How double-length trams instead of extra trams save £200 million from TfL’s “Trams 2030” investment strategy
Longer trams at “roughly the same frequency as now” mean:
We can cancel the Dingwall Road loop £30 million (right now) We can cancel the Reeves Corner loop £25 million (2020-2024) We don’t need 85% extra tram drivers £45 million (2020-2030) We pay less for trams (and replacement) £15 million (2020-2025) We avoid the cost of a 3rd depot (as 55m trams need less siding space than the equivalent capacity in 30m trams). £20 million (by 2030) We avoid the most costly track dualling (new rail bridges, road bridges and land) > £90 million (2020 onwards) ------over £200 million saved ------
This paper shows how: Longer platforms would cost a third the cost of that Dingwall Rd loop (£10m) Westfield money (£15m) is now better spent on longer platforms and trams
DISCLOSED UNDER FOI
Authors: (an ex-Architect with Transport design experience) (Independent Transport Consultant) (using advice from a team of construction professionals) How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 1
Table of contents
Section Page
Introduction 3
1 Summary 7
2 Is the Dingwall Rd loop value for money? 8 Does it add or harm capacity?
3 Alternative solutions for Wellesley Rd 12 Alternative solutions to add capacity
Comparison of tram purchase prices by length 15
4 What would it cost to extend tram platforms? 16
Schedule of each tram stop 21
What significant engineering costs are avoided 24 by longer trams at today’s 5 min frequencies instead of coping with twice that frequency (examples of costly track dualling)
5 Comparison of stabling 55m and 33m trams 26 (how double-length trams save stabling costs)
6 Can we alternate long and short trams? 27 (to have every other tram double-length)
7 A better way to spend Westfield’s £15m 28 of section 106 planning gain money
8 Conclusions and Recommendations 29
Design Solutions for the tightest stops appendix DISCLOSED UNDER FOI Technical tram drawings showing sizes followed by accurate plans showing how longer trams can fit at various locations
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 2 Introduction
We agree with TfL that south London’s tram system (Croydon Tramlink) needs to be upgraded to cope with the demand growth predicted – of 85% growth by 2030. When we met the three TfL directors in 2014 in the GLA chair of the Transport committee’s office, we also pointed out the urgent need to cope with predicted growth of 45% by 2022.
Our ongoing discussions have related to the best way to cope with that growth (and what we also plan to replace our trams with after they life expire in the late 2020s). After our discussions in 2014, TfL published a helpful paper called “Trams 2030” that we refer to in this paper.
TfL wish to build the “Dingwall Road loop”. We say it should be cancelled. It would be the first of two loops that would curtail tram traffic across Croydon. Each loop either side of Croydon would cost around £30 million. We have been saying that the whole strategy of whether we have extra trams or longer trams needs to be decided – as longer trams mean no need of either loop, or indeed the other expensive capacity measures needed by more short trams.
To cope with almost double the passengers, the three alternative solutions boil down to a) Using 30m trams but almost double their frequency (ie trams every 2 minutes). b) Use slightly longer 43m trams and increase frequency by a third as much (trams every 3 minutes). c) Double the length of each tram and keep roughly the same frequency as now (trams every 4 or 5 mins)
Our hypothesis is that to cope with gradually doubling demand, we should gradually introduce double length trams.
Our point has been that as we already have trams in most places at about 4 to 5 minute frequency (and that is the point where road crossings already cause trams to bunch up), we mostly already need length rather than extra frequency.
If we use either 30m or 43m trams, we need to double frequency or add a third as much frequency. It is not just the central Croydon route that would not cope. Having already done most of the less expensive track dualling work, we’d be also needing five very expensive new road and rail bridges along the Wimbledon route. Extra track dualling along the Beckenham route would be very expensive too. Anything but double length trams causes huge extra costs.
Double length trams double capacity whilst keeping frequency roughly the same as now. As they can cross roads within the same red light times as now, they also interrupt road traffic half as much as double the number of trams would.
This paper shows how double length trams (coupling our existing trams and then buying 55m trams) avoid £200 million of expenditure by 2030 as we: Avoid spending £40 million (2020-2030) employing 85% extra drivers for 85% more trams (rising to £6m/yr) Avoid £50 million costs of building two loops at both Dingwall Road and Reeves Corner Avoid £60m of tram purchase costs (longer trams are more economic per seat than twice as many short trams) Avoid at least £60 million of very expensive track dualling projects that all those extra trams would need.
This paper also points out that the proposed Dingwall Road loop actually hinders capacity (by adding new junctions and by failing to add any real capacity in itself). In a time of austerity, its expenditure hinders funding for new trams and our lawyers advise that the £15m contribution from Westfield is at risk of being reclaimed (as it provides no real solution).
TfL told us that “longer trams” were only a “long term aspiration”. Their paper discusses 43m trams. We point out that without doubling the length of the trams, we end up with extra trams. 43m trams would be a compromise that needs both extra driver and infrastructure costs AS WELL AS similar platform lengthening costs to those needed for 55m trams.
Because TfL have not fully investigated the costs of longer platforms, their cost estimate for that task is huge (£150m). Further questioning from us revealed they had no real evidence for such a guess. They admitted that they had not properly investigated longer platforms. Their answers demonstrated a series of misconceptions and inaccuracies.
To help, we have now surveyed the network using Disto laser devices and have bought Ordinance Survey CAD data for all of the tightest stops. A pack of drawings and a schedule of tram stops is included with this paper. We checked for any expensive issues (such as lack of straight track to enable 50mm platform gaps), passing loop lengths, gaps between road junctions, Reeves Corner issues, electrical cabinet positions, room for platform extensions and who owns the land.
DISCLOSEDWhilst our surveys could not check for utility positions, with plenty UNDER of manholes down our existing platforms, FOIit is clear that most utitilies never needed to be diverted from under platforms in the past. This paper shows why platforms really could be lengthened for about £10 million – or a third the cost the Dingwall Road loop.
And it shows how we save £200m if we double the LENGTH of trams (and keep a similar frequency to now) instead of adding EXTRA trams at double the frequency. How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 3 Most platform extensions are easy. 20m extension. No land, trackwork or other costs. Unfix and move crossing 20m.
Waddon Marsh is a typical stop on the Wimbledon, Elmers End or Beckenham routes. Plenty of spare old railway land.
Some are half the cost. Island platforms like Phipps Bridge & Belgravia Walk. Pavement platforms in central Croydon.
Wellesley Road existing (overcrowded and unsafe) Our surveys found: Croydon Tramlink was designed and tested to cope with 60m coupled trams – as when a tram breaks down it was planned to push it back to the depot by coupling it to a 2nd tram.
All passing loops & junctions can thus already cope with 60 metre trams.
There is no need of land purchase across the network (except for about 202m of farmers hedge at just one tram stop) Wellesley Road with a longer safer platform (and room for a pair of trams) Not a single tram stop needs to be moved. But there are kerb line issues at some stops. In two cases, tram ends would block lightly used side roads for 20 seconds when using those stops.
There is enough straight track to keep platform gaps of 50mm at all but two tram stops (where track changes would use already ballasted TFL land). We also DISCLOSED UNDERneed buffer extensions at twoFOI termini.
Our included drawing pack proves how longer platforms can fit at even the tightest locations (such as Lebanon Road) 300m of trackwork changes are limited to just four locations (Dundonald Rd, Wandle Pk, Beckenham & Wimbledon). Time lost from extra pedestrian crossings can be made up by using longer platforms to enable two separate trams to share certain stops. This could speed up to a third of the trams that now cross Croydon within a minute of each other.
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 4 TfL said that “current capacity bottlenecks at various places on the network prevent them from running more trams”. We have found that TfL’s concerns that “longer trams would require substantial re-engineering of existing tracks and stops” do not appear to be based on hard evidence. Junctions and passing loops were designed long enough to cope with a coupled pair of 30m trams – as when one broke down, the plan was for a 2nd tram to push it back to the depot.
Our surveys and Ordinance Survey data show no need to move a single tram stop. The only trackwork changes would be at Dundonald Rd, Beckenham Junction and probably Wandle Park (using pubic or TfL land and mostly within the existing ballasted track base). Finally at Wimbledon the new 2nd platform has been built too short. Part of it needs to be demolished and its other end needs extending to the end of the existing railway platform (with minor track changes).
These four exceptions should cost an extra £3 or £4 million rather than TfL’s £150 million guesstimate. When the whole of tramlink cost £200 million originally, we asked how they justify that figure. They said their survey work is incomplete.
Our complaint is there is NO justification for the Dingwall Road loop (or the Reeves corner loop, or Waddon rail bridge) if we can have longer trams at the same frequency as now instead of twice as many trams (crossing 20 road junctions). Any valid alternative really does need thorough investigation – especially if it could save £200 million.
TfL also worried that longer trams would “impact road traffic”. Our Cologne evidence (where the same trams are used as coupled pairs) is that coupled trams won’t – as the extra 3 seconds longer that they take is easily accomodated within existing 30 second traffic light cycles. Clearly TfL’s alternative of adding twice as many trams crossing roads really would impact road traffic – at not just Wellesley Road but at 17 other road crossings in Croydon and out to Wimbledon too.
TfL appeared to have inflated their cost estimate for longer platforms by including the cost of things needed either way – like longer trams, power supply upgrades and stabling. This paper finds that longer trams are more economic to buy (saving £60 million). We also show how they need less stabling track (with fewer driver cabs), how 16 trams can be stabled at terminii and others stored on sidings nearby. Future “night trams” may reduce the need to stable every tram.
