Docstoc

WEST OF ENGLAND RAPID TRANSIT

Document Sample
WEST OF ENGLAND RAPID TRANSIT Powered By Docstoc
					WEST OF ENGLAND RAPID TRANSIT

Technology Review

Final Report

September 2008




 Prepared for:                        Prepared by:


 West of England Partnership Office   Steer Davies Gleave
 Wilder House                         28-32 Upper Ground
 Wilder Street                        London
 Bristol                              SE1 9PD
 BS2 8PH
                                      +44 (0)20 7919 8500
                                      www.steerdaviesgleave.com
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



Contents                                                                                                                                          Page

1.        INTRODUCTION                                                                                                                                 1
          Background                                                                                                                                   1
          Proposed Rapid Transit Network                                                                                                               1
          Study Process                                                                                                                                2
          Steer Davies Gleave                                                                                                                          4
2.        PUBLIC TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES                                                                                                                5
          Mass Transit                                                                                                                                 5
          Heavy Rail                                                                                                                                   5
          Light Rail / Tram                                                                                                                            5
          Tramtrain                                                                                                                                    6
          Ultra Light or Light Weight Transit                                                                                                          7
          Bus Rapid Transit                                                                                                                            7
          Guided Light Transit                                                                                                                         7
          Buses                                                                                                                                        7
          Automated People Movers                                                                                                                      8
          Summary                                                                                                                                      9
3.        OBJECTIVES OF THE RAPID TRANSIT NETWORK AND TECHNICAL
          ASSESSMENT CRITERIA                                                                                                                         11
          Objectives of the Rapid Transit Network                                                                                                     11
          Technical Assessment Criteria                                                                                                               11
4.        TECHNICAL REVIEW                                                                                                                            15
          Tramtrain                                                                                                                                   15
          Light Weight Rail / Ultra Light Rail                                                                                                        31
          Bus Rapid Transit                                                                                                                           41
5.        COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT                                                                                                                      53
          Operation                                                                                                                                   53
          Vehicles                                                                                                                                    54
          Infrastructure                                                                                                                              55
          Application to Ashton Vale                                                                                                                  56
          Fit with Scheme Objectives                                                                                                                  57
6.        FUEL TECHNOLOGIES                                                                                                                           61
          Diesel                                                                                                                                      61
          Liquefied Petroleum Gas                                                                                                                     61


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 Contents
Technology Review



      Compressed Natural Gas                                                                                                                        62
      Bio Fuels                                                                                                                                     62
      Hybrid                                                                                                                                        62
      Electric                                                                                                                                      64
      Fuel Cell                                                                                                                                     64
      Bath & North East Somerset Council’s CIVITAS Project                                                                                          65
      Other Innovations                                                                                                                             65
      Summary                                                                                                                                       66
7.    CONCLUSIONS                                                                                                                                   67
      Tramtrain                                                                                                                                     67
      Light Weight Rail                                                                                                                             67
      Bus Rapid Transit                                                                                                                             67



FIGURES

Figure 2.1          NET Line 1, Nottingham                                                                                                            6

Figure 2.2          Véhicule Automatique Léger (VAL)                                                                                                  8

Figure 2.3          ULTRA                                                                                                                             9

Figure 4.1          Route of Penistone Tramtrain Trial                                                                                              17

Figure 4.2          Alstom - Regio Citadis                                                                                                          19

Figure 4.3          Bombardier - Flexity Link                                                                                                       20

Figure 4.4          Siemens - Avanto Tramtrain                                                                                                      21

Figure 4.5          Nordhausen Diesel Combino Tram                                                                                                  22

Figure 4.6          Typical Speed Distance Profile for an Urban Tranport System                                                                     24

Figure 4.7          Possible Tramtrain Network                                                                                                      28

Figure 4.8          Parry People Mover                                                                                                              32

Figure 4.9          Bristol Electric Bus Vehicle (Demonstration Project)                                                                            33

Figure 4.10 Schematic Hybrid Ultra Light Tram System – HULTS                                                                                        34

Figure 4.11 Proposed HULTS                                                                                                                          34

Figure 4.12 Different Types of Potential BRT Vehicles                                                                                               48


           \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



Contents
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



Figure 4.13 Nantes Line 4 Citaro Vehicle                                                                                                              49

Figure 6.1            CO2 Emmissions for Different Types of Technologies                                                                              66



TABLES

Table 4.1             Regio Citadis Data

Table 4.2             Flexity Link

Table 4.3             Siemens Avanto Tramtrain Data

Table 4.4             Tramtrain Capital Costs Estimate (2007 Prices) Lower Cost
                        infastructure and vehicles

Table 4.5             Tramtrain Capital Costs Estimate (2007 Prices) Tram infrastructure
                        and higher cost vehicles

Table 4.6             Constructed Tram System infastructure Costs

Table 4.7             Parry People Mover Vehicle Data

Table 4.8             Typical Cost Breakdown for a Tram System

Table 4.9             Light Weight Rail Capital Cost Estimate 1 Hults (2007 Prices)

Table 4.10 Light Weight Rail Capital Cost Estimate 2 Revised Hults (2007
             Prices)

Table 4.11 Light Weight Rail Capital Cost Estimate 3 Low Cost tram style
             infrastructure(2007 Prices)

Table 4.12 Different Types of BRT Systems

Table 4.13 Bus Rapid Transit Capital Cost Estimate (2007 Prices) diesel
            Articulated vehicle

Table 4.14 Bus Rapid Transit Capital Cost Estimate (2007 Prices) Hybrid
            Articulated vehicle

Table 5.1             Comparision of Capital Costs (2007 Prices)

Table 5.2             Criteria Assessment for Reviewed Modes




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 Contents
Technology Review



APPENDICES

A     CLIENT BRIEF

B     HYBRID ULTRA LIGHT TRANSIT SYSTEM (HULTS) REPORT

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




           \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



Contents
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

               Introduction

1.             The four Unitary Authorities of the West of England, Bath and North East Somerset,
               the City of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire, are currently
               undertaking a programme of work to develop a rapid transit system for the West of
               England area.

2.             In 2006 the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) identified the need to
               progress a rapid transit network for the sub-region, as part of a package to successfully
               and appropriately accommodate additional transport movements arising from
               predicted residential and employment development over the next 20 years. The study
               concluded that

               “further work is required to identify the type of vehicle used to operate the service but
               modern, low-floor, articulated buses are likely to be the most appropriate, flexible and
               cost effective vehicles to satisfy the requirements of the service”.

3.             GBSTS identified four Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors, three of which have been
               included in the Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) and have a current financial
               allocation in the South West Regional Funding programme to 2016 totalling £71
               million (2006 prices) with operation of the first route targeted to commence in 2013.
               To obtain this funding, the West of England Authorities are required to submit a
               Major Scheme Bid for the first part of this network at the end of 2008. The route
               identified for this application is from Ashton Vale to Temple Meads via Bristol City
               Centre.

4.             As part of the programme of work to develop a rapid transit system, the West of
               England Authorities have considered different types of rapid transit technologies. A
               review of technologies was first undertaken in 2007, this looked at a range of options
               from monorail and light rail through to conventional buses. Work from this review has
               been incorporated in to this report.

5.             The West of England Authorities wish to ensure that the most appropriate technology
               is identified for its rapid transit network and further work is being undertaken
               specifically to look at the opportunities provided by newer rapid transit technologies.
               As a result, Steer Davies Gleave has been commissioned to undertake a further review
               of appropriate technologies that could be used to deliver the Ashton Vale to Temple
               Meads via Bristol City Centre route but also the wider proposed rapid transit network.

6.             For the purposes of this report and the comparison of different technologies, the
               following details on the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route were used:

               •       The Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route is approximately 7km long, with around
                       3km of this being proposed as a segregated corridor and 4km running on-street in
                       Bristol City Centre.
               •       The route is proposed to run from the existing Long Ashton Park and Ride site
                       via an alignment through the proposed development at Ashton Park, crossing the
                       Portishead railway line at Ashton Gate, to run alongside the Portishead railway


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                             Summary
Technology Review



                  line until it crosses the existing Ashton Avenue Bridge to connect with the
                  alignment of the Bristol Harbour Railway line. The route continues running along
                  the south side of the Floating Harbour adjacent to Cumberland Road to connect
                  through to the proposed development at Wapping Wharf and the Bristol Industrial
                  Museum.
           •      There are still options for the on-street sections in Bristol City Centre but the
                  route will connect Broad Quay, The Centre, Broadmead, Cabots Circus, Old
                  Market and Bristol Temple Meads Railway Station.
           •      The system will be required to provide a maximum capacity in the order of 3,000
                  passengers per direction per hour.

           Study Process

7.         This technology review has followed professional guidance documents and accepted
           industry practice1. In assessing the appropriateness of different technology options
           these advocate a process of:

           •      Assessment at increasing levels of detail in a step-wise or iterative manner to
                  progressively eliminate those options that are not likely to provide an appropriate
                  or affordable solution to the identified need and objectives. To this end a staged
                  process of firstly looking at a high level strategic assessment of the alternative
                  technology options followed by a more detailed review of the most appropriate
                  technologies.
           •      Assessment against a set of criteria which includes:
                       Goals and objectives including policy objectives,
                       Current problems and future challenges, including issues of local context
                       within which the transit system will be implemented and operated,
                       Physical opportunities and constraints that will influence the design or
                       technology choice,
                       Deliverability.

           Public Transport Technologies

8.         The consideration of all the different public transport options for a transit network in
           the West of England has previously been undertaken firstly by GBSTS and further as
           part of the rapid transit scheme development. These range from high capacity, high
           cost mass transit systems such as Heavy Metro (London Underground) to lower
           capacity and lower cost systems such as automated people movers and conventional
           bus systems.

9.         A high level review of capacities and costs and previous assessment work undertaken,
           concluded that the technology options of mass rapid transit, heavy rail, light rail,
           conventional bus and automated people movers2 are, in our opinion, not appropriate
           technologies for the proposed rapid transit network. This does not mean that these



1
     For example: Affordable Mass Transit Guidance: Helping you choose the best technology for your Area,
     Commission for Integrated Transport, 2005 and Bus Rapid Transit – Planning Guide 2007, Institute for
     Transportation and Development Policy, June 2007.
2
     Reference should be made to the Section 3 of the full report for an explanation of these.


        \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



Summary
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               technologies are not appropriate in specific circumstances but they fit less well with
               the proposed objectives of the rapid transit scheme and they are less likely to provide a
               successful case for government funding for this particular scheme.

10.            This technology review therefore concentrates on the rapid transit technologies of
               Tramtrain, Light Weight Rail and Bus Rapid Transit.

               Technical Review

               Tramtrain

11.            Tramtrain was developed in Germany to enable tram style services to be developed
               over the wider suburban heavy rail network, making use of improved proximity and
               connectivity of existing tram networks within the urban centres. Tramtrain is a vehicle
               solution not an independent mode such as bus or tram. The vehicles are capable of
               operating on both the heavy rail network and on urban low floor tram networks, which
               depending on the location and application, requires the ability to work on differing
               overhead line power supplies and possibly independently through the use of on board
               diesel generators.

12.            There are currently no Tramtrain schemes within the UK. The Tyne and Wear Metro
               extension to Sunderland does incorporate some aspects of Tramtrain in that it runs on
               the heavy rail network in conjunction with rail services. A trial of Tramtrain in the UK
               is to be undertaken by Network Rail on the 37-mile Penistone Line between
               Huddersfield and Sheffield. The current service will be replaced using five Tramtrain
               vehicles between 2010 and 2012 and will look at the environmental, operational,
               passenger and lifecycle benefits along with the technical suitability of the technology.
               The vehicles may then be trialled on the Sheffield Supertram network to assess the
               suitability to a UK tram network.

13.            The key benefit of Tramtrain is the ability to use existing rail infrastructure to operate
               on, using tram infrastructure to provide improved connection to city centres. In the
               case of the rapid transit scheme, a city centre network would need to be constructed
               out to the main rail termini. As a result it has many of the same issues that light rail
               options present. Alternatively, Tramtrain in the UK may have more of a focus on
               better utilising branch lines on the existing national rail network with an aim of
               improving frequencies and reducing cost of provision and operation.

14.            Tramtrain vehicles provide the highest capacity of the modes reviewed. It is though,
               also the most expensive. Vehicles cost in the order of £2.8 million to £3.2 million
               each. The estimated cost of delivering the infrastructure on the Ashton Vale to Temple
               Meads via Bristol City Centre route is in the range of £90 million to £110 million (for
               the equivalent route as the proposed BRT route)3. The total scheme cost would be in
               the range of £118 million to £142 million including vehicles at 2007 prices. This
               excludes costs such as land, environmental works and contingency.



3
       It is important to note that this is a desktop study and therefore has not involved site inspection or an
       engineering review of the feasibility of this technology. Please see Section 4 of the main report for a description
       of the cost estimate.


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                             Summary
Technology Review



          Light Weight Rail or Ultra Light Rail

15.       Light Weight Rail has been developed by Parry People Movers (PPM) as an
          intermediate mode between bus and tram and is also being promoted by
          Sustraco/Ultralight Rail. The aim is to provide a lower cost intermediate mode which
          could run in place of branch line services on the national rail network or as a lower
          cost alternative to tram technology.

16.       The PPM system has been trialled on a number of segregated routes and will operate a
          two vehicle branch line service in Stourbridge from December 2008. The vehicles will
          have a capacity of 50/60 people and will be powered predominantly utilising a
          flywheel charged by an LPG engine. The PPM system has successfully managed to
          obtain dispensation from Network Rail’s Railway Group Standards (which facilitates
          its operation) mainly due the route’s ability to be disconnected from the remainder of
          the rail network.

17.       The proposals for Hybrid Ultra Light Rail (HULTS) for a system between Bristol and
          Long Ashton Park and Ride are at a concept stage and could use a similar vehicle to
          the Stourbridge scheme. Vehicles would cost in the order of £300,000 to £350,000
          each.

18.       The key benefits of this technology are its proposals to run on lower emission fuels
          and provision of a fixed rail system at a lower cost than a light rail systems. The
          HULTS report states that fuel consumption could be up to 40% below that of a
          standard diesel bus.

19.       Deliverability is a significant concern with this technology as, to date, only
          development vehicles have been produced and trialled on a number of short rail
          routes, where the vehicle’s operation can be segregated from other uses. Some of the
          operating issues that would need significant investigation to determine the cost and
          risk include:

          •      System capacity – single unit vehicles do not have sufficient capacity to carry the
                 required number of passengers on the proposed rapid transit system. The
                 promoters state that vehicles can be coupled together but the PPM bogie
                 technology upon which the vehicle would rely is also currently a concept and has
                 not been developed. The development of this vehicle would require a radical
                 redesign of the current PPM vehicles. Without the ability to run two vehicles
                 together, or build a higher capacity vehicle, this system would have insufficient
                 capacity to deliver the rapid transit service. Therefore development of an
                 appropriate vehicle would be essential.
          •      Utility diversion – the main issue with utilities is their ongoing access and
                 serviceability. In order to prevent disruption to service and expensive works,
                 utilities are usually moved out of the path of fixed rail systems. This can add
                 significantly to the capital costs (in the order of 20% of total costs). HULTS
                 promoters state that utility diversions would not be necessary and that HULTS
                 services would be diverted when access or work were required. The proposed
                 ULR track was discussed with local Utility Companies at a meeting in July 2008.
                 The representatives of the Utility Companies were not in principle against the
                 concept of a track which could run on top of their assets within the highway but
                 raised a number of issues including the need for planned and emergency access to


       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



Summary
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



                       utilities and the different requirements for different types of utilities. In addition
                       its is likely that the Utility Companies would be looking to the owner of the track,
                       the Local Authorities, to be responsible for undertaking and paying for any
                       reinstatement works creating an ongoing cost for the Local Authorities.
               •       An on-street version of the system is untested in passenger operation including,
                       importantly, how it integrates and operates with other general traffic. The
                       technology does not currently have a UK Safety Case for this type of operation.
                       This is of course obtainable but introduces an element of risk to costs, delivery
                       and timescales.

20.            Light Rail systems are currently costing in the order of £10 to 15 million per kilometre
               and have increased significantly over the last few schemes developed. A conventional
               on-street tram scheme therefore has an average cost in the order of £12 million per
               km. The HULTS promoter notes a cost of £3 million. Removing both the
               electrification and all the utilities cost from the average tram cost could account for a
               possible reduction of 33% in the cost of construction producing a track cost of
               approximately £8 million. The removal of all but the site preparation, highway and
               trackwork costs results in a cost of £5 million compared to the promoters’ quoted £3
               million rate.

21.            An estimate of costs has therefore been undertaken on three bases: firstly, the HULTS
               promoter cost of £3 million per km, secondly, the HULTS promoter cost of £3 million
               per km plus an allowance for structures and highway works required in the city centre
               and thirdly, an estimate based on low cost tram costs.

22.            Using HULTS £3 million per km estimate the total scheme costs would be in the order
               of £38 million (2007 prices). Using the HULTS promoter cost but adding in an
               allowance for structures and highway works provides a cost in the order of £45 million
               (2007 prices). Our estimation of costs per kilometre for this system, based on current
               tram costs but allowing for the proposed reductions proposed by HULTS for track
               work is in the order of £103 million. These all exclude costs such as land,
               environmental works and contingency but include vehicles and are at 2007 prices3.

               Bus Rapid Transit

23.            Bus Rapid Transit aims to deliver the characteristics of fixed rail systems but with
               bus-based technology. This consists of a variety of physical measures in conjunction
               with operational and system elements such as a segregated alignment, high quality
               dedicated vehicles, improved stop infrastructure, on-street priority, improved
               passenger information and high frequency services.

24.            There are still relatively few high quality BRT systems in operation, although this is
               increasing. Systems to date have applied the suite of different BRT measures, both
               physical and operational in varied ways. There have also been significant issues with
               the quality and reliability of bespoke bus technologies developed, which have tried to
               use innovative technologies such as Phileas, Guided Light Transit etc. There has also
               been some criticism of the ride quality of slip-form kerb guidance (which is very
               dependant on the quality of construction).

25.            Bus Rapid Transit does have a number of key benefits :


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                             Summary
Technology Review



          •      Flexibility – routes are more easily adaptable to change through the life of the
                 system and changing needs of urban conurbations. Bus services from a wider
                 geographic area can also benefit from the infrastructure investment improving the
                 reach of the system.
          •      Value for money – BRT systems cost considerably less than comparable fixed
                 rail systems.
          •      Mode shift – BRT systems are delivering good reliable services and as a result
                 showing much higher levels of mode shift than conventional bus systems.

26.       Hybrid vehicles can significantly reduce emissions. Evidence from tests in London
          show a 38% reduction in CO2 emissions from hybrid buses compared with standard
          Euro 4 diesel bus. Hybrid bus performance is similar to LRT and LWR/ULR in terms
          of CO2 emissions. Hybrid vehicles could be available for around an additional £60,000
          per vehicle (current prices) and the technology and market for vehicles continues to
          evolve, with additional manufacturers providing products into the UK market.

27.       The equivalent BRT system cost for the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads via Bristol
          City Centre route, i.e. one that excludes costs such as land, environmental works and
          contingency and includes vehicles is in the order of £24 to £26 million (2007 prices)
          depending on the choice of vehicle.

          Fuel Technology

28.       Alternative fuel technology is still in its infancy and is continuing to evolve. There are
          some encouraging developments including work being undertaken by Bath & North
          East Somerset Council and their partners First Group through the European
          Commission’s CIVITAS Plus Initiative ‘Testing Innovative Strategies for Clean
          Urban Transport for Historic European Cities’. This initiative will include a
          demonstration project in Bath and trial a ‘green’ fuel articulated bus, appropriate for a
          historic city environment. The outcomes of this will be an important consideration for
          rapid transit scheme development.

29.       A key issue is the operational feasibility of alternative technologies for a large scale
          network, including the infrastructure investment required, maintenance and reliability.
          This, and the small fleet size, could manifests itself in high vehicle costs.

30.       For the present and short to medium term, diesel power is likely to remain the most
          widely available fuel for local bus based vehicles. The ongoing development and
          adoption of hybrid drive systems is likely to reduce their cost and increase their
          capability and reliability. Hybrid vehicles could be a viable alternative in the next few
          years.

          Comparative Assessment

31.       Tramtrain would only provide additional benefit over that of a tram route if it were
          able to be integrated with and operate on the existing rail network in the area. There
          are significant deliverability issues with the implementation of Tramtrain in the UK,
          and potentially capacity issues on the existing rail network in the West of England
          area. A significant amount of work would need to be undertaken to identify the
          opportunities and constraints for the adoption of the technology in the area.


       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



Summary
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



32.            Tramtrain vehicles provide the highest capacity of the modes reviewed. It is though
               the most expensive and if it were only deliverable on dedicated routes separated from
               the existing rail network, electrified tram technology would be more appropriate and
               more deliverable for a similar cost.

33.            Light Weight or Ultra Light Rail could provide a lower capacity, environmentally
               friendly transport system. At this stage of development there are considerable
               unknowns and in our opinion, the technology would need to be developed and tested
               further before it could be available to be applied to a rapid transit network of the size
               and nature proposed in the West of England.

