Well, that’s interesting. So, they might just as well have ordered the entire fleet as tri-mode Class 756 Flirts which would have had the benefit of through sevices from the central valleys to the coast. Wonder if this is rumour or fact?The only news I've seen recently is that, rather ironically, they aren't suitable for on street running which was the entire point
Is there a possibility that something has become twisted (inadvertently) into something else? Clearly, they can't do street running at the moment as there is no street running track for them. Might that have become understood as 'they can't as they aren't suitable'? I don't know, just musing out loud.The only news I've seen recently is that, rather ironically, they aren't suitable for on street running which was the entire point
The only news I've seen recently is that, rather ironically, they aren't suitable for on street running which was the entire point
What exactly are “on-street running controls” are these controls that can be accessed from the outside of the vehicle at street level? What would be the point of that? Surely the same controls can be used by the driver whether running on the existing valley lines or a new street running tramway. Also the T68s ran on the Metrolink with wheel profiles that were known to be incompatible with the infrastructure for their entire lives, which was the reason for their withdrawal with M5000s which were built with a superior wheel profile.
It does all seem a bit disorganised that what are trams have been ordered when no light rail infrastructure exists or has been built, but I would agree that none of it is unreasonable or a great conspiracy or screw-up, but what is the reason that 158s or 175s couldn’t have run the valley lines service until such a time as the street running section has been built to avoid them going to waste?
If it may never happen then they should have ordered more heavy rail stock e.g. FLIRTs, rather than trams to run entirely on heavy rail lines.
I didn’t think they did anything to the Bury/Altrincham infrastructure at the time except re-electrify it. I assume they now have “tram” rails. If “raised check rails” are what they have on the Metrolink approach to Manchester Victoria then I know what they are. Otherwise I don’t. Is the problem TfW have compatibility with them, or incompatibility?
If you are putting wires up then run EMUs, if you are putting rails in the road then run trams, but if you are supposed to be doing both and only doing half a package of works, why bother when you’ve got some perfectly good DMUs you can run until you decide what you’re actually going to do. Is the valley electrification 25kV or DC at a tram voltage?
www.smarttransport.org.uk
The Cardiff ones have a floor height to suit rail platforms, but the Sheffield ones have entrances at the right level for the low platforms on the tramway sections.
Metrolink does indeed have raised check rails, as do tram-trains on the Continent (where they are quite widely used for other reasons). They are very visible on off-street sections of Metrolink.
Because it is a waste of time and money. Decide what service you want to provide first then provide appropriate infrastructure and vehicles for it. The now extended to 1.5km running at the end of the bay is just a fig leaf for buying trams-trains for no reason.
If by abandoned buiding you mean the old station it has been renovated as office space and is joined by a cafe in a 'shed' on the old trackbed. If you really wanted to you could extended as heavy rail the line down to James Street.
The Sheffield wheel profile was developed by the University of Huddersfield for the tram-train pilot and differs somewhat from the Metrolink one, although it also needs raised check rails. It requires grooved rail with a larger groove than standard tramway rail (the original Sheffield track was worn out at the time, so the tram-train project paid for it to be relaid). That is why the tram-trains need the wheelsets changed to operate on other Supertram routes. The tram-train wheels would not fit in the grooves.
I recall that Karlsruhe also had to change the street rail for one with a larger groove when they adopted tram-trains. It's still much smaller than the gap you need when a surface is built up to rail level on heavy rail, as in various docks and the Weymouth "tramway". I don't believe fitting raised check rails is a major undertaking, and I suspect they will fit them as standard when pointwork comes up for renewal. There is however a compatibility concern with some kinds of road-rail vehicle (as well as steam locos with flangeless drivers - but they were banned long ago).
Quite. It's ludicrous to buy rolling stock without any idea of how it will be used. TFW have plenty of form for this, but to be fair on them so does the railway as a whole. See also the complete mess that is HS2. Only in the railway world could you get away with a "business case" to spend billions which didn't include, err, what services you'd actually run.
I believe the check rails foul the standard Network Rail lower sector structure gauge, so every type of vehicle that uses the line has to be individually cleared. But the line through Rotherham is used by freight trains as well as Northern DMUs, so presumably this has not proved to be a show stopper in practice.
Although the Citylink tram-train is not a native Stadler product. It was designed by Vossloh and is built at the Valencia factory Stadler acquired from Vossloh a few years ago. Its introduction in Sheffield was far from trouble free - problems with windscreens and brakes IIRC.
On-street running is a bit of a misnomer. Rail vehicles that run on line of sight, that aren't fenced off from pedestrians, and that cross roads without a fully-fledged level crossing need nearly all of the features being discussed - even if they never run in the same traffic lane as road vehicles.
Except the wheel profile.
I guess I meant both on-street and line of sight together. To put it another way, which is the best option:
