WEST OF ENGLAND RAPID TRANSIT

Transcription

1 WEST OF ENGLAND RAPID TRANSIT Technology Review Final Report September 2008 Prepared for: Prepared by: West of England Partnership Office Wilder House Wilder Street Bristol BS2 8PH Steer Davies Gleave Upper Ground London SE1 9PD +44 (0)

2

3 Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Proposed Rapid Transit Network 1 Study Process 2 Steer Davies Gleave 4 2. PUBLIC TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES 5 Mass Transit 5 Heavy Rail 5 Light Rail / Tram 5 Tramtrain 6 Ultra Light or Light Weight Transit 7 Bus Rapid Transit 7 Guided Light Transit 7 Buses 7 Automated People Movers 8 Summary 9 3. OBJECTIVES OF THE RAPID TRANSIT NETWORK AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 11 Objectives of the Rapid Transit Network 11 Technical Assessment Criteria TECHNICAL REVIEW 15 Tramtrain 15 Light Weight Rail / Ultra Light Rail 31 Bus Rapid Transit COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT 53 Operation 53 Vehicles 54 Infrastructure 55 Application to Ashton Vale 56 Fit with Scheme Objectives FUEL TECHNOLOGIES 61 Diesel 61 Liquefied Petroleum Gas 61 Contents

4 Compressed Natural Gas 62 Bio Fuels 62 Hybrid 62 Electric 64 Fuel Cell 64 Bath & North East Somerset Council s CIVITAS Project 65 Other Innovations 65 Summary CONCLUSIONS 67 Tramtrain 67 Light Weight Rail 67 Bus Rapid Transit 67 FIGURES Figure 2.1 NET Line 1, Nottingham 6 Figure 2.2 Véhicule Automatique Léger (VAL) 8 Figure 2.3 ULTRA 9 Figure 4.1 Route of Penistone Tramtrain Trial 17 Figure 4.2 Alstom - Regio Citadis 19 Figure 4.3 Bombardier - Flexity Link 20 Figure 4.4 Siemens - Avanto Tramtrain 21 Figure 4.5 Nordhausen Diesel Combino Tram 22 Figure 4.6 Typical Speed Distance Profile for an Urban Tranport System 24 Figure 4.7 Possible Tramtrain Network 28 Figure 4.8 Parry People Mover 32 Figure 4.9 Bristol Electric Bus Vehicle (Demonstration Project) 33 Figure 4.10 Schematic Hybrid Ultra Light Tram System HULTS 34 Figure 4.11 Proposed HULTS 34 Figure 4.12 Different Types of Potential BRT Vehicles 48 Contents

5 Figure 4.13 Nantes Line 4 Citaro Vehicle 49 Figure 6.1 CO2 Emmissions for Different Types of Technologies 66 TABLES Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Regio Citadis Data Flexity Link Siemens Avanto Tramtrain Data Tramtrain Capital Costs Estimate (2007 Prices) Lower Cost infastructure and vehicles Tramtrain Capital Costs Estimate (2007 Prices) Tram infrastructure and higher cost vehicles Constructed Tram System infastructure Costs Parry People Mover Vehicle Data Typical Cost Breakdown for a Tram System Light Weight Rail Capital Cost Estimate 1 Hults (2007 Prices) Table 4.10 Light Weight Rail Capital Cost Estimate 2 Revised Hults (2007 Prices) Table 4.11 Light Weight Rail Capital Cost Estimate 3 Low Cost tram style infrastructure(2007 Prices) Table 4.12 Different Types of BRT Systems Table 4.13 Bus Rapid Transit Capital Cost Estimate (2007 Prices) diesel Articulated vehicle Table 4.14 Bus Rapid Transit Capital Cost Estimate (2007 Prices) Hybrid Articulated vehicle Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Comparision of Capital Costs (2007 Prices) Criteria Assessment for Reviewed Modes Contents

6 APPENDICES A B C CLIENT BRIEF HYBRID ULTRA LIGHT TRANSIT SYSTEM (HULTS) REPORT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET TRACK, OFFICE OF THE RAIL REGULATOR, MAY 2008 Contents

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction 1. The four Unitary Authorities of the West of England, Bath and North East Somerset, the City of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire, are currently undertaking a programme of work to develop a rapid transit system for the West of England area. 2. In 2006 the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) identified the need to progress a rapid transit network for the sub-region, as part of a package to successfully and appropriately accommodate additional transport movements arising from predicted residential and employment development over the next 20 years. The study concluded that further work is required to identify the type of vehicle used to operate the service but modern, low-floor, articulated buses are likely to be the most appropriate, flexible and cost effective vehicles to satisfy the requirements of the service. 3. GBSTS identified four Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors, three of which have been included in the Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) and have a current financial allocation in the South West Regional Funding programme to 2016 totalling 71 million (2006 prices) with operation of the first route targeted to commence in To obtain this funding, the West of England Authorities are required to submit a Major Scheme Bid for the first part of this network at the end of The route identified for this application is from Ashton Vale to Temple Meads via Bristol City Centre. 4. As part of the programme of work to develop a rapid transit system, the West of England Authorities have considered different types of rapid transit technologies. A review of technologies was first undertaken in 2007, this looked at a range of options from monorail and light rail through to conventional buses. Work from this review has been incorporated in to this report. 5. The West of England Authorities wish to ensure that the most appropriate technology is identified for its rapid transit network and further work is being undertaken specifically to look at the opportunities provided by newer rapid transit technologies. As a result, Steer Davies Gleave has been commissioned to undertake a further review of appropriate technologies that could be used to deliver the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads via Bristol City Centre route but also the wider proposed rapid transit network. 6. For the purposes of this report and the comparison of different technologies, the following details on the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route were used: The Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route is approximately 7km long, with around 3km of this being proposed as a segregated corridor and 4km running on-street in Bristol City Centre. The route is proposed to run from the existing Long Ashton Park and Ride site via an alignment through the proposed development at Ashton Park, crossing the Portishead railway line at Ashton Gate, to run alongside the Portishead railway Summary

8 line until it crosses the existing Ashton Avenue Bridge to connect with the alignment of the Bristol Harbour Railway line. The route continues running along the south side of the Floating Harbour adjacent to Cumberland Road to connect through to the proposed development at Wapping Wharf and the Bristol Industrial Museum. There are still options for the on-street sections in Bristol City Centre but the route will connect Broad Quay, The Centre, Broadmead, Cabots Circus, Old Market and Bristol Temple Meads Railway Station. The system will be required to provide a maximum capacity in the order of 3,000 passengers per direction per hour. Study Process 7. This technology review has followed professional guidance documents and accepted industry practice 1. In assessing the appropriateness of different technology options these advocate a process of: Assessment at increasing levels of detail in a step-wise or iterative manner to progressively eliminate those options that are not likely to provide an appropriate or affordable solution to the identified need and objectives. To this end a staged process of firstly looking at a high level strategic assessment of the alternative technology options followed by a more detailed review of the most appropriate technologies. Assessment against a set of criteria which includes: Goals and objectives including policy objectives, Current problems and future challenges, including issues of local context within which the transit system will be implemented and operated, Physical opportunities and constraints that will influence the design or technology choice, Deliverability. Public Transport Technologies 8. The consideration of all the different public transport options for a transit network in the West of England has previously been undertaken firstly by GBSTS and further as part of the rapid transit scheme development. These range from high capacity, high cost mass transit systems such as Heavy Metro (London Underground) to lower capacity and lower cost systems such as automated people movers and conventional bus systems. 9. A high level review of capacities and costs and previous assessment work undertaken, concluded that the technology options of mass rapid transit, heavy rail, light rail, conventional bus and automated people movers 2 are, in our opinion, not appropriate technologies for the proposed rapid transit network. This does not mean that these 1 2 For example: Affordable Mass Transit Guidance: Helping you choose the best technology for your Area, Commission for Integrated Transport, 2005 and Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide 2007, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, June Reference should be made to the Section 3 of the full report for an explanation of these. Summary

9 technologies are not appropriate in specific circumstances but they fit less well with the proposed objectives of the rapid transit scheme and they are less likely to provide a successful case for government funding for this particular scheme. 10. This technology review therefore concentrates on the rapid transit technologies of Tramtrain, Light Weight Rail and Bus Rapid Transit. Technical Review Tramtrain 11. Tramtrain was developed in Germany to enable tram style services to be developed over the wider suburban heavy rail network, making use of improved proximity and connectivity of existing tram networks within the urban centres. Tramtrain is a vehicle solution not an independent mode such as bus or tram. The vehicles are capable of operating on both the heavy rail network and on urban low floor tram networks, which depending on the location and application, requires the ability to work on differing overhead line power supplies and possibly independently through the use of on board diesel generators. 12. There are currently no Tramtrain schemes within the UK. The Tyne and Wear Metro extension to Sunderland does incorporate some aspects of Tramtrain in that it runs on the heavy rail network in conjunction with rail services. A trial of Tramtrain in the UK is to be undertaken by Network Rail on the 37-mile Penistone Line between Huddersfield and Sheffield. The current service will be replaced using five Tramtrain vehicles between 2010 and 2012 and will look at the environmental, operational, passenger and lifecycle benefits along with the technical suitability of the technology. The vehicles may then be trialled on the Sheffield Supertram network to assess the suitability to a UK tram network. 13. The key benefit of Tramtrain is the ability to use existing rail infrastructure to operate on, using tram infrastructure to provide improved connection to city centres. In the case of the rapid transit scheme, a city centre network would need to be constructed out to the main rail termini. As a result it has many of the same issues that light rail options present. Alternatively, Tramtrain in the UK may have more of a focus on better utilising branch lines on the existing national rail network with an aim of improving frequencies and reducing cost of provision and operation. 14. Tramtrain vehicles provide the highest capacity of the modes reviewed. It is though, also the most expensive. Vehicles cost in the order of 2.8 million to 3.2 million each. The estimated cost of delivering the infrastructure on the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads via Bristol City Centre route is in the range of 90 million to 110 million (for the equivalent route as the proposed BRT route) 3. The total scheme cost would be in the range of 118 million to 142 million including vehicles at 2007 prices. This excludes costs such as land, environmental works and contingency. 3 It is important to note that this is a desktop study and therefore has not involved site inspection or an engineering review of the feasibility of this technology. Please see Section 4 of the main report for a description of the cost estimate. Summary

10 Light Weight Rail or Ultra Light Rail 15. Light Weight Rail has been developed by Parry People Movers (PPM) as an intermediate mode between bus and tram and is also being promoted by Sustraco/Ultralight Rail. The aim is to provide a lower cost intermediate mode which could run in place of branch line services on the national rail network or as a lower cost alternative to tram technology. 16. The PPM system has been trialled on a number of segregated routes and will operate a two vehicle branch line service in Stourbridge from December The vehicles will have a capacity of 50/60 people and will be powered predominantly utilising a flywheel charged by an LPG engine. The PPM system has successfully managed to obtain dispensation from Network Rail s Railway Group Standards (which facilitates its operation) mainly due the route s ability to be disconnected from the remainder of the rail network. 17. The proposals for Hybrid Ultra Light Rail (HULTS) for a system between Bristol and Long Ashton Park and Ride are at a concept stage and could use a similar vehicle to the Stourbridge scheme. Vehicles would cost in the order of 300,000 to 350,000 each. 18. The key benefits of this technology are its proposals to run on lower emission fuels and provision of a fixed rail system at a lower cost than a light rail systems. The HULTS report states that fuel consumption could be up to 40% below that of a standard diesel bus. 19. Deliverability is a significant concern with this technology as, to date, only development vehicles have been produced and trialled on a number of short rail routes, where the vehicle s operation can be segregated from other uses. Some of the operating issues that would need significant investigation to determine the cost and risk include: System capacity single unit vehicles do not have sufficient capacity to carry the required number of passengers on the proposed rapid transit system. The promoters state that vehicles can be coupled together but the PPM bogie technology upon which the vehicle would rely is also currently a concept and has not been developed. The development of this vehicle would require a radical redesign of the current PPM vehicles. Without the ability to run two vehicles together, or build a higher capacity vehicle, this system would have insufficient capacity to deliver the rapid transit service. Therefore development of an appropriate vehicle would be essential. Utility diversion the main issue with utilities is their ongoing access and serviceability. In order to prevent disruption to service and expensive works, utilities are usually moved out of the path of fixed rail systems. This can add significantly to the capital costs (in the order of 20% of total costs). HULTS promoters state that utility diversions would not be necessary and that HULTS services would be diverted when access or work were required. The proposed ULR track was discussed with local Utility Companies at a meeting in July The representatives of the Utility Companies were not in principle against the concept of a track which could run on top of their assets within the highway but raised a number of issues including the need for planned and emergency access to Summary

11 utilities and the different requirements for different types of utilities. In addition its is likely that the Utility Companies would be looking to the owner of the track, the Local Authorities, to be responsible for undertaking and paying for any reinstatement works creating an ongoing cost for the Local Authorities. An on-street version of the system is untested in passenger operation including, importantly, how it integrates and operates with other general traffic. The technology does not currently have a UK Safety Case for this type of operation. This is of course obtainable but introduces an element of risk to costs, delivery and timescales. 20. Light Rail systems are currently costing in the order of 10 to 15 million per kilometre and have increased significantly over the last few schemes developed. A conventional on-street tram scheme therefore has an average cost in the order of 12 million per km. The HULTS promoter notes a cost of 3 million. Removing both the electrification and all the utilities cost from the average tram cost could account for a possible reduction of 33% in the cost of construction producing a track cost of approximately 8 million. The removal of all but the site preparation, highway and trackwork costs results in a cost of 5 million compared to the promoters quoted 3 million rate. 21. An estimate of costs has therefore been undertaken on three bases: firstly, the HULTS promoter cost of 3 million per km, secondly, the HULTS promoter cost of 3 million per km plus an allowance for structures and highway works required in the city centre and thirdly, an estimate based on low cost tram costs. 22. Using HULTS 3 million per km estimate the total scheme costs would be in the order of 38 million (2007 prices). Using the HULTS promoter cost but adding in an allowance for structures and highway works provides a cost in the order of 45 million (2007 prices). Our estimation of costs per kilometre for this system, based on current tram costs but allowing for the proposed reductions proposed by HULTS for track work is in the order of 103 million. These all exclude costs such as land, environmental works and contingency but include vehicles and are at 2007 prices 3. Bus Rapid Transit 23. Bus Rapid Transit aims to deliver the characteristics of fixed rail systems but with bus-based technology. This consists of a variety of physical measures in conjunction with operational and system elements such as a segregated alignment, high quality dedicated vehicles, improved stop infrastructure, on-street priority, improved passenger information and high frequency services. 24. There are still relatively few high quality BRT systems in operation, although this is increasing. Systems to date have applied the suite of different BRT measures, both physical and operational in varied ways. There have also been significant issues with the quality and reliability of bespoke bus technologies developed, which have tried to use innovative technologies such as Phileas, Guided Light Transit etc. There has also been some criticism of the ride quality of slip-form kerb guidance (which is very dependant on the quality of construction). 25. Bus Rapid Transit does have a number of key benefits : Summary

12 Flexibility routes are more easily adaptable to change through the life of the system and changing needs of urban conurbations. Bus services from a wider geographic area can also benefit from the infrastructure investment improving the reach of the system. Value for money BRT systems cost considerably less than comparable fixed rail systems. Mode shift BRT systems are delivering good reliable services and as a result showing much higher levels of mode shift than conventional bus systems. 26. Hybrid vehicles can significantly reduce emissions. Evidence from tests in London show a 38% reduction in CO 2 emissions from hybrid buses compared with standard Euro 4 diesel bus. Hybrid bus performance is similar to LRT and LWR/ULR in terms of CO 2 emissions. Hybrid vehicles could be available for around an additional 60,000 per vehicle (current prices) and the technology and market for vehicles continues to evolve, with additional manufacturers providing products into the UK market. 27. The equivalent BRT system cost for the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads via Bristol City Centre route, i.e. one that excludes costs such as land, environmental works and contingency and includes vehicles is in the order of 24 to 26 million (2007 prices) depending on the choice of vehicle. Fuel Technology 28. Alternative fuel technology is still in its infancy and is continuing to evolve. There are some encouraging developments including work being undertaken by Bath & North East Somerset Council and their partners First Group through the European Commission s CIVITAS Plus Initiative Testing Innovative Strategies for Clean Urban Transport for Historic European Cities. This initiative will include a demonstration project in Bath and trial a green fuel articulated bus, appropriate for a historic city environment. The outcomes of this will be an important consideration for rapid transit scheme development. 29. A key issue is the operational feasibility of alternative technologies for a large scale network, including the infrastructure investment required, maintenance and reliability. This, and the small fleet size, could manifests itself in high vehicle costs. 30. For the present and short to medium term, diesel power is likely to remain the most widely available fuel for local bus based vehicles. The ongoing development and adoption of hybrid drive systems is likely to reduce their cost and increase their capability and reliability. Hybrid vehicles could be a viable alternative in the next few years. Comparative Assessment 31. Tramtrain would only provide additional benefit over that of a tram route if it were able to be integrated with and operate on the existing rail network in the area. There are significant deliverability issues with the implementation of Tramtrain in the UK, and potentially capacity issues on the existing rail network in the West of England area. A significant amount of work would need to be undertaken to identify the opportunities and constraints for the adoption of the technology in the area. Summary

13 32. Tramtrain vehicles provide the highest capacity of the modes reviewed. It is though the most expensive and if it were only deliverable on dedicated routes separated from the existing rail network, electrified tram technology would be more appropriate and more deliverable for a similar cost. 33. Light Weight or Ultra Light Rail could provide a lower capacity, environmentally friendly transport system. At this stage of development there are considerable unknowns and in our opinion, the technology would need to be developed and tested further before it could be available to be applied to a rapid transit network of the size and nature proposed in the West of England. 34. Bus Rapid Transit compares favourably both against the technical requirements for the proposed rapid transit system and the scheme s objectives. 35. The BRT mode is the lowest cost of the three options. Tramtrain could be in the order of six to seven times the cost of BRT and ULR could be in the order of 1.5 to 5 times the capital cost of BRT. BRT has the lowest deliverability risk. Vehicles can run on the highway in Bristol city centre and access the areas outside the main urban conurbation. On dedicated corridors the infrastructure could be either an exclusive highway or for guided sections utilise kerb guidance which can be constructed in a number of ways. All of which have been undertaken in the UK. Summary and Conclusions 36. The Penistone Tramtrain trial on the heavy rail network is planned to conclude in 2012 with a further trial on an LRT network potentially thereafter. The trial will hopefully set the UK vehicle standards for Tramtrain, which, if the manufacturers are able and willing to provide a suitable vehicle depending upon the market demand, could significantly de-risk future Tramtrain projects and potentially provide a competitive market. This is unlikely to happen before 2016 and would therefore fall outside the current regional funding allocation programme. In our opinion costs for Tramtrain are also likely to significantly exceed the current funding available for rapid transit. 37. Tramtrain may provide a future suitable mode as part of a public transport network in the West of England area. It would however need to be compared at that time with electrified tram technology which could be more appropriate and more deliverable for a similar cost, particularly in connecting the city centre destinations. The delivery of rapid transit corridors using bus technology should not preclude the corridors from being changed to Tramtrain in the future should this prove to be deliverable. 38. LWR/ULR is also still in development. Both the vehicles and the track for ULR need to be developed, trials undertaken, required approvals obtained and large scale procurement and construction undertaken. This is unlikely before 2016 and therefore it would fall outside the current regional funding allocation programme. In our opinion costs for LWR/ULR are also likely to significantly exceed the current funding available for rapid transit. 39. ULR may provide a future suitable mode as part of a public transport network in the West of England area. However significant development work is needed on the technology before a major scheme application based on ULR could be put forward. Summary

14 The delivery of rapid transit corridors using bus technology would not preclude the corridors from being changed to ULR in the future should this prove to be deliverable. 40. A bus rapid transit network, particularly if all the elements of the system are delivered (segregation, fast/frequent services, direct access to destinations), meets the scheme objectives and can be delivered within the current regional funding allocation programme. The risks associated with delivering bus rapid transit are considerably lower than the other two technologies we have reviewed. 41. Whilst Euro V diesel power remains the most practical for now, modern vehicles offering low emissions such as hybrid technology could possibly be a viable alternative in the next few years, subject particularly to reduction in their capital cost. Progress on this technology should be monitored for application to the rapid transit network and reviewed for its appropriateness and viability. 42. In our opinion, Bus Rapid Transit should be pursued for the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads rapid transit route as it best meets the rapid transit scheme objectives; is the most cost effective and flexible; and can be delivered within the current programme and available funding. Summary

15 1. INTRODUCTION Background 1.1 The four Unitary Authorities of the West of England, Bath and North East Somerset, the City of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire, are currently undertaking a programme of work to develop a Rapid Transit System for the Greater Bristol area. 1.2 In 2006 the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) identified the need to progress a rapid transit network for the sub-region, as part of a package to successfully and appropriately accommodate additional transport movements arising from predicted residential and employment development over the next 20 years. The study concluded that: further work is required to identify the type of vehicle used to operate the service but modern, low-floor, articulated buses are likely to be the most appropriate, flexible and cost effective vehicles to satisfy the requirements of the service GBSTS identified four Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors, three of which have been included in the Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) and have a current financial allocation in the South West Regional Funding programme to 2016 totalling 71 million (2006 prices) with operation of the first route targeted to commence in To obtain this funding, the West of England Authorities are required to submit a Major Scheme Bid for the first part of this network at the end of The route identified for this application is from Ashton Vale to Temple Meads via Bristol City Centre. 1.5 As part of the programme of work to develop a Rapid Transit System, the West of England Authorities have considered different rapid transit technologies. A review of technologies was first undertaken in 2007, this looked at a range of options from monorail and light rail through to conventional buses. Work from this review has been incorporated in to this report. 1.6 The West of England Authorities wish to ensure that the most appropriate technology is identified for its rapid transit network and further work is being undertaken specifically to look at the opportunities provided by newer rapid transit technologies. As a result, Steer Davies Gleave has been commissioned to undertake a further review of appropriate technologies that could be used to deliver the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads via Bristol City Centre route but also the wider identified rapid transit network. The brief for this assessment is included in Appendix A. Proposed Rapid Transit Network 1.7 This technology review has been undertaken against the background of the proposed network of rapid transit routes being developed. The first three lines of the network 4 Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study, Atkins, June

16 identified in the JLTP are cross-city, sub-regional routes: Ashton Vale to Emerson s Green. Hengrive/Hartcliffe to North Fringe. Bath to Cribbs Causeway. Ashton Vale to Temple Meads Route 1.8 For the purposes of this report and the comparison of different technologies, the following details on the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route were used: The Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route is approximately 7km long, with around 3km of this being proposed as a segregated corridor and 4km running on-street in Bristol City Centre. The route is proposed to run from the existing Long Ashton Park and Ride site via an alignment through the proposed development at Ashton Park, crossing the Portishead railway line at Ashton Gate, to run alongside the Portishead railway line until it crosses the existing Ashton Avenue Bridge to connect with the alignment of the Bristol Harbour Railway line. The route continues running along the south side of the Floating Harbour adjacent to Cumberland Road to connect through to the proposed development at Wapping Wharf and the Bristol Industrial Museum. There are still options for the on-street sections in Bristol City Centre but the route will connect Broad Quay, The Centre, Broadmead, Cabots Circus, Old Market and Bristol Temple Meads Railway Station. The system will be required to provide a maximum capacity in the order of 3,000 passengers per direction per hour. Study Process 1.9 In undertaking assessments of the appropriateness of different technologies for the development of a public transport scheme different guidance documents 5 and accepted professional practices advocate a similar approach in that they propose assessment of a range of different technologies against a set of criteria which usually include: Goals and objectives including policy objectives, Current problems and future challenges, including issues of local context within which the transit system will be implemented and operated, Physical opportunities and constraints that will influence the design or technology choice, Deliverability Good practice also advocates a process of increasing levels of detail in a step-wise or iterative manner to progressively eliminate those options that are not likely to provide 5 For example: Affordable Mass Transit Guidance: Helping you choose the best technology for your Area, Commission for Integrated Transport, 2005 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide 2007, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, June