Reeves Corner/Drummond Road and Church Street Croydon council have been concerned that longer trams would block Drummond Road if they ever stop at the second Reeves corner junction. We surveyed over 200 trams crossing these roads and found that almost all of them are cleared to cross both roads at once (as the photo below shows – signals already let trams across both roads, 96% of the time).
Signal B typically changes at the same time as signal A.
Longer trams need not block Drummond Signal A Road. Only a minor traffic light tweak is needed to ensure this Signal B happens 100% of the time. A The extra 3 seconds that 61m trams take to cross junctions easily fits in existing traffic DISCLOSED UNDERlight FOI times. At Reeves Corner/Drummond Rd 96% of trams are already cleared to cross BOTH roads NON-STOP. Longer trams need not block Drummond Road.
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 5 Another concern was that Church Street would be blocked by trams stopping (for 20 seconds) at its tram stop. This drawing shows how Church St would not be blocked by 61m long coupled trams. The existing road width is kept.
Church St with a 61 metre coupled tram Ordinance Survey A road width of around 5 metres would be preserved on the corner – even when an occasional 61m tram stopped here.
Church St with a 55 metre tram Ordinance Survey As 55 metre trams are introduced, there would be an additional 2 metres road width at this point. Church Street is now often blocked by trams waiting to reach an occupied tram stop. Longer trams mean no need to double tram frequency.
These drawings are part of the set of drawings at the end of this paper – where we use accurate tram sizes, wheel and door positions and Ordinance Survey CAD data to show solutions for all the tightest tram stops across the network.
Manchester metrolink has been allowed to couple together trams of a similar make and type to Croydon’s. The UK railway inspectorate now allows coupled trams. Croydon and Manchester use Bombardier “Flexity” trams.
Cologne uses exactly the same trams as Croydon. Coupled trams cross roads faster than twice as many trams.
DISCLOSED This paper finds that to increase passenger capacity by 2021 & UNDER2030, longer trams work better than extra trams.FOI It finds the Dingwall Rd loop poor value, it puts tram stops 3 times further from Westfield and it reduces capacity. Traffic congestion would be increased if trams are less attractive and twice as many trams cross road junctions. Our surveys find longer platforms present no huge cost issues and that there is no need to move any tram stops. Longer platforms would cost a third the cost of the Dingwall Loop – and longer trams would save TfL £200 million How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 6 1 SUMMARY: Is the “Dingwall Road loop” cost effective? Are there better solutions that would save costs?
1.1 TfL said in their “Trams 2030” paper (para 5.3) that “to accomodate extra journey time” caused by “new pedestrian crossings across Wellesley Road that connect East Croydon to Westfield” they wish to “reduce the number of trams operating along the northern part of Wellesley Road, where traffic congestion is expected to be highest”.
1.2 Their solution is to spend £30 million on a “Dingwall Road Loop” between East Croydon and Wellesley Rd. They say “that allows trams from the east to get close to Westfield but by-passing most town centre congestion”.
1.3 This paper examines the case for this loop and investigates alternatives. It finds that the loop: is terrible value for money – other solutions could cost a thousand times less (£30k instead of £30m); fails to drop passengers as “close to Westfield” as existing stops in George St or Wellesley Rd; fails to add capacity, delays trams with new junctions and delays funding for extra or longer trams; and curtails tram traffic across Croydon – cutting passenger capacity that TfL says “must nearly double by 2030”.
1.4 As savings made using cheaper options can pay for real passenger capacity – ie more trams and longer trams – this paper shows cheaper solutions for Wellesley Rd and how double-length trams could save around £200 million.
1.5 By keeping frequency similar to now, double-length trams phased in from 2020 would provide capacity but save £40m of driver costs by 2030, £60 million in tram purchase costs and avoid £100 million of track capacity projects.
1.6 This paper examines in detail the likely costs of longer platforms, compares staffing and tram purchase costs of three possible tram lengths (30m, 43m and 55m) and demonstrates how these cost savings can be made.
1.7 In brief, alternative solutions to reduce the effect of trams on Wellesley Rd and reduce tram journey time are:
a) Cut red light time. Reduced red light time by better detecting when trams have cleared each road junction. (Traffic lights are currently red for 30 seconds. They stay red over 12 seconds after trams have already crossed). Tram takes 3 to 6 secs (depending on speed & road width) Cut 0 sec 10 sec 20 sec current 30 second traffic light cycle
Cutting 5.5 seconds from the end of red light times for 22 trams/hr equates to 4 fewer trams/hr on Wellesley Rd (ie exactly the same effect as the 4 trams/hr planned to use a Dingwall Rd loop).
The extra tram detection wires in the road to achieve this could cost nearer to £30k (than £30 million).
b) Convoy system – exploiting tram congestion by allowing tram pairs to travel in convoy along Wellesley Road. Travel time saving at five Wellesley Road junctions and two platforms recovers time lost by pedestrian crossings.
This reduces tram dwell times at W. Croydon & Wellesley Road platforms by enabling two trams to stop at once. It also halves the number of red light changes by allowing two trams to cross each intersection each time. (separately but a safe 4 second stopping distance apart).
1st Tram (5 secs) 4 sec 2nd Tram (5 secs)
0 sec 10 sec 20 sec 30 or 35 sec traffic light cycle
Around 10 of the 22 trams/hr across Croydon already bunch up to travel within a minute of each other. If those 10 each travelled in convoys, this equates to another 4 fewer trams (4 x 30 secs) along Wellesley Road. (ie even if we add 5 seconds to the 5 traffic light cycles left, we still save 25 seconds x 5 = 125 seconds). Reduced tram congestion and dwell times also more than recovers time lost by two extra pedestrian crossings.
Raising pavements for longer platforms at Wellesley Road & West Croydon might each cost around £30,000.
c) Turn-back a few trams at East Croydon’s third platform (automating eastbound points to make this easier) TfL’s claims that this would cause bottlenecks are disproven during every tram work blockade when they turn-back DISCLOSED10 trams/hr at this platform. Automating points increases resilienceUNDER to make it easier to turn-back the FOI 4 trams/hr (planned for the Dingwall Rd loop) at East Croydon – ie where peak hour passengers are actually going.
We show in later sections of this report how East Croydon turn-back also saves 3 times the time, to add 3 times as much capacity as the Dingwall Road loop. It would free up one tram every hour instead of one tram every 3 hours. That spare tram could add 1.5 trams/hr frequency to New Addington without needing any new tram purchase. 2 Is the Dingwall Road loop still needed? Is it value for money? Does it add or instead remove capacity? How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 7
2.1 We believe that the Dingwall Road loop is a diversion from the very urgent need to plan for extra tram capacity. TfL predict that demand will double by 2030. But within just 5 years we will need to cope with a 45% increase.
This graph was published by TfL in 2014 The red text is ours – to illustrate the 45% growth within just the next 5 yrs.
The Westfield development will cause most of the urgent growth.
It typically takes 4 years to order new trams.
Instead of using Westfield’s £15m of section 106 money on the Dingwall Rd loop, would it not be better spent on longer trams?
2.2 Can we increase tram passenger capacity across Croydon? TfL say that the central Croydon loop is “at capacity” and cannot take additional trams.
But longer trams could carry twice as many people each time across central Croydon (over 400 instead of 200).
We measured how long 4 car coupled trams (of exactly the same make and type as Croydon’s 2 car trams) take to cross roads in Cologne, from a standing start (from a tram stop). The extra length takes just 3 extra seconds. The first half of the accelerating tram takes around 4 seconds. The second (extra) half takes 3 more seconds. Those 3 extra seconds can be easily accommodated within our existing 30 second traffic light cycles.
Cologne uses exactly the same trams as Croydon does. But coupled together each pair carries twice the people.
2.3 Our studies in Cologne (timing tram crossing times from a standing start across 3 road types) showed that a coupled tram takes only 3 seconds longer than a single tram to cross a 2 lane road junction. We have video evidence of this.
A Coupled Tram takes only 3 seconds longer than a single tram
0 sec 10 sec 20 sec 30 or 33 second traffic light cycle
Two separate single trams would take two 30 second traffic light cycles – ie 60 seconds in total Each long tram thus takes about half as long to cross roads as two short trams. They interrupt half the traffic.
DISCLOSEDWe can therefore carry twice as many people at a time on eachUNDER existing tram path across Croydon. FOI And each tram path could also convoy trams (two trams each time) over each Wellesley road junction.
Longer trams at roughly the same frequency as now can carry twice as many people across Croydon.
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 8 2.4 Would the loops “tear Croydon apart”? This illustration adds tear lines to the official TfL drawing of their proposals to curtail trams either side of Croydon at 2 loops (Reeves Corner & Dingwall Rd)
Shoppers arriving from the west would have to walk from Reeves Corner.
Shoppers arriving from the east would need to walk further to Westfield than from the existing stop in George Street.
TfL say that by 2030 half the trams may fail to cross Croydon – and thus fail to carry commuters from new housing in Waddon to East Croydon station.
2.5 On the way home, would anybody ever use the proposed tram stop (Lansdowne Rd on the Dingwall Rd loop)? George St tram stop is clearly closer for shopper arrivals. This is a Westfield “shopper’s choice” (going home)
Which shopper would walk 3 times further (200m instead of 70m) and risk missing a 3 times more frequent tram?
An East Croydon “commuter’s choice” (going home)
DISCLOSED UNDER FOI
Which commuter would walk 3 times further to get a 3 times less frequent tram 2 stops behind on their route? How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 9 2.6 How many trams will run through central Croydon in the future?
