Tyne & Wear Metro - new fleet specifications, and options for expansion

[nerd]

http://www.northeastca.gov.uk/sites... East Committee 15 July 2016, Agenda Pack.pdf

Item 11 on the replacement of the Metro Fleet; and on the Nexus Network Expansion Strategy

Work has commenced on the development of a specification for the new fleet. In December 2014 consultants were appointed to develop a high level specification which takes account of the unique nature of the Metro system, such as the voltage used for traction energy, the height of tunnels and bridges, weight restrictions that are placed on some structures and the alignment of the track which in places exhibits tight bends and curves.

The intention is that the Metrocars will continue to draw traction energy using the current 1500v DC system, but will be ‘future proofed’ with dual voltage capability to allow operations at 25Kv (the Network Rail standard for traction energy). The fleet will remain “high floor” and will meet Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR) for the ‘step-gap’ between the platform and the train. The trains will be designed to meet Network Rail’s crashworthiness standards to operate between Pelaw and South Hylton and this is likely to include a driver’s cab which spans the full width of the Metrocar.

Subject to achievement of funding for the upgrading of overhead line equipment and electrical sub-stations, it is also proposed that the new fleet should benefit from regenerative braking. This will reduce operational costs and improve Metro’s environmental credentials.

The specification will be further developed over the next few months and will be subject to a consultation in the autumn where the public will be asked for their views on design options such as temperature, accessibility requirements, safety and security features, seating configuration and luggage (and bicycle) storage space. The market, including train manufacturers and operators will also be asked to input into development of the specification.

outline business case is to go to the NECA Leadership Board on `19th July; though the papers are not there yet. Nexus have a document on their site, though, which may be it.

http://www.nexus.org.uk/sites/defau...pment of the Metro and Local Rail Systems.pdf

also the draft strategy for further expansions.

Nexus is preparing a combined ‘Metro and local
rail strategy’, bringing together all of these
elements. We expect to have this ready for
publication by the summer, after which work should
start immediately to assess the feasibility of these
options and to create the plans necessary for them
to be funded and built.

Key points:

- no longer any consideration of dual power diesel/electric tram-train units. Nexus intends to specify dual voltage 25kv/1500v for all the new units; so tram-train conversion of the southern Northumberland lines would require Network Rail upgrade to 25kv OLE. But it is intended that the proposed new units should potentially be available as non-electric variants (i.e. diesel), so as to run as upgrades for existing diesel-hauled services.

As part of the formation of Transport for the North
as a statutory sub regional transport body, it is
proposed to seek the full devolution of franchising
powers from the Secretary of State to Rail North and
by inference the North East Rail Management Unit.
As we look into the future therefore we believe that
Rail North and the NERMU hold the potential for the
North East to take full control of its local rail services
by direct management of the franchise arrangement
beyond 2025. This would allow local rail and
Metro services to work alongside each other with a
common set of passenger standards and ticketing
arrangements. It could also potentially see some
routes transferred between Metro and local rail
or vice versa, or wholly new journey opportunities
created. This would be particularly facilitated by
the introduction of a new Metro fleet that could
operate in various different modes, including
different electrification and signalling standards and
on non-electrified routes.

- no longer consideration of street-running along the the West Road; nor of westward extension of current Metro line beyond St James Park. Instead propose a tram-train route out of Central Station and alongside the Scotswood Road.

An opportunity exists to use the original Carlisle line
out of Newcastle Central station, then via a new
alignment alongside Scotswood Road. This would
potentially extend the reach of local rail into West
Newcastle, electrified at 25kV AC but integrated
with the Metro system using dual-voltage trains.
The area could also be linked to the Metrocentre via
a bridge across the river Tyne.

 

[MetroCar4058]

I've had a brief read and it is interesting to see that Nexus is willing to be stupid enough to ask only for 84 trains. Surely 90 would be preferable. One would hope that they realise that the stock doesn't remain reliable forever.

The second document is rather concerning; it appeared to be a very desperate story of a failing system. I would hope that a tender will be prepared in the near future, with a clear stance from the DfT published in the near future.

My concern is that, as a result of the EU Referendum, economic certainty has been quashed in the UK; thus, is it the right time to invest significantly in an adequate metro stock?

 

[142094]

Interesting to note that the rumours of a "7/8" life refurbishment were true, and that the fleet would be going until the 2040s.

