaced them with new ones. So I don't think the cost saving of re-using existing platforms is as much as you might think.

The original Metrolink Phase 1 system was built on a shoestring budget, with virtually the only modifications to the ex-BR lines being the change of electrification system, resignalling and new station signage. Even the worn track inherited from BR remained in service for 16 more years until finally replaced in 2007 - hence the BR-based wheel profile.

It was the success of this system that led the on-street tramway revival in the UK and has enabled subsequent projects in both Manchester and other cities to attract a more generous level of funding.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
According to this story in the Rotherham Business News, it has been found necessary

...to modify Supertram tracks so that they can carry the new tram train vehicles that have a different wheel base.

I presume this means it has been decided to use a tram-train wheel profile that is incompatible with the current Supertram rail types. This seems like a case of "the tail wagging the dog" - I thought one of the objectives of the Rotherham pilot was to show that tram-trains could use existing tramways. It is not going to help the business case for future tram-train projects if expensive infrastructure changes are required on the tramway as well as on the heavy rail line.

 

[eastwestdivide]

For a bit more clarity, and no mention of "wheelbase", the SYPTE documentation is available here:
http://www.sypte.co.uk/corporate.aspx?id=3317&terms="tram train"
which includes a couple of links to the details (one's a very big PDF).

and here:
http://www.sypte.co.uk/ContractsAvailable.aspx?id=3388&terms="tram train"

It appears to be only the embedded tracks that need replacing ahead of the tram-train project.

Sitting alongside this work is the need to replace some lengths of the embedded rail to support the tram/train project

 

[pemma]

Phase 3 demolished every single railway platform on the Oldham/Rochdale line and replaced them with new ones. So I don't think the cost saving of re-using existing platforms is as much as you might think.

Remember that originally the Metrolink was a cheap alternative to the Ordsall Chord or a Victoria-Piccadilly tunnel so if you had demolished every single platform and rebuilt them then would it have still been the cheaper alternative?

Also note platforms like those at the current Old Trafford Metrolink stop were built to accommodate 8 car EMUs so there would be more platform length to demolish than on the Oldham Loop.

And of course note that the Oldham Loop rebuilding would have been to get rid of any existing variation in platform heights - some stations had lower platforms than others. If you literally just replaced existing high floor platforms with low floor platforms then you've had a big step down to the platform and would make existing footbridges unusable in their current form and make the platforms inaccessible without new ramps being installed.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

Scheme now running 6 months late.

Were still waiting 20 years after the tram network opened for Real Time Infomation at the tram stops, so 6 months delay for the works to start is nothing.

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

The Herdings Park route timetable needs to be looked at, every 30 mins during the day then every 20 mins at night , barmy :roll:

 

[edwin_m]

Remember that originally the Metrolink was a cheap alternative to the Ordsall Chord or a Victoria-Piccadilly tunnel so if you had demolished every single platform and rebuilt them then would it have still been the cheaper alternative?

Probably not, I just think the difference might not be as much as people think.

Also note platforms like those at the current Old Trafford Metrolink stop were built to accommodate 8 car EMUs so there would be more platform length to demolish than on the Oldham Loop.

Demolition is cheap, it is rebuilding the new one that costs the money.

And of course note that the Oldham Loop rebuilding would have been to get rid of any existing variation in platform heights - some stations had lower platforms than others. If you literally just replaced existing high floor platforms with low floor platforms then you've had a big step down to the platform and would make existing footbridges unusable in their current form and make the platforms inaccessible without new ramps being installed.

The variation in platform heights would also have existed on the Altrincham line.

I wasn't suggesting that low platforms would have been provided in Phase 1 when it was opened in 1992. But if phase 1 was being done today they would almost certainly have provided low platforms and also got rid of most of the existing accesses with ramps and track crossings where necessary instead. This would of course have made it more difficult to run tram-trains as is now being considered.

This hints at another reason why Metrolink was high platforms - there was a lot of nervousness about low platforms on a signalled railway where people might wander onto the track. Now that people realise that signalling is unnecessary on a network like Metrolink, that issue would go away.

 

[pemma]

Demolition is cheap, it is rebuilding the new one that costs the money.

But something has to go where the old ones were demolished. You couldn't exactly have an 8 car platform replaced by a much shorter one and a big pile of rubble at the end.