TfL has said only 4 or 5 trams/hr would initially use the Dingwall Road loop. In this scenario trams to the existing Wellesley Road stop would be 3 times as frequent. However, by 2030, as extra trams are added to cope with growing demand, TfL said these would ALL be turned around at the town edges – and thus prevented from crossing or reaching the town centre. This has led to the confusion of TfL being able to say two things at once. That in the short term “there would still be through services to West Croydon” whilst obscuring that by 2030 (to cope with twice the demand) they actually plan to cope with doubled demand by running only half the trams across Croydon.
The debate has thus become one of whether future capacity should come from either: more frequent trams that could not run through central Croydon (and would need two very costly loops); or by longer trams that could continue to run across central Croydon – and keep both sides connected. This paper shows that it is actually more economic to run longer trams across Croydon. We save over £200 million.
2.7 Could the network cope with more frequent trams or do we ALREADY need longer trams? It is hard to add any more than 12 trams/hr without trams bunching up. And, unlike buses, when trams bunch up the emptier one behind cannot overtake. TfL themselves say (in paras 5.6 and 5.12) that “there is a limit to how much capacity can be added through frequency” and that “new timetables would involve a reduction in Elmers End services… to enable a reliable and even-intervalled service”. In paragraph 5.13 they say that “the natural solution is to add longer trams”. We agree. Our difference is timing. We say longer trams removes need of the Dingwall loop.
TfL evidence says the Elmers End route is already at the point where only longer trams would add capacity. The Wimbledon route is now at 12 trams/hr frequency. We have again already reached the same point. To Beckenham, technical issues would make track dualling much more expensive than longer trams and the passing loops (100m and 80m) are both perfectly long enough to cope with 60 metre coupled trams. New Addington is the only part of the network where frequency could be increased to 12 trams/hr but a) That frequency is most needed at rush hour – and really only on the section to East Croydon station b) If we turn-back those trams at East Croydon, we need less new trams and avoid Wellesley Road too. c) We should increase frequency by adding 4 tph to East Croydon and then increase length there too.
2.8 Would the Dingwall Road loop help or hinder “capacity”? Could it actually hold up trams?
To calculate how many trams are needed on a route we need to divide the round trip time by the “headway” (ie the interval between each tram). Faster journey time increases capacity by freeing up a tram for use elsewhere.
For example, our 4 trams/hr from Elmers End around the Croydon loop have a round trip time of 45 minutes (including 3 minutes turnaround time to soak up delays) and an interval between them (a headway) of 15 minutes.
45/15 = 3 so we need 3 trams to do that job.
According to timetables, the Dingwall Road loop could cut 8 minutes from the Croydon loop, but its route, two extra junctions and its tram stop cuts that back to a saving of around 5 minutes – or a round trip of 40 minutes.
40/15 = 2.66 trams. A saving of 1/3 a tram/hr. ie - It would take 3 hours to save just 1 tram per hour.
If however the same 4 trams/hr were turned around at East Croydon, timetables show a potential saving of 15 mins.
30/15 = 2 trams (or a saving of 1 tram each hour) – or 3 times as much capacity freed up for use somewhere else.
2.9 TfL have said they are worried about the effect of the extra pedestrian crossings on Wellesley Road. But these crossings would only add about 1 minute to journey times (which could be recouped by convoy trams) For the majority of tram journeys (Wimbledon-Elmers End or New Addington-West Croydon) we have longer round trip times of 60 to 90 minutes.
That extra minute makes only a tiny difference to this calculation. But the new junctions onto and off the Dingwall Road loop would interrupt tram traffic on the majority route by more than those new pedestrian crossings. DISCLOSEDWestbound tram traffic into Dingwall Road would hold up eastbound UNDER tram traffic as it ran across the eastbound FOI route. It would hold up “main line” eastbound tram traffic on Wellesley Road at the new junction – compounded by the typical instruction to tram drivers to slow down to only 20 km/hr through switches and on such tight turns.
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 10 2.10 Is the Dingwall Road loop thus a solution or a problem? From the above capacity calculations we conclude: a) The additional junctions onto and off the Dingwall Road loop will hold up “mainline” trams more than the new pedestrian crossings on Wellesley Road. The Dingwall Road loop could thus harm capacity for most trams. b) For long round trip times (of 90 minutes for Wimbledon-Elmers End) an additional minute for two pedestrian crossings may have little effect on capacity calculations and be compensated by various other minor changes. c) If any trams are to be turned around early, turning them around at East Croydon adds three times the capacity.
The Dingwall Road loop could hold up trams crossing Croydon more than Wellesley Rd pedestrian crossings. This makes the loop part of the problem rather than the solution.
Turning some (eg 4) rush hour trams from either New Addington or Elmers End around at East Croydon’s third platform could add 3 times as much capacity as sending them around this loop.
2.11 Is the Dingwall Road loop value for money? The original plan for two loops either side of Croydon was to deal with the TfL option of doubling frequency to cope with 2030’s doubled demand. Their worry was that the central Croydon route could not cope with twice as many trams and that all the extra trams would need to be turned back - further away from the town centre. They are at the point of accepting the argument for longer trams instead, but still fixated on building the first of those two proposed loops – despite the logic that longer trams remove the need for either of these loops. Almost half the £28 million cost of the Dingwall Road loop pays for land purchase and utility diversions. (In desperation, TfL have claimed that longer platforms would need land purchase and utility diversions. As we show below, the truth is that these use public land and platforms overlap most utilities without issues). Capacity : as para 2.8 shows above, this loop takes away more capacity than it adds. Resilience : When tram works or incidents blockade the town centre loop, East Croydon is already used to turn back half the trams. Automating eastbound points at East Croydon would be a more cost effective solution. And this could be combined with use of the Wellesley Road tram stop to turn back the other half of the trams. Use of new tram stop : Tram extensions normally add stops to add new markets. On this loop, we showed the opposite is true. The Lansdowne Road stop is 3 times further from both Westfield and East Croydon than existing stops. Being served less frequently than nearby stops it would have no “new market” whatsoever. This loop is thus terrible value for money as it hinders capacity and fails to add new market or extra resilience.
2.12 Would funding this loop get in the way of funding real solutions – ie more tram seats?
As we show below, other solutions would cope with Wellesley Rd issues and add capacity for less cost. And we need to remember that only extra tram seats add any real capacity.
Regardless of whether we build loops and lengthen platforms we still to pay for those trams (and stabling). The question is whether we actually need to have a £30 million cost in the way of funding those new trams?
This loop takes away more capacity than it adds. It would also hinder the funding problem.
2.13 Would Westfield fund longer platforms and new trams from their section 106 agreement?
Westfield staff confirmed to us that the £15 million of funding from their section 106 agreement is for “a basket of capacity improvements” not limited to construction of a Dingwall Road loop. They understand it could be used instead for new trams, longer platforms or a combination of the two. And they said they would of course “prefer anything that adds more tram seats towards their shopping centre”.
2.14 Could Westfield re-claim that £15 million?
Our lawyers say yes. There is legal precedent for a developer re-claiming their contribution to the “tort” costs of compensating for the congestion effect of their development if the local authority “solution” fails to solve that congestion problem. In other words, if the Dingwall Road loop can be later shown to have failed to add capacity or resilience, then they could sue to re-claim their £15 million. As we have shown above, capacity claims are dubious.
DISCLOSED Extra junctions on and off the new loop hinder tram traffic UNDER more than pedestrian crossings on Wellesley FOI Rd. The tram stop on the loop is further away from Westfield than tram stops in George St and Wellesley Road. For resilience, every year, any witness could testify that trams can indeed be turned around at East Croydon It is reasonably apparent that only new or longer trams actually add enough capacity to solve congestion issues TfL is thus at great risk of not only wasting £30m on this loop, but then having to repay £15m (and legal fees).
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 11 3 Alternative solutions for Wellesley Rd and capacity. Cost comparison of 30m, 43m and 55m tram lengths.
3.1 The two central Croydon capacity issues are (a) coping with delays caused by the new Wellesley Rd surface level pedestrian crossings and (b) adding 45% tram passenger capacity by 2021 and 85% tram passenger capacity by 2030
3.2 Croydon council are worried about how many trams per hour can be accomodated through extra traffic light controlled junctions in Wellesley Road. Their “solution” is to ask for a reduction in trams crossing Croydon in order to cope with car access to Westfield car parks and their new surface level pedestrian crossings.
3.3 TfL are concerned that the combination of loss of tram priority along Wellesley Road and the addition of new surface level pedestrian crossings would delay trams across Croydon and thus reduce overall capacity. Until very recently their only planned solution to adding capacity was to increase tram frequency rather than tram length.
3.4 We have been saying that: Traffic light cycle times could be reduced by better detecting when a tram has finished crossing intersections (cutting just 5 seconds off 22 trams/hr has the same effect as 4 fewer trams/hr running down Wellesley Rd) Small delays caused by these extra pedestrian crossings cause very little difference to capacity calculations (with 90 minute round-trip times), but we agree that they have a cumulative effect. But that time could be won back, if whenever trams caught up with each other in the central area, they were (a) allowed to stop in pairs at longer platforms and (b) allowed to travel in convoy through road junctions (just as any other road traffic does).
So, the alternative plan to add 45% extra capacity by 2021 and 85% by 2030 would be to a) Add 3 extra trams to increase New Addington frequency to 12 trams/hr, but turn back those (or the same number of Elmers End trams) at rush hour at East Croydon. b) Then phase in longer trams whilst keeping tram frequencies to today’s 4 or 5 minute intervals (12/hr)
3.5 Understanding these concerns, we have investigated how traffic light cycle times could to be used more efficiently to take more people and trams across Croydon. Each traffic light cycle surrounds the actual tram crossing time with at least 20 seconds of safety buffer. Double length trams only need about 3 extra seconds of crossing time.
