Bingham NET Extension Proposals

[HSTEd]

So every so often it is proposed that the Nottingham tram system would be extended east towards Bingham

My normal understanding is that such a system would consist of a relatively short section of tram line that then connects to the Grantham-Nottingham line with the remainder being run as a tram train, under 750vDC electrification (at least in the medium term).

However I have seen some newspaper articles and such that seem to imply that the route would actually be run on a dedicated alignment to Bingham, does anyone know about that?

I will declare a personal interest in that I am on the Grantham-Nottingham line and I would love the tram to eventually extend using tram trains all the way to Grantham (with suitable stations near Gonerby with the new housing development etc) but I understand that is unlikely to ever happen.

So what is proposed to happen with Bingham?

EDIT:
An example such newspaper articles would be:
Newark Advertiser - Nov 2015
There have also been occasional articles in the Nottingham Evening Post but I have been unable to locate online copies of those.

 

[Robertj21a]

So every so often it is proposed that the Nottingham tram system would be extended east towards Bingha
My normal understanding is that such a system would consist of a relatively short section of tram line that then connects to the Grantham-Nottingham line with the remainder being run as a tram train, under 750vDC electrification (at least in the medium term).

However I have seen some newspaper articles and such that seem to imply that the route would actually be run on a dedicated alignment to Bingham, does anyone know about that?

I wil declare a personal interest in that I am on the Grantham-Nottingham line and I would love the tram to eventually extend using tram trains all the way to Grantham (with suitable stations near Gonerby with the new housing development etc) but I understand that is unlikely to ever happen.

So what is proposed to happen with Bingham?

I've never even heard of any plan to connect the tram anywhere near Bingham - where has that idea come from ? [it's a total dead duck in my view !]

 

[HSTEd]

I've never even heard of any plan to connect the tram anywhere near Bingham - where has that idea come from ? [it's a total dead duck in my view !]

Wikipedia and repeated local newspaper articles suggest that Gedling and Bingham would be reasonable targets for future extensions.

If you do go into East Nottingham then Bingham is a reasonable target thanks to the light use of the Grantham-Nottingham line and its extremely low chance of 25kV electrification any time soon.

 

[Robertj21a]

Wikipedia and repeated local newspaper articles suggest that Gedling and Bingham would be reasonable targets for future extensions.

If you do go into East Nottingham then Bingham is a reasonable target thanks to the light use of the Grantham-Nottingham line and its extremely low chance of 25kV electrification any time soon.

Thanks. I don't live in the area so had never heard of any such proposal. I can imagine there being traffic for just West Bridgford but it's largely open country then until Bingham. Last time I was out that way a regular bus seemed to cope perfectly adequately.

 

[HSTEd]

Thanks. I don't live in the area so had never heard of any such proposal. I can imagine there being traffic for just West Bridgford but it's largely open country then until Bingham. Last time I was out that way a regular bus seemed to cope perfectly adequately.

The tram could probably follow the railway alignment or something close (it is a tram-train after all) which takes it through Carlton, Netherfield and then drops back into Radcliffe after crossing the Trent.

From Radcliffe there is only a couple of miles in open country to Bingham.
And once you have tram trains the marginal cost of continuing on is relatively small.

 

[edwin_m]

Complicated by the fact that the trams in Nottingham are narrower and have to negotiate tighter curves than the Sheffield ones or any on the Continent, so a tram-train for Nottingham would have to be a new design.

There have been various suggestions to extend the Robin Hood Line to Bingham, which I think is much more likely to happen (are there still turnback facilities since the re-signalling?).

 

[HSTEd]

There have been various suggestions to extend the Robin Hood Line to Bingham, which I think is much more likely to happen (are there still turnback facilities since the re-signalling?).

According to the Electronic Sectional Appendix there are no crossovers between Allington and the Nottingham end of Radcliffe station.

 

[kevjs]

Thanks. I don't live in the area so had never heard of any such proposal. I can imagine there being traffic for just West Bridgford but it's largely open country then until Bingham. Last time I was out that way a regular bus seemed to cope perfectly adequately.

