Tram Train/Train Tram

[MarkyT]

New transit systems will generally have to comply with the HMRI requirements as posted by greybeard33. The national rail network has "grandfather rights" and there would be major challenges with meeting this requirement especially at platform where freight trains also pass.

Expressed in old money, maximum modern clearances translate to approximately 2" vertical step and 3" horizontal gap. I assume Metrolink and T&W were working to similar standards before they were enshrined in these latest regulations.

Although they'll achieve that on the new Crossrail central core and Abbey Wood branch with all new platforms, that project will be unlikely to be able to achieve anything close to the standard at the existing stations also served on the GWML and GEML, despite new trains and a significant increase in service frequency, especially on the GWML relief lines. I can understand that from the freight and other traffic compatibility reasons you cite and the sheer cost implications of building up and resurfacing all those platforms. I wonder how long these heavy rail grandfather rights can persist however, and TfL are arguably in an even more difficult position than NR regarding horrendous gaps at some of their extremely busy tube stations. Raised platforms and extending step boards on the vehicle seem to be a very good solution for a number of applications:

- Classic compatible trains at UIC clearance platforms on HS2.

- New heavy rail stock AND (perhaps narrower) high floor tram-trains on the general classic rail network at platforms where the edge has to be set back a little further than ideal for dynamic clearance to passing trains at speed.

- Sharply curved platforms where vehicle end and centre throw of stopping and passing traffic demands a large gap (particularly applicable for TfL tube).

 

[snowball]

The whole thing is a mess - people can't even agree on whether it's a TramTrain or a TrainTram

Who calls it TrainTram? I've never heard that until the last couple of days.

 

[Greybeard33]

Expressed in old money, maximum modern clearances translate to approximately 2" vertical step and 3" horizontal gap. I assume Metrolink and T&W were working to similar standards before they were enshrined in these latest regulations.

Although they'll achieve that on the new Crossrail central core and Abbey Wood branch with all new platforms, that project will be unlikely to be able to achieve anything close to the standard at the existing stations also served on the GWML and GEML, despite new trains and a significant increase in service frequency, especially on the GWML relief lines. I can understand that from the freight and other traffic compatibility reasons you cite and the sheer cost implications of building up and resurfacing all those platforms. I wonder how long these heavy rail grandfather rights can persist however, and TfL are arguably in an even more difficult position than NR regarding horrendous gaps at some of their extremely busy tube stations. Raised platforms and extending step boards on the vehicle seem to be a very good solution for a number of applications:

- Classic compatible trains at UIC clearance platforms on HS2.

- New heavy rail stock AND (perhaps narrower) high floor tram-trains on the general classic rail network at platforms where the edge has to be set back a little further than ideal for dynamic clearance to passing trains at speed.

- Sharply curved platforms where vehicle end and centre throw of stopping and passing traffic demands a large gap (particularly applicable for TfL tube).

From memory of casual observations as a passenger, I believe Metrolink now achieves typical horizontal gaps of 25mm or less, with the vertical step much less than this. Of course it varies with track position tolerances and tram suspension travel. There have been incidents of crush-loaded trams jamming against the platform until some passengers got off.

I understand the retractable steps on the old Metrolink T68 trams were something of a reliability/maintenance headache until the platforms were lengthened to make them unnecessary. Extending step boards at platform height must be inherently more vulnerable to jamming of the mechanism by ingress of dirt/crud/snow, compared with steps that descend from above, like those on Pendolinos.

This is another feature that increases the complexity and operating cost of tram-train vehicles compared with both conventional EMUs and trams.

Who calls it TrainTram? I've never heard that until the last couple of days.

Vossloh Rail Vehicles calls it a "train-tram". See http://www.vossloh-espana.com/en/products_1/passenger_vehicles/train_tram_1/train_tram_3.html

 

[TOCDriver]

Who calls it TrainTram? I've never heard that until the last couple of days.

When it operates as a tram, it's a TramTrain. When it's on the heavy stuff, it's a TrainTram. Well, it would be if I had my way

 

[edwin_m]

When it operates as a tram, it's a TramTrain. When it's on the heavy stuff, it's a TrainTram. Well, it would be if I had my way

The term "train-tram" has been used for a train that has extra equipment added to run in the street - think some of the Swiss minor railways plus Zwickau (though Wikipedia describes this as a tram-train!). "Tram-train" is based on a tram design but has extra equipment to run on the railway. The main difference between the two is structural strength.

However because of the obvious potential for confusion, I personally avoid using "train-tram" unless accompanied by an explanation such as the above.

 

[DownSouth]

Why make up a new name for it? Just keep calling it an interurban like it always has been.