3.6 It is worth noting that trams run on a “line of sight” system and are treated and signalled as road users. Unlike train drivers, tram drivers are thus allowed to drive close behind each other. But unlike bus drivers they still need to take account that steel wheels on steel track take further to safely stop than rubber tyres on a road surface. Whilst a tram driver may thus come to a halt only two metres behind a stationary tram, they would need to keep at least 20 metres (or 4 seconds) behind another tram moving at typical speeds used to cross roads in our town centre.
3.7 We have compared tram crossing times in Cologne and Croydon and laser surveyed platform sites and trackwork. We are suggesting a combination of 5 methods to add capacity & resilience and reduce road traffic interruption. These are (a) Cutting red light times (by better noticing when a tram has already cleared each crossing), (b) Lengthen some tram stops to enable pairs of existing short trams to save time by sharing tram stops (b) Running trams in convoy (allowing 2 short trams to travel a safe stopping distance together across junctions) (c) East Croydon turn-back of a few extra rush hour trams (eg the extra 4 per hour needed from New Addington) (d) Longer trams (coupled existing trams & new 55m trams) – to carry twice the passengers at the same frequency
3.8 Cut red light time. Reduced red light time by better detecting when trams have safely cleared each road junction. Traffic lights are currently red for 30 seconds. They stay red for 12 seconds after trams have completely crossed. Tram takes 3 to 6 secs (depending on speed & road width) Cut 0 sec 10 sec 20 sec current 30 second traffic light cycle
Cutting 5.5 seconds from the end of red light times for 22 trams/hr equates to 4 fewer trams/hr on Wellesley Rd (ie to have exactly the same effect as the 4 trams/hr planned to switch across to the Dingwall Rd loop). DISCLOSED UNDER FOI The extra tram detection wires in the road to achieve this could cost around £30k (rather than £30 million). This alone could satisfy Croydon Council’s traffic concerns for a thousanth of the cost of the Dingwall Rd loop.
We keep initial safety margins (needed to cope with road users failing to stop as their light changes to red) but cut back the final margins - using extra cancel loops to better detect when trams have completely crossed each road.
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 12 Longer Tram stops would allow more than one “short tram” to stop at once – to share the same platform.
3.9 At any bus stop, more than one bus is allowed to stop at once. These trams are treated as road vehicles but at most rush hours, passengers witness a second tram coming to rest only a metre behind the tram already occupying their platform. It is being delayed as it is unable to start exchanging passengers until the first tram leaves the platform. This is happening now every evening at the eastbound platform at East Croydon where trams frequently wait to get onto the platform. At Addiscombe, morning rush hour trams are so overcrowded they cannot close their doors, whilst an emptier tram sits waiting to reach that same platform. Longer platforms at West Croydon, Wellesley Road, East Croydon and Addiscombe would allow 2nd trams access to the platform and enable 1st trams an earlier exit. Longer platforms at secured termini would enable overnight stabling for twice as many new short trams – with almost no extra land purchase and no sidings trackwork costs. (And this could be complete by 2020.)
3.10 The time saved at each longer platform by enabling more than one tram to stop at once would far more than compensate for the 2 extra pedestrian crossings on Wellesley Road. At present around a third of trams travelling down Wellesley Road, are bunched up to be within a minute of each other. Extra crossings will increase that bunching. If, every time, trams bunch up, they can share stops at Wellesley Road and East Croydon they will gain back more time than the crossings cause them to lose – and again do that for a few thousanth of the cost of the Dingwall Road loop (ie £30,000 to £100,000 for each town centre tram platform instead of £30 million).
3.11 As most of these pairs of trams would be destined for Elmers End and New Addington, they would be at even intervals after they part company at Sandilands. The ideal would be for them to share stops until Sandilands. The convoy system described in the next section is an extension of this same idea – where trams would not only save time by being allowed to share key tram stops, but also be allowed to cross some road junctions in pairs.
Convoy trams along Wellesley Road
3.12 Convoy extends this idea to also allow pairs of trams to cross some road junctions together. It involves lengthening West Croydon and Wellesley Rd tram stops and then creating a safe method (rephasing traffic lights etc) to enable pairs of trams to drive a safe distance behind each other through the four traffic signals down Wellesley Road.
That’s two longer platforms, the same trams, but traffic light phasing redesign to cope with pairs of trams.
3.13 Right now almost half the trams across Croydon travel within one minute of each other. By allowing them to bunch up at longer platforms (eg West Croydon tram stop) or the lights at Station Road, and to then travel a safe distance behind each other across each Wellesley Road pinchpoint, we could cut out the need for six 30 second traffic light phases at four road junctions. We’d increase traffic flow by 12 minutes each hour to and from Westfield to increase car and bus traffic flow by over 20%. (with no need for fewer trams across Croydon). It would also speed up trams.
And the cost of this could be a few thousanth of the cost of the Dingwall Rd loop (£100,000 instead of £30 million)
3.14 Lengthening each platform could cost about £30,000 to raise 75m2 of pavement by 150mm. No services would need to be moved (as argued below) and no land would need to be purchased. Traffic light rephasing normally costs around £2,000 but we could allocate £30,000 for extra cancel loops and safety design work.
Tram takes 3 to 6 secs (depending on speed & road width)
0 sec 10 sec 20 sec 30 second traffic light cycle
As this diagram shows, the tram crossing time is tiny compared with the safety buffer times either side of it. It is clearly more efficient to pack more than one tram or longer or coupled trams into each traffic light cycle.
3.15 There is a 10 to 12 second safety period from the road traffic light turning red before a tram crosses a road. That is clearly needed to cope with drivers who failing to stop in time for the light turning red. But once traffic has been stopped, the need for such a long delay (of 10 to even 20 seconds after the rear end of a tram has crossed) is debatable and could be reduced by better use of the tram cancel loop.
3.16 A safe tram stopping distance (using just the service brake) for today’s 20 km/hr crossing speeds on road DISCLOSED junctions across Wellesley Rd would require uncoupled trams UNDER to run 20 metres or at least 3.6 seconds apart.FOI (Data from the Railway Inspectorate confirm these figures). Trams also have a more severe “hazard” brake.
1st Tram (5 secs) 4 sec 2nd Tram (5 secs)
0 sec 10 sec 20 sec 30 or 35 sec traffic light cycle
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million j @datatrans.co.uk 13 3.17 Tram pairing of half today’s trams across the four Wellesley Road junctions could add 20% extra capacity without any need to reduce the total number of trams per hour crossing Croydon (and save the need of a Dingwall Rd loop). Right now, each 2nd tram needs totally separate 30 second traffic light cycles – four times down this road. Even if 5 secs extra is needed from now, pairing half the trams into 2 tram convoys cuts 6 x 25 secs for each of four junctions – to add 10 minutes vehicle traffic crossing time per hour with as many trams/hr as now.
3.18 As platforms at East Croydon, Lansdowne Road and Sandilands are lengthened too, the same convoy system could be employed to reduce traffic conflicts at Cherry Orchard Rd and the A232 Addiscombe Rd – with New Addington and Elmers End/Beckenham trams parting company at Sandilands. This Wellesley Rd convoy solution (2 platform extensions and traffic light rephasing) has simple approval needs, low costs and could be up and running within 2 or 3 years (2019/2020) – ie before Westfield opens.
Coupled Trams
3.19 Trams are already scheduled frequently (at 5 minutes or under) on all of the network except the New Addington and Beckenham branches. They are already bunching up. A natural wave effect occurs, but unlike buses the emptier 2nd tram cannot overtake the 1st crowded tram. It is easier to provide a regular timetable by providing longer trams at the existing 4 or 5 minute frequency instead of running extra trams at a 2 minute frequency.
3.20 Our studies in Cologne (timing tram crossing times from a standing start across 3 road types) showed that a coupled tram takes only 3 seconds longer to cross a 2 lane road junction. We have video evidence of this.
Coupled Tram takes 3 seconds longer than a single tram
0 sec 10 sec 20 sec 30 or 33 second traffic light cycle
Two single trams though would take two 30 second traffic light cycles – ie 60 seconds in total Each long tram would take about half as long to cross each of the network’s 20 road junctions as two short trams.
3.21 This means that a most traffic lights, a coupled tram would cross with no real need of extra red light time. And the already generous safety margin after the tram has crossed could be lowered even further by more intelligent cancel loops (to better detect when the real end of the tram has left the junction).
Coupled trams thus enable us to DOUBLE capacity with no extra traffic congestion at traffic pinchpoints.
3.22 We have suggested coupling some of our EXISTING trams together as each new tram is added – to add capacity whilst retaining frequency – on routes through Addiscombe that are already very frequent.
Bombardier have confirmed to us that new electronic couplers would cost £43,000 each. By 2020, the TfL demand graph shows a need for 45% extra capacity – or several new trams. We have suggested that as each new tram is bought, two existing trams are coupled together.
3.23 This would mean that by the time our existing trams are replaced, some of them would have been coupled. Due to door positions 5m in from each end, platform lengths needed for coupled trams are about 53 metres. Croydon’s trams would be just over 60m long when coupled together with a wheelbase of about 55 metres. Our laser survey over Tramlink’s network found that almost every platform already has 55m of straight track.
Longer Trams
3.24 By “longer trams” we mean the purchase of new longer trams from 2020 that would form the start of a new fleet to eventually replace our older Bombardier trams as they life expire (between 2025 and 2030). Various options are available, including selling off our current (unpopular) Stadler trams (eg to Bergen) and switching to a new fleet. Having noticed that coupled trams tend to be kept coupled (ie their flexibility is rarely used), it is worth pointing out that we could still carry around twice as many people from a 55m long tram such as the 55m Citadis trams just ordered for Dublin’s Luas system – due to not having two unused driver cabins in the middle. And 55m versions of Citadis trams (as used in Nottingham) or CAF trams (as used in Birmingham) work out cheaper per passenger too.
