DOCSLIB.ORG

HSL Report Template. Issue 1. Date 04/04/2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HSL Report Template. Issue 1. Date 04/04/2002 Harpur Hill, Buxton, SK17 9JN Telephone: 01298 218000 Facsimile: 01298 218590 E Mail: [email protected] A survey of UK tram and light railway systems relating to the wheel/rail interface FE/04/14 Project Leader: E J Hollis Author(s): E J Hollis PhD CEng MIMechE Science Group: Engineering Control DISTRIBUTION HSE/HMRI: Dr D Hoddinott Customer Project Officer/HM Railway Inspectorate Mr E Gilmurray HIDS12F Research Management LIS (9) HSL: Dr N West HSL Operations Director Dr M Stewart Head of Field Engineering Section Author PRIVACY MARKING: D Available to the public HSL report approval: Dr M Stewart Date of issue: 14 March 2006 Job number: JR 32107 Registry file: FE/05/2003/21511 (Box 433) Electronic filename: Report FE-04-14.doc © Crown Copyright (2006) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To the people listed below, and their colleagues, I would like to express my thanks for all for the help given: Blackpool Borough Council Brian Vaughan Blackpool Transport Ltd Bill Gibson Croydon Tramlink Jim Snowdon Dockland Light Railway Keith Norgrove Manchester Metrolink Steve Dale Tony Dale Mark Howard Mark Terry (now with Rail Division of Mott Macdonald) Midland Metro Des Coulson Paul Morgan Fred Roberts Andy Steel (retired) National Tram Museum David Baker Geoffrey Claydon Mike Crabtree Allan Smith Nottingham Express Transit Clive Pennington South Yorkshire Supertram Ian Milne Paul Seddon Steve Willis Tyne & Wear Metro (Nexus) Jim Davidson Peter Johnson David Walker Parsons Brinkerhoff/Permanent Way Institution Joe Brown iii Manchester Metropolitan University Simon Iwnicki Julian Snow Paul Allen Transdev Edinburgh Tram Andy Wood HM Railway Inspectorate Dudley Hoddinott Dave Keay Ian Raxton iv CONTENTS 1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 2 Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway......................................................................... 3 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 System details................................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Trackwork ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Vehicles....................................................................................................................... 10 2.5 Operations information ............................................................................................... 12 2.6 Operating Challenges .................................................................................................. 12 2.7 Figures.........................................................................................................................14 3 Croydon Tramlink .................................................................................................. 27 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 27 3.2 System details.............................................................................................................. 27 3.3 Trackwork ................................................................................................................... 32 3.4 Vehicles....................................................................................................................... 37 3.5 Operations information ............................................................................................... 39 3.6 Operating Challenges .................................................................................................. 40 3.7 Figures.........................................................................................................................41 4 Docklands Light Railway ....................................................................................... 59 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 59 4.2 System details.............................................................................................................. 60 4.3 Trackwork ................................................................................................................... 66 4.4 Vehicles....................................................................................................................... 73 4.5 Operations information ............................................................................................... 75 4.6 Operating Challenges .................................................................................................. 76 4.7 Figures.........................................................................................................................77 5 Manchester Metrolink ............................................................................................ 98 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 98 5.2 System details.............................................................................................................. 98 5.3 Trackwork ................................................................................................................. 100 5.4 Vehicles..................................................................................................................... 104 5.5 Operating Challenges ................................................................................................ 107 5.6 Figures....................................................................................................................... 109 6 Midland Metro...................................................................................................... 121 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 121 6.2 System details............................................................................................................ 121 6.3 Trackwork ................................................................................................................. 123 6.4 Vehicles..................................................................................................................... 128 6.5 Operations information ............................................................................................. 