Apart from the major technical breakthrough of pivoting bogies under 100% low
floor, note the passenger information system that goes even further with a
GPS-based real-time information system - see the tram moving on a map, your
real arrival times and the actual (as opposed to theoretical) times of your
connections (pic on first page of Railpage post).
And an interesting feature on carrying bicycles on board as well as wheelchairs
and prams:
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 2:37pm.
Toronto is in a gordian knot with this one. They have an old track system with
11m radius curves and nobody has designed a 100% low floor tram that can turn
so tightly. Toronto apparently won't compromise on reconfiguring its curves to
min 20m radius which is now modern standard (like Sydney MLR) and which most
advanced old systems have reconstructed their curves to (even Melbourne
largely, and that is saying something!):
Even the Skoda ForCity only turns down to 18m (15m in depot) and Bombardier is
having trouble coming up with a design. The solution is generally to have only
part low-floor with normal bogies under the high floor sections but Toronto is
not compromising on 100% low floor and won't reconfigure its curves. There'd be
a couple of manufacturers out there at the moment with their design sections on
valium trying to get something to get them a sale! Sounds like obstinate
bureaucracy gone mad.
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 2:39pm.
Have a look at the San Diego Trolley operation, the original and best of the new US light rail systems, opened from downtown San Diego to San Ysidro (across the border from Tijuana and the donkey show) in 1980, and growing ever since. It's just what you described.
Also look at Portland where the MAX light rail, which is following most of the old the old PEPCo. interurban lines closed 1939-1958, and is complemented by Portland Streetcar, an on street tram operation using Skoda-Inekon low floor trams to service old industrial and railyard land near the centre of Portland being developed for housing.
And, I'll modestly point out, this is precisely what I've advocated since joining Ecotransit in the face of the hole-in-the-ground troglodytes. It is the definition of "Eco Transit' as far as I'm concerned.
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:43pm.
I have to say that I agree with MM on the general superiority of surface modes over any hole in the ground scheme. As supporters of "ecologically sustainable transit" we need to recognise the paradigms have shifted with peak oil and global warming, and metro, totally grade separated heavy rail and other high energy consumption modes - both in construction and operation - have seen their time pass.
In the future the issue won't be how fast you get there but how you get there on the least energy input, and trains like the Milennium and PPP sets for Sydney, pulling 4,000 amps just to turn a wheel, are dinosaurs like 1950s American V8 cars in that context. That's why I back the San Diego Trolley and similar systems over all grade separated money and energy sucking modes.
The electric light railway has been around in generic form since the 1880s, has a proven record of efficiency and reliability, has shown its adaptability to run in tunnels or on elevated structures where necessary where metro etc can't run on the surface except in an intrusive fenced, separated corridor. And like in Edmonton, can and in future will have to run on 100% renewable power. That's why lunatics like Dr Strangelove and his owner-operators hate it.
On a broader view of things aviation and heavy rail and road freight transport is going to decline for the same reasons. Aviation is already, and the greedy western consumer is going to have to learn to get along with less of everything, including profligate use of transportation. I think we'll see a return of dirgible airships and wind powered sea navigation as the real costs of energy use and environment damage hit home, so we need to embrace E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" seriously.
The time of "big" is over, and failure to recognize that puts us in the same camp as the "growth and greed is good" idiots who have stuffed things up and brought the world to where it is now, on the precipice of oblivion.
We can be part of the problem or part of the solution, and embracing any of the assumptions of the deathwish society that surrounds us puts us firmly in the former camp. I know where I stand.
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:46pm.
Yeah. I think we have to be very careful about getting stuck with the old style of argument that says that we must aim to make public transport in every way faster, cooler, etc., than the car – the one that said that folks will come back to PT when it's a faster way of getting there than the car. That was always going to be a hard ask, technically speaking but in the energy-poor future it will be increasingly irrelevant. We'll be lucky just to keep up with demand for PT.
Even now, there are people switching to PT or motor bikes or bicycles, just because they can't afford the fuel.
Like I say, many of the solutions will have to be social, rather than transport-techno and people will just have to drop their expectations about how far they can travel and how quickly they can do it.
A case in point: the Easson "Western FastRail". So you can get from Parra to the City in 15 minutes. So what? It'll eat power and there'll be a premium charge that the punters won't be able to pay. The thing would end up being the Concorde airliner of trains.
That having been said, I think we should fight for the nicest, fastest trains and trams commensurate with reasonable energy usage.
BTW, did you-all see that NSW has put in for $40bn worth of proposal to be funded from the $15bn Federal fund?
Considering the regard in which they're held I would have thought they'd be meek and conservative and put in for about $5bn worth of carefully-considered and argued priorities, but they've gone for a mad ambit claim.
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 2:45pm.
