Sheffield/Rotherham Tram-Train update

[bradders1983]

What is so attractive about a through service from Leeds to Sheffield via Doncaster?

The prospect of being able to fine people for holding a NOT DONCASTER ticket for the Leeds-Sheffield journey on many more trains that you currently can do now?

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I don't suppose there's a way to link the Rotherham Sheffield Tram Train to Stocksbridge or perhaps Penistone?

 

[Harpers Tate]

It wouldn't involve much construction for Stockbridge, I guess. The railway was electrified so there will be clearances. And the existing tram line is more or less alongside the railway where the tram depot is at Nunnery.

 

[edwin_m]

It wouldn't involve much construction for Stockbridge, I guess. The railway was electrified so there will be clearances. And the existing tram line is more or less alongside the railway where the tram depot is at Nunnery.

A connection at Nunnery would involve reversal or a 180 degree turn or miss the centre of Sheffield. The first part of the Stocksbridge line closely parallels the existing Supertram but is much less accessible from the built-up area. And as for Penistone, I'm pretty sure the Stocksbridge bypass severs the original Woodhead line just north of where the surviving freight line diverges from it.

 

[Harpers Tate]

A connection at Nunnery would involve reversal or a 180 degree turn or miss the centre of Sheffield. The first part of the Stocksbridge line closely parallels the existing Supertram but is much less accessible from the built-up area. And as for Penistone, I'm pretty sure the Stocksbridge bypass severs the original Woodhead line just north of where the surviving freight line diverges from it.

They do a reversal at Cathedral on the Herdings <> Meadowhall route routinely. And there is a bridge for the bypass. I've cycled under it. Don't quote me, but I think the bypass was built before the railway was demolished. See https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4855193,-1.553356,110m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[edwin_m]

They do a reversal at Cathedral on the Herdings <> Meadowhall route routinely. And there is a bridge for the bypass. I've cycled under it. Don't quote me, but I think the bypass was built before the railway was demolished. See https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4855193,-1.553356,110m/data=!3m1!1e3

Yes but that is a reversal to serve the city centre where most people want to go. Going out to Nunnery to reverse there would make the journey towards Stocksbridge much longer.

I had an idea the bridge had clearance for cycles and small vehicles but I may be wrong. Unfortunately there's no Streetview and Bing Birds Eye isn't clear enough to tell.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The A616 Stocksbridge Bypass would require reconstruction for Woodhead to return as heavy rail. As light rail has greater tolerance for gradients along with reduced clearances for the DC overheads, it would perhaps be easier or at least cheaper. Penistone is probably not a big enough settlement to use as a terminus for a tram route though- Barnsley would be a better option, though you are then leaving Sheffield itself.

 

[unlevel42]

A Stocksbridge Supertram link is not as beneficial to the residents.

Its on the wrong side of the valley to serve the populations up to Deepcar ( except Wadsley Bridge).
Deepcar is the end of the line unless a lot of money is spent to build the line through/avoid the works.
Stocksbridge is in a steep sided valley with the population living on the southern steep slope.
A connecting bus service would be needed to serve these communities as the valley is long as well as steep sided.

There would be no time saving for journeys to Sheffield centre.
The current frequent connecting bus would be reduced.

 

[Leviathan]

Can anyone confirm whether these tram/trains have started in passenger service yet? I read on the thread that in early May all bar one had been used on day time testing but are they being used as yet to supplement the existing fleet?

Thanks

 

[WaveyDavey]

Can anyone confirm whether these tram/trains have started in passenger service yet? I read on the thread that in early May all bar one had been used on day time testing but are they being used as yet to supplement the existing fleet?

Thanks

Still under testing as far as I know. Wasn't the introduction to service date something like late summer?

 

[TC60054]

Can anyone confirm whether these tram/trains have started in passenger service yet? I read on the thread that in early May all bar one had been used on day time testing but are they being used as yet to supplement the existing fleet?

Thanks

All are still out on driver training and ghost running ahead of an entry to service.

 

[unlevel42]

Might need them earlier as 123 and 107 are out of service due to a collision at Halfway terminus. RAIB on site.

 

[TC60054]

Might need them earlier as 123 and 107 are out of service due to a collision at Halfway terminus. RAIB on site.