 

[northwichcat]

The whole thing is a mess - people can't even agree on whether it's a TramTrain or a TrainTram

Who calls it TrainTram? I've never heard that until the last couple of days.

A couple of years back we discovered there's 3 categories between tram and train:

Tram-train means a tram which can operate on heavy rail lines without losing the ability to operate on street running sections. This is the type which will run between Sheffield and Rotherham.

Train-tram means a light train which is cleared for both heavy and light rail lines but not street running - not dis-similar to Tyne and Wear Metro vehicles or certain London Underground vehicles.

Heavy tram is the confusing one. The name makes it sound like a tram-train but it's actually a vehicle only for heavy rail lines which utilises light rail parts to reduce build and running costs but is too heavy for light rail or street running.

Just because I'm most familiar with the Altrincham area, I'm come up with some actual examples of what you could do with all three for that area:

A heavy tram could run the existing Mid-Cheshire services currently operate by Pacers and Sprinters. They would have to remain segregated from Metrolink services.

A tram-train could run existing Metrolink services to Altrincham which could then continue beyond Altrincham without converting the line between Altrincham and Chester to light rail only, hence freight and diverted services can still use the line.

A train-train could allow a service from the Mid-Cheshire line to Deansgate-Castlefield via Sale but it would not be allowed to continue on the street running section.

 

[MarkyT]

A couple of years back we discovered there's 3 categories between tram and train:

Tram-train means a tram which can operate on heavy rail lines without losing the ability to operate on street running sections. This is the type which will run between Sheffield and Rotherham.

Train-tram means a light train which is cleared for both heavy and light rail lines but not street running - not dis-similar to Tyne and Wear Metro vehicles or certain London Underground vehicles.

Heavy tram is the confusing one. The name makes it sound like a tram-train but it's actually a vehicle only for heavy rail lines which utilises light rail parts to reduce build and running costs but is too heavy for light rail or street running.

'Heaviness' in the case of the 'heavy tram' is not usually the main barrier to light rail, metro or street running. Weight alone is becoming less of a defining feature of rail vehicles with main line stock becoming lighter (at least in Europe) whilst the trend in trams for a long time was heavier, although with latest designs they may be getting lighter again.

Such strict categorisation is perhaps unhelpful. A 'light' vehicle for any particular application can simply be designed with the appropriate set of compatibilties built in:

- Power systems for all route sections used. AC/DC, OHLE/3rd/4th rail

- Appropriate signalling and other safety systems for heavy rail and metro infrastructure segments used.

- Road legal body skirts, vehicle lights and excellent wide angle forward vision for drive on sight street running and roadside reservation or other non fully segregated 'tramway' segments.

- High or low floor height and body width to suit all platforms of the particular application, perhaps with some kind of movable step or board to suit variable gaps, particularly at legacy heavy rail platforms served for a high platform system.

'Tram train' (with or without hyphen?) has been the term most widely used to describe this family of hybrid vehicle types in UK, although to most people that doesn't bring to mind the T&W cars, although I would argue that in most respects from the heavy rail infrastructure point of view the concerns are the same, as the units are based on a popular German light rail car that runs on street sections and surface light rail reservations in its home country. From previous comments it appears that although under the hood they are 'Stadtbahn Bs', the T&W units may have slightly wider custom bodies than in any German application.

 

[47802]

To be honest who really gives a monkey's what's called what, the important thing is that the Rotherham project gets up and running and demonstrates that it can work well and get rid of some of the negativity towards this project.

 

[northwichcat]

'Tram train' (with or without hyphen?) has been the term most widely used to describe this family of hybrid vehicle types in UK, although to most people that doesn't bring to mind the T&W cars, although I would argue that in most respects from the heavy rail infrastructure point of view the concerns are the same, as the units are based on a popular German light rail car that runs on street sections and surface light rail reservations in its home country. From previous comments it appears that although under the hood they are 'Stadtbahn Bs', the T&W units may have slightly wider custom bodies than in any German application.

The term given to a vehicle usually depends on what it's designed for rather than what it could potentially be used for. For instance, the Parry People Mover for the Stoubridge branch is classed as a railcar and was used to directly replace a class 153 with no infrastructure changes but some people might argue that's a battery tram-train.

If you want to come up with every possible variation you'll come up with hundreds of categories. The original Metrolink T-68s were cleared for city centre street running but weren't cleared for running on the A57 between Salford Quays and Eccles so a modified T-68A was produced specifically to meet the requirements of running on a single carriage A road going out of the city. You talk about German vehicles and low-floor trams - German's operate low-floor trains which we don't do in this country.

The bottom line is it's a tram-train trial and we don't have a low-floor vehicle in operation cleared for street running, off-road light rail lines and heavy rail lines so it is a new concept for the UK. No where in the UK currently claims to have tram-trains despite people saying it's similar to X, Y and Z.