Tram systems in Europe can also operate along the same rocketing lines as the metro you describe. It is a curse having the Melbourne system here as the only example to show people and they can't understand why people could be so enthusiastic about something so slow! BTW MLR also rockets along at 70kph when it wants to! I have no doubt tram is best for Dulwich Hill line though. Doesn't
have the market characteristics for a metro line (nor do Pyrmont and Balmain for that matter!).
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:00pm.
It's actually the 'market' characteristics that I would like the public to get a handle upon as part of this exercise. Why you'd do one mode here but not there...Sydney examples would be good to have so that people can use a mental map of the terrain to get a sense of what works where...
LM
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:08pm.
Ah yes I'd imagined that anything too far would be out of reach for MU'd trams. I've been on the MLR a few times when they've really picked up the pace, it was definitely over 70km/h. I guess I didn't note it because it doesn't rocket along at 70km/h very much of the time, unlike route 96, which has a lot to do with all the curves on the Lilyfield line. The Dulwich Hill section should be pretty brisk though.
Looking at Sydney, and looking at T.'s links to other systems using MU'd trams (thanks for the links, very insightful stuff. I've heard a lot of good about those Skoda trams), there's a lot that could be served by trams, single-unit and MU'd. Understanding where each mode fits really makes the CBD Metro look even more like an expensive lemon. By the same measure, there are definitely corridors where metros would be very appropriate...though perhaps not very important just yet. Before any metro is built I'd be very interested in investigating the idea of converting existing CityRail lines for metro operation, where possible. The ESR would be the first candidate.
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 2:50pm.
... generally the
hierarchy would be much like this (all generalisations, specific circumstances vary and some modes can blend):
Suburban/interurban heavy rail - longer haul commuting and linking of more distant centres where journey time warrants greater provision of seating for passengers. Distance say min 10-15 km and longer, journey time 30-40 mins and longer. (In inner Sydney, suburban rail tries to be metro, Bradfield had it worked out for a while but huge growth of Sydney undermined that).
Metro - shorter haul commuting and linking of closer high density centres with emphasis on high passenger volumes and standees. Distance probably 8-20 km, journey time max about 30 mins. Limited applicability in Sydney due to our low density, really works best in high density cities like in Europe or Asia. (NW metro tried to be suburban rail - a joke - except it had a hidden agenda of intense high density urban consolidation along its route)
Tram-train - metro type operation with additional flexibilty of running train (2 or 3 coupled LRVs) onto streets/surface reservation to give greater penetration at each end. (They're going to try this in Adelaide)
Tram/light rail - intensive traffic over shorter distances in areas of continuous fairly intense development. Light rail component (reservation running) may extend scope over longer segments. Performs local role infilling between ststaions of metro/suburban trains. Emphasis more on standees though good design (especially unidirectional trams) can maximise seating. Up to about
8-12 km range - although a line can be much longer but it is performing a local/ segmental function. One wouldn't use it as the commute for the whole distance, this is the role of trains (or tram/trains). (Dr Strangelove and others think you can move straight from buses to metro without trams in between. Proven in Europe not to work.)
Bus - feeder role to tram and train services, cross-regional service in lower-density context, serving areas that might be hard to serve by rail (e.g. hilly = trolleybuses). (In Sydney successive state governments since the 1940s have tried to pretend buses can also be trains and trams. Didn't and doesn't work.)
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 1:54pm.
I think what TP has said there very clearly explains that "one size fits all" will never work. That's an important for not only the public but the government too.
The tram-train operation is one that's crossed my mind in the past, running 2-3 trams together to form a single consist. The flexibility of being able to run the same trams that can run in single unit operation together in MU operation, while still being able to send them on street if necessary, could be brilliant.
A burning question I've been wanting to ask for some time (which I think Tony P might be able to answer for me): Could running a 3-unit tram consist on a dedicated light rail corridor be at all competitive with a dedicated metro, over a similar distance, taking track alignment into account? Given that most modern trams have very good acceleration and braking, and pretty decent capacity per unit? Melbourne's route 96 tram runs a large section on a disused heavy rail corridor, run exclusively by 5-section low-floor trams. Those trams absolutely rocket along that line (granted it is mostly straight) often with full standing loads, easily hitting over 70km/h sometimes. In that situation I couldn't imagine a metro could be much faster, if at all?
I guess part of the reason for this question is to form an answer as to why some people seem to think that the Dulwich Hill line would be much better operated by metro, rather than trams. I can't imagine how that would be any better, particularly if MU operation of trams could be possible?
I've never used a metro system in my life, although I was very impressed with what I saw of the Paris Metro on a Youtube video, with metros arriving at least every minute at a terminus, dumping their load and then rocketing out of the station. It's almost hypnotic to watch for a Sydneysider...it's just so efficient!