17 an appropriate or affordable solution to the identified need and objectives. To this end a staged process of firstly looking at a high level strategic assessment of the alternative technology options followed by a more detailed review of the most appropriate technologies is advised The process undertaken in this review has been: High Level Strategic Review of technology options consideration of all the different public transport options for a transit network in the West of England has previously been undertaken firstly by GBSTS and further as part of the development of the rapid transit proposals. This review has briefly reviewed the range of different public transport options and has taken a high level look at system capacities and costs. A Technical Review of the individual technologies looking at their application, operation, opportunities and constraints of the vehicle technologies and infrastructure. A Comparative Assessment of the individual technologies looking at: The application of the technology to the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads via Bristol City Centre to provide in particular a cost comparison of the technologies when applied to a specific route. The application of the technology on the wider rapid transit network to assess the appropriateness of the technologies and the possible issues raised. The different technologies are then assessed against the objectives of the proposed rapid transit network This report also includes a section on fuel technology, Section 6. 3

18 Steer Davies Gleave 1.13 Steer Davies Gleave is an independent consultancy working worldwide across the transport sector, providing advice to government, local government, transport bodies, operators, financiers, regulators, developers and other interest groups Over the last decade, Steer Davies Gleave has worked on over 30 rapid transit schemes worldwide. Our expertise extends from pre-feasibility and scheme development to securing powers, implementation and funding. Projects include: Barcelona Baix Llobregat Tramway, Spain Blackpool / Fleetwood Tramway Upgrading Cambridgeshire Guided Busway Cancún LRT, Mexico CentreLink, Tyne and Wear Cross River Tram, London Croydon Tramlink Docklands Light Railway (DLR) Extensions Dublin LRT (LUAS), Ireland Edinburgh Tram Line One East Leeds Quality Bus Greenwich Waterfront Transit Leigh-Salford-Manchester Quality Bus Luton-Dunstable Translink Manchester Metrolink Merseytram Midland Metro Network Development Santiago Guided Busway, Chile Sunderland Direct Metro Extension Transmilenio Busway, Bogotá, Colombia Tyne and Wear Metro Project Orpheus West London Tram 1.15 Steer Davies Gleave also has extensive experience of the UK railway market where our clients include, Network Rail, Office of the Rail Regulator, Department of Transport, and the majority of the UK operators. We are currently involved in the development of Tees Valley Metro, which may include either Tramtrain or conventional rail modes. 4

19 2. PUBLIC TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES 2.1 There is a wide range of public transport technologies that provide different benefits, operational characteristics and have different capital and operating costs. Mass Transit 2.2 Metro or Light Metro such as LUL or Tyne and Wear Metro, which use either single or multiple high capacity units through large urban conurbations often utilising tunnelled infrastructure. Provide high levels of capacity between 25,000 and 45,000 passengers per hour per direction (PPHPD). As a result these are very expensive to deliver and only represent value for money if adopted on very high demand single corridor routes. Current estimates for extensions to metro systems for example are in the order of million per km. Mass Transit would provide way in excess of the capacity required for the rapid transit network and is very unlikely to make a case for this level of investment. Heavy Rail 2.3 Heavy Rail systems usually provide local and regional commuter and long distance higher speed services. Heavy Rail services can carry between 10,000 and 30,000 PPHPD and again requires significant capital investment. Therefore, as with mass transit it is very unlikely to make a case for this level of investment. 2.4 A heavy rail solution would also be very difficult to develop in the urban corridors required and connect directly in to the local or city centre as required by the rapid transit network. More likely, any possible extensions to the local heavy rail network would connect in to existing termini which are or with current proposals will be capacity constrained. An interchange to bus or rapid transit to reach Bristol city centre would be required. Light Rail / Tram Light Rail (LRT) or electric trams, similar to those operating in places such as Nottingham and Dublin, provide medium capacity systems on dedicated routes and can provide improved city centre connectivity. Typically LRT systems provide for between 4,000 and 10,000 PPHPD. 2.6 Several British Cities have re-introduced light rail systems with modern trams providing level boarding. The systems are provided with a high level of information and quality facilities integrated to provide a significant increase in passenger benefits compared to the bus or rail services. 2.7 Electric power provides light rail systems with a significantly improved performance compared to heavy rail, in terms of acceleration and deceleration, due to their lighter weight as they are not designed to withstand the same impact forces as traditional rail 6 Text in this section takes information provided in the report West of England Partnership: Greater Bristol Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Technology Review of Systems, Halcrow Group Limited, September

20 vehicles. 2.8 Rails in conjunction with the tram vehicles provide a smooth ride for passenger comfort and the rails add to passenger perception and confidence in the certainty and stability of the system. The lower forces exerted by the light rail vehicle on track and structures results in lower capital costs and the shorter, usually articulated, vehicles enable sharp bends and steep gradients (compared to conventional railways) to be incorporated into the route, including elements of street running. 2.9 The capacity of light rail systems varies. In the UK the Midland Metro trams can carry 152 passengers each of which 56 can be seated. Each tram also has space for two wheelchairs. They have a maximum speed of 80kph. In Nottingham, UK, the five section tram has a passenger carrying capacity of 191 with a maximum speed of 80kph and radius capability equivalent to conventional buses. FIGURE 2.1 NET LINE 1, NOTTINGHAM 2.10 LRT schemes have proved relatively expensive, currently costing in the order of 10m to 15m per km, and have proved difficult to fund and deliver in the UK. The Department for Transport (DfT) also requires a local funding contribution of around 25% (meaning the Local Authorities would need to provide funding in the order of 25m for the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route). The corridor would also need to have a much higher demand/catchment than currently assessed in order to make a case for this level of investment to DfT. Tramtrain 2.11 Tramtrain vehicles are capable of operating on both a heavy rail network and on urban low floor tram networks enabling light rail style services to be developed over a wider suburban heavy rail network and making use of improved proximity and connectivity of existing tram networks within urban centres. 6

21 2.12 Tramtrain is a developing technology, with a trial is planned in the UK. This technology has not been considered in detail previously and therefore this technology review has chosen to look at this option in more detail, see Section 4. Ultra Light or Light Weight Transit 2.13 The cost of light rail systems are considered prohibitive for many conurbations, particularly where passenger demand is lower, and a number of ultra-light rail or light weight rail based transport systems are being developed, targeting this potential market Ultra Light or Light Weight Transit is also an emerging mode which is proposed to use lighter weight, lower capacity vehicles on lower cost rail infrastructure. The Parry People Mover (PPM) system, involving small vehicles with a driver, has been developed on narrow gauge railway track with a charged flywheel automotive system. Bristol Electric Railbus Ltd (BER) also operated a demonstration service along the Bristol Harbourside on existing standard gauge rail for 30 months between 1998 to The mode is promoted as providing improved benefits to that of bus rapid transit (BRT) for similar cost. This technology review has chosen to look at this option in more detail, see Section 4. Bus Rapid Transit 2.16 Bus Rapid Transit systems use high specification buses and a variety of physical, operating and system elements to provide a permanently integrated system. Bus Rapid Transit systems provide for between 2,000 and 4,000 PPHPD. The technology is generally promoted as being flexible, easier to implement and integrate within city centres than other transit options. Bus rapid transit is considered in more detail in Section 4. Guided Light Transit 2.17 Guided Light Transit encompasses a number of different vehicles all with different characteristics, and includes Civis, Guided Light Transit, Phileas and Translohr. The vehicles are rubber tyred, use differing forms of guidance system, and can operate on overhead line. They are all currently proprietary systems and all continue to have deliverability, reliability and operational issues. In addition due to the high development costs and low numbers of vehicles in production these vehicles are very expensive (in the range of 0.5m to 1m per unit). Guided Light Transit has therefore not been considered further in this technology review. Buses 2.18 Conventional bus technology can provide a variety of capacities and the vehicle can be the same as those used for BRT. Improvements to existing bus services are already included as part of the Greater Bristol Bus Network programme of works. As identified in GBSTS and JLTP, the proposed rapid transit network needs to deliver something over and above the benefits that GBBN will deliver so therefore conventional buses have not been furthered considered in this technology review. 7

22 Automated People Movers 2.19 Automated People Movers are generally used or promoted to be used in two forms, at airports for inter-terminal or satellite boarding gate connections, or as driverless Metro style systems. Examples are the VAL system and the ULTRA system currently being developed for Heathrow Terminal Véhicule Automatique Léger (VAL) is an automated system that uses rubber-tyred vehicles on a segregated guideway. It is used in Lille, Paris, Toulouse, Rennes, Chicago and Taipei. This style of system provides similar levels of capacity to Light Metro but due to the automation are generally more expensive. This mode is not considered further in this review. FIGURE 2.2 VÉHICULE AUTOMATIQUE LÉGER (VAL) 2.21 APM also includes Personal Rapid Transit of which the ULTRA system is one example. Vehicles are described as driverless taxis operating on segregated often elevated tracks made from concrete. The reduced need to make lots of stops means that faster journeys are possible. The driverless pods are able to carry a maximum of four people. Even though they are driverless the cars have an automatic protection system, which acts as a safety net around the vehicle and prevents potential collisions. They have a car type chassis and rubber tyres and are guided electronically with battery power, fully loaded each vehicle weighs 800 kg ULTra s first application in the UK will be to serve the long term executive parking at Heathrow Terminal 5, although other systems are under consideration (such as at Dunsfold Park in Surrey) Both systems currently need dedicated, completely segregated infrastructure generally 8

23 underground or elevated. FIGURE 2.3 ULTRA 2.24 Personal Rapid Transit technology is new, innovative but largely untested and not currently available on the scale that would be required to deliver the proposed rapid transit system. As such it has not been considered further by this technology review. Summary 2.25 The consideration of all the different public transport options for a transit network in the West of England has previously been undertaken firstly in GBSTS and further as part of the rapid transit scheme development. This, and a high level review of capacities and costs, has identified that mass rapid transit, heavy rail, light rail automated people movers and personal rapid transit are, in our opinion, not appropriate technologies for the proposed rapid transit network. This does not mean that these technologies are not appropriate in specific circumstances but that they fit less well with the proposed objectives of the rapid transit scheme and they are less likely to provide a successful case for government funding for this particular scheme This technology review therefore now concentrates on the rapid transit technologies of Tramtrain, Light Weight Rail and Bus Rapid Transit. 9

24 10

25 3. OBJECTIVES OF THE RAPID TRANSIT NETWORK AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Objectives of the Rapid Transit Network 3.1 In reviewing the three transport technologies covered by this report it is important to identify the objective any new transport provision is required to meet and the ability of the technologies to meet these requirements. 3.2 The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) set out the objectives of future transport improvements for the Greater Bristol area. The GBSTS states the aim of the Second Generation Public Transport Improvements in Greater Bristol is to provide high quality alternatives to the private car. 3.3 GBSTS set out the rapid transit objectives as: Extending choice of transport modes for all, in particular for private car drivers to encourage a shift to public transport; Promoting sustainable development by providing high quality public transport links; Improving access to public transport in areas that currently have poor provision; Improving integration of the public transport network; Promoting social inclusion by improving access to employment, retail, community, leisure and education facilities; Improving safety along transport corridors by providing high quality public transport alternatives to the private car. 3.4 Rapid Transit is therefore designed to result in: Mode Shift Providing a step change in the provision of public transport, which results in people shift from the private car to public transport. Reduced Congestion A measure of reduced congestion is the overall network capacity, the number of people transported within a corridor. Economic Growth Supporting the economic development of the area by improving access to employment, retail and leisure and through reduced congestion. Technical Assessment Criteria 3.5 To provide the greatest level of confidence and robustness in this review a detailed set of technical assessment criteria has been identified. This is to ensure that individual aspect of each technology are identified and evaluated across the three technologies. These criteria are : Vehicle Characteristics Step free Provide a nominal boarding distance between the vehicle and the stop. Gap Free Provides level access from the stop to the vehicle. Vehicle Capacity -Provides a sufficient passenger carrying capacity capable of meeting the identified demand with an appropriate service frequency. 11

26 Seating Provides an appropriate number of seats within the vehicles capacity. Route Capacity The hourly capacity of the service on the route. Speed The speed characteristics are appropriate to provide a form of rapid transport. Doors The vehicle is equipped with sufficient doors to minimise boarding and alighting times. Runtime Time taken to run the length of a route. Road Junctions Can take advantage of priority at signalled junction and minimise the impact on other traffic. Gradients Has the vehicle performance to cope with gradients. Perception of quality Provides a perception of quality, and a high quality modern image. Axle Load Weight of the vehicle on each axle. Maintenance and depots Requirements for dedicated / possible connected depot and maintenance facilities. Environmental Visual Visual intrusion within the proposed corridor. Maintains existing facilities Maintains cycle and pedestrian facilities. Severance (guidance, rails etc.) Does the system create severance, rails, fencing etc. Land take Width of land required. Noise Vehicle and operational noise. Emissions Vehicle emissions. Operation Vehicle Recovery Complexity and impact of recovering failed vehicles. Integration with Heritage Railway Enables the Heritage railway to be retained. Service competition Would the proposed route potentially suffer from competing modes on parallel corridors. Local Context Issues and Deliverability 3.6 As well as these technical issues the following criteria were also reviewed: Segregation usable by other modes In the case of rail modes the track would need to be grooved rail within a surfaced finish to allow other modes to operate along its length. Penetration of City Centre Provides good connectivity to interchange, shopping, commercial and leisure facilities. Sub-regional accessibility - Ability to deliver benefits to the wider sub-region. Complements showcase bus scheme Complements the priority improvement measure currently and to be provided on the Bus Showcase routes. Maintains road network capacity ensures sufficient road network capacity is maintained. Restricts access to segregation Can provide a barrier to entry by none 12

27 authorised vehicles. Provision to access alignments Provide the ability for other public transport modes to access and gain advantage of the segregation provided on the rapid transit routes. Capital cost Cost of the scheme and current funding available. Vehicle cost Cost of the vehicle, this also includes the issue of fleet size, a lower cost vehicle with lower capacity can work out the same as a higher cost vehicle Technology maturity Length in commercial service, the state of the market i.e. proprietary or competitive market exists for purchasers. Risk Risk of deliverability, procurement, operation, maintenance etc. Funding available funding levels and likelihood of securing funding. 13

28 14

29 4. TECHNICAL REVIEW Tramtrain 4.1 Tramtrain was developed in Germany to enable tram style services to be developed over the wider suburban heavy rail network, making use of improved proximity and connectivity of existing tram networks within urban centres. The original impetus to develop Tramtrain in Germany came from a wish to make greater use of existing tram and rail infrastructure, with only generally minimal infrastructure works undertaken to connect the two networks. 4.2 Tramtrain in the simplest of terms is a vehicle solution not an independent mode such as bus or tram. The vehicles are capable of operating on both the heavy rail network and on urban low floor tram networks, which depending on the location and application requires the ability to work on differing overhead line power supplies and possibly independently through the use of onboard diesel generators. The vehicles are built to provide greater crash protection due to their interoperation with heavy rail vehicles. 4.3 The Tramtrain technology has been developed and operating in Germany for over 15 years with the first route developed between Karlsruhe and Bretten. Further routes have been developed in Germany, France and the Netherlands, with the maturity of the vehicle technology improving and becoming more standard in mainland Europe. Tramtrain in the UK 4.4 There are currently no Tramtrain schemes within the UK. The Tyne and Wear Metro extension to Sunderland does incorporate some aspects of Tramtrain in that it runs on the heavy rail network in conjunction with freight, regional and long distance rail services. The development of the extension has in part assisted the development of Tramtrain in the UK in that Network Rail has developed Railway Group Standards for the operation of light rail vehicles 7 and acceptance of light rail vehicle for shared running 8 on their network. 4.5 The Tyne and Wear system has high floor vehicles, which operate on the original network under signalled operation, with a train protection system (Indusi train-stop), and as such has not addressed the issues of operating low floor vehicles, running on line of sight on Network Rail infrastructure. The system does however provide some insight into the complexities of shared running. The connection between the two systems needed to provide sufficient space to stand a train between the two networks to enable the service regulation on the separately controlled networks. The shared running section is fitted with both TPWS and the Indusi Train stop system, the Metro train detection and passenger information system is overlaid on the route, the in cab radio was modified to automatically facilitate communication with the Network Rail 7 8 Railway Group Standard GE/GN8502 Operation of Trams and Light Rail or Metro Vehicles Over Network Rail Controlled Infrastructure Railway Group Standard GM/RT2452 Acceptance of Trams and Light Rail or Metro vehicles for shared Running on Network Rail controlled Infrastructure 15

30 control centre and Metro control respectively when operating on the different infrastructure, two telephones system are provided to connect to the respective control and operating organisations and cameras, public address and station SCADA 9 systems were directed to the respective station operator. This highlights the possible requirements and complexity of developing a shared running system across two sets of infrastructure. 4.6 In operation the system was initially difficult to regulate resulting in significant disruption to the Metro service pattern and schedule on both networks, this was resolved by reducing the Metro and regional train frequencies on the shared section of the network. 4.7 The focus on Tramtrain in the UK is slightly different from mainland Europe, as few cities have existing tram networks which could be connected to the wider rail network to provide improved connectivity and services. Hence the focus in part appears to be the development and the use of Tramtrain to convert branch line services, with an aim to cut the cost of provision and operation. 4.8 A trial of Tramtrain in the UK is to be undertaken by Northern Rail on the 37-mile Penistone Line between Huddersfield and Sheffield see Figure 4.1. The current service will be replaced using five Tramtrain vehicles between 2010 and 2012 and will look at the environmental, operational, passenger and lifecycle benefits along with the technical suitability of the technology. The vehicles may then be trialled on the Sheffield Supertram network to assess the operation and suitability of the technology on a UK tram network. 4.9 It is currently unclear if the vehicles will be dual mode to operate on a 750v dc overhead line network and under diesel power and will be provided with the operational systems to operate both on Network Rail and Supertram infrastructure. Operation 4.10 The current requirements for the operation of light rail vehicles relates to the running of vehicles from other administrations 10 onto Network Rail infrastructure. A service or vehicle operating wholly on Network Rail infrastructure would have to comply with the normal standards relating to the rail network. It is unclear if this requirement will be revised prior to, or following the Penistone trial SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition used for fire alarms, escalators, lifts, power, ticketing etc. Separately owned and operated networks, potentially operated under different safety arrangements, and potentially different infrastructure standards. 16

31 FIGURE 4.1 ROUTE OF PENISTONE TRAMTRAIN TRIAL 4.11 Operators of trains and stations on Network Rail infrastructure are normally required to have a safety case accepted by Network Rail in accordance with the Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 1994 and amendments thereafter. The Railway Safety Case describes the operation proposed, identifies the risks which it presents and the control measures used to mitigate these so far as is practically possible. All the other operators utilising the proposed mixed running route or routes would also need to update and reissue for acceptance a revised safety case The primary issue in assessing the impact of light rail on the heavy rail network is the level of interaction with Network Rail and heavy rail operations. This might include one or a combination of the following: Exclusive Running in which light and heavy rail vehicles are separated by time of day. For example, light rail may use a section of the route during the day with heavy rail freight trains using it at night when all light rail services are finished or suspended. Although there may need to be some changes to the signalling system, this mainly relies on procedural measures to ensure that all vehicles of one type are clear of the route section before another type is allowed to enter it. Limited Exclusive Running in which light and heavy rail vehicles have exclusive use of the section of the route for limited periods during the day. This requires positive signalling measures to prove that all vehicles of one type have cleared the section before those of another type are allowed to enter it. A light rail route crossing a heavy rail could form this type of operation. Mixed Running in which vehicles of both types use the section of route at the same time. Because of the potential severe consequences of a collision between heavy and light rail vehicles, relying on drivers to observe line-side signalling is not felt to provide adequate protection or to reduce the risk as far as practicable. Additional measures are required to ensure that all vehicles (light and heavy) stop at a signal at danger (or within the overlap) by the automatic application of the brakes to reduce speed prior to and to bring the vehicle to stop at a red signal. 17

32 These measures have to be applied to all signals capable of displaying a stop aspect and to all vehicles using the route, light and heavy. Parallel Running in which the light rail operation take over a line or runs alongside an existing heavy rail route. This form of operation significantly differs from those above and is not covered by the same network Rail standards, this form of operation would need to be agreed with Network Rail and the Railway Inspectorate and is likely to result in the segregation of the two systems. An example is the parallel running on Nottingham Tram alongside the Robin Hood line, where to minimise operational and maintenance issues the two lines are separated by a fence In the case of Parallel or Limited Exclusive Running HMRI / ORR are likely to allow an exemption from the requirements for the operator to hold a heavy rail Railway Safety Case. This in turn means that compliance with Railway Group Standards is not required, but operating rules and agreements may need to be put in place to provide the levels of safety required for the operation and maintenance of both systems Where Tramtrain operation in conjunction with other heavy rail would result in increased service frequencies a route may need to be re-signalled, which would be a significant cost to any proposed scheme, particularly if the existing signalling system technology is old and requires complete replacement as part of any improvements The Penistone trial will hopefully facilitate setting the vehicle standards for Tramtrain vehicles, which if the manufacturers are able and willing to provide a suitable vehicle depending upon the market demand could significantly de-risk future Tramtrain projects and potentially provide a competitive market. Vehicles 4.16 Three main vehicle suppliers offer Tramtrain vehicles, Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens. To date the current vehicles on offer have not been produced for any significant length of time and have not been produced in significant numbers (around 70 units in service of 125 ordered) Alstom currently lead the field with orders although all the manufactures have a similar number of vehicles in service As mentioned above the Light Rail vehicles need to meet minimum structural requirements set out in Railway Group Standards to operate under shared running. Tramtrains developed to date for mainland European markets have been developed to meet improved structural requirements and significantly exceed that of tram vehicles. It is not currently clear if these vehicles would comply with Railway Group Standards for Light Rail vehicles The vehicle performance is similar to that of trams with a slightly higher top speed of 100km/hr. 18

33 4.20 Alstom Regio Citadis, is based upon the multi-modular Citadis tram range adapted to provide improved crash protection for operation on heavy rail networks. The vehicle is low floor with three sections supported on four bogies. The vehicle has been produced to operate on two voltages 750V dc for tramway operation and differing ac traction voltages for heavy rail operation, the vehicle has also been provided with a diesel generator package, operating on 750V dc on the tram network and independently through the use of the diesel generator on none electrified suburban routes. FIGURE 4.2 ALSTOM - REGIO CITADIS TABLE 4.1 REGIO CITADIS DATA Key Figures Length Width 36,762 mm 2,659 mm Seats 93 Standing 130 Doors 4 double per side 5 double doors available but reduces seating Ordered / Supplied 82 / 28 19

34 4.21 Bombardier Flexity Link has been supplied to Saarbrucken and is based on the range of Flexity vehicles supplied to Croydon, Stockholm and Instanbul. The vehicle has been produced to operate on both the 750V dc tram network and the AC traction voltage used on the heavy rail network. FIGURE 4.3 BOMBARDIER - FLEXITY LINK TABLE 4.2 FLEXITY LINK Key Figures Length Width 37,000 mm 2,650 mm Seats 96 Standing 147 Doors 4 double per side Ordered / Supplied 28 / 28 20

35 4.22 Siemens Avanto Tramtrain, was based upon the S70 vehicle mainly produced for the American market. The Avanto Tramtrain version has been supplied to SNCF for operation in Paris. The vehicle is a five section low floor vehicle supplied to operate on both a 750V dc light rail network and the 25KV ac regional rail network. This vehicle is no longer available. FIGURE 4.4 SIEMENS - AVANTO TRAMTRAIN TABLE 4.3 SIEMENS AVANTO TRAMTRAIN DATA Key Figures Length Width 36,965 mm 2,650 mm Seats 86 Standing 154 Doors 5 double per side Ordered / Supplied 15 / 15 21

36 Diesel Trams 4.23 Siemens Combino, a small low floor diesel powered tram vehicle was developed and supplied to Nordhausen. This is the only tram style vehicle to be diesel powered with the diesel generation package contained within the central passenger module. The vehicle is no longer available from Siemens following the replacement of the Combino model with Combino-Plus. The Combino plus is based on 9 metre body sections each of which are supported on a central bogie, this arrangement could limit the ability to include a diesel generator package within the vehicle The inclusion of a diesel generator on the roof of a low floor tram may be possible similar to the arrangement used on Tramtrains, although the available space would be limited and there could be a significant issue with the weight of the equipment. FIGURE 4.5 NORDHAUSEN DIESEL COMBINO TRAM 4.25 If a manufacture were able to provide a diesel tram a 30 metre vehicle would provide a capacity of about 200 and could cost in the order of 2.5 to 3.0 million The infrastructure costs for a tram scheme mainly on a old rail alignment with a reduced length of on-street trackwork in the city centre could be comparable to the Nottingham Tram scheme, approximately 12 million per kilometre. 22