 

[nerd]

I've had a brief read and it is interesting to see that Nexus is willing to be stupid enough to ask only for 84 trains. Surely 90 would be preferable. One would hope that they realise that the stock doesn't remain reliable forever.

The second document is rather concerning; it appeared to be a very desperate story of a failing system. I would hope that a tender will be prepared in the near future, with a clear stance from the DfT published in the near future.

My concern is that, as a result of the EU Referendum, economic certainty has been quashed in the UK; thus, is it the right time to invest significantly in an adequate metro stock?

I don't see that Nexus have a choice; of course 90 would be preferable, but it is the Treasury who are paying, and they will only fund the basic numbers for the system. Nexus have specified that bids for the purchase contract should also offer the same fixed price for additional orders during the production run, and I am sure they currently aspire to take the manufactureres up on that option; but NECA will be funding that themselves, not the Treasury.

What Nexus now need to ensure is that the Treasury is committed to funding purchase of a particular number of units. TfGM were able to play the converse game in respect of ordering extra M5000 trams; they optained money for 12 extra from DfT, but bought 16 with the benefit of the strong pound. Now that currency advantage is the other way, Nexus won't want to be caught only able to buy 70.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.northeastca.gov.uk/sites...eadership Board 19 July 2016, Agenda Pack.pdf

As expected; the proposal is much as set out for the Transport Committee above.

The intention is to buy 84 28 metres, dual-voltage, high-floor, tram-train units as like-for-like replacements; but with the option of having pairs through linked; so effectively 42 56 meter coupled pairs.

Nexus are not seeking diesel/electric tram-train options; but would want to have the same units (presumably in uncoupled 28m form) available in a non-electric variant, which could run non-electirified heavy rail commuter lines into the city region.

Metrocar Fleet Specification

Work has commenced on the development of a specification for the new fleet.
In December 2014 consultants were appointed to develop a high level
specification which takes account of the unique nature of the Metro system,
such as the voltage used for traction energy, the height of tunnels and bridges,
weight restrictions that are placed on some structures and the alignment of the
track which in places exhibits tight bends and curves.

The intention is that the Metrocars will continue to draw traction energy using
the current 1500V DC system, but will be ‘future proofed’ with dual voltage
capability to allow operations at 25kV AC (the common form of overhead
electric traction on Network Rail’s system).

The fleet will remain ‘high floor’ and will meet Rail Vehicle Accessibility
Regulations (RVAR) for the ‘step-gap’ between the platform and the train. The
trains will be designed to meet Network Rail’s crashworthiness standards to
operate between Pelaw and South Hylton, and this is likely to include a driver’s
cab which spans the full width of the Metrocar.

Whereas today’s Metrocars normally operate in pairs with no ability for
passengers or staff to move between the two cars, it is possible that in future
the train will be connected by open gangways from end to end. This is a
common feature in modern ‘Metro’-style rolling stock, and can increase
perceptions of security and comfort.

Subject to achievement of funding for the upgrading of overhead line equipment
and electrical sub-stations, it is also proposed that the new fleet should benefit
from regenerative braking. This allows waste energy generated when braking
to be recycled into traction energy, thus reducing operational costs and
improving Metro’s environmental credentials.

The specification can be viewed at www.nexus.org.uk/businesscases, and will
be further developed over the next few months and will be subject to a
consultation in the autumn where the public will be asked for their views on
design options such as temperature, accessibility requirements, safety and
security features, seating configuration and luggage (and bicycle) storage
space.

The supply market, in particular train manufacturers and operators, will also be
asked to input into development of the specification in order to benefit from
experience elsewhere in the world, which has the potential to reduce production
costs and increase innovation.

 

[Scott M]

I've had a brief read and it is interesting to see that Nexus is willing to be stupid enough to ask only for 84 trains. Surely 90 would be preferable. One would hope that they realise that the stock doesn't remain reliable forever.

Possibly a stupid question but could they not hang onto a few of the refurbs as back ups? Seems a shame to bin all of the current fleet - surely some would have some life left in them.

 

[MetroCar4058]

Possibly a stupid question but could they not hang onto a few of the refurbs as back ups? Seems a shame to bin all of the current fleet - surely some would have some life left in them.

