Sheffield/Rotherham Tram-Train update

[TC60054]

399205 is the latest commissioned for daytime testing, although I believe this was the tram that failed with a loss of power at Manor Top yesterday morning.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Press release:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds/easter-track-connection-marks-major-tram-train-milestone/

Worth following that link for the photo, showing one of the new tram-trains passing over the newly-installed junction (heading towards Meadowhall of course).

Edit: additional photos at the SYPTE press release - http://www.sypte.co.uk/media.aspx?id=5245

 

[snowball]

There's an amusing and enlightening pair of articles on trams vs. trains vs. tram-trains by Ian Walmsley, under the tile "Why can't a train be more like a tram?", in the current (May) issue of Modern Railways, pp. 38-45.

 

[TC60054]

399204 has made it's first daytime testing appearance today, this leaves just 399206 to make an appearance on the network during the daytime.

 

[Mordac]

There was a very interesting feature by Ian Walmsley on May's Modern's Railways about tram-trains. I share his skepticism of the concept, and I think one of his concluding paragraphs is worth quoting in full.

The tram-train experiment in Rotherham was meant to prove the concept for the UK, which it will eventually do in that it can be done. In my view it has also proved that it is usually not worth doing. We could probably have worked this out without the trial, but the compromises are just too great--you lose so much of what makes a tram so successful and relatively cheap. I say relatively as even tram systems run at a loss and installing them is a killer expense for most schemes. Tram-train is always going to be more expensive to install, certify, operate and buy stock for, so ask yourself--are you sure you really want to do this? Just because someone else does it doesn't make it right.

 

[WatcherZero]

His main concerns however were due Network Rail trying to sabotage the project and the cost of converting existing tram lines to accomodate tram trains. He still thinks its the way to go for new tram lines, particularly high floor ones.

 

[eastwestdivide]

The other quote I liked from that Modern Railways article was (from a tram specialist):

If you want to run a tram along a Network Rail line you would be better off buying the land next to it and laying your own track.

 

[Mordac]

His main concerns however were due Network Rail trying to sabotage the project and the cost of converting existing tram lines to accomodate tram trains. He still thinks its the way to go for new tram lines, particularly high floor ones.

What I took from the article is that he thinks tram-trains compromise too much, losing many of the advantages of trams, and that it's better to keep them separate and let each mode take advantage of its own strengths.

 

[D365]

It's a shame though, because reinstating the third and fourth tracks south of Sheffield Midland and running tram-trains all the way to Dore would have been the way to go I think.

 

[ECML180]

It's a shame though, because reinstating the third and fourth tracks south of Sheffield Midland and running tram-trains all the way to Dore would have been the way to go I think.

I would go even further and say a 'tram train' or light rail system of some sort would suit Dore to Sheffield to Doncaster via all shacks - then leave all heavy rail to non-stopping.

 

[TC60054]

I would go even further and say a 'tram train' or light rail system of some sort would suit Dore to Sheffield to Doncaster via all shacks - then leave all heavy rail to non-stopping.

I think SYPTE's vision was that if the Rotherham project went well then it would be eventually extended up to Doncaster, but I don't remember where I heard / read that.

It's a shame though, because reinstating the third and fourth tracks south of Sheffield Midland and running tram-trains all the way to Dore would have been the way to go I think.

I personally think there'd be no real benefit to having tram-trains through to Dore - there's plenty of communities along the route which imo would benefit from a pure tram service more than a tram-train service - think the latter would only really be able to call at Heeley and Millhouses, thus not serving possible areas like Woodseats, Abbeydale Road, etc.

 

[unlevel42]

Junction now fully installed, with quite a sizeable amount of track on the "mainline" being replaced as well. Area also completely reballasted. Facing Point Indicator not yet been installed though.

As of 03 May there is a no connection between the newly installed Supertram turnout and the new track below the M1 viaduct. Four (3m?)sections of rail are still to be fitted and welded.

 

[TC60054]

As of 03 May there is a no connection between the newly installed Supertram turnout and the new track below the M1 viaduct. Four (3m?)sections of rail are still to be fitted and welded.