34.            Bus Rapid Transit compares favourably both against the technical requirements for the
               proposed rapid transit system and the scheme’s objectives.

35.            The BRT mode is the lowest cost of the three options. Tramtrain could be in the order
               of six to seven times the cost of BRT and ULR could be in the order of 1.5 to 5 times
               the capital cost of BRT. BRT has the lowest deliverability risk. Vehicles can run on
               the highway in Bristol city centre and access the areas outside the main urban
               conurbation. On dedicated corridors the infrastructure could be either an exclusive
               highway or for guided sections utilise kerb guidance which can be constructed in a
               number of ways. All of which have been undertaken in the UK.

               Summary and Conclusions

36.            The Penistone Tramtrain trial on the heavy rail network is planned to conclude in 2012
               with a further trial on an LRT network potentially thereafter. The trial will hopefully
               set the UK vehicle standards for Tramtrain, which, if the manufacturers are able and
               willing to provide a suitable vehicle depending upon the market demand, could
               significantly de-risk future Tramtrain projects and potentially provide a competitive
               market. This is unlikely to happen before 2016 and would therefore fall outside the
               current regional funding allocation programme. In our opinion costs for Tramtrain are
               also likely to significantly exceed the current funding available for rapid transit.

37.            Tramtrain may provide a future suitable mode as part of a public transport network in
               the West of England area. It would however need to be compared at that time with
               electrified tram technology which could be more appropriate and more deliverable for
               a similar cost, particularly in connecting the city centre destinations. The delivery of
               rapid transit corridors using bus technology should not preclude the corridors from
               being changed to Tramtrain in the future should this prove to be deliverable.

38.            LWR/ULR is also still in development. Both the vehicles and the track for ULR need
               to be developed, trials undertaken, required approvals obtained and large scale
               procurement and construction undertaken. This is unlikely before 2016 and therefore it
               would fall outside the current regional funding allocation programme. In our opinion
               costs for LWR/ULR are also likely to significantly exceed the current funding
               available for rapid transit.

39.            ULR may provide a future suitable mode as part of a public transport network in the
               West of England area. However significant development work is needed on the
               technology before a major scheme application based on ULR could be put forward.


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                             Summary
Technology Review



          The delivery of rapid transit corridors using bus technology would not preclude the
          corridors from being changed to ULR in the future should this prove to be deliverable.

40.       A bus rapid transit network, particularly if all the elements of the system are delivered
          (segregation, fast/frequent services, direct access to destinations), meets the scheme
          objectives and can be delivered within the current regional funding allocation
          programme. The risks associated with delivering bus rapid transit are considerably
          lower than the other two technologies we have reviewed.

41.       Whilst Euro V diesel power remains the most practical for now, modern vehicles
          offering low emissions such as hybrid technology could possibly be a viable
          alternative in the next few years, subject particularly to reduction in their capital cost.
          Progress on this technology should be monitored for application to the rapid transit
          network and reviewed for its appropriateness and viability.

42.       In our opinion, Bus Rapid Transit should be pursued for the Ashton Vale to Temple
          Meads rapid transit route as it best meets the rapid transit scheme objectives; is the
          most cost effective and flexible; and can be delivered within the current programme
          and available funding.




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



Summary
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



1.             INTRODUCTION

               Background

1.1            The four Unitary Authorities of the West of England, Bath and North East Somerset,
               the City of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire, are currently
               undertaking a programme of work to develop a Rapid Transit System for the Greater
               Bristol area.

1.2            In 2006 the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) identified the need to
               progress a rapid transit network for the sub-region, as part of a package to successfully
               and appropriately accommodate additional transport movements arising from
               predicted residential and employment development over the next 20 years. The study
               concluded that:

               “further work is required to identify the type of vehicle used to operate the service but
               modern, low-floor, articulated buses are likely to be the most appropriate, flexible and
               cost effective vehicles to satisfy the requirements of the service”4.

1.3            GBSTS identified four Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors, three of which have been
               included in the Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) and have a current financial
               allocation in the South West Regional Funding programme to 2016 totalling £71
               million (2006 prices) with operation of the first route targeted to commence in 2013.

1.4            To obtain this funding, the West of England Authorities are required to submit a
               Major Scheme Bid for the first part of this network at the end of 2008. The route
               identified for this application is from Ashton Vale to Temple Meads via Bristol City
               Centre.

1.5            As part of the programme of work to develop a Rapid Transit System, the West of
               England Authorities have considered different rapid transit technologies. A review of
               technologies was first undertaken in 2007, this looked at a range of options from
               monorail and light rail through to conventional buses. Work from this review has been
               incorporated in to this report.

1.6            The West of England Authorities wish to ensure that the most appropriate technology
               is identified for its rapid transit network and further work is being undertaken
               specifically to look at the opportunities provided by newer rapid transit technologies.
               As a result, Steer Davies Gleave has been commissioned to undertake a further review
               of appropriate technologies that could be used to deliver the Ashton Vale to Temple
               Meads via Bristol City Centre route but also the wider identified rapid transit network.
               The brief for this assessment is included in Appendix A.

               Proposed Rapid Transit Network

1.7            This technology review has been undertaken against the background of the proposed
               network of rapid transit routes being developed. The first three lines of the network



4
       Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study, Atkins, June 2006


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 1
Technology Review



            identified in the JLTP are cross-city, sub-regional routes:

            •       Ashton Vale to Emerson’s Green.
            •       Hengrive/Hartcliffe to North Fringe.
            •       Bath to Cribbs Causeway.

            Ashton Vale to Temple Meads Route

1.8         For the purposes of this report and the comparison of different technologies, the
            following details on the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route were used:

            •       The Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route is approximately 7km long, with around
                    3km of this being proposed as a segregated corridor and 4km running on-street in
                    Bristol City Centre.
            •       The route is proposed to run from the existing Long Ashton Park and Ride site
                    via an alignment through the proposed development at Ashton Park, crossing the
                    Portishead railway line at Ashton Gate, to run alongside the Portishead railway
                    line until it crosses the existing Ashton Avenue Bridge to connect with the
                    alignment of the Bristol Harbour Railway line. The route continues running along
                    the south side of the Floating Harbour adjacent to Cumberland Road to connect
                    through to the proposed development at Wapping Wharf and the Bristol Industrial
                    Museum.
            •       There are still options for the on-street sections in Bristol City Centre but the
                    route will connect Broad Quay, The Centre, Broadmead, Cabots Circus, Old
                    Market and Bristol Temple Meads Railway Station.
            •       The system will be required to provide a maximum capacity in the order of 3,000
                    passengers per direction per hour.

            Study Process

1.9         In undertaking assessments of the appropriateness of different technologies for the
            development of a public transport scheme different guidance documents5 and accepted
            professional practices advocate a similar approach in that they propose assessment of a
            range of different technologies against a set of criteria which usually include:

            •       Goals and objectives including policy objectives,
            •       Current problems and future challenges, including issues of local context within
                    which the transit system will be implemented and operated,
            •       Physical opportunities and constraints that will influence the design or technology
                    choice,
            •       Deliverability.

1.10        Good practice also advocates a process of increasing levels of detail in a step-wise or
            iterative manner to progressively eliminate those options that are not likely to provide



5
       For example:
       Affordable Mass Transit Guidance: Helping you choose the best technology for your Area, Commission for
       Integrated Transport, 2005
       Bus Rapid Transit – Planning Guide 2007, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, June 2007


          \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



2
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               an appropriate or affordable solution to the identified need and objectives. To this end
               a staged process of firstly looking at a high level strategic assessment of the alternative
               technology options followed by a more detailed review of the most appropriate
               technologies is advised.

1.11           The process undertaken in this review has been:

               •       High Level Strategic Review of technology options – consideration of all the
                       different public transport options for a transit network in the West of England has
                       previously been undertaken firstly by GBSTS and further as part of the
                       development of the rapid transit proposals. This review has briefly reviewed the
                       range of different public transport options and has taken a high level look at
                       system capacities and costs.
               •       A Technical Review of the individual technologies – looking at their application,
                       operation, opportunities and constraints of the vehicle technologies and
                       infrastructure.
               •       A Comparative Assessment of the individual technologies – looking at:
                            The application of the technology to the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads via
                            Bristol City Centre to provide in particular a cost comparison of the
                            technologies when applied to a specific route.
                            The application of the technology on the wider rapid transit network to
                            assess the appropriateness of the technologies and the possible issues raised.
                            The different technologies are then assessed against the objectives of the
                            proposed rapid transit network.

1.12           This report also includes a section on fuel technology, Section 6.




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 3
Technology Review



         Steer Davies Gleave

1.13     Steer Davies Gleave is an independent consultancy working worldwide across the
         transport sector, providing advice to government, local government, transport bodies,
         operators, financiers, regulators, developers and other interest groups.

1.14     Over the last decade, Steer Davies Gleave has worked on over 30 rapid transit
         schemes worldwide. Our expertise extends from pre-feasibility and scheme
         development to securing powers, implementation and funding. Projects include:

            •    Barcelona Baix Llobregat Tramway, Spain                            •   Greenwich Waterfront Transit
            •    Blackpool / Fleetwood Tramway Upgrading                            •   Leigh-Salford-Manchester Quality Bus
            •    Cambridgeshire Guided Busway                                       •   Luton-Dunstable Translink
            •    Cancún LRT, Mexico                                                 •   Manchester Metrolink
            •    CentreLink, Tyne and Wear                                          •   Merseytram
            •    Cross River Tram, London                                           •   Midland Metro Network Development
            •    Croydon Tramlink                                                   •   Santiago Guided Busway, Chile
            •    Docklands Light Railway (DLR) Extensions                           •   Sunderland Direct Metro Extension
            •    Dublin LRT (LUAS), Ireland                                         •   Transmilenio Busway, Bogotá, Colombia
            •    Edinburgh Tram Line One                                            •   Tyne and Wear Metro Project Orpheus
            •    East Leeds Quality Bus                                             •   West London Tram


1.15     Steer Davies Gleave also has extensive experience of the UK railway market where
         our clients include, Network Rail, Office of the Rail Regulator, Department of
         Transport, and the majority of the UK operators. We are currently involved in the
         development of Tees Valley Metro, which may include either Tramtrain or
         conventional rail modes.




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



4
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



2.             PUBLIC TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES

2.1            There is a wide range of public transport technologies that provide different benefits,
               operational characteristics and have different capital and operating costs.

               Mass Transit

2.2            Metro or Light Metro such as LUL or Tyne and Wear Metro, which use either single
               or multiple high capacity units through large urban conurbations often utilising
               tunnelled infrastructure. Provide high levels of capacity between 25,000 and 45,000
               passengers per hour per direction (PPHPD). As a result these are very expensive to
               deliver and only represent value for money if adopted on very high demand single
               corridor routes. Current estimates for extensions to metro systems for example are in
               the order of +£100 million per km. Mass Transit would provide way in excess of the
               capacity required for the rapid transit network and is very unlikely to make a case for
               this level of investment.

               Heavy Rail

2.3            Heavy Rail systems usually provide local and regional commuter and long distance
               higher speed services. Heavy Rail services can carry between 10,000 and 30,000
               PPHPD and again requires significant capital investment. Therefore, as with mass
               transit it is very unlikely to make a case for this level of investment.

2.4            A heavy rail solution would also be very difficult to develop in the urban corridors
               required and connect directly in to the local or city centre as required by the rapid
               transit network. More likely, any possible extensions to the local heavy rail network
               would connect in to existing termini which are or with current proposals will be
               capacity constrained. An interchange to bus or rapid transit to reach Bristol city centre
               would be required.

               Light Rail / Tram6

2.5            Light Rail (LRT) or electric trams, similar to those operating in places such as
               Nottingham and Dublin, provide medium capacity systems on dedicated routes and
               can provide improved city centre connectivity. Typically LRT systems provide for
               between 4,000 and 10,000 PPHPD.

2.6            Several British Cities have re-introduced light rail systems with modern trams
               providing level boarding. The systems are provided with a high level of information
               and quality facilities integrated to provide a significant increase in passenger benefits
               compared to the bus or rail services.

2.7            Electric power provides light rail systems with a significantly improved performance
               compared to heavy rail, in terms of acceleration and deceleration, due to their lighter
               weight as they are not designed to withstand the same impact forces as traditional rail



6
       Text in this section takes information provided in the report West of England Partnership: Greater Bristol Bus
       Rapid Transit (BRT) Technology Review of Systems, Halcrow Group Limited, September 2007


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 5
Technology Review



         vehicles.

2.8      Rails in conjunction with the tram vehicles provide a smooth ride for passenger
         comfort and the rails add to passenger perception and confidence in the certainty and
         stability of the system. The lower forces exerted by the light rail vehicle on track and
         structures results in lower capital costs and the shorter, usually articulated, vehicles
         enable sharp bends and steep gradients (compared to conventional railways) to be
         incorporated into the route, including elements of street running.

2.9      The capacity of light rail systems varies. In the UK the Midland Metro trams can carry
         152 passengers each of which 56 can be seated. Each tram also has space for two
         wheelchairs. They have a maximum speed of 80kph. In Nottingham, UK, the five
         section tram has a passenger carrying capacity of 191 with a maximum speed of 80kph
         and radius capability equivalent to conventional buses.

         FIGURE 2.1                NET LINE 1, NOTTINGHAM




2.10     LRT schemes have proved relatively expensive, currently costing in the order of £10m
         to £15m per km, and have proved difficult to fund and deliver in the UK. The
         Department for Transport (DfT) also requires a local funding contribution of around
         25% (meaning the Local Authorities would need to provide funding in the order of
         £25m for the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route). The corridor would also need to
         have a much higher demand/catchment than currently assessed in order to make a case
         for this level of investment to DfT.

         Tramtrain

2.11     Tramtrain vehicles are capable of operating on both a heavy rail network and on urban
         low floor tram networks enabling light rail style services to be developed over a wider
         suburban heavy rail network and making use of improved proximity and connectivity
         of existing tram networks within urban centres.


       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



6
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



2.12           Tramtrain is a developing technology, with a trial is planned in the UK. This
               technology has not been considered in detail previously and therefore this technology
               review has chosen to look at this option in more detail, see Section 4.

               Ultra Light or Light Weight Transit

2.13           The cost of light rail systems are considered prohibitive for many conurbations,
               particularly where passenger demand is lower, and a number of “ultra-light rail” or
               light weight rail based transport systems are being developed, targeting this potential
               market.

2.14           Ultra Light or Light Weight Transit is also an emerging mode which is proposed to
               use lighter weight, lower capacity vehicles on lower cost rail infrastructure. The Parry
               People Mover (PPM) system, involving small vehicles with a driver, has been
               developed on narrow gauge railway track with a charged flywheel automotive system.
               Bristol Electric Railbus Ltd (BER) also operated a demonstration service along the
               Bristol Harbourside on existing standard gauge rail for 30 months between 1998 to
               2000.

2.15           The mode is promoted as providing improved benefits to that of bus rapid transit
               (BRT) for similar cost. This technology review has chosen to look at this option in
               more detail, see Section 4.

               Bus Rapid Transit

2.16           Bus Rapid Transit systems use high specification buses and a variety of physical,
               operating and system elements to provide a permanently integrated system. Bus Rapid
               Transit systems provide for between 2,000 and 4,000 PPHPD. The technology is
               generally promoted as being flexible, easier to implement and integrate within city
               centres than other transit options. Bus rapid transit is considered in more detail in
               Section 4.

               Guided Light Transit

2.17           Guided Light Transit encompasses a number of different vehicles all with different
               characteristics, and includes Civis, Guided Light Transit, Phileas and Translohr. The
               vehicles are rubber tyred, use differing forms of guidance system, and can operate on
               overhead line. They are all currently proprietary systems and all continue to have
               deliverability, reliability and operational issues. In addition due to the high
               development costs and low numbers of vehicles in production these vehicles are very
               expensive (in the range of £0.5m to £1m per unit). Guided Light Transit has therefore
               not been considered further in this technology review.

               Buses

2.18           Conventional bus technology can provide a variety of capacities and the vehicle can
               be the same as those used for BRT. Improvements to existing bus services are already
               included as part of the Greater Bristol Bus Network programme of works. As
               identified in GBSTS and JLTP, the proposed rapid transit network needs to deliver
               something over and above the benefits that GBBN will deliver so therefore
               conventional buses have not been furthered considered in this technology review.

\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 7
Technology Review



         Automated People Movers

2.19     Automated People Movers are generally used or promoted to be used in two forms, at
         airports for inter-terminal or satellite boarding gate connections, or as driverless Metro
         style systems. Examples are the VAL system and the ULTRA system currently being
         developed for Heathrow Terminal 5.

2.20     Véhicule Automatique Léger (VAL) is an automated system that uses rubber-tyred
         vehicles on a segregated guideway. It is used in Lille, Paris, Toulouse, Rennes,
         Chicago and Taipei. This style of system provides similar levels of capacity to Light
         Metro but due to the automation are generally more expensive. This mode is not
         considered further in this review.

         FIGURE 2.2                VÉHICULE AUTOMATIQUE LÉGER (VAL)




2.21     APM also includes Personal Rapid Transit of which the ULTRA system is one
         example. Vehicles are described as driverless taxis operating on segregated often
         elevated tracks made from concrete. The reduced need to make lots of stops means
         that faster journeys are possible. The driverless pods are able to carry a maximum of
         four people. Even though they are driverless the cars have an automatic protection
         system, which acts as a safety net around the vehicle and prevents potential collisions.
         They have a car type chassis and rubber tyres and are guided electronically with
         battery power, fully loaded each vehicle weighs 800 kg.

2.22     ULTra’s first application in the UK will be to serve the long term executive parking at
         Heathrow Terminal 5, although other systems are under consideration (such as at
         Dunsfold Park in Surrey).

2.23     Both systems currently need dedicated, completely segregated infrastructure generally

       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



8
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               underground or elevated.

               FIGURE 2.3                ULTRA




2.24           Personal Rapid Transit technology is new, innovative but largely untested and not
               currently available on the scale that would be required to deliver the proposed rapid
               transit system. As such it has not been considered further by this technology review.

               Summary

2.25           The consideration of all the different public transport options for a transit network in
               the West of England has previously been undertaken firstly in GBSTS and further as
               part of the rapid transit scheme development. This, and a high level review of
               capacities and costs, has identified that mass rapid transit, heavy rail, light rail
               automated people movers and personal rapid transit are, in our opinion, not
               appropriate technologies for the proposed rapid transit network. This does not mean
               that these technologies are not appropriate in specific circumstances but that they fit
               less well with the proposed objectives of the rapid transit scheme and they are less
               likely to provide a successful case for government funding for this particular scheme.

2.26           This technology review therefore now concentrates on the rapid transit technologies of
               Tramtrain, Light Weight Rail and Bus Rapid Transit.




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 9
Technology Review




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



10
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



3.             OBJECTIVES OF THE RAPID TRANSIT NETWORK AND TECHNICAL
               ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

               Objectives of the Rapid Transit Network

3.1            In reviewing the three transport technologies covered by this report it is important to
               identify the objective any new transport provision is required to meet and the ability of
               the technologies to meet these requirements.

3.2            The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) set out the objectives of future
               transport improvements for the Greater Bristol area. The GBSTS states the aim of the
               Second Generation Public Transport Improvements in Greater Bristol is “to provide
               high quality alternatives to the private car”.

3.3            GBSTS set out the rapid transit objectives as:

               •       Extending choice of transport modes for all, in particular for private car drivers to
                       encourage a shift to public transport;
               •       Promoting sustainable development by providing high quality public transport
                       links;
               •       Improving access to public transport in areas that currently have poor provision;
               •       Improving integration of the public transport network;
               •       Promoting social inclusion by improving access to employment, retail,
                       community, leisure and education facilities;
               •       Improving safety along transport corridors by providing high quality public
                       transport alternatives to the private car.

3.4            Rapid Transit is therefore designed to result in:

               •       Mode Shift – Providing a step change in the provision of public transport, which
                       results in people shift from the private car to public transport.
               •       Reduced Congestion – A measure of reduced congestion is the overall network
                       capacity, the number of people transported within a corridor.
               •       Economic Growth – Supporting the economic development of the area by
                       improving access to employment, retail and leisure and through reduced
                       congestion.

               Technical Assessment Criteria

3.5            To provide the greatest level of confidence and robustness in this review a detailed set
               of technical assessment criteria has been identified. This is to ensure that individual
               aspect of each technology are identified and evaluated across the three technologies.
               These criteria are :

               Vehicle Characteristics

               •       Step free – Provide a nominal boarding distance between the vehicle and the stop.
               •       Gap Free – Provides level access from the stop to the vehicle.
               •       Vehicle Capacity -Provides a sufficient passenger carrying capacity capable of
                       meeting the identified demand with an appropriate service frequency.