DISCLOSEDWith the trend clearly moving from 7 module 43m trams to longerUNDER 9 module 55m trams (or coupled trams) FOI most manufacturers are offering much longer types of trams. Sydney, Dublin, Budapest, Paris, Istanbul, Casablanca, Amsterdam, Tunis and Jerusalem are already or will be soon using trams in the 55m to 65m range.
One of the reasons cited is that each driver carries twice as many people – to halve staffing costs. But the other reason is that each long tram takes about half as long to cross roads as two short trams.
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 14 Comparison of three options for tram and staffing costs – 30 metre trams, 43 metre trams or 55 metre trams
3.25 With the biggest spending items being tram purchase costs and staffing costs, it is worth comparing three options for tram purchases over the next 14 years. TfL uses 147 drivers (at a cost of £50,000/yr each to train & employ). Staffing costs below use those same costs to predict staffing costs of extra 30m & 43m trams or of 55 metre trams.
Our current 30 metre trams each carry around 200 people. We currently have a fleet of 34 trams. 43m trams would need longer platforms and could each carry around 300 people. 55m trams (eg either Citadis trams as just ordered by Dublin or CAF trams by Budapest) carry 400 people A 53m platform length would cope with either our existing trams coupled together or these 55m trams. These 9 module trams are longer versions of trams used in Nottingham, Edinburgh and Birmingham. They carry twice as many people as our existing trams (or as many as two 30m trams coupled together).
Soon after 2025, the older 24 of our existing (30 metre) trams will life expire and will need to be replaced. These costs therefore include costs of not just adding extra capacity, but also replacing 24 existing trams. Extra or longer trams will need extra stabling (overnight parking). The costs of providing secure sidings get slightly lower for the longest trams as they have fewer pairs of driver cabs and parking gaps. Later in this report we show how economic it would be for extra or longer trams to be securely stored overnight at termini (Wimbledon, Beckenham and Elmers End) and on one track of a dualled approach to Elmers End.
3.26 Using tram purchase costs of recent contracts (published by Railway Gazette and at today’s prices), to follow the predicted growth graph and to gradually add 85% extra capacity through the 2020s until 2030, we could:
a) Use 30 metre trams by: Buying 85% extra 30m trams – eg 30 @ £2.4m each = £ 72.0 million Replacing our 24 existing trams @ £2.4m each = £ 57.6 million
Recruit, train and staff extra trams with 85% more drivers (assuming gradual growth through the 2020s that’s £2.4m/yr in 2020-21 rising to £6.25 million/yr by 2030) = approx £ 40 million ------Total £ 170 million
b) Use 43 metre trams (as these trams are 50% longer we still need 33% more trams and drivers)
We would need approx 45 new trams @ around £3.1m each = £ 140 million 33% more drivers added through the 2020s would cost approx £ 14 million ------Total £ 164 million
c) Use 55 metre trams - eg until 2025 buy 4 to allow 8 existing trams to be coupled together - and then phase replace 24 existing trams with 55 metre trams (from 2025-2030)
Eg 28 new 55 metre trams @ around £4.1m each = £ 115 million Add extra staff for 4 extra trams (to New Addington) approx £ 5 million ------Total £ 120 million 3.37 Cost comparison conclusions 55m trams save £50 million over using 30m trams and are about £44 million cheaper than 43m trams The sooner we enable longer trams to be added, the sooner we save the extra staffing costs of extra trams. 55 metre trams are clearly the best choice as: o 55m trams avoid the £30 million cost of the Dingwall Road loop and a similar cost at Reeves Corner. o But with 43 metre trams, we’d need 30% more trams and would still need to fund those loops.
DISCLOSEDo Both 43m and 55m trams require longer platforms (forUNDER a probable cost of under £10 million) FOI o 43m trams are thus a costly compromise that need both loops, 33% more staff and longer platforms.
o Platforms for 55m trams would be unlikely to cost very much more than those needed for 43m trams. o 55m platforms can be also used by two of our existing trams coupled together. o 55m platforms could also be used to stop 2 short trams at once (in the “convoy” system).
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 15 4 What would it cost to extend our platforms?
4.1 The following diagrams show door and wheel positions of likely trams. A 53 metre platform length will cope with door positions of either type of tram (and allow a metre stopping tolerance). As its also much easier to achieve the required 50mm gaps between platform edges and tram floors if the platform is straight the wheelbase distance shows that 55 metres of straight track at each tram stop would make DDA compliance easy.
Existing Trams (Bombardier CR4000) – Coupled together as used in Cologne, Istanbul or Manchester
61m tram length
52m Platform length needed (between doors)
55m of straight track needed (between wheels) for DDA compliance
Likely future replacement trams could be slightly shorter whilst carrying as many people - as they have no central cabs. With Manchester,Dublin, Paris & Sydney needing ever longer trams, manufacturers created new options. Examples include 54m 9 section Combino trams used in Budapest or 55m 9 section Alstom Citadis 502 trams ordered by Dublin.
Approx 55m tram length of various possible future trams
50m of straight track needed (between wheels)
52m Platform length needed (between doors) Likely successors to our current trams thus need virtually the same platform and straight track lengths to those of our existing trams coupled together in the meantime.
4.2 Croydon’s existing platforms are 32 or 33 metres long. Each would need to be extended by about 20 metres. We have therefore surveyed the entire network using Disto laser devices and bought Ordinance Survey data to establish if there are any expensive issues that would need to be solved to achieve this aim. We checked if there is room beyond each platform to add 10m onto each end (or 20m onto one end) We checked if any new land would need to be purchased (not already owned by TfL or Croydon Council) We checked how much straight track is at each site and whether passing loops would cope with 60m trams We checked road junction issues (especially Reeves Corner) and comment below on this We have itemised where “grey boxes” may need to be moved but utility issues need further investigation We then drew site plans for stops with constraints – to prove that solutions exist for each of their issues.
4.3 In correspondence following our discussions in 2014 with the 3 TfL directors of Rail, Tramlink and Stakeholders it became clear that TfL had done little research into the case for longer trams and were very misinformed about Croydon Tramlink. As these myths affect the cost calculations, it would be helpful if we now tackle each in turn.
4.4 There is almost NO need of Land Purchase As illustrated on page 4, TfL already own a strip of land on either side of the old railway tracks to Wimbledon, Beckenham and Elmers End. This is sufficiently wide to extend all platforms on these routes. Through Croydon town centre and on the route to New Addington, tram platforms exist on public pavements or public land owned by Croydon Council (just as any bus stop is not owned by TfL). The Transport & Works act order made TfL responsible for maintenance and cleaning but TfL never needed to buy any public land. We have established that there is sufficient space at all existing tram stops to extend platforms using either TfL or existing public land. For these platform extensions, the only need of private land purchase on the entire network appears to be a very small 202m piece of farmland (a hedge) at one end of one side of Gravel Hill tram stop.
DISCLOSED4.5 The trackwork was designed to accommodate 60 metre coupled UNDER trams All passing loops and junctions areFOI already sufficiently far apart to cope with 60m trams. To gain railway inspectorate approval, Croydon Tramlink had to prove that if a tram broke down, it could be pushed back to the depot by a 2nd coupled tram – coping with any hills. The system was therefore future proofed to cope with coupled trams. For this reason, expensive trackwork changes appear to be limited to straighter track at only two tram stops on the network (Dundonald Road and Wandle Park).
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 16 4.6 TFL is wrong to suggest that Passing Loops would need to be lengthened on the Beckenham branch TFL’s Trams 2030 paper states that passing loops on the Beckenham branch would need to be lengthened. Here is the evidence that this is not true. There are two passing loops – at Avenue Road and Beckenham Road. AVENUE ROAD passing loop
Google maps shows an 80 m passing loop
The photo also shows visual evidence. The tram is past the platform but has not reached the Yellow “fouling” pole. A coupled tram would be this tram plus another on the platform behind. Behind that there is also a 5m ramp, 2m crossing plus a few more metres of dualled track.
There is clearly space for two 61 metre coupled trams to pass each other here.
BECKENHAM Rd passing loop .
61m trams using the existing passing loop adjacent to BECKENHAM Rd tramstop
.
DISCLOSED UNDER FOI
Accurate modelling of a coupled pair of trams overlaid on official Ordinance Survey data shows no problem here either.
Few 61m trams might ever use this branch (as we would invisage them limited to the Elmers End-Therapia Lane route and later to Wimbledon). There is even more room for pairs of proposed 55m trams to pass each other at these sites. How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 17 4.7 There is NO need to move any existing tram stop. We have designed solutions that would enable even Lebanon Rd (one of the tightest stops) to remain in place. There is at least 52m of straight track to cope with 50mm gap requriements at every stop except Wandle Park and Dundonald Road where we show design solutions. Longer trams take 3 extra seconds to clear junctions. There are no “significant engineering challenges”, need of “substantial re-engineering” of existing tracks or need to move any existing stops. A pack of drawings is included in our appendix for discussion of these issues.
Croydon’s tram network was designed to cope with 60 metre 4 car coupled trams. (junctions designed to allow broken down trams to be pushed by a 2nd coupled tram)
East Croydon - now
East Croydon Platforms extended to 53 metres + ramps (for a pair of 2 car trams)
Distance between Lwr Addiscombe and Bingham Rd DOES permit a 53 metre platform
DISCLOSED UNDER FOI
Addiscombe tram station (can indeed be extended to take a pair of 30 metre 2 car trams)
There are no huge expensive problems in making our platforms 20 metres longer.
