What next for the Stourbridge Shuttle?

[A0]

How about fitting one with a pantograph, and stringing up a short length of OHL? Are those 750v DC?

Not such a dumb idea - some years back GMPTE borrowed a couple of DLR units and did just that to demo the concept which became Metrolink. I believe some of the early proposals for the DLR were for it to be 750v OHL as well.

 

[Ianno87]

How about fitting one with a pantograph, and stringing up a short length of OHL? Are those 750v DC?

Not such a dumb idea - some years back GMPTE borrowed a couple of DLR units and did just that to demo the concept which became Metrolink. I believe some of the early proposals for the DLR were for it to be 750v OHL as well.

Might depend if/when the Snow Hill lines themselves are up for electrification (at 25kv AC)

 

[Bletchleyite]

It can't be much longer than some automated airport shuttles. If there's room for a passing loop at halfway, then a standard airport shuttle system with two cars and a cable loop would enable operation with just one person to check tickets.

A single car would be fine, it's not a funicular so you don't need two. But I agree it could be that type of thing (typically rubber tyres and cable hauled) - in essence "guard only operated".

 

[Sprinter107]

Agree with appending it to the Metro if possible, but why go onto the streets just for the sake of it. Stourbridge is a very compact centre and the station is within a few minutes walk from most of it and is part of an excellent bus interchange.

To repeat my question from the other thread:

I've seen but never travelled on the shuttle. Does the existing unit ever get rammed to the extent of leaving passengers behind? Clearly it would only be a comparatively short wait for the vehicle to go and come back again, but the distance is so short that for many people it would probably be just as quick to exit the station and walk into town. This is a generic problem with very small trains on short shuttles.

Not sure about loadings now, but in 153 days, it would get full in rush hour, that was 5 trips per hour, and when the college turned out, the first 2 trips after 4pm from the town would be full and standing. During the day I tend to walk, cos it always seems full, but only has about a quarter of the seats of a 153 I believe.

 

[Energy]

The best solution is is adding it to the end of the currently being built line 2 on the Midland Metro.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Cable-hauled tramway? Would certainly be unique!

It can't be much longer than some automated airport shuttles. If there's room for a passing loop at halfway, then a standard airport shuttle system with two cars and a cable loop would enable operation with just one person to check tickets.

A single car would be fine, it's not a funicular so you don't need two. But I agree it could be that type of thing (typically rubber tyres and cable hauled) - in essence "guard only operated".

***cough*** Post #11

 

[Bletchleyite]

The best solution is is adding it to the end of the currently being built line 2 on the Midland Metro.

If the tram does reach Stourbridge, I'd say that would definitely be the winner.

 

[AM9]

Or possibly an updated version with some level of battery use?

Not sure how long something that size would be able to run on a single charge.

The branch has an average gradient down from the junction of about 1:83, so the journey down to the town end could be provide some net recovery of battery energy, if there was a top-up charging facility, (as short length of conductor rail that was only powered when a train was stopped ovwer it), a faily modest battery might even keep a net charge throughout the day only needing an overnight charge to full.

On the subject of a chord northwards, - although it probably wouldn't now make sense in terms of interchanges, maps of before 1913 show that there was indeed a chord and whilst it didn't really impinge on what is now the playing field, it's access to the mainline would probably affect the feeder track to the sidings. See here: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=16&lat=52.45433&lon=-2.14176&layers=6&b=1

 

[SoccerHQ]

It's cool. Been on it a few times and usually no problem to get on even when the school nearby has just cleared out as many just get on the bus instead.

Reminds me of the monorail at Brum airport.

I did walk one from Junction to Stourbridge town centre and it took well over 10 minutes with a bit of uphill involved IIRC. And the ringroad isn't quick to cross if you don't use the subway so hopefully the shuttle can kept spluttering for a while yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

hopefully the shuttle can kept spluttering for a while yet.

Certainly not proposing getting rid of it! It could I suppose be replaced by a bus, but I'm not sure how that would benefit other than cost.

Overall I like the tram idea most, if the tram does run to Stourbridge in the end.

 

[birchesgreen]

In the short term (if they needed to replace it within the next 5 years for some reason) then a battery 230 would be the most logical option.

 

[D365]

In the short term (if they needed to replace it within the next 5 years for some reason) then a battery 230 would be the most logical option.

x2 2-car units.

 

[birchesgreen]

x2 2-car units.

Yes no point messing about with it too much.