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:12pm.
I think MU trams (now a bit of an old-fashioned train-like practice) may be superceded by the practice of adding modules to the current type of low floor tram - e.g. the Budapest Combinos that are 54 metres long http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combino_Supra). And MLR I understand operates up to 80 kph (I suspect Glebe tunnel is the main speedway!)
Re inner CityRail lines as metro, Bradfield went halfway down that track - I think lines like the inner west/Bankstown circuit were always defacto metro lines and if you could separate them you may be able to accomplish that. However there are situations where other operational scenarios might intrude, like the very desirable goal of running Illawarra inter-urbans from Wollongong
through to BJ. It may be possible to mingle this with a metro but quite a bit of homework would be required before such a move I imagine.
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:14pm.
Yes Glebe Tunnel is the main speedway, depending on the driver though. There are speed boards at the Glebe end marked 40km/h...most trams do well over that though, the average seems to be around 60 or so. Metro Transport are very cautious sometimes...
I've previously seen some stuff about the Combino Supra, fairly impressive. I'm not a huge fan of the Combino personally, based on Melbourne's Combinos; the internal layout around the bogies is a bit wasteful and cramped for the single seat that can be fitted. Sydney's Varios have a really good layout by comparison, although I've heard the traction equipment is quite different and slightly on the underpowered side vs. Combino. I think Melb's Citadis cars have a better internal layout, they have leaning post sections as well in the middle of the tram, like a couple of the Metrobuses (should be renamed 'Meant-to-be-trams') here do. Works very well on a tram, can make standing reasonably comfortable. The other thing with the Combino's is their fairly harsh ride, though that has a lot to do with track quality in Melbourne. Still from memory I'm sure the Citadis cars were a smoother ride.
I want Skoda 15Ts for Sydney! Bottom line! Pivoting bogies and 100% low floor. Fantastic.
We have the tram, now all we need are the tramlines!
I bet if they put the Skoda tram, a typical metro train carriage and one of our 'metrobuses' on display side by side in Martin Place and let the public through them, the govt's "experts" would be well and truly routed by the weight of public opinion!
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:19pm.
Some points to consider - Melbourne Citadis cars have better suspension than early French domestic models - they have only primary suspension and rely on high quality track for a good ride, something that may well change as the systems age. Combinos have had structural problems that cost Siemens shitloads of money to fix. Dunno about their suspension, but all low floor cars have inferior ride to cars with proper bogies. Sydney Variotrams have small gearless hub motors and stub axles and are really "three rooms and two baths" articulated single truckers. Their ride quality is sure to deteriorate as they age. The best trams ever are still PCCs and their derivatives particularly the Red Arrow double enders that had MCB trucks, 75hp motors and MU, they were designed for interurban service between Philadelphia and West Chester and could hit 80mph. San Francisco and Boston still use sixty plus year old PCCs in regular service and they are faster accelerating and as reliable or better than newer cars, and Eastern Europe and Russia are still full of Tatra cars built to the PCC licence, and Brussels and Ghent in Belgium also use locally built PCCs.
Larger wheel diameter helps ride quality and all low floor cars by necessity have small wheels, bigger wheels ride better as they roll over bumps better - compare riding a scooter with 12" wheels to a proper motorcycle with a 19" or 21" front and 18" or 19" rear wheel - my H-D rides well enough I don't miss rear suspension with a 4" by 19" rear tyre, to illustrate the point (sorry H., but scooters have always reminded me of mobile hair dryers).
And I disagree that long articulated vehicles makes MU control redundant. Melbourne has been down on coupled trams since a trailer ran away in 1922 and killed a few people, Brisbane never had them as they didn't use air brakes till the thirties, before that they relied on hand brakes only. MU operation worked well in Adelaide and Sydney, as it does today in places like San Diego and Sacramento. Take along articulated car out of service for maintenance or breakdown repair, particularly with a small fleet, and that's a fair slice of your carrying capacity parked. BTW, the Variotrams, the Melbourne B, C, and D cars and the Adelaide Flexcity cars are all MU equipped, they just choose not to use it at the moment.
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:20pm.
These are the very issues with small-wheeled low floor trams that Skoda is addressing. Yes the PCC cars have been great but sadly they can't be designed to 100% low floor which is the standard for a modern accessible tram system (perhaps excepting tram-train systems with high platforms). And yes all are fitted for MU coupling - I'm not against it, just pointing out that the trend to longer articulated trams has killed it off somewhat. That may change if demand continues to grow but of course changes to facilities (such as platform lengths) will have to come with it. Now if you think of the logistics of doubling the length of the present MLR platforms you will know that is not a decsion that will be made lightly!
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:30pm.