37 4.27 The efficiency of the individual vehicles can be a factor in the choice of mode, this can be influenced by: The fuel and efficiency of the propulsion system. The rolling resistance. The weight of the vehicle. The distance between stops. The speed profile due to stops, junctions etc Tramtrain vehicles are equipped with an electrical traction system which incorporates regenerative braking and can include energy stores such as high speed flywheels, capacitor or batteries. The efficiency of these systems is good, and could be improved significantly through the use of an energy store facility, which would significantly improve the reuse of the regenerated energy under braking and smooth the power demand under acceleration A diesel powered vehicle, utilises the diesel engine in conjunction with a generator package to provide the power for the electrical traction system. In this configuration the regenerative braking energy is not captured and is dissipated as heat, it could be reused in conjunction with an energy store if it were to be included within the traction package. Operation under diesel power would be less efficient than the electric overhead line, due to the losses in the generation system and the need for the generator package to operate at high revs while the vehicle accelerates, potentially a significant part of the time on a frequent stop urban network. The system is more efficient when operating to provide the vehicle with the constant speed power where the diesel arrangement can run at a more efficient speed The Rolling Resistance Coefficient of a Tramtrain vehicle is of the order of 0.005, much less than that of a rubber tyred vehicle which could improve the energy efficiency of the vehicle when compared to rubber tyred vehicles. This is however reduced by a number of factors: Reduced tractive adhesion - which impacts on the ability of the vehicle to accelerate, this is somewhat mitigated by the much heavier weight of the vehicle and the more complex traction systems to reduce wheel slip. It is worth noting to increase the acceleration and deceleration characteristics of metro vehicles a number of systems, Val, Paris Metro, and the Paris Meteor Line use rubber tyred metro vehicles. Vehicle weight Rail vehicles tend to be heavy due to the bogies, body structure, and traction packages, and the passenger capacity. Short stopping distances - on urban systems result in the vehicle either accelerating or braking over a significant element of a journey profile with limited sections of steady speed operation. A typical speed distance profile is shown in Figure Lower Rolling Resistance Coefficient becomes a more significant advantage where a vehicle is running at a constant speed where the power input required to maintain the vehicle speed can be significantly lower than that of a rubber tyred vehicle. Infrastructure 23

38 4.32 Tramtrain s key benefit is the ability to use existing rail infrastructure to operate on and provide connection in to city centres. In the case of the Greater Bristol area a city centre tram style network could be constructed plus connections to identified existing rail routes. The city centre network wouldn t necessarily need to be electrified as a Tramtrain option for the area would need to be diesel powered to operate on the current heavy rail network in the area. FIGURE 4.6 TYPICAL SPEED DISTANCE PROFILE FOR AN URBAN TRANPORT SYSTEM 4.33 Operation under diesel power could in part be mitigated if the vehicle where fitted with an energy store, storing the energy created under braking (similar to the Parry People Mover). The energy store would provide power for acceleration in conjunction with the diesel generator allowing the engine to run at a more optimal speed reducing noise and emissions. Three types of energy store are potentially possible battery, capacitor or high speed flywheel. The inclusion of an energy store system would increase the cost of the vehicle Within the city centre track could be constructed utilising the latest ORR guidance 11 potentially reducing the depth of construction compared to tram schemes constructed to date, with the potential to mitigate some of the utility diversion works required. Utilities would though need to be moved where they would be impacted upon by the construction of the running rails and where access and continued serviceability would be affected. Local utility connections, water, gas, electricity, telecoms would need to be moved if the routes run parallel to and within the swept path of any proposed route to enable utility companies to access, maintain and provide connections to their equipment Tracks on connecting routes could utilise more conventional ballasted track where these are segregated from public areas. 11 ORR Tramway Technical Guidance Note 1, Design Requirements for Street Track, May

39 4.36 Stops would need to be provided along the route to provide a level boarding height of approximately 330mm to 350mm, their length would be dependant on the vehicle length and the door position. However the length of all three current vehicles is in the order of 37 metres. This would take considerable kerb space in Bristol city centre Stop width would need to be of the order of three metres, possibly wider where they are included within busy footways Deliverability is currently a significant issue with Tramtrain in the UK; this may improve following the completion of the Penistone trial in The development of standalone systems utilising Tramtrain technology will be more expensive than more standard tram technology and run a significant risk of not being compatible with Tramtrain requirements set in the future. The development of Tramtrain route on the heavy rail network are likely to continue to be high risk in terms of costs due to the unknown level of signalling and infrastructure works required to facilitate their operation on the existing heavy rail routes. Application to the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads Route 4.39 To provide a comparison of cost we have developed a cost for each of the technologies based on the development of the route from Temple Meads through the City Centre to Ashton Vale Park and Ride. The route in the city centre is based upon running on Victoria Street, Counterslip, Lower Castle Street, with a single track loop on Horse Fair Nelson Street and Newgate continuing to Wapping Wharf via Broad Quay and Prince Street. We have not carried out any evaluation of the technical feasibility of using this route for the individual technologies We have not included for shared running on the short section of existing rail infrastructure at Ashton Gate (Portishead Freight Line) as this could be prohibitively expensive due to the signalling costs associated with this section. We have priced for a parallel route and bridge over the line at this stage The capacity provided for comparison is up to 3000 passengers in the peak hour as this would provide for some growth in passengers on the route, and initially provide a more comfortable vehicle loading. The journey time is assumed to be approximately 20 minutes, resulting in a requirement for a five minute service providing a capacity of approximately vehicles with a vehicle capacity of approximately 245 would be required to provide the service with spares The intensity of the service would require the route to be double track other than under Cumberland Road, where it would be beneficial to retain the existing bridge, minimise the section of single operation and operate the route bi-directionally over this short section. Costs 4.43 Indicative capital cost estimates for Tramtrain vehicles and infrastructure costs for the Aston Vale route are shown in Table 4.4. The vehicle cost is based on a pricing received from both suppliers and operators for a dual powered low floor vehicle. The cost estimate for a single power source vehicle is likely to be at the lower end of the 25

40 cost range supplied. The vehicle cost is both higher than that of a tram and a heavy rail vehicle. This is in part due to the dual mode traction system, but more down to the requirement to meet the required crashworthiness, with a low floor vehicle which is inherently less rigid than a high floor rail vehicle. There is also the issue of the low numbers of vehicle produced to date compared to both tram and rail products, which are either more standard products or substantively based upon them. TABLE 4.4 TRAMTRAIN CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATE (2007 PRICES) LOWER COST INFASTRUCTURE AND VEHICLES Element City Centre Industrial Museum to Ashton Vale Cost (Million) Vehicles dual Power 2.8 to 3.2 million 12 each Vehicle cost for 5 minute service (10 vehicles) Passenger Capacity Infrastructure (Lower Track Cost) Infrastructure with Electrification (Lower Track Cost) TOTAL COST (Infrastructure (Lower Track Cost)) 28 million 2960 / hr million ( 12.7 / Km) million ( 13.9 / Km) 118 million TABLE 4.5 TRAMTRAIN CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATE (2007 PRICES) TRAM INFRASTRUCTURE AND HIGHER COST VEHICLES Element City Centre Industrial Museum to Ashton Vale Cost (Million) Vehicles dual Power 2.8 to 3.2 million 12 each Vehicle cost for 4 minute service (10 vehicles) Passenger Capacity Infrastructure (Conventional UK Tram cost) Infrastructure with Electrification (Conventional UK Tram cost) TOTAL COST (Tram Infrastructure Cost)) 32 million 2960 / hr million ( 15.6 / Km) million ( 17.1 / Km) 142 million 12 Diesel Trams: A New Way forward, Modern Railways March 2007 quotes a figure of 1.9 million per vehicle. Contact with manufacturers and German operators suggest a much higher figure of between 2.8 and 3.2 million. 26

41 4.44 The costs show that a Tramtrain scheme including vehicles could be of the order of 120 to 142 million, it is important to note this is an initial estimate based on the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route with no site inspection or engineering review of the feasibility. These costs are comparable to the outturn costs for tram schemes including vehicles of an average of approximately 12 million per km (see Table 4.6) with the on-street element costing up to 20 million per km excluding vehicles The developed costs do not include for land or optimism bias. TABLE 4.6 CONSTRUCTED TRAM SYSTEM INFASTRUCTURE COSTS System 2007 Price Length /km m / km Midland Metro Croydon Sheffield Manchester Nottingham Merseytram (cost estimate) Edinburgh Average Cost The cost of off-street track construction on either disused rail alignments or similar open space would be of the order of 5 million to 7 million It is notable, from Table 4.6, that the cost of tram schemes in the UK has been rising significantly In developing the costs for the route it suggests that it would be as cost effective to provide a more convention tram system in place of the Tramtrain technology with its more expensive vehicle and the potential risks of its possible wider operation on other dedicated routes or the wider heavy rail network. Wider Route Network 4.49 A possible Tramtrain network is shown in Figure 4.6. This identifies two route corridors utilising both current freight only and passenger rail routes. The proposed routes would potentially raise a significant number of issues. The routes are in the main two tracks and would require Tramtrains to operate in conjunction with freight, local, longer distance and high speed services. The current rail network in the area is also capacity constrained, particularly given the short to medium term proposals for the rail network. Some of proposed Tramtrain routes are also proposed to operating on the mainlines and the diversionary routes for the mainlines, which could be difficult to achieve at any frequency and regularity in conjunction with high speed services. Having said this, the introduction of Tramtrains on local services would be likely to remove the conflicting heavy rail service in any event in order to provide the proposed objectives of Tramtrain, that being, higher frequencies at lower maintenance and operating costs. 27

42 FIGURE 4.7 POSSIBLE TRAMTRAIN NETWORK 4.50 The following issues would need to be addressed to assess the feasibility of these routes: Low platforms on heavy rail network (freight and heavy rail vehicle operation through them). Available capacity. Operation in conjunction with high speed services, issue of differential speeds Frequency on single sections / Improvement works. 28

43 Length of the proposed routes. Runtime, headway and timetable issues. Weekend working (Network Rail closures for maintenance). Service diversion routing. Rail operators delay penalty arrangements. Mix of train operation. Impact on existing operators. Impact on franchise arrangements A particular issue is the operation of a tram style service through the city centre and dedicated routes which would operate in the main on a headway basis and not a timetable and the need to operate to a timetable on the heavy rail network. This is a difficult arrangement to manage and can result in vehicles being held to regulate their access to the rail network, increasing runtimes The adoption of the same technology in place of some of the other proposed rapid transit routes would result in the need to revise the routes. For example the proposed route using the M32 would need to review the issues of completely segregated running from other road traffic or consider alternative routes altogether. The cost of dedicated, segregated infrastructure for such services would be comparable to tram system costs, which could be a more appropriate, cost effective mode in place of Tramtrain technology The ability to serve the wider West of England area would require the development of dedicated Tramtrain corridors requiring more extensive expensive infrastructure. The developing network would need to be integrated with bus services requiring additional infrastructure and potentially creating significant interchange penalties for multi mode journeys. Fit with Objectives 4.54 Mode shift Extend choice / encourage shift to public transport, the provision of Tramtrain within the corridors would if not replacing an existing mode, would extend choice, improve the quality, reliability and potentially the frequency. Rail based modes are proven to encourage a higher shift to public transport than bus based modes Mode shift - Improve access to public transport, the development of Tramtrain routes would be within dedicated corridors, which would improve the access within the particular corridor. Mode shift from the wider network would be dependant on the integration of the routes with other public transport modes and could suffer from an in interchange penalty. Routes developed on the heavy rail network would only serve the existing station catchments as additional stations would be difficult to insert due to the interoperation with other services. The benefits to the wider region could therefore be limited Mode shift - Improve integration, the integration of Tramtrain operating on the existing rail or dedicated networks could improve integration and improve the number of seamless journey possibilities. The development of Tramtrain on the existing rail 29

44 network in the short to medium term look extremely limited, and are likely to be reliant on the results of the Penistone Trial Help reduce traffic congestion - Improve safety along transport routes, Tram and Tramtrains are inherently safe Public transport modes. Tramtrain has not been applied in the UK to date, but would not be progressed if the hazards of operating low floor vehicles are not removed or mitigated on the heavy rail network. The Penistone trial will hopefully resolve the potential issue of low platforms and low floor operation Help reduce traffic congestion - Increase network capacity, Tramtrain vehicle are high capacity and as such would significantly improve the network capacity within their corridors of operation Contribute towards economic growth Promote Sustainable Development, The provision of another transport mode within the network would contribute towards the growth of the local economy. With the mode focused within a dedicated corridor the wider benefits of the system may be reduced, although the development of a wider Tramtrain network utilising the existing heavy rail network could provide wider benefits. This would be dependant on the development of Tramtrain in the UK Contribute towards economic growth Promote social inclusion, the development of additional transport corridors would improve overall access to transport and their integrated with existing public transport modes would improve journey opportunities. Peoples would therefore have improved connectivity and ability to access employment and services In terms of affordability/deliverability, the capital costs for Tramtrain are likely to be far in excess of the funding currently identified in the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) Tramtrain trials on the heavy rail network are planned to conclude in 2012 with trials on LRT network potentially after that. Prior to understanding the results trials being undertaken by the rail industry, Tramtrain is likely to remain high cost and high risk. The Penistone trial will hopefully facilitate setting the vehicle standards for Tramtrain vehicles, which if the manufacturers are able and willing to provide a suitable vehicle depending upon the market demand could significantly de-risk future Tramtrain projects and potentially provide a competitive market. Operation of the first rapid transit route is programmed for Tramtrain is highly unlikely to happen before 2016 and therefore is outside the current regional funding allocation programme The local contribution required by Central Government from the West of England Authorities could be 25% for Tramtrain as it is with tram schemes. If this was the case the four local authorities would be looking at a local contribution in the order of 30 to 36 million. 30

45 Light Weight Rail / Ultra Light Rail 4.64 Light Weight Rail / Ultra Light Rail (LWR/ULR) has been developed by Parry People Movers (PPM) as an intermediate mode between bus and tram and is being promoted by Sustraco/Ultra Light Rail as Hybrid Ultra Light Transit System (HULTS). The concept is to provide a lower cost intermediate mode which could run in place of existing branch line services on the national rail network or a low cost alternative to tram technology PPM uses a flywheel, which is accelerated up to approximately 2500 rpm as the main drive for the vehicle, this provides the torque needed to accelerate. The flywheel is accelerated up to speed with a small petrol engine converted to LPG, which is also used to propel the vehicle over longer distances once it is up to speed. The braking action of the vehicle is also utilised to recharge the flywheel, effectively a form of regenerative braking The system has been trialled on a number of routes and recently won its first order to supply two vehicles to operate the Stourbridge branch line service in place of the single diesel car used on the line currently and the PPM trial vehicle operated on Sundays, the two vehicles will enter service in December 2008 and will be operated by Pre Metro Operations Ltd part of the Parry Group for Midland Rail A site visit to Stourbridge was undertaken to review the PPM trial vehicle and discuss the Light Weight Rail concept with Parry People Movers ULR is reported by the promoters to require significantly lower cost infrastructure to that of a tram system, as it doesn t require overhead power systems and potentially would not require the same level of utility diversions Information on HULTS has been provided by Scott Wilson on behalf of Bristol Electric Bus Ltd. Their report sets out proposals for Light Weight Rail from Bristol to Long Ashton Park and Ride 13. This report is provided in Appendix B. Operation 4.70 The current operation of the Parry People Mover demonstration vehicle on the Stourbridge Branch line has a number of dispensations from Railway Group Standards, these have been achieved by the vehicle operating under exclusive running with physical measures employed to segregate the service from the heavy rail network, in effect being classed as physically separate from the heavy rail network while in operation (see levels of interaction discussed under Tramtrain from Paragraph 4.12) The PPM vehicle would not meet the Railway Group Standard for light rail vehicles operating on Network Rail infrastructure and as such is unlikely to be able to operate under limited exclusive running and would not be able to run under mixed running. 13 The Hybrid Ultra Light Transit System (HULTS): An Alternative Proposal to Bus Rapid Transit from Bristol City Centre to Long Ashton Park and Ride, Scott Wilson, June

46 The PPM vehicle could be used on a Parallel Running route (a dedicated new corridor alongside a rail route) although the level of segregation may need to be reviewed due to the light weight construction of the vehicle and possible risk identified from either systems operation. Vehicles 4.72 The Parry People Mover vehicle has been developed from the idea of providing a low cost environmentally friendly vehicle, utilising a slow speed flywheel to provide the vehicles tractive power. The vehicle utilises a small LPG powered engine to charge the flywheel and supplement the tractive power to maintain the vehicles constant speed over longer distances. The LPG engine also provides the vehicles auxiliary supplies in conjunction with batteries. The vehicles are light weight, approximately 10 tonnes with two fixed axles, one of which is powered. The design and manufacture of the vehicle attempts to utilises standard parts and equipment such as a Ford engine, bus windows and equipments etc, to both reduce cost and to ensure the maintainability of the vehicle. FIGURE 4.8 PARRY PEOPLE MOVER 4.73 The vehicle is RVAR 14 compliant and is wheelchair accessible, the vehicle being equipped with single passenger access per side at opposite ends of the vehicle results in the need to provide sufficient space within the interior for a wheelchair to be able to negotiate the length of the vehicle between the doors. This results in a significant amount of floor space and minimal seating approximately 16 seats for a 50 passenger vehicle At the Stourbridge site visit the vehicle was operating over a short section of track, approximately 50 metres. The vehicle offered good acceleration and deceleration although the speed achieved was low and the vehicle was only laden with 6 people. It was notable that the vehicle suffered wheel slip when starting with the light laden 14 Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 32

47 weight The vehicles appeared relatively simple to operate although the speed of the LPG engine was manually controlled to increase the charging of the flywheel as required. The flywheel was noticeably recharged under braking and the vehicle was quiet both under acceleration and deceleration. The vehicle data provided suggest the vehicle is capable of similar performance levels to that of a tram, although the top speed of the vehicle is limited to 60kph The vehicle is not equipped with secondary suspension and with a fixed axle arrangement will rely on the quality of the track infrastructure for ride quality. Even with quality trackwork the ride quality at higher speeds is likely to suffer from the current single fixed axle arrangement as apposed to a vehicle equipped with bogies The vehicle can be produced as a medium floor height version achieving a boarding height of 450mm (this was used as the Bristol Electric Trial vehicle on the heritage railway route, as shown in Figure 4.8), this compares to a tram boarding height of approximately 330 mm and of approximately 340 mm without kneeling for a bus. A kneeling bus which is now a standard product would achieve a boarding height of approximately 150mm. FIGURE 4.9 BRISTOL ELECTRIC BUS VEHICLE (DEMONSTRATION PROJECT) 4.78 HULTS proposes a 60 passenger PPM low floor vehicle utilising two bogies, Figure 4.9. The PPM bogie technology upon which the vehicle would rely is also currently a concept and has not been developed. The development of this vehicle would require a radical redesign of the current PPM vehicles and we understand this is proposed. The promoters propose the vehicles to have a high quality appearance/finish, Figure

48 FIGURE 4.10 SCHEMATIC HYBRID ULTRA LIGHT TRAM SYSTEM HULTS 13 FIGURE 4.11 PROPOSED HULTS Operation of the vehicle with general traffic in an on-street environment has not been tested to date; it is therefore unclear how the vehicle will perform in this arrangement. It is also unclear if the current vehicle complies with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act to facilitate its operation on street Deliverability is a significant issue with this technology as to date only development vehicles have been produced and trialled on a number of short rail routes, where the vehicles operation can be segregated from other uses. The first two production vehicles are currently being built for the Stourbridge route and will go into service in December 2008 and are high floor vehicles with a boarding height of approximately 900mm. The vehicle is also one of a kind which would raise the issue of sole provider and long term product support PPM proposes that a double vehicle could be produced to accommodate

49 passengers, effectively based upon the joining of two PPM 50 vehicles. The joining of two vehicles is inherently complex. It is unclear how an articulated join of two vehicles would be achieved and the affect such an arrangement would have on ride quality and vehicle performance. The control of the vehicle would also become significantly more complex, requiring the vehicle to have a traction control package to monitor and control the two drive and brake systems, within the two sections The durability of the vehicle under continuous operation has also yet to be proved. The life of a Tramtrain or tram would be 30 years, it is not clear that the PPM vehicles could operate reliably over this timescale. TABLE 4.7 PARRY PEOPLE MOVER VEHICLE DATA Key Figures Length Width 8,700 mm 2,400 mm Seats Standing Doors 1 double per side Ordered / Supplied 2 / The efficiency of the vehicle as described under Tramtrain is influenced by a number of factors. The fuel efficiency of the PPM vehicle benefits form the use of the flywheel technology to provide the accelerating torque for the vehicle, and store the vehicle braking energy, this has the potential to allow the supplementary LPG engine to run at more optimum speed to supplement the vehicle power and assist in recharging the flywheel while the vehicle is stationary. A full day service is expected to utilise approximately 150kg of propane (current vehicle fuel) though this would depend on the stopping distance and speed of the vehicle The vehicle could be operated with other engine packages using bio-fuels if required, to date this has not been provided or tested, although the same technologies are employed on buses around the world, which demonstrate the potential The PPM vehicle has the advantage of lower Rolling Resistance Coefficient which would be similar to light rail /Tramtrain at approximately The advantages of this as with Tramtrain could be reduced by: Reduced tractive adhesion the overall weight (including passengers) of the vehicle is slightly lower at approximately 78% than that of a tram / Tramtrain. It was though noticeable with a small load that the vehicle suffered from wheel slip. Unlike a tram or Tramtrain the vehicle does not have a wheel slip / traction control package to mitigate this issue, this is controlled by the driver of the vehicle. On gradients the wheel slip issue could be an issue particularly if the vehicle stopped for junction, stops etc. This could be a significant issue particularly for potential routes to south and northwest in the Bristol urban area where there are significant gradients. Vehicle Weight including the weight of passengers is slightly lower than that of a tram but slightly higher per passenger than that of an articulated bus. 35

50 Short stopping distances the vehicle as with the Tramtrain would benefit from lower rolling resistance on longer routes, countering this would be the need for the vehicle to utilise more energy from the supplementary LPG engine. On an urban route the vehicle would though mainly be accelerating or braking, reducing the benefit of the lower rolling resistance. Infrastructure 4.86 Track infrastructure is generally designed and procured separately from the vehicles and as such the development of the proposed track infrastructure for light weight rail has not been developed to the same level as the vehicle. Promoters of light weight rail propose a vastly reduced cost (70% lower) quoting a figure of below 3 million 15 per single track kilometre, proposing this is due to the removal of the electrification system and reduced impact on utilities due to the removal of stray current issues. Clarification of the cost estimate has identified that the cost does not include for stop furniture and systems such as CCTV, help point or ticketing Table 4.8 shows a typical breakdown of a conventional tram scheme, with an average cost of 12m per km. Removing both the electrification and all the utilities cost would only account for a possible reduction of 33% in the cost of construction producing a track cost of approximately 8.04 million. The removal of all but the Site Preparation, Highway and Trackwork costs results in a cost of 4.8 million compared to the proposed 3 million rate The ORR has recently released guidance on track construction for tram systems, which could reduce the cost of construction (this is provided in Appendix C). Shallow rail profiles are also available which could also reduce the depth further although these are more expensive and more difficult to procure. Importantly the track construction within a highway needs to maintain the durability and loading required for the highway vehicles (40 tonnes) as well as LWR/ULR. TABLE 4.8 TYPICAL COST BREAKDOWN FOR A TRAM SYSTEM Description Percentage Cost Based on 12 Million per km Site Preparation 13% 1.56 Highway Works 7% 0.84 Utilities 20% 2.40 Trackwork 22% 2.64 Stops 7% 0.84 Traction Power 13% 1.56 Signalling and Telecommunications 18% 2.16 Total 100% Hybrid Ultra Light Transit System, Scott Wilson for Bristol Electric Railbus Ltd, June