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 18 4.8 Longer Trams would not block Drummond Rd traffic – as 96% are already cleared to run non-stop At our meeting with TfL, they were most concerned about how longer trams could block this junction. They showed us drawings of how 43m trams could block this road. But they had not observed it in real use. We observed 200 trams crossing this junction at this site. 96% of the time Signals B or C (to either Wimbledon or W. Croydon) changed soon enough for trams to run NON-STOP across both roads at once. On the very few occasions trams were held at the 2nd signal (for a few seconds), Drummond Road’s traffic lights remained red. It is thus debatable if any traffic light tweak is needed to cope with longer trams crossing this junction.
Our survey proved trams are already cleared to cross these roads non-stop. Longer trams would not interrupt traffic.
Signal A
Signals B & C Signal B A
96% of trams are cleared to cross BOTH road junctions NON-STOP before they even pass Signal A
4.9 The Utililty removal risk is very small Any utilities under new trackwork is normally moved because of the large disruption risk to the network should that utility later need to be dug up and replaced. But disruption risks of utilites under platforms are deemed far lower. Most of the tram network’s platforms are on old rail routes or council parkland, leaving just the 8 town centre platforms as the only ones likely to have electricity or BT cables or gas or water pipes under them. Most of these platforms have manholes along them. It was for example clearly felt unnessary to move services from under the Wellesley Road tram stop. It has 7 manhole covers along it. A recent services survey showed it riddled with pipes.
4.10 Whilst a risk assessment clearly needs to take place, the main risk is limited to services along the platform edge where doors could be blocked should that service need to be dug up. A cost comparison could then be made between the typically exhorbitant cost charged by the utility company to move their pipe and the probably cheaper cost of making the new platform 2 or 3 metres longer still – to create alternative stopping & door opening positions. In all town centre cases, we have 60m of straight track to do this. At Wellesley Rd we have over 150m and could thus be planning to enable future 55m trams to save journey time by sharing a very long stop at this location. As there is no need of town centre trackwork changes we avoid most risk of needing to move utilities Utillities under “pavement” town centre platforms are not normally moved. DISCLOSED Should any platform utility be deemed a risk, making thatUNDER platform even longer still would be cheaper FOI (to create alternative stopping positions and enable the tram doors to avoid any temporary work holes). Most of the 39 platforms are on railway or parkland. Only 8 (mainly half platforms) are in the town centre.
4.11 Pedestrian Crossings. No traffic light crossings need to be moved. At Central and at East Croydon dropped kerbs need changing and lines repainted. We show below how all the other crossings can be just lifted up and moved. How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 19 4.12 Platform Construction Having spoken to builders who constructed Croydon Tramlink platforms orginally, we have price estimates from more than one contractor able to quote for this type of work. These quotations form part of our cost estimate.
The existing platforms are only 5 bricks high and paved like a garden patio – but with a gripper strip. Most extension work could be done in daytime without interupting tram traffic or closing the rest of the platform.
350mm high platform (similar to a garden patio) These simple crossings would need to be moved 10m Overnight working to shore up ballast, dig footings and (They are currently just fixed into the ground). build the brickwork. Rest of the work done in daytime.
Each stop would need four platform extensions like this. (This one is Lloyd Park)
Three builders (including one who built these platforms Basic platform construction £40,000 15 years ago) each suggested a cost of £5,000 for a 10m Moving the crossings £ 4,000 ? extension. Most work could be done in daytime without Lighting & fencing £ 2,000 DISCLOSEDinterrupting tram traffic or closing platforms. FootpathsUNDER (& some CCTV) £ 6,000 FOI Design fees £ 8,000 But if we doubled estimates due to “overnight working” ------we reach £10,000 x 4 = £40,000 for 4 extensions (of 10m) £60,000 (These estimates exclude trackwork or other cost issues) ------+ 50% optimism bias £90,000 (average)
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 20 Results of our laser survey work to identify any other cost issues. New Addington & Elmers End routes Tram Stop Number Electrical Length of Land Other Notes of cabinets straight purchase platforms in the way track needed New Addington 1 Approx no Tight fit at this terminus. (island) no 60m Achieved in our design work (see attached drawings) By changing buffers to track end as now used at Beckenham junction. King Henry Drive 2 no 100 m no Fieldway 2 no 100 m no Addington Village 2 no 90 m no Gravel Hill 2 no 55 m 20 sq m (After 55m track curves slightly) strip of farmland hedge Coombe Lane 2 no 70 m no Lloyd Park 2 no 70 m no Track on a 750m radius curve with DDA complience already achieved
Elmers End No Already long enough. nd 1 no 70 m (Not on But separate project to add a 2 this platform needs to ensure this 60m project) platform length is retained 65m loop on approach due to be replaced in track dualling Arena 2 no > 80 m No Prob. can avoid moving cabinets Woodside 2 No > 80 m no Track on 1.5km radius curve with DDA complience already achieved Blackhorse Lane 2 No > 70 m no Addiscombe 2 70m Enough room between No between no Addiscombe Road and roads Lower Addiscombe Road Sandilands 2 1 approx Sharp curve at end of platform 60 m Achieved in our design work Very tight (Possible solution in our drawings) Lebanon Road approx 53m platforms can be fitted. But 2 no 65 m no tram ends would overhang side pavement but roads for 30 second tram stops. Side road Needs detailed design work issues (Possible solution in our drawings) East Croydon 3 approx Extend pavement platform & repaint platforms no 65 m to no crossings. pavement switches Achieved in our design work + island (Possible solution in our drawings) George Street 1 no > 70 m no Room to extend by shortening pavement loading bay. Church Street 1 2 Save cost if we avoid switch pavement may be ok > 70 m no Achieved in our design work (Possible solution in our drawings) Centrale 1 Rotate 1 No Existing crossing lights unchanged island cabinet at 70m Raise all 20m at the rear of island. DISCLOSEDrear of stop UNDER(As shown in our drawings) FOI West Croydon 1 No > 70 m No Extend towards station entrance and pavement use new wider pavement Wellesley Road 1 no >150 m No Extend across end of Walpole Crt pavement and towards George Street
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 21 Wimbledon and Beckenham routes Tram Stop Number Electrical Length of Land Other Notes of cabinets straight purchase platforms in the way track needed Reeves Corner 1 But tram end overhangs entrance pavement no 70 m no Achieved in our design work (Possible solution in our drawings) Wandle Park 2 no on a no Needs detailed design work curve (Possible solution in our drawings) Waddon Marsh 2 no >150 m no old rail route out to Wimbledon Ampere Way 2 no >150 m no Therapia Lane 2 no 65 m no constraints but enough room Beddington Lane 2 1 >150 m no Mitcham Junction 2 no 65 m no (distance to start of hill) Mitcham 2 no >150 m no Belgrave Walk 1 (island) no >100 m no Expand one end. Leave crossing Phipps Bridge 1 (island) no 75m no Expand one end. Leave crossing Morden Road 2 no >150 m no Expand one end. Leave crossing Merton Park 2 no >100 m no Dundonald Road 2 no on a Track realignment using TfL land curve TfL land Achieved in our design work (Possible solution in our drawings) Wimbledon 2 no 75m track Public land Demolish 12m of new protrusion. Extend buffer of original track 12m. Recently (Protrusion built new alongside Extend other end of protrusion platforms Network platform by 15m alongside Network are too Rail Rail platform. Adjust 15m of track. short platform) (moving junction back by 15m).
Harrington Road 2 no >100 m no Expand one end. Leave crossing Birkbeck 1 no >200 m no Extend towards Elmers End Rd Avenue Road Station is on a 100m long passing 2 no 100 m no loop. Room to expand platforms. Beckenham Road >100 m Expand platform to bridge. 1 No Nearby no Rebuild top flight of access steps to passing reach platform instead of old ramp. loop is Extend over ramp at other end with 85m long minor changes to access route. Beckenham Junction Move Elec. 14m uses Extend track & buffers by 14 metres. 1 cabinets if track & Publically Changes to curb line and car park. nd Island 2 buffer owned Three options available. platform platform extension land Achieved in our design work exit is still (Possible solution in our drawings) required 4.13 Other cost issues The above table reveals that there is sufficient straight track for platform extensions at 35 of the 39 sites. No land purchase is needed (except for one small strip of farmland hedge at one end of one side of one site). 13 of the 39 sites only have a single platform to lengthen. Under 6 electrical cabinets need moving. Some sites need very limited curb-line changes to side roads or traffic islands (as shown in our drawings) The small risk of some existing services needing to be moved is limited to just six town centre platforms. DISCLOSEDThe main extra costs are limited to the 4 sites of UNDER FOI Dundonald Rd (150m of re-aligned track using TfL land), Wimbledon (demolition of part of the new platform and extension work), Beckenham Junction (14m track extension and car park changes) and Wandle Park (possibly needing 150m of track replacement and minor re-alignment work). Most new track would be on already ballasted land. Our pack of drawings illustrates solutions for these sites. How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 22 4.14 Elmers End It is also important to note that Elmers end currently already has a 60m platform in place. A quite separate project proposes to dual the approach track, add stabling sidings and add a second platform. An urgent priority is to ensure that those designs do not repeat the same mistakes just made at Wimbledon (where a third of the brand new platform needs to be demolished to cope with longer trams).
The new 2nd platform at Elmers End needs to be designed to cope with 60m coupled trams and 55m new trams. It’s costs are separate to the items listed below.