I've already noticed that it seems a few of the Varios don't seem to negotiate the curves as gracefully as others. I was on 2101 the other day, in the leading section, and it was oscillating left and right as we rounded each bend between Wentworth Park and Lilyfield. I'm sure not all of them do this to the same extent...might have to do some more trips to work/Tafe on the tram to back that up. It also may have been that other trips were made in the suspended section between two bogie sections, which could have made the oscillating seem less acute.
...
I feel that the flexibility of MU operation would be better than fixed, longer length cars (although I'm to understand that some can be split up?). Even if we didn't have the platform infrastructure on the current line now, it could be done in the future if we really had to. We're probably quite a way off needing MU on a line like the Lilyfield line though. I'd really like to see the frequency of services increase (especially in peak, I waited about 11 minutes one day last week).
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:21pm.
Once before there has been a Melbourne tram on display in Sydney, shouldn't be too hard to truck one up! Might have to get the manufacturer to sponsor it though.
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:23pm.
Yep, that is exactly where I learnt all about the Skoda 15T. Thanks for all the information.
I'm pretty sure the Metrobus, even the Euro 5 bendy with the three sets of doors (which are completely useless half of the time, because loading from all doors in Sydney is not permitted...ridiculous), would be the easy loser to even the least transport-savvy folk on the street. Putting it next to a tram would make it even more obvious what it's trying to be.
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:34pm.
Also H., in the rush to promote buses that are 'just like trams', nobody has questioned the issue of recruiting the mythical superman drivers who can apparently pull a long artic bus alongside and parallel to the platform at a few cm spacing so that there is no gap for pram and wheelchair users to cross at any door along the whole length of the vehicle. With a few hundred metres of lead-in to the stop you might have half a chance of working up the skill, pity if there's another vehicle to pull around first. There are 'smart docking' technologies of course, usually associated with busway infrastructure and specially fitted buses rather than your ordinary bus and street stop, and with a hefty financial cost.
So its back to putting all the burden on front door access with the dwell-time penalties that involves. London Transport's outline of the procedures for handling mobility restricted passengers on buses and trams speak volumes:
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:39pm.
At the last UITP conference, held in Turkey - a country that has embraced light rail and is improving its passenger rail hand over fist at the moment with big spending on new rolling stock - Yarra Trams got an award for its big increase in accessible stops, while the last issue of TA has an article pointing out that Sydney bus stops are still mostly a post with a sign next to the kerb. Many places, such as Foreman St at Tempe where I catch the 422 bus in the afternoon the driver doesn't even bother to pull in due to parked cars, so nothing's changed there since 1957 when the Green Lines trams were pulled off.
And "smart docking" for buses is a requirement that seem to indicate "dumb choice" of mode in the first place, like the "obsolete-bahn" joke in Adelaide, another testament to the know-nothing intrasigence of the "anything but trams" morons. Mercedes-Benz has dropped the design and Trans-Adelaide is trying to adapt MAN low-floors for the route. They must wish they never heard of it - bought after the Corcoran (SA's Unsworth) Labor government lost office in 1979.
The Adelaide experience is the classic warning against buying proprietary technologies that have no generic compatibility with others and are likely to be dropped by the manufacturer once the failings become obvious, as they always do. Monorails, Translohr guided buses, O-bahn. Automated PRT like that Bishop-Austrans kiddie ride thing they were playing with at Chullora and is now rusting in the weeds - all failures. The "monorail episode" of the Simpsons said it all really.
Submitted by ets_admin on 16 November 2008 - 3:31pm.
MLR has speed control signalling that will override the driver if the posted limit is exceeded, a very sophisticated system and in my opinion more than is needed. Compare that to Melbourne where the St Kilda and Port Melbourne railways had Atuomatic Block signals with train stops before conversion to light rail, now they run with line-of-sight collision avoidance like the rest of the system, whether street running or reserved track. And the suburban trains went no faster than the trams on those lines.
The latest on tram/LRV developments in Europe
Hopefully RGI will have something on this tram, even far more advanced, also
previewed at Innotrans - the Skoda ForCity:
http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2008/09/24/koda-unveils-new-tram-desi...
Here's a preview of it on Railpage:
http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11343804-s0.htm
Apart from the major technical breakthrough of pivoting bogies under 100% low
floor, note the passenger information system that goes even further with a
GPS-based real-time information system - see the tram moving on a map, your
real arrival times and the actual (as opposed to theoretical) times of your
connections (pic on first page of Railpage post).
And an interesting feature on carrying bicycles on board as well as wheelchairs
and prams:
http://doprava.praha-mesto.cz/(d1rf3l55dlirb455tykcvb55)/files/=58201/15T_Varianta_Green_Idea_Factory.pdf
Cheers,
TP
Gold Coast Rapid Transit Project Specs Tell Some of this story..