 

[py_megapixel]

I assume you could just retain the longitudinal seating and all of the doors; the only modifications that would be needed would be a light interior refurb and repaint as well as the batteries.

Would they need the cab reinforcements that the D-trains have all had so far, or could they get away without, considering that they will be the only unit on a single track branch line with its own platform at both ends?

 

[A0]

I assume you could just retain the longitudinal seating and all of the doors; the only modifications that would be needed would be a light interior refurb and repaint as well as the batteries.

Would they need the cab reinforcements that the D-trains have all had so far, or could they get away without, considering that they will be the only unit on a single track branch line with its own platform at both ends?

I think we need to be realistic - this line is 1/2 a mile long. Whatever is used needs to be 'off the peg' and available for minimal cost. Rebuilding D trains into single car units, probably isn't that.

The only viable way to use D trains would be as currently built 230s - battery whilst interesting would mean infrastructure in terms of some form of HV charging - and that's on a line which isn't presently electrified so would need a suitable connection.

The alternative would be a couple of 153s with the toilets removed, thereby making them DDA compliant. There's no way a toilet is required on a journey of 0.5 mile.

The alternative is it becomes part of Midland Metro, but I'm not sure how that works with the currently planned extensions to that system - and I think there are probably higher priorities, such as linking to Birmingham Airport.

 

[Energy]

Overall I like the tram idea most, if the tram does run to Stourbridge in the end.

They are constructing line 2 right now in phases, by 2023 it should have reached Brierley Hill, it can then use tram trains on the freight line to Stourbridge and then the Stourbridge Town line with batteries used on the train bit. Until 2023 just carry on using the class 139s, there isn't a problem with them.

 

[The Planner]

They are constructing line 2 right now in phases, by 2023 it should have reached Brierley Hill, it can then use tram trains on the freight line to Stourbridge and then the Stourbridge Town line with batteries used on the train bit. Until 2023 just carry on using the class 139s, there isn't a problem with them.

How many tram/trains are you expecting to running from Brierley Hill down to Stourbridge and the faff of getting them off and on the branch?

 

[Hadders]

Is this a suitable operation for a Pacer?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is this a suitable operation for a Pacer?

It's completely segregated so there would be no safety reason not to, and no toilet would be required, but I suspect that would be politically difficult.

Also isn't the PPM level boarding, so changing to step entrance would be a downgrade? True of a 153 as well, but you could install a Harrington hump as the platforms are only used for the one service, whereas a Pacer can't be anything other than stepped because of the internal step.

 

[60019]

How many tram/trains are you expecting to running from Brierley Hill down to Stourbridge and the faff of getting them off and on the branch?

I assume the branch platform would be used to reverse trams arriving from Brierly Hil, so it wouldn't be any extra faff to go to Stourbridge Town instead of back to Brierly Hill. However, it would probably be more convenient all round to only do that when they want to send the branch tram back to the depot.

Alternatively, they'd reinstate the curve north of the station and run directly to the town centre along a redoubled branch, ideally with the junction shuttle kept for passenger convenience.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Is it acceptable to just say to extend some buses via roads to make the frequency about every 5 minutes?

 

[bramling]

Although there's not much point it operating more frequently than every 10 minutes, given that is the frequency of the connecting "main line" trains.

Presumably there must be occasions when the capacity of the car is insufficient to accept all intending passengers? Surely this must happen from time to time simply due to the low capacity of the vehicle.

 

[Aictos]

Or how about extending the (in progress) extension of the Midland Metro from Wednesbury over the South Staffordshire line all the way to Stourbridge Junction to replace the current setup.

This would A. Simulate the local area by a much improved public transport network, B. Offer more direct connections to places people want to go to and C. It's the obvious solution long term.

 

[py_megapixel]

Is this a suitable operation for a Pacer?

Nothing is a suitable operation for a Pacer any more, and least not in their current state. They were always meant to be temporary, and they are now thoroughly falling apart. Add to that the truly awful ride quality along with the obvious accessibility issues.

Of course, you could give them a complete refurbishment and overhaul, perhaps even new engines, but whatever you do to them, I would have thought that putting them into service again will always be politically unacceptable.

 

[The Planner]

I assume the branch platform would be used to reverse trams arriving from Brierly Hil, so it wouldn't be any extra faff to go to Stourbridge Town instead of back to Brierly Hill. However, it would probably be more convenient all round to only do that when they want to send the branch tram back to the depot.