51 4.89 The need to divert utilities is a function of the depth of construction and also, importantly, continued access and serviceability to utility companies. To our knowledge there has not been a fixed rail system in the UK where utilities have not been moved. Local utility connections, water, gas, electricity, telecoms would need to be moved if the routes run parallel to and within the swept path of any proposed route to enable utility companies to access, maintain and provide connections to their equipment. The majority of access chambers would also need to be moved clear of the swept path of any system The proposed ULR track was discussed with local Utility providers at a meeting in July The representatives of the Utility Companies were not in principle against the concept of a track which could run on top of their assets within the highway but raised a number of issues: Services would need to be diverted or suspended when access or work were required. This would need to be taken in to consideration in the development of the track solution. Different consideration would need to be given in terms of access to utilities in cases of planned and emergency requirements. By its nature planned works would be easier to co-ordinate in terms of changes to services. Different consideration would need to be given to different types of assets i.e. access to water and sewer systems has very different issues to telecommunications equipment for example. Utility Companies would be looking to the owner of the track, the Local Authorities, to be responsible for the reinstatement of the highway where this was for example dug up for utility works to insure the risk of damage to the track rested with the Local Authority. Utility Companies would be looking to the owner of the track, the Local Authorities, to be responsible for paying for any reinstatement works The representatives of the HULTS technology at the meeting noted that they want to develop a track for ULR which meets the requirements of the Utility Companies without having to move their assets. The intention was to have ongoing engagement with the Utility Companies in this process Stray current is an issue for electrified systems but this is mitigated in the main by the use of encapsulated rails, floating earth systems and ensuring the quality of the traction return. The Scott Wilson report on Hybrid Ultra Light Rail comments that they would retain the use of encapsulated rail due to its properties in reducing noise and vibration. In relation to the overall cost electrification accounts for approximately 13% of tram system costs Therefore a number of cost estimates for the development of the different technologies for the Ashton Vale route have been developed to provide a comparison against 3 million per kilometre cost proposed by HULTS and the Scott Wilson Report. Application to the Ashton Vale Route 4.94 To provide a comparison of cost we have developed a cost for each of the technologies based on the development of the route from Temple Meads through the 37

52 City Centre to Ashton Vale Park and Ride. The route is the same as detailed under Tramtrain. We have not carried out any evaluation of the technical feasibility of using this route for the individual technologies We have based the cost on the vehicle information provided and the lower track cost developed for the Tramtrain costs. We believe this to be reasonable assumption based on our knowledge of track construction The capacity provided for comparison is based on 3000 passengers in the peak hour as this would provide for some growth in passengers on the route, and initially provide a more comfortable vehicle loading. Although the journey time could be greater than 20 minutes due to the vehicles lower top speed, for this review we have assumed the vehicle can match the Tramtrain and BRT performance. This results in a requirement for a 2.5 minute service frequency providing a capacity of approximately vehicles would be required to provide the service with spares. (Not withstanding previous commentary on the feasibility of linking two units). In our opinion, a service level of two minutes on a technology untested in passenger operations has considerable risks. Costs 4.97 Indicative capital cost estimates for Light Weight Rail vehicles and infrastructure costs for the Aston Vale route are shown in Table 4.8. The costs show that a (HULTS) Light Weight Rail Scheme could be of the order of 38 million (2007 prices), it is important to note this is an initial estimate based on the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route with no site inspection or engineering review of the feasibility The deliverability of trackwork at such a low cost would need to be established, for comparison the capital cost when including an allowance for city centre highway and signalling costs would be 45 million. The capital cost based on a low cost tram style track would be of the order of 103 million this include the lower cost associated with ballasted track were this would be possible. A significant element of the route is onstreet at approximately 4.5km of the 7.2km route. TABLE 4.9 LIGHT WEIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 1 HULTS (2007 PRICES) Element City Centre Industrial Museum to Ashton Vale Cost (Million) Vehicles 60 passengers 350,000 each Vehicle 120 Passengers 700,000 each Vehicle cost for 2.5 minute service (18 vehicles) 12.6 million Passenger Capacity 2880 / hr Infrastructure (HULTS) 3m/km +Structures TOTAL COST (HULTS) 12.5m 13.0m 25.5 million ( 3.6 / Km) 38.1 million 4.99 The HULTS track estimate ( 3 million /km) for the city centre section of the route 38

53 significantly underestimates the costs involved, as a minimum we believe the city centre section would require a similar highway costs to that of the BRT scheme. These are included in Table TABLE 4.10 LIGHT WEIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 2 REVISED HULTS (2007 PRICES) Element City Centre Industrial Museum to Ashton Vale Cost (Million) Vehicles 350,000 each Vehicle 120 Passengers 700,000 each Vehicle cost for 2.5 minute service (18 vehicles) 12.6 million Passenger Capacity 2880 / hr Infrastructure (HULTS) 3m/km +Structures 12.5m 13.0m 25.5 million ( 3.6 / Km) Highway and signalling costs TOTAL COST 7.0m 32.5 million ( 4.6 / Km) 45.1 million For comparison a capital cost for the HULTS scheme including an infrastructure cost based on a low cost tram track without electrification is shown in Table TABLE 4.11 LIGHT WEIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 3 LOW COST TRAM STYLE INFRASTRUCTURE(2007 PRICES) Element City Centre Industrial Museum to Ashton Vale Cost (Million) Vehicles 350,000 each Vehicle 120 Passengers 700,000 each Vehicle cost for 2.5 minute service (18 vehicles) 12.6 million Passenger Capacity 2880 / hr Infrastructure (Low Cost Tram not electrified) TOTAL COST 49.6m 40.4m 90.0 ( 12.7 / Km) 102.6m Wider Route Network The operation of a rail based vehicle on some of the proposed rapid transit would result in the need to revise the routes as operation of elements such as on the M32, out to Bristol Airport etc. would need to be reviewed. Dedicated corridors would have to be developed, alongside or on alternative routes depending on land and feasibility. Routes developed would require infrastructure along their full length to be constructed to enable operation of this mode. 39

54 4.102 The ability to service the wider West of England area would require interchange with bus services. Fit with Objectives Mode Shift Extend choice / encourage shift to public transport, as an additional mode within the transport network Light Weight Rail would generate mode shift, this will though depend on the reliability, quality and image of the system, and its integration with the wider network. With a larger vehicle and a service frequency providing similar capacity to that of a tram the technology could achieve a mode shift close to that of a tram system. The interchange penalty could significantly affect the level of mode shift generated from integration of the route with the wider bus network Mode Shift Improve access to public transport, as standalone routes the technology would improve access to public transport in the corridors developed. Mode shift and access in the wider network would be dependant on the integration of the corridors with the existing public transport modes, which could suffer from an interchange penalty Mode Shift Improve Integration, it is likely the technology would be provided within dedicated corridors. Integration with the city centre destinations, other bus services and Bristol temple Meads station is likely to be very expensive. Integration would be dependant on the routes developed and as such would need to be a key objective when developing routes. If a city centre network was to be progressed integrated with rail and bus stations, integration could be good Help reduce traffic congestion - Improve safety along transport routes, the mode to date has been trialled on segregated sections of rail alignments, none of which have been on street with traffic. It has operated safely on these routes and there is nothing to suggest that the technology would not improve safety in the transport network. Although when running on-street it would mix with other traffic and would be unable to avoid other vehicles or obstructions on a route, delaying services Help reduce traffic congestion - Increase network capacity, the current low capacity of the vehicle against other modes significantly affects the performance of the technology in relation to the overall network capacity. This in part can be improved through increased service frequency although this will increase the capital and more importantly operating costs for the routes. There also becomes a point where increased frequency impacts upon the operation of the system with vehicles being delayed by other vehicles increasing the journey time and potentially increasing the infrastructure required to operate and regulate the service Contribute towards economic growth Promote sustainable development, the provision of another transport mode within the network would contribute towards the growth of the local economy. With the mode focused within a dedicated corridor the wider benefits of the system may be reduced and would be reliant on its integration with other modes. The vehicles limited capacity could also limit the modes ability to deliver a long term increasing contribution, as the capacity of the route or network is reached. 40

55 4.109 Contribute towards economic growth Promote social inclusion, the development and integration of an additional mode would improve journey opportunities, which would improve peoples connectivity and their ability to access employment and services In terms of affordability/deliverability, the capital costs for LWR/ULR are likely to be in excess of the funding currently identified in the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA). The risks of the technology will be better understood once there is some operational experience after the Stourbridge vehicles go in to service in December Operation of the first rapid transit route is programmed for Development of a ULR vehicle and track is in our opinion likely to be outside these timescales The local contribution required from Central Government from the West of England Authorities could be 25% as it is with tram schemes. If this was the case the four local authorities would be looking at a local contribution in the range from 10 to 26 million. Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) aims to deliver the characteristics of fixed rail systems but with bus-based technology. It consists of a variety of physical measures in conjunction with operational and system elements such as a segregated alignment, high quality dedicated vehicles, improved stop infrastructure, on-street priority, improved passenger information and high frequency services. The BRT concept benefits significantly from its flexibility and is both adaptable at inception and over time to meet the changing needs of urban conurbations. Different Types of Bus Rapid Systems The application of BRT system design has been applied to a number of different schemes with differing bus technologies. Some of these systems are guided and some are unguided systems. Guided systems come in three main types: Mechanical or physical guidance kerb guided or slot guided. Optical guidance CIVIS optical system. Electronic guidance inductive buried wire (no longer promoted), magnets Table 4.9 summarises the different types of BRT systems. Kerb Guided Bus Systems Kerb Guidance - After the initial development of guided bus ways in Essen (Germany) and Adelaide in the early 1980s, the first application in the UK was introduced in Birmingham in 1984 on the Short Heath guided busway demonstration project (TracLine 65). Although later abandoned, this was only ever intended as a demonstration of the technology. It led to other, commercial applications in the UK and these are currently in successful operation in Leeds (two corridors), Bradford, Ipswich, Crawley and Edinburgh, with a further schemes planned for Cambridgeshire, Luton and Leigh. There also schemes under development in London. 41

56 4.116 Kerb guided bus systems operate in a number of locations across the world. A trial system was created in Essen, Germany, and a full-scale system was built in a corridor of Adelaide, Australia In the UK, there are currently four examples in operation: West Yorkshire; three separate alignments, 2 in Leeds, 1 in Bradford; A 200m section at Ipswich; Gatwick Fastway in Crawley; and the Edinburgh WEBS system (this will be replaced this Autumn by the Edinburgh Tram Line 1) The Crawley Fastway system sells itself as being intelligent integrated transport. The vehicles are equipped with automatic vehicle location systems that help maintain schedules and provide on-board real-time information. In addition, on Phase 1, there are 2,200m of segregated bus lane, 650m of guided busway and seven modified bus friendly junctions to enhance the attractiveness of the service. Once all phases are completed there will be 2.5km of guided busway within a route length of 24km Both phases one and two of the Crawley Fastway are now complete and the system has been more successful than anticipated, with patronage 40% higher than forecast The first guided busway in Leeds was constructed over a four year period but the second scheme, in the east of the city, was built in one phase in approximately 18 months The construction quality of a number of these systems has resulted in a requirement for remedial works and poor ride quality particularly when double deck buses are employed due the induced sway of the vehicle. Slot Guided Bus Systems Central Rail guided systems are rubber-tyred systems, which are held in place by a single central guiderail fitted into the roadway. Power can be distributed by overhead wires or by battery (diesel is also a possibility). Referred to as trams on tyres, the original intention was for vehicles to operate on or off the guideway, however technical issues with engaging and disengaging with the central rail have meant that all the systems are only operating in guided mode Rubber-tyred systems which use a single, central guiderail have been developed by two known suppliers: Bombardier and Lohr Industries Bombardier's Guided Light Transit (GLT) has been developed as a hybrid of Light Rapid Transit and conventional buses. An LRT-style body is carried on normal rubber tyres and guided by means of a single, central, retractable guide-wheel running in a metal groove mounted flush with the road surface, similar to a tram rail. As such, GLT 16 Study of High Quality Buses in Leeds, Atkins,

57 has the same advantages and disadvantages as a tram when in guided mode. Bombardier systems are currently being operated in Caen and Nancy. The vehicles and system is currently not being offered to new clients The Translohr system is the newer of the two systems and was developed by Lohr Industrie and Fiat-ferrovia,. The general principles of operation are similar to GLT and the Translohr is currently being tested on the Trans Val-de-Marne commercial busway in Paris. It differs from the GLT primarily in the way that the vehicle grips the rail - Translohr claim that their less direct gripping mechanism (two guidewheels grip the central rail at a 45% inclination) results in better performance characteristics. The GLT system imposes all the load downwards, resulting in greater friction and force onto the guideway. Hence, the rail needs to be fixed more than the Translohr, which is simply glued to the road surface. The Translohr system claims that the rail load is 25% less than the GLT (1 tonne) and this causes less friction that can result in better braking and acceleration There is also a difference in the design of the vehicles themselves, with the wheels for the Translohr being housed in hidden bogies to allow maximum interior space. The vehicles are lighter than GLT and, generally, the specification is more sophisticated The tramway in Nancy derailed several times. It suffered serious problems and as a result, the service was interrupted several times then suspended for several months There are concerns that translor system suffers too from safety concerns. It seems that there is an inherent instability to the rear section of a Central Rail guided vehicle particularly when moving from guided to non-guided mode. Optical Guidance The CiViS vehicle system is based on optical guidance and has been developed by a partnership between Matra (95% owned by Siemens) and IrisBus (created by the merger of the bus and coach divisions of Iveco and Renault) The optical guidance system includes a camera mounted in front of the steering wheel, which can read coded markings painted on the road indicating the path to be followed, and an image processor that detects and corrects. The optical guidance system can in theory be built into any type of vehicle The CiViS vehicle system has been implemented in several French cities, including Lyon, Rouen, Clermond-Ferrand and Grenoble and in Las Vegas, USA. The bespoke vehicles are due to be replaced on the Las Vegas system due to their poor reliability. Electronic guidance Wire Guidance The ELTRAC system was developed by Cegelec/AEG systems; this is now Alstom. Two wires 300mm apart are laid mm below the road surface. These carry audio frequency, low-intensity currents derived from wayside frequency generators. The currents produce a magnetic field and an antenna mounted on the bus behind the front bumper senses the magnetic field. If the bus deviates from the centreline of the path, horizontal components of the magnetic field are also sensed. The steering is operated to bring the bus back onto the required path. 43

58 4.133 From 1983 to 1985, the system was in use on a standard articulated city bus in Fürth, Germany, in a regular public service along a two-lane, 1.5km route. From 1989, the Eurotunnel Transmanch link service tunnel used this system on a total of 100km of guideway, allowing vehicles passing in less than 100 mm side by side. The system has less success in less enclosed environments This technology was demonstrated on a bus in trials in Newcastle in 1996 and was selected for use on the Millennium Transit system, but was abandoned when the technology proved unreliable on the prototype vehicle. Following the Millennium transit problems, Alstom has deemed that the business case for wire guidance is not strong enough for further development and, thus, has no longer offer this product In 2000, GEC Alstrom and London Transport sought HMRI certification to operate the bus service to the Dome, but failed because of their electronic guidance system. Meanwhile, TDI has been developing an alternative form of electronic guidance called Safeguide. 44

59 TABLE 4.12 DIFFERENT TYPES OF BRT SYSTEMS Bus / Busway Buses are the most common form of high-density public transport worldwide. They can serve a wide range of needs from low frequency or demand-responsive routes in low-density areas to high frequency trunk services on major corridors. Busways are continuous bus lanes providing a completely segregated but not physically constrained alignment. Kerb-Guided A kerb-guided system requires the construction of a segregated guide-way with vertical guiderails (kerbs) on either side, which allows conventional buses fitted with guidewheels to be guided along the route. Central Rail Guidance Central Rail guided systems are rubber-tyred systems, which are held in place by a single central guiderail fitted into the roadway. Power can be distributed by overhead wires or by battery (diesel is also a possibility. Two central guiderail systems have been developed by two known suppliers: Bombardier and Lohr Industries. Optical Guidance (CiViS) The CiViS system includes a camera mounted in front of the steering wheel, which can read coded markings painted on the road indicating the path to be followed, and an image processor that detects and corrects to ensure vehicles maintain their alignment. The optical guidance system can in theory be built into any type of vehicle. Wire Guidance Wire guidance systems have two wires 300mm apart, laid mm below the road surface which carry audio frequency, lowintensity currents derived from wayside frequency generators. The currents produce a magnetic field that is sensed via an antenna. If the bus deviates from the centreline of the path, horizontal components of the magnetic field are also sensed. The steering is then operated to bring the bus back onto the required path. Phileas The Phileas system is based on magnetic plugs in the road surface that provide and correct the vehicle route information via a GPS device. Phileas vehicles are currently double-articulated with rear wheel steering which reduces the swept-path of the vehicle compared with regular articulated vehicles. STREAM The STREAM system combines guidance and electrical power pickup from a buried power strip set into the road surface. The power strip comprises an assembly with a series of electrical contact points which are energised only when the vehicle is directly above. They are earthed at other times and pose no hazard to pedestrians and other road users. A shoe on the vehicle connects to the live contacts with a feed back to the steering mechanism. 45

60 Electronic guidance Phileas Phileas vehicles have an electronic lane assistance and precision docking system with all-wheel steering vehicles. The system is based on magnetic plugs in the road surface that provide and correct the routing information. Phileas works with speeds up to 80 km/hr and under most weather conditions, even with snow on the road surface. While driving in automatic mode, the Phileas automatically follows a predetermined trajectory, so that the lane-width required is small, only 6.4 m for two-way dedicated lanes at 70 km/h. The system is still at the development stage and is not in full commercial operations. Electronic guidance STREAM Ansaldo Breda has developed a system which combines guidance and electrical power pickup from a buried power strip set into the road surface. This system is seen primarily as a means of providing continuous electric power without the need for a visually intrusive overhead line. As with all the other systems, it has the ability to detach itself from the guideway, but there are no specific details of how quickly the vehicle can re-connect to the contact line The power strip comprises an assembly with a series of electrical contact points which are energised only when the vehicle is directly above. They are earthed at other times and pose no hazard to pedestrians and other road users. A shoe on the vehicle connects to the live contacts and the adjacent earthed return contacts. The system which maintains the alignment of the shoe relative to the power strip can feed back guidance signals to the steering system in a similar manner to the other systems described Although initial test systems have been implemented in Naples and Trieste (3km), the system is not in full commercial operation and is still at the testing stage. Therefore, it is impossible to understand how it performs in an urban commercial environment, and the only information available is from the supplier. BRT System Attributes Operation Segregation from other traffic can be through the provision and use of dedicated infrastructure, or the provision of lanes within or alongside the existing highway network. The level of segregation can be provided incrementally over time, potentially in conjunction with other transport or highway improvements, though it is usually important to ensure that the BRT routes are provided with sufficient segregation at the outset to enable them to bypass congestion and attain consistent journey times in operation Signal priority systems at junctions can used to allow vehicles to the front of traffic or through the provision of a dedicated BRT routes across junctions. Signal priority is often controlled through the use of on vehicle system which monitor the vehicles performance to timetable or headway to provide varying priority based on the vehicles progress on an individual route. 46

61 4.142 High quality stop infrastructure similar to that utilised on tram schemes are often provided in conjunction with on stop ticket, passenger information, help points and CCTV to provide a significant differentiator to normal service and reinforce the image, quality and performance of a route Low floor vehicles in conjunction with a raised platforms can provide step free, gap free vehicle boarding, improve accessibility and improve boarding and alighting times. In combination with the stop furniture it also aids the differentiation of the system. The location and orientation of the stop platforms needs to provide straight entry to enable vehicles to consistently dock accurately with the stop infrastructure similar to rail based systems BRT systems in utilising more standard vehicle technology, which can be more readily purchased, with shorter delivery times. Vehicles, other than BRT services, can utilise BRT infrastructure. The quality of vehicles and services can be ensured the setting of services or quality standards as a requirements to access the BRT infrastructure. Vehicles A variety of vehicles are capable of being used on BRT systems, some of these are shown in Figure The quality of vehicles continues to improve and develop due the scale of the market. hybrid diesel electric vehicles and zero emission vehicles are becoming more prevalent with more manufactures bringing products to the market. BRT systems such as the Las Vegas MAX system promoting these newer technologies through the adoption of Wright Bus hybrid vehicles, replacing the existing Civis vehicles. Different fuel options are further discussed in Section The choice of vehicle will be governed by the type of infrastructure, the required capacity of the network and the environmental consideration. The choice of vehicle needs to take note of the overarching requirements of BRT systems such as emission standards, low floor and accessible, sufficient door width and capacity to minimise dwell times at stops and operational reliability A good example of vehicle choice, it the Mercedes Citaro vehicle on Nantes Line 4, in France see Figure The vehicle is a standard Citaro 18-metre articulated vehicle with 4 double doors, the first three of which provide level boarding. The vehicle has been adapted very slightly from the standard vehicle to provide roofline cowling to hide the air-conditioning units and provide a more streamlined profile and with a drivers screen provided within the vehicle as the fare collection system is off vehicle. The vehicle has then been branded to provide a differentiating image from the local services To provide gap free, step free boarding the choice of vehicle will need to be considered in relation to the stop location and design as longer vehicles may need a greater length of straight road or alignment prior to the stop to ensure accurate vehicle docking. 47

62 FIGURE 4.12 DIFFERENT TYPES OF POTENTIAL BRT VEHICLES 48

63 4.149 The fuel efficiency of the vehicle is influenced by a number of factors. In relation to bus technology this will be influenced more by the choice of propulsion, which would generally be down to the environmental requirements, which in turn would affect the price of the vehicle. Technologies such as hydrogen vehicles would be similar to electric trams in that there would be no detrimental emissions at the point of use Bus technology has greater rolling resistance than rail based technologies with a Rolling Resistance Coefficient of approximately Again this is affected by a number of factors. FIGURE 4.13 NANTES LINE 4 CITARO VEHICLE Improved tractive adhesion Unlike the rail based mode rubber tyred vehicle have a higher rolling resistance allowing the vehicle to deliver more tractive effort to the wheels potentially improving the performance of the vehicles acceleration and deceleration. This is limited by the acceptable jerk rate imposed on passenger, a passenger comfort issue. Vehicle weight The vehicle weight per passenger for an articulated bus is slightly lower than that of a PPM vehicle and 75% of that of a Tramtrain. Short stopping distances The vehicle again would be operating in an urban network and would mainly be accelerating or braking, the same as the other modes considered, and issue would be whether the vehicle made use of braking energy which is not the case for standard diesel bus packages currently In relation to all the modes considered the operating cost are more affected by personnel costs which vary with the differing requirements and levels of responsibility. Infrastructure BRT schemes benefit from their flexibility to utilise the existing highway network in conjunction with dedicated or segregated provision. The infrastructure requirements will vary depending on the aim, objectives and constraints on each route. It can 49

64 include on street operation, both with traffic and on dedicated corridors or within bus lanes, dedicated unguided highway and guided routes to minimise land take and maximise operational speed BRT systems successfully operating are either busways (unguided) or kerb guided busways. The latter has been constructed using either standard kerb components, slipform guide-ways or concrete beam guideways. The selection of construction type depends on cost, physical constraints of geometry/topography and desired ride quality. Quality of BRT infrastructure has been variable depending on the type of construction Busways use standard road construction. Access to the busway on corridors can restricted to the BRT vehicles. On-street systems can utilise dedicated bus lane or operate with traffic such as with tram or LWR/ULR. ON the on-street sections, vehicles can steer around obstructions such as utility works, parked vehicles etc. Ashton Vale Proposals We have utilised the Ashton Vale proposals for the corridor, utilising the city centre arrangement set out under the Tramtrains section. The route would run on street within the city centre running in part alongside and on street on Cumberland Road before running on a dedicated alignment through to Ashton Vale. We have not carried out a review of these proposals or any evaluation of the technical feasibility of using this route for the individual technologies. Costs The cost estimates for the Aston Vale to Temple Meads BRT route have been provided and are included with the cost of standard articulated vehicles in Table The costs show that a BRT Scheme could be of the order of 24 million (2007 prices) when utilising an 18 metre articulated diesel powered vehicle. We have not reviewed the cost estimate provided other than to compare the cost per kilometre based on other schemes and the scope of works involved, we have not carried out a site inspection or engineering review of the feasibility. TABLE 4.13 BUS RAPID TRANSIT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (2007 PRICES) DIESEL ARTICULATED VEHICLE Element City Centre Industrial Museum to Ashton Vale Cost (Million) Vehicles (18 metre Articulated diesel vehicle) 220,000 each Vehicle cost for 2.5 minute service (18 vehicles) 3.96 Million Passenger Capacity 2880 / hr Infrastructure Million ( 2.8 / Km) TOTAL COST 24 million For comparison the cost associated with the a BRT scheme utilising a hybrid vehicle are shown in Table