Good stuff on GCRT here, particularly relevant for us is chpt 3 (mode
comparison):
TP
Toronto in Gordian Knot
Toronto is in a gordian knot with this one. They have an old track system with
11m radius curves and nobody has designed a 100% low floor tram that can turn
so tightly. Toronto apparently won't compromise on reconfiguring its curves to
min 20m radius which is now modern standard (like Sydney MLR) and which most
advanced old systems have reconstructed their curves to (even Melbourne
largely, and that is saying something!):
http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/lflrv18c.jpg
Even the Skoda ForCity only turns down to 18m (15m in depot) and Bombardier is
having trouble coming up with a design. The solution is generally to have only
part low-floor with normal bogies under the high floor sections but Toronto is
not compromising on 100% low floor and won't reconfigure its curves. There'd be
a couple of manufacturers out there at the moment with their design sections on
valium trying to get something to get them a sale! Sounds like obstinate
bureaucracy gone mad.
TP
The only kind of Eco-Transit IMHO
Have a look at the San Diego Trolley operation, the original and best of the new US light rail systems, opened from downtown San Diego to San Ysidro (across the border from Tijuana and the donkey show) in 1980, and growing ever since. It's just what you described.
Also look at Portland where the MAX light rail, which is following most of the old the old PEPCo. interurban lines closed 1939-1958, and is complemented by Portland Streetcar, an on street tram operation using Skoda-Inekon low floor trams to service old industrial and railyard land near the centre of Portland being developed for housing.
And, I'll modestly point out, this is precisely what I've advocated since joining Ecotransit in the face of the hole-in-the-ground troglodytes. It is the definition of "Eco Transit' as far as I'm concerned.
T.
Troglodytes?!?
Who you callin' a troglodyte!?
LM
Persons who prefer a dark hole under a rock...
Dr Strangelove, Minstry of Transport, and the "anything-but-surface-transit" types.
T.
Energy is going to be a line in the sand
I have to say that I agree with MM on the general superiority of surface modes over any hole in the ground scheme. As supporters of "ecologically sustainable transit" we need to recognise the paradigms have shifted with peak oil and global warming, and metro, totally grade separated heavy rail and other high energy consumption modes - both in construction and operation - have seen their time pass.
In the future the issue won't be how fast you get there but how you get there on the least energy input, and trains like the Milennium and PPP sets for Sydney, pulling 4,000 amps just to turn a wheel, are dinosaurs like 1950s American V8 cars in that context. That's why I back the San Diego Trolley and similar systems over all grade separated money and energy sucking modes.
The electric light railway has been around in generic form since the 1880s, has a proven record of efficiency and reliability, has shown its adaptability to run in tunnels or on elevated structures where necessary where metro etc can't run on the surface except in an intrusive fenced, separated corridor. And like in Edmonton, can and in future will have to run on 100% renewable power. That's why lunatics like Dr Strangelove and his owner-operators hate it.
On a broader view of things aviation and heavy rail and road freight transport is going to decline for the same reasons. Aviation is already, and the greedy western consumer is going to have to learn to get along with less of everything, including profligate use of transportation. I think we'll see a return of dirgible airships and wind powered sea navigation as the real costs of energy use and environment damage hit home, so we need to embrace E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" seriously.
The time of "big" is over, and failure to recognize that puts us in the same camp as the "growth and greed is good" idiots who have stuffed things up and brought the world to where it is now, on the precipice of oblivion.
We can be part of the problem or part of the solution, and embracing any of the assumptions of the deathwish society that surrounds us puts us firmly in the former camp. I know where I stand.
T.
Lowering expectations for problems that can't be 'fixed'
Yeah. I think we have to be very careful about getting stuck with the old style of argument that says that we must aim to make public transport in every way faster, cooler, etc., than the car – the one that said that folks will come back to PT when it's a faster way of getting there than the car. That was always going to be a hard ask, technically speaking but in the energy-poor future it will be increasingly irrelevant. We'll be lucky just to keep up with demand for PT.
Even now, there are people switching to PT or motor bikes or bicycles, just because they can't afford the fuel.
Like I say, many of the solutions will have to be social, rather than transport-techno and people will just have to drop their expectations about how far they can travel and how quickly they can do it.
A case in point: the Easson "Western FastRail". So you can get from Parra to the City in 15 minutes. So what? It'll eat power and there'll be a premium charge that the punters won't be able to pay. The thing would end up being the Concorde airliner of trains.
That having been said, I think we should fight for the nicest, fastest trains and trams commensurate with reasonable energy usage.
BTW, did you-all see that NSW has put in for $40bn worth of proposal to be funded from the $15bn Federal fund?
Considering the regard in which they're held I would have thought they'd be meek and conservative and put in for about $5bn worth of carefully-considered and argued priorities, but they've gone for a mad ambit claim.