On the tram side West Bridgford (Gamston P&R & Sharphill Wood P&R) was the fourth/fifth route looked at in depth but had pretty low (but still positive) CBA, and would also require the widening of Trent Bridge. - little gain in speed either due to extensive on street running - surprised it's never been a feature of southside/eastside to stimulate development there. AIUI the other routes have never been looked at in detail but various political proposals have been suggested at times.

There have been a couple of proposals to reopen the Nottingham to Melton Line - these are outlined in a book about the Nottingham to Melton line (sorry forgot the name, but was in the West Bridgford Library).

1) Late 1980s - using the existing Cotgrave Colliery bridge over the River Trent build a 4 mile Link to Widmerpool and add a new station at Cotgrave (to help retain the prosperity of the town should the Colliery ever close).

Would be used for carrying Coal to Cotgrave Colliery (which eventually closed in 1993) and the recently introduced Sprinters running from the North West to East Anglia (presumably the modern day Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich service).

2) In October 1992 Notts County Council & Regional Railways proposed extending the Robin Hood Line by initially adding stations Long Eaton Town, Sandiacre, Ilkeston, Wollaton, and Saxondale. In the Medium term a 4 mile link would add Cotgrave to this too. (i.e. revisiting the 1980s suggestion above).

IIRC there have been on/off proposals for a rail based P&R site at Saxondale too.

EDIT: Just found I've mentioned this on the forum before http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2610486&postcount=406

 

[edwin_m]

There have been a couple of proposals to reopen the Nottingham to Melton Line - these are outlined in a book about the Nottingham to Melton line (sorry forgot the name, but was in the West Bridgford Library).

Now built on in several places - most significantly nothing remains between Bridgford Road and just south of Melton Road. The apparently surviving section south of there has been encroached on by flats, so not much of it is useable even by trams.

 

[davetheguard]

I've never even heard of any plan to connect the tram anywhere near Bingham - where has that idea come from ? [it's a total dead duck in my view !]

There's a two page article on NET extensions in the April 2017 Modern Railways; see the centre pages under the heading "To Toton & Beyond".

No mention of a place called Bingham though. Easterly extensions discussed are to Gedling, or to a new Park & Ride site at Radcliffe.

I'm afraid I'm not local, so can't claim to know much about the geography of the area!

 

[edwin_m]

There's a two page article on NET extensions in the April 2017 Modern Railways; see the centre pages under the heading "To Toton & Beyond".

No mention of a place called Bingham though. Easterly extensions discussed are to Gedling, or to a new Park & Ride site at Radcliffe.

I'm afraid I'm not local, so can't claim to know much about the geography of the area!

The map in the article is very small scale and from the text it appears the proposals aren't very well developed yet. From the suggested delta junction just south of the station, it would presumably go east along or parallel to Meadows Way. Where Meadows Way swings south, the line would continue ahead across London Road and the canal (on County Road or via a new bridge). It could then cut through the Cattle Market area to continue alongside Daleside Road and Daleside Road East (the former Great Northern railway) and Colwick Loop Road. This route would be fast and serve employment areas but would completely miss the residential suburbs.

The map identifies a junction at Teal Close, near the Victoria Retail Park which was once part of the vast Great Northern yards at Colwick. From here the obvious route to Gedling is the disused railway which once went right round the north side of Nottingham, but latterly served only Gedling Colliery and is mostly obliterated beyond its site. The other branch could share Network Rail tracks for a very short distance to cross the Trent, otherwise would need a new bridge alongside. This is the railway to Radcliffe and Bingham but the map shows the tramway diverging, presumably onto the first part of the disused Cotgrave branch, to terminate at a park and ride on the A52.

 

[kevjs]

Now built on in several places - most significantly nothing remains between Bridgford Road and just south of Melton Road. The apparently surviving section south of there has been encroached on by flats, so not much of it is useable even by trams.

Sorry, wasn't really clear in my wording - reconnecting Nottingham to the Melton Line would have been more accurate - both proposals had it going via Cotgrave (so branching off as it approaches Radcliffe-on-Trent as Lady Bay Bridge is now part of the A6011 not to mention the other limitations - i.e. basically travel along the A612 and then A46 corridors rather than the A606 of old to Widemerpool).