Both trams moved from Halfway between 1530 and 1600 with service returning to Halfway at around 1610. Going to be fun the next time there's a tram off slightly more long term for maintenance.

Clicky

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Both trams moved from Halfway between 1530 and 1600 with service returning to Halfway at around 1610. Going to be fun the next time there's a tram off slightly more long term for maintenance.

Clicky

Usual well-informed Fakebook debate, I see... :roll:

 

[TC60054]

Usual well-informed Fakebook debate, I see... :roll:

And what is that supposed to mean?

 

[dosxuk]

And what is that supposed to mean?

Have you read the comments to the story?

 

[unlevel42]

Another two trams out of action due to collision .

An inbound from Malin Bridge Blue tram (110) collided with an outbound to Middlewood (116) Yellow on the junction at Hillsborough corner. Track cleared now clear.

 

[WaveyDavey]

Photos of today's incident here.......

https://www.facebook.com/British.Tramway/posts/809322125892087

 

[TC60054]

Another two trams out of action due to collision .

An inbound from Malin Bridge Blue tram (110) collided with an outbound to Middlewood (116) Yellow on the junction at Hillsborough corner. Track cleared now clear.

Very limited damage, some scraping to the side of 110 at best plus a crushed wingmirror to 116. I don't think either tram will be out of service for too long, the cause has been attributed to a signalling problem plus driver error by the sounds of it.

 

[WatcherZero]

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/u...modification-of-the-national-rail-network.pdf

Damning NAO report on how the project costs increased 401%, also reveals the Rail Investment Board and the Permanent Secretary at the DfT Philip*Rutnam tried to kill it in July 2016 after £25m was spent arguing that it would release £20m in savings but the minister overruled them.

Picking out the technical issues from the report for why it went overbudget;
*Detailed design work was done before the specification of the winning rolling stock was known and it differed from the design assumptions.
*Initial contractor Carillon apparently made a total mess of the design.
*After decision to electrify track in future was taken £5m more had to be spent beefing up the electrification supply to mainline standards.
*Discovered the line was in worse condition than thought and in need of total renewal.
*Changes were made to signalling and traction power design mid project.
*Team wernt very good at change management and costs were allowed to spiral.
*Team lacked technical knowledge and there was a high staff turnover, team didn't understand the complex technical issues.
*Design Integration was not managed well, particularly integration of light and heavy rail technology.
*Project budget envelope led to high risk value engineering decisions (cutting corners to save money) that did not work out and ended up costing more in the long run. E.g. Contractor was ready to start work immediately at contract award but NR wasted 3 months waiting for a planning application to the secretary of state for a revised design of the Tinsley Chord that was supposed to save money and then there was a further 2 month delay before contractors were free again to start work.
*Halfway through the Minister decided to continue the project but that the Dft would not give any more money towards it or allow NR to borrow to fund it. NR were forced in to creative accounting, taking £4.6m from renewals budget elsewhere and allocating the project £21.9m from CP6 March 2019 budget.

As of June 2017
Installed new track, points and crossings (including the Tinsley Chord);
Installed 85% of OHLE
Installed new power supply for signalling
Completed new platform at Rotherham Parkgate
19 construction milestones achieved with 6 left to complete before May 2018

Network Rail has now appointed a dedicated program director, recruited the engineering and technical specialists required to manage and certify technical innovation and product approvals, interacting with other parts of the project properly using agreed instructions, nominated contracts and joint risk assessments. In May 2016 Stagecoach received £2.5m in compensation for late delivery of the infrastructure assets.

Achievements of the project so far;
*The signalling design developed for the tram-train project was made available to the bidders for the Wales and Border franchise in March.
*Between 2014 and 2015 NR published a series of technical manuals for assessing the whole system safety risks of extending tram-train services from a heavy line on to a tram line.
*The tram-train team has been contracted to assist on the design of the Glasgow Airport Access Project, and held discussions with West Yorkshire Combined Authority, the Welsh Assembly and Transport for Greater Manchester.
*While engaging with UK Tram trade body has been deemed by some useful, in response to others disappointment in lack of detail an online technical library is being developed for access by third parties.


An industry learning report will be produced by NR by 2021.