FMGG
Trams are not any slower than Metros
Tram systems in Europe can also operate along the same rocketing lines as the metro you describe. It is a curse having the Melbourne system here as the only example to show people and they can't understand why people could be so enthusiastic about something so slow! BTW MLR also rockets along at 70kph when it wants to! I have no doubt tram is best for Dulwich Hill line though. Doesn't
have the market characteristics for a metro line (nor do Pyrmont and Balmain for that matter!).
TP
ABC of tranport modes needed
It's actually the 'market' characteristics that I would like the public to get a handle upon as part of this exercise. Why you'd do one mode here but not there...Sydney examples would be good to have so that people can use a mental map of the terrain to get a sense of what works where...
LM
Current Metro plans expensive lemons...
Ah yes I'd imagined that anything too far would be out of reach for MU'd trams. I've been on the MLR a few times when they've really picked up the pace, it was definitely over 70km/h. I guess I didn't note it because it doesn't rocket along at 70km/h very much of the time, unlike route 96, which has a lot to do with all the curves on the Lilyfield line. The Dulwich Hill section should be pretty brisk though.
Looking at Sydney, and looking at T.'s links to other systems using MU'd trams (thanks for the links, very insightful stuff. I've heard a lot of good about those Skoda trams), there's a lot that could be served by trams, single-unit and MU'd. Understanding where each mode fits really makes the CBD Metro look even more like an expensive lemon. By the same measure, there are definitely corridors where metros would be very appropriate...though perhaps not very important just yet. Before any metro is built I'd be very interested in investigating the idea of converting existing CityRail lines for metro operation, where possible. The ESR would be the first candidate.
H.
Trams, Tram Trains and buses
... generally the
hierarchy would be much like this (all generalisations, specific circumstances vary and some modes can blend):
Suburban/interurban heavy rail - longer haul commuting and linking of more distant centres where journey time warrants greater provision of seating for passengers. Distance say min 10-15 km and longer, journey time 30-40 mins and longer. (In inner Sydney, suburban rail tries to be metro, Bradfield had it worked out for a while but huge growth of Sydney undermined that).
Metro - shorter haul commuting and linking of closer high density centres with emphasis on high passenger volumes and standees. Distance probably 8-20 km, journey time max about 30 mins. Limited applicability in Sydney due to our low density, really works best in high density cities like in Europe or Asia. (NW metro tried to be suburban rail - a joke - except it had a hidden agenda of intense high density urban consolidation along its route)
Tram-train - metro type operation with additional flexibilty of running train (2 or 3 coupled LRVs) onto streets/surface reservation to give greater penetration at each end. (They're going to try this in Adelaide)
Tram/light rail - intensive traffic over shorter distances in areas of continuous fairly intense development. Light rail component (reservation running) may extend scope over longer segments. Performs local role infilling between ststaions of metro/suburban trains. Emphasis more on standees though good design (especially unidirectional trams) can maximise seating. Up to about
8-12 km range - although a line can be much longer but it is performing a local/ segmental function. One wouldn't use it as the commute for the whole distance, this is the role of trains (or tram/trains). (Dr Strangelove and others think you can move straight from buses to metro without trams in between. Proven in Europe not to work.)
Bus - feeder role to tram and train services, cross-regional service in lower-density context, serving areas that might be hard to serve by rail (e.g. hilly = trolleybuses). (In Sydney successive state governments since the 1940s have tried to pretend buses can also be trains and trams. Didn't and doesn't work.)
Good summary of pros and cons of trams in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams#Pros_and_cons_of_tram_systems
Most of the cons can be easily addressed.
In Sydney I would save metro concept for future if really high density becomes
widespread. Far more pressing need for trams first.
TP
"one size fits all" will never work
I think what TP has said there very clearly explains that "one size fits all" will never work. That's an important for not only the public but the government too.
The tram-train operation is one that's crossed my mind in the past, running 2-3 trams together to form a single consist. The flexibility of being able to run the same trams that can run in single unit operation together in MU operation, while still being able to send them on street if necessary, could be brilliant.
A burning question I've been wanting to ask for some time (which I think Tony P might be able to answer for me): Could running a 3-unit tram consist on a dedicated light rail corridor be at all competitive with a dedicated metro, over a similar distance, taking track alignment into account? Given that most modern trams have very good acceleration and braking, and pretty decent capacity per unit? Melbourne's route 96 tram runs a large section on a disused heavy rail corridor, run exclusively by 5-section low-floor trams. Those trams absolutely rocket along that line (granted it is mostly straight) often with full standing loads, easily hitting over 70km/h sometimes. In that situation I couldn't imagine a metro could be much faster, if at all?