Yes, the connection was made using temporary fishplates on the evening of the 17th April, and was removed shortly after - this was just to allow the track machine which had been participating in the works to move clear of the mainline so that the possession could be lifted for start of service the following morning.

 

[johnnychips]

I think SYPTE's vision was that if the Rotherham project went well then it would be eventually extended up to Doncaster, but I don't remember where I heard that/

I don't know how it could extend to Doncaster without extensive new tracks. It certainly couldn't use the existing heavy rail line with XC, TPE, Northern Hull fasts and freight. And I'm sure the people in Conisbrough, Mexborough and Swinton would prefer a half-hourly bouncy Pacer just calling additionally at Rotherham and Meadowhall than a multitude of tram stops.

 

[ECML180]

I don't know how it could extend to Doncaster without extensive new tracks. It certainly couldn't use the existing heavy rail line with XC, TPE, Northern Hull fasts and freight. And I'm sure the people in Conisbrough, Mexborough and Swinton would prefer a half-hourly bouncy Pacer just calling additionally at Rotherham and Meadowhall than a multitude of tram stops.

I think it would need a separate pair of light rail tracks most likely, no idea how access would work into Sheffield centre unless perhaps via the tram lines from Meadowhall? But give it a reasonable frequency and modern, electric trams and I think people would be quite happy, there's no need to put tram stops as near together a bus stops as it would probably be more of an inter-urban LRT system. Equally some second hand EMUs and an enhanced Sheffield to Doncaster (perhaps extending to Adwick/Airport in lieu of the Lincoln service) would do wonders for less expenditure.

 

[unlevel42]

An extension to Swinton would be possible with or without using existing track. New/more/possible connection for Rotherham passengers for services to Leeds, Cleethorpes, Hull, York and Leeds.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I don't know how it could extend to Doncaster without extensive new tracks. It certainly couldn't use the existing heavy rail line with XC, TPE, Northern Hull fasts and freight. And I'm sure the people in Conisbrough, Mexborough and Swinton would prefer a half-hourly bouncy Pacer just calling additionally at Rotherham and Meadowhall than a multitude of tram stops.

I think the core idea of a Tram-Train is that it operates much as a train when it's being a train i.e. without necessarily having stops ervery 1/2 mile, but with the added ability to leave the Railway and penetrate into town centres. Now I'm sure someone will cry "foul" over the 50mph top speed of the vehicles, and I'd tend to agree that along a short stretch between Aldwarke and Swinton, the Doncaster(/Moorthorpe) line does (very occasionally) see trains running up to 90mph. Co-incidentally on this stretch there is (a) enough land in the trackbed to add "slow" lines and (b) a more or less parallel (freight only most of the time) route the other side of the canal to Mexborough - either of which are a solution. As to the rest, between Swinton and Doncaster - I doubt a pacer exceeds 50mph between stops for very long, especially going uphill. And as to pathing - it might be argued that, if the intermediate stops were served by a frequent (say 20 minutes) tram-train, there might be no need for stopping heavy rails services at all.

 

[TC60054]

I think the core idea of a Tram-Train is that it operates much as a train when it's being a train i.e. without necessarily having stops ervery 1/2 mile, but with the added ability to leave the Railway and penetrate into town centres. Now I'm sure someone will cry "foul" over the 50mph top speed of the vehicles, and I'd tend to agree that along a short stretch between Aldwarke and Swinton, the Doncaster(/Moorthorpe) line does (very occasionally) see trains running up to 90mph. Co-incidentally on this stretch there is (a) enough land in the trackbed to add "slow" lines and (b) a more or less parallel (freight only most of the time) route the other side of the canal to Mexborough - either of which are a solution. As to the rest, between Swinton and Doncaster - I doubt a pacer exceeds 50mph between stops for very long, especially going uphill. And as to pathing - it might be argued that, if the intermediate stops were served by a frequent (say 20 minutes) tram-train, there might be no need for stopping heavy rails services at all.