 

[kevjs]

but the map shows the tramway diverging, presumably onto the first part of the disused Cotgrave branch, to terminate at a park and ride on the A52.

Interestingly this was sold by Network Rail a few years ago (2011 I think) to Rushcliffe Borough Council - with the long term intention of it being used as a cycle route to link Colwick Country Park, Holme Pierpont Country Park and Cotgrave Country park)

 

[edwin_m]

Sorry, wasn't really clear in my wording - reconnecting Nottingham to the Melton Line would have been more accurate - both proposals had it going via Cotgrave (so branching off as it approaches Radcliffe-on-Trent as Lady Bay Bridge is now part of the A6011 not to mention the other limitations - i.e. basically travel along the A612 and then A46 corridors rather than the A606 of old to Widemerpool).

There was also an idea kicking around, possibly part of the same proposal, to connect the GCR(N) somewhere around East Leake to the Cotgrave branch so that trains from the south could diverge at Loughborough and enter Nottingham via Netherfield.

 

[HSTEd]

I suppose a lot of this stuff depends on whether the NET wants to follow the Metrolink and Tyne and Wear Metro into becoming some sort of pseudo S-bahn or if it wants to stay as a purely local system.

NET as an S-bahn would probably go to Grantham, Derby and Mansfield for a start, and probably a bunch of other places.

 

[edwin_m]

I suppose a lot of this stuff depends on whether the NET wants to follow the Metrolink and Tyne and Wear Metro into becoming some sort of pseudo S-bahn or if it wants to stay as a purely local system.

NET as an S-bahn would probably go to Grantham, Derby and Mansfield for a start, and probably a bunch of other places.

I still think it's too slow for use outside built-up areas. Top speed on NET is about 45mph, which is fair enough with stops every mile or so but on rural sections with wider-spaced stops heavy rail or even something like TrentBarton's Red Arrow is going to be quicker as well as more comfortable.

 

[HSTEd]

I still think it's too slow for use outside built-up areas. Top speed on NET is about 45mph, which is fair enough with stops every mile or so but on rural sections with wider-spaced stops heavy rail or even something like TrentBarton's Red Arrow is going to be quicker as well as more comfortable.

Because once you have one piece of line operating at 45mph maximum, all sections of line must operate at 45mph top speed?
Being that the existing lines will consume the entire existing tram fleet, and probably require extas if passenger numbers grow, future expansions can operate with tram trains suitable to 60mph (or slightly more) operations.

And given the very low speeds of railway lines in the region that is easily competitive when combined with ludicrous tram acceleration.

 

[kevjs]

Because once you have one piece of line operating at 45mph maximum, all sections of line must operate at 45mph top speed?
Being that the existing lines will consume the entire existing tram fleet, and probably require extas if passenger numbers grow, future expansions can operate with tram trains suitable to 60mph (or slightly more) operations.

And given the very low speeds of railway lines in the region that is easily competitive when combined with ludicrous tram acceleration.

Especially as the roads to the likes of Grantham are also, primarily, NSL 60 (de-facto 40) too...

As part of HS2 links NET extensions to Derby are being looked at too http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-36396280

 

[edwin_m]

Because once you have one piece of line operating at 45mph maximum, all sections of line must operate at 45mph top speed?
Being that the existing lines will consume the entire existing tram fleet, and probably require extas if passenger numbers grow, future expansions can operate with tram trains suitable to 60mph (or slightly more) operations.

And given the very low speeds of railway lines in the region that is easily competitive when combined with ludicrous tram acceleration.

No tram operates at more than 80km/h, and while tram-trains can reach 100km/h they aren't compatible with the narrow width and tight curves needed to run in the centre of Nottingham. So Nottingham would be taking a big risk on a new design.

As I posted a couple of pages back.

 

[HSTEd]

No tram operates at more than 80km/h, and while tram-trains can reach 100km/h they aren't compatible with the narrow width and tight curves needed to run in the centre of Nottingham. So Nottingham would be taking a big risk on a new design.