I guess part of the reason for this question is to form an answer as to why some people seem to think that the Dulwich Hill line would be much better operated by metro, rather than trams. I can't imagine how that would be any better, particularly if MU operation of trams could be possible?
I've never used a metro system in my life, although I was very impressed with what I saw of the Paris Metro on a Youtube video, with metros arriving at least every minute at a terminus, dumping their load and then rocketing out of the station. It's almost hypnotic to watch for a Sydneysider...it's just so efficient!
H.
Horses for courses - but some horses are more versatile
I think MU trams (now a bit of an old-fashioned train-like practice) may be superceded by the practice of adding modules to the current type of low floor tram - e.g. the Budapest Combinos that are 54 metres long http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combino_Supra). And MLR I understand operates up to 80 kph (I suspect Glebe tunnel is the main speedway!)
Re inner CityRail lines as metro, Bradfield went halfway down that track - I think lines like the inner west/Bankstown circuit were always defacto metro lines and if you could separate them you may be able to accomplish that. However there are situations where other operational scenarios might intrude, like the very desirable goal of running Illawarra inter-urbans from Wollongong
through to BJ. It may be possible to mingle this with a metro but quite a bit of homework would be required before such a move I imagine.
TP
Skoda 15Ts the way to go...
Yes Glebe Tunnel is the main speedway, depending on the driver though. There are speed boards at the Glebe end marked 40km/h...most trams do well over that though, the average seems to be around 60 or so. Metro Transport are very cautious sometimes...
I've previously seen some stuff about the Combino Supra, fairly impressive. I'm not a huge fan of the Combino personally, based on Melbourne's Combinos; the internal layout around the bogies is a bit wasteful and cramped for the single seat that can be fitted. Sydney's Varios have a really good layout by comparison, although I've heard the traction equipment is quite different and slightly on the underpowered side vs. Combino. I think Melb's Citadis cars have a better internal layout, they have leaning post sections as well in the middle of the tram, like a couple of the Metrobuses (should be renamed 'Meant-to-be-trams') here do. Works very well on a tram, can make standing reasonably comfortable. The other thing with the Combino's is their fairly harsh ride, though that has a lot to do with track quality in Melbourne. Still from memory I'm sure the Citadis cars were a smoother ride.
I want Skoda 15Ts for Sydney! Bottom line! Pivoting bogies and 100% low floor. Fantastic.
H.
Visual plebicite on vehicles
LOL I guess you've seen the write-up on Railpage about the Skoda! (new stuff now
on last page about that issue of intrusive bogie boxes)
http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11343804-s0.htm
We have the tram, now all we need are the tramlines!
I bet if they put the Skoda tram, a typical metro train carriage and one of our 'metrobuses' on display side by side in Martin Place and let the public through them, the govt's "experts" would be well and truly routed by the weight of public opinion!
TP
Some points to consider...
Some points to consider - Melbourne Citadis cars have better suspension than early French domestic models - they have only primary suspension and rely on high quality track for a good ride, something that may well change as the systems age. Combinos have had structural problems that cost Siemens shitloads of money to fix. Dunno about their suspension, but all low floor cars have inferior ride to cars with proper bogies. Sydney Variotrams have small gearless hub motors and stub axles and are really "three rooms and two baths" articulated single truckers. Their ride quality is sure to deteriorate as they age. The best trams ever are still PCCs and their derivatives particularly the Red Arrow double enders that had MCB trucks, 75hp motors and MU, they were designed for interurban service between Philadelphia and West Chester and could hit 80mph. San Francisco and Boston still use sixty plus year old PCCs in regular service and they are faster accelerating and as reliable or better than newer cars, and Eastern Europe and Russia are still full of Tatra cars built to the PCC licence, and Brussels and Ghent in Belgium also use locally built PCCs.
Larger wheel diameter helps ride quality and all low floor cars by necessity have small wheels, bigger wheels ride better as they roll over bumps better - compare riding a scooter with 12" wheels to a proper motorcycle with a 19" or 21" front and 18" or 19" rear wheel - my H-D rides well enough I don't miss rear suspension with a 4" by 19" rear tyre, to illustrate the point (sorry H., but scooters have always reminded me of mobile hair dryers).
And I disagree that long articulated vehicles makes MU control redundant. Melbourne has been down on coupled trams since a trailer ran away in 1922 and killed a few people, Brisbane never had them as they didn't use air brakes till the thirties, before that they relied on hand brakes only. MU operation worked well in Adelaide and Sydney, as it does today in places like San Diego and Sacramento. Take along articulated car out of service for maintenance or breakdown repair, particularly with a small fleet, and that's a fair slice of your carrying capacity parked. BTW, the Variotrams, the Melbourne B, C, and D cars and the Adelaide Flexcity cars are all MU equipped, they just choose not to use it at the moment.