\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 11
Technology Review



         •       Seating – Provides an appropriate number of seats within the vehicles capacity.
         •       Route Capacity – The hourly capacity of the service on the route.
         •       Speed – The speed characteristics are appropriate to provide a form of rapid
                 transport.
         •       Doors – The vehicle is equipped with sufficient doors to minimise boarding and
                 alighting times.
         •       Runtime – Time taken to run the length of a route.
         •       Road Junctions – Can take advantage of priority at signalled junction and
                 minimise the impact on other traffic.
         •       Gradients – Has the vehicle performance to cope with gradients.
         •       Perception of quality – Provides a perception of quality, and a high quality
                 modern image.
         •       Axle Load – Weight of the vehicle on each axle.
         •       Maintenance and depots – Requirements for dedicated / possible connected depot
                 and maintenance facilities.

         Environmental

         •       Visual – Visual intrusion within the proposed corridor.
         •       Maintains existing facilities – Maintains cycle and pedestrian facilities.
         •       Severance (guidance, rails etc.) – Does the system create severance, rails,
                 fencing etc.
         •       Land take – Width of land required.
         •       Noise – Vehicle and operational noise.
         •       Emissions – Vehicle emissions.

         Operation

         •       Vehicle Recovery –Complexity and impact of recovering failed vehicles.
         •       Integration with Heritage Railway – Enables the Heritage railway to be retained.
         •       Service competition – Would the proposed route potentially suffer from
                 competing modes on parallel corridors.

         Local Context Issues and Deliverability

3.6      As well as these technical issues the following criteria were also reviewed:

         •       Segregation usable by other modes – In the case of rail modes the track would
                 need to be grooved rail within a surfaced finish to allow other modes to operate
                 along its length.
         •       Penetration of City Centre – Provides good connectivity to interchange, shopping,
                 commercial and leisure facilities.
         •       Sub-regional accessibility - Ability to deliver benefits to the wider sub-region.
         •       Complements showcase bus scheme – Complements the priority improvement
                 measure currently and to be provided on the Bus Showcase routes.
         •       Maintains road network capacity – ensures sufficient road network capacity is
                 maintained.
         •       Restricts access to segregation – Can provide a barrier to entry by none

       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



12
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



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




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 13
Technology Review




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



14
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



4.             TECHNICAL REVIEW

               Tramtrain

4.1            Tramtrain was developed in Germany to enable tram style services to be developed
               over the wider suburban heavy rail network, making use of improved proximity and
               connectivity of existing tram networks within urban centres. The original impetus to
               develop Tramtrain in Germany came from a wish to make greater use of existing tram
               and rail infrastructure, with only generally minimal infrastructure works undertaken to
               connect the two networks.

4.2            Tramtrain in the simplest of terms is a vehicle solution not an independent mode such
               as bus or tram. The vehicles are capable of operating on both the heavy rail network
               and on urban low floor tram networks, which depending on the location and
               application requires the ability to work on differing overhead line power supplies and
               possibly independently through the use of onboard diesel generators. The vehicles are
               built to provide greater crash protection due to their interoperation with heavy rail
               vehicles.

4.3            The Tramtrain technology has been developed and operating in Germany for over 15
               years with the first route developed between Karlsruhe and Bretten. Further routes
               have been developed in Germany, France and the Netherlands, with the maturity of
               the vehicle technology improving and becoming more standard in mainland Europe.

               Tramtrain in the UK

4.4            There are currently no Tramtrain schemes within the UK. The Tyne and Wear Metro
               extension to Sunderland does incorporate some aspects of Tramtrain in that it runs on
               the heavy rail network in conjunction with freight, regional and long distance rail
               services. The development of the extension has in part assisted the development of
               Tramtrain in the UK in that Network Rail has developed Railway Group Standards for
               the operation of light rail vehicles7 and acceptance of light rail vehicle for shared
               running8 on their network.

4.5            The Tyne and Wear system has high floor vehicles, which operate on the original
               network under signalled operation, with a train protection system (Indusi train-stop),
               and as such has not addressed the issues of operating low floor vehicles, running on
               line of sight on Network Rail infrastructure. The system does however provide some
               insight into the complexities of shared running. The connection between the two
               systems needed to provide sufficient space to stand a train between the two networks
               to enable the service regulation on the separately controlled networks. The shared
               running section is fitted with both TPWS and the Indusi Train stop system, the Metro
               train detection and passenger information system is overlaid on the route, the in cab
               radio was modified to automatically facilitate communication with the Network Rail



7
       Railway Group Standard GE/GN8502 Operation of Trams and Light Rail or Metro Vehicles Over Network Rail
       Controlled Infrastructure
8
       Railway Group Standard GM/RT2452 Acceptance of Trams and Light Rail or Metro vehicles for shared
       Running on Network Rail controlled Infrastructure


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 15
Technology Review



            control centre and Metro control respectively when operating on the different
            infrastructure, two telephones system are provided to connect to the respective control
            and operating organisations and cameras, public address and station SCADA9 systems
            were directed to the respective station operator. This highlights the possible
            requirements and complexity of developing a shared running system across two sets of
            infrastructure.

4.6         In operation the system was initially difficult to regulate resulting in significant
            disruption to the Metro service pattern and schedule on both networks, this was
            resolved by reducing the Metro and regional train frequencies on the shared section of
            the network.

4.7         The focus on Tramtrain in the UK is slightly different from mainland Europe, as few
            cities have existing tram networks which could be connected to the wider rail network
            to provide improved connectivity and services. Hence the focus in part appears to be
            the development and the use of Tramtrain to convert branch line services, with an aim
            to cut the cost of provision and operation.

4.8         A trial of Tramtrain in the UK is to be undertaken by Northern Rail on the 37-mile
            Penistone Line between Huddersfield and Sheffield see Figure 4.1. The current service
            will be replaced using five Tramtrain vehicles between 2010 and 2012 and will look at
            the environmental, operational, passenger and lifecycle benefits along with the
            technical suitability of the technology. The vehicles may then be trialled on the
            Sheffield Supertram network to assess the operation and suitability of the technology
            on a UK tram network.

4.9         It is currently unclear if the vehicles will be dual mode to operate on a 750v dc
            overhead line network and under diesel power and will be provided with the
            operational systems to operate both on Network Rail and Supertram infrastructure.

            Operation

4.10        The current requirements for the operation of light rail vehicles relates to the running
            of vehicles from other administrations10 onto Network Rail infrastructure. A service or
            vehicle operating wholly on Network Rail infrastructure would have to comply with
            the normal standards relating to the rail network. It is unclear if this requirement will
            be revised prior to, or following the Penistone trial.




9
       SCADA – Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition used for fire alarms, escalators, lifts, power, ticketing etc.
10
       Separately owned and operated networks, potentially operated under different safety arrangements, and
       potentially different infrastructure standards.


          \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



16
                                                                                                                               Technology Review


               FIGURE 4.1                ROUTE OF PENISTONE TRAMTRAIN TRIAL




4.11           Operators of trains and stations on Network Rail infrastructure are normally required
               to have a safety case accepted by Network Rail in accordance with the “Railway
               (Safety Case) Regulations 1994” and amendments thereafter. The Railway Safety
               Case describes the operation proposed, identifies the risks which it presents and the
               control measures used to mitigate these so far as is practically possible. All the other
               operators utilising the proposed mixed running route or routes would also need to
               update and reissue for acceptance a revised safety case.

4.12           The primary issue in assessing the impact of light rail on the heavy rail network is the
               level of interaction with Network Rail and heavy rail operations. This might include
               one or a combination of the following:

               •       Exclusive Running in which light and heavy rail vehicles are separated by time
                       of day. For example, light rail may use a section of the route during the day with
                       heavy rail freight trains using it at night when all light rail services are finished or
                       suspended. Although there may need to be some changes to the signalling system,
                       this mainly relies on procedural measures to ensure that all vehicles of one type
                       are clear of the route section before another type is allowed to enter it.
               •       Limited Exclusive Running in which light and heavy rail vehicles have
                       exclusive use of the section of the route for limited periods during the day. This
                       requires positive signalling measures to prove that all vehicles of one type have
                       cleared the section before those of another type are allowed to enter it. A light rail
                       route crossing a heavy rail could form this type of operation.
               •       Mixed Running in which vehicles of both types use the section of route at the
                       same time. Because of the potential severe consequences of a collision between
                       heavy and light rail vehicles, relying on drivers to observe line-side signalling is
                       not felt to provide adequate protection or to reduce the risk as far as practicable.
                       Additional measures are required to ensure that all vehicles (light and heavy) stop
                       at a signal at danger (or within the overlap) by the automatic application of the
                       brakes to reduce speed prior to and to bring the vehicle to stop at a red signal.

\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 17
Technology Review



                 These measures have to be applied to all signals capable of displaying a stop
                 aspect and to all vehicles using the route, light and heavy.
         •       Parallel Running in which the light rail operation take over a line or runs
                 alongside an existing heavy rail route. This form of operation significantly differs
                 from those above and is not covered by the same network Rail standards, this
                 form of operation would need to be agreed with Network Rail and the Railway
                 Inspectorate and is likely to result in the segregation of the two systems. An
                 example is the parallel running on Nottingham Tram alongside the Robin Hood
                 line, where to minimise operational and maintenance issues the two lines are
                 separated by a fence.

4.13     In the case of Parallel or Limited Exclusive Running HMRI / ORR are likely to allow
         an exemption from the requirements for the operator to hold a heavy rail Railway
         Safety Case. This in turn means that compliance with Railway Group Standards is not
         required, but operating rules and agreements may need to be put in place to provide
         the levels of safety required for the operation and maintenance of both systems.

4.14     Where Tramtrain operation in conjunction with other heavy rail would result in
         increased service frequencies a route may need to be re-signalled, which would be a
         significant cost to any proposed scheme, particularly if the existing signalling system
         technology is old and requires complete replacement as part of any improvements.

4.15     The Penistone trial will hopefully facilitate setting the vehicle standards for Tramtrain
         vehicles, which if the manufacturers are able and willing to provide a suitable vehicle
         depending upon the market demand could significantly de-risk future Tramtrain
         projects and potentially provide a competitive market.

         Vehicles

4.16     Three main vehicle suppliers offer Tramtrain vehicles, Alstom, Bombardier and
         Siemens. To date the current vehicles on offer have not been produced for any
         significant length of time and have not been produced in significant numbers (around
         70 units in service of 125 ordered).

4.17     Alstom currently lead the field with orders although all the manufactures have a
         similar number of vehicles in service.

4.18     As mentioned above the Light Rail vehicles need to meet minimum structural
         requirements set out in Railway Group Standards to operate under shared running.
         Tramtrains developed to date for mainland European markets have been developed to
         meet improved structural requirements and significantly exceed that of tram vehicles.
         It is not currently clear if these vehicles would comply with Railway Group Standards
         for Light Rail vehicles.

4.19     The vehicle performance is similar to that of trams with a slightly higher top speed of
         100km/hr.




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



18
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



4.20           Alstom – Regio Citadis, is based upon the multi-modular Citadis tram range adapted
               to provide improved crash protection for operation on heavy rail networks. The
               vehicle is low floor with three sections supported on four bogies. The vehicle has been
               produced to operate on two voltages 750V dc for tramway operation and differing ac
               traction voltages for heavy rail operation, the vehicle has also been provided with a
               diesel generator package, operating on 750V dc on the tram network and
               independently through the use of the diesel generator on none electrified suburban
               routes.

               FIGURE 4.2                ALSTOM - REGIO CITADIS




               TABLE 4.1                 REGIO CITADIS DATA

                  Key Figures
                  Length                                                                                                                36,762 mm
                  Width                                                                                                                   2,659 mm
                  Seats                                                                                                                              93
                  Standing                                                                                                                          130
                                                                                                                               4 double per side
                  Doors
                                                                                       5 double doors available but reduces seating
                  Ordered / Supplied                                                                                                             82 / 28




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                       19
Technology Review



4.21     Bombardier – Flexity Link has been supplied to Saarbrucken and is based on the
         range of Flexity vehicles supplied to Croydon, Stockholm and Instanbul. The vehicle
         has been produced to operate on both the 750V dc tram network and the AC traction
         voltage used on the heavy rail network.

         FIGURE 4.3                BOMBARDIER - FLEXITY LINK




         TABLE 4.2                 FLEXITY LINK

            Key Figures
            Length                                                                                                                37,000 mm
            Width                                                                                                                   2,650 mm
            Seats                                                                                                                              96
            Standing                                                                                                                         147
            Doors                                                                                                         4 double per side
            Ordered / Supplied                                                                                                           28 / 28




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



20
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



4.22           Siemens – Avanto Tramtrain, was based upon the S70 vehicle mainly produced for
               the American market. The Avanto Tramtrain version has been supplied to SNCF for
               operation in Paris. The vehicle is a five section low floor vehicle supplied to operate
               on both a 750V dc light rail network and the 25KV ac regional rail network. This
               vehicle is no longer available.

               FIGURE 4.4                SIEMENS - AVANTO TRAMTRAIN




               TABLE 4.3                 SIEMENS AVANTO TRAMTRAIN DATA

                  Key Figures
                  Length                                                                                                                36,965 mm
                  Width                                                                                                                   2,650 mm
                  Seats                                                                                                                              86
                  Standing                                                                                                                          154
                  Doors                                                                                                        5 double per side
                  Ordered / Supplied                                                                                                             15 / 15




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                       21
Technology Review




         Diesel Trams

4.23     Siemens – Combino, a small low floor diesel powered tram vehicle was developed
         and supplied to Nordhausen. This is the only tram style vehicle to be diesel powered
         with the diesel generation package contained within the central passenger module. The
         vehicle is no longer available from Siemens following the replacement of the
         Combino model with Combino-Plus. The Combino plus is based on 9 metre body
         sections each of which are supported on a central bogie, this arrangement could limit
         the ability to include a diesel generator package within the vehicle.

4.24     The inclusion of a diesel generator on the roof of a low floor tram may be possible
         similar to the arrangement used on Tramtrains, although the available space would be
         limited and there could be a significant issue with the weight of the equipment.

         FIGURE 4.5                NORDHAUSEN DIESEL COMBINO TRAM




4.25     If a manufacture were able to provide a diesel tram a 30 metre vehicle would provide a
         capacity of about 200 and could cost in the order of £2.5 to £3.0 million.

4.26     The infrastructure costs for a tram scheme mainly on a old rail alignment with a
         reduced length of on-street trackwork in the city centre could be comparable to the
         Nottingham Tram scheme, approximately £12 million per kilometre.




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



22
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



4.27           The efficiency of the individual vehicles can be a factor in the choice of mode, this
               can be influenced by:

               •       The fuel and efficiency of the propulsion system.
               •       The rolling resistance.
               •       The weight of the vehicle.
               •       The distance between stops.
               •       The speed profile due to stops, junctions etc.

4.28           Tramtrain vehicles are equipped with an electrical traction system which incorporates
               regenerative braking and can include energy stores such as high speed flywheels,
               capacitor or batteries. The efficiency of these systems is good, and could be improved
               significantly through the use of an energy store facility, which would significantly
               improve the reuse of the regenerated energy under braking and smooth the power
               demand under acceleration.

4.29           A diesel powered vehicle, utilises the diesel engine in conjunction with a generator
               package to provide the power for the electrical traction system. In this configuration
               the regenerative braking energy is not captured and is dissipated as heat, it could be
               reused in conjunction with an energy store if it were to be included within the traction
               package. Operation under diesel power would be less efficient than the electric
               overhead line, due to the losses in the generation system and the need for the generator
               package to operate at high revs while the vehicle accelerates, potentially a significant
               part of the time on a frequent stop urban network. The system is more efficient when
               operating to provide the vehicle with the constant speed power where the diesel
               arrangement can run at a more efficient speed.

4.30           The Rolling Resistance Coefficient of a Tramtrain vehicle is of the order of 0.005,
               much less than that of a rubber tyred vehicle which could improve the energy
               efficiency of the vehicle when compared to rubber tyred vehicles. This is however
               reduced by a number of factors:

               •       Reduced tractive adhesion - which impacts on the ability of the vehicle to
                       accelerate, this is somewhat mitigated by the much heavier weight of the vehicle
                       and the more complex traction systems to reduce wheel slip. It is worth noting to
                       increase the acceleration and deceleration characteristics of metro vehicles a
                       number of systems, Val, Paris Metro, and the Paris Meteor Line use rubber tyred
                       metro vehicles.
               •       Vehicle weight – Rail vehicles tend to be heavy due to the bogies, body structure,
                       and traction packages, and the passenger capacity.
               •       Short stopping distances - on urban systems result in the vehicle either
                       accelerating or braking over a significant element of a journey profile with
                       limited sections of steady speed operation. A typical speed distance profile is
                       shown in Figure 4.5

4.31           Lower Rolling Resistance Coefficient becomes a more significant advantage where a
               vehicle is running at a constant speed where the power input required to maintain the
               vehicle speed can be significantly lower than that of a rubber tyred vehicle.

               Infrastructure

\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 23
Technology Review



4.32        Tramtrain’s key benefit is the ability to use existing rail infrastructure to operate on
            and provide connection in to city centres. In the case of the Greater Bristol area a city
            centre tram style network could be constructed plus connections to identified existing
            rail routes. The city centre network wouldn’t necessarily need to be electrified as a
            Tramtrain option for the area would need to be diesel powered to operate on the
            current heavy rail network in the area.

             FIGURE 4.6               TYPICAL SPEED DISTANCE PROFILE FOR AN URBAN TRANPORT
                                      SYSTEM




4.33        Operation under diesel power could in part be mitigated if the vehicle where fitted
            with an energy store, storing the energy created under braking (similar to the Parry
            People Mover). The energy store would provide power for acceleration in conjunction
            with the diesel generator allowing the engine to run at a more optimal speed reducing
            noise and emissions. Three types of energy store are potentially possible battery,
            capacitor or high speed flywheel. The inclusion of an energy store system would
            increase the cost of the vehicle.

4.34        Within the city centre track could be constructed utilising the latest ORR guidance11
            potentially reducing the depth of construction compared to tram schemes constructed
            to date, with the potential to mitigate some of the utility diversion works required.
            Utilities would though need to be moved where they would be impacted upon by the
            construction of the running rails and where access and continued serviceability would
            be affected. Local utility connections, water, gas, electricity, telecoms would need to
            be moved if the routes run parallel to and within the swept path of any proposed route
            to enable utility companies to access, maintain and provide connections to their
            equipment.

4.35        Tracks on connecting routes could utilise more conventional ballasted track where
            these are segregated from public areas.




11
       ORR Tramway Technical Guidance Note 1, Design Requirements for Street Track, May 2008


          \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



24
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



4.36           Stops would need to be provided along the route to provide a level boarding height of
               approximately 330mm to 350mm, their length would be dependant on the vehicle
               length and the door position. However the length of all three current vehicles is in the
               order of 37 metres. This would take considerable kerb space in Bristol city centre.

4.37           Stop width would need to be of the order of three metres, possibly wider where they
               are included within busy footways.

4.38           Deliverability is currently a significant issue with Tramtrain in the UK; this may
               improve following the completion of the Penistone trial in 2012. The development of
               standalone systems utilising Tramtrain technology will be more expensive than more
               standard tram technology and run a significant risk of not being compatible with
               Tramtrain requirements set in the future. The development of Tramtrain route on the
               heavy rail network are likely to continue to be high risk in terms of costs due to the
               unknown level of signalling and infrastructure works required to facilitate their
               operation on the existing heavy rail routes.

               Application to the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads Route

4.39           To provide a comparison of cost we have developed a cost for each of the
               technologies based on the development of the route from Temple Meads through the
               City Centre to Ashton Vale Park and Ride. The route in the city centre is based upon
               running on Victoria Street, Counterslip, Lower Castle Street, with a single track loop
               on Horse Fair Nelson Street and Newgate continuing to Wapping Wharf via Broad
               Quay and Prince Street. We have not carried out any evaluation of the technical
               feasibility of using this route for the individual technologies.

4.40           We have not included for shared running on the short section of existing rail
               infrastructure at Ashton Gate (Portishead Freight Line) as this could be prohibitively
               expensive due to the signalling costs associated with this section. We have priced for a
               parallel route and bridge over the line at this stage.

4.41           The capacity provided for comparison is up to 3000 passengers in the peak hour as
               this would provide for some growth in passengers on the route, and initially provide a
               more comfortable vehicle loading. The journey time is assumed to be approximately
               20 minutes, resulting in a requirement for a five minute service providing a capacity of
               approximately 2940. 10 vehicles with a vehicle capacity of approximately 245 would
               be required to provide the service with spares.

4.42           The intensity of the service would require the route to be double track other than under
               Cumberland Road, where it would be beneficial to retain the existing bridge, minimise
               the section of single operation and operate the route bi-directionally over this short
               section.

               Costs

4.43           Indicative capital cost estimates for Tramtrain vehicles and infrastructure costs for the
               Aston Vale route are shown in Table 4.4. The vehicle cost is based on a pricing
               received from both suppliers and operators for a dual powered low floor vehicle. The
               cost estimate for a single power source vehicle is likely to be at the lower end of the


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 25
Technology Review



          cost range supplied. The vehicle cost is both higher than that of a tram and a heavy rail
          vehicle. This is in part due to the dual mode traction system, but more down to the
          requirement to meet the required crashworthiness, with a low floor vehicle which is
          inherently less rigid than a high floor rail vehicle. There is also the issue of the low
          numbers of vehicle produced to date compared to both tram and rail products, which
          are either more standard products or substantively based upon them.