 

[UrbanWorld]

National Rail trains (passenger and freight) aren't allowed to travel on the same track as Metrolink trams. The closest they come is running on parallel lines.

It is still a tram-train.

 

[edwin_m]

Metrolink vehicles have some tram-train features, notably the wheel profile. They could share tracks with heavy rail but only under a timesharing arrangement (eg freight at night, trams during the day) and could not call at platforms on shared tracks. To be a true tram-train they would need fitting with moveable entrance steps and some form of train protection (which could be the Indusi that some but not all currently have).

 

[northwichcat]

Metrolink vehicles have some tram-train features, notably the wheel profile. They could share tracks with heavy rail but only under a timesharing arrangement (eg freight at night, trams during the day) and could not call at platforms on shared tracks. To be a true tram-train they would need fitting with moveable entrance steps and some form of train protection (which could be the Indusi that some but not all currently have).

Indeed. There's a single track bottleneck at Navigation Road which exists only because Metrolink trams are high floor trams built to run on tracks including ex-BR lines and not proper tram-trains.

 

[Greybeard33]

Metrolink vehicles have some tram-train features, notably the wheel profile. They could share tracks with heavy rail but only under a timesharing arrangement (eg freight at night, trams during the day) and could not call at platforms on shared tracks. To be a true tram-train they would need fitting with moveable entrance steps and some form of train protection (which could be the Indusi that some but not all currently have).

In fact the majority of the Metrolink fleet is still fitted with Automatic Tram Stop (ATS) train protection equipment. This applies the emergency brake automatically if a signal is passed at Danger on a block signalled line. The system is triggered by trackside beacons. Metrolink block signalling uses standard track circuits and so would be compatible with TPWS on shared tracks.

Only ATS-equipped trams are currently permitted on the Network Rail-owned line between Timperley and Altrincham. TfGM intends that this section will eventually be converted to line of sight operation like the rest of the network, with the two-aspect block signals replaced by tramway-type signals controlled by the central Tram Management System (TMS). However, the presence of two level crossings on the shared section raises complex signalling interface issues and no date has yet been announced. It seems possible that NR may want to delay the conversion until control of the area is transferred from the Deansgate Junction signal box to the Manchester ROC - the last I heard this was scheduled for 2019.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

If Metrolink aren't tram-trains they look to fit that description of a train-tram to me.

 

[Camden]

Indeed. There's a single track bottleneck at Navigation Road which exists only because Metrolink trams are high floor trams built to run on tracks including ex-BR lines and not proper tram-trains.

Is it not the case that the trams share tracks with trains between Altrincham and Navigation Road? The Chester to Manchester via Stockport train?

If so, do the trams have to have crash worthiness? If so, I believe that makes them "tram trains", which are trams that can run on railway lines.

 

[158756]

Is it not the case that the trams share tracks with trains between Altrincham and Navigation Road? The Chester to Manchester via Stockport train?

If so, do the trams have to have crash worthiness? If so, I believe that makes them "tram trains", which are trams that can run on railway lines.

Between Altrincham and Navigation Road there are parallel single lines, one for trams and one for trains. The two do not share tracks.

 

[Camden]

Between Altrincham and Navigation Road there are parallel single lines, one for trams and one for trains. The two do not share tracks.

I see. Then they are most probably just trams.

 

[WatcherZero]

Network Rail controls the level crossings for Metrolink on that section.

The Metrolink network is also physically linked to the national rail network with points in several places. There has never been services sharing tracks though. One of the proposed route upgrades in the Airport area is to remove the singling at Navigation Road and have them sharing tracks there though.

 

[northwichcat]

Network Rail controls the level crossings for Metrolink on that section.

True but that doesn't affect whether they are trams or tram-trains.

 

[Busaholic]

In this country we argue about definitions: in other countries they just go and build the damned things. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? If Brunel were alive today, once he'd stopped banging his head against brick walls here, he'd have found permanent occupation in Europe or Asia.

 

[jopsuk]

Busaholic: you're confusing "people talking on the internet" with "people that actually have a say in any of this and can do something"

 

[northwichcat]

In this country we argue about definitions: in other countries they just go and build the damned things. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? If Brunel were alive today, once he'd stopped banging his head against brick walls here, he'd have found permanent occupation in Europe or Asia.

I'm not sure as a country 'we' do. To most people the new tram-train service in Sheffield will be a Supertram service like the existing ones. However, some enthusiasts are arguing why we are trialing something that already exists because it's similar to x, y and z when they don't really understand x, y and z. For instance, thinking Metrolink shares tracks with Northern services around Altrincham when it's segregated.

 

[WatcherZero]

The point is the technology exists here even if the operation doesn't beyond T&W.