131 6.6 Operating Challenges ................................................................................................ 131 6.7 Figures....................................................................................................................... 132 7 National Tramway Museum................................................................................. 147 7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 147 7.2 System details............................................................................................................ 147 7.3 Trackwork ................................................................................................................. 149 7.4 Vehicles..................................................................................................................... 151 7.5 Operations information ............................................................................................. 152 7.6 Operating Challenges ................................................................................................ 153 7.7 Figures....................................................................................................................... 154 8 Nottingham Express Transit ................................................................................ 162 8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 162 v 8.2 System details............................................................................................................ 162 8.3 Trackwork ................................................................................................................. 167 8.4 Vehicles..................................................................................................................... 171 8.5 Operations information ............................................................................................. 173 8.6 Operating Challenges ................................................................................................ 173 8.7 Figures....................................................................................................................... 174 9 South Yorkshire Supertram ................................................................................. 196 9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 196 9.2 System details............................................................................................................ 196 9.3 Trackwork ................................................................................................................. 201 9.4 Vehicles..................................................................................................................... 206 9.5
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Manchester Metrolink Tram System
    Feature New Promise of LRT Systems Manchester Metrolink Tram System William Tyson Introduction to Greater city that could be used by local rail into the city centre either in tunnel or on Manchester services—taking them into the central the street. area—to complete closure and I carried out an appraisal of these options The City of Manchester (pop. 500,000) is replacement of the services by buses. Two and showed that closure of the lines had at the heart of the Greater Manchester options were to convert some heavy rail a negative benefit-to-cost ratio, and that— conurbation comprised of 10 lines to light rail (tram) and extend them at the very least—they should be kept municipalities that is home to 2.5 million people. The municipalities appoint a Passenger Transport Authority (PTA) for the Figure 1 Metrolink Future Network whole area to set policies and the Greater 1 Victoria Manchester Passenger Transport Executive 2 Shudehill 3 Market Street Rochdale Town Centre 4 Mosley Street (GMPTE) to implement them. Buses Newbold Manchester 5 Piccadilly Gardens Drake Street Piccadilly Kingsway Business Park 6 Rochdale provide most public transport. They are 7 St Peter's Square Railway Milnrow Station deregulated and can compete with each 8 G-Max (for Castlefield) Newhey London 9 Cornbrook other and with other modes. There is a 0 Pomona Bury - Exchange Quay local rail network serving Manchester, and = Salford Quays Buckley Wells ~ Anchorage ! Harbour City linking it with the surrounding areas and @ Broadway Shaw and Crompton # Langworthy also other regions of the country. Street $ Tradfford Bar trams vanished from Greater Manchester % Old Trafford Radcliffe ^ Wharfside* & Manchester United* in 1951, but returned in a very different * Imperial War Museum for the North* ( Lowry Centre form in 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report Sept 2015 - August 2016 Annual Report 2015-2016
    Annual Report Sept 2015 - August 2016 Annual Report 2015-2016 Rail Transportation Program Vision: “Develop leaders and technologies for 21st century rail transportation.” Mission: “To participate in the development of rail transportation and related engineering skills for the 21st century through an interdisciplinary and collaborative program that aligns Michigan Tech faculty and students with the demands of the industry.” 2 Director’s Message One of the easiest tasks for the Michigan Tech’s Rail Transportation Program Director is writing the message for the annual report. We never seem to be short of stories and while much of our work is about consistency from year to year, each one of them also contains highlights that are special for the year in question, and 2015-2016 was no exception. Perhaps the greatest achievement for the year was the approval of our Rail Transportation minor to the university curriculum. The minor follows our RTP vision by being multidisciplinary and flexible and we’re hoping that our first graduate with the minor will be during next academic year. The second special moment of the year took place in mid-August when we hosted the 4th Annual Michigan Rail Conference for the first time in the Upper Peninsula. The conference (held in Marquette with field visits to Escanaba) had a record participation and sponsorship levels and our field trips turned out as an experience beyond belief. For two days, it was great to be a “Yooper railroader”. From the projects/research perspective, we were pleased to have our first two projects with the greatest industry supporter of our program, CN Railway.