          TABLE 4.4                 TRAMTRAIN CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATE (2007 PRICES) LOWER COST
                                    INFASTRUCTURE AND VEHICLES

                                                             City Centre                    Industrial
          Element                                                                          Museum to                       Cost (Million)
                                                                                           Ashton Vale
                                                                                                                                                  12
          Vehicles dual Power                                                                                          £2.8 to 3.2 million
                                                                                                                               each
          Vehicle cost for 5 minute                                                                                           £28 million
          service (10 vehicles)
          Passenger Capacity                                                                                                   2960 / hr
          Infrastructure (Lower Track                            £49.6                          £40.4                        £90.0 million
          Cost)                                                                                                              (£12.7 / Km)
          Infrastructure with                                    £54.6                          £44.4                       £99.0 million
          Electrification (Lower Track                                                                                      (£13.9 / Km)
          Cost)
          TOTAL COST (Infrastructure                                                                                         £118 million
          (Lower Track Cost))



          TABLE 4.5                 TRAMTRAIN CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATE (2007                                                 PRICES)          TRAM
                                    INFRASTRUCTURE AND HIGHER COST VEHICLES

                                                             City Centre                    Industrial
          Element                                                                          Museum to                       Cost (Million)
                                                                                           Ashton Vale
          Vehicles dual Power                                                                                          £2.8 to 3.2 million 12
                                                                                                                               each
          Vehicle cost for 4 minute                                                                                           £32 million
          service (10 vehicles)
          Passenger Capacity                                                                                                   2960 / hr
          Infrastructure (Conventional                           £60.4                          £50.2                       £110.6 million
          UK Tram cost)                                                                                                      (£15.6 / Km)
          Infrastructure with                                    £66.4                          £55.2                       £121.6 million
          Electrification (Conventional                                                                                      (£17.1 / Km)
          UK Tram cost)
          TOTAL COST (Tram                                                                                                   £142 million
          Infrastructure Cost))




12
     Diesel Trams: A New Way forward, Modern Railways March 2007 quotes a figure of £1.9 million per vehicle.
     Contact with manufacturers and German operators suggest a much higher figure of between 2.8 and 3.2 million.


        \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



26
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



4.44           The costs show that a Tramtrain scheme including vehicles could be of the order of
               £120 to £142 million, it is important to note this is an initial estimate based on the
               Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route with no site inspection or engineering review of
               the feasibility. These costs are comparable to the outturn costs for tram schemes
               including vehicles of an average of approximately £12 million per km (see Table 4.6)
               with the on-street element costing up to £20 million per km excluding vehicles.

4.45           The developed costs do not include for land or optimism bias.

               TABLE 4.6                 CONSTRUCTED TRAM SYSTEM INFASTRUCTURE COSTS

                  System                                                        2007 Price              Length /km                    £m / km
                  Midland Metro                                                      £144                     20.4                      £7.04
                  Croydon                                                            £181                      28                       £6.46
                  Sheffield                                                          £225                      29                       £7.75
                  Manchester                                                         £251                      37                       £6.78
                  Nottingham                                                         £142                     14.3                      £9.91
                  Merseytram (cost estimate)                                         £334                     16.8                     £19.89
                  Edinburgh                                                          £423                     18.0                     £23.50
                  Average Cost                                                                                                         £11.62


4.46           The cost of off-street track construction on either disused rail alignments or similar
               open space would be of the order of £5 million to £7 million.

4.47           It is notable, from Table 4.6, that the cost of tram schemes in the UK has been rising
               significantly.

4.48           In developing the costs for the route it suggests that it would be as cost effective to
               provide a more convention tram system in place of the Tramtrain technology with its
               more expensive vehicle and the potential risks of its possible wider operation on other
               dedicated routes or the wider heavy rail network.

                Wider Route Network

4.49           A possible Tramtrain network is shown in Figure 4.6. This identifies two route
               corridors utilising both current freight only and passenger rail routes. The proposed
               routes would potentially raise a significant number of issues. The routes are in the
               main two tracks and would require Tramtrains to operate in conjunction with freight,
               local, longer distance and high speed services. The current rail network in the area is
               also capacity constrained, particularly given the short to medium term proposals for
               the rail network. Some of proposed Tramtrain routes are also proposed to operating
               on the mainlines and the diversionary routes for the mainlines, which could be
               difficult to achieve at any frequency and regularity in conjunction with high speed
               services. Having said this, the introduction of Tramtrains on local services would be
               likely to remove the conflicting heavy rail service in any event in order to provide the
               proposed objectives of Tramtrain, that being, higher frequencies at lower maintenance
               and operating costs.



\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 27
Technology Review


FIGURE 4.7                         POSSIBLE TRAMTRAIN NETWORK




4.50     The following issues would need to be addressed to assess the feasibility of these
         routes:

         •       Low platforms on heavy rail network (freight and heavy rail vehicle operation
                 through them).
         •       Available capacity.
         •       Operation in conjunction with high speed services, issue of differential speeds
         •       Frequency on single sections / Improvement works.


       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



28
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               •       Length of the proposed routes.
               •       Runtime, headway and timetable issues.
               •       Weekend working (Network Rail closures for maintenance).
               •       Service diversion routing.
               •       Rail operators delay penalty arrangements.
               •       Mix of train operation.
               •       Impact on existing operators.
               •       Impact on franchise arrangements.

4.51           A particular issue is the operation of a tram style service through the city centre and
               dedicated routes which would operate in the main on a headway basis and not a
               timetable and the need to operate to a timetable on the heavy rail network. This is a
               difficult arrangement to manage and can result in vehicles being held to regulate their
               access to the rail network, increasing runtimes.

4.52           The adoption of the same technology in place of some of the other proposed rapid
               transit routes would result in the need to revise the routes. For example the proposed
               route using the M32 would need to review the issues of completely segregated running
               from other road traffic or consider alternative routes altogether. The cost of dedicated,
               segregated infrastructure for such services would be comparable to tram system costs,
               which could be a more appropriate, cost effective mode in place of Tramtrain
               technology.

4.53           The ability to serve the wider West of England area would require the development of
               dedicated Tramtrain corridors requiring more extensive expensive infrastructure. The
               developing network would need to be integrated with bus services requiring additional
               infrastructure and potentially creating significant interchange penalties for multi mode
               journeys.

               Fit with Objectives

4.54           Mode shift – Extend choice / encourage shift to public transport, the provision of
               Tramtrain within the corridors would if not replacing an existing mode, would extend
               choice, improve the quality, reliability and potentially the frequency. Rail based
               modes are proven to encourage a higher shift to public transport than bus based
               modes.

4.55           Mode shift - Improve access to public transport, the development of Tramtrain
               routes would be within dedicated corridors, which would improve the access within
               the particular corridor. Mode shift from the wider network would be dependant on the
               integration of the routes with other public transport modes and could suffer from an in
               interchange penalty. Routes developed on the heavy rail network would only serve the
               existing station catchments as additional stations would be difficult to insert due to the
               interoperation with other services. The benefits to the wider region could therefore be
               limited.

4.56           Mode shift - Improve integration, the integration of Tramtrain operating on the
               existing rail or dedicated networks could improve integration and improve the number
               of seamless journey possibilities. The development of Tramtrain on the existing rail

\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 29
Technology Review



         network in the short to medium term look extremely limited, and are likely to be
         reliant on the results of the Penistone Trial.

4.57     Help reduce traffic congestion - Improve safety along transport routes, Tram and
         Tramtrains are inherently safe Public transport modes. Tramtrain has not been applied
         in the UK to date, but would not be progressed if the hazards of operating low floor
         vehicles are not removed or mitigated on the heavy rail network. The Penistone trial
         will hopefully resolve the potential issue of low platforms and low floor operation.

4.58     Help reduce traffic congestion - Increase network capacity, Tramtrain vehicle are
         high capacity and as such would significantly improve the network capacity within
         their corridors of operation.

4.59     Contribute towards economic growth – Promote Sustainable Development, The
         provision of another transport mode within the network would contribute towards the
         growth of the local economy. With the mode focused within a dedicated corridor the
         wider benefits of the system may be reduced, although the development of a wider
         Tramtrain network utilising the existing heavy rail network could provide wider
         benefits. This would be dependant on the development of Tramtrain in the UK.

4.60     Contribute towards economic growth – Promote social inclusion, the development
         of additional transport corridors would improve overall access to transport and their
         integrated with existing public transport modes would improve journey opportunities.
         Peoples would therefore have improved connectivity and ability to access employment
         and services.

4.61     In terms of affordability/deliverability, the capital costs for Tramtrain are likely to be
         far in excess of the funding currently identified in the Regional Funding Allocation
         (RFA).

4.62     Tramtrain trials on the heavy rail network are planned to conclude in 2012 with trials
         on LRT network potentially after that. Prior to understanding the results trials being
         undertaken by the rail industry, Tramtrain is likely to remain high cost and high risk.
         The Penistone trial will hopefully facilitate setting the vehicle standards for Tramtrain
         vehicles, which if the manufacturers are able and willing to provide a suitable vehicle
         depending upon the market demand could significantly de-risk future Tramtrain
         projects and potentially provide a competitive market. Operation of the first rapid
         transit route is programmed for 2013. Tramtrain is highly unlikely to happen before
         2016 and therefore is outside the current regional funding allocation programme.

4.63     The local contribution required by Central Government from the West of England
         Authorities could be 25% for Tramtrain as it is with tram schemes. If this was the case
         the four local authorities would be looking at a local contribution in the order of £30 to
         £36 million.




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



30
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               Light Weight Rail / Ultra Light Rail

4.64           Light Weight Rail / Ultra Light Rail (LWR/ULR) has been developed by Parry People
               Movers (PPM) as an intermediate mode between bus and tram and is being promoted
               by Sustraco/Ultra Light Rail as Hybrid Ultra Light Transit System (HULTS). The
               concept is to provide a lower cost intermediate mode which could run in place of
               existing branch line services on the national rail network or a low cost alternative to
               tram technology.

4.65           PPM uses a flywheel, which is accelerated up to approximately 2500 rpm as the main
               drive for the vehicle, this provides the torque needed to accelerate. The flywheel is
               accelerated up to speed with a small petrol engine converted to LPG, which is also
               used to propel the vehicle over longer distances once it is up to speed. The braking
               action of the vehicle is also utilised to recharge the flywheel, effectively a form of
               regenerative braking.

4.66           The system has been trialled on a number of routes and recently won its first order to
               supply two vehicles to operate the Stourbridge branch line service in place of the
               single diesel car used on the line currently and the PPM trial vehicle operated on
               Sundays, the two vehicles will enter service in December 2008 and will be operated
               by Pre Metro Operations Ltd part of the Parry Group for Midland Rail.

4.67           A site visit to Stourbridge was undertaken to review the PPM trial vehicle and discuss
               the Light Weight Rail concept with Parry People Movers.

4.68           ULR is reported by the promoters to require significantly lower cost infrastructure to
               that of a tram system, as it doesn’t require overhead power systems and potentially
               would not require the same level of utility diversions.

4.69           Information on HULTS has been provided by Scott Wilson on behalf of Bristol
               Electric Bus Ltd. Their report sets out proposals for Light Weight Rail from Bristol to
               Long Ashton Park and Ride13. This report is provided in Appendix B.

               Operation

4.70           The current operation of the Parry People Mover demonstration vehicle on the
               Stourbridge Branch line has a number of dispensations from Railway Group
               Standards, these have been achieved by the vehicle operating under exclusive running
               with physical measures employed to segregate the service from the heavy rail
               network, in effect being classed as physically separate from the heavy rail network
               while in operation (see levels of interaction discussed under Tramtrain from Paragraph
               4.12).

4.71           The PPM vehicle would not meet the Railway Group Standard for light rail vehicles
               operating on Network Rail infrastructure and as such is unlikely to be able to operate
               under limited exclusive running and would not be able to run under mixed running.



13
       The Hybrid Ultra Light Transit System (HULTS): An Alternative Proposal to Bus Rapid Transit from Bristol
       City Centre to Long Ashton Park and Ride, Scott Wilson, June 2008


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 31
Technology Review



            The PPM vehicle could be used on a Parallel Running route (a dedicated new corridor
            alongside a rail route) although the level of segregation may need to be reviewed due
            to the light weight construction of the vehicle and possible risk identified from either
            systems’ operation.

            Vehicles

4.72        The Parry People Mover vehicle has been developed from the idea of providing a low
            cost environmentally friendly vehicle, utilising a slow speed flywheel to provide the
            vehicles tractive power. The vehicle utilises a small LPG powered engine to charge
            the flywheel and supplement the tractive power to maintain the vehicles constant
            speed over longer distances. The LPG engine also provides the vehicles auxiliary
            supplies in conjunction with batteries. The vehicles are light weight, approximately 10
            tonnes with two fixed axles, one of which is powered. The design and manufacture of
            the vehicle attempts to utilises standard parts and equipment such as a Ford engine,
            bus windows and equipments etc, to both reduce cost and to ensure the maintainability
            of the vehicle.

            FIGURE 4.8                PARRY PEOPLE MOVER




4.73        The vehicle is RVAR14 compliant and is wheelchair accessible, the vehicle being
            equipped with single passenger access per side at opposite ends of the vehicle results
            in the need to provide sufficient space within the interior for a wheelchair to be able to
            negotiate the length of the vehicle between the doors. This results in a significant
            amount of floor space and minimal seating approximately 16 seats for a 50 passenger
            vehicle.

4.74        At the Stourbridge site visit the vehicle was operating over a short section of track,
            approximately 50 metres. The vehicle offered good acceleration and deceleration
            although the speed achieved was low and the vehicle was only laden with 6 people. It
            was notable that the vehicle suffered wheel slip when starting with the light laden




14
       Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations


          \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



32
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               weight.

4.75           The vehicles appeared relatively simple to operate although the speed of the LPG
               engine was manually controlled to increase the charging of the flywheel as required.
               The flywheel was noticeably recharged under braking and the vehicle was quiet both
               under acceleration and deceleration. The vehicle data provided suggest the vehicle is
               capable of similar performance levels to that of a tram, although the top speed of the
               vehicle is limited to 60kph.

4.76           The vehicle is not equipped with secondary suspension and with a fixed axle
               arrangement will rely on the quality of the track infrastructure for ride quality. Even
               with quality trackwork the ride quality at higher speeds is likely to suffer from the
               current single fixed axle arrangement as apposed to a vehicle equipped with bogies.

4.77           The vehicle can be produced as a medium floor height version achieving a boarding
               height of 450mm (this was used as the Bristol Electric Trial vehicle on the heritage
               railway route, as shown in Figure 4.8), this compares to a tram boarding height of
               approximately 330 mm and of approximately 340 mm without kneeling for a bus. A
               kneeling bus which is now a standard product would achieve a boarding height of
               approximately 150mm.

               FIGURE 4.9                BRISTOL ELECTRIC BUS VEHICLE (DEMONSTRATION PROJECT)




4.78           HULTS proposes a 60 passenger PPM low floor vehicle utilising two bogies, Figure
               4.9. The PPM bogie technology upon which the vehicle would rely is also currently a
               concept and has not been developed. The development of this vehicle would require a
               radical redesign of the current PPM vehicles and we understand this is proposed. The
               promoters propose the vehicles to have a high quality appearance/finish, Figure 4.10.




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 33
Technology Review


                                                                                                                                   13
         FIGURE 4.10               SCHEMATIC HYBRID ULTRA LIGHT TRAM SYSTEM – HULTS




                                                                  13
         FIGURE 4.11               PROPOSED HULTS




4.79     Operation of the vehicle with general traffic in an on-street environment has not been
         tested to date; it is therefore unclear how the vehicle will perform in this arrangement.
         It is also unclear if the current vehicle complies with the requirements of the Road
         Traffic Act to facilitate its operation on street.

4.80     Deliverability is a significant issue with this technology as to date only development
         vehicles have been produced and trialled on a number of short rail routes, where the
         vehicles operation can be segregated from other uses. The first two production
         vehicles are currently being built for the Stourbridge route and will go into service in
         December 2008 and are high floor vehicles with a boarding height of approximately
         900mm. The vehicle is also one of a kind which would raise the issue of sole provider
         and long term product support.

4.81     PPM proposes that a double vehicle could be produced to accommodate 100

       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



34
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               passengers, effectively based upon the joining of two PPM 50 vehicles. The joining of
               two vehicles is inherently complex. It is unclear how an articulated join of two
               vehicles would be achieved and the affect such an arrangement would have on ride
               quality and vehicle performance. The control of the vehicle would also become
               significantly more complex, requiring the vehicle to have a traction control package to
               monitor and control the two drive and brake systems, within the two sections.

4.82           The durability of the vehicle under continuous operation has also yet to be proved.
               The life of a Tramtrain or tram would be 30 years, it is not clear that the PPM vehicles
               could operate reliably over this timescale.

               TABLE 4.7                 PARRY PEOPLE MOVER VEHICLE DATA

                   Key Figures
                   Length                                                                                                                 8,700 mm
                   Width                                                                                                                  2,400 mm
                   Seats                                                                                                                         20-25
                   Standing                                                                                                                      30-35
                   Doors                                                                                                       1 double per side

                   Ordered / Supplied                                                                                                             2/0


4.83           The efficiency of the vehicle as described under Tramtrain is influenced by a number
               of factors. The fuel efficiency of the PPM vehicle benefits form the use of the
               flywheel technology to provide the accelerating torque for the vehicle, and store the
               vehicle braking energy, this has the potential to allow the supplementary LPG engine
               to run at more optimum speed to supplement the vehicle power and assist in
               recharging the flywheel while the vehicle is stationary. A full day service is expected
               to utilise approximately 150kg of propane (current vehicle fuel) though this would
               depend on the stopping distance and speed of the vehicle.

4.84           The vehicle could be operated with other engine packages using bio-fuels if required,
               to date this has not been provided or tested, although the same technologies are
               employed on buses around the world, which demonstrate the potential.

4.85           The PPM vehicle has the advantage of lower Rolling Resistance Coefficient which
               would be similar to light rail /Tramtrain at approximately 0.005. The advantages of
               this as with Tramtrain could be reduced by:

               •       Reduced tractive adhesion – the overall weight (including passengers) of the
                       vehicle is slightly lower at approximately 78% than that of a tram / Tramtrain. It
                       was though noticeable with a small load that the vehicle suffered from wheel slip.
                       Unlike a tram or Tramtrain the vehicle does not have a wheel slip / traction
                       control package to mitigate this issue, this is controlled by the driver of the
                       vehicle. On gradients the wheel slip issue could be an issue particularly if the
                       vehicle stopped for junction, stops etc. This could be a significant issue
                       particularly for potential routes to south and northwest in the Bristol urban area
                       where there are significant gradients.
               •       Vehicle Weight – including the weight of passengers is slightly lower than that
                       of a tram but slightly higher per passenger than that of an articulated bus.

\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                     35
Technology Review



            •       Short stopping distances – the vehicle as with the Tramtrain would benefit from
                    lower rolling resistance on longer routes, countering this would be the need for
                    the vehicle to utilise more energy from the supplementary LPG engine. On an
                    urban route the vehicle would though mainly be accelerating or braking, reducing
                    the benefit of the lower rolling resistance.

            Infrastructure

4.86        Track infrastructure is generally designed and procured separately from the vehicles
            and as such the development of the proposed track infrastructure for light weight rail
            has not been developed to the same level as the vehicle. Promoters of light weight rail
            propose a vastly reduced cost (70% lower) quoting a figure of below £3 million15 per
            single track kilometre, proposing this is due to the removal of the electrification
            system and reduced impact on utilities due to the removal of stray current issues.
            Clarification of the cost estimate has identified that the cost does not include for stop
            furniture and systems such as CCTV, help point or ticketing.

4.87        Table 4.8 shows a typical breakdown of a conventional tram scheme, with an average
            cost of £12m per km. Removing both the electrification and all the utilities cost would
            only account for a possible reduction of 33% in the cost of construction producing a
            track cost of approximately £8.04 million. The removal of all but the Site Preparation,
            Highway and Trackwork costs results in a cost of £4.8 million compared to the
            proposed £3 million rate.

4.88        The ORR has recently released guidance on track construction for tram systems,
            which could reduce the cost of construction (this is provided in Appendix C). Shallow
            rail profiles are also available which could also reduce the depth further although these
            are more expensive and more difficult to procure. Importantly the track construction
            within a highway needs to maintain the durability and loading required for the
            highway vehicles (40 tonnes) as well as LWR/ULR.