The variation in platform heights would also have existed on the Altrincham line.

I think the Altrincham line actually had very consistent platform heights and little modification has been required to allow for DDA. On the Bury line a lot more work has been needed.

I wasn't suggesting that low platforms would have been provided in Phase 1 when it was opened in 1992. But if phase 1 was being done today they would almost certainly have provided low platforms and also got rid of most of the existing accesses with ramps and track crossings where necessary instead.

I very much doubt phase 1 as it was would be considered today. If it hadn't been carried out by around the time of Salford Quays redevelopment I imagine Salford Quays-Manchester would have been phase 1 with low platforms and then future phases would have been more likely to be new lines like Eastlands, Leigh etc. opposed to conversions.

Now that people realise that signalling is unnecessary on a network like Metrolink

Not 100% true. Timperley-Altrincham is to remain under National Rail signalling (it's actually controlled by the Network Rail signaller who also controls the adjacent heavy rail line) as line of sight is not appropriate for such a busy single track section.

 

[tbtc]

The Herdings Park route timetable needs to be looked at, every 30 mins during the day then every 20 mins at night , barmy :roll:

Plenty of examples of public transport services that are more frequent in the evenings/ Sundays than they are during the main daytime, for many reasons

 

[WillPS]

Plenty of examples of public transport services that are more frequent in the evenings/ Sundays than they are during the main daytime, for many reasons

Yeah; the Purple trams are a lot more lightly loaded than the blue ones throughout the day. Even peak ones usually have spare seats.

The main issue is the timing of them; they don't slip 'between' Blue trams, normally running just in front or just behind.

 

[jamesontheroad]

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.

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.

+1

Many passenger rail operators in North America (Amtrak, NJ Transit, AMT etc) have equipment that allows for high or low level platforms. In Amtrak's Amfleet there's a side hinged lid by the carriage door which reveals a staircase below to low level platform height. Newer AMT suburban trains in Montréal have two sets of doors, low level at carriage end and high level in the middle of the car (or vice versa, I forget) so trains can run into the high level platforms of Gâre Centrale.

The problem here is that as edwin_m explains, a wheelchair passenger would need to be able to enter and exit via both high and low level on the same journey.

 

[WatcherZero]

I'd say that proves the opposite. Standardisation makes it more likely that a small network will end up with a reliable vehicle.

If your infrastructure complies with standards like the German BOStrab you can choose from a range of proven reliable designs, as Croydon did from the start, Sheffield sort of did and Manchester has done with their new fleet. All of these vehicles have performed well in the UK. You also have the opportunity, as Croydon and Manchester have done and Sheffield hopes to, of piggybacking on someone else's order to obtain a small number of extra vehicles at a sensible price (the initial order of Manchester 5000s was only eight).

Procure your tramway from a consortium of infrastructure and vehicle supplier and unless you specify your interfaces carefully, and can persuade your funders that the cheapest may not be the best, you too may end up with the T69.

If you have each tram system in the UK using a different european standard thats not standardisation in the UK, its the very opposite of it. Standardisation would mean that the UK systems were compatible and anything ordered for one could be reused or reordered on the others lowering design and order costs. For example trams ordered for London could be reused in Birmingham without track and platform alterations, trams from Manchester could be used in Sheffield with no change of signalling equipment required.

 

[edwin_m]

It's much more important to adopt a suitable European standard than to try to establish a UK standard, since the European market is so much bigger and is more likely to have a network with similar characteristics. Berlin alone has 600 trams, over twice the total of all UK fleets.

Croydon and Edinburgh standards are similar enough that Croydon seriously considered buying the surplus Edinburgh trams (before buying vehicles built for Bergen, but that's another story). Since it was rebuilt, Blackpool is probably similar as well. There are good reasons for differences in Nottingham (narrow streets), Sheffield (hills) and Manchester (historic choice of high floors) but each of these has considerable similarities with at least one European system to the extent that vehicles in Manchester are off-the-shelf and those in Nottingham are based on a modular design*. That leaves Midland Metro which could have followed the same standards as Croydon but for various reasons ended up with something different and much less satisfactory.

*admittedly only one other place uses them, but that is more an issue of industry consolidation.