Even at 80km/h they would be competitive with the existing timetabled railway journey.
And it is likely that a tramtrain prototype could be ordered before committing to spending the money necessary for a series of regional extensions.
Ordering the design of a narrower tighter-curve capable tram train is hardly likely to break the bank on such a scheme.

 

[edwin_m]

Even at 80km/h they would be competitive with the existing timetabled railway journey.
And it is likely that a tramtrain prototype could be ordered before committing to spending the money necessary for a series of regional extensions.
Ordering the design of a narrower tighter-curve capable tram train is hardly likely to break the bank on such a scheme.

How much do you think a single vehicle would cost, given that it would involve a new design of almost all components? And even if you can find a way of using a single vehicle intensively enough to show up any problems, what do you do if it turns out not to be reliable?

 

[kevjs]

No tram operates at more than 80km/h, and while tram-trains can reach 100km/h they aren't compatible with the narrow width and tight curves needed to run in the centre of Nottingham. So Nottingham would be taking a big risk on a new design.

As I posted a couple of pages back.

Would a new line need to run in the centre of Nottingham on the existing tracks.. Look at MetroLink - once you get above a certain number of lines there may well need to be a new route through the centre anyway. For the likes of Bingham as a tram in Bingham/Cotgrave/Radcliffe and on the National Rail network into Nottingham would mean they don't even need to cope with existing routes...

 

[edwin_m]

Would a new line need to run in the centre of Nottingham on the existing tracks.. Look at MetroLink - once you get above a certain number of lines there may well need to be a new route through the centre anyway. For the likes of Bingham as a tram in Bingham/Cotgrave/Radcliffe and on the National Rail network into Nottingham would mean they don't even need to cope with existing routes...

A cross-city route may be possible but catapults the scheme into mega-buck territory. Hard to see where it might go either - the long-awaited Broadmarsh re-development might open up a route via Listergate but it would probably re-join the existing one to cross Parliament Street, which is probably the biggest cause of road traffic delays in the central area. Also problematic to connect it to the "Karlsruhe Friendship Bridge". And before anyone mentions it, the Great Central tunnel would involve demolishing a new-ish art gallery, a fairly unpleasant station in the Victoria car park and no access to anywhere else in the centre. I suspect the tram frequency on the existing route could be increased significantly by restricting general traffic on Parliament Street where it crosses the tracks.

It's extremely difficult to run two different widths of tram on the same network. The platforms are positioned to meet accessibility stepping distance requirements for the narrow trams and would foul the wider ones. Fitting the narrow ones with bridge plates would probably be impossible.

The economics of tram-train don't generally stack up unless they can serve somewhere significant that the railway doesn't. I can't see the centres of the smaller towns/villages doing this. Might be possible engineering-wise in Radcliffe (at the cost of slowing journeys from further east). It would be very difficult to do in Bingham though - how to cope with the A52 and A46?

 

[HSTEd]

How much do you think a single vehicle would cost, given that it would involve a new design of almost all components?

I would expect £3-4 million in all likelyhood - and it is not likely to be all new components considering that a Citadis Compact tram and the Citadis family more generally is supposedly available in 2.4m widths [the same as the existing fleet]. Here is something that purports to be a brochure for the family.

As I understand it the narrower width and low floor should put the tram platform outside the traditional network rail loading gauge, which means trains should be able to run past tram stops without issue or requiring set backs, and trams should be entirely inside the normal railway loading gauge.

And even if you can find a way of using a single vehicle intensively enough to show up any problems, what do you do if it turns out not to be reliable?

... the same thing that happens when any of this newbuild stock we order all the time turns out to not be reliable?

 

[HSTEd]

The economics of tram-train don't generally stack up unless they can serve somewhere significant that the railway doesn't. I can't see the centres of the smaller towns/villages doing this. Might be possible engineering-wise in Radcliffe (at the cost of slowing journeys from further east). It would be very difficult to do in Bingham though - how to cope with the A52 and A46?

The demand on the Nottingham-Grantham corridor generally is suppressed by the service being awful though.
The train sits for ten minutes outside Nottingham half the time waiting for a platform, and somehow the stopping train manages to take about the same time as the 'fast' one.
And since the trains are only ten minutes apart its effectively only an hourly service.