            TABLE 4.8                 TYPICAL COST BREAKDOWN FOR A TRAM SYSTEM

                                                                                                                  Cost Based on £12
                Description                                                 Percentage
                                                                                                                    Million per km
                Site Preparation                                                                   13%                                       £1.56
                Highway Works                                                                        7%                                      £0.84
                Utilities                                                                          20%                                       £2.40
                Trackwork                                                                          22%                                       £2.64
                Stops                                                                                7%                                      £0.84
                Traction Power                                                                     13%                                       £1.56
                Signalling and
                                                                                                   18%                                       £2.16
                Telecommunications
                Total                                                                            100%                                       £12.00




15
       Hybrid Ultra Light Transit System, Scott Wilson for Bristol Electric Railbus Ltd, June 2008


          \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



36
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



4.89           The need to divert utilities is a function of the depth of construction and also,
               importantly, continued access and serviceability to utility companies. To our
               knowledge there has not been a fixed rail system in the UK where utilities have not
               been moved. Local utility connections, water, gas, electricity, telecoms would need to
               be moved if the routes run parallel to and within the swept path of any proposed route
               to enable utility companies to access, maintain and provide connections to their
               equipment. The majority of access chambers would also need to be moved clear of the
               swept path of any system.

4.90           The proposed ULR track was discussed with local Utility providers at a meeting in
               July 2008. The representatives of the Utility Companies were not in principle against
               the concept of a track which could run on top of their assets within the highway but
               raised a number of issues:

               •       Services would need to be diverted or suspended when access or work were
                       required. This would need to be taken in to consideration in the development of
                       the track solution.
               •       Different consideration would need to be given in terms of access to utilities in
                       cases of planned and emergency requirements. By its nature planned works
                       would be easier to co-ordinate in terms of changes to services.
               •       Different consideration would need to be given to different types of assets i.e.
                       access to water and sewer systems has very different issues to
                       telecommunications equipment for example.
               •       Utility Companies would be looking to the owner of the track, the Local
                       Authorities, to be responsible for the reinstatement of the highway where this was
                       for example dug up for utility works to insure the risk of damage to the track
                       rested with the Local Authority.
               •       Utility Companies would be looking to the owner of the track, the Local
                       Authorities, to be responsible for paying for any reinstatement works.

4.91           The representatives of the HULTS technology at the meeting noted that they want to
               develop a track for ULR which meets the requirements of the Utility Companies
               without having to move their assets. The intention was to have ongoing engagement
               with the Utility Companies in this process.

4.92           Stray current is an issue for electrified systems but this is mitigated in the main by the
               use of encapsulated rails, floating earth systems and ensuring the quality of the
               traction return. The Scott Wilson report on Hybrid Ultra Light Rail comments that
               they would retain the use of encapsulated rail due to its properties in reducing noise
               and vibration. In relation to the overall cost electrification accounts for approximately
               13% of tram system costs.

4.93           Therefore a number of cost estimates for the development of the different technologies
               for the Ashton Vale route have been developed to provide a comparison against £3
               million per kilometre cost proposed by HULTS and the Scott Wilson Report.

               Application to the Ashton Vale Route

4.94           To provide a comparison of cost we have developed a cost for each of the
               technologies based on the development of the route from Temple Meads through the


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 37
Technology Review



         City Centre to Ashton Vale Park and Ride. The route is the same as detailed under
         Tramtrain. We have not carried out any evaluation of the technical feasibility of using
         this route for the individual technologies.

4.95     We have based the cost on the vehicle information provided and the lower track cost
         developed for the Tramtrain costs. We believe this to be reasonable assumption based
         on our knowledge of track construction.

4.96     The capacity provided for comparison is based on 3000 passengers in the peak hour as
         this would provide for some growth in passengers on the route, and initially provide a
         more comfortable vehicle loading. Although the journey time could be greater than 20
         minutes due to the vehicles lower top speed, for this review we have assumed the
         vehicle can match the Tramtrain and BRT performance. This results in a requirement
         for a 2.5 minute service frequency providing a capacity of approximately 2880. 18
         vehicles would be required to provide the service with spares. (Not withstanding
         previous commentary on the feasibility of linking two units). In our opinion, a service
         level of two minutes on a technology untested in passenger operations has
         considerable risks.

         Costs

4.97     Indicative capital cost estimates for Light Weight Rail vehicles and infrastructure
         costs for the Aston Vale route are shown in Table 4.8. The costs show that a (HULTS)
         Light Weight Rail Scheme could be of the order of £38 million (2007 prices), it is
         important to note this is an initial estimate based on the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads
         route with no site inspection or engineering review of the feasibility.

4.98     The deliverability of trackwork at such a low cost would need to be established, for
         comparison the capital cost when including an allowance for city centre highway and
         signalling costs would be £45 million. The capital cost based on a low cost tram style
         track would be of the order of £103 million this include the lower cost associated with
         ballasted track were this would be possible. A significant element of the route is on-
         street at approximately 4.5km of the 7.2km route.

         TABLE 4.9                 LIGHT WEIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 1 HULTS (2007 PRICES)

                                                         City Centre                    Industrial
         Element                                                                       Museum to                         Cost (Million)
                                                                                       Ashton Vale
         Vehicles 60 passengers                                                                                         £350,000 each
         Vehicle 120 Passengers                                                                                         £700,000 each
         Vehicle cost for 2.5 minute                                                                                      £12.6 million
         service (18 vehicles)
         Passenger Capacity                                                                                                  2880 / hr
         Infrastructure (HULTS)                             £12.5m                         £13.0m                         £25.5 million
         £3m/km +Structures                                                                                                (£3.6 / Km)
         TOTAL COST (HULTS)                                                                                               £38.1 million


4.99     The HULTS track estimate (£3 million /km) for the city centre section of the route


       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



38
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               significantly underestimates the costs involved, as a minimum we believe the city
               centre section would require a similar highway costs to that of the BRT scheme. These
               are included in Table 4.10.

               TABLE 4.10                LIGHT WEIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 2 REVISED HULTS
                                         (2007 PRICES)

                                                              City Centre                    Industrial
               Element                                                                      Museum to                         Cost (Million)
                                                                                            Ashton Vale
               Vehicles                                                                                                       £350,000 each
               Vehicle 120 Passengers                                                                                         £700,000 each
               Vehicle cost for 2.5 minute                                                                                      £12.6 million
               service (18 vehicles)
               Passenger Capacity                                                                                                 2880 / hr
               Infrastructure (HULTS)                             £12.5m                        £13.0m                          £25.5 million
               £3m/km +Structures                                                                                                (£3.6 / Km)
               Highway and signalling                             £7.0m                                                         £32.5 million
               costs                                                                                                             (£4.6 / Km)
               TOTAL COST                                                                                                       £45.1 million


4.100          For comparison a capital cost for the HULTS scheme including an infrastructure cost
               based on a low cost tram track without electrification is shown in Table 4.11.

               TABLE 4.11                LIGHT WEIGHT RAIL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 3 LOW COST TRAM
                                         STYLE INFRASTRUCTURE(2007 PRICES)

                                                              City Centre                    Industrial
               Element                                                                      Museum to                         Cost (Million)
                                                                                            Ashton Vale
               Vehicles                                                                                                       £350,000 each
               Vehicle 120 Passengers                                                                                         £700,000 each
               Vehicle cost for 2.5 minute                                                                                      £12.6 million
               service (18 vehicles)
               Passenger Capacity                                                                                                 2880 / hr
               Infrastructure (Low Cost                           £49.6m                        £40.4m                     £90.0 (£12.7 / Km)
               Tram not electrified)
               TOTAL COST                                                                                                         £102.6m


               Wider Route Network

4.101          The operation of a rail based vehicle on some of the proposed rapid transit would
               result in the need to revise the routes as operation of elements such as on the M32 , out
               to Bristol Airport etc. would need to be reviewed. Dedicated corridors would have to
               be developed, alongside or on alternative routes depending on land and feasibility.
               Routes developed would require infrastructure along their full length to be constructed
               to enable operation of this mode.




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 39
Technology Review



4.102     The ability to service the wider West of England area would require interchange with
          bus services.

          Fit with Objectives

4.103     Mode Shift – Extend choice / encourage shift to public transport, as an additional
          mode within the transport network Light Weight Rail would generate mode shift, this
          will though depend on the reliability, quality and image of the system, and its
          integration with the wider network. With a larger vehicle and a service frequency
          providing similar capacity to that of a tram the technology could achieve a mode shift
          close to that of a tram system. The interchange penalty could significantly affect the
          level of mode shift generated from integration of the route with the wider bus
          network.

4.104     Mode Shift – Improve access to public transport, as standalone routes the
          technology would improve access to public transport in the corridors developed. Mode
          shift and access in the wider network would be dependant on the integration of the
          corridors with the existing public transport modes, which could suffer from an
          interchange penalty.

4.105     Mode Shift – Improve Integration, it is likely the technology would be provided
          within dedicated corridors. Integration with the city centre destinations, other bus
          services and Bristol temple Meads station is likely to be very expensive. Integration
          would be dependant on the routes developed and as such would need to be a key
          objective when developing routes. If a city centre network was to be progressed
          integrated with rail and bus stations, integration could be good.

4.106     Help reduce traffic congestion - Improve safety along transport routes, the mode
          to date has been trialled on segregated sections of rail alignments, none of which have
          been on street with traffic. It has operated safely on these routes and there is nothing to
          suggest that the technology would not improve safety in the transport network.
          Although when running on-street it would mix with other traffic and would be unable
          to avoid other vehicles or obstructions on a route, delaying services.

4.107     Help reduce traffic congestion - Increase network capacity, the current low
          capacity of the vehicle against other modes significantly affects the performance of the
          technology in relation to the overall network capacity. This in part can be improved
          through increased service frequency although this will increase the capital and more
          importantly operating costs for the routes. There also becomes a point where increased
          frequency impacts upon the operation of the system with vehicles being delayed by
          other vehicles increasing the journey time and potentially increasing the infrastructure
          required to operate and regulate the service.

4.108     Contribute towards economic growth – Promote sustainable development, the
          provision of another transport mode within the network would contribute towards the
          growth of the local economy. With the mode focused within a dedicated corridor the
          wider benefits of the system may be reduced and would be reliant on its integration
          with other modes. The vehicles limited capacity could also limit the modes ability to
          deliver a long term increasing contribution, as the capacity of the route or network is
          reached.

        \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



40
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



4.109          Contribute towards economic growth – Promote social inclusion, the development
               and integration of an additional mode would improve journey opportunities, which
               would improve peoples connectivity and their ability to access employment and
               services.

4.110          In terms of affordability/deliverability, the capital costs for LWR/ULR are likely to
               be in excess of the funding currently identified in the Regional Funding Allocation
               (RFA). The risks of the technology will be better understood once there is some
               operational experience after the Stourbridge vehicles go in to service in December
               2008. Operation of the first rapid transit route is programmed for 2013. Development
               of a ULR vehicle and track is in our opinion likely to be outside these timescales.

4.111          The local contribution required from Central Government from the West of England
               Authorities could be 25% as it is with tram schemes. If this was the case the four local
               authorities would be looking at a local contribution in the range from £10 to £26
               million.

               Bus Rapid Transit

4.112          Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) aims to deliver the characteristics of fixed rail systems but
               with bus-based technology. It consists of a variety of physical measures in conjunction
               with operational and system elements such as a segregated alignment, high quality
               dedicated vehicles, improved stop infrastructure, on-street priority, improved
               passenger information and high frequency services. The BRT concept benefits
               significantly from its flexibility and is both adaptable at inception and over time to
               meet the changing needs of urban conurbations.

               Different Types of Bus Rapid Systems

4.113          The application of BRT system design has been applied to a number of different
               schemes with differing bus technologies. Some of these systems are guided and some
               are unguided systems. Guided systems come in three main types:

               •       Mechanical or physical guidance – kerb guided or slot guided.
               •       Optical guidance – CIVIS optical system.
               •       Electronic guidance – inductive buried wire (no longer promoted), magnets.

4.114          Table 4.9 summarises the different types of BRT systems.

               Kerb Guided Bus Systems

4.115          Kerb Guidance - After the initial development of guided bus ways in Essen (Germany)
               and Adelaide in the early 1980s, the first application in the UK was introduced in
               Birmingham in 1984 on the Short Heath guided busway demonstration project
               (TracLine 65). Although later abandoned, this was only ever intended as a
               demonstration of the technology. It led to other, commercial applications in the UK
               and these are currently in successful operation in Leeds (two corridors), Bradford,
               Ipswich, Crawley and Edinburgh, with a further schemes planned for Cambridgeshire,
               Luton and Leigh. There also schemes under development in London.



\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 41
Technology Review



4.116     Kerb guided bus systems operate in a number of locations across the world. A trial
          system was created in Essen, Germany, and a full-scale system was built in a corridor
          of Adelaide, Australia.

4.117     In the UK, there are currently four examples in operation:

          •       West Yorkshire; three separate alignments, 2 in Leeds, 1 in Bradford;
          •       A 200m section at Ipswich;
          •       Gatwick Fastway in Crawley; and the
          •       Edinburgh WEBS system (this will be replaced this Autumn by the Edinburgh
                  Tram Line 1).

4.118     The Crawley Fastway system sells itself as being ‘intelligent integrated transport’. The
          vehicles are equipped with automatic vehicle location systems that help maintain
          schedules and provide on-board real-time information. In addition, on Phase 1, there
          are 2,200m of segregated bus lane, 650m of guided busway and seven modified bus
          friendly junctions to enhance the attractiveness of the service. Once all phases are
          completed there will be 2.5km of guided busway within a route length of 24km.

4.119     Both phases one and two of the Crawley Fastway are now complete and the system
          has been more successful than anticipated, with patronage 40% higher than forecast16.

4.120     The first guided busway in Leeds was constructed over a four year period but the
          second scheme, in the east of the city, was built in one phase in approximately 18
          months.

4.121     The construction quality of a number of these systems has resulted in a requirement
          for remedial works and poor ride quality particularly when double deck buses are
          employed due the induced sway of the vehicle.

          ‘Slot’ Guided Bus Systems

4.122     Central Rail guided systems are rubber-tyred systems, which are held in place by a
          single central guiderail fitted into the roadway. Power can be distributed by overhead
          wires or by battery (diesel is also a possibility). Referred to as “trams on tyres”, the
          original intention was for vehicles to operate on or off the guideway, however
          technical issues with engaging and disengaging with the central rail have meant that
          all the systems are only operating in guided mode.

4.123     Rubber-tyred systems which use a single, central guiderail have been developed by
          two known suppliers: Bombardier and Lohr Industries.

4.124     Bombardier's Guided Light Transit (GLT) has been developed as a hybrid of Light
          Rapid Transit and conventional buses. An LRT-style body is carried on normal rubber
          tyres and guided by means of a single, central, retractable guide-wheel running in a
          metal groove mounted flush with the road surface, similar to a tram rail. As such, GLT



16
     Study of High Quality Buses in Leeds, Atkins, 2005


        \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



42
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               has the same advantages and disadvantages as a tram when in guided mode.
               Bombardier systems are currently being operated in Caen and Nancy. The vehicles
               and system is currently not being offered to new clients.

4.125          The Translohr system is the newer of the two systems and was developed by Lohr
               Industrie and Fiat-ferrovia,. The general principles of operation are similar to GLT and
               the Translohr is currently being tested on the Trans Val-de-Marne commercial busway
               in Paris. It differs from the GLT primarily in the way that the vehicle grips the rail -
               Translohr claim that their less direct gripping mechanism (two guidewheels grip the
               central rail at a 45% inclination) results in better performance characteristics. The
               GLT system imposes all the load downwards, resulting in greater friction and force
               onto the guideway. Hence, the rail needs to be fixed more than the Translohr, which
               is simply glued to the road surface. The Translohr system claims that the rail load is
               25% less than the GLT (1 tonne) and this causes less friction that can result in better
               braking and acceleration.

4.126          There is also a difference in the design of the vehicles themselves, with the wheels for
               the Translohr being housed in hidden bogies to allow maximum interior space. The
               vehicles are lighter than GLT and, generally, the specification is more sophisticated.

4.127          The tramway in Nancy derailed several times. It suffered serious problems and as a
               result, the service was interrupted several times then suspended for several months.

4.128          There are concerns that translor system suffers too from safety concerns. It seems that
               there is an inherent instability to the rear section of a Central Rail guided vehicle
               particularly when moving from guided to non-guided mode.

               Optical Guidance

4.129          The CiViS vehicle system is based on optical guidance and has been developed by a
               partnership between Matra (95% owned by Siemens) and IrisBus (created by the
               merger of the bus and coach divisions of Iveco and Renault).

4.130          The optical guidance system includes a camera mounted in front of the steering wheel,
               which can read coded markings painted on the road indicating the path to be followed,
               and an image processor that detects and corrects. The optical guidance system can in
               theory be built into any type of vehicle.

4.131          The CiViS vehicle system has been implemented in several French cities, including
               Lyon, Rouen, Clermond-Ferrand and Grenoble and in Las Vegas, USA. The bespoke
               vehicles are due to be replaced on the Las Vegas system due to their poor reliability.

               Electronic guidance – Wire Guidance

4.132          The “ELTRAC” system was developed by Cegelec/AEG systems; this is now Alstom.
               Two wires 300mm apart are laid 50-150 mm below the road surface. These carry
               audio frequency, low-intensity currents derived from wayside frequency generators.
               The currents produce a magnetic field and an antenna mounted on the bus behind the
               front bumper senses the magnetic field. If the bus deviates from the centreline of the
               path, horizontal components of the magnetic field are also sensed. The steering is
               operated to bring the bus back onto the required path.

\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 43
Technology Review



4.133     From 1983 to 1985, the system was in use on a standard articulated city bus in Fürth,
          Germany, in a regular public service along a two-lane, 1.5km route. From 1989, the
          Eurotunnel Transmanch link service tunnel used this system on a total of 100km of
          guideway, allowing vehicles passing in less than 100 mm side by side. The system has
          less success in less enclosed environments.

4.134     This technology was demonstrated on a bus in trials in Newcastle in 1996 and was
          selected for use on the Millennium Transit system, but was abandoned when the
          technology proved unreliable on the prototype vehicle. Following the Millennium
          transit problems, Alstom has deemed that the business case for wire guidance is not
          strong enough for further development and, thus, has no longer offer this product.

4.135     In 2000, GEC Alstrom and London Transport sought HMRI certification to operate
          the bus service to the Dome, but failed because of their electronic guidance system.
          Meanwhile, TDI has been developing an alternative form of electronic guidance called
          ‘Safeguide’.




        \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



44
                                                                                                                               Technology Review


TABLE 4.12                               DIFFERENT TYPES OF BRT SYSTEMS

 Bus / Busway
 Buses are the most common form of high-density public transport
 worldwide. They can serve a wide range of needs from low
 frequency or demand-responsive routes in low-density areas to high
 frequency trunk services on major corridors. Busways are continuous
 bus lanes providing a completely segregated but not physically
 constrained alignment.


 Kerb-Guided
 A kerb-guided system requires the construction of a segregated
 guide-way with vertical guiderails (kerbs) on either side, which allows
 conventional buses fitted with guidewheels to be guided along the
 route.



 Central Rail Guidance
 Central Rail guided systems are rubber-tyred systems, which are
 held in place by a single central guiderail fitted into the roadway.
 Power can be distributed by overhead wires or by battery (diesel is
 also a possibility. Two central guiderail systems have been
 developed by two known suppliers: Bombardier and Lohr Industries.

 Optical Guidance (CiViS)
 The CiViS system includes a camera mounted in front of the steering
 wheel, which can read coded markings painted on the road
 indicating the path to be followed, and an image processor that
 detects and corrects to ensure vehicles maintain their alignment. The
 optical guidance system can in theory be built into any type of
 vehicle.
 Wire Guidance
 Wire guidance systems have two wires 300mm apart, laid 50-150
 mm below the road surface which carry audio frequency, low-
 intensity currents derived from wayside frequency generators. The
 currents produce a magnetic field that is sensed via an antenna. If
 the bus deviates from the centreline of the path, horizontal
 components of the magnetic field are also sensed. The steering is
 then operated to bring the bus back onto the required path.

 Phileas
 The Phileas system is based on magnetic plugs in the road surface
 that provide and correct the vehicle route information via a GPS
 device. Phileas vehicles are currently double-articulated with rear
 wheel steering which reduces the swept-path of the vehicle
 compared with regular articulated vehicles.

 STREAM
 The STREAM system combines guidance and electrical power
 pickup from a buried power strip set into the road surface. The power
 strip comprises an assembly with a series of electrical contact points
 which are energised only when the vehicle is directly above. They
 are earthed at other times and pose no hazard to pedestrians and
 other road users. A shoe on the vehicle connects to the live contacts
 with a feed back to the steering mechanism.




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 45
Technology Review



          Electronic guidance – Phileas

4.136     Phileas vehicles have an electronic lane assistance and precision docking system with
          all-wheel steering vehicles. The system is based on magnetic plugs in the road surface
          that provide and correct the routing information. Phileas works with speeds up to 80
          km/hr and under most weather conditions, even with snow on the road surface. While
          driving in automatic mode, the Phileas automatically follows a predetermined
          trajectory, so that the lane-width required is small, only 6.4 m for two-way dedicated
          lanes at 70 km/h. The system is still at the development stage and is not in full
          commercial operations.

          Electronic guidance – STREAM

4.137     Ansaldo Breda has developed a system which combines guidance and electrical power
          pickup from a buried power strip set into the road surface. This system is seen
          primarily as a means of providing continuous electric power without the need for a
          visually intrusive overhead line. As with all the other systems, it has the ability to
          detach itself from the guideway, but there are no specific details of how quickly the
          vehicle can re-connect to the contact line.

