Tram-Train...any future ?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There have been various occurances of this method of transport being discussed on various parts of this forum, that I thought that it would be a good idea if a specific thread could have its own place on this site.

The DfT have chosen South Yorkshire as a trial area. Cheshire East council are to commission a report to study this method of transport on the Chester to Altrincham heavy rail route, with through running possibilities being examined as to the added benefits of through running on the Manchester Metrolink system from Altrincham to the central part of Manchester.

Feel free to express your views on here.

 

[WatcherZero]

For me its going to live or die on whether they can squeeze a decent suspension into the weight limit.

 

[jamesontheroad]

What I've never understood is the power source for the UK trial. Perhaps the UK government didn't understand it either.

As I understand it, the South Yorkshire trial will see Pacer routes replaced with a tram-train that will run on the Supertram network. So will this be a DEMU tram-train that can pick up electricity when on the Supertram network, or a diesel powered unit that will scare children and old people as it roars through the streets of Sheffield?

The only precedent I know of is the Strasbourg tram train which was under construction when I lived there in 2007. Obviously the power supply wasn't an issue because most of the lines around Strasbourg are electrified, unlike those in Yorkshire...

(or have I got the wrong end of the stick?)

 

[WatcherZero]

The first proposed trial, Penistone, would have been a diesel but they couldnt source a pre-existing clean enough engine to meet emmissions standards as they had just been tightened a new engine would have had to be developed making it economically unviable for a small trial.

This new trial it will be an electric vehicle and they will electrify the route (as well as lowering platform heights).

 

[tbtc]

Like First's ftr it sounds a great concept. Then you look at the details and it all gets a bit muddled.

• Is it a straightforward lightweight Pacer replacement? That's what they were planning on the Penistone line, a toiletless "basic" DMU, like an extended Parry people Mover
  
• Or is it meant to be a DEMU capable of running Manchester - Altricham like a tram then behaving like a DMU on the Altricham - Knutsford/ Chester stretch? Because that's a lot of complication (the dual modes) for a simple line.

Some Pacer lines are suitable for being run by proper DMUs like Sprinters (e.g. Sheffield - Scunthorpe)

Some Pacer lines are suitable to tram extensions (e.g. Altricham - Chester)

But some other lines are pretty marginal and couldn't afford the expense of a brand new bit of kit.

Rather than muck around with a compromise unit, I'd rather just order a hundred identical 172s as Pacer replacements. The danger is that we'll get a "TramTrain compatible with Manchester Metrolink", a "TramTrain compatible with Sheffield Supertram (which has lower platform heights than the Manchester Metrolink)", a "diesel only Tram Train for routes like the Penistone line... we just need more simple DMUs (or, if not that then electrification of lines that a lot of DMUs use like the Cardiff Valleys so that we can cascade some 150s around to replace Pacers)

 

[WatcherZero]

In Manchester at least their thinking of it as a cheap construction and running cost like for like pacer replacement. Fundamentally its the same design as a train you just require a switch to tighten and release the suspension so your not bouncing around at low speed because the suspensions too stiff or the opposite at high speed because its too soft. The design should then be compatible with the Tyne and Wear simply by replacing pantographs with a third rail shoe. For all the other tram networks with platform heights of 300-380mm a single design would work with the caveat any heavy rail station stopped at would require some low platforms fitted. This already does happen in London where a tramlink station has trams and underground trains sharing the same island platform.

 

[Anvil1984]

The design should then be compatible with the Tyne and Wear simply by replacing pantographs with a third rail shoe..

Can you explain that bit please, are you suggesting the Tyne and Wear Metro should go third rail or is it an error? It is currently DC OHLE on the Metro

 

[sprinterguy]

Can you explain that bit please, are you suggesting the Tyne and Wear Metro should go third rail or is it an error? It is currently DC OHLE on the Metro

Indeed, the Tyneside electric lines haven't been third rail since 1960!

 

[WatcherZero]

Twas me having a brain aneurysm and thinking it was 50 years ago

Or rather my misplaced logic in a rush and not bothering to try and fully remember was 'I remember it cant run on roads as originally planned because of the chosen electrification' 'Why' 'Probably 3rd rail', forgot the reason was the 1500v.

 

[yorksrob]

Rather than muck around with a compromise unit, I'd rather just order a hundred identical 172s as Pacer replacements. The danger is that we'll get a "TramTrain compatible with Manchester Metrolink", a "TramTrain compatible with Sheffield Supertram (which has lower platform heights than the Manchester Metrolink)", a "diesel only Tram Train for routes like the Penistone line... we just need more simple DMUs (or, if not that then electrification of lines that a lot of DMUs use like the Cardiff Valleys so that we can cascade some 150s around to replace Pacers)

Yes, this would be my viewpoint as well.

Incedentally, If you did build a generic DMU Pacer replacement, bearing in mind Cheshire's problems with capacity on the Altricham line, would it be possible to build these as ordinary trains of a longer distance quality (with toilets and comfy seats etc) but which were at least partially compatible with Metrolink? They might not be able to get onto the streets, but they maybe could get more people into Manc, in the same way that trains and Metro share some of the track around Sunderland.