    [Show full text]
  • Irchel Tram Depot – Headshunt Redevelopment
    Zurich Public Transport, Infrastructure Irchel Tram Depot – Headshunt Redevelopment 27.09.2021 Page 1 Irchel Tram Depot – Headshunt Redevelopment Client Facts Zurich Public Transport, Infrastructure Period 2010 - 2013 Project Country Switzerland Redeveloped headshunt enables Zurich Public Transport (VBZ) to operate its Irchel Tram Depot more efficiently. Difficult and time-consuming shunting tasks are now a thing of the past. Trams with low-floor cars in the middle and trailers (also referred to as “sedan-pony trams”) have been in operation on Line 7 since November 2010. These trams are now to be maintained and housed at the Irchel Tram Depot. The existing headshunt was not long enough to permit the expeditious handling of trams longer than 43 metres. Handling the 45-metre sedan-pony trams on the existing headshunt involved disconnecting the tram cars, shunting them separately into the depot and then reconnecting them – an overly complicated, time consuming and operationally impractical process. In response, Zurich Public Transport (VBZ) initiated an internal process of identifying alternative solutions. These solutions were also expected to take account of the new tram specifications that will apply following Zurich Public Transport’s purchase of a new tram generation (NTG). In October 2010, Zurich Public Transport commissioned EBP to conduct an independent and comprehensive review of the various development proposals it had worked out. The review was also to include an examination of the associated costs and relative merits of the proposed construction measures and their impact on the depot’s immediate vicinity and on railway operation in general. Working in the capacity of a general planner, EBP evaluated the various proposals and used the results of its review to outline the steps that would need to be taken to gain approval for and execute the redevelopment project.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Accident Report
    Rail Accident Report Derailment of a tram at Pomona, Manchester 17 January 2007 Report 09/2008 April 2008 This investigation was carried out in accordance with: l the Railway Safety Directive 2004/49/EC; l the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003; and l the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005. © Crown copyright 2008 You may re-use this document/publication (not including departmental or agency logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document/publication is also available at www.raib.gov.uk. Any enquiries about this publication should be sent to: RAIB Email: [email protected] The Wharf Telephone: 01332 253300 Stores Road Fax: 01332 253301 Derby UK Website: www.raib.gov.uk DE21 4BA This report is published by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, Department for Transport. Derailment of a tram at Pomona, Manchester 17 January 2007 Contents Introduction 4 Summary of the report 5 Key facts about the accident 5 Identification of immediate cause, causal and contributory factors and underlying causes 6 Recommendations 6 The Accident 7 Summary of the accident 7 The parties involved 8 Location 9 The tram 9 Events during the accident 9 Events following the accident 10 The Investigation 11 Sources of
    [Show full text]
  • the Swindon and Cricklade Railway
    The Swindon and Cricklade Railway Construction of the Permanent Way Document No: S&CR S PW001 Issue 2 Format: Microsoft Office 2010 August 2016 SCR S PW001 Issue 2 Copy 001 Page 1 of 33 Registered charity No: 1067447 Registered in England: Company No. 3479479 Registered office: Blunsdon Station Registered Office: 29, Bath Road, Swindon SN1 4AS 1 Document Status Record Status Date Issue Prepared by Reviewed by Document owner Issue 17 June 2010 1 D.J.Randall D.Herbert Joint PW Manager Issue 01 Aug 2016 2 D.J.Randall D.Herbert / D Grigsby / S Hudson PW Manager 2 Document Distribution List Position Organisation Copy Issued To: Copy No. (yes/no) P-Way Manager S&CR Yes 1 Deputy PW Manager S&CR Yes 2 Chairman S&CR (Trust) Yes 3 H&S Manager S&CR Yes 4 Office Files S&CR Yes 5 3 Change History Version Change Details 1 to 2 Updates throughout since last release SCR S PW001 Issue 2 Copy 001 Page 2 of 33 Registered charity No: 1067447 Registered in England: Company No. 3479479 Registered office: Blunsdon Station Registered Office: 29, Bath Road, Swindon SN1 4AS Table of Contents 1 Document Status Record ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Document Distribution List ................................................................................................................................... 2 3 Change History .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Append. 2 for 2040 Transport Delivery Plan