4.138     The power strip comprises an assembly with a series of electrical contact points which
          are energised only when the vehicle is directly above. They are earthed at other times
          and pose no hazard to pedestrians and other road users. A shoe on the vehicle
          connects to the live contacts and the adjacent earthed return contacts. The system
          which maintains the alignment of the shoe relative to the power strip can feed back
          guidance signals to the steering system in a similar manner to the other systems
          described.

4.139     Although initial test systems have been implemented in Naples and Trieste (3km), the
          system is not in full commercial operation and is still at the testing stage. Therefore, it
          is impossible to understand how it performs in an urban commercial environment, and
          the only information available is from the supplier.

          BRT System Attributes

          Operation

4.140     Segregation from other traffic can be through the provision and use of dedicated
          infrastructure, or the provision of lanes within or alongside the existing highway
          network. The level of segregation can be provided incrementally over time, potentially
          in conjunction with other transport or highway improvements, though it is usually
          important to ensure that the BRT routes are provided with sufficient segregation at the
          outset to enable them to bypass congestion and attain consistent journey times in
          operation.

4.141     Signal priority systems at junctions can used to allow vehicles to the front of traffic or
          through the provision of a dedicated BRT routes across junctions. Signal priority is
          often controlled through the use of on vehicle system which monitor the vehicles
          performance to timetable or headway to provide varying priority based on the vehicles
          progress on an individual route.


        \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



46
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



4.142          High quality stop infrastructure similar to that utilised on tram schemes are often
               provided in conjunction with on stop ticket, passenger information, help points and
               CCTV to provide a significant differentiator to normal service and reinforce the
               image, quality and performance of a route.

4.143          Low floor vehicles in conjunction with a raised platforms can provide step free, gap
               free vehicle boarding, improve accessibility and improve boarding and alighting times.
               In combination with the stop furniture it also aids the differentiation of the system.
               The location and orientation of the stop platforms needs to provide straight entry to
               enable vehicles to consistently dock accurately with the stop infrastructure similar to
               rail based systems.

4.144          BRT systems in utilising more standard vehicle technology, which can be more
               readily purchased, with shorter delivery times. Vehicles, other than BRT services, can
               utilise BRT infrastructure. The quality of vehicles and services can be ensured the
               setting of services or quality standards as a requirements to access the BRT
               infrastructure.

               Vehicles

4.145          A variety of vehicles are capable of being used on BRT systems, some of these are
               shown in Figure 4.12. The quality of vehicles continues to improve and develop due
               the scale of the market. hybrid diesel electric vehicles and zero emission vehicles are
               becoming more prevalent with more manufactures bringing products to the market.
               BRT systems such as the Las Vegas MAX system promoting these newer technologies
               through the adoption of Wright Bus hybrid vehicles, replacing the existing Civis
               vehicles. Different fuel options are further discussed in Section 6.

4.146          The choice of vehicle will be governed by the type of infrastructure, the required
               capacity of the network and the environmental consideration. The choice of vehicle
               needs to take note of the overarching requirements of BRT systems such as emission
               standards, low floor and accessible, sufficient door width and capacity to minimise
               dwell times at stops and operational reliability.

4.147          A good example of vehicle choice, it the Mercedes Citaro vehicle on Nantes Line 4, in
               France see Figure 4.11. The vehicle is a standard Citaro 18-metre articulated vehicle
               with 4 double doors, the first three of which provide level boarding. The vehicle has
               been adapted very slightly from the standard vehicle to provide roofline cowling to
               hide the air-conditioning units and provide a more streamlined profile and with a
               drivers screen provided within the vehicle as the fare collection system is off vehicle.
               The vehicle has then been branded to provide a differentiating image from the local
               services.

4.148          To provide gap free, step free boarding the choice of vehicle will need to be
               considered in relation to the stop location and design as longer vehicles may need a
               greater length of straight road or alignment prior to the stop to ensure accurate vehicle
               docking.




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 47
Technology Review


         FIGURE 4.12               DIFFERENT TYPES OF POTENTIAL BRT VEHICLES




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



48
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



4.149          The fuel efficiency of the vehicle is influenced by a number of factors. In relation to
               bus technology this will be influenced more by the choice of propulsion, which would
               generally be down to the environmental requirements, which in turn would affect the
               price of the vehicle. Technologies such as hydrogen vehicles would be similar to
               electric trams in that there would be no detrimental emissions at the point of use.

4.150          Bus technology has greater rolling resistance than rail based technologies with a
               Rolling Resistance Coefficient of approximately 0.03. Again this is affected by a
               number of factors.

               FIGURE 4.13               NANTES LINE 4 CITARO VEHICLE




               •       Improved tractive adhesion – Unlike the rail based mode rubber tyred vehicle
                       have a higher rolling resistance allowing the vehicle to deliver more tractive
                       effort to the wheels potentially improving the performance of the vehicles
                       acceleration and deceleration. This is limited by the acceptable jerk rate imposed
                       on passenger, a passenger comfort issue.
               •       Vehicle weight – The vehicle weight per passenger for an articulated bus is
                       slightly lower than that of a PPM vehicle and 75% of that of a Tramtrain.
               •       Short stopping distances – The vehicle again would be operating in an urban
                       network and would mainly be accelerating or braking, the same as the other
                       modes considered, and issue would be whether the vehicle made use of braking
                       energy which is not the case for standard diesel bus packages currently.

4.151          In relation to all the modes considered the operating cost are more affected by
               personnel costs which vary with the differing requirements and levels of
               responsibility.

               Infrastructure

4.152          BRT schemes benefit from their flexibility to utilise the existing highway network in
               conjunction with dedicated or segregated provision. The infrastructure requirements
               will vary depending on the aim, objectives and constraints on each route. It can


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 49
Technology Review



          include on street operation, both with traffic and on dedicated corridors or within bus
          lanes, dedicated unguided highway and guided routes to minimise land take and
          maximise operational speed.

4.153     BRT systems successfully operating are either busways (unguided) or kerb guided
          busways. The latter has been constructed using either standard kerb components,
          slipform guide-ways or concrete beam guideways. The selection of construction type
          depends on cost, physical constraints of geometry/topography and desired ride quality.
          Quality of BRT infrastructure has been variable depending on the type of construction.

4.154     Busways use standard road construction. Access to the busway on corridors can
          restricted to the BRT vehicles. On-street systems can utilise dedicated bus lane or
          operate with traffic such as with tram or LWR/ULR. ON the on-street sections,
          vehicles can steer around obstructions such as utility works, parked vehicles etc.

          Ashton Vale Proposals

4.155     We have utilised the Ashton Vale proposals for the corridor, utilising the city centre
          arrangement set out under the Tramtrains section. The route would run on street within
          the city centre running in part alongside and on street on Cumberland Road before
          running on a dedicated alignment through to Ashton Vale. We have not carried out a
          review of these proposals or any evaluation of the technical feasibility of using this
          route for the individual technologies.

          Costs

4.156     The cost estimates for the Aston Vale to Temple Meads BRT route have been
          provided and are included with the cost of standard articulated vehicles in Table 4.10.
          The costs show that a BRT Scheme could be of the order of £24 million (2007 prices)
          when utilising an 18 metre articulated diesel powered vehicle . We have not reviewed
          the cost estimate provided other than to compare the cost per kilometre based on other
          schemes and the scope of works involved, we have not carried out a site inspection or
          engineering review of the feasibility.

          TABLE 4.13                BUS RAPID TRANSIT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (2007 PRICES) DIESEL
                                    ARTICULATED VEHICLE

                                                          City Centre                    Industrial
          Element                                                                       Museum to                         Cost (Million)
                                                                                        Ashton Vale
          Vehicles (18 metre                                                                                             £220,000 each
          Articulated diesel vehicle)
          Vehicle cost for 2.5 minute                                                                                      £3.96 Million
          service (18 vehicles)
          Passenger Capacity                                                                                                  2880 / hr
          Infrastructure                                         7                             13                   £20 Million (£2.8 / Km)
          TOTAL COST                                                                                                        £24 million


4.157     For comparison the cost associated with the a BRT scheme utilising a hybrid vehicle
          are shown in Table 4.14.


        \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



50
                                                                                                                               Technology Review


               TABLE 4.14                BUS RAPID TRANSIT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (2007 PRICES) HYBRID
                                         ARTICULATED VEHICLE

                                                              City Centre                    Industrial
               Element                                                                      Museum to                         Cost (Million)
                                                                                            Ashton Vale
               Vehicles (18 metre                                                                                             £350,000 each
               Articulated hybrid vehicle)
               Vehicle cost for 2.5 minute                                                                                      £6.30 Million
               service (18 vehicles)
               Passenger Capacity                                                                                                 2880 / hr
               Infrastructure (Lower                                  7                             13                  £20 Million (£2.8 / Km)
               Track Cost)
               TOTAL COST                                                                                                        £26 million


               Wider Route Network

4.158          BRT has the benefit over rail based modes that it can be more flexible, with BRT
               routes making use of segregation out of the city and then continuing to cover elements
               of the wider network, leveraging greater benefits from capital investment. It is also
               possible to provide the priority for both the core and wider network incrementally to
               either counter the effects of congestion or improve the journey time and reliability of
               the routes.

4.159          BRT, in able to operate on the existing road network without infrastructure works,
               could operate on the M32, A38 to Bristol International Airport and A4 to Bath where
               other rail based modes would need additional infrastructure built, significantly
               increasing the cost.

4.160          Capacity can be a constraint on BRT schemes with a vehicle capacity of an articulated
               bus based vehicle approximately half that of a tram. The capital cost difference
               between the two modes though is also significant.

               Fit with Objectives

4.161          Mode Shift – Extend choice / encourage shift to public transport, the development
               of a BRT route within a corridor would both provide an additional mode and the
               potential for service from the wider network to join the corridor and benefit from the
               segregation and priority. Such an arrangement has the potential to provide greater
               mode shift due to the wider network although fixed rail systems do, to date, provide a
               greater mode shift than BRT systems.

4.162          Mode Shift – Improve access to public transport, the development of a new
               corridor in conjunction with the wider network access would provide both route
               specific and wider access.

4.163          Mode Shift – Improve Integration, the operation of both a dedicated core service
               and the wider route network would improve the level of integration on both the wider
               network at the points they connect with the route and provide improved integration
               where the routes connects with the exist public transport network.


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 51
Technology Review



4.164     Help reduce traffic congestion - Improve safety along transport routes, the
          development of a high capacity transport route on segregated alignments, encouraging
          mode shift would improve safety.

4.165     Help reduce traffic congestion - Increase network capacity, the operation of high
          capacity vehicle both on dedicated corridors and the wider network would
          significantly improve network capacity.

4.166     Contribute towards economic growth – Promote sustainable development, the
          provision of an additional mode within the network and the development of
          complimentary BRT services gaining advantage from the segregated BRT route,
          would provide improved connectivity over route specific modes and therefore have
          the potential to facilitate sustainable development over a wider area.

4.167     Contribute towards economic growth – Promote social inclusion, the improved
          connectivity of the dedicated routes and the wider connectivity would significantly
          improve peoples connectivity and their ability to access employment and services.

4.168     In terms of affordability/deliverability, the capital costs for BRT are within the
          funding currently identified in the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA), although it is
          fair to say that BRT has been costed historically for the RFA as it is identified as the
          technology in the Joint Local Transport Plan. The risks of the technology are more
          similar to other major highway schemes and therefore more familiar to Local
          Authorities in delivering the works required.

4.169     The local contribution required from Central Government for bus related schemes is
          usually 10%. The four local authorities would be looking at a local contribution in the
          order of £2 million to £2.5 million.




        \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



52
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



5.             COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT

5.1            The aspects and issues of individual technology have been review in terms of the
               general technology and its adoption and application in a UK context. Their
               application on the Ashton Vale route in terms of their cost and any specific issues
               identified and the wider implications and issues of the possible adoption on parts of a
               wider Bristol rapid transit network.

5.2            This section draws together the technology review section to provide a comparative
               assessment of the technologies against the main headings covered in each technology

               Operation

               Tramtrain

5.3            There are no operating Tramtrain systems in the UK, with the first trial due to start on
               the Penistone Line in 2010 through to 2012. The closest style of system to date in the
               UK is the shared running of Tyne and Wear Metro, which highlighted the
               complexities of mixed operation of light rail vehicles on the existing heavy rail
               network.

5.4            The adoption of the technology in the UK currently raises significant deliverability
               risks, particularly the operation of low floor platforms on heavy rail routes. In the
               West of England area the majority of the available rail routes are or will be capacity
               constrained which would significantly limit the potential for its adoption, without
               impacting upon existing suburban and inter-suburban services.

               Light Weight Rail

5.5            The technology to date is in its infancy and has only been demonstrated on segregated
               sections of railway. The demonstration vehicle is operated under exclusive running on
               the Stourbridge branch line on Sundays. PPM’s first order for 2 vehicles will replace
               the existing rail service from December 2008, again operating under exclusive
               running.

5.6            The vehicle is not suitable for Tramtrain style operation and would not be able to
               share trackwork with other rail vehicles.

5.7            The concept of Light Weight Rail operation similar to tram operation has not been
               trialled to date, and raises significant deliverability risks, there isn’t currently a
               suitable low floor vehicle (300 to 350mm boarding height) and the cost estimates
               proposed for the track infrastructure and the associated assumptions are as yet
               untested.

               Bus Rapid Transit

5.8            BRT is in operation in the UK and has been deliverable in a variety of formats, on
               street, guided, unguided and combinations of these. The mode is the most flexible of
               those reviewed due to its ability to both operate on dedicated corridors as well as
               operate on the wider road network, connecting with dedicated routes at point along
               their length to leverage wider benefits from any infrastructure provided.

\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 53
Technology Review



5.9      A variety of vehicles are also available from a significant number of manufactures,
         with varying capacities. These are also available with a variety of engine / traction
         packages providing reducing levels of emissions through to zero emission vehicles at
         the point of operation, although this has to be balanced against the cost of the vehicle.

         Vehicles

         Tramtrain

5.10     A number of vehicle manufacturers have developed and supplied vehicles to systems
         in mainland Europe. No vehicles have been trialled or specifically developed for the
         UK market to date.

5.11     Competition does potentially exist in this market and the current vehicle standards that
         these comply with may well be adaptable for the UK rail network. The forthcoming
         procurement and trial of the technology on the Penistone route through to 2012, will
         hopefully resolve these issues.

         Light Weight Rail

5.12     The PPM vehicle which the promoters of the technology have based their proposals on
         has been and continues to be developed by Parry People Movers with prototype high
         floor vehicles (currently being trialled on the Stourbridge route) and a medium floor
         height vehicle (450mm).

5.13     A true low floor vehicle has yet to be developed, it has been proposed that this would
         utilise two bogies in place of the existing fixed axle arrangement. The bogie
         technology for this style of vehicle is also yet to be developed. The capacity of the
         vehicle at between 50 and 60 people is low and reduced its potential market, a larger
         vehicle based on the joining of two vehicles is proposed. This is again undeveloped
         and would be significantly complex to develop due to the articulation of the body
         sections and more so the control of the two traction packages.

5.14     The deliverability of a suitable vehicle would be a significant risk to any project in the
         medium, along with the maturity of the technology. There is also the issue of PPM
         being the only supplier of this style of vehicle.

5.15     For ULR the vehicle uses the same principle as the Hybrid Bus, it uses a constant
         speed engine with a power store (the flywheel). A fully laden bus is 28 tonnes, a
         comparable PPM vehicle would be about 30 tonnes so it is likely that the emissions
         for a ULR are going to be close to that of a Hybrid Bus. (An important point is that if
         ULR were to use a vehicle with bogies which is what appears to be suggested the
         vehicle weight would be a lot heavier, which would impact on performance or
         emissions). ULR can use LPG, bio fuels etc. Buses could use the same fuels.

         Bus Rapid Transit

5.16     A variety of vehicles are available from a significant number of manufactures, with
         varying capacities. These are also available with a variety of engine / traction
         packages providing reducing levels of emissions through to zero emission vehicles at
         the point of operation, although this has to be balanced against the cost of the vehicle.

       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



54
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               Infrastructure

               Tramtrain

5.17           The infrastructure required for Tramtrain on any dedicated infrastructure would be
               similar to that for a tram system. The recent ORR guidance on tram track construction
               could also provide an opportunity to reduce the cost of construction through the
               adoption of a slimmer form of track construction compared to those constructed to
               date in the UK.

5.18           The connection and operation of the technology on the heavy rail network raises a
               significant number of issues. The technology has not been implemented in the UK the
               use of low floor platforms on the heavy rail network raises significant risk where high
               floor vehicle would operate through them. Where capacity does not exist on existing
               route, significant infrastructure or signalling works may be required to facilitate their
               operation.

5.19           The deliverability of Tramtrain in the UK would be high risk other than on very low
               used routes.

               Light Weight Rail

5.20           The promoters provide very little detailed information on how they propose to
               construct the trackwork for the £3 million per track km for on-street track. The
               suggestion is that the track slab would be a slimmer construction due to the vehicle
               weight and that they wouldn’t need to move utilities as the system doesn’t use
               overhead electrification and hence doesn’t have any stray current issues.

5.21           The weight issue is related to axle weight and work out at about 70% of that of a tram
               at about 8 to 9 tonnes, a tram is between 10 and 12 tonnes. It would be advisable to
               construct track to the higher weight to allow for the possible implementation of trams
               in the future.

5.22           The need to move utilities is not particularly driven by electrification and stray current
               it is driven by the need for utilities to access their equipment to provide connection,
               maintain and repair. Access chambers for the majority of utilities would need to be
               moved clear of the swept path of the vehicle and in particular the rails to allow their
               construction.

5.23           A great deal of dialog with the utility companies has been undertaken on the
               Edinburgh system currently under construction and a risk based approach developed
               to try to minimise utility diversion. In practice when it came to getting agreement this
               has proved extremely difficult resulting in the majority of the utilities having to be
               moved to keep to programme.

5.24           If a significantly lower cost of track was achievable it is unclear why this wouldn’t
               have already or a least in part been adopted on tram schemes. The deliverability of on-
               street trackwork within the proposed estimates therefore appears to be a high risk.

5.25           A more conventional tram style track construction would be achievable but would be
               significantly more expensive.

\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 55
Technology Review



         Bus Rapid Transit

5.26     The construction and cost of unguided BRT system is similar to that of highway
         construction, the associated costs are therefore well known and the associated
         construction risks greatly reduced.

5.27     The construction of guided BRT varies depending on the form of construction, a
         variety of solution exist, these include slipform, slab and kerb and concrete beam
         construction all of which have been utilised in the UK and have been proven to be
         constructed within the cost estimates.

5.28     The BRT routes also have the advantage of being able to be operated on the existing
         highway network.

         Application to Ashton Vale

5.29     The individual technologies have been assessed against their adoption on the Ashton
         Vale route to identify any implementation or operational issues and cost estimates
         developed.

         Comparison of cost for Aston Vale route

5.30     A comparison of the cost estimates developed is shown in Table 5.1. The lowest cost
         is the BRT scheme the highest cost is the Tramtrain option. The developed cost
         highlighted that it would potentially be as cost effective to develop an electrified
         tramway on the route in place of the Tramtrain option unless the service connected
         into the wider rail network.

         TABLE 5.1                 COMPARISION OF CAPITAL COSTS (2007 PRICES)

                                                                                   LWR                 LWR
                                                                                                                           BRT              BRT
                   Element                Tramtrain          Tramtrain         Promoters            Light Rail
                                                                                                                          Diesel           Hybrid
                                                                                 Costs                Costs
            Single Vehicle                  £2.8M              £3.2 M             £700 K              £700 K              £220 K          £350 K
            Number of Vehicles                10                  10                18                  18                  18               18
            Fleet Cost                      £28 M              £32 M             £12.6 M             £12.6 M             £3.96 M           £6.3 M
            Capacity Achieved                2960               2960               2880                2880                2880             2880
            Service Frequency               5 min               5 min            2.5 min              2.5 min             2.5 min         2.5 min
            Infrastructure
                                            £90 M              £110 M            £25.5 M             £90.0 M              £20 M            £20 M
            Cost
            Total Cost                     £130 M              £132 M            £38.1 M            £102.6 M              £24 M            £26 M


5.31     In identifying the service frequency for the options to identify the vehicle costs it is
         evident that the light weight rail solution with the current vehicle capacity would not
         be an appropriate technology as it is not capable of delivering the required capacity
         with an operable vehicle frequency.

5.32     A vehicle would need to match the BRT vehicle capacity of 120 passengers to be a
         viable solution on this route. The promoters comment that this would be possible but


       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



56
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               as yet this vehicle has not been produced and would require equipments that have also
               not been developed.

               Whole Life Costs

5.33           Over a 30 year period the whole life costs for a rail based system will differ to that of
               a bus based mode. Rail vehicle have an expected life of 30 years where a bus would
               need to be replaced at least every 8 to 10 years.