 

[WatcherZero]

Apart from the grooved street track Metrolink is standard British rail profile (and heavy rail goods yard often operated with grooved track too), it would need compatible signalling installed for both Metrolink and National networks. I understand most of the issues arise when tram wheels are used on heavy rail track, as their smaller they can become out of profile at things like scissor junctions which wernt built with their wheel size in mind and the lighter vehicles may not trip contact sensors and require their changeout with axle counters instead. Im not an expert on wheel and track profiles though.

This may be of some interest, a 2009 NR presentation on the issues to be solved before the trial could proceed.
http://www.applrguk.co.uk/files/lr uk tramtrain network rail tecnical.pdf

Heres a list of other interesting reading collected together by the All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group (APLRG):

Tram-Train, the case for Warrington, Cheshire and Merseyside
http://www.applrguk.co.uk/files/lr applrg tramtrain trial project applrg1 dft meeting.pdf

Why Trial Tram-Trains?
http://www.applrguk.co.uk/files/lr applrg tramtrain trial project applrg1 dft meeting.pdf

Tram Trains in Mulhouse (French)
http://www.applrguk.co.uk/files/mulhousetramtrainglossy2010.pdf

Tram Trains in Kassel
http://www.applrguk.co.uk/files/lrta taut jan 10 kassel pdf.pdf

Tram Train, Grasping the Opportunity (Risk/benefit list by Metro for Leeds)
http://www.applrguk.co.uk/files/lr applrg_april 09_tramtrain_part1.pdf

Network Rail Presentation 2007
http://www.applrguk.co.uk/files/lr applrg tramtrain ian ambrose 121107_final.pdf

US detailed analysis of Tram-Train for Surrey in the US
http://www.applrguk.co.uk/files/lr uk chilliwack to surrey interurban final report.pdf

Sintropher EU collabrative study of tram technology across five countries
http://www.applrguk.co.uk/files/lr uk consultation sintropher_brochure_-_english.pdf

 

[yorksrob]

Cheers for those,

They made some interesting reading (except for the one in French - it's been a long time since I could read that lol)

The Metro presentation was quite interesting.

I noticed on the section outlining potential benefits and risks concerning passengers, journey reliability and longer operational day were both outlined as benefits, yet this would also be the case for new main line rolling stock.

I also noticed that longer interchange times at York and Leeds (which I think would be inevitable if the current proposal for the Harrogate Loop were taken into account) didn't appear in the risks column. I think that's a fairly important omission.

 

[Nym]

Oh please no, no future for the tram-train, it will be the next pacer we'll be stuck with for years to come!

Trams and trains are waaaay too diferent to work together IMO, in this country, imagine tram suspension on jointed track...

 

[WatcherZero]

Was funny though, on another thread someone unknowingly suggested a continental tram-train as a natural replacement for the pacer based on size and speed.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think that WatcherZero has made a very relevant point about compatible signalling for the two systems in his earlier posting.

 

[sprinterguy]

It has to be considered whether ordering tram-trains would be any cheaper than ordering traditional heavy rail multiple units: Light rail vehicles aren’t cheap, and they are generally a lot shorter than an equivalent DMU, so if there is no cost benefit in buying tram-trains over a typical DMU then a fleet of larger traditional DMUs may as well be ordered.

The routes operated by tram-trains would have to be carefully considered as well: If they operate over lines shared with normal heavy rail services, which they would if they were to replace Pacers, then there’d also be no savings to be had from reducing track maintenance to light rail standards.

Tram-trains are a very good idea if they are going to be assigned to increasing route frequencies on reasonably short distance (I’d say under 20 miles) commuter flows that are partly shared with other heavy rail services, allowing the traditional heavy rail services to operate a faster, limited stop service. In any other application, it’d be best to order a fleet of two and three carriage “proper” DMUs/EMUs. This is especially true of Pacer replacement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Was funny though, on another thread someone unknowingly suggested a continental tram-train as a natural replacement for the pacer based on size and speed.

My view is that while they may not be preferable, or suitable, for Pacer replacement, it is certainly easy to see the similarities between the two designs and understand that the Stadler-GTW is the modern Pacer equivalent. Most of the points I’ve made above apply to this.

 

[Solaris]

Wales RUS makes specific reference to potential of tram-train on some of the valley network....

 

[sprinterguy]

Wales RUS makes specific reference to potential of tram-train on some of the valley network....

True:

Tram-train technology offers the prospect of linking areas of high population density, that are not currently served by train, to the network by less costly means than construction of new lines to heavy-rail standards or reopening of old trackbeds. It could also relieve congestion at busy stations and improve journey opportunities by diverting some services off the heavy-rail network onto suitably prioritised street running. The concept will be the subject of a trial in South Yorkshire.