    Rochdale Summary GMTS2040 Implementation Plan 15.10.20 1. Introduction This Implementation Plan sets out how we will work towards our priorities including economic growth, improving the environment and social inclusion by building on Rochdale’s planned and current transport projects, many of which are set out in the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040 5-Year Delivery Plan (2020-2025). While the 5-year Delivery Plan tends to consider large, medium and long-term transport schemes, this Implementation Plan is mainly focussed on local, neighbourhood level priorities and interventions to 2025. A summary of strategic schemes within the 5-Year Delivery Plan are included on Map 1. Rochdale Council in its Corporate Plan 2019-2022 “Prosperous People and Places” outlines a vision of “Making our Borough a great place to grow up, get on and live well”. It places an emphasis on prosperity for people who are healthy, safe, happy and available to participate fully in life, in places that grow and change to provide strong local economies providing opportunities and enhance quality of life. Indicators of success in achieving this are: Accessible quality highways and transport options including cycling and walking; Air and land, free from pollution and infrastructure that protects against climate change by using natural and renewable resources; More people are physically active including the over 50’s; People have access to good or outstanding places of learning; Reduced crime and anti-social behaviour. To strive for this prosperity the Council
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Prestressed Concrete
    ADVANCED PRESTRESSED CONCRETE. Author: A.Pon Arul Yesu Raja, V.Manikandan. 3rd year Civil Engineering. College Name Here [email protected] Abstract: Pre-stressed concrete sleepers are the main components of railway track systems. To carry and transfer the dynamic wheel loads from the rails to the ground, their current design and construction are limited by allowable flexural stress constraints under service conditions. In current design practice for such a component, the dynamic load effects due to wheel/rail interactions are treated as a quasi-static load using a dynamic impact factor. Then, the allowable stresses eliminate a crack initiation. In reality, the impact events are frequently recorded because of the uncertainties of wheel or rail irregularities such as flat wheels and dipped rails. These effects cause cracking in the concrete sleepers, resulting in excessive maintenance. Limit states design philosophy for the pre-stressed concrete sleepers, containing ultimate and fatigue limit states, has been recently proposed based on structural reliability concept to rationalise the design method and minimise the maintenance.On the basis of probabilistic approach, the high-magnitude low-cycle fatigue limit states, which are more significant in terms of damage evolution, have been addressed in this article. Series of repeated impact tests for the in-situ pre-stressed concrete sleepers were carried out using the Australian largest high-capacity drop weight impact testing machine at the University of Wollongong. The impact forces have been simulated in relation to the probabilistic track force distribution obtained from a heavy haul rail network. This article focuses on the impact responses of the cumulatively damaged sleepers.
    [Show full text]
  • Railway Engineering and Operations
    Annotation Railway Systems MSc Programme Railway Engineering and Operations Shaping the future of Introduction New Master Annotation Railways are complex systems. Infrastructure, The annotation Railway Systems has been railways worldwide rolling stock, operations and policy all need to developed to provide the industry with be integrated. The rail network is one of the scientifically trained engineers. Knowledge of Diploma Master of Science fastest and most reliable ways of transportation the entire railway system is vital to deal with and used more than any other way of public the challenges of today and tomorrow. Due Annotation Certificate transport worldwide. Keeping the system up to retirements, the railway sector is losing Railway Systems and running, brings many challenges each its skilled professionals rapidly. Therefore, Credits 120 ECTS, 24 months day. Anticipating on the changing demands a significant demand exists for well-trained asks for continuous innovation, co-operation engineers that can create, test and validate Starts in September and a long-term vision. our future railway networks. International 35% students Our rail network facilitates passenger and Delft University of Technology is well known Language of freight transportation, within cities and on for its wide range of railway education and English instruction both national and international scale. To stay research. This new rail annotation provides competitive to other ways of transportation, an opportunity for students of various it must be fast, safe, reliable, comfortable Master’s profiles to add a fundamental set of Faculties involved and cost effective. Railway engineers can railway courses to their curriculum. From a • Civil Engineering and Geosciences only address this permanent challenge when systems approach, integrating operations and • Technology, Policy and Management they are equipped with integral knowledge, engineering, you will be prepared to become • Mechanical, Maritime, Materials Engineering covering all involved disciplines and aspects.