Same vehicles currently running in Manchester are operating tram-train services mixing with heavy rail in Karlsruhe and Porto.

The Flexity Swifts operating mixed traffic with express trains in Karlsruhe haven't been modified for extra crashworthiness they still are designed for 600kn impacts though limited to 95kmh in mixed traffic. What they did was add tram track brakes to the other heavy rail vehicles operating the line.

 

[Busaholic]

Busaholic: you're confusing "people talking on the internet" with "people that actually have a say in any of this and can do something"

How am I confused? Where is the Penistone line tram/train? The Watford/St Albans tram/train? If the people who have a say in this can do something then why aren't they? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and there is no pudding.

 

[northwichcat]

The point is the technology exists here even if the operation doesn't beyond T&W.

Same vehicles currently running in Manchester are operating tram-train services mixing with heavy rail in Karlsruhe and Porto.

The Flexity Swifts operating mixed traffic with express trains in Karlsruhe haven't been modified for extra crashworthiness they still are designed for 600kn impacts though limited to 95kmh in mixed traffic. What they did was add tram track brakes to the other heavy rail vehicles operating the line.

The tram-trains being ordered for Sheffield will be very different to a Metrolink tram

To operate the service, seven new vehicles are being procured by SYPTE from Vossloh España of Valencia, Spain. That factory’s previous products for the UK include the class 67s (when the works were part of Alstom) and the class 68s for DRS which are currently being built.

The Tram Train vehicles are part of the Citylink family and are similar to those currently being supplied to Karlsruhe. However, those for Sheffield-Rotherham will be a dual voltage version (750V DC and 25kV AC) to allow for continued operation once future electrification of the Midland Mainline north of Sheffield has been approved and implemented. Three vehicles will be used to operate the Tram Train service every 20 minutes, three vehicles will be used to provide additional capacity on the tramway, and the seventh vehicle will be a maintenance spare. Maintenance will initially be carried out by Vossloh using the current tram maintenance depot at Nunnery which will be modified to accommodate them.

The three-section Citylink vehicles are 37.2 metres long, 2.65 metres wide and are low floor at the doors – providing level access – with raised seating areas above the four conventional bogies. They are able to accommodate 88 seated and 150 standing passengers with wheel chair spaces provided between the doors. The vehicles will be compliant with Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR) 2010 and will be fitted with saloon air conditioning and an integrated passenger counting system.

So they'll be able to operate on AC overheads, unlike Metrolink trams and they'll be a sensible length for National Rail platforms (the total length is slightly shorter than a 150.) I'm not sure how the top speeds compare.

Of course Metrolink tram-trains will be more simple because they don't need to be a low-floor vehicle suitable for National Rail which is why Sheffield was chosen for the trial.

 

[WatcherZero]

Sheffield trams being built for dual voltage is a bit of a waste, will only be a static test section of 25kv in the depot. Again dual voltage technology already operating in plenty of places in the UK, not new.

Don't see why you think a 37m non-multiple capable tram is a better length for an NR platform than the 56m multiple operating Flexities though. Sheffield was chosen because it was in the same area as the previously cancelled Penistone trial and they didn't want to uproot to another part of the country.

 

[northwichcat]

Sheffield trams being built for dual voltage is a bit of a waste, will only be a static test section of 25kv in the depot....Again dual voltage technology already operating in plenty of places in the UK, not new.

The article explains why - it'll allow for the mainline north of Sheffield to be electrified to NR standard AC and for tram-trains to run under it.

Yes there is dual voltage technology in the UK but how many dual voltage vehicles (in the UK) take both voltages from a pantograph, opposed to taking one voltage only through it?

Don't see why you think a 37m non-multiple capable tram is a better length for an NR platform than the 56m multiple operating Flexities though.

I didn't know they were non-multiple capable. Do you have a source for that?

37 x 2 would fit most NR platforms and would be longer than 2 x 28, which is why I suggested it.

 

[apk55]

Dual voltage tram trains of a suitable type already exist in Germany on the Karlsruhe Stadtbahn, although they are designed for 15KV 16.7Hz AC and 750V DC operation.
I have found som information unfortunatly only in German at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT8-100D/2S-M

 

[northwichcat]

Dual voltage tram trains of a suitable type already exist in Germany on the Karlsruhe Stadtbahn, although they are designed for 15KV 16.7Hz AC and 750V DC operation.
I have found som information unfortunatly only in German at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT8-100D/2S-M

Vossloh demonstration tram-train was put on show in Berlin:
http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p13662413/h164be256#h164be256
http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p13662413/h1b18c366#h1b18c366

I'm not sure if the Sheffield ones will have doors on both sides. The demonstration one appears to be 3 car with couplers.