It would be economically unfeasible to keep some of the old MetroCars. By this time they will be in a worse condition and without any refurbishment, which would defeat the point of buying new stock, they would be knocking on the scrap mans door.
As Nexus has stated, the stock is extremely hard to maintain due to costs, the old design of the units and the finite nature of parts for the units.
Furthering this, they may not be allowed to run along the Sunderland line if NR change the signalling system/electrical provision.

 

[ChathillMan]

Is it possible to build a pedestrian tunnel from platform 5/7 at Newcastle to Central Station gateline or even the platform?

Just thinking the least worst option might be to rebrand the local Northern Rail as Metro and have Central Station as the hub for the Metro DMU locals and the TWM to interchange between the two.

I know passengers can interchange between the two now but it's not "in your face" like some Rail/Underground interchanges in London



Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

 

[glbotu]

Is it possible to build a pedestrian tunnel from platform 5/7 at Newcastle to Central Station gateline or even the platform?

Just thinking the least worst option might be to rebrand the local Northern Rail as Metro and have Central Station as the hub for the Metro DMU locals and the TWM to interchange between the two.

I know passengers can interchange between the two now but it's not "in your face" like some Rail/Underground interchanges in London



Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

I think there is an underground passage there already to platforms 3/4 (it's where the lift is), I don't know about platform 5/6/7/8.

The local Northern Rail service would have to have major improvements before they could consider it "Metro". An hourly Nunthorpe - Hexham, hourly Morpeth - Metrocentre, hourly Newcastle - Carlisle and hourly Metrocentre shuttle does not a metro service make (other than 4tph to the Metrocentre).

I know they're talking about greater integration and re-openings etc in that document, but what's realistically needed is a more frequent service to the existing destinations, as well as more "suburban" and "inner city" stops, before they can have them all as part of the "metro". I realise that the ECML being the ECML is a massive capacity constraint on the local service, 75 mph pacers don't path well around 125mph intercities, but unless they're planning on bringing in high acceleration, 100mph EMUs to replace them, I just can't see significant service improvements there (not to mention how you're going to path more trains between Pelaw Metro Junction and Sunderland).

 

[nerd]

the full draft strategy is here

http://www.nexus.org.uk/sites/default/files/Metro and Light Rail Strategy Draft_0.pdf

(there is a map of a possible intgrated Metro and Local Rail network on page 72)

Some points to note;

Services to Washington

In the Washington area, preliminary survey work indicates the potential to serve the Galleries area of the town centre, and/or the area to the west of the new 5,000-jobs+ IAMP within the A19 Ultra Low Carbon Enterprise Zone, and also the area close to the Nissan car plant. It is acknowledged that the proximity of the Leamside corridor to the IAMP is not ideal. The designation of the site adjacent to the A19 trunk road results in the potential Metro corridor being situated some way to the west, with the need for a connecting bus link from the Sulgrave area at the former Usworth level crossing. Once more details of the proposed layout of the IAMP are available, Nexus will examine the potential for alternative Metro provision to and from this key area of future employment.

Sevices to the West End

The inner west of Newcastle upon Tyne is one of the most densely populated areas of Tyne and Wear, but has yet to gain from the benefits of Metro services in spite of its close proximity to the existing network. When the original network was designed, provision was made at St James for future westward extensions 80 underground. Recent construction developments in the St James area with deep foundations mean that the potential to tunnel further westwards is greatly reduced, and would be prohibitively expensive in any case.

However with a future integrated rail and Metro network, and dual-voltage trains, options exist to use the original Carlisle line out of Newcastle Central station to the north of the Metro Radio Arena, then at the Newcastle Business Park via a new alignment north of the A695 Scotswood Road. This would provide direct links into the national rail network, and Metro services could also be linked to the Metro Centre via a new bridge across the Tyne around 2km east of Scotswood Bridge, providing new journey opportunities between west Newcastle and this major retail and leisure destination.

Street-running routes would require a separate low-floor fleet.

There is no UK precedent for the use of 1500V DC OLE in the context of on-street light rail operations, although informal discussions with the then Office of Rail Regulation suggested that it may not be explicitly ruled out. However as there are currently no plans within the strategy for on-street operation, this option has not been considered further at the present time as if this were to proceed, then a separate low-floor fleet would be required.

but street-running over short distances has not been entirely ruled out for the outlined extension options (maybe to run Metro into the Washington Galleries).