5.34           The infrastructure of rail based system will have higher operating and maintenance
               cost and will incur additional costs for the replacement of tight curves due to rail wear.
               If the numbers of curves are minimal (2 or 3) this could be covered by the general
               operating and maintenance costs over the 30 year period.

5.35           Bus based modes depending on the construction would, over a 30 year period require
               resurfacing of elements of dedicated routes due to rutting and surface deterioration.

5.36           The remainder of the operational, road signalling, stop, maintenance requirements will
               be similar for both modes.

5.37           Taking account of the differences in the capital costs and the replacement and renewal
               costs over thirty years, the whole life cost for a bus based system would be lower than
               that of a rail based mode.

               Fit with Scheme Objectives

               Detailed Criteria Assessment

5.38           The different technologies and their fit with the detailed criteria is shown in Table 5.2.

               TABLE 5.2                 CRITERIA ASSESSMENT FOR REVIEWED MODES

                    Assessment                                     Light Weight              Unguided
                                               Tramtrain                                                          Guided BRT             Comments
                      Criteria                                         Rail                    BRT
                  Key Measures
                  Mode Shift


                  Reduced                                          Lower                   Access   to            Access   to
                  Congestion                 Restricted
                                                                   ultimate                wider  sub-            wider  sub-
                                             Network
                                                                   capacity                region                 region
                                                                                                                                         The greater
                                                                                                                                         the network
                  Economic                                                                                                               capacity the
                  Growth                                                                                                                 greater the
                                                                                                                                         potential
                                                                                                                                         growth

                  General
                  Criteria


                  Penetration         of                                                   runs            on     runs            on
                  City Centre                very        high
                                                                   high cost               existing               existing
                                             cost
                                                                                           streets                streets


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                  57
Technology Review



              Assessment                                      Light Weight             Unguided
                                         Tramtrain                                                           Guided BRT             Comments
                Criteria                                          Rail                   BRT
            Accessibility to
            Sub-region
            Maintains road
            network
            capacity
            Restricts
            access              to
            segregated
            alignment
            Provision   to
            leave and join
            Alignments
            Vehicle
            Criteria
            Step Free
            Gap Free
            Vehicle
            Capacity
            Route Capacity
                                                                                                                                    ULR
                                                                                                                                    restricted to
            Speed                                                                                                                   60kph Other
                                                                                                                                    modes
                                                                                                                                    100kph

            Doors
                                                                                                                                    BRT
                                                                                                                                    affords
                                                                                                                                    greater
            Runtime                                                                                                                 opportunity
            Excluding                                                                                                               for
                                                              unproven                                                              seamless
            Interchange
                                                                                                                                    journeys
                                                                                                                                    from wider
                                                                                                                                    sub-region
            Road Junctions

            Gradients
                                                              unproven

            Perception          of
            Quality                                           unproven
                                                                                     existing                existing
            Maintenance                new facilities         new facilities         facilities              facilities
            and Depots                 required               required               could           be      could          be
                                                                                     used                    used
            Deliverability
            Capital Cost
            Vehicle Costs



       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



58
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



                    Assessment                                     Light Weight              Unguided
                                               Tramtrain                                                          Guided BRT             Comments
                      Criteria                                         Rail                    BRT

                  Technology
                  Maturity                   but     not     in    still  under
                                             UK                    development


                                                                   untested                Accepted               Accepted
                  Risk                       untested              technology              technology             technology
                                             technology            new untested            standard               standard
                                             in the UK             infrastructure          highway                highway
                                                                   construction            construction           construction



                  Procedural                 significant
                                                                   procedural
                  Process                    procedural                                    well                   well
                                                                   issues to be
                                             issues to be                                  established            established
                                                                   resolved
                                             resolved
                  Environmental
                                             similar               similar                 similar                similar
                  Visual
                                             impact                impact                  impact                 impact
                  Maintains
                  existing cycle
                  and pedestrian
                  facilities
                                             similar               similar                 similar                similar
                  Severance
                                             impact                impact                  impact                 impact
                                             similar               similar                 similar                similar
                  Land Take
                                             impact                impact                  impact                 impact
                                                       diesel
                  Noise
                                             only
                                                                                                                                         Based on
                  Emissions                                                                                                              Hybrid bus
                                             diesel only
                  Operation
                  Vehicle
                  Recovery
                                                                                                                                         BRT could
                  Integration with
                                                                                                                                         operate on
                  Heritage
                                                                                                                                         road
                  Railway
                                                                                                                                         network
                  Service
                  Competition


5.39           In overview the table shows that both Tramtrain and BRT perform comparatively well
               against a significant proportion of the criteria although there is a significant capital
               cost difference between the two modes. The Light Weight Rail mode performs
               comparatively less well against a number of the criteria mainly due to its lower vehicle
               capacity and the risks surrounding its deliverability, particularly in relation to the
               proposed costs and the deliverability of an appropriate low floor vehicle.



\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 59
Technology Review




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



60
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



6.             FUEL TECHNOLOGIES17

6.1            Diesel is the most common fuel used for public transport, and it dominates because,
               diesel fueled vehicles are operationally efficient, cost effective and have significant
               infrastructure to support their operation. More recently alternative fuels have become
               more popular, with growing concern for the impact on the environment.

               Diesel

6.2            From October 2006 new buses and coaches must be powered by engines which meet
               the Euro IV standard. This is much tougher than the previous Euro III standard in
               respect of reduced particulate emissions, but effects reductions in permitted emission
               levels across all indicators. For the first time in many years, as emissions standards
               have become more stringent, the move from Euro III to Euro IV has been
               accompanied by an improvement in fuel consumption. Diesel powered vehicles are
               becoming cleaner and more fuel-efficient especially as a marketing tool for lowering
               user’s carbon footprints.

6.3            The next level in the emissions standards will be Euro V, due to be introduced in 2008,
               further reducing the limits for emissions of oxides of nitrogen. A handful of operators
               have already placed Euro V standard vehicles into service. It is not anticipated that
               there will be any significant impact on fuel consumption with the change to Euro V.

6.4            Efficient combustion, modern engine management systems and good maintenance
               ensure that the emission of particulates, particularly PM10s that are regarded as
               carcinogenic and can contribute to respiratory problems, is kept to a minimum. It is
               also possible to fit a particulate trap to vehicles to further cut down on the emission of
               particulates or use other fuel additives or devices to the same end.

               Liquefied Petroleum Gas

6.5            Liquefied Petroleum Gas is a low emission fuel, most commonly used for cars and
               often in a “dual fuel” application where the car can switch between LPG and petrol.
               LPG was also used for buses in the 1990s, as its emissions were then considerably
               lower than the prevailing Euro standard diesels.

6.6            However, there are problems with the use of LPG. Initial vehicle capital cost is higher
               than that for diesel vehicles. LPG is incompatible with diesel fuel in that it requires
               significant changes to be made to the vehicle engine. This gives inflexibility of
               operation, as a separate spare pool of vehicles is required to cover the LPG fleet.
               Maintenance costs are also higher, in part due to the lack of economies of scale with
               manufacturers and skills required to maintain LPG engines. LPG also requires separate
               storage and fuelling facilities which take up depot space and are expensive to provide.
               LPG fuelling facilities are uncommon in the UK. There are also problems with
               variability in the calorific value of batches of fuels and a consequent impact on vehicle
               performance in particular with heavily loaded or on gradients.



17
       Information in this section has been sourced from the report West of England Partnership: Greater Bristol Bus
       Rapid Transit (BRT) Technology Review of Systems, Halcrow Group Limited, September 2007 and information
       provided by First Group.
\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 61
Technology Review



6.7       Now that Euro standards have progressed such that diesel power is “cleaner” in its
          emissions than LPG there is no advantage in taking the LPG fuel route, and UK
          applications for buses have reduced or ceased altogether.

          Compressed Natural Gas

6.8       CNG vehicles usually feature reinforced high pressure fuel tanks in the roof of the
          vehicle. Vehicle capital costs are higher than for LPG as the nature of the fuel requires
          larger volumes for storage.

6.9       Compressed natural gas is similar in nature to LPG. It too has now been somewhat
          superseded by events as its emissions can be bettered by the latest Euro diesels. It has
          similar drawbacks to LPG in respect of vehicle cost, reliability and maintenance, and
          due to its volatility, the need for special storage and fuelling equipment and
          comparatively long fill times makes it even less attractive.

6.10      Similarly to LPG, UK applications for buses are believed to have all ceased, but CNG
          remains comparatively popular in continental Europe, particularly France and Spain,
          where some major operators made significant investment in the 1990s and now need to
          persevere with CNG in order to make an appropriate return.

          Bio Fuels

6.11      Bio fuels, including Bio Diesel and Bio Ethanol, are a more recent initiative. The
          emissions from the use of these fuels are almost identical to that of conventional diesel
          however the means by which the fuel is sourced are more sustainable as they are
          derived from crops or from waste cooking oil rather than from crude oil.

6.12      In some applications it is possible to combine bio fuels with conventional diesel and to
          run diesel-engined vehicles with little or no modification. However there is little
          evidence yet demonstrating what if any effect there is on vehicle life and on
          maintenance costs resulting from the use of bio fuels.

6.13      Interest in developing ethanol powered buses is building in mainland Europe with
          Scania in particular developing vehicles, but this technology is still in its infancy.

          Hybrid

6.14      Hybrid vehicles employ an electrical traction package in conjunction with a constant
          speed engine generating electricity to operate the vehicle. An energy store (battery,
          capacitor, flywheel) is used to power the vehicle, regenerative braking energy is used
          to recharge the store. The vehicles constant speed generator is run at its optimal
          efficiency to minimise emissions and provide power.

6.15      The vehicle can operate on battery power alone for short lengths of route, thereby
          minimising noise and airborne emissions. The batteries are charged by the internal
          combustion engine which, as it can be run at constant (and optimal) power, is also
          capable of producing minimised emissions. It is also possible to operate using a
          “parallel” hybrid drive that can provide power from the internal combustion engine
          and batteries simultaneously in short bursts. Thus there is no solid drive train between
          the engine/generator and the wheels, connections being cable. This means that the
          compact engine and generator can be located more flexibly within the overall vehicle
        \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



62
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               structure, enabling a low flat floor throughout the bus and the possibility of a level
               access door behind the rear axle of the bus.

6.16           The design also reduces the need for mechanical parts on the vehicle as the
               transmission system is replaced by electronic control of the motors. Quality of ride is
               significantly improved due to the elimination of jerking from gear changing.

6.17           The costs of maintenance remain high however, as a result of the need to replace the
               battery packs after a given period of use. Battery technology is continually improving
               and battery weight is falling and life is increasing.

6.18           Bus operators have undertaken experiments with hybrid vehicles powered by both
               conventional diesel engines and with turbine units. The former are generally more
               acceptable to the industry, being of tried and tested design and familiar to maintenance
               staff. Whilst turbines have lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, their carbon based
               emissions are higher than conventional diesels and these are now considered to be the
               most preferred power source, operating at their optimum efficiency.

6.19           The city of Christchurch in New Zealand has introduced electric hybrid buses into
               service – the Designline. A batch of ten of these vehicles is in service on the Quaylink
               in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the UK. These vehicles were introduced as part of a
               campaign to reduce city pollution, especially from CO2 emissions, and vehicle noise.
               The vehicles have ‘super low floor’ access with wide entry/exit doors and a capacity
               of 37 passengers (20 seated, 16 standing and one wheelchair). The vehicle’s electric
               motors are powered by solid gel, water-cooled batteries. An LPG powered turbine
               charges the vehicles batteries.

6.20           Since March 2006 diesel hybrid buses have been running on the Transport for London
               360 route in London, between Kensington and Elephant and Castle. There are six
               hybrid vehicles currently operating this service showing reducing emissions of local
               pollutants and carbon dioxide by at least 30 per cent compared to a conventional diesel
               bus.

6.21           Hybrid vehicles are still currently expensive to purchase. Typically vehicles cost
               approximately £60k more than the same design would with a conventional diesel
               engine. Maintenance costs are also higher as there is a need to replace the battery
               packs after a certain period of time. But previous commitment by Transport for
               London to a programme of hybrid drive investment in London could see a reduction in
               prices due to competition between suppliers and the benefits of economies of scale,
               but with the move to replace articulated buses in London the focus may have been
               diverted.




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 63
Technology Review



          Electric

6.22      Battery powered vehicles without an auxiliary power source are almost entirely ruled
          out of local bus service provision as a result of their limited range of operation without
          recharge. There are examples where a single electric motor is mounted at the rear of
          the bus and drives a conventional axle. These are usually adaptations of older designs
          of vehicles and do not offer the key advantage of a low floor throughout the vehicle.

6.23      Whilst two services remain in operation in Merseyside and experiments in the 1990s in
          Bristol and Oxford operated for some years, the improvements in battery design
          remain insufficient to make promotion of battery power for local bus services a
          realistic alternative at present.

6.24      Trolleybuses have not operated in the UK since 1972 (with the exception of an off-
          road experiment in Doncaster from 1985-1989). In mainland Europe their fortunes
          have varied, with many systems closing but others investing in low floor state of the
          art vehicles such as the Cristalis (Lyon in particular has invested heavily in these
          vehicles to replace its 1980s trolleybuses). The reason for abandonment in many cases
          is the high maintenance costs associated with the overhead power supply. This can
          also be controversial as a result of its visual impact on the environment.

6.25      One advantage of electric buses was thought to be quiet operation but it has been
          found necessary to introduce a mechanical noise or bell in pedestrian areas as a safety
          measure.

6.26      Whilst the capital costs of trolleybuses are very high (typically 2 to 3 times that of a
          conventional UK bus), they do have low mechanical maintenance costs and can be
          depreciated over a longer time period as they generally last longer (subject to
          obsolescence) being less prone to vibration etc.

6.27      To afford operational flexibility a trolleybus also requires an auxiliary power source,
          usually in the form of batteries or a small diesel generator, to provide a means of
          avoiding obstructions and otherwise moving vehicles without reliance on the overhead
          wires. This adds to the cost, weight and complexity of the vehicles.

          Fuel Cell

6.28      The latest fuel technology is fuel cells. This is in its infancy and the first major
          experiment, a three-year trial, across several major European cities including London,
          Amsterdam, Hamburg and Madrid was concluded in January 2007. Most of the main
          bus manufacturers, MAN, Mercedes, Scania and Neoplan are developing fuel cell
          vehicles.

6.29      The fuel cell Mercedes Benz Citaro vehicles used in the European Cities trial can carry
          70 passengers (the same as a conventional single deck bus) with a range of 200km.
          They are powered by roof mounted pressure cylinders that contain hydrogen
          compressed to 350 bar.

6.30      The fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen, the only emission being water vapour.
          Whilst operationally successful, the problem with fuel cell applications is the high cost
          due to there being as yet no economies of scale. The vehicles used by First in London

        \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



64
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



               cost over £1.5m each. Fuelling infrastructure is also very expensive.

6.31           It is highly likely that the use of fuel cells will increase, at least in those areas with the
               highest environmental sensitivity. But there will need to be dramatic reductions in the
               capital costs of vehicles and associated infrastructure if this technology is to have
               wider applications.

               Bath & North East Somerset Council’s CIVITAS Project

6.32           Bath & North East Somerset Council together with seven local partners has recently
               been awarded funding by the European Commission under the CIVITAS Plus
               initiative, ‘Testing Innovative Strategies for Clean Urban Transport for Historic
               European Cities’.

6.33           The four year programme is a mixture of study work and demonstration projects which
               will be evaluated and compared with similar proposals in the partner cities. The initial
               phase, lasting around 18 months, is a study period to formulate concepts which are
               developed into a demonstration project, lasting at least 18 months.

6.34           As well as a number of other innovative transport measures the Bath initiative will
               include a study, with partner First Group, to identify and trial a ‘green’ fuel articulated
               bus suitable for operation in a historic environment.

6.35           The findings of this study will be an important consideration in the development of the
               rapid transit scheme.

               Other Innovations

               Shell Gas to Liquids (GTL) Transport Fuel

6.36           The fuel company Shell has developed a ‘clean’ diesel fuel. This is a natural gas
               transformed into a very clean form of diesel. It is a synthetic fuel product that is crystal
               clear, free of sulphur and can be used neat or blended with regular diesel. This ‘gas to
               liquid’ can be used in any vehicle without the need for complicated alternative engines
               and refuelling infrastructures. Another advantage is that it produces lower emissions.
               This is to be trialled on one of the articulated bus routes in London, UK.

               Emissions

6.37           Vehicles emissions data will vary significantly depending on the passenger loading of
               the vehicle in conjunction with the means of propulsion and the fuel used. Figure 6.1
               shows a comparison of the different CO2 emissions for the different types of
               technologies18.




18
       TfL Climate change Action Plan - Hybrid vehicles were shown to have a 38% reduction in carbon dioxide
       compared with standard buses. ULR calculated using hybrid estimate of reduced fuel usage of 40% when
       compared with standard bus (see page 25 of Scott Wilson report, Appendix B).
\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 65
Technology Review


          FIGURE 6.1                CO2 EMMISSIONS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF TECHNOLOGIES



                           Walking/Cycling 0

                                         ULR                                50


                                 Hybrid Bus                                 50


                                  Tram/LRT                                  50


                              Underground                                             60


                                         Rail                                         60


                                         Bus                                                    80


                                         Car                                                                  110


                                                -        20         40           60        80        100         120

                                                       grams CO2/passenger km




6.38      The information for the ULR vehicle within Figure 6.1 is based upon the Scott Wilson
          HULTS report which states the vehicle reduces fuel usage by 40% when compared to
          a diesel bus. We have shown therefore a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions to provide a
          simple comparison. In reality the issue is more complex as the emissions of the vehicle
          will be dependant on the vehicles fuel efficiency and the optimum performance of the
          vehicles engine and in particular the passenger loading, all of which could impact
          upon the vehicles emissions performance.

6.39      The figure does show that ULR, Hybrid bus and LRT are comparable, with potentially
          little difference in the total emissions. Importantly the electric vehicle emissions would
          be zero at the point of use. The Tramtrain emissions are likely to be comparable to rail.

6.40      The choice of fuel in relation to ULR and Hybrid bus and the resulting emissions will
          not provide any significant difference between the technologies as both technologies
          could use the same fuels.

          Summary

6.41      Alternative fuel technology is still in its infancy and is continuing to evolve. There are
          some encouraging developments and the outcomes of the work being undertaken by
          Bath & North East Somerset Council and First Group will be important.

6.42      A key issue is the operational feasibility of alternative technologies for a large scale
          network, including the infrastructure investment required, maintenance and reliability.
          There is also the capital cost consideration as small scale projects result in high vehicle
          costs due to limited sales opportunities over which to recover development costs.

6.43      For the present and short to medium term, diesel power is likely to remain the most
          appropriate fuel for local bus based vehicles. The ongoing development of hybrid
          drive systems is likely to reduce their cost and increase their capability and reliability.
          Therefore hybrid is likely to be a viable alternative in the next few years, subject
          particularly to reduction in capital cost.


        \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



66
                                                                                                                               Technology Review



7.             CONCLUSIONS

               Tramtrain

7.1            Tramtrain would only provide additional benefit over that of a tram scheme if it were
               able to be integrated with and operate on the existing rail network in the area. There
               are significant deliverability issues with the implementation of Tramtrain in the UK,
               and potential capacity issues on the existing rail network in the West of England area.
               A significant amount of work would need to be undertaken to identify the
               opportunities and constraints for the adoption of the technology in the area

7.2            Tramtrain vehicles provide the highest capacity of the modes reviewed. The mode is
               the most expensive and if it were deliverable only on dedicated routes separated from
               the existing rail network, light rail / tram technology could be more appropriate and
               more deliverable for a similar cost.

               Light Weight Rail

7.3            The deliverability of Light Weight Rail is a significant risk, an appropriate vehicle has
               yet to be produced. This includes the bogie technology that it would need to be based
               upon. The capacity of the proposed vehicle is also lower at 60 passengers than that
               required to meet the identified demand. The proposed solution of either coupling or
               providing a double length vehicle would raise additional deliverability risks.

7.4            The cost estimates for the technology’s infrastructure is based upon a very low cost for
               track infrastructure of £3 million / kilometre, 60% to 80% less than the costs of
               comparable on-street tram track construction. It is not clear within the HULTS
               information how this cost has been developed. The basis of cost would need to be
               developed further and the assumptions confirmed with all the influencing parties and
               market tested as a minimum to reduce the considerable delivery risk. In particular the
               assumptions on utilities would need to be developed and confirmed as the LRT
               industry has repeatedly failed to get utility companies to buy in to reduced utility
               diversions.

7.5            Currently the technology doesn’t have a fully low floor vehicle; it doesn’t have a
               vehicle with sufficient capacity; and the deliverability of the infrastructure required at
               the proposed cost would need to be validated. These issues would pose significant
               deliverability risk to any project, with the initial project effectively having to pay for
               the cost of developing all the required elements.

7.6            This mode would need to be developed further before it becomes a viable option for
               delivery of the proposed rapid transit system.