    [Show full text]
  • Solent Connectivity May 2020
    Solent Connectivity May 2020 Continuous Modular Strategic Planning Page | 1 Page | 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 The Solent CMSP Study ................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Scope and Geography....................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Fit with wider rail industry strategy ................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Governance and process .................................................................................................................. 12 3.0 Context and Strategic Questions ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Strategic Questions .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Economic context ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Travel patterns and changes over time ............................................................................................ 18 3.4 Dual-city region aspirations and city to city connectivity ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 BLACKPOOL COUNCIL REPORT of the HEAD of LEGAL AND
    BLACKPOOL COUNCIL REPORT of the HEAD OF LEGAL AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES to THE GATEWAY AREA PANEL THE GATEWAY AREA FORUM MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 27TH JANUARY 2010 1. Introduction The Chairman of the Area Forum and Ward Councillor for Brunswick, Councillor Simon Blackburn welcomed members of the community to the meeting and apologised for the lack of parking, but explained that it was one of the perils of living and working in the inner wards. Councillor Blackburn explained that the evening would consist of a joint presentation by Mr Trevor Roberts, Managing Director and Mr Guy Thornton, Operations Manager, Blackpool Transport Services Limited regarding the proposed reduction of public transport services. 2. Context The Area Panel at its meeting held on 9th December 2009 had agreed that the theme of the Area Forum would be to consider the proposed reduction of public transport services by Blackpool Transport Services Limited and an invitation to the Forum would be extended to residents outside the Panel Boundaries that had previously attended Area Forum meetings. 3. Theme Mr Trevor Roberts, Managing Director, Blackpool Transport Services advised the Forum that he had only been in post since mid summer 2009, but had come from a similar environment. He explained that he proposed to provide a background to the Company and an explanation as to why services had been economised and how those services had been identified. Mr Roberts added that discussions were ongoing with the Local Authority and as such, some information might not be available. The Forum was advised that Blackpool Council was the owner/ shareholder of Blackpool Transport Services Limited and appointed nominated representatives to the Board who under the Companies Act acted as Company Directors.
    [Show full text]
  • Rtd Light Rail Design Criteria
    RTD LIGHT RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA Regional Transportation District November 2005 Prepared by the Engineering Division of the Regional Transportation District Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1399 303.628.9000 RTD-Denver.com November 28, 2005 The RTD Light Rail Design Criteria Manual has been developed as a set of general guidelines as well as providing specific criteria to be employed in the preparation and implementation of the planning, design and construction of new light rail corridors and the extension of existing corridors. This 2005 issue of the RTD Light Rail Design Criteria Manual was developed to remain in compliance with accepted practices with regard to safety and compatibility with RTD's existing system and the intended future systems that will be constructed by RTD. The manual reflects the most current accepted practices and applicable codes in use by the industry. The intent of this manual is to establish general criteria to be used in the planning and design process. However, deviations from these accepted criteria may be required in specific instances. Any such deviations from these accepted criteria must be approved by the RTD's Executive Safety & Security Committee. Coordination with local agencies and jurisdictions is still required for the determination and approval for fire protection, life safety, and security measures that will be implemented as part of the planning and design of the light rail system. Conflicting information or directives between the criteria set forth in this manual shall be brought to the attention of RTD and will be addressed and resolved between RTD and the local agencies andlor jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Members and Parish/Neighbourhood Councils RAIL UPDATE
    ITEM 1 TRANSPORT COMMITTEE NEWS 07 MARCH 2000 This report may be of interest to: All Members and Parish/Neighbourhood Councils RAIL UPDATE Accountable Officer: John Inman Author: Stephen Mortimer 1. Purpose 1.1 To advise the Committee of developments relating to Milton Keynes’ rail services. 2. Summary 2.1 West Coast Main Line Modernisation and Upgrade is now in the active planning stage. It will result in faster and more frequent train services between Milton Keynes Central and London, and between Milton Keynes Central and points north. Bletchley and Wolverton will also have improved services to London. 2.2 Funding for East-West Rail is now being sought from the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA) for the western end of the line (Oxford-Bedford). Though the SSRA have permitted a bid only for a 60 m.p.h. single-track railway, excluding the Aylesbury branch and upgrade of the Marston Vale (Bedford-Bletchley) line, other Railtrack investment and possible developer contributions (yet to be investigated) may allow these elements to be included, as well as perhaps a 90 m.p.h. double- track railway. As this part of East-West Rail already exists, no form of planning permission is required; however, Transport and Works Act procedures are to be started to build the missing parts of the eastern end of the line. 2.3 New trains were introduced on the Marston Vale line, Autumn 1999. A study of the passenger accessibility of Marston Vale stations identified various desirable improvements, for which a contribution of £10,000 is required from this Council.
    [Show full text]