In response to these requests, various studies have been commissioned which by and large have recommended the investigation of street-running services, either as extensions of the current network by building discrete on-street routes or mini-networks. The main disadvantages to this approach are threefold – the disproportionately greater cost of establishing on-street operations, the disruption caused to existing road users during the construction phase, and the detachment of such routes from the remainder of the network. Although not abandoning the principle of street running altogether over short distances under clearly defined circumstances, the thrust of this strategy has now moved towards a closer examination of how the same goal described above can be met through other, more cost-effective means.

It does look very much that the order will be for 28.5m LRVs, run as doubles over the Metro network, but potentially configurable as singles, doubles or triples over former heavy rail services.

Some potential issues though;

- can Nexus find a vehicle within the Metro height constraints. The current Metrocars are 3.15m high (with pan stored). This is exceptionally low, most LRVs are 3.65m high. The specification says that new vehicle height can be no more than 3.445m with pan. The significance of that may be that the StadtbahnwagenB units (on which the Metrocar was based) are 3.365m high - and these fleets are currently being replaced. If the replacements are also 3.365m, then those replacemnt units may well be also capable of meeting the Metro spec.

- what will be the collision standard specified? This is fundamental to the design, and no order can be placed until it is resolved. The current Metrocars are built to an 800kN collision standard, as are the tram-train units on the Sheffield/Rotherham pilot. But otherwise the Network Rail standard for heavy rail units in mixed traffic is 2000kN. All the draft spec says is that units will have to meet relevant Network Rail standards - but I am not aware that the relevant standard exists yet.

Currently the Network Rail standard for crash-worthiness includes a frontal impact force (‘buffer load’) of 2000kN, requiring a heavy vehicle structure to withstand. Most worldwide Metro vehicles on typical segregated networks can typically only resist 400kN; however, Nexus Metro vehicles can resist 800kN, which has been accepted by Network Rail on the Sunderland joint operation, due to both robust signalling and control, and the overall relatively low speed on that line. The vehicles for the Sheffield tram-train trial also have an 800kN frontal impact resistance; it is hoped that an outcome of the Sheffield project will be formal acceptance by Network Rail of this standard for all future UK tram-train type joint operations on normal, i.e. not high-speed rail lines. It is assumed that an 800kN impact resistance will be incorporated into any new Metro vehicles, together with other associated features

- it was expected that dual voltage 25kv/1500v would be specified for all units in the order. But it is interesting that Nexus expect that this functionality can be provided within the target of £300m for 84 units.

- again I note that Nexus are hoping that the standard units will be capable of travelling off-wire for short distances (as for instance on the Midlands Metro). That would clearly enhance their functionality across the heavy rail network, but it is intesting that Nexus think this deliverable within the budget.

- and then there is the specification of a minimum 80,000 km between failures; and 97% availability throughout the agreed lifespan of the unit. That is not an unusual performance for commuter or regional rail services; but looks quite challenging for a metro. On the face of it, that specification might limit the range of manufacturers who may consider bidding; but then again, it would seem that the envisaged total order for 84 units is contingent on 97% availablility (hence no more than two units unavailable due to failure at any one time).

- and there may be problems from currency fluctuations; the price agreed will no doubt be in euros, but Nexus will need a guarantee from the Treasury that future adverse currency movements will be accommodated.

 

[MarkyT]

Street-running routes would require a separate low-floor fleet . . . but street-running over short distances has not been entirely ruled out for the outlined extension options (maybe to run Metro into the Washington Galleries).

Clearly there's a cost uplift for high compared to low platforms and the high type are more difficult to accomodate in traditional street environments, although Manchester Metrolink and many German systems manage to do this extensively. Entirely new lines in Tyne and Wear confined to street running with no through running might be best built to low floor standards, and even short sections of through running to Metro or NR might be accomodated with stations providing split level platforms, as proposed for Rotherham Central. That's not possible at reasonable cost for the existing subsurface stations in the city centre though as the platform tunnels are not long enough, and even if they were it would be poor use of the available length.

For short extensions of the existing high floor Metro routes with comparatively few stops on street, perhaps the additional cost and difficulty of high platforms on street could be justified, especially if this allows a standard high floor fleet.