 

[Greybeard33]

For a bit more clarity, and no mention of "wheelbase", the SYPTE documentation is available here:
http://www.sypte.co.uk/corporate.aspx?id=3317&terms="tram train"
which includes a couple of links to the details (one's a very big PDF).

and here:
http://www.sypte.co.uk/ContractsAvailable.aspx?id=3388&terms="tram train"

It appears to be only the embedded tracks that need replacing ahead of the tram-train project.

Thanks for these links. Page 5 of the bid submission document says that it is a wheel profile issue and that the tram-train project decided to replace the tram track rails rather than modify the heavy rail track, partly because the old tram rails were already badly worn and partly to reduce the cost of future tram-train extensions on the heavy rail network. However, it does not explain what the difference between the old and new embedded rails is, nor what modifications would have been needed to the heavy rail lines instead (limited to points and crossings or affecting plain line too?)

Since this pilot project is intended to prototype the technical solutions for future UK tram-train projects, and since most other tram systems use similar types of embedded rail to Supertram, to my mind this decision implies that future tram-train projects in other cities might also have to undertake wholesale replacement of the tram tracks, irrespective of their state of wear. The cost of this, and the disruption it would cause, might well undermine the business case for the project.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not 100% true. Timperley-Altrincham is to remain under National Rail signalling (it's actually controlled by the Network Rail signaller who also controls the adjacent heavy rail line) as line of sight is not appropriate for such a busy single track section.

From the Metrolink cognoscenti on the SSC forums, I understand it is the intention (apparently agreed in principle with NR) that the Metrolink Tram Management System will eventually take over control of this section, although the NR signaller will continue to control the level crossings. The NR colour light signals will be replaced by tramway-type white dot signals, as on the single track sections of the Rochdale line at Newton Heath and Newbold.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Getting back to the Sheffield area, could one of the signal experts on here confirm how far Woodburn Junction currently controls towards Rotherham? A Flickr photo of the panel (http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackwatch55013/5488797342/in/photostream/) seems to show it controls roughly as far as the double-track section past Magna.
That would make sense in light of the earlier comment (page 9 post 131) on linking the tram-train project to the resignalling and closure of Woodburn Jn.

 

[WestRiding]

Coming from Rotherham Central, towards the Tinsley Lines, Woodburns first signal is the protecting signal for where the line goes single towards Magna etc. Sheffield PSB first signal in the opposite direction is the protecting signal for Rotherham Central Jn.

 

[WestRiding]

http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk...eal-signed-for-first-uk-tram-trains-1-5789572

Tram Trains now ordered! Network Rail might start the required work soon then.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk...eal-signed-for-first-uk-tram-trains-1-5789572

Tram Trains now ordered! Network Rail might start the required work soon then.

People is Sheffield are still on the fence with this idea, they welcome the extra trams but still think the project is doomed to failure

 

[tbtc]

People is Sheffield are still on the fence with this idea, they welcome the extra trams but still think the project is doomed to failure

I do enjoy your role as spokesperson for the people of Sheffield, thanks.

The problem that the PTE (etc) have "selling" the TramTrain concept to people in Sheffield is that it's little benefit to the city.

It's a benefit to Rotherham (though not as fast as the current three trains an hour between the two centres)...

...it's a benefit to the DfT etc (as they'll be able to use the Tinsley route as a testbed for whether they can roll out the TramTrain concept to routes that lie beyond current tram routes and/or converting current rail backwaters to "light rail)...

...but harder to explain to Sheffielders what benefit there is for Sheffield. People I've spoken to seem unaware of the fact that there are going to be extra trams ordered as part of this deal for the current Supertram lines - this is only a tiny sample of people of course.

I think that if the publicity explained that by taking on this "trial" of running to Rotherham, Sheffield is also getting more trams to run on the existing routes, it may be more popular.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

I do enjoy your role as spokesperson for the people of Sheffield, thanks.

The problem that the PTE (etc) have "selling" the TramTrain concept to people in Sheffield is that it's little benefit to the city.

It's a benefit to Rotherham (though not as fast as the current three trains an hour between the two centres)...

Spokesperson who has years of transport management experience

A chap I know in the Rotherham chamber of commerce says the tram would have been better if it had gone on the A6178 Sheffield Road thus connecting the large Tinsley Estate and new Rotherham United football ground, he can see their been little passgenger numbers on this tram-train

 

[WestRiding]

could have just built a station behind parkgate retail park. anyone who then wants to catch a tram, then change at meadowhall.