65 TABLE 4.14 BUS RAPID TRANSIT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (2007 PRICES) HYBRID ARTICULATED VEHICLE Element City Centre Industrial Museum to Ashton Vale Cost (Million) Vehicles (18 metre Articulated hybrid vehicle) 350,000 each Vehicle cost for 2.5 minute service (18 vehicles) 6.30 Million Passenger Capacity 2880 / hr Infrastructure (Lower Track Cost) TOTAL COST Million ( 2.8 / Km) 26 million Wider Route Network BRT has the benefit over rail based modes that it can be more flexible, with BRT routes making use of segregation out of the city and then continuing to cover elements of the wider network, leveraging greater benefits from capital investment. It is also possible to provide the priority for both the core and wider network incrementally to either counter the effects of congestion or improve the journey time and reliability of the routes BRT, in able to operate on the existing road network without infrastructure works, could operate on the M32, A38 to Bristol International Airport and A4 to Bath where other rail based modes would need additional infrastructure built, significantly increasing the cost Capacity can be a constraint on BRT schemes with a vehicle capacity of an articulated bus based vehicle approximately half that of a tram. The capital cost difference between the two modes though is also significant. Fit with Objectives Mode Shift Extend choice / encourage shift to public transport, the development of a BRT route within a corridor would both provide an additional mode and the potential for service from the wider network to join the corridor and benefit from the segregation and priority. Such an arrangement has the potential to provide greater mode shift due to the wider network although fixed rail systems do, to date, provide a greater mode shift than BRT systems Mode Shift Improve access to public transport, the development of a new corridor in conjunction with the wider network access would provide both route specific and wider access Mode Shift Improve Integration, the operation of both a dedicated core service and the wider route network would improve the level of integration on both the wider network at the points they connect with the route and provide improved integration where the routes connects with the exist public transport network. 51

66 4.164 Help reduce traffic congestion - Improve safety along transport routes, the development of a high capacity transport route on segregated alignments, encouraging mode shift would improve safety Help reduce traffic congestion - Increase network capacity, the operation of high capacity vehicle both on dedicated corridors and the wider network would significantly improve network capacity Contribute towards economic growth Promote sustainable development, the provision of an additional mode within the network and the development of complimentary BRT services gaining advantage from the segregated BRT route, would provide improved connectivity over route specific modes and therefore have the potential to facilitate sustainable development over a wider area Contribute towards economic growth Promote social inclusion, the improved connectivity of the dedicated routes and the wider connectivity would significantly improve peoples connectivity and their ability to access employment and services In terms of affordability/deliverability, the capital costs for BRT are within the funding currently identified in the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA), although it is fair to say that BRT has been costed historically for the RFA as it is identified as the technology in the Joint Local Transport Plan. The risks of the technology are more similar to other major highway schemes and therefore more familiar to Local Authorities in delivering the works required The local contribution required from Central Government for bus related schemes is usually 10%. The four local authorities would be looking at a local contribution in the order of 2 million to 2.5 million. 52

67 5. COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT 5.1 The aspects and issues of individual technology have been review in terms of the general technology and its adoption and application in a UK context. Their application on the Ashton Vale route in terms of their cost and any specific issues identified and the wider implications and issues of the possible adoption on parts of a wider Bristol rapid transit network. 5.2 This section draws together the technology review section to provide a comparative assessment of the technologies against the main headings covered in each technology Operation Tramtrain 5.3 There are no operating Tramtrain systems in the UK, with the first trial due to start on the Penistone Line in 2010 through to The closest style of system to date in the UK is the shared running of Tyne and Wear Metro, which highlighted the complexities of mixed operation of light rail vehicles on the existing heavy rail network. 5.4 The adoption of the technology in the UK currently raises significant deliverability risks, particularly the operation of low floor platforms on heavy rail routes. In the West of England area the majority of the available rail routes are or will be capacity constrained which would significantly limit the potential for its adoption, without impacting upon existing suburban and inter-suburban services. Light Weight Rail 5.5 The technology to date is in its infancy and has only been demonstrated on segregated sections of railway. The demonstration vehicle is operated under exclusive running on the Stourbridge branch line on Sundays. PPM s first order for 2 vehicles will replace the existing rail service from December 2008, again operating under exclusive running. 5.6 The vehicle is not suitable for Tramtrain style operation and would not be able to share trackwork with other rail vehicles. 5.7 The concept of Light Weight Rail operation similar to tram operation has not been trialled to date, and raises significant deliverability risks, there isn t currently a suitable low floor vehicle (300 to 350mm boarding height) and the cost estimates proposed for the track infrastructure and the associated assumptions are as yet untested. Bus Rapid Transit 5.8 BRT is in operation in the UK and has been deliverable in a variety of formats, on street, guided, unguided and combinations of these. The mode is the most flexible of those reviewed due to its ability to both operate on dedicated corridors as well as operate on the wider road network, connecting with dedicated routes at point along their length to leverage wider benefits from any infrastructure provided. 53

68 5.9 A variety of vehicles are also available from a significant number of manufactures, with varying capacities. These are also available with a variety of engine / traction packages providing reducing levels of emissions through to zero emission vehicles at the point of operation, although this has to be balanced against the cost of the vehicle. Vehicles Tramtrain 5.10 A number of vehicle manufacturers have developed and supplied vehicles to systems in mainland Europe. No vehicles have been trialled or specifically developed for the UK market to date Competition does potentially exist in this market and the current vehicle standards that these comply with may well be adaptable for the UK rail network. The forthcoming procurement and trial of the technology on the Penistone route through to 2012, will hopefully resolve these issues. Light Weight Rail 5.12 The PPM vehicle which the promoters of the technology have based their proposals on has been and continues to be developed by Parry People Movers with prototype high floor vehicles (currently being trialled on the Stourbridge route) and a medium floor height vehicle (450mm) A true low floor vehicle has yet to be developed, it has been proposed that this would utilise two bogies in place of the existing fixed axle arrangement. The bogie technology for this style of vehicle is also yet to be developed. The capacity of the vehicle at between 50 and 60 people is low and reduced its potential market, a larger vehicle based on the joining of two vehicles is proposed. This is again undeveloped and would be significantly complex to develop due to the articulation of the body sections and more so the control of the two traction packages The deliverability of a suitable vehicle would be a significant risk to any project in the medium, along with the maturity of the technology. There is also the issue of PPM being the only supplier of this style of vehicle For ULR the vehicle uses the same principle as the Hybrid Bus, it uses a constant speed engine with a power store (the flywheel). A fully laden bus is 28 tonnes, a comparable PPM vehicle would be about 30 tonnes so it is likely that the emissions for a ULR are going to be close to that of a Hybrid Bus. (An important point is that if ULR were to use a vehicle with bogies which is what appears to be suggested the vehicle weight would be a lot heavier, which would impact on performance or emissions). ULR can use LPG, bio fuels etc. Buses could use the same fuels. Bus Rapid Transit 5.16 A variety of vehicles are available from a significant number of manufactures, with varying capacities. These are also available with a variety of engine / traction packages providing reducing levels of emissions through to zero emission vehicles at the point of operation, although this has to be balanced against the cost of the vehicle. 54

69 Infrastructure Tramtrain 5.17 The infrastructure required for Tramtrain on any dedicated infrastructure would be similar to that for a tram system. The recent ORR guidance on tram track construction could also provide an opportunity to reduce the cost of construction through the adoption of a slimmer form of track construction compared to those constructed to date in the UK The connection and operation of the technology on the heavy rail network raises a significant number of issues. The technology has not been implemented in the UK the use of low floor platforms on the heavy rail network raises significant risk where high floor vehicle would operate through them. Where capacity does not exist on existing route, significant infrastructure or signalling works may be required to facilitate their operation The deliverability of Tramtrain in the UK would be high risk other than on very low used routes. Light Weight Rail 5.20 The promoters provide very little detailed information on how they propose to construct the trackwork for the 3 million per track km for on-street track. The suggestion is that the track slab would be a slimmer construction due to the vehicle weight and that they wouldn t need to move utilities as the system doesn t use overhead electrification and hence doesn t have any stray current issues The weight issue is related to axle weight and work out at about 70% of that of a tram at about 8 to 9 tonnes, a tram is between 10 and 12 tonnes. It would be advisable to construct track to the higher weight to allow for the possible implementation of trams in the future The need to move utilities is not particularly driven by electrification and stray current it is driven by the need for utilities to access their equipment to provide connection, maintain and repair. Access chambers for the majority of utilities would need to be moved clear of the swept path of the vehicle and in particular the rails to allow their construction A great deal of dialog with the utility companies has been undertaken on the Edinburgh system currently under construction and a risk based approach developed to try to minimise utility diversion. In practice when it came to getting agreement this has proved extremely difficult resulting in the majority of the utilities having to be moved to keep to programme If a significantly lower cost of track was achievable it is unclear why this wouldn t have already or a least in part been adopted on tram schemes. The deliverability of onstreet trackwork within the proposed estimates therefore appears to be a high risk A more conventional tram style track construction would be achievable but would be significantly more expensive. 55

70 Bus Rapid Transit 5.26 The construction and cost of unguided BRT system is similar to that of highway construction, the associated costs are therefore well known and the associated construction risks greatly reduced The construction of guided BRT varies depending on the form of construction, a variety of solution exist, these include slipform, slab and kerb and concrete beam construction all of which have been utilised in the UK and have been proven to be constructed within the cost estimates The BRT routes also have the advantage of being able to be operated on the existing highway network. Application to Ashton Vale 5.29 The individual technologies have been assessed against their adoption on the Ashton Vale route to identify any implementation or operational issues and cost estimates developed. Comparison of cost for Aston Vale route 5.30 A comparison of the cost estimates developed is shown in Table 5.1. The lowest cost is the BRT scheme the highest cost is the Tramtrain option. The developed cost highlighted that it would potentially be as cost effective to develop an electrified tramway on the route in place of the Tramtrain option unless the service connected into the wider rail network. TABLE 5.1 COMPARISION OF CAPITAL COSTS (2007 PRICES) Element Tramtrain Tramtrain LWR Promoters Costs LWR Light Rail Costs BRT Diesel BRT Hybrid Single Vehicle 2.8M 3.2 M 700 K 700 K 220 K 350 K Number of Vehicles Fleet Cost 28 M 32 M 12.6 M 12.6 M 3.96 M 6.3 M Capacity Achieved Service Frequency 5 min 5 min 2.5 min 2.5 min 2.5 min 2.5 min Infrastructure Cost 90 M 110 M 25.5 M 90.0 M 20 M 20 M Total Cost 130 M 132 M 38.1 M M 24 M 26 M 5.31 In identifying the service frequency for the options to identify the vehicle costs it is evident that the light weight rail solution with the current vehicle capacity would not be an appropriate technology as it is not capable of delivering the required capacity with an operable vehicle frequency A vehicle would need to match the BRT vehicle capacity of 120 passengers to be a viable solution on this route. The promoters comment that this would be possible but 56

71 as yet this vehicle has not been produced and would require equipments that have also not been developed. Whole Life Costs 5.33 Over a 30 year period the whole life costs for a rail based system will differ to that of a bus based mode. Rail vehicle have an expected life of 30 years where a bus would need to be replaced at least every 8 to 10 years The infrastructure of rail based system will have higher operating and maintenance cost and will incur additional costs for the replacement of tight curves due to rail wear. If the numbers of curves are minimal (2 or 3) this could be covered by the general operating and maintenance costs over the 30 year period Bus based modes depending on the construction would, over a 30 year period require resurfacing of elements of dedicated routes due to rutting and surface deterioration The remainder of the operational, road signalling, stop, maintenance requirements will be similar for both modes Taking account of the differences in the capital costs and the replacement and renewal costs over thirty years, the whole life cost for a bus based system would be lower than that of a rail based mode. Fit with Scheme Objectives Detailed Criteria Assessment 5.38 The different technologies and their fit with the detailed criteria is shown in Table 5.2. TABLE 5.2 CRITERIA ASSESSMENT FOR REVIEWED MODES Assessment Criteria Tramtrain Light Weight Rail Unguided BRT Guided BRT Comments Key Measures Mode Shift Reduced Congestion Restricted Network Lower ultimate capacity to sub- Access wider region to sub- Access wider region Economic Growth General Criteria The greater the network capacity the greater the potential growth Penetration City Centre of very cost high high cost runs existing streets on runs existing streets on 57

72 Assessment Criteria Tramtrain Light Weight Rail Unguided BRT Guided BRT Comments Accessibility to Sub-region Maintains road network capacity Restricts access segregated alignment to Provision to leave and join Alignments Vehicle Criteria Step Free Gap Free Vehicle Capacity Route Capacity Speed ULR restricted to 60kph Other modes 100kph Doors Runtime Excluding Interchange unproven BRT affords greater opportunity for seamless journeys from wider sub-region Road Junctions Gradients unproven Perception Quality of unproven Maintenance and Depots new facilities required new facilities required existing facilities could used be existing facilities could used be Deliverability Capital Cost Vehicle Costs 58

73 Assessment Criteria Tramtrain Light Weight Rail Unguided BRT Guided BRT Comments Technology Maturity but not in UK still under development Risk untested technology in the UK untested technology new untested infrastructure construction Accepted technology standard highway construction Accepted technology standard highway construction Procedural Process significant procedural issues to be resolved procedural issues to be resolved well established well established Environmental Visual similar impact similar impact similar impact similar impact Maintains existing cycle and pedestrian facilities Severance similar impact similar impact similar impact similar impact Land Take similar impact similar impact similar impact similar impact Noise only diesel Emissions diesel only Based on Hybrid bus Operation Vehicle Recovery Integration with Heritage Railway Service Competition BRT could operate on road network 5.39 In overview the table shows that both Tramtrain and BRT perform comparatively well against a significant proportion of the criteria although there is a significant capital cost difference between the two modes. The Light Weight Rail mode performs comparatively less well against a number of the criteria mainly due to its lower vehicle capacity and the risks surrounding its deliverability, particularly in relation to the proposed costs and the deliverability of an appropriate low floor vehicle. 59

74 60

75 6. FUEL TECHNOLOGIES Diesel is the most common fuel used for public transport, and it dominates because, diesel fueled vehicles are operationally efficient, cost effective and have significant infrastructure to support their operation. More recently alternative fuels have become more popular, with growing concern for the impact on the environment. Diesel 6.2 From October 2006 new buses and coaches must be powered by engines which meet the Euro IV standard. This is much tougher than the previous Euro III standard in respect of reduced particulate emissions, but effects reductions in permitted emission levels across all indicators. For the first time in many years, as emissions standards have become more stringent, the move from Euro III to Euro IV has been accompanied by an improvement in fuel consumption. Diesel powered vehicles are becoming cleaner and more fuel-efficient especially as a marketing tool for lowering user s carbon footprints. 6.3 The next level in the emissions standards will be Euro V, due to be introduced in 2008, further reducing the limits for emissions of oxides of nitrogen. A handful of operators have already placed Euro V standard vehicles into service. It is not anticipated that there will be any significant impact on fuel consumption with the change to Euro V. 6.4 Efficient combustion, modern engine management systems and good maintenance ensure that the emission of particulates, particularly PM10s that are regarded as carcinogenic and can contribute to respiratory problems, is kept to a minimum. It is also possible to fit a particulate trap to vehicles to further cut down on the emission of particulates or use other fuel additives or devices to the same end. Liquefied Petroleum Gas 6.5 Liquefied Petroleum Gas is a low emission fuel, most commonly used for cars and often in a dual fuel application where the car can switch between LPG and petrol. LPG was also used for buses in the 1990s, as its emissions were then considerably lower than the prevailing Euro standard diesels. 6.6 However, there are problems with the use of LPG. Initial vehicle capital cost is higher than that for diesel vehicles. LPG is incompatible with diesel fuel in that it requires significant changes to be made to the vehicle engine. This gives inflexibility of operation, as a separate spare pool of vehicles is required to cover the LPG fleet. Maintenance costs are also higher, in part due to the lack of economies of scale with manufacturers and skills required to maintain LPG engines. LPG also requires separate storage and fuelling facilities which take up depot space and are expensive to provide. LPG fuelling facilities are uncommon in the UK. There are also problems with variability in the calorific value of batches of fuels and a consequent impact on vehicle performance in particular with heavily loaded or on gradients. 17 Information in this section has been sourced from the report West of England Partnership: Greater Bristol Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Technology Review of Systems, Halcrow Group Limited, September 2007 and information provided by First Group. 61

76 6.7 Now that Euro standards have progressed such that diesel power is cleaner in its emissions than LPG there is no advantage in taking the LPG fuel route, and UK applications for buses have reduced or ceased altogether. Compressed Natural Gas 6.8 CNG vehicles usually feature reinforced high pressure fuel tanks in the roof of the vehicle. Vehicle capital costs are higher than for LPG as the nature of the fuel requires larger volumes for storage. 6.9 Compressed natural gas is similar in nature to LPG. It too has now been somewhat superseded by events as its emissions can be bettered by the latest Euro diesels. It has similar drawbacks to LPG in respect of vehicle cost, reliability and maintenance, and due to its volatility, the need for special storage and fuelling equipment and comparatively long fill times makes it even less attractive Similarly to LPG, UK applications for buses are believed to have all ceased, but CNG remains comparatively popular in continental Europe, particularly France and Spain, where some major operators made significant investment in the 1990s and now need to persevere with CNG in order to make an appropriate return. Bio Fuels 6.11 Bio fuels, including Bio Diesel and Bio Ethanol, are a more recent initiative. The emissions from the use of these fuels are almost identical to that of conventional diesel however the means by which the fuel is sourced are more sustainable as they are derived from crops or from waste cooking oil rather than from crude oil In some applications it is possible to combine bio fuels with conventional diesel and to run diesel-engined vehicles with little or no modification. However there is little evidence yet demonstrating what if any effect there is on vehicle life and on maintenance costs resulting from the use of bio fuels Interest in developing ethanol powered buses is building in mainland Europe with Scania in particular developing vehicles, but this technology is still in its infancy. Hybrid 6.14 Hybrid vehicles employ an electrical traction package in conjunction with a constant speed engine generating electricity to operate the vehicle. An energy store (battery, capacitor, flywheel) is used to power the vehicle, regenerative braking energy is used to recharge the store. The vehicles constant speed generator is run at its optimal efficiency to minimise emissions and provide power The vehicle can operate on battery power alone for short lengths of route, thereby minimising noise and airborne emissions. The batteries are charged by the internal combustion engine which, as it can be run at constant (and optimal) power, is also capable of producing minimised emissions. It is also possible to operate using a parallel hybrid drive that can provide power from the internal combustion engine and batteries simultaneously in short bursts. Thus there is no solid drive train between the engine/generator and the wheels, connections being cable. This means that the compact engine and generator can be located more flexibly within the overall vehicle 62

77 structure, enabling a low flat floor throughout the bus and the possibility of a level access door behind the rear axle of the bus The design also reduces the need for mechanical parts on the vehicle as the transmission system is replaced by electronic control of the motors. Quality of ride is significantly improved due to the elimination of jerking from gear changing The costs of maintenance remain high however, as a result of the need to replace the battery packs after a given period of use. Battery technology is continually improving and battery weight is falling and life is increasing Bus operators have undertaken experiments with hybrid vehicles powered by both conventional diesel engines and with turbine units. The former are generally more acceptable to the industry, being of tried and tested design and familiar to maintenance staff. Whilst turbines have lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, their carbon based emissions are higher than conventional diesels and these are now considered to be the most preferred power source, operating at their optimum efficiency The city of Christchurch in New Zealand has introduced electric hybrid buses into service the Designline. A batch of ten of these vehicles is in service on the Quaylink in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the UK. These vehicles were introduced as part of a campaign to reduce city pollution, especially from CO 2 emissions, and vehicle noise. The vehicles have super low floor access with wide entry/exit doors and a capacity of 37 passengers (20 seated, 16 standing and one wheelchair). The vehicle s electric motors are powered by solid gel, water-cooled batteries. An LPG powered turbine charges the vehicles batteries Since March 2006 diesel hybrid buses have been running on the Transport for London 360 route in London, between Kensington and Elephant and Castle. There are six hybrid vehicles currently operating this service showing reducing emissions of local pollutants and carbon dioxide by at least 30 per cent compared to a conventional diesel bus Hybrid vehicles are still currently expensive to purchase. Typically vehicles cost approximately 60k more than the same design would with a conventional diesel engine. Maintenance costs are also higher as there is a need to replace the battery packs after a certain period of time. But previous commitment by Transport for London to a programme of hybrid drive investment in London could see a reduction in prices due to competition between suppliers and the benefits of economies of scale, but with the move to replace articulated buses in London the focus may have been diverted. 63

78 Electric 6.22 Battery powered vehicles without an auxiliary power source are almost entirely ruled out of local bus service provision as a result of their limited range of operation without recharge. There are examples where a single electric motor is mounted at the rear of the bus and drives a conventional axle. These are usually adaptations of older designs of vehicles and do not offer the key advantage of a low floor throughout the vehicle Whilst two services remain in operation in Merseyside and experiments in the 1990s in Bristol and Oxford operated for some years, the improvements in battery design remain insufficient to make promotion of battery power for local bus services a realistic alternative at present Trolleybuses have not operated in the UK since 1972 (with the exception of an offroad experiment in Doncaster from ). In mainland Europe their fortunes have varied, with many systems closing but others investing in low floor state of the art vehicles such as the Cristalis (Lyon in particular has invested heavily in these vehicles to replace its 1980s trolleybuses). The reason for abandonment in many cases is the high maintenance costs associated with the overhead power supply. This can also be controversial as a result of its visual impact on the environment One advantage of electric buses was thought to be quiet operation but it has been found necessary to introduce a mechanical noise or bell in pedestrian areas as a safety measure Whilst the capital costs of trolleybuses are very high (typically 2 to 3 times that of a conventional UK bus), they do have low mechanical maintenance costs and can be depreciated over a longer time period as they generally last longer (subject to obsolescence) being less prone to vibration etc To afford operational flexibility a trolleybus also requires an auxiliary power source, usually in the form of batteries or a small diesel generator, to provide a means of avoiding obstructions and otherwise moving vehicles without reliance on the overhead wires. This adds to the cost, weight and complexity of the vehicles. Fuel Cell 6.28 The latest fuel technology is fuel cells. This is in its infancy and the first major experiment, a three-year trial, across several major European cities including London, Amsterdam, Hamburg and Madrid was concluded in January Most of the main bus manufacturers, MAN, Mercedes, Scania and Neoplan are developing fuel cell vehicles The fuel cell Mercedes Benz Citaro vehicles used in the European Cities trial can carry 70 passengers (the same as a conventional single deck bus) with a range of 200km. They are powered by roof mounted pressure cylinders that contain hydrogen compressed to 350 bar The fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen, the only emission being water vapour. Whilst operationally successful, the problem with fuel cell applications is the high cost due to there being as yet no economies of scale. The vehicles used by First in London 64

79 cost over 1.5m each. Fuelling infrastructure is also very expensive It is highly likely that the use of fuel cells will increase, at least in those areas with the highest environmental sensitivity. But there will need to be dramatic reductions in the capital costs of vehicles and associated infrastructure if this technology is to have wider applications. Bath & North East Somerset Council s CIVITAS Project 6.32 Bath & North East Somerset Council together with seven local partners has recently been awarded funding by the European Commission under the CIVITAS Plus initiative, Testing Innovative Strategies for Clean Urban Transport for Historic European Cities The four year programme is a mixture of study work and demonstration projects which will be evaluated and compared with similar proposals in the partner cities. The initial phase, lasting around 18 months, is a study period to formulate concepts which are developed into a demonstration project, lasting at least 18 months As well as a number of other innovative transport measures the Bath initiative will include a study, with partner First Group, to identify and trial a green fuel articulated bus suitable for operation in a historic environment The findings of this study will be an important consideration in the development of the rapid transit scheme. Other Innovations Shell Gas to Liquids (GTL) Transport Fuel 6.36 The fuel company Shell has developed a clean diesel fuel. This is a natural gas transformed into a very clean form of diesel. It is a synthetic fuel product that is crystal clear, free of sulphur and can be used neat or blended with regular diesel. This gas to liquid can be used in any vehicle without the need for complicated alternative engines and refuelling infrastructures. Another advantage is that it produces lower emissions. This is to be trialled on one of the articulated bus routes in London, UK. Emissions 6.37 Vehicles emissions data will vary significantly depending on the passenger loading of the vehicle in conjunction with the means of propulsion and the fuel used. Figure 6.1 shows a comparison of the different CO 2 emissions for the different types of technologies TfL Climate change Action Plan - Hybrid vehicles were shown to have a 38% reduction in carbon dioxide compared with standard buses. ULR calculated using hybrid estimate of reduced fuel usage of 40% when compared with standard bus (see page 25 of Scott Wilson report, Appendix B). 65