No one can cry foul over a 50mph top speed when they're limited to 100kmh - 62mph. Without looking too much into it, I'm sure it is easily possible to do, maybe if the amount of local stopping services are reduced / rerouted as a result if it does happen. Don't forget there's also an opportunity through extension of the tram-train to serve some communities which have a railway line through them but not necessarily a railway station.

 

[D365]

Equally some second hand EMUs and an enhanced Sheffield to Doncaster (perhaps extending to Adwick/Airport in lieu of the Lincoln service) would do wonders for less expenditure.

If Sheffield-Doncaster is going electric within the next 8 years (following from MML electrification) I would have thought hanging on to a small 321 fleet (perhaps the Renatus units) be ideal.

 

[tbtc]

It's a shame though, because reinstating the third and fourth tracks south of Sheffield Midland and running tram-trains all the way to Dore would have been the way to go I think.

I personally think there'd be no real benefit to having tram-trains through to Dore - there's plenty of communities along the route which imo would benefit from a pure tram service more than a tram-train service - think the latter would only really be able to call at Heeley and Millhouses, thus not serving possible areas like Woodseats, Abbeydale Road, etc.

I'd leave the Dore route for four track heavy rail - it'll need it before long (given the current delays/ bottleneck and proposed frequency increases) - a station at Millhouses wouldn't go amiss either but isn't essential.

The rail alignment would be too far away from most houses/ shops in that corridor to attract people to walk the distance from Abbeydale Road/ Chesterfield Road (especially given the gradients, as anyone who has struggled up from Millhouses to Woodseats will know).

And then you'd find that your tram-train would only be dumping you at Midland station at the bottom of the valley (whilst the buses are serving The Moor etc).

A heavy rail station at Millhouses might work for passengers travelling further afield - but then you hit the problem of "local station on a busy long distance line" - which doesn't always work.

The trick with light rail is finding a way of serving a busy congested corridor (i.e. busy enough to justify frequent commercial bus services) without it being ridiculously expensive to build it or have it caught up in traffic.

The line to Meadowhall manages to avoid running on roads most of the way whilst going close enough to Hyde Park flats etc.

The line to Crystal Peaks takes a strange route but sneaks around to serve Manor Top and Gleadless en-route, without it just duplicating the bus corridor up City Road.

The Hillsborough lines get there partly due to a tunnel/ space in the middle of the ring road/ diverting road vehicles onto the A61 and away from Langsett Road.

I'm not sure how you'd get a tram to serve the Abbeydale Road corridor without mainly going along that road (which would be massively disruptive for a few years, leaving trams at the mercy of all of the stop-start traffic) or running along the railway line (which is too far away from most houses/ shops to be of much use).

Finding a niche for a tram to squeeze into Sheffield's valleys is a tricky one! Things will be a bit easier further down the Don Valley, where things are a little flatter!

 

[ECML180]

If Sheffield-Doncaster is going electric within the next 8 years (following from MML electrification) I would have thought hanging on to a small 321 fleet (perhaps the Renatus units) be ideal.

It would make a logical extension of the Leeds service, but how it would fit into other Leeds to Sheffield services is unclear. It is interesting though, I suspect a higher frequency service with electrics would be quite favourable, but I presume the tunnels in and out of Sheffield are near capacity and there may be some similar issues with platforming in Doncaster. Class 321s would probably be ideal, if a little large!

 

[D365]

It would make a logical extension of the Leeds service, but how it would fit into other Leeds to Sheffield services is unclear. It is interesting though, I suspect a higher frequency service with electrics would be quite favourable, but I presume the tunnels in and out of Sheffield are near capacity and there may be some similar issues with platforming in Doncaster. Class 321s would probably be ideal, if a little large!

Won't it be possible to reinstate a second pair of tracks north of Sheffield, at least some of the way towards Meadowhall?

And I imagine that one or two additional through platforms would be needed if Leeds-Doncaster is theoretically extended to Sheffield.

 

[IanXC]

It would make a logical extension of the Leeds service, but how it would fit into other Leeds to Sheffield services is unclear. It is interesting though, I suspect a higher frequency service with electrics would be quite favourable, but I presume the tunnels in and out of Sheffield are near capacity and there may be some similar issues with platforming in Doncaster. Class 321s would probably be ideal, if a little large!