Switching to a tram solution would enable a more frequency service that would not have to spend a significant fraction of the journey time stationary in the Nottingham approach.
And four vehicles an hour might get rather more out of Bingham, Bottesford and Grantham's population than the current mess.

 

[edwin_m]

I would expect £3-4 million in all likelyhood - and it is not likely to be all new components considering that a Citadis Compact tram and the Citadis family more generally is supposedly available in 2.4m widths [the same as the existing fleet]. Here is something that purports to be a brochure for the family.

You're paying that sort of money for a production tram-train of a standard design, and that was before Brexit. I see Alstom claim a 2.4m vehicle with a 100km/h speed but I'm pretty sure they've never built one.

As I understand it the narrower width and low floor should put the tram platform outside the traditional network rail loading gauge, which means trains should be able to run past tram stops without issue or requiring set backs, and trams should be entirely inside the normal railway loading gauge.

How can reducing the tram width put the platform further away from the track? According to GE/RT8073 the lower sector gauge at 350mm above rail is 2.7m wide.

... the same thing that happens when any of this newbuild stock we order all the time turns out to not be reliable?

So imagine how much worse if it's also first off of a new design.

 

[HSTEd]

You're paying that sort of money for a production tram-train of a standard design, and that was before Brexit. I see Alstom claim a 2.4m vehicle with a 100km/h speed but I'm pretty sure they've never built one.

Even if its double that its still not a large fraction of the cost of such schemes.
And since that work is going to have to be done anyway if you want NET to be anything but a minor curiosity it might be useful to get it done now.

How can reducing the tram width put the platform further away from the track? According to GE/RT8073 the lower sector gauge at 350mm above rail is 2.7m wide.

What is the actual NET platform height? I can't seem to find any real information, but I know that LUAS is down at 280mm so its not unreasonable that NET might be similar considering its a relatively 'compact' system.
It would be annoying if trains cannot pass tram platforms, since that would require interlaced tracks etc at intermediate stations.

 

[edwin_m]

Both Luas and NET use Alstom Citadis, albeit different versions, so the platform height may be similar. However the Network Rail gauge I referred to earlier is the same width down to 270mm.

I think interlaced track is only used at one place for tram-platform stepping distance purposes, that being Baunatal near Kassel. It would add a couple of million to the cost of a tram-train stop.

 

[ashworth]

I find it very difficult to get my head around what his thread is all about. At first I thought it was some kind of April Fool stunt!

I can just about see how a tram extension to Bingham perhaps might be an idea, but I just can't understand the idea of any extension beyond Bingham through miles of sparsely populated countryside to Grantham. Surely if NET is to be extended at all it would be to densely populated urban areas of Nottingham not already served by trams. Areas like Arnold, Carlton, Netherfield, Gedling, West Bridgeford etc. Even extensions already discussed out to Kimberley and Eastwood, and an extension beyond Hucknall to new housing developments near Linby and Newstead make sense. But Grantham!!!

Other larger systems already referred to around Manchester or Newcastle link large urban areas not miles of rural countryside. Comparing with Manchester, Bingham, Bottesford and Grantham do not really compare with Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Ashton, Salford etc. They are also within the same local authority of Greater Manchester but a line to Grantham would involve Nottingham City, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire. It just won't happen.

 

[Robertj21a]

The demand on the Nottingham-Grantham corridor generally is suppressed by the service being awful though.
The train sits for ten minutes outside Nottingham half the time waiting for a platform, and somehow the stopping train manages to take about the same time as the 'fast' one.
And since the trains are only ten minutes apart its effectively only an hourly service.

Switching to a tram solution would enable a more frequency service that would not have to spend a significant fraction of the journey time stationary in the Nottingham approach.
And four vehicles an hour might get rather more out of Bingham, Bottesford and Grantham's population than the current mess.

Sorry to say it but I think this is all getting a bit into fantasy land. I don't see anything like enough demand for any more than an occasional bus between Bingham and Grantham. With Grantham in Lincolnshire and sleepy Bottesford in Leicestershire I think we can safely kill off any ideas that far away from Nottingham.