4.15 Other costs unrelated to those of longer platforms Extra trams, stabling and enhanced power supplies are needed whether we have longer trams or not. TfL recently claimed longer platforms would cost over £150 million – by including costs of new trams, replacement trams, stabling and a new depot. These items are needed either way, but are all cheaper with longer trams.
Para 3.26 showed, 55 metre trams save £40 million in staff costs (2020-30) and £60 million in tram purchase costs.
4.16 Minor costs To help, we have also investigated some of the more minor costs too. Bombardier spare parts department told us that each electronic coupler would cost £43,000 Traffic light rephasing typically costs between £2,000 and £5,000 (for under 20 crossings). As long trams stop at junctions at the same place as short trams, very few signals need be moved. Some extensions would be limited to one end of the platform, but around 50 new or stretched tram loops (@ under £1,000 to fit each) would be needed whenever stopping positions change. These “loops” are wire loops pinned between the tracks under the front tram cab stopping positions. It is worth noting that 55m trams would stop at tram stops 2.6m behind a coupled tram. Longer communication loops would be thus needed to cope with both types using the network at once.
4.17 A total likely cost estimate
Platform construction 25 x £100,000 (for dual platforms) + 13 x £50,000 = approx £3.5 million
300 metres of dual track realignment (mostly using already ballasted land) £3 million
Power upgrades & electrical cabinet changes £2 million
Curb line road changes, landscaping, possible minor utility diversion £1 million
Signalling changes (in 4 locations), loops and electronic couplers for 8 trams £500,000 ------£ 10 million ------These costs include 30% optimism bias
4.18 Cost conclusions Even if we rounded these costs up to £10 million, it is clear that longer platforms would be a third the cost of the Dingwall Road loop (that first of two proposed Central Croydon loops).
Longer trams (at roughly the same 5 minute frequency as now) , instead of twice as many extra trams means No extra burden on the town centre loop (if we better detect when trams have already crossed junctions) Longer trams can cross roads within existing red light times. Extra trams mean extra red light changes. £40 million saved in recruiting twice as many drivers (2020-2030) DISCLOSED £60 million saved if we purchase 55 metre trams instead UNDER of 30 metre trams (as shown in para 3.26) FOI £50-£60 million saved by needing no Dingwall Road loop and no future Reeves corner loop either No need of very expensive track dualling projects (eg new road & rail bridges towards Wimbledon, long strips of land purchase on the Beckenham branch) as we’d still have roughly the same number of trams/hr
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 23 4.19 It is worth illustrating exactly which expensive track dualling projects would be needed if we double the frequency of trams instead of doubling their length. There are significant engineering challenges in each of these following costly track dualling or capacity projects (all avoided by having longer instead of extra trams).
1) The Dingwall Road loop (cost £30 million)
2) The Reeves Corner loop (cost around £25 million)
On the Wimbledon branch
3) 500m of dualled track from Reeves Corner to Wandle Park would need a second expensive rail bridge like this – but in a different location as there is insufficient width at this site ( cost at least 10 million )
4) To dual track at Mitcham Junction this rail bridge would also need to be widened or a 2nd bridge built. (Cost at least £10 million). Longer trams at current frequencies instead of extra trams avoids this too.
Mitcham junction rail bridge
DISCLOSED UNDER FOI
Longer trams instead of extra trams means we can avoid these expensive track dualling projects
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 24 5) To cope with twice as many trams instead of double length trams, north of Mitcham Junction a new A237 road bridge would be needed – causing months of disruption
A237 Mitcham Junction road bridge
6) And at Mitcham, to dual track here, this busy 4 lane A217 road bridge would also need to be rebuilt
A217 Mitcham road bridge
Longer trams instead of extra trams enables us to avoid these very expensive track dualling projects
DISCLOSED4.20 On the Beckenham branch to dual track in order to cope withUNDER extra rather than longer trams would alsoFOI involve similar significant engineering challenges, similar costs and land purchase. Over 100 houses would lose part of their back gardens. They would have a new railway embankment built much closer to their rear windows. Longer trams save these political costs as well as financial costs.
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 25 5 Comparison of stabling a fleet of 55 metre trams with a fleet of 30 metre trams
5.1 A fleet of double-length trams is more efficient to store overnight as there are fewer cabs or gaps between trams. In section 3.25 we showed that to cope with 85% extra passengers by 2030, we’d need to either: purchase 85% more short trams (about 30 trams), as well as replacing our existing 24 short trams or purchase about 28 double-length trams (to both add 85% extra capacity and replace our 24 older trams) Section 3.25 also illustrated how double-length trams would cost £50m less to buy than a fleet of short trams.
5.2 By 2030, we could thus have a need to store either (a) 28 double-length (55 metre) trams plus about 10 Variobahns (our newer 30 metre trams) or (b) About 64 short trams (each 30 metres long) – ie our replaced 24 trams, 10 Variobahns + 85% extra trams.
5.3 In the drawings below (drawn on computer aided design at a far larger scale than illustrated), we have modelled accurately dimensioned trams and positioned them with a minimum of 3 metres safety gap between them. We have also allowed for safe passing gaps with overhang tolerances on swept curves. Using 55 metre trams instead of 33m trams, we can a) at Therapia Lane, fit 18 double trams and 6 short trams instead of today’s 33 short trams (ie 9 more short trams) b) at Elmers End, fit 10 double-trams plus 8 short trams instead of 22 short trams (ie 6 more short trams). We have space for 28 long trams + 14 short trams, but with 64 short trams, we have space for 33+22 or 55 of them.
5.4 Using 30m trams instead of double-length trams we’d run out of room at Elmers End and would need a 3rd depot. That extra 3rd depot would need to be big enough to store 15 short trams (ie half our current fleet of trams). By instead using a mixture of 28 double trams (55m) and 10 short trams we can store them all at Therapia Lane and the proposed Elmers End sidings. Drawings below even show room for a further 4 short trams stored temporarily at the platform and on the running track. But with a fleet of 64 short trams, we’d need a 3rd place to store trams (even after using that same platform and running track). Longer trams save millions by avoiding the cost of a 3rd depot.
Therapia Lane depot – with 55m trams it could store the capacity of 9 extra trams Existing Layout Existing TFL land
On each of six sidings, replacing 4 short trams with On each of three sidings, replacing 3 short trams with
2 double trams makes room for six more short trams. 2 double trams adds the capacity of 3 more short trams
With 55m trams
DISCLOSED UNDER FOI
Therapia Lane stores 33 trams today. With 55m trams it could store the capacity of 18 (x2) + 6 = 42 trams 55m “double-length” 400 passenger tram 30m “short” 200 passenger tram How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 26 Elmers End depot – with 55m trams it could store the capacity of 6 extra trams (Further details of our proposals for a 2nd platform and stabling at Elmers End are available at larger scale separately).
Using the same sidings design (and even with temporary use of the platform and running track for overnight trams),
it is not possible to safely fit more than 22 short trams into these sidings, platform and running track.
Using 55m trams, we could park 10 long trams + 8 short trams (40% of the fleet) or the equivalent of 28 short trams.
We need not actually use the running track for the smaller likely 2030 fleet of 28 long + 10 short trams But this illustration shows how, if needed, we could store a further 4 extra trams (eg 28 long + 14 short trams).
6 Alternate use of long and short trams on the network
6.1 We are proposing that longer trams are introduced gradually over the next 10 years as for example initially every third or every other tram – ie alternating with the shorter trams. TFL worried that this is not possible. But it is done elsewhere in the country in Manchester and in Nice. As the fronts of each type of tram stop at the same place at any platforms or junctions, signalling and track loop equipment does not differ across the network. The only issue are at our four termini, where a 2nd wire loop (between the tracks) are needed at platforms to cope with different cab positions at the other end of trams as they turn around. Manchester just has an extra wire loop at the termini.
As shown, Manchester alternates short and double-length trams all the time. To spread passengers along platforms, double-length trams are shown as “dbl”. Alternate trams are short.
Manchester has a 2nd wire loop between tracks to cope with DISCLOSEDalternate short UNDER FOI or long trams
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 27 7 A better way to spend Westfield’s £15 million
7.1 As part of their planning application to build a new shopping centre, Westfield have agreed to pay TFL £15 million to improve tram capacity to cope with the problems caused by their development. The actual agreement does not restrict the use of that money to the “Dingwall Road loop” but instead lists a “basket of capacity solutions”.
7.2 This report has pointed out that there is legal precident for a developer being able to reclaim their section 106 payment if the local Authority or Transport Authority fails to use it to solve the capacity problem. We have also pointed out that the Dingwall Rd loop does not add capacity in itself, extra junctions would hinder trams on the mainline (as trams crossing tracks and turning are limited to only 12mph on each of the 3 extra corners).
7.3 The other problem with the loop is that is takes almost £30 million away from other projects – such as extra trams for capacity, safety measures or Elmers End’s 2nd platform, track dualling and extra stabling sidings project.
7.4 Whilst TFL had 500 responses to their survey about three possible Dingwall Rd loop options, we had 2,000 signatures on a petition for this money to be instead spent on “more or longer trams and longer platforms to cope with longer trams”. Four times as many people wanted more tram seats instead of this loop. Westfield themselves have told us that they too would also prefer more tram capacity towards their shops.
An alternative way to spend this £15 million – before Westfield opens:
1) Four extra trams @ approx £10.5 million (Due to the recent fall in the value of the pound, we have added 12% to the old £2.4m per tram cost) 4 extra trams add 33% to 50% rush hour capacity from Elmers End & New Addington to E. Croydon Extending around the town centre loop the rest of the day, they’d add 25%-33% capacity to Westfield.
