This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
LIGHT RAIL


The case for I


ndustry leaders in the light rail sector have been calling for a bigger Government push


on tram-train technology – by setting aside £100m a year from the £3bn ‘McNulty savings’ the heavy rail industry has to make.


At a recent meeting at the House of Commons, organised by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Light Rail, Geoff Inskip, chairman of UKTram and chief executive of Centro and pteg, said this would ensure the DfT can achieve its aim of delivering a better value-for- money railway and a greener, more sustainable economy.


He said that while the DfT’s tram-train trial in South Yorkshire is welcome, tram-train is a proven concept, especially elsewhere in Europe, and it is desirable that viable projects elsewhere proceed as soon as possible to ensure the UK is not missing out on the full benefits.


It can be more economical than heavy rail by reducing track maintenance and signalling costs, while lighter vehicles can serve more frequent stops without unduly extending overall running time. Street running in city centres can provide greater connectivity for passengers while reducing congestion at central stations, he said.


The following is an extract from Inskip’s speech on this issue.


“Whilst the PTEs collectively welcome the DfT national tram-train trial as a test bed for heavy rail, there is a risk that the trial may not be able to demonstrate the full range of potential benefits of all the various options for tram- train.


“I believe it is therefore essential for ITAs and PTEs to continue to develop complementary/ supplementary tram-train projects elsewhere around the country. This will enable successful outcomes of the national trial to be immediately captured in follow-on schemes without causing prolonged interruptions to the flow of suitable deliverable projects nationally (by allowing for necessarily lengthy scheme development stages).


“Therefore today I want to call on Government/ DfT to set aside £100m per annum from those savings they will be making from McNulty and ringfence that money for tram- train…Taking


into account the potential 132 | rail technology magazine Aug/Sep 12


tram-train


benefits and limitations, the following three scenarios summarise where tram-train could improve the current offer on UK transport systems. The ‘Efficiency’ scenario is where tram-train can offer reduced costs of service provision compared with current rail services. Lighter vehicles should enable reduced track maintenance and renewal costs, in the same way that multiple unit operation offers savings to Network Rail compared with locomotive operation. Superior performance characteristics might also offer the opportunity for a different approach to signalling by transferring the control to drivers, especially in relatively low frequency operations or where there is a single service on a route. Tram-train also offers the potential to operate driver-only, transferring the limited safety responsibilities to the driver.


“Some of these cost benefits may be more attainable if the infrastructure were able to be transferred from Network Rail to a structure where tramway standards can be applied rather than railway standards. Passenger benefits, and therefore revenue growth potential, may also be possible through fleet replacement where the business case can be made on the basis of lower operating costs – these are likely only to apply on journeys of around 30 minutes or less given the characteristics of tram vehicles – [and] through the potential for additional station/stop sites without additional running time, enabled by the superior performance of tram-trains compared with trains.


“Possible applications: branch lines independent of the national network [or] branch lines capable of becoming independent of the national network.


“But PTEs are keen to see more tram conversions and new tram-train implemented in their regions for two reasons: to provide the


opportunity


for improved connectivity and to optimise existing rail services where they are constrained. “Scenario


two; opportunities for


RTM hears from Centro’s Geoff Inskip, chairman of UKTram.


better connectivity. Tram-train can enable new routes to be provided more cheaply than through building a new tram route by using spare rail capacity on existing corridors – perhaps surprisingly there is a significant quantity of such spare capacity within a couple of miles of major cities which is unable to be used because the final access to the terminal is at capacity; by using former rail routes to reduce or avoid land acquisition, but leave open options for future rail use; by limiting the need for use of existing road space to that necessary to connect rail routes to trip generators and attractors; [and] by avoiding any claim by proposed services at key city centre rail nodes where capacity is scarce or required for longer distance services.


“This enables reductions to the capital costs for major projects, and makes possible positive business cases for investment, enabling communities to benefit from better access and connectivity which could not be afforded with either conventional rail or tram, or would not be included in rail development plans. Possible applications in Centro area: Wednesbury- Brierley Hill-Stourbridge / Walsall- Wolverhampton / Walsall-Wednesbury.


“Scenario 3 – optimising existing rail services. Many local rail networks include services where frequency is constrained by available capacity on a line where there is also a longer distance service. These services generally make frequent stops, and so use much more capacity than faster trains, as well as providing a lower financial return, and so improved frequencies are often prevented in order to allow for future long distance growth.


Below: Karlsruhe in Germany is the archetypal example of a heavy and light rail integration.


© Gregorius Mundus


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156