Trams 2030” Investment Strategy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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.