Eg 2 Elmers End trams coupled to be double-length for 4 times/hr of Elmers End-East Croydon adds 33% capacity. (Each tram can run that route twice each hour. Each extra tram enables 2 existing trams to be coupled together and by turning trams around at East Croydon instead of running around Croydon we save one tram/hr.) Outside rush hours those same coupled trams could extend via West Croydon to add 25% capacity to the shops.
Eg 3 New Addington-E Croydon trams/hr running 4 times/hr takes frequency from 8/hr to 12/hr = 50% capacity, with those trams extending via West Croydon 3 times/hr the rest of the day – to add 33% capacity to the shops.
DISCLOSED2) Lengthen Elmers End - Therapia Lane platforms as phaseUNDER 1 – by 2020 – @ approx £2.5 millionFOI 7 x £100,000 from East Croydon-Arena + 6 x £50,000 in Central Croydon + 4 x £100,000 to Therapia Lne £500,000 extra for Wandle Park track straightening + £500,000 contingency for town centre utilities.
3) £2 million contribution towards stabling those 4 extra trams in TFL’s Elmers End sidings project (with the publicly funded part of Dingwall Rd loop paying the rest of Elmers End’s dualling & 2nd platform project)
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 28 8 Conclusions and Recommendations
Capacity across Croydon 8.1 Longer trams instead of extra trams across Croydon enable us to double passenger numbers with no extra burden whatsoever on the central Croydon route. Our evidence shows longer trams do fit in current traffic light cycles.
We already have sufficient tram frequency (4 to 5 minute intervals) on almost all of the network. Further frequency would causes trams to bunch up. For the only branch (to New Addington) needing extra frequency it is more efficient to add 4 extra rush hour trams/hr turning around at East Croydon (as that needs only 3 extra trams).
8.2 Whilst longer trams enable us to keep the same number of trams crossing Croydon, this report also showed how: Traffic light cycles could be made more efficient (with better detection that a tram has already crossed) Longer town centre platforms could be shared by two separate short trams stopping at once (the time saving benefit of this would compensate for new surface level crossings across Wellesley Road) Some traffic light crossings (eg Wellesley Rd) could be shared by 2 trams travelling a safe stopping distance apart. This would save yet more tram travel time, as well as cutting the number of red light cycles per hour. Each of these measures could cost around a thousanth of the cost of the Dingwall Road loop, yet each have an equivalent effect on Wellesley Road as the 4 trams/hr initially planned to be moved to that loop.
So, with any combination of these traffic light measures, the central Croydon route could carry some extra trams.
We could for example combine rush hour frequency of shuttle trams from Elmers End and New Addington turning around at East Croydon with longer trams but extend a couple of extra trams carrying shoppers to Westfield George St and from Westfield Wellesley Rd the rest of the day. Westfield tell us they would prefer that solution.
8.3 By contrast, we found that the proposed Dingwall Road loop: fails to add any real capacity (when you run the calculations). Actually hinders tram capacity on the main route – by adding two extra junctions it would delay trams. Contains a tram stop that is 3 times further from Westfield than the existing stop in Wellesley Rd. That same stop would be served by 3 times fewer trams than existing stops – meaning it would be unused. Takes £30 million (with a £15 million Westfield contribution) away from real solutions of more tram seats.
Our lawyers also advise that there is a real risk of Westfield being able to later sue and reclaim their £15 million. (as this use of the section 106 money cannot be argued to solve the congestion/capacity problem caused by the development, other options would, and the contract allows for a “basket” of alternatives such as more trams).
Comparison of the costs of adding different length trams 8.4 This report found that longer (ie coupled trams followed by 55 metre trams) saves £60 million in tram purchase & staffing costs (from 2020-2030) & over £6 million per year thereafter (or £44 million less than buying 43 metre trams) – see para 3.7 £50 million to £60 million by no longer needing to build the Dingwall Road & Reeves corner loops Around £100m by no longer needing the most expensive track dualling, new road and rail bridges. Careful route checking to examine the true cost of longer platforms showed very few expensive issues. We found that longer platforms would cost under £10 million – or a third the cost of the Dingwall Road loop.
8.5 Staff costs illustration If we compare the cost of recruiting extra staff to drive a third extra 43m trams or twice as many 30m trams, to keeping roughly the same number of drivers as now, but doubling the length of each tram we save £40 million in the next 15 years. Double length trams would save £6.25 million (+ inflation) per year in driver costs.
8.6 This is calculated as follows. TfL now employs 147 staff to drive trams (and there is a nationwide driver shortage). Even at current costs, each driver costs around £50,000 per year (to recruit, train, cover sick leave etc for and pay). To cope with TfL’s predicted 85% passenger rise through the 2020s we compared A. Adding 85% more 30m long trams (147 drivers x 85% x £50,000 = £6.25 million extra per year DISCLOSED or £40 million from 2020-2030UNDER if added gradually to match growth FOI graphs) B. Adding enough 43m long trams to cope with 85% growth also increases driver costs by 33% (ie £12m extra) C. But replacing 24 existing trams with 55m trams and only adding 3 trams for just E. Croydon-New Addington keeps driver numbers, staffing costs (and tram numbers across Croydon) roughly the same as now. (staffing costs for 3 extra New Addington trams could be £600,000/yr instead of £6.25 million extra per year).
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 29 8.7 Tram Purchase costs Whilst there is a complex market place of tram types beyond the scope of this paper, in para 3.7 we used recent published purchase prices to show how 55 metre trams would cost £44 million less than buying 43 metre trams. With 43m trams we would also need extra tram numbers and thus extra drivers and route capacity With 55m trams we can keep frequency roughly the same, to match existing driver and route capacity. (meaning that we save costs of the two loops and the most expensive track dualling that involves various new road and rail bridges on the Wimbledon and Beckenham routes ONLY if we use 55 metre trams) And 55m tram door positions match those of coupled existing trams – allowing flexibility and phasing of having some existing Flexity trams coupled together for 10 years until all the new 55m trams have arrived to replace them.
8.8 Stabling costs Double-length trams also save the cost of a 3rd depot as we can store the equivalent of 9 extra trams at Therapia Lane and the rest of the fleet (of say 28 double-length trams + 10 short trams) at proposed sidings at Elmers End. By contrast, if we instead had 85% more short trams, we’d run out of space (even with Elmers End) and would need to pay for a 3rd set of overnight sidings. Wimbledon is possible, but that may be needed for the Sutton extension.
This assumes that from 2020 we introduce 55m trams to enable a few existing trams to be coupled together and from 2025 have them replaced over a 5 year phased period. It is also worth noting that if at some point we have “night trams”, some of the stock may never need to be stabled and we may need rather less extra stabling.
Summary 8.9 Double length trams (first coupled, then 55m long) enable us to increase capacity with roughly the same frequency. We can focus the only extra frequency needed on the New Addington (and perhaps Beckenham) branches by a) Turning those 4 extra trams per hour around at East Croydon in rush hour b) Better use of traffic light cycles on Wellesley Rd to cope with up to 4 extra trams per hour at other times.
8.10 But by keeping tram frequency as frequent as now (4 to 5 minute intervals on almost all the network), we save £150 million in the next 10 years and postpone the most expensive track dualling work (until 2035?) as we Avoid needing to build two loops for £30 million each at both Dingwall Road and then Reeves corner Avoid paying £6 million/yr to train and employ either twice as many or a third as many extra drivers Avoid needing to do the most expensive track dualling – ie the sections needing new road/rail bridges.
8.11 Longer platforms across the network would cost about a third the cost of the Dingwall Road loop (approx £10m) We don’t need longer platforms everywhere at once, as we can lengthen them in stages to a) Allow a pair of separate short trams to share stops like Wellesley Rd, East Croydon and Addiscombe b) Use long platforms at termini such as Elmers End and Wimbledon for overnight stabling of any extra trams c) Lengthen (the rest of) the Elmers End to East Croydon platforms for longer peak hour trams on that section. d) Then lengthen the rest of the town centre, to Therapia Lane, then Wimbledon, New Addington and Beckenham.
8.12 For each extra tram bought in the next 10 years, we couple together a pair of our existing trams – to keep frequency roughly the same as now. After 2025, we can phase in replacement trams as 55 metre trams. Double length trams add flexibility. 43m trams is a compromise needing extra drivers, loops and dual track costs. The only question is when we switch to buying 55 metre instead of 30 metre trams. The sooner we get some of our platforms lengthened, the sooner we add that flexibilty and save money by not needing extra drivers.
Recommendations 8.13 We should cancel the Dingwall Road loop, commence detailed design work on longer platforms and : a) Urgently ensure that Elmers End 2nd platform proposals include platforms that cope with 55m long trams. b) Include platform lengthening projects within every maintenance blockade from now (to cut overtime needs) c) Fully automate E. Croydon points to make rush hour turnback of extra New Addington route trams easier.
By the time Westfield opens (2022) we should: d) Use the £15m Westfield contribution to lengthen most tram stops and add some extra trams. e) Lengthen Wellesley Rd, W. Croydon, George St, Addiscombe & E.Croydon platforms to take pairs of short trams f) Then lengthen other platforms for the busiest section of Elmers End to Therapia Lane to take coupled trams. DISCLOSED UNDER FOI From 2019 to 2024 we should: g) Lengthen platforms out to Wimbledon, New Addington & Beckenham and add the first new 55 metre trams. Longer trams could be introduced gradually, as every 3rd tram, then every other tram and finally every tram. Their use could also be concentrated when and where congestion is greatest and trams are already frequent.
How double-length trams can save TfL £200 million @datatrans.co.uk 30