Alternatively, they'd reinstate the curve north of the station and run directly to the town centre along a redoubled branch, ideally with the junction shuttle kept for passenger convenience.

It is when it is a multiple shunt, there is no access from the main line to Platform 1, you would need to cross over to platform 2, reverse, shunt into the Down Goods Loop, reverse, shunt back into platform 3 and reverse. As well as transferring the staff for the branch. The connection to the branch from the Down Goods Loop is also a ground frame.

By the time you did all that, you could have arrived at Stourbridge, got off the train, changed platform, got on the shuttle, arrived at Stourbridge Town and probably have got back to Stourbridge Jn if you wanted.

It is a faff, and a massive one at that. A curve would be prohibitively expensive considering the track and signal work needed for something that works perfectly well now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2021 ==

Or how about extending the (in progress) extension of the Midland Metro from Wednesbury over the South Staffordshire line all the way to Stourbridge Junction to replace the current setup.

This would A. Simulate the local area by a much improved public transport network, B. Offer more direct connections to places people want to go to and C. It's the obvious solution long term.

It is the same as I have already asked, how many tram/trains are you expecting to go to Stourbridge? It isn't awash with capacity to turn trains around at.

 

[Energy]

It is when it is a multiple shunt, there is no access from the main line to Platform 1, you would need to cross over to platform 2, reverse, shunt into the Down Goods Loop, reverse, shunt back into platform 3 and reverse. As well as transferring the staff for the branch. The connection to the branch from the Down Goods Loop is also a ground frame.

Hadn't realised it would be so difficult.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is when it is a multiple shunt, there is no access from the main line to Platform 1, you would need to cross over to platform 2, reverse, shunt into the Down Goods Loop, reverse, shunt back into platform 3 and reverse. As well as transferring the staff for the branch. The connection to the branch from the Down Goods Loop is also a ground frame.

By the time you did all that, you could have arrived at Stourbridge, got off the train, changed platform, got on the shuttle, arrived at Stourbridge Town and probably have got back to Stourbridge Jn if you wanted.

It is a faff, and a massive one at that. A curve would be prohibitively expensive considering the track and signal work needed for something that works perfectly well now.

I think the tram assumption is that it would be a complete rebuild, so anything relating to the track could be changed. It's not a cheap workaround, it's the ideal-world solution.

 

[The Planner]

I think the tram assumption is that it would be a complete rebuild, so anything relating to the track could be changed. It's not a cheap workaround, it's the ideal-world solution.

Is it though? Looking at the Midland Metro proposals, the Brierley Hill terminus is on Cottage Street, why would you want to route it to Stourbridge Jn via the heavy rail route at Round Oak? Surely the better option is to go from Brierley Hill, via Brettell Lane and Amblecote, direct to Stourbridge town centre and join up with the top end of the branch as previously suggested?

 

[60019]

It is when it is a multiple shunt, there is no access from the main line to Platform 1, you would need to cross over to platform 2, reverse, shunt into the Down Goods Loop, reverse, shunt back into platform 3 and reverse. As well as transferring the staff for the branch. The connection to the branch from the Down Goods Loop is also a ground frame.

Compared to the cost of electrifying the existing goods line, upgrading South Staffordshire Line signalling to passenger standards, upgrading track as required for good running, extra trams, and so on, replacing the crossover and resigning would be a relatively small cost and would mean they're not terminating trams (and waiting for recovery time) in the through platforms where they'd be a nuisance for Snow Hill trains, especially since the plan is for 10 trams per hour on Metro line 2.

A curve would be prohibitively expensive considering the track and signal work needed for something that works perfectly well now.

The main advantage of the curve would be for the Line 2 trams, not the existing shuttle. it looks like there is enough room to squeeze tracks in between the depot and playing fields (though there would be some land take from the screening trees) to segregate the trams from the snow hill trains.

Indeed, a tram stop on the curve would be worse for passengers wanting connections to mainline trains, which was why I suggested the shuttle would still be needed.

 

[Sprinter107]

Is it though? Looking at the Midland Metro proposals, the Brierley Hill terminus is on Cottage Street, why would you want to route it to Stourbridge Jn via the heavy rail route at Round Oak? Surely the better option is to go from Brierley Hill, via Brettell Lane and Amblecote, direct to Stourbridge town centre and join up with the top end of the branch as previously suggested?

Thats exactly what I thought. That would be a perfect option, which would open those areas up to main line connection at the Junction, plus passengers coming off the trains at Junction wanting to go just that bit further than the town.