80 FIGURE 6.1 CO2 EMMISSIONS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF TECHNOLOGIES Walking/Cycling 0 ULR 50 Hybrid Bus 50 Tram/LRT 50 Underground 60 Rail 60 Bus 80 Car grams CO2/passenger km 6.38 The information for the ULR vehicle within Figure 6.1 is based upon the Scott Wilson HULTS report which states the vehicle reduces fuel usage by 40% when compared to a diesel bus. We have shown therefore a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions to provide a simple comparison. In reality the issue is more complex as the emissions of the vehicle will be dependant on the vehicles fuel efficiency and the optimum performance of the vehicles engine and in particular the passenger loading, all of which could impact upon the vehicles emissions performance The figure does show that ULR, Hybrid bus and LRT are comparable, with potentially little difference in the total emissions. Importantly the electric vehicle emissions would be zero at the point of use. The Tramtrain emissions are likely to be comparable to rail The choice of fuel in relation to ULR and Hybrid bus and the resulting emissions will not provide any significant difference between the technologies as both technologies could use the same fuels. Summary 6.41 Alternative fuel technology is still in its infancy and is continuing to evolve. There are some encouraging developments and the outcomes of the work being undertaken by Bath & North East Somerset Council and First Group will be important A key issue is the operational feasibility of alternative technologies for a large scale network, including the infrastructure investment required, maintenance and reliability. There is also the capital cost consideration as small scale projects result in high vehicle costs due to limited sales opportunities over which to recover development costs For the present and short to medium term, diesel power is likely to remain the most appropriate fuel for local bus based vehicles. The ongoing development of hybrid drive systems is likely to reduce their cost and increase their capability and reliability. Therefore hybrid is likely to be a viable alternative in the next few years, subject particularly to reduction in capital cost. 66

81 7. CONCLUSIONS Tramtrain 7.1 Tramtrain would only provide additional benefit over that of a tram scheme if it were able to be integrated with and operate on the existing rail network in the area. There are significant deliverability issues with the implementation of Tramtrain in the UK, and potential capacity issues on the existing rail network in the West of England area. A significant amount of work would need to be undertaken to identify the opportunities and constraints for the adoption of the technology in the area 7.2 Tramtrain vehicles provide the highest capacity of the modes reviewed. The mode is the most expensive and if it were deliverable only on dedicated routes separated from the existing rail network, light rail / tram technology could be more appropriate and more deliverable for a similar cost. Light Weight Rail 7.3 The deliverability of Light Weight Rail is a significant risk, an appropriate vehicle has yet to be produced. This includes the bogie technology that it would need to be based upon. The capacity of the proposed vehicle is also lower at 60 passengers than that required to meet the identified demand. The proposed solution of either coupling or providing a double length vehicle would raise additional deliverability risks. 7.4 The cost estimates for the technology s infrastructure is based upon a very low cost for track infrastructure of 3 million / kilometre, 60% to 80% less than the costs of comparable on-street tram track construction. It is not clear within the HULTS information how this cost has been developed. The basis of cost would need to be developed further and the assumptions confirmed with all the influencing parties and market tested as a minimum to reduce the considerable delivery risk. In particular the assumptions on utilities would need to be developed and confirmed as the LRT industry has repeatedly failed to get utility companies to buy in to reduced utility diversions. 7.5 Currently the technology doesn t have a fully low floor vehicle; it doesn t have a vehicle with sufficient capacity; and the deliverability of the infrastructure required at the proposed cost would need to be validated. These issues would pose significant deliverability risk to any project, with the initial project effectively having to pay for the cost of developing all the required elements. 7.6 This mode would need to be developed further before it becomes a viable option for delivery of the proposed rapid transit system. Bus Rapid Transit 7.7 The BRT mode is the most flexible of the modes considered and has the additional benefit of wider network services being able to utilise the infrastructure provided to gain runtime and operational benefits. The capacity of the vehicle is limited to approximately 120 passengers for an articulated bus. This sits between the capacity of the PPM vehicle and Tram / Tramtrain modes. 67

82 7.8 In undertaking the review, the vehicle has been assumed to be a diesel powered articulated vehicle meeting the latest emissions standards. A variety of other vehicle technologies are also available from vehicle manufacturers that could be employed to further reduce vehicle emissions, these include hybrid and hydrogen, although these would increase the cost of the fleet. Their adoption would therefore need to take account of the affordability to the project. 7.9 The BRT mode is the lowest cost mode and would have the lowest deliverability risk as the vehicles could, as proposed in the city centre, operate with minimal infrastructure works. On dedicated corridors the infrastructure could be either an exclusive highway or, for guided sections, utilise kerb guidance which can be constructed in a number of ways, all of which have been undertaken in the UK The infrastructure for BRT routes and networks can be developed incrementally over a period of time (unlike rail based modes) allowing BRT services to adapt and make use of segregation and priority as it is provided In our opinion, Bus Rapid Transit should be pursued for the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads rapid transit route as it best meets the rapid transit scheme objectives; is the most cost effective and flexible; and can be delivered within the current programme and available funding. 68

83 APPENDIX A CLIENT BRIEF Appendix

84

85 Bus Rapid Transit May 2008 Assessment of Ultra Light Rail Technology: Brief for Consultants Introduction The four councils are progressing plans for the next route in a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network to serve the West of England sub-region. It is intended to undertake route-based public and stakeholder consultation on the first phase of the proposed Ashton Vale to Emerson s Green BRT route, from Ashton Vale to Temple Meads, in May/June 2008, prior to submission of a major scheme business case to the Department for Transport in Autumn BRT is identified in the South West s regional funding programme currently to a total of 71 million. An initial appraisal of technology options was undertaken in This appraisal concluded that a form of bus based rapid transit was the appropriate technology for the proposed rapid transit network in the sub-region. This appraisal took in to account material collected and provided about the Ultra Light Rail technology. Since then the Ultra Light Rail organisation has continued to ask the West of England partnership and other stakeholders to revisit the technology appraisal. Key Issues The proposed BRT network consists of a number of cross sub-region routes. The first of these is included in the Bath Package (BRT Line 1). BRT Line 2 is proposed to run from Ashton Vale to Emerson s Green via Bristol City Centre with the first phase, Ashton Vale to City Centre (Temple Meads) the subject of the next major scheme bid in Emerson s Green to Bristol City Centre and Line 3, Hengrove to North Fringe will subsequently follow. The choice of technology needs to meet the needs of Line 2, Ashton Vale to City Centre (Temple Meads) but also the wider network. The aim of BRT was set out in the Greater Bristol Strategic Study (GBSTS) as to provide high quality alternatives to the private car. It also provided the following objectives: to extend choice of transport modes for all, in particular for private car drivers to encourage a shift to public transport; to promote sustainable development by providing high quality public transport links; to improve access to public transport areas that currently have poor provision; to improve integration of the public transport network; to promote social inclusion by improving access to employment, retail, community, leisure and educational facilities; and to improve safety along the corridor by providing a high quality public transport alternative to the private car. In addition to these objectives, the project to date has been using more specific success criteria to assess the scheme as it develops. These are: Mode Shift from car. Help reduce traffic congestion. Contribute towards economic growth. 1

86 Deliver an affordable network. There are also a series of local considerations. These include: Low emission technology. Ability to accommodate services fro further afield across the sub-region (i.e wider than the Bristol urban area). Retention of appropriate road network capacity, particularly on the inner ring road in Bristol City Centre. System needs to be complementary and able to be integrated with the network of Showcase bus corridors and Greater Bristol Bus Network proposals. System needs to be complementary to the proposed scheme in Bath (Line 1), with both lines forming part of an identifiable network. Ability to maintain existing cyclist and pedestrian provision and where possible enhanced. Ability to maintain the amenity value of the existing corridor and where possible enhance this value. Technology Assessment Scope of Work The technology assessment will need to include consideration of the following: How well the technology meets the high-level scheme objectives set out in GBSTS. How well the technology meets the key success criteria. How well the technology addresses the local considerations. What the physical opportunities and constraints are of the technology: o Ability to restrict access to authorised vehicles ease of which other vehicles can be restricted form entering the alignment. o Ability to leave and join at intermediate points to provide services from further afield to leave and join the alignment but also system resilience in terms of vehicle breakdown. o Alignment width (land take) horizontal alignment. o Tracking/docking accuracy ability to deliver level boarding. o Severance ability to negotiate or cross the infrastructure. o Junctions with the road network impact on road network at junctions. o Maintenance requirements system and vehicle maintenance and impact on depot facilities. o Provision for service utilities, future maintenance of these and operational impacts on the system. o Depoting and maintenance issues. What the impacts of the technology are: o Environmental, including emissions and wider environmental impacts such as an estimated comparison of energy requirement of constructing and 2

87 operating the system compared with bus-based guided system - e.g. amounts of construction materials. o Other modes including car, pedestrians, cyclists, bus services, servicing etc. o Other. How deliverable and viable the technology is including: o Cost capital cost of infrastructure and vehicles and how this related to busbased solutions. o Any implications for the level of local contributions DfT might require for the different technology options. o Operating issues (e.g. vehicle reliability, energy efficiency) and costs of infrastructure and vehicles. o Vehicles assessment of vehicles including capacities,. o Risks associated with the technology. o Industry acceptability - i.e. whether it is an accepted technology has a UK Safety case and whether the technology is in operation, its operational history (particularly UK experience). o Likely position of DfT on technology options. The assessment also needs to consider the costs of the ULR technology for the full four line BRT network including a possible future extension to Bristol International Airport. The assessment must be undertaken in consideration of the Department for Transport guidance on major scheme appraisals and other relevant guidance documents (for example CfITs Affordable Mass Transit report). Timescales The assessment needs to be undertaken and results reported by mid July. Outputs The expected outputs from this commission are: A published, independent report that can be shared with key stakeholders in to the assessment of Ultra Light Rail technology for Ashton Vale to Temple Meads but also in the context of the entire proposed BRT network fr the sub-region. Presentation of the report conclusions to the Project Board. 3

88 Appendix

89 APPENDIX B HYBRID ULTRA LIGHT TRANSIT SYSTEM (HULTS) REPORT Appendix

90

91 Bristol Electric Railbus Ltd Hybrid Ultra Light Transit System (HULTS): An Alternative Proposal to Bus Rapid Transit from Bristol City Centre to Long Ashton Park and Ride Desktop Study Report June 2008 Prepared for BRISTOL ELECTRIC RAILBUS LTD (Designed by TDI)

92 Revision Schedule T:\TTS\Projects\D119734\F07 Reports Hybrid Ultra Light Tram System (HULTS) An Alternative Proposal to Bus Rapid Transit between Bristol City Centre to Long Ashton Park and Ride June 2008 Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 01 30/06/08 Report Jose Marquez Senior Consultant Mark Brackstone Principal Consultant Gary Davies Senior Consultant Adrian Withill Technical Director This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Scott Wilson being obtained. Scott Wilson accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Scott Wilson for all loss or damage resulting there from. Scott Wilson accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned. Scott Wilson The Crescent Centre Temple Back Bristol BS1 6EZ Tel Fax

93 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary Introduction and Background The HULTS Concept Joint Local Transport Plan Objectives Infrastructure and Route Vehicle Options Operations Environmental Impacts Finance Meeting Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study Objectives - GBSTS Appendices... 28

94 1 Executive Summary 1.1 This study has been commissioned by Bristol Electric Railbus Ltd to investigate Hybrid Ultra Light Tram System (HULTS) as an alternative to the proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system between Bristol City Centre and Long Ashton Park and Ride (P&R). Objectives The aim of this study is to give a better understanding of HULTS to local authorities and show that HULTS meets the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study objectives. This study is an attempt to introduce HULTS to the Local Authorities as a public transport alternative rather than a bus only system. 1.2 HULTS is a light tram using Hybrid Propulsion Technology which aims to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. HULTS is an environmentally friendly public transport alternative which can operate within Pedestrian or Low Emission Zones (LEZ), such as, Broadmead shopping area. 1.3 HULTS is proposed along a corridor into Bristol using the disused stretch of railway alignment between Bristol City Centre and Ashton Gate. 1.4 The main function of HULTS will be to complement or replace the existing Long Ashton Park and Ride (P&R) service by providing a high quality connection to the city centre. 1.5 There is a requirement to provide transport to major destinations along the route with convenient direct access to the Bristol City Centre. This will be an additional public transport service for areas such as Spike Island not currently served by P&R. The following benefits would result: Convenient access to the Centre from Ashton, Southville, Hotwells and Spike Island Convenient access from the Centre for visitors to CREATE and the Records Office Convenient access to the University of the West of England (UWE), Bower Ashton, Ashton Park School and Ashton Court Reduction in traffic and congestion on Hotwells Road with consequent environmental improvement. 1.6 HULTS will support the general objective of improving the quality of the environment in the city whilst preserving its economic life and reducing its carbon footprint. This objective will be achieved by providing an attractive, clean, energy efficient alternative to the car to access key central locations. 1.7 HULTS will provide a unique opportunity for the West of England Partnership to pioneer a movement towards genuinely sustainable urban regeneration and suburban development which would support the aspiration for Bristol to become the Green Capital of the South West. 4

95 2 Introduction and Background Introduction 2.1 The City Centre to Long Ashton link is proposed as a key part of a Rapid Transit Network (RTN) designed to reduce congestion and pollution in the city and improve access from outer neighbourhoods to central Bristol, as proposed by Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP). The proposal will provide a foundation for detailed sustainable development of the area along the route. 2.2 Already served by a bus link, the Long Ashton Park and Ride is located just off the A370 to the South West of Bristol. However, there is ample evidence from towns and cities around the world that car drivers and users cannot be tempted from their cars in large numbers merely to ride on buses, despite the fact that buses are important elements in any integrated transport system. 2.3 However, a much larger proportion of car-users are prepared to use public transport when a modern light rail or tramway system is their mode of transport for all or part of their journey. 2.4 The proposed Hybrid Ultra Light Transit System (HULTS) service from Long Ashton Park and Ride to Bristol city centre, however, would serve communities along the route and cater for further expansion of the existing settlement in Ashton Vale. 2.5 HULTS is an appropriate mode of transport interacting with pedestrian zones and cycle paths to bring communities together, principally in the area of Ashton Vale which could benefit from further development. The region suffers from the lack of suitable public transport leading to two post-modern social problems related to transport: Social Exclusion Social Fragmentation 2.6 These two social problems are tackled by HULTS scheme by providing safe and comfortable means of transport to visit local shops and other amenities along the route. 2.7 The HULTS proposal strategy can also lessen the impact of traffic congestion by providing an attractive alternative to car use. 5

96 2.8 The HULTS proposal will use a Hybrid-Power concept which would result in: Lower investment and running costs than conventional Light Rail Tram (LRT) Same capacity, safety and comfort as LRT Low atmospheric emissions Low noise, vibration and visual pollution No overhead wires or third rail power system like conventional LRT Speed and acceleration suitable for operation in pedestrian areas, with road traffic or segregated routes Energy efficiency due to Brake Energy Recovery (BER) Low environmental impact to immediate surroundings Ease of travel Background 2.10 Bristol s first horse drawn tram system was established in the 1870s. In 1890, Bristol became one of the first cities in the UK to adopt electric trams At its height, the tram system extended throughout the major suburbs of Bristol. It extended as far as Westbury on Trym and Horfield to the north, Kingswood to the east and Brislington and Bedminster Down to the south Figure 1 shows the tramway by the Victoria Rooms in the early 1930s. Trams shared the same space with pedestrians and are still doing so in many cities around the world. Figure 1 Tramway by Victoria Rooms in Bristol Source: 6

97 2.13 Nevertheless, in conjunction with the railway and bus systems, the trams provided an affordable and integrated transport system for the people of Bristol. They were particularly useful for transporting large numbers of working men and women from their homes in the suburbs to their places of work. Figure 2 shows the centre of Bristol with buses and trams sharing the road. Figure 2 Tramway in the centre of Bristol Source: Unfortunately, the tram system ceased to operate in 1941 when a Luftwaffe bomb destroyed the power station during the Good Friday Raid on the city Bristol s urban layout still retains many of the spaces created by these original tramway and train routes. Many of these routes survive as disused areas of brownfield land or have been incorporated into adjacent developments. The urban memory of this transport infrastructure survives in the fabric and layout of the city to the present day either as isolated stretches of Brownfield land or as intact, but largely disused, stretches of track (often in use as public footpaths) The Bristol City Council, however, has been involved in feasibility studies and schemes in order to bring trams back to the city. The latest Light Rail Tram (LRT) system proposed for Bristol in the early 2000s, however, has not being endorsed by the central government because a detailed and costed proposal was not included in the Local Transport Plan (LTP) The recent Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) , in its section , nevertheless, stated that long-term public transport solutions for the West of England area must contain high profile public transport schemes rather than the short-term bus-based ones. JLTP believes it is essential to devise a future Light Rail Tram (LRT) network to meet the longer term needs of the area and facilitate the potential housing and employment growth The HULTS scheme fulfil the short and long term objectives proposed by JLTP due its tramway conception, such as LRT, with affordable cost, such as bus rapid transit. 7

98 2.19 The proposed HULTS route between Bristol City centre and Long Ashton will incorporate a number of elements of Bristol s Industrial heritage including: Long stretches of currently derelict railway track along the Ashton Meadows Loop Ashton Avenue Bridge Stretches of disused track running towards the harbour area under Vauxhall Bridge Existing track by the Industrial Museum The Prince Street Bridge The harbourside and Rupert Street 2.10 The route would also pass through more than three conservation areas, and would be visible from a very large number of scheduled monuments and listed buildings A HULTS network in Bristol would assist preservation and appreciation of the historic environment in a number of ways: Reuse of the original train and tram routes would represent a return to Bristol s heritage Increased public access to, and appreciation of elements of the historic environment currently disused or rarely visited A reduction in traffic would improve the setting and ambience of the city centre conservation areas The opportunity to appreciate these areas from the trams would also represent a positive impact of the development The development could have a similar impact on the setting and appreciation of the city s many scheduled monuments and listed buildings An improved transport infrastructure will also assist in promoting tourist access to the historic core of Bristol and create an ambience which more accurately reflects the historic character of the city A reduction in traffic levels will help preserve the historic environment by reducing the corrosion caused by pollution 8

99 3 The HULTS Concept 3.1 HULTS has the capacity to carry up to 60 passengers per vehicle, as shown in Figure 3, running on a lightweight track at frequent demand driven stops throughout the route. 3.2 If required, two vehicles can be coupled to double vehicle capacity during peak-hours in order to reach demand without the need to reduce the headway time (time between trams). Figure 3 Schematic Hybrid Ultra Light Tram System - HULTS Source: Parry People Movers (PPM) 3.3 The Hybrid Technology will allow HULTS to be operated on Pedestrian or Low Emission Zones, such as, Broadmead shopping area. HULTS has the best environmental performance of any comparable mode of transport. 3.4 Tram operation in pedestrian zones is not new and it is used in several cities around the world. Figure 4 shows examples in the UK of conventional electric trams operating in Nottingham and Manchester. Figure 4 Trams operating on pedestrian and low emission zones Source: However, HULTS does not need overhead wires, shown in Figure 4, with HULTS being energy autonomous, generating its own power. HULTS will operate safely and unobtrusively in Pedestrian Areas, mix with other road traffic on streets and use segregated routes where appropriate. 9

100 3.6 HULTS tramway does not need to be insulated because the system does not require external electrification. This considerably reduces the time and cost for its installation. The investment costs of HULTS is about 70-80% lower per kilometre than that of conventional electric tram systems. 3.7 Apart from being more environmentally friendly and energy efficient than conventional diesel buses, HULTS has a visible predictable path like any tram system. HULTS meets the public desire for accessibility to traffic free zone. 3.8 HULTS will be powered by a two litres Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) fuelled by biomethane and flywheel for complementing the necessary energy demand. HULTS Flywheel 3.9 The HULTS system uses a flywheel, drawing kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle and then recovering brake energy in order to minimise fuel consumption. Flywheels are reliable energy storage device which have been equipping steam locomotives since the beginning of the last century The HULTS flywheel is made from steel laminates, 1m in diameter and 500kg mass, rotating at a maximum speed of 2,500rpm and is safe, reliable and easily maintainable. HULTS Fuel 3.11 HULTS primary propulsion system is currently fuelled by gas. However, HULTS can be equipped with a flexible fuel engines which can effectively burn various fuel types Several countries, e.g. Brazil, Sweden and the USA, have been running their car fleet with flexible-fuel engines (Flexi TM Engines) powered by pure petrol or alcohol or natural gas or a combination of petrol/alcohol known as blended petrol HULTS has the capability to use the lowest carbon fuel available, i.e. from Bio-Methane produced from renewable waste as fuel to hydrogen-fuelled internal combustion engines or fuel cells. 10

101 3.14 In addition to low emissions and fuel consumption HULTS will bring other benefits, including: The use of existing railway tracks without any track design modification Efficiency of energy and operation due to its hybrid concept Affordable tramway infrastructures comparable to the guided Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route Rapid implementation and operation with a similar timescale to that allowed for BRT Three times operational life span compared to a standard diesel bus An excellent platform for system innovation and the testing and implementation of new technologies. National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP) interest in the HULTS project 3.15 HULTS is a proposal engaged in the sustainable urban mobility claim of the Bristol Environmental Technologies and Services (BETS) sector. Therefore, it has called the attention of NISP which is a governmental initiative sponsored by DEFRA and one of the partnership members of BETS NISP brings together companies from all business sectors with the aim of improving cross industry resource efficiency through the commercial trading of materials, energy water, and /or by-products together with the shared use of assets, logistics and expertise Scott Wilson s NISP team has been shown interest in the HULTS proposal for Bristol in order to look for suitable and reliable suppliers of Bio-Methane in the West of England area. 11

102 4 Joint Local Transport Plan Objectives 4.1 The Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) has been set up as a joined initiative of Bristol, Bath, North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucester Councils to plan and deliver transport improvements in the area (West of England Partnership). 4.2 JLTP proposal will: Provide improved access and regional regeneration Set environmental standards Offer social equality and opportunity through readily available public transport for all Meet public transport needs Improve integration by providing easy interchange between ferry, bus and rail stations at key locations Encourage modal shift from cars to public transport Offer easy walking routes between transport stops and homes/workplace Provide high levels of environmental performance to meet strict sustainability criteria Be an economically viable system 4.3 The HULTS proposal is in accordance with what has been proposed by JLTP. Achieving these objectives will provide, above all, a system which adds value to numerous development sites along the routes. 4.4 According to JLTP, the Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset area will accommodate an extra hundred thousand new homes during the next years. This will generate greater expectation for people s mobility and accessibility, increasing the pressure on the public transport system and on Local Authorities for: Suitable public transport Congestion reduction solutions Air quality improvement Road safety 4.5 Regarding public transport, JLTP is looking to submit two major schemes to improve the bus network in Bristol and Bath. 4.6 Although these schemes have been developed in partnership with the main bus operator, it does not mean Rapid Transit Systems have to rely on buses to give the area a reliable and modern public transport service. 12

103 4.7 The schemes will submit bids to the Department fro Transport (DfT) to develop: Rapid Transit Selective highway enhancements Weston-super-Mare Package 4.8 HULTS is a economically and viable public transport system and a cost effective alternative to bus rapid transit that could be used to address many of these goals and objectives. 4.9 The current fuel situation will mean that car-users will demand suitable and sustainable public transport as an alternative to the car. HULTS, therefore, is proposed as an alternative to supplement the public transport network, with high public acceptance and thus avoiding the high costs of oil dependence In order to have support and interest of the public and stakeholders in developing this plan, suitable means of transport for different routes need to be selected JLTP, however, recognises that several obstacles will have to be faced and that any failure in tackling transport problems will have adverse social and economic impacts. 13