T.
More points to consider...
These are the very issues with small-wheeled low floor trams that Skoda is addressing. Yes the PCC cars have been great but sadly they can't be designed to 100% low floor which is the standard for a modern accessible tram system (perhaps excepting tram-train systems with high platforms). And yes all are fitted for MU coupling - I'm not against it, just pointing out that the trend to longer articulated trams has killed it off somewhat. That may change if demand continues to grow but of course changes to facilities (such as platform lengths) will have to come with it. Now if you think of the logistics of doubling the length of the present MLR platforms you will know that is not a decsion that will be made lightly!
TP
MU and Variotrams
I've already noticed that it seems a few of the Varios don't seem to negotiate the curves as gracefully as others. I was on 2101 the other day, in the leading section, and it was oscillating left and right as we rounded each bend between Wentworth Park and Lilyfield. I'm sure not all of them do this to the same extent...might have to do some more trips to work/Tafe on the tram to back that up. It also may have been that other trips were made in the suspended section between two bogie sections, which could have made the oscillating seem less acute.
...
I feel that the flexibility of MU operation would be better than fixed, longer length cars (although I'm to understand that some can be split up?). Even if we didn't have the platform infrastructure on the current line now, it could be done in the future if we really had to. We're probably quite a way off needing MU on a line like the Lilyfield line though. I'd really like to see the frequency of services increase (especially in peak, I waited about 11 minutes one day last week).
H.
Easy enough to arrange...
Once before there has been a Melbourne tram on display in Sydney, shouldn't be too hard to truck one up! Might have to get the manufacturer to sponsor it though.
G.
Buses masquerading as Trams...
Yep, that is exactly where I learnt all about the Skoda 15T. Thanks for all the information.
I'm pretty sure the Metrobus, even the Euro 5 bendy with the three sets of doors (which are completely useless half of the time, because loading from all doors in Sydney is not permitted...ridiculous), would be the easy loser to even the least transport-savvy folk on the street. Putting it next to a tram would make it even more obvious what it's trying to be.
H.
Super humans required to drive the bus-trams...
Also H., in the rush to promote buses that are 'just like trams', nobody has questioned the issue of recruiting the mythical superman drivers who can apparently pull a long artic bus alongside and parallel to the platform at a few cm spacing so that there is no gap for pram and wheelchair users to cross at any door along the whole length of the vehicle. With a few hundred metres of lead-in to the stop you might have half a chance of working up the skill, pity if there's another vehicle to pull around first. There are 'smart docking' technologies of course, usually associated with busway infrastructure and specially fitted buses rather than your ordinary bus and street stop, and with a hefty financial cost.
So its back to putting all the burden on front door access with the dwell-time penalties that involves. London Transport's outline of the procedures for handling mobility restricted passengers on buses and trams speak volumes:
Buses: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/transportaccessibility/1171.aspx
vs
Trams: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/transportaccessibility/1173.aspx
TP
Even Turkey is embracing light rail
At the last UITP conference, held in Turkey - a country that has embraced light rail and is improving its passenger rail hand over fist at the moment with big spending on new rolling stock - Yarra Trams got an award for its big increase in accessible stops, while the last issue of TA has an article pointing out that Sydney bus stops are still mostly a post with a sign next to the kerb. Many places, such as Foreman St at Tempe where I catch the 422 bus in the afternoon the driver doesn't even bother to pull in due to parked cars, so nothing's changed there since 1957 when the Green Lines trams were pulled off.
And "smart docking" for buses is a requirement that seem to indicate "dumb choice" of mode in the first place, like the "obsolete-bahn" joke in Adelaide, another testament to the know-nothing intrasigence of the "anything but trams" morons. Mercedes-Benz has dropped the design and Trans-Adelaide is trying to adapt MAN low-floors for the route. They must wish they never heard of it - bought after the Corcoran (SA's Unsworth) Labor government lost office in 1979.
The Adelaide experience is the classic warning against buying proprietary technologies that have no generic compatibility with others and are likely to be dropped by the manufacturer once the failings become obvious, as they always do. Monorails, Translohr guided buses, O-bahn. Automated PRT like that Bishop-Austrans kiddie ride thing they were playing with at Chullora and is now rusting in the weeds - all failures. The "monorail episode" of the Simpsons said it all really.
T.
Signalling and speeds
MLR has speed control signalling that will override the driver if the posted limit is exceeded, a very sophisticated system and in my opinion more than is needed. Compare that to Melbourne where the St Kilda and Port Melbourne railways had Atuomatic Block signals with train stops before conversion to light rail, now they run with line-of-sight collision avoidance like the rest of the system, whether street running or reserved track. And the suburban trains went no faster than the trams on those lines.
T.