DfT gives green light for more light rail

[northwichcat]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20110920
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/light-rail/green-light-for-light-rail.pdf

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Lots of platitudes about light rail in here, but the six words at the start of the article stand out as far as I can see..."If capital costs can be reduced".

 

[northwichcat]

Lots of platitudes about light rail in here, but the six words at the start of the article stand out as far as I can see..."If capital costs can be reduced".

If you read a bit more their aim is for all future new systems to be of the same standard, which is how capital costs will be reduced. For instance, Manchester is non-standard because it uses rail level platforms not tram level platforms, while Blackpool is non-standard because it's 550V opposed to 750V, while DLR is non standard because it used 3rd rail. This obviously means each system needs it's own specific type of vehicles so a large order for multiple different systems can't be placed.

 

[WatcherZero]

Not quite what its refering to, its refering mainly to a standardised design methodogy, tolerances and materials (for example differing level of tolerances in the trackbed or the OHLE). The platform heights a minor thing though it would affect the cost of the trams themselves the Croydon and Manchester trams are the same vehicle both off the shelf German designs.

The common order that had to be cancelled its refering to I believe was Birmingham and Nottingham attempting a joint procurement working on a common specification of trams but ultimatley deciding against issuing a single tender. I suspect this is mainly down to issues of length (Nottingham uses 33m while Midland uses 24m) and speed (Midland uses 70kmh vehciles and the town centre extension wont require faster whereas nottingham uses 80kmh)

 

[Freel07]

If you read a bit more their aim is for all future new systems to be of the same standard, which is how capital costs will be reduced. For instance, Manchester is non-standard because it uses rail level platforms not tram level platforms, while Blackpool is non-standard because it's 550V opposed to 750V, while DLR is non standard because it used 3rd rail. This obviously means each system needs it's own specific type of vehicles so a large order for multiple different systems can't be placed.

Blackpool are now lifting the voltage to 600 V DC and all the substations are being upgraded to be capable of simple uprating to 750V DC.

 

[WatcherZero]

600v while unique in Britain is relativley common around the world, especielly where theres no need for speed.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If you read a bit more their aim is for all future new systems to be of the same standard, which is how capital costs will be reduced. For instance, Manchester is non-standard because it uses rail level platforms not tram level platforms, while Blackpool is non-standard because it's 550V opposed to 750V, while DLR is non standard because it used 3rd rail. This obviously means each system needs it's own specific type of vehicles so a large order for multiple different systems can't be placed.

I was speaking figuratively with "my accountants hat on", noting the predicted economic cycle where fiscal measures prevail. The two examples of non-conformity that you quote are both in the North-West region where I live, thus being at the front of my mind. I am well aware of the benefits of standardisation, but I can forsee much disagreement upon which would be the desired universal standard. TfGM, with the current and soon to be expanded system, would definately argue the case that theirs would be the standard to be adopted, from an entrenched position.

 

[northwichcat]

TfGM, with the current and soon to be expanded system, would definately argue the case that theirs would be the standard to be adopted, from an entrenched position.

Once Edinburgh and the new Manchester lines are up and running, Manchester Metrolink will have just under 50% of the total of the UK's tram systems, so if you like they'll be a bit like the Conservative party of the last general election, they'll need someone else on their side to have the majority and if everyone else is against them then they're in the minority.

Currently there would be no real option for running a tram-train service between Sheffield and Manchester if it was to involve street running in both cities. (With the cross Pennine route tram-train would be unlikely anyway.) On the other hand tram-train between Sheffield and Nottingham could look like a workable idea.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Currently there would be no real option for running a tram-train service between Sheffield and Manchester if it was to involve street running in both cities. (With the cross Pennine route tram-train would be unlikely anyway.) On the other hand tram-train between Sheffield and Nottingham could look like a workable idea.

I can at least concur with you on both of these two examples that you have quoted. I did think that the tram-train thread published some time ago did provoke some useful debate on the subject.

 

[HSTEd]

Manchester is locked in to having train height platforms now, and Nottingham is locked into having low floor trams, there isn't really much that can be done about it.
Manchester's system seems to be the most succesful British tram system I can think of however whereas NET has been beset with problems.

 

[tom1649]

NET has been beset with problems.

NET's problems are nothing compared with Edinburgh's though.

 

[northwichcat]

Manchester's system seems to be the most succesful British tram system I can think of however whereas NET has been beset with problems.

It is but it is also the only one that contains converted train lines which still had heavy rail services on them up until conversion.

Imagine if Chesterfield-Sheffield-Meadowhall-Rotherham and Meadowhall-Barnsley was Supertram instead of heavy rail. That's what it would be like if the same sort of business plan had been used for Supertram.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Manchester is locked in to having train height platforms now, and Nottingham is locked into having low floor trams, there isn't really much that can be done about it.
Manchester's system seems to be the most successful British tram system I can think of however whereas NET has been beset with problems.

It makes you wonder how much attention was paid to such obvious differences when the draft report was being formulated.

 

[John @ home]

(NET) is also the only one that contains converted train lines which still had heavy rail services on them up until conversion.

Croydon - Wimbledon?

 

[northwichcat]

Croydon - Wimbledon?

I was referring to Manchester Metrolink being converted train lines not NET, so I don't know why you've tried to make it sound like I was claiming NET was converted train lines.

I didn't realise one of the 3 Croydon routes was heavy rail up until conversion. However, it is still the case the Manchester Metrolink was a tram system consisting of only tram converted rail routes for 7 years, save a short section city centre linking the two lines, while Croydon was a mixture.

 

[martinsh]

I was referring to Manchester Metrolink being converted train lines not NET, so I don't know why you've tried to make it sound like I was claiming NET was converted train lines.

Well I read it the same as "John @ home", just didn't get around to posting it in time.

And, come to think about it, the section of NET out to Hucknall is a converted train line - just one that still has trains running on it !

 

[northwichcat]

Well I read it the same as "John @ home", just didn't get around to posting it in time.

And, come to think about it, the section of NET out to Hucknall is a converted train line - just one that still has trains running on it !

Well I'm sorry if you thought I was referring to NET you obviously only read part of the post.

HSTEd made the point of Metrolink being an instance success while NET had problems. I stated the fairly obvious reason for that being it was because "it is also the only one that contains converted train lines which still had heavy rail services on them up until conversion."* I then went on to give an example of how Sheffield Supertram would have looked if it had been set up in the same way that Manchester Metrolink had been (replacing rail services opposed to offering new routes.)

* I didn't realise Croydon had heavy rail services on one of it's routes up until conversion so I corrected my statement in a later post.