104 5 Infrastructure and Route Infrastructure 5.1 HULTS has a unique low-cost infrastructure which allows the tram system to be applied to any route. HULTS does not require any external electrification, nor is there a need for track insulation as required by electrified tram systems. 5.2 Therefore the costly relocation of cabling and utility services under the track, such as, water and sewage will not be necessary. HULTS installation costs are comparable to, or lower than, the cost of guided segregated busways. 5.3 HULTS will use the most advanced technique of permanent way installation used for tram system applications in the UK. This technique allows minor works to be undertaken around or under the track with limited disruption of the tram service. If more major road works have to be undertaken involving services (such as sewers) lying underneath a significant section of track, a temporary diversionary track can be established that has a simple interface with the fixed track and allows tram services to be maintained throughout the duration of the works. 5.4 High performance polymers have opened up the possibility to construct an embedded rail track with very high vibration isolation performance as well as good electrical insulation. Although HULTS does not require electrical insulation, HULTS track will add this extra feature. Figure 5 shows in details a section of an encapsulated rail and an embedded track. Figure 5 Pre-coated and embedded rail Source: ALH Rail Coating ltd 14

105 5.5 HULTS has been applied in Stourbridge in a train-tram operation as an alternative to the conventional diesel train unit. The link between the Stourbridge Junction to the town centre has been using the Parry s People Movers (PPM 60) unit. PPM will provide the chassis and the hybrid system to HULTS. Route/Plan 5.6 A schematic of the proposed route is shown in Figure 6. Broadmead City Centre Harbourside Temple Meads Cumberland Basin Prince Street Bridge Ashton Swing Bridge Spike Island Wapping Wharf Southville To Portishead Portishead line Ashton Gate Ashton Meadows Long Ashton P+R LTP preserved route Heavy rail route LTP preserved route Extension to P + R Figure 6 Schematic of proposed rapid transit route, Bristol Centre to Long Ashton P + R 5.7 As a first application, HULTS would be designed as the prime means of conveying people between Long Ashton Park & Ride (LA P&R) and key destinations in Bristol such as Temple Meads, Temple Quay, Cabot Circus, Broadmead and the Centre whilst serving intermediate locations such as Ashton Gate, Spike Island and Harbourside. 15

106 5.8 The route uses the existing rail alignment between Wapping Road and Ashton Gate, via Spike Island and Ashton Meadows, serving the Museum of Bristol, SS Great Britain, residents near Vauxhall Foot Bridge, CREATE Centre, BCC offices, and Ashton Gate area. It then crosses the heavy rail line and reaches Long Ashton Park and Ride by a route to be defined by further discussion with planners. 5.9 In the Bristol City Centre various options are available. Figure 7 shown two routes selected for the Supertram in Figure 7 - Options for City Centre Routes Source: Bristol Electric Railbus 5.10 The preferred route is the route currently preserved in the Joint Local Transport Plan. The route from Ashton Vale would cross Prince Street Bridge and join the above route at The Grove Subject to discussions with planners, the route would be extended from Broadmead to Temple Meads, via Cabot Circus. This would provide a valuable convenient link between the shopping centre and the railway station. 16

107 5.12 Three tram routes are envisaged: (1) Long Ashton P&R to Broadmead/Cabot Circus (2) Long Ashton P&R to Temple Meads (3) Broadmead/Cabot Circus to Temple Meads LA P+R to Broadmead/Cabot Circus 5.13 This service would provide access to the Shopping centre from the Park and Ride terminus and from intermediate stops on Spike Island. LA P+R to Temple Meads 5.14 This service would provide access to Temple Meads Station and the Temple Quay and Redcliffe areas from the Park and Ride terminus and from intermediate stops on Spike Island. Broadmead/Cabot Circus to Temple Meads 5.15 This service would provide access to the Shopping centre from Temple Meads Station and the Temple Quay and Redcliffe areas Service frequencies would be adjusted to meet demand. Practicalities 5.17 The tram design is such that it can mix freely with pedestrians in car-free zones, in a safe and unobtrusive manner, mix freely with other traffic where required or operate on simple to construct segregated tramway A high frequency service will result in only a short wait time at the stops covered. Tickets will be purchased in advance of travel from vending machines at each stop or by season ticket for regular users via Internet transaction or designated outlets. Depot 5.19 The vehicle fleet will be stabled in a secure depot / compound overnight or when out of service where repair, maintenance and routine cleaning can be carried out. 17

108 6 Vehicle Options 6.1 The vehicles will be based on a design which has been modified for commercial application in Greece in 2004, shown in Figure 8. The vehicle evolved from the vehicle successfully operated by Bristol Electric Railbus Ltd in Bristol from and has now been applied to the Stourbridge Junction Stourbridge Town line as a permanent public transport mode as shown in Appendix 1. Figure 8 Proposed HULTS Source: Transport Design International Ltd Tram Body 6.2 The body will be of lightweight construction but built on a substantial chassis, provided by PPM, and superstructure. Access for passengers, including wheelchairs, will be by level entry from platforms or kerbs, by doors on either side of the vehicle. The vehicles can be driven from either end and will have a maximum capacity of 60 passengers. There is the possibility of coupling two vehicles together to double the capacity at peak hours. Drive Train 6.3 The elements of the hybrid drive train are as follows: Primary power A compact, high efficiency, low emission gas engine running on biogas derived from renewable waste sources. 18

109 Energy store and regenerative drive The gas engine drives a flywheel energy storage unit which also receives energy from regenerative braking. The flywheel provides the power to the drive motors for acceleration and stores the brake energy. This is proven, innovative hybrid technology giving up to 40% fuel savings. Fuel store - A tank for compressed natural gas is built into the roof of the vehicle. Its capacity will enable re-fuelling at the depot on a once a day basis. The depot will incorporate fuel storage and refuelling facilities. 19

110 7 Operations 7.1 HULTS operational characteristics comply with any light rail including the capability of running on former railway lines, alongside highways or on street and pedestrian areas. Work will be needed to integrate with the city centre traffic signals. 7.2 With the advent of the tram-train operation, HULTS can also share tracks with heavy rail vehicles with the ability, however, to enter city centres, safely sharing urban areas with pedestrians and cyclists. 7.3 The system is designed for high reliability. Operational costs will be low because of the low fuel consumption. Other operating costs, including vehicle leasing costs, along with other operational requirements will be similar to those of an equivalent bus service. 7.4 Maintenance and refuelling will be undertaken when individual vehicles are out of service either daytime off peak or evenings. 7.5 Vehicle maintenance costs and requirements are likely to be low compared with equivalent buses. Track maintenance costs will be lower than those of guided busway because of the durability of steel rails, and the high quality of embedded and coated rail technology. Evidence will be given when a feasibility study is commissioned. 7.6 Operational and investment costs and operational risks (Appendix 2) have to be assessed in a feasibility study. 7.7 HULTS is not a rigid concept, but a flexible one using advanced propulsion which fits between conventional buses and electrified light rail trams. HULTS has the advantage of being cost competitive with bus rapid transit systems, but cheaper to operate for a given capacity. 20

111 8 Environmental Impacts 8.1 The vehicle will have very low impact on the environment. Details are as follows: Atmospheric Emissions 8.2 Atmospheric emissions will be low because of the low fuel consumption and the use of biomethane as fuel. As a result, net CO 2 emissions will be only 18% of those of an equivalent diesel bus due partly to the credit given to the use of renewable waste derived biofuel. 8.3 Pollutant emissions will also be reduced to below Euro 6 equivalent levels by use of methane as fuel with 100% combustion. Noise 8.4 Because of the small size of the engine and its relatively light load due to hybrid operation, noise levels will be low in comparison to the equivalent diesel buses. Life Cycle Costs 8.5 The vehicle will be robust and by virtue of its service will have a useful life of years compared with 8-13 years for conventional buses Pedestrian Safety 8.6 Guided vehicles are inherently safer than unguided vehicles, particularly in pedestrian areas due to the visibility of the track and close control of the vehicle movement. HULTS is less environmentally intrusive. The accessibility of pedestrian areas is enhanced without affecting the quality of the environment. 21

112 9 Finance Infrastructure Costs 9.1 The costs represent a substantial part of the project. Therefore, any estimate cost assessment has to be led by discussion with authorities, contractors and services providers when route alternatives are established. Vehicle Provision Costs 9.2 HULTS investment costs will depend on vehicle characteristics and the fleet required complying with demand. Vehicle price, nevertheless, tend to decrease according to the number of vehicles ordered. 9.3 However, according to personal discussions and non-official information with PPM, the vehicle manufacturer, the HULTS vehicle price could be around k. 9.4 In order to predict HULTS costs for the proposed route for Bristol City, a more elaborate and thorough feasibility study is necessary. 9.5 In terms of fuel costs alone, bio-methane natural gas is cheaper than most fossil-based fuels, which means that running costs for natural gas vehicles can provide considerable savings compared to diesel costs. According to the Asia Pacific Natural Gas Association (ANGVA), bio-methane is 35% and 30% cheaper than diesel and petrol. 22

113 10 Meeting Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study objectives - GBSTS Extending Choice of Transport Modes for All, and in Particular for Private Car Drivers to Encourage a Shift to Public Transport 10.1 HULTS is designed to provide an attractive alternative to the car to access central and southern parts of Bristol, both for residents and for commuters and visitors approaching from the South and South West Residents of Bower Ashton, Ashton Vale, Southville and Spike Island, as well as university and school staff and students based in the area, will have the option of accessing Bristol by way of quality light rail transport, while car drivers will have the option of parking at Long Ashton and completing their journey into Bristol by light rail HULTS design will be to a standard normally expected from modern light rail services, which have proved to be more effective than bus services in attracting car drivers. Promoting Sustainable Development by Providing High Quality Public Transport Links 10.4 The route passes by and through many development areas, including Spike Island, Cumberland Basin, Ashton Meadows and beyond. HULTS service will enhance the quality of the development by providing an attractive alternative to car use and allowing the viable development of a proportion of car free housing, a key feature of sustainable development. Improving Access to Public Transport Areas which Currently Have Poor Provision 10.4 At present, Spike Island, Southville, Ashton Gate and Ashton Vale are poorly served by public transport. This proposal would result in a frequent service to these neighbourhoods giving access to the Centre and to the wider transport network. Improving Integration of the Public Transport Network 10.5 The proposed service will link with the 500 circular bus service on Cumberland Road, the ferry services at the Nova Scotia and Museum of Bristol, the Greater Bristol Bus Network in the Centre and near the Bus Station and with the national rail network at Temple Meads station and, when the heavy rail service is operative, with the Portishead line at an interchange at Ashton Gate. 23

114 Promoting Social Inclusion by Improving Access to Employment, Retail, Community, Leisure and Educational Facilities 10.7 The route will link with the David Lloyd centre, the existing and proposed new football stadium, Ashton Park School, UWE Bower Ashton, Ashton Court, The Riverside Garden Centre, Bristol Record Office and other B Bond offices, including the CREATE Centre, Spike Island Arts complex, The SS Great Britain and Maritime Heritage Centre, The Museum of Bristol, The Centre, North Harbourside and College Green, Redcliffe and Temple Quay, Broadmead and Cabot Circus. Improving Safety Along the Corridor by Providing a High Quality Public Transport Alternative to the Private Car 10.6 The service will meet 100% the quality standards of conventional light rail transport giving: Improved safety to pedestrians Improved safety to standing passengers and comfort in general due to the high ride quality Level entry for wheelchair access and rapid boarding Regular reliable services Attractive vehicles Meeting the Specific Scheme Objectives Mode Shift from Car 10.7 The Park and Ride service is specifically designed to attract drivers, particularly those entering Bristol via the A370, to leave their cars and complete their journey by the light rail service. Also, those living or working in the vicinity of the route will be encouraged to use the service rather than having to seek parking spaces at their destination. Helping Reduce Traffic Congestion 10.8 By providing an attractive alternative to car use, traffic will be reduced as will the demand for central area parking. This will alleviate congestion in the City Centre, Hotwells, Bedminter and Southville 24

115 Contributing Towards Economic Growth The proposed service will increase the accessibility of commercial areas such as Broadmead, Cabot Circus, Temple Quay and also developing areas such as Spike Island, Cumberland Basin and Ashton Vale. It will allow for the sustainable expansion and economic development of South Bristol without significantly increasing its carbon footprint. Addressing the Local Context Criteria Low Emission Technology The vehicles are designed for maximum fuel efficiency by use of light rail technology to reduce wheel losses and hybrid propulsion to recover brake energy. Fuel consumption is thus up to 40% below that of the equivalent standard bus. Emissions are further reduced by use of compressed natural gas which is low carbon and clean. It is proposed to use renewable methane derived from waste sources so as to render the operation carbon neutral. Ability for Services to Serve All Four Authorities Bristol and North Somerset will be served by this route. If appropriate, the technology could be applied along all the rapid transit corridors proposed in the Joint Local Transport Plan with similar environmental benefit. Retention of Road Network Capacity It is not intended to remove any road capacity. Where a reserved path is not available, e.g. in the centre, the vehicles will share road space with other traffic or with buses on bus lanes. Little impact on traffic flow is expected, except for an improvement due to a general reduction in traffic. Integration with the Network of Showcase Bus Corridors and GBBN Proposals Where the service shares road space with the bus services (e.g. in the Centre) full integration at stops is envisaged facilitating transfer and interchange between services. The operators of the tram service will participate in any joint ticketing system that emerges in order to reduce boarding delays and allow through, city-wide, ticketing for passenger convenience. Integration with the Proposed Bath Line 1 Scheme No direct connection with the Bath scheme is proposed at present but there is no fundamental incompatibility. Bus Rapid Transit and light rail can share the same alignment so that both can be part of an integrated network. 25

116 Maintaining, and where Possible Enhancing, Existing Cyclist and Pedestrian Provision Features will be incorporated to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in areas of shared use in accordance with HM Inspectorate requirements. By use of stretches of single track, the existing pedestrian and cycle path along the New Cut will be preserved. Maintaining Amenity Value of the Existing Corridor The light rail service will be designed to have minimal impact on the surroundings particularly regarding noise and pollutant emissions. The amenity value could be enhanced by the added accessibility which the service provides. Physical Opportunities and Constraints of the Technology Ability to Restrict Access to Authorised Vehicles Most of the route will be on dedicated tramway though access will be available if required, on occasions, to heavy rail traffic, in this case, the Bristol Harbour Railway steam operation. Except in the centre and on the Ashton Level Crossing, road traffic will be excluded from the route. System Resilience in Terms of Vehicle Breakdown In the unlikely event of vehicle breakdown, the normal practice of propelling the vehicle from behind using a serviceable vehicle will be employed to move the faulty vehicle off the route. Alignment Width (land take) Horizontal Alignment For a double track the width of land take is under 7.2m. Much of this is land already reserved for LRT. It is envisaged that sections of the route will be single track with passing points. This is to avoid interference with cycle and pedestrian routes along the New Cut. Doubling of this stretch would require use of Cumberland Road, possibly by removal of parking spaces. Ability to Deliver Level Boarding The tramway is guided throughout so that gapless level entry is provided at every stop. Ability to Negotiate or Cross the Infrastructure Light rail is inherently safe for pedestrians, who can cross the track without impediment with full awareness of the route of oncoming light rail vehicles. Other traffic can cross the track which, if on road, is flush with the road surface. 26

117 Impact on Road Network at Junctions Where the route is along the road (e.g. in the centre), the vehicles mix with other road traffic or run along buslanes. At junctions the vehicles will obey normal traffic signals unless special priority arrangements are made. Maintenance Requirements The light rail system will have its own purpose-built depot where routine maintenance will be carried out. Deliverability and Viability of the Technology Capital Cost of Infrastructure and Vehicles The rail infrastructure can be installed at a cost of below 3M per km which compares favourably with the cost of guided busway and has the advantage of being more durable The vehicle cost per passenger is similar to that of the equivalent hybrid low emission bus. The leasing cost may be lower due to the longer life of light rail vehicles compared with buses. Operating Costs of Infrastructure and Vehicles and Reliability Operating costs are below those of the equivalent bus services on account of the fuel costs and track maintenance cost which are lower than that of the equivalent busway. Risk Associated with the Technology The hybrid light rail technology has already been successfully demonstrated on the Stourbridge Junction to Stourbridge Town branch service where it has gained acceptance by Her Majesty s Rail Inspectorate (HMRI) for daily service operation on this line. The vehicles proposed for the Bristol operation will employ the same drive technology. UK Safety Case Street running will require permission under the Transport and Works Act. The proposers have been advised by HMRI that the costs of obtaining this will be proportional to the scheme cost and therefore will not be prohibitive and will be incorporated into the overall cost. 27

118 11 Appendices Appendix 1 Vehicle Characteristics Vehicle Technical Data Length 9.6 m Width 2.4 m Height 2.7 m Entry height 0.45 m Seats (approx) 22 Passenger capacity 60 Max. speed 65 km/h Tare 9 t Primary Drive Ford 2 litre gas engine Hybrid drive system, brake energy recovery 2x 12v battery supply for ancillary power Energy Store Unit (per drive): 500kg 1m diameter flywheel, normal effective speed range rpm Transmission: Braking: Running Gear: Linde hydrostatics through final drive gearbox, Normal (regenerative) braking 1m/s 2 Emergency braking through sprung on, air off discs at 3m/s 2 with normal adhesion (Tread and or track brakes available if required) Air operated sanding gear to the driven wheels Solid axle with wheels 610mm diam. to tram profiles Suspension, chevron type with coil spring optional Heating (per vehicle): 2x Water heated air blown Maximum Speed: 65 km/h Minimum Curvature: 15m radius 28

119 Appendix 2 Costs and Risks Provisional Operational Costs These costs are subjected to a thorough feasibility study for specific route or network. This will depend on: Route Operational features Vehicle characteristics for the project Availability of fuel Depot facilities Administration Project Risks. 1. Project Delivery Risk Control Mechanisms Remaining Risk Unable to fund capital Infrastructure Vehicle Development Vehicle Costs Unable to deliver acceptable design. Pre project requirement that infrastructure is funded by the development. Multiple sources to be pursued Investigate at feasibility study stage. Tender supply/builder Competent Design with experienced independent technical support. Test procedures built into project from the start. Assessed at project feasibility stage. Low- Project will not be initiated without agreement. Low- Funds need to be secure before contract. Low- Leasing Co. and operator have to be happy with costs and returns. Low. Elements of technology have been demonstrated elsewhere. Do not achieve planning or regulatory consents Check with planning authority and light rail regulators early and before contract. Low. Development is largely in rebuilt areas and planning needs can be incorporated. 29

120 2. Operational Risks. Risk Control Mechanisms Remaining Risk Inadequate patronage for viability. Clear professional assessment at feasibility study stage. Concept has to be integral to development to encourage usage. Low. Rail characteristics of HULTS has been proved more attractive to passengers in other cities in the UK than bus system Vehicles unreliable Intensive pre-testing. Low. HULTS reliability has been thoroughly tested for more than 10 years already. Further tests will depend on planned route only. Operating costs exceed predictions. Clear professional assessment at feasibility study stage. Good operating margin built in from start. (Operator convinced) Low. Costs should be quite predictable once capital/leasing costs are known. 30

121 APPENDIX C DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET TRACK, OFFICE OF THE RAIL REGULATOR, MAY 2008 Appendix

122 Appendix

123 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET TRACK Tramway Technical Guidance Note 1 Page 1 of 21

124 Contents Introduction 3 Design requirements for street track 4 Features of UK second generation track designs 7 Systems with in-situ embedment 7 Systems using pre-cast embedment 9 Generic problems with concrete slab construction 10 Generic problems with floating rail construction 11 Solutions capable of meeting the requirements 12 Photographs and diagrams 1. General street track with tram 3 2. Lateral roll of rails causes road surface damage 8 3. Welding a rail joint 9 4. ALH6 polymer pre-coated SEI 41GP grooved rail 9 5. Pre-coated rail installed on concrete slab Tie bar arrangement of rails used on the Blackpool tramway Example of traditional track construction in Graz Grooved rail profiles Twinblock concrete sleepers for street track in Grenoble Rheda City precast sleepers in use on a renewal in Croydon New track in The Hague, showing expanding foam injection Welded repair to keeper flange Fleetwood Example of street surface reinstatement using concrete blocks and hot poured sealant Reinstated grooved rail in Manchester Street and segregated track in Montpellier Example of traditional drain boxes for grooved rail Transverse drain in Montpellier 21 Page 2 of 21

125 Introduction This guidance is issued by the Office of Rail Regulation. Following the guidance is not compulsory and you are free to take other action. If you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law. Railway inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this guidance as illustrating good practice. Author: J R Snowdon, I.Eng, FIET, FIMechE, Chief Engineer, Tramtrack Croydon Ltd (30 April 2008) At the request of HM Railway Inspectorate and with the assistance of the members of - The Light Rail Engineer s Group The ORR Tramway Standards Group HM Railway Inspectorate. Page 3 of 21

126 Design requirements for street track Requirements 1. The primary requirements for any design of tramway track which will be used in the street 1 are: a. suitable load bearing foundations the foundation provided to support the rails should be of a load bearing strength that is sufficient to support both the foreseeable tram and traffic loadings without distress; b. adequate rail support the rails are adequately supported to allow operation of both trams and foreseeable maintenance vehicles without distress to their foundation or to the surrounding materials; c. prevention of gauge movements the rails are held to gauge by positive means, sufficient to resist the lateral forces exerted by the wheelsets, by the motion of the vehicle and other highway vehicles; d. suitable rail fixings anchored securely to the underlying foundation such as to be able to resist any lateral and/or vertical movements induced in the rails as a result of thermal expansion and contraction. Considerations 2. There are a number of further requirements, principally in regard to the future maintainability of both the track and the street, which also need to be observed, namely: e. rail maintenance any coatings applied to the rails in order to limit the propagation of stray currents should be consistent with the long term maintenance requirements of the operator and the types of equipment likely to be available to them when there is a need to access and expose the full depth of the rails in order to effect repairs or electrical connections; f. ducts where the tramway s cable ducts are constructed alongside the track foundation, a break joint should be provided so as to permit the latter to be excavated with minimal risk of consequential damage to either the ducts or the material in which they are encased. Additionally, where practicable, the cable ducts should be laterally separated from the track slab, particularly through curves and switch & crossing work, so as to allow for subsequent flexibility in the track alignment when renewal works take place. Undertrack crossings should be as near to 90º to the track as is practicable and protected so that the risk of damage when excavation of the track slab is taking place is minimised; g. under track excavation it should be possible to excavate trenches of moderate width across the width of the trackform without disturbance to the alignment of the rails. Depending upon the rail section chosen, trenches of around 1m in width can normally be spanned by the rails without any additional support; h. track renewals following works to renew the rails, or alter the alignment or track layout, the track should be capable of operation, under speed restriction if necessary, as soon as is practical, consistent with the needs of restoring the service as soon as possible. A normal expectation is that the track should be usable with the rails supported on temporary blocks or packing pending reinstatement of the underlying foundation layer; 1 Within this document street is used as a generic term to describe any road, highway, carriageway or pedestrian area, including grassed track in such environments, where it is necessary to construct track such that the rails are nominally level with the surfacing. Page 4 of 21