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

Presumably if (when) Doncaster to Sheffield is wired, South Kirkby Junction to Swinton will also be. So in effect running this as a through service would give South Elmsall a through service to Sheffield (but of course it already has one from Moorthorpe), and Connisborough and Mexbrough a through service to Leeds. All while making the service that much less reliable...

 

[ECML180]

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

Probably very little more than via other alternatives, but I imagine it would be more efficient from a TOC point of view to join the two if they are to be 321 operated stoppers. As you say it provides a couple of extra connections for some stations, but by building a (fairly) fast & (fairly) frequent electric service I think it would allow suppressed demand which is currently unserved by infrequent pacers that can often get packed out both in the peaks and sometimes in the day. Leeds to Doncaster and Doncaster To Sheffield by themselves probably don't justify a 'step change' in quality but together it would probably justify it. Of the 3tph between DON and SHF, one is the stopper from Adwick (an ideal conversion to a through service) and two are longer distance which would probably benefit the (big station to big station) flows by getting a faster journey between DON and SHF. A consistent 2tph of stoppers all the way through (same as now DON - SHF and an increase LDS - DON) with nicer trains and a better acceleration profile would be attractive for local traffic - especially if it could reach 3tph in the peak.





NB I take back my previous comments about the Lincoln service, I thought it ran to Adwick but it seems it now runs to Scunthorpe.

 

[D365]

Probably very little more than via other alternatives, but I imagine it would be more efficient from a TOC point of view to join the two if they are to be 321 operated stoppers.

Don't forget Leeds-Doncaster is going over to Class 333 operation when the three-car Class 331s are introduced

 

[ECML180]

Don't forget Leeds-Doncaster is going over to Class 333 operation when the three-car Class 331s are introduced

You flatter me with the thought that I could have forgotten that when I'm not plugged in enough to even know in the first place! I think I'll still stand by my theory, even if the specifics don't quite stand up to scrutiny.

 

[ALEMASTER]

NB I take back my previous comments about the Lincoln service, I thought it ran to Adwick but it seems it now runs to Scunthorpe.

You are kind of right and wrong at the same time. It runs from Lincoln to Adwick and from Scunthorpe to Lincoln.

The pattern for the half hourly local service between Sheffield and Doncaster is
Sheffield-Scunthorpe / Lincoln-Adwick / Scunthorpe-Lincoln / Adwick-Sheffield
with units interworking.

 

[ALEMASTER]

I think a lot of discussions regarding the Sheffield to Doncaster service here is talking about a long time in the future, I don't see electrification happening any time soon the way things are going. The other proposal to keep in mind is a station at Robin Hood Doncaster/Sheffield Airport, on the Doncaster-Lincoln line at Finningley - this might see through services from Sheffield - either as a short extension terminating at the airport or perhaps making a circular service Sheffield-Doncaster-Airport-Lincoln-Worksop-Sheffield.

I'm not sure I see the future of tram-train as a direct replacement for existing train services, it is more about extending the tram network onto existing rail infrastructure serving places that doesn't currently have a train service or providing an alternative rail based service to existing destinations where capacity is full and there isn't prospect of upgrading capacity of the existing service.

The obvious future tram train projects in the Sheffield area would probably be Nunnery Square to Stocksbridge and Arena-Treeton-Beighton-Barrow Hill-Chesterfield. I think a Dore & Totley scheme is also a good idea if implemented correctly - using the main line railway alignment to provide a fast, traffic free run to Totley Brook with a terminus platform on the site of the old siding and a feeder bus up the hill to Bradway and Totley. With some investment in the infrastructure this could operate at much higher frequency than the current hourly at best Hope Valley train service.

 

[tbtc]

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

Presumably if (when) Doncaster to Sheffield is wired, South Kirkby Junction to Swinton will also be. So in effect running this as a through service would give South Elmsall a through service to Sheffield (but of course it already has one from Moorthorpe), and Connisborough and Mexbrough a through service to Leeds. All while making the service that much less reliable...