 

[eastwestdivide]

No indication in the report that I could see of what the 6 construction milestones remaining represent.
At a guess:
- completion of bridge reconstruction at Rotherham Central
- platforms at Rotherham Central
- installation of remaining overheads, incl. all wiring
- commissioning of pointwork (there are still bits missing from the crossovers at Parkgate I think)
- commissioning of signalling
- ???

 

[WatcherZero]

It does say one of the 6 is completion of remaining OHLE.

 

[D365]

Wires yet to go up, indeed.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I would LOVE to know why this project has been so "difficult". I know I'm no expert, but to this layman's simple understanding:

1: The existing rail track; the trams have heavy-rail compatible wheels, so no change required there. No rocket science needed. Even if it all needed relaying, it's still not rocket science.
2: New points on existing track; ditto
3: New track away from the "main line"; just like existing tram lines, so nothing newly-invented there
4: Catenary; It's being built to be capable of 25kvAC; so it needs necessary clearances - and a bridge needs lifting to make room. Just like on every other bit of overhead electrification NR has done. No rocket scientist's input needed.
5: Sub-station/supply; just like the existing tram so no rocket science here either.
6: New platform to the side of the train through route - just like the existing tram so no rocket science here either.
7: New platforms adjacent to the train lines in Rotherham - I'm guessing these, too are just like the existing tram ones.......

Now what else is there - exactly - that hasn't already been done before, elsewhere, by someone, umpteen times before?

To put it another way

The T&W Metro was extended to Sunderland in April 2002, at a cost £100m. (about £150m inflation adjusted to today).
This required some track lowering and the reconstruction of four bridges. 13km of shared route.

Tram-train: Less than 6km, one bridge, £75m

 

[DimTim]

I cannot understand why network rail were not asked to electrify their line at 25kv. At the time of planning NR was looking at electrifying the Midland Main Line to Sheffield & it was suggested that add ons to Doncaster & Moorthorpe was the next logical step. Local services through Rotherham Central would then require 25kv. Interference with signalling would be a know factor as opposed to using 750v.

They would have needed a 25kv supply from the national grid etc. but it is work they are familiar with. The trams ordered are dual voltage & changeover could have been achieved on the chord linking the tram network to NR tracks under the Tinsley viaduct.

This is a pilot for the rest of UK so in all likelihood trams will be required to run on 25kv elsewhere on NR tracks rather than 750v.

 

[D365]

I cannot understand why network rail were not asked to electrify their line at 25kv.

It would be uneconomical to provide a single 25kV feeder at this point seeing as the Midland Main Line electrification has been delayed indefinitely.

 

[edwin_m]

I cannot understand why network rail were not asked to electrify their line at 25kv. At the time of planning NR was looking at electrifying the Midland Main Line to Sheffield & it was suggested that add ons to Doncaster & Moorthorpe was the next logical step. Local services through Rotherham Central would then require 25kv. Interference with signalling would be a know factor as opposed to using 750v.

They would have needed a 25kv supply from the national grid etc. but it is work they are familiar with. The trams ordered are dual voltage & changeover could have been achieved on the chord linking the tram network to NR tracks under the Tinsley viaduct.

This is a pilot for the rest of UK so in all likelihood trams will be required to run on 25kv elsewhere on NR tracks rather than 750v.

The 25kV feeder is well understood but very expensive and designed to feed a much larger area. It also requires a sufficiently high voltage Grid supply, and several years' notice to connect it, though perhaps less of a problem on this route as there was once a power station next to Tinsley so the appropriate supplies could be available.

Whereas a 750V substation is much smaller but you need more of them. I think they have only one, in a portable building that can be used somewhere else if no longer needed.

They have made the overhead suitable for conversion to 25kV, which was one of the things that increased the costs but was understandable when electrification was being announced for the MML and strongly expected for other lines nearby. The tram-trains were also ordered as dual voltage, which probably increased the costs a bit more. But the life of the equipment is 30-50 years and it's quite possible a 25kV conversion will be needed during that time.

 

[D365]

The tram-trains were also ordered as dual voltage, which probably increased the costs a bit more.

Were they not always planned as dual voltage under the current scheme?

 

[TC60054]

Another 399 died at Halfway this morning, though was moved after only about 20 minutes.

 

[dosxuk]

there was once a power station next to Tinsley so the appropriate supplies could be available.

There's one there now too, a biomass station opened in 2014.