127 i. adjacent road level the road surfacing adjacent to the rails to be capable of being adjusted post installation in order to ensure that the effects of rail wear and road surfacing settlement can be compensated such that the road surface can be maintained nominally level with the rail to within the accepted standards (see below); j. street track surface the materials used to build up the level between and around the rails to restore the ground or street surface should be capable of ready removal and replacement by alternative materials and finishes should the need arise for future aesthetic or highway reasons; k. current return capacity that the rail cross-section 2 should be as large as practicable so that, in combination with the use of cross-bonding cables and/or parallel return cables, the electrical impedance of the traction return path is minimised, thereby minimising the return voltage drop to the traction substations. This will increase the overall energy efficiency of the system, reduce the risk of electric shock from the system and/or reduce the number of substations that are required; l. rail renewal the rails should be capable of being electrically welded in order to enable the effects of side and/or head wear to be made good with the rail in-situ, new rails to be inserted 3, without special requirements as to pre-heating and without causing distress to any components of the track system which are in contact with the rails; m. duct and equipment access access manholes to the tramway s cable ducts and other trackside equipment should be positioned such that they can be accessed without significant interruption to either tram or road traffic, or undue risk to staff working in such manholes; n. rail joint levels where it is necessary to join new rails to existing rails that have side and/or head wear, it is readily possible to lift and/or slew the existing rails so as to allow the contact faces across the joint to be made level 4 ; o. expansion joints traditional practice in the UK has been for fully embedded grooved rail to be continuously welded and installed without provision for expansion, based upon the relatively limited variation that occurs in the ground temperature and the limited exposure of the rail itself to solar heating. Where it is considered that the provision of an expansion joint would be of benefit in limiting stresses in the rail and/or the rail fastenings, it should be such as to comply with (p) below; p. rail joints where rails have to be joined mechanically, the minimum standard is a six-bolt fishplate, preferably secured by Huck Bolts (or similar) and with the rail ends butted tightly together. Where relative movement of the two rails is necessary, it is desirable that the joint is scarfed, ie overlapped, in order to lessen the deleterious effects of impact as the tram wheels cross the joint. In all cases, it must be possible to obtain ready access to the fishplates in order that the joint can be maintained; q. rail transition where it is necessary to change rail sections, particularly between Vignole and Grooved rails, purpose made transition rails should be provided. These should always be located on straight track, if necessary on the approach side of any curve, so that the tram wheels can be properly centred in the gauge and impacts between them and the flared entry to the groove avoided. If this 2 The ruling cross-section is that when the rail is fully worn. 3 The process of replacing worn rail may require the rail being retained to be lifted in order that the running surfaces are maintained level whilst at the same time not causing the trackform to creep downwards into the street construction. 4 Not being able to do this can cause significant difficulties in the renewal of, for example, turnouts that are incorporated into curved track, or can result in the progressive downward migration of the track as successive renewals take place at the same location. Page 5 of 21

128 cannot be guaranteed, even on straight track 5, it may be necessary to insert a short length of renewable check rail on both sides of the track immediately ahead of the grooved rail transition, in order that they can take any impacts; r. groove transition changes from wide to narrow groove rail, eg on the departure side of curves, should also be aligned such that the tram wheels are not presented with a sudden change in lateral alignment. This applies particularly to the inner (or low) rail; s. electrical return path it must also be remembered that the track, specifically the rails, provide the electrical return circuit from the trams to the substations, and are therefore required to act as efficient electrical conductors in addition to their mechanical role. The standards which relate to this aspect of the track design are set out in the Design Requirements for Stray Current Management, covering the design of the power system as a whole and the measures pertinent to managing the generation of stray current. 5 Typically as a consequence of the use of bogies (or trucks) having independently rotating wheels, which cannot be regarded as having any selfsteering properties. Page 6 of 21

129 Features of UK second generation track designs 3. All of the second generation tramways built thus far in the UK and Ireland 6 are characterised by having track forms in which: the rails are encapsulated in an elastic polymer material, which serves as both an electrical insulator (against stray current) and a vibration isolator/damper (against noise and vibration); the rails are either held in place solely by virtue of the adhesive properties of the polymer or a combination of holding down bolts bearing on the pre-coated polymer jacket and in-situ cast concrete; the rails are mechanically independent of each other (i.e. there are no metal:metal connections between them, or between the metal and the concrete substrate that provide positive control of the gauge); the rails are supported on a reinforced concrete slab in which the reinforcement provides both structural integrity and is intended to act as a stray current mitigation measure. Whilst each of the various designs could be said to have fulfilled the expectations of their designers and constructors, the same cannot always be said regarding those with the responsibility for their maintenance. The passage of time has revealed various shortcomings in relation to their performance and/or maintainability. This is necessarily more apparent with the longer established tramways. It also has to be remembered that the time pressures on the tramway operator to restore a section of track to operational use are considerably greater than those on the contractor, which factor has not always been properly considered in the overall track design. Systems with in-situ embedment 4. Descriptions and requirements for suitable load bearing foundations are as follows. a. Rail support The earliest of the second generation tramways are characterised by the use of reinforced concrete track slab construction with the rails supported in a bed of polymer material, poured in place after the rails had been set to line and level. In each case, the rails are not mechanically fixed either to the slab or to each other. The slab can be of either shallow or full depth construction, according to whether the concrete is carried to, and forms part of, the road surface (full depth) or is submerged by the street surfacing (shallow depth). With shallow depth slabs, the rails are effectively bonded to the slab only around their foot, and in the absence of any mechanical fixings, have been found to roll laterally under tram loads, particularly in curves. This in turn leads to distress in the surrounding street surfacing, which lacks the strength required to resist these forces. 6 Metrolink (Manchester), Supertram (Sheffield), Midland Metro, Tramlink (Croydon), NET (Nottingham) and LUAS (Dublin) Page 7 of 21

130 Lateral roll of rails causes road surface damage J Brown The lateral movement of the rail also leads to interference with the wheel:rail interface, to the extent that undesirable levels of flange front and back contact can be generated. Such a system fails to meet Requirement (b), and can be expected in addition to suffer higher levels of rail and wheel wear, as well as increased highway maintenance costs. This situation does not arise to the same extent where a full depth slab is used, in that the greater strength of the concrete is better able to resist the lateral forces generated in the rail. However, the exposed edges of the concrete slab are liable to crumble under road traffic loads, leading to highway defects for which the tramway operator may be liable. Similar effects can occur with shallow depth slab construction at the interface between the embedment medium and the highway surfacing. b. Rail welding A common practice on tramways elsewhere in Europe is the longitudinal welding of the rail to make good the effects of wear to both the side and head. With the rail embedded in polymer, this is considerably more difficult due to the problems created by heat build-up, and if, as has commonly been the case, hardened or heat-treated rail has been used, the required preheating can be hard to achieve without causing the chemical decomposition of the polymer, with consequent health hazards to the welders. Without adequate temperature control, there is a high risk of initiating cracks in the rail, leading to breakage and, ultimately, premature renewal at considerably greater cost. c. Rail break repairs A further consequence of polymer embedment is that it becomes very difficult to gain access to the rail in the event that, for example, a crack requires repairing, or an electrical connection is required, or when a new section requires to be welded in. Generally, whilst the concrete can be broken out using common highway maintenance tools, cutting through the polymer requires an altogether different approach. So far, the only effective methods involve either the use of sharp tools to physically cut it, or the use of very high pressure water jetting. Renewal generally requires the road surface to be saw cut on either side of the rail so that the rail can then be pulled out of the road. Depending upon how well the rail and concrete were cleaned prior to the embedment being poured in the first place, the bond between the two can be sufficient to cause small but significant quantities of concrete to be pulled away from the slab. Further, it is still necessary to excavate a significant size hole at each end of the section being renewed in order to allow the welds to be made to the existing rails. Page 8 of 21

131 Welding a rail joint M Howard A secondary problem is that the rail, with the polymer still attached, has a zero scrap value and can be difficult to dispose of. Systems using pre-cast embedment 5. Descriptions and requirements for systems using pre-cast embedment are as follows. d. Pre-coated rail break welding As an alternative to the above, some systems have been constructed using rail to which the polymer jacket has been applied in a factory environment, so that the amount of in-situ work, which is always subject to weather conditions, is reduced to the on-site encapsulation of the rail ends where they have been welded together, and to switch and crossing work. This technique also facilitates a much higher degree of control over the relative levels of the rail head and the surrounding street surface in that the usual method of installation is to set the rails to line and level on the previously cast concrete slab and then make up the surrounding street to the level of the rails. Crushed stone can be added to the top/exposed surface of the polymer to aid skid resistance. ALH6 polymer pre-coated SEI 41GP grooved rail Page 9 of 21 NTC

132 However, once installed, the same problems can exist in terms of the difficulty in accessing and welding the rail itself as with the in-situ embedded systems, for the same reasons. The extent to which this can be a problem will depend on the polymer used, the steel grade, particularly if significant preheating is required, and the ability to achieve adequate heat dissipation during welding processes. Generic problems with concrete slab construction 6. The generic problems associated with concrete slab construction are as follows. e. Road level Significant problems emerged early on with level differences between the rails and the adjacent concrete, sometimes well over the limits of what could be considered compliant with either the 1870 Tramways Act interpretation of level or the more recent redefinition that resulted from the legal case Roe vs. Sheffield Supertram, which had resulted primarily for the inherent differences in construction accuracy for the vertical alignment of the concrete work and the rails, and were blamed for a number of instances involving loss of control of road vehicles. Pre-coated rail installed on concrete slab D Keay f. Level resolution To a large extent, the pre-coated rail systems were designed to overcome this problem by ensuring that the rails could be laid first, and the street surfacing subsequently laid by reference to the rail level. However, the same principles can also be followed using traditional tramway track construction, so long as the surfacing is laid after the rails have been fixed, as was normal practice with traditional street track construction. g. Current track alteration practice It has also become practice in the UK to build the track on a reinforced concrete slab, with the concrete in at least some cases being of a high strength grade (at least C40) so that (i) the slab can act as a bridge across trenches up to 2m in width, and (b) the reinforcement can act as a collector mat for intercepting and redirecting stray currents from the traction return circuit. Page 10 of 21

133 As a consequence, it becomes much more difficult to either modify the track to accept tiebars or direct fixings to the slab, or to alter the alignment without first breaking out the slab entirely. That task is also made difficult by the high strength of the concrete employed and the amount of reinforcement present, and can thus represent a major cost and time element in any track renewal works, the latter giving rise to high risks of possession over-runs. h. Track replacement difficulties Rail replacement has exposed the difficulties of access through the track slab, in that although the rail can be released along its length by saw cutting the concrete, outside of the polymer, it is still necessary to excavate access holes around and below the rail at the cut ends, and to clean the remaining ends of polymer before welding. Generic problems with floating rail construction 7. The generic problems associated with floating rail construction are as follows. i. Polymer only supported rail allows too much movement Compared with traditional forms of tramway track construction, the extent to which the rails can move when they are supported solely in polymer, especially the softer grades, is liable to cause problems with track drains, as well as any other equipment, such as connection boxes and point mechanisms, that are attached to the rails, and non-welded rail joints. The relative movements between the two are liable to result in failure and subsequent mechanical deterioration, whilst fishplated joints, particularly where only four bolts are used, are inadequately supported and once some wear has taken place on the fishing surfaces, will progressively deteriorate. At the same time, where the rails have been embedded in polymer, even if only partly, it becomes next to impossible to undertake any basic maintenance work on the joint unless the polymer is removed first. Even then, unless attended to as soon as looseness has become visible, it is difficult to recover the situation as a result of the damage that has started to occur to the fishing surfaces of both the rail and the fishplate. The failure of such joints in Switch & Crossing work is also liable to cause consequential damage to major components, such as the switch or crossing legs, which are then expensive to repair, given the complications introduced by any rail embedment. Where switches are located in street areas where they are run across by other road traffic, particularly goods vehicles and buses, the mechanical security of the point mechanism is prejudiced as a result of the relative lack of support. The case containing the mechanism is usually supported on lugs welded to the rails, with the result its vertical movement under road traffic loads can be sufficient, over time to cause these lugs to break. Because they are contained within the embedment, they cannot be inspected without excavation, and first sign of breakage is when the whole mechanism case becomes loose in the road. j. In-situ adjustment Whenever it becomes necessary to replace sections of rail with new, it is essential to ensure that the head and gauge or keeper faces (as appropriate) are lined up across the joint. In the vertical direction, it is usual to lift the remaining old rail to meet the head of the new, whilst laterally it is necessary to slew the old rail. However, when the rail is encased in polymer and effectively bonded to and/or constrained by the surrounding concrete, there is very little latitude to do this without considerable additional excavation. Consequently, it becomes easier to set the new rail to line up with the old, with the effect that as the latter is then replaced, the vertical and horizontal alignment starts to drift, with potentially significant effects. k. Noise and vibration Once the rail is supported on elastic materials, eg polymer, it becomes a mass/spring system in own right. At the same time, it is usual, with modern trams, for the tyres to be resiliently mounted on the wheel centres, which are then resiliently coupled to the bogie frame and car body in turn. The result, particularly if the support for the rail is relatively elastic, is that both the wheel rim and the rail can be set into oscillation as a result of either dynamic interaction or external inputs such Page 11 of 21

134 as a railhead discontinuity at a joint. This in turn becomes a generator of further excitation as well as noise and rail corrugation. From observation, it is evident that the firmer the rail support, the less likely this is to occur. To an extent, some of this, particularly the higher frequencies, can be attenuated by means of dampers fitted to the wheel, or the wheel rim. However, the resonant modes are complex and cannot always be controlled in all respects. Solutions capable of meeting the requirements 8. Producing a track form which will meet these requirements requires three fundamental elements in its design, namely:- a foundation layer, sufficient to transmit the loads imposed on the rails into the underlying substrate, ie the subsoil, rails, of sufficient weight to both support the trams and provide a sufficient return path for the electric traction current, means for maintaining the rails to the correct gauge and alignment under the vertical and horizontal loads imposed upon them. l. Foundation As with the highway itself, some means is needed to spread the weight of the vehicle such that neither it nor the surface it is standing on will sink into the underlying ground. For railways, this was accomplished by supporting the rails on sleepers and ballast such that pressure exerted on the ground was low enough to be borne by the subgrade. Similar techniques were adopted for the early street railways, but with the passage of time and heavier vehicles, were ultimately found wanting, with decay of the otherwise inaccessible sleepers being a significant factor. By the start of the electric tramway era, c , it had became more normal to set the rails directly on to a continuous concrete bed as a better means of support. The rails were held to gauge by steel tiebars, and anchored to the concrete, frequently by short lengths of old rail, laid transversely and secured tightly to the new running rails. The latter are necessary as a means of ensuring that the rails remain in place even under thermal stress, since they are neither pre-stressed (as in modern CWR practice) nor provided with expansion joints, it being normal to either weld or close joint the rail ends. The concrete foundation was simply laid up to the bottom of the rails, without any internal reinforcement. Tie bar arrangement of rails as used on the Blackpool tramway Page 12 of 21

135 An example of traditional track construction in Graz in 2004 This method for laying street tramway track is still in widespread use across Europe and has changed little other than by way of the insertion of resilient elements between the rail and the concrete, and the introduction of precast concrete sleepers which are then cast into the slab. In some instances, a single layer of reinforcement is used, but only as an anti-cracking measure in the same manner as for concrete highway construction. There are also a number of systems that were developed in the latter part of the 20 th century, principally in Eastern Europe, where the trackbed is formed of precast concrete slabs which are laid on to a prepared subgrade, with the rails then inserted into slots cast in the top surface and retained by rubber strips. These systems are not suited to other than plain track, and require an accurately laid sub-base to support the slabs, as there is no scope for subsequent adjustment. m. Rail weight Although not essential, it has long been established practice in Europe and elsewhere for tramway track to be laid using grooved rail. There are a number of different sections available, largely as a result of historical and national differences however, consistent with Requirement (k) above, it is preferable to adopt as large a section as is practicable. It is also preferable from a maintenance viewpoint to adopt a section which is in large scale use, and thus readily available from the rolling mills. As one example, the German Ri60N section fulfils these requirements, with the complementary Ri59N section (having a wider groove) for use on curves of less than 100m radius. Page 13 of 21

136 Grooved rail profiles n. Gauge and alignment Where the rails are laid on a plain concrete slab, as per traditional methods, it is necessary to provide some means whereby they are (a) held to the required gauge and (b) tied so as to resist the overturning forces induced by the action of the wheelsets on curves 7. The traditional, and still current, method is to use steel tiebars, usually fabricated from flat or round bar construction and bolted to the rail webs at suitable intervals, typically every 2m on straight track, 1.5m or less on curves of less than 150m radius. This method also has the advantage, useful during maintenance activities, that the track can remain safely usable, albeit under restriction, even without the underlying concrete in place, with the rails simply supported on packing blocks. A modern alternative, adapted from the methods used to construct the slab tracks used for high speed railway lines, is to attach the rails to precast concrete sleepers, or sleeper blocks, which after being lined and levelled are then embedded in the mass concrete foundation slab. To facilitate this, these sleepers are only partially cast so that their internal reinforcement cage is exposed and becomes embedded in the slab. Such systems have the benefit of positively holding the rails to gauge and restraining them against twisting under wheel steering forces on curves. Gauge tiebars are not required, the function being provided by the sleepers, and replacement is considerably simplified by comparison with the polymer embedded track systems, rails can be readily unclipped from the sleepers to facilitate replacement. 7 On typical street tramway curves of <50m radius, these can be very considerable, in the order of 30-40kN. Page 14 of 21

137 Twinblock concrete sleepers for street track in Grenoble E Hollis Rheda City precast sleepers in use on a renewal in Croydon J Snowdon Irrespective of the method used, it is beneficial to place a layer of resilient material between the rail foot and the concrete in order to provide some cushioning against vibration transmission and to avoid the fretting action between the rail and the concrete which would otherwise occur under repeated loading. Page 15 of 21

138 New track in The Hague, showing (nearest) expanding foam injected into the gap between the rail and the concrete. o. Rail hardness Rails are available in both normal (700 / R200 grade) and heat-treated (900 / R260** grade 8 ) or alloy steels (typically 1100 / R340** grade), the latter intended to provide greater wear resistance and thus longer life. Whilst there are some attractions to using harder rails on curves that are expected to receive heavy wear, their life is still significantly less than the same rails on plain track. As an alternative to the considerable cost of replacing such rails, it has become a common practice to rebuild the side and/or head wear by welding. Whilst readily practicable on normal R200 grade rail, careful control of the welding process is required for the harder rails if the risk of cracking is to be avoided. This requires either preheating or very careful control of the welding process, usually by automated techniques, to ensure that cracks do not develop in the heat affected zones behind the welds and subsequently propagate through the rail section. It should be borne in mind that, because the rail is fully embedded, it is not always possible to monitor the progress of any crack beneath the visible surface of the rail head. It must also be borne in mind that excessive rises in the rail temperature can exceed the safe limits for the polymer, causing both degeneration and exposing workers to hazardous fumes and fire risk. 8 BS EN lists steel grades as both Rxxx & RxxxGHT, the latter designating heat treated steels. Page 16 of 21

139 Welded repair to keeper flange - Fleetwood For this reason it is the practice of some of the well-established European systems that normal (700 / R200) grade rail is used in the high wear areas, if not throughout the system. Once the initial wear has taken place, it is made good by welding using hard wearing materials, thus obtaining the wear characteristics of the higher grade steels but retaining the advantages of the weldability of the normal rail. As these wear, the hard facings can be renewed several times before wholesale renewal of the rail becomes necessary. As a rule, the costs of replacement normally outweigh the costs of repair by welding many times over, reducing the life cycle cost. p. Wheel hardness versus rail hardness Consideration must also be given to the relative hardnesses of both the rail and the vehicle tyres, particularly in areas where sliding (as against rolling) action takes place. This normally occurs in the curves, and experience has been that there should be a distinct difference between the hardness of the two components; empirical evidence would indicate that where the rail and tyre are of comparable hardness significant roughening of the surfaces can occur, resulting in an increased risk of derailment, as well as higher wear. q. Surface reinstatement The level of any surfacing adjacent to the rail head should be such that the tram wheels, particularly in a fully worn condition, do not run on the surfacing such as to cause damage, as well as unnecessary noise and vibration. Where possible, the surfacing should be kept below the top of the rail head, subject to any limitations as regards the safety of other road users and/or pedestrians. Depending upon whether the finished track is in the carriageway (shared) or segregated, the surface between and outside of the rails is built up using a combination of mass concrete and normal bituminous street surfacing materials, sand- or stone-bedded blockwork, crushed stone or, if appropriate, earth and grass. Whichever method is chosen, it is necessary to consider how it will be maintained in the future, both from the point of view of reinstatement following maintenance and the issues of controlling the height of the rail head relative to the road surface. Experience with bituminous materials has shown that these can be difficult to lay accurately and with the proper consolidation over relatively narrow widths, such as alongside the outside of the rails and in turnouts. Page 17 of 21

140 Further, such materials are by their nature susceptible to flow under repeated loadings by road vehicles following the same track. This can result in the tram rail becoming significantly proud of the adjacent surfacing and vice versa. Buses present special difficulties in this regard as a result of weight and suspension characteristics, particularly where they routinely wait in shared tram and bus lanes, such as at traffic signals and stops. Alternatively, there are foreseeable advantages to reinstating the road surface around the rails using concrete blocks 9, in that these can relatively easily be adjusted to be level with the rails when laid and subsequently as the rails wear. It is a technique used on various tramways in Europe with no apparent problems, with slabs typically ranging from 400mm square to the full width of the four-foot and 2-2.5m in length. The technique is essentially only a modern day equivalent of the granite and/or wooden setts used on the first generation tramways. An example of street surface reinstatement using concrete blocks, with hot poured sealant between blocks and rail 9 Not to be confused with the small concrete paving bricks used in, typically, pedestrian and non-trafficked areas. Page 18 of 21

141 Rail concreted in place M Howard A third option, subject to the approval of the street authority, is to surface using concrete. This should, as with any concrete used to infill between the top of the slab and any bituminous surfacing, be of a lower strength such that it can easily be excavated as and when it is necessary to access the rails and their fixings. This does, however, carry the disadvantage that the edges of the concrete next to the rail edge sealant are liable to crumble over time. For track which is not shared with road vehicles, the space in between the rails, and between the rails and the edges of the track can be infilled with a variety of materials, ranging from crushed stone to earth sown with grass, or compacted sand on which concrete or stone blockwork is set. Where the infill material is porous, appropriate and adequate drainage should be provided to the section between the rails, or between tracks, by the inclusion of drains in the foundation slab at the time of construction. Street and segregated track in Montpellier E Hollis Page 19 of 21

142 r. Drainage In addition to any provision made for the drainage of surface water from the street as a whole, arrangements should also be made to drain water from the rail grooves at appropriate intervals and/or locations. These should be on straight track as far as is possible and should not, unless there is no other option, be located in curves of less than 50m radius. The drainage slots should be of sufficient size not to become easily blocked by street detritus and/or sand dropped by trams, and should be formed by machining, with generous radii at the corners in order to avoid stress concentrations under lateral loadings. An example of traditional drain boxes for grooved rail prior to concreting in. J Snowdon Examples of typical detritus that will end up in rail drainage slots include - - food remains from fast food outlets, typically packaging and chicken bones - disposable pens, of the sort found in catalogue stores and betting shops - coffee stirrers - plastic drinks bottles and cans, which lodge in the groove and become crushed all of which may not necessarily block the drain slot by themselves, but which, once lodged, then provide sufficient obstruction for other detritus, including tram sand, to collect and ultimately block the slot. It is also common practice on established tramways to install a continuous drain along the centre line of each track, into which both the rails, the top of the track slab, if covered by a porous material eg grass or stone, and point mechanism boxes can drain. This is in turn drained to the highway drainage system at suitable intervals, thereby minimising the number of under-rail pipe connections needed. It also facilitates the use of transverse drainage gulleys between the rails in order to drain that part of the highway, which can otherwise tend to act as a wide channel. Page 20 of 21

143 Transverse drain in Montpellier E Hollis Drainage water should be led into purpose made drain boxes bolted to the rail web before being conducted into the street drainage system. The size, number and capacity of the drainage boxes at any location should be sufficient to ensure effective drainage under all reasonable conditions of rainfall and maintenance. These boxes should incorporate a silt trap, sufficient to allow for both normal detritus and the additional sand which may be dropped by the trams, as well as facilities for rodding and/or flushing through the drainage connections leading from them. Connections to the street drainage system should be of adequate size, having regard to the fact that the rail grooves often act as drainage channels for a significantly greater area than the street in the immediate vicinity. Page 21 of 21

144

145 CONTROL SHEET Project/Proposal Name: WEST OF ENGLAND RAPID TRANSIT Document Title: Technology Review Client Contract/Project Number: SDG Project/Proposal Number: L ISSUE HISTORY Issue No. Date Details July 2008 Draft to officer team for comment only July 2008 Draft for internal client comment only July 2008 Draft for internal client comment only September 2008 Final Report REVIEW Originator: Ian Sproul Other Contributors: Chris Ferrary, Dick Dapre, Peter Armitage Review By: Print: Peter Armitage Sign: DISTRIBUTION Clients: Steer Davies Gleave: Control Sheet