You've be talking a journey time of around eighty minutes from Sheffield to Leeds (maybe shaving a couple of minutes with EMU acceleration/ deceleration compared to Pacer timings today).

The current Dearne Valley service takes seventy five minutes to do thirty-something miles from Sheffield to Leeds, so going via Doncaster would only be slightly slower for journey options like Rotherham/ Swinton to Leeds (for example) - so you could find these journeys going up from hourly to three trains per hour - if it could be timed so that the two via Doncaster don't get overtaken by the one through Thurnscoe.

I'm not saying it'd solve a lot of problems, but it would at least remove a couple of journeys over the flat ECML (if it meant that the hourly Scunthorpe - Sheffield service became a Scunthorpe - Doncaster shuttle).

I certainly can't see any chance of running new services across the flat at Doncaster (i.e. Sheffield to Robin Hood Airport) - that'd be a non-starter until the 2030s when HS2 may free up some LDHS paths at Doncaster.

Bringing it back to "trams" - I see some merit in a "tram" service from central Sheffield through the old Tinsley yard to serve stations at Catcliffe and Treeton.

Beighton might be better served by a spur from the current tram line at Crystal Peaks though.

 

[IanXC]

Probably very little more than via other alternatives, but I imagine it would be more efficient from a TOC point of view to join the two if they are to be 321 operated stoppers. As you say it provides a couple of extra connections for some stations, but by building a (fairly) fast & (fairly) frequent electric service I think it would allow suppressed demand which is currently unserved by infrequent pacers that can often get packed out both in the peaks and sometimes in the day. Leeds to Doncaster and Doncaster To Sheffield by themselves probably don't justify a 'step change' in quality but together it would probably justify it. Of the 3tph between DON and SHF, one is the stopper from Adwick (an ideal conversion to a through service) and two are longer distance which would probably benefit the (big station to big station) flows by getting a faster journey between DON and SHF. A consistent 2tph of stoppers all the way through (same as now DON - SHF and an increase LDS - DON) with nicer trains and a better acceleration profile would be attractive for local traffic - especially if it could reach 3tph in the peak.





NB I take back my previous comments about the Lincoln service, I thought it ran to Adwick but it seems it now runs to Scunthorpe.

I'm not sure there is any opportunity to increase frequencies beyond that currently provided on any of these routes without significant infrastructure investment, or even more unattractive looping of stopping services. So your analysis of a 'fairly fast, fairly frequent' service may be some way from reality.

Growth on these routes is going to be down to higher quality rolling stock and better timekeeping achievable by use of electric traction in my opinion.

I still fail to see the attraction of joining these services together. To flesh out the disbenefits further, they'd mean always having to wait for a through platform at Doncaster (which at times of ECML disruption can be difficult already), would mean an incomprehensible increase in imports of disruptions to and from CrossCountry to the East Coast Mainline, and I shudder to think the impact this would have on access to and from the Rotherham loop, whilst working amongst the Tram Trains....

You've be talking a journey time of around eighty minutes from Sheffield to Leeds (maybe shaving a couple of minutes with EMU acceleration/ deceleration compared to Pacer timings today).

The current Dearne Valley service takes seventy five minutes to do thirty-something miles from Sheffield to Leeds, so going via Doncaster would only be slightly slower for journey options like Rotherham/ Swinton to Leeds (for example) - so you could find these journeys going up from hourly to three trains per hour - if it could be timed so that the two via Doncaster don't get overtaken by the one through Thurnscoe.

I'm not saying it'd solve a lot of problems, but it would at least remove a couple of journeys over the flat ECML (if it meant that the hourly Scunthorpe - Sheffield service became a Scunthorpe - Doncaster shuttle).

It all comes down to the extent to which journey times can be improved on the Sheffield to South Kirkby Junction section - if this improves by more than 10 minutes through electrification then the via Doncaster route becomes even more uncompetitive. The diesel schedules on the via Moorthorpe route also may well be improved at 100mph rather than 75mph - it is not unusual for there to be standing time around South Kirby Junction and/or Hemsworth Loop.