If the trial is successful then suitable locations elsewhere will be examined and Cardiff offers considerable potential, particularly for the Cardiff Bay area to meet the on-street running aspiration of Cardiff Council to better serve the area which has expanded away from the existing Cardiff Bay station. The Coryton and Radyr (City Line) routes may also be suitable for conversion to Tram-train operation.

Which are precisely the sections of route that I would have suggested as being suitable for tram-train operation before I even browsed the RUS, especially the Cardiff bay branch: Surely they can't keep a 121, or even a 153, on it forever. As well as it advocating using them for reopening other lines to passenger services. It seems all to the good IMO.

The Wales RUS also makes mention of three, or even four, carriage EMUs and electrification for the longer distance Valley Lines services:

Alongside main line electrification, evaluation of conversion of the South Wales Valleys route is a further option which is now being addressed, as the dense pattern of suburban operation lends itself well to electric operation of three-car or four-car Electric Multiple Units (EMUs) which would replace existing diesels.

(See around page 177)

 

[WatcherZero]

Its being set up that the Welsh Assembly Government itself would order the rolling stock to replace the pacers from 2019 similar to Scotland.

 

[j0hn0]

has anyone seen the trams in Nice?

They drop the pans and use batteries to get across the main squares.

Could this be adapted to work on tram trains?

 

[ChrisCooper]

Another thing I wonder about is crashworthyness. If one of these low floor tram trains get rammed by a heavy rail train, how is it going to stand up? Now you could say it's not an issue, but then crashworthyness or lack of is part of the case for replacing Pacers. Seems to me another case of wanting it both ways.

 

[90019]

has anyone seen the trams in Nice?

They drop the pans and use batteries to get across the main squares.

Could this be adapted to work on tram trains?

The trams in Bordeaux use a 3rd rail system in the city centre, but only the section the tram is on is energised.

 

[yorksrob]

Another thing I wonder about is crashworthyness. If one of these low floor tram trains get rammed by a heavy rail train, how is it going to stand up? Now you could say it's not an issue, but then crashworthyness or lack of is part of the case for replacing Pacers. Seems to me another case of wanting it both ways.

Well, it's a good point. We went through all this with the Mark 1's so if there is a fatal collision between a tram-train and a train are we going to have to start all over again? Plus I doubt that the Gmnt would be so prepared to stump up for replacements as with the South of England.

Can you build a light weight tram-train to main line crash worthiness? (That's an open not a rhetorical question btw).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Was funny though, on another thread someone unknowingly suggested a continental tram-train as a natural replacement for the pacer based on size and speed.

It will be interesting to see what the proposed trial results, when eventually released, show as to the view of the "pro's" and "con's" based upon the ACTUAL test running.

Some of the original Metrolink units have been in quite a number of road accidents in the central Manchester area. Were any results of the damage to these Metrolink units, sub-frame or bodyshell, taken into consideration into the preparatory papers on the "tram-train" unit that will be carrying out the proposed trials?.

 

[Anvil1984]

has anyone seen the trams in Nice?

They drop the pans and use batteries to get across the main squares.

Could this be adapted to work on tram trains?

Yeah Ive been on them,and seen the signs, basically as they dont want to ruin the scenery of the squares, it could be included in tram trains but only for small distances

 

[northwichcat]

Cheshire East council are to commission a report to study this method of transport on the Chester to Altrincham heavy rail route.

AFAIK the only thing Cheshire East council have said is about tram-trains is running them on the Chester to Altrincham line, which the media have assumed to mean they will start from Chester, when in fact they could start at Northwich.

 

[WatcherZero]

Cheshire East suggested one service (From the Cheshire line into Manchester via Altrincham) and Cheshire West has suggested another (Stockport services from Chester, using Tram-Train to make them cheaper and more frequent with possible street running in Chester itself).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Cheshire East suggested one service (From the Cheshire line into Manchester via Altrincham) and Cheshire West has suggested another (Stockport services from Chester, using Tram-Train to make them cheaper and more frequent with possible street running in Chester itself).

Once that Cheshire County Council was split into the two current bodies, they were obviously going to come up with such ideas eminating from their own area. Such competing schemes will diffuse the benefit that one scheme would have had, if the council had remained as one body.

 

[Ze Random One]

Tram-Train is essentially an already tried and tested mode of operating though.
Typically it is known as the Karlsruhe model because the city of Karlsruhe developed the modern version of it. But it is in use, and works, here in the UK, and it is a nonsense to suggest otherwise. Tyne and Wear Metro cars are built to light rail standards, although they are not built to be compatible with the road network. The Sunderland Direct extension runs on heavily-used network rail track from Pelaw Junction to Sunderland (although in fact the entire line to South Hylton is actually owned by NR). The two main issues that required accommodating, other than the OHLE, is that the signalling uses both TPWS and the german PZB system for train-stop functions, and there is a mandatory three-minute separation between light rail and heavy rail vehicles enforced by the signalling system. But the model works here and is not untested. What may be untested is the use of Light Rail Vehicles with diesel engines or battery/capacitor power.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is a most valid point and surely would come into consideration during the period of evaluation.