               Bus Rapid Transit

7.7            The BRT mode is the most flexible of the modes considered and has the additional
               benefit of wider network services being able to utilise the infrastructure provided to
               gain runtime and operational benefits. The capacity of the vehicle is limited to
               approximately 120 passengers for an articulated bus. This sits between the capacity of
               the PPM vehicle and Tram / Tramtrain modes.


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



                                                                                                                                                 67
Technology Review



7.8      In undertaking the review, the vehicle has been assumed to be a diesel powered
         articulated vehicle meeting the latest emissions standards. A variety of other vehicle
         technologies are also available from vehicle manufacturers that could be employed to
         further reduce vehicle emissions, these include hybrid and hydrogen, although these
         would increase the cost of the fleet. Their adoption would therefore need to take
         account of the affordability to the project.

7.9      The BRT mode is the lowest cost mode and would have the lowest deliverability risk
         as the vehicles could, as proposed in the city centre, operate with minimal
         infrastructure works. On dedicated corridors the infrastructure could be either an
         exclusive highway or, for guided sections, utilise kerb guidance which can be
         constructed in a number of ways, all of which have been undertaken in the UK.

7.10     The infrastructure for BRT routes and networks can be developed incrementally over a
         period of time (unlike rail based modes) allowing BRT services to adapt and make use
         of segregation and priority as it is provided.

7.11     In our opinion, Bus Rapid Transit should be pursued for the Ashton Vale to Temple
         Meads rapid transit route as it best meets the rapid transit scheme objectives; is the
         most cost effective and flexible; and can be delivered within the current programme
         and available funding.




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



68
                                                                                                                               Technology Review




                                                                APPENDIX A

                                                               CLIENT BRIEF




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc

                                                                                                                                             Appendix
Bus Rapid Transit                                                          May 2008
Assessment of Ultra Light Rail Technology: Brief for Consultants
Introduction


The four councils are progressing plans for the next route in a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
network to serve the West of England sub-region. It is intended to undertake route-based
public and stakeholder consultation on the first phase of the proposed Ashton Vale to
Emerson’s Green BRT route, from Ashton Vale to Temple Meads, in May/June 2008, prior
to submission of a major scheme business case to the Department for Transport in
Autumn 2008. BRT is identified in the South West’s regional funding programme currently
to a total of £71 million.
An initial appraisal of technology options was undertaken in 2007. This appraisal
concluded that a form of bus based rapid transit was the appropriate technology for the
proposed rapid transit network in the sub-region. This appraisal took in to account material
collected and provided about the Ultra Light Rail technology. Since then the Ultra Light
Rail organisation has continued to ask the West of England partnership and other
stakeholders to revisit the technology appraisal.


Key Issues
The proposed BRT network consists of a number of cross sub-region routes. The first of
these is included in the Bath Package (BRT Line 1). BRT Line 2 is proposed to run from
Ashton Vale to Emerson’s Green via Bristol City Centre with the first phase, Ashton Vale to
City Centre (Temple Meads) the subject of the next major scheme bid in 2008. Emerson’s
Green to Bristol City Centre and Line 3, Hengrove to North Fringe will subsequently follow.
The choice of technology needs to meet the needs of Line 2, Ashton Vale to City Centre
(Temple Meads) but also the wider network.
The aim of BRT was set out in the Greater Bristol Strategic Study (GBSTS) as “to provide
high quality alternatives to the private car”.
It also provided the following objectives:
•      to extend choice of transport modes for all, in particular for private car drivers to
       encourage a shift to public transport;
•      to promote sustainable development by providing high quality public transport links;
•      to improve access to public transport areas that currently have poor provision;
•      to improve integration of the public transport network;
•      to promote social inclusion by improving access to employment, retail, community,
       leisure and educational facilities; and
•      to improve safety along the corridor by providing a high quality public transport
       alternative to the private car.
In addition to these objectives, the project to date has been using more specific success
criteria to assess the scheme as it develops. These are:
•      Mode Shift from car.
•      Help reduce traffic congestion.
•      Contribute towards economic growth.
                                                                                          1
•     Deliver an affordable network.
There are also a series of local considerations. These include:
•     Low emission technology.
•     Ability to accommodate services fro further afield across the sub-region (i.e wider
      than the Bristol urban area).
•     Retention of appropriate road network capacity, particularly on the inner ring road in
      Bristol City Centre.
•     System needs to be complementary and able to be integrated with the network of
      Showcase bus corridors and Greater Bristol Bus Network proposals.
•     System needs to be complementary to the proposed scheme in Bath (Line 1), with
      both lines forming part of an identifiable network.
•     Ability to maintain existing cyclist and pedestrian provision and where possible
      enhanced.
•     Ability to maintain the amenity value of the existing corridor and where possible
      enhance this value.


Technology Assessment – Scope of Work


The technology assessment will need to include consideration of the following:
•     How well the technology meets the high-level scheme objectives set out in GBSTS.
•     How well the technology meets the key success criteria.
•     How well the technology addresses the local considerations.
•     What the physical opportunities and constraints are of the technology:
          o Ability to restrict access to authorised vehicles – ease of which other vehicles
            can be restricted form entering the alignment.
          o Ability to leave and join at intermediate points – to provide services from
            further afield to leave and join the alignment but also system resilience in
            terms of vehicle breakdown.
          o Alignment width (land take) – horizontal alignment.
          o Tracking/docking accuracy – ability to deliver level boarding.
          o Severance – ability to negotiate or cross the infrastructure.
          o Junctions with the road network – impact on road network at junctions.
          o Maintenance requirements – system and vehicle maintenance and impact on
            depot facilities.
          o Provision for service utilities, future maintenance of these and operational
            impacts on the system.
          o Depoting and maintenance issues.
•     What the impacts of the technology are:
          o Environmental, including emissions and wider environmental impacts such
            as an estimated comparison of energy requirement of constructing and

                                                                                          2
             operating the system compared with bus-based guided system - e.g.
             amounts of construction materials.
          o Other modes including car, pedestrians, cyclists, bus services, servicing etc.
          o Other.
•     How deliverable and viable the technology is including:
          o Cost – capital cost of infrastructure and vehicles and how this related to bus-
            based solutions.
          o Any implications for the level of local contributions DfT might require for the
            different technology options.
          o Operating issues (e.g. vehicle reliability, energy efficiency) and costs of
            infrastructure and vehicles.
          o Vehicles – assessment of vehicles including capacities,.
          o Risks associated with the technology.
          o Industry acceptability - i.e. whether it is an accepted technology has a UK
            Safety case and whether the technology is in operation, its operational
            history (particularly UK experience).
          o Likely position of DfT on technology options.
The assessment also needs to consider the costs of the ULR technology for the full four
line BRT network including a possible future extension to Bristol International Airport.
The assessment must be undertaken in consideration of the Department for Transport
guidance on major scheme appraisals and other relevant guidance documents (for
example CfITs Affordable Mass Transit report).


Timescales
The assessment needs to be undertaken and results reported by mid July.


Outputs
The expected outputs from this commission are:
•     A published, independent report that can be shared with key stakeholders in to the
      assessment of Ultra Light Rail technology for Ashton Vale to Temple Meads but
      also in the context of the entire proposed BRT network fr the sub-region.
•     Presentation of the report conclusions to the Project Board.




                                                                                         3
Technology Review




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



Appendix
                                                                                                                               Technology Review




                                                                APPENDIX B

                    HYBRID ULTRA LIGHT TRANSIT SYSTEM (HULTS) REPORT




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc

                                                                                                                                             Appendix
Bristol Electric Railbus Ltd


Hybrid Ultra Light Transit System (HULTS):
An Alternative Proposal to Bus Rapid Transit from
Bristol City Centre to Long Ashton Park and Ride
Desktop Study

Report
June 2008




                                                    Prepared for




                               BRISTOL ELECTRIC RAILBUS LTD
                                                 (Designed by TDI)
 Revision Schedule
 T:\TTS\Projects\D119734\F07 Reports


 Hybrid Ultra Light Tram System (HULTS) – An Alternative Proposal to Bus Rapid
 Transit between Bristol City Centre to Long Ashton Park and Ride
 June 2008


   Rev       Date             Details              Prepared by            Reviewed by              Approved by

     01      30/06/08         Report               Jose Marquez           Mark Brackstone          Adrian Withill
                                                   Senior Consultant      Principal Consultant     Technical Director
                                                                          Gary Davies
                                                                          Senior Consultant




                                                                             Scott Wilson
                                                                             The Crescent Centre
This document has been prepared for the titled project or named              Temple Back
part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other             Bristol
project without an independent check being carried out as to its             BS1 6EZ
suitability and prior written authority of Scott Wilson being obtained.
Scott Wilson accepts no responsibility or liability for the
consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than             Tel. 0117 917 1200
the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or              Fax. 0117 930 0342
relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by
such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to
indemnify Scott Wilson for all loss or damage resulting there from.
Scott Wilson accepts no responsibility or liability for this document
to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.


                                                                             www.scottwilson.com
Table of Contents


1     Executive Summary ................................................................... 4
2     Introduction and Background ................................................... 5
3     The HULTS Concept................................................................... 9
4     Joint Local Transport Plan Objectives ................................... 12
5     Infrastructure and Route.......................................................... 14
6     Vehicle Options ........................................................................ 18
7     Operations ................................................................................ 20
8     Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 21
9     Finance ..................................................................................... 22
10    Meeting Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study
      Objectives - GBSTS.................................................................. 23
11    Appendices............................................................................... 28
1     Executive Summary
1.1   This study has been commissioned by Bristol Electric Railbus Ltd to investigate Hybrid
      Ultra Light Tram System (HULTS) as an alternative to the proposed Bus Rapid Transit
      (BRT) system between Bristol City Centre and Long Ashton Park and Ride (P&R).

      Objectives
          •   The aim of this study is to give a better understanding of HULTS to local
              authorities and show that HULTS meets the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport
              Study objectives.
          •   This study is an attempt to introduce HULTS to the Local Authorities as a public
              transport alternative rather than a bus only system.

1.2   HULTS is a light tram using Hybrid Propulsion Technology which aims to reduce fuel
      consumption and emissions. HULTS is an environmentally friendly public transport
      alternative which can operate within Pedestrian or Low Emission Zones (LEZ), such as,
      Broadmead shopping area.

1.3   HULTS is proposed along a corridor into Bristol using the disused stretch of railway
      alignment between Bristol City Centre and Ashton Gate.

1.4   The main function of HULTS will be to complement or replace the existing Long Ashton
      Park and Ride (P&R) service by providing a high quality connection to the city centre.

1.5   There is a requirement to provide transport to major destinations along the route with
      convenient direct access to the Bristol City Centre. This will be an additional public
      transport service for areas such as Spike Island not currently served by P&R. The
      following benefits would result:

          •   Convenient access to the Centre from Ashton, Southville, Hotwells and Spike
              Island
          •   Convenient access from the Centre for visitors to CREATE and the Records Office
          •   Convenient access to the University of the West of England (UWE), Bower Ashton,
              Ashton Park School and Ashton Court
          •   Reduction in traffic and congestion on Hotwells Road with consequent
              environmental improvement.

1.6   HULTS will support the general objective of improving the quality of the environment in the
      city whilst preserving its economic life and reducing its carbon footprint. This objective will
      be achieved by providing an attractive, clean, energy efficient alternative to the car to
      access key central locations.

1.7   HULTS will provide a unique opportunity for the West of England Partnership to pioneer a
      movement towards genuinely sustainable urban regeneration and suburban development
      which would support the aspiration for Bristol to become the Green Capital of the South
      West.




                                              4
2     Introduction and Background
      Introduction
2.1   The City Centre to Long Ashton link is proposed as a key part of a Rapid Transit Network
      (RTN) designed to reduce congestion and pollution in the city and improve access from
      outer neighbourhoods to central Bristol, as proposed by Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP).
      The proposal will provide a foundation for detailed sustainable development of the area
      along the route.

2.2   Already served by a bus link, the Long Ashton Park and Ride is located just off the A370 to
      the South West of Bristol. However, there is ample evidence from towns and cities around
      the world that car drivers and users cannot be tempted from their cars in large numbers
      merely to ride on buses, despite the fact that buses are important elements in any
      integrated transport system.

2.3   However, a much larger proportion of car-users are prepared to use public transport when
      a modern light rail or tramway system is their mode of transport for all or part of their
      journey.

2.4   The proposed Hybrid Ultra Light Transit System (HULTS) service from Long Ashton Park
      and Ride to Bristol city centre, however, would serve communities along the route and
      cater for further expansion of the existing settlement in Ashton Vale.

2.5   HULTS is an appropriate mode of transport interacting with pedestrian zones and cycle
      paths to bring communities together, principally in the area of Ashton Vale which could
      benefit from further development. The region suffers from the lack of suitable public
      transport leading to two post-modern social problems related to transport:

          •   Social Exclusion

          •   Social Fragmentation

2.6   These two social problems are tackled by HULTS scheme by providing safe and
      comfortable means of transport to visit local shops and other amenities along the route.

2.7   The HULTS proposal strategy can also lessen the impact of traffic congestion by providing
      an attractive alternative to car use.




                                             5
2.8    The HULTS proposal will use a Hybrid-Power concept which would result in:

           •   Lower investment and running costs than conventional Light Rail Tram (LRT)
           •   Same capacity, safety and comfort as LRT
           •   Low atmospheric emissions
           •   Low noise, vibration and visual pollution
           •   No overhead wires or third rail power system like conventional LRT
           •   Speed and acceleration suitable for operation in pedestrian areas, with road traffic
               or segregated routes
           •   Energy efficiency due to Brake Energy Recovery (BER)
           •   Low environmental impact to immediate surroundings
           •   Ease of travel




       Background

2.10   Bristol’s first horse drawn tram system was established in the 1870s. In 1890, Bristol
       became one of the first cities in the UK to adopt electric trams.

2.11   At its height, the tram system extended throughout the major suburbs of Bristol. It
       extended as far as Westbury on Trym and Horfield to the north, Kingswood to the east and
       Brislington and Bedminster Down to the south.

2.12   Figure 1 shows the tramway by the Victoria Rooms in the early 1930s. Trams shared the
       same space with pedestrians and are still doing so in many cities around the world.




                      Figure 1 – Tramway by Victoria Rooms in Bristol
                      Source: http://www.emep.dsl.pipex.com/tram02.html#Route




                                                6
2.13   Nevertheless, in conjunction with the railway and bus systems, the trams provided an
       affordable and integrated transport system for the people of Bristol. They were particularly
       useful for transporting large numbers of working men and women from their homes in the
       suburbs to their places of work. Figure 2 shows the centre of Bristol with buses and trams
       sharing the road.




                         Figure 2 – Tramway in the centre of Bristol
                       Source: http://www.emep.dsl.pipex.com/tram02.html#Route



2.14   Unfortunately, the tram system ceased to operate in 1941 when a Luftwaffe bomb
       destroyed the power station during the Good Friday Raid on the city.

2.15   Bristol’s urban layout still retains many of the spaces created by these original tramway
       and train routes. Many of these routes survive as disused areas of brownfield land or have
       been incorporated into adjacent developments. The urban ‘memory’ of this transport
       infrastructure survives in the fabric and layout of the city to the present day either as
       isolated stretches of Brownfield land or as intact, but largely disused, stretches of track
       (often in use as public footpaths).

2.16   The Bristol City Council, however, has been involved in feasibility studies and schemes in
       order to bring trams back to the city. The latest Light Rail Tram (LRT) system proposed for
       Bristol in the early 2000s, however, has not being endorsed by the central government
       because a detailed and costed proposal was not included in the Local Transport Plan
       (LTP).

2.17   The recent Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) - 2006, in its section 10.6.22, nevertheless,
       stated that long-term public transport solutions for the West of England area must contain
       high profile public transport schemes rather than the short-term bus-based ones. JLTP
       believes it is essential to devise a future Light Rail Tram (LRT) network to meet the longer
       term needs of the area and facilitate the potential housing and employment growth.

2.18   The HULTS scheme fulfil the short and long term objectives proposed by JLTP due its
       tramway conception, such as LRT, with affordable cost, such as bus rapid transit.




                                                 7
2.19   The proposed HULTS route between Bristol City centre and Long Ashton will incorporate a
       number of elements of Bristol’s Industrial heritage including:

           •   Long stretches of currently derelict railway track along the Ashton Meadows Loop
           •   Ashton Avenue Bridge
           •   Stretches of disused track running towards the harbour area under Vauxhall
               Bridge
           •   Existing track by the Industrial Museum
           •   The Prince Street Bridge
           •   The harbourside and Rupert Street

2.10   The route would also pass through more than three conservation areas, and would be
       visible from a very large number of scheduled monuments and listed buildings.

2.11   A HULTS network in Bristol would assist preservation and appreciation of the historic
       environment in a number of ways:

           •   Reuse of the original train and tram routes would represent a return to Bristol’s
               heritage
           •   Increased public access to, and appreciation of elements of the historic
               environment currently disused or rarely visited
           •   A reduction in traffic would improve the setting and ambience of the city centre
               conservation areas
           •   The opportunity to appreciate these areas from the trams would also represent a
               positive impact of the development
           •   The development could have a similar impact on the setting and appreciation of
               the city’s many scheduled monuments and listed buildings
           •   An improved transport infrastructure will also assist in promoting tourist access to
               the historic core of Bristol and create an ambience which more accurately reflects
               the historic character of the city
           •   A reduction in traffic levels will help preserve the historic environment by reducing
               the corrosion caused by pollution




                                                8
3     The HULTS Concept
3.1   HULTS has the capacity to carry up to 60 passengers per vehicle, as shown in Figure 3,
      running on a lightweight track at frequent demand driven stops throughout the route.

3.2   If required, two vehicles can be coupled to double vehicle capacity during peak-hours in
      order to reach demand without the need to reduce the headway time (time between
      trams).




              Figure 3 – Schematic Hybrid Ultra Light Tram System - HULTS
                               Source: Parry People Movers (PPM)


3.3   The Hybrid Technology will allow HULTS to be operated on Pedestrian or Low Emission
      Zones, such as, Broadmead shopping area. HULTS has the best environmental
      performance of any comparable mode of transport.

3.4   Tram operation in pedestrian zones is not new and it is used in several cities around the
      world. Figure 4 shows examples in the UK of conventional electric trams operating in
      Nottingham and Manchester.




            Figure 4 – Trams operating on pedestrian and low emission zones
                          Source: http://www.citytransport.info/Zones.htm


3.5   However, HULTS does not need overhead wires, shown in Figure 4, with HULTS being
      energy autonomous, generating its own power. HULTS will operate safely and
      unobtrusively in Pedestrian Areas, mix with other road traffic on streets and use
      segregated routes where appropriate.




                                                9
3.6    HULTS tramway does not need to be insulated because the system does not require
       external electrification. This considerably reduces the time and cost for its installation. The
       investment costs of HULTS is about 70-80% lower per kilometre than that of conventional
       electric tram systems.

3.7    Apart from being more environmentally friendly and energy efficient than conventional
       diesel buses, HULTS has a visible predictable path like any tram system. HULTS meets
       the public desire for accessibility to traffic free zone.

3.8    HULTS will be powered by a two litres Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) fuelled by bio-
       methane and flywheel for complementing the necessary energy demand.




       HULTS Flywheel

3.9    The HULTS system uses a flywheel, drawing kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle and
       then recovering brake energy in order to minimise fuel consumption. Flywheels are reliable
       energy storage device which have been equipping steam locomotives since the beginning
       of the last century.

3.10   The HULTS flywheel is made from steel laminates, 1m in diameter and 500kg mass,
       rotating at a maximum speed of 2,500rpm and is safe, reliable and easily maintainable.




       HULTS Fuel

3.11   HULTS primary propulsion system is currently fuelled by gas. However, HULTS can be
       equipped with a flexible fuel engines which can effectively burn various fuel types.

3.12   Several countries, e.g. Brazil, Sweden and the USA, have been running their car fleet with
       flexible-fuel engines (FlexiTM Engines) powered by pure petrol or alcohol or natural gas or a
       combination of petrol/alcohol known as blended petrol.

3.13   HULTS has the capability to use the lowest carbon fuel available, i.e. from Bio-Methane
       produced from renewable waste as fuel to hydrogen-fuelled internal combustion engines
       or fuel cells.




                                               10
3.14   In addition to low emissions and fuel consumption HULTS will bring other benefits,
       including:

           •   The use of existing railway tracks without any track design modification
           •   Efficiency of energy and operation due to its hybrid concept
           •   Affordable tramway infrastructures comparable to the guided Bus Rapid Transit
               (BRT) route
           •   Rapid implementation and operation with a similar timescale to that allowed for
               BRT
           •   Three times operational life span compared to a standard diesel bus
           •   An excellent platform for system innovation and the testing and implementation of
               new technologies.


       National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP) interest in
       the HULTS project

3.15   HULTS is a proposal engaged in the sustainable urban mobility claim of the Bristol
       Environmental Technologies and Services (BETS) sector. Therefore, it has called the
       attention of NISP which is a governmental initiative sponsored by DEFRA and one of the
       partnership members of BETS.

3.16   NISP brings together companies from all business sectors with the aim of improving cross
       industry resource efficiency through the commercial trading of materials, energy water,
       and /or by-products together with the shared use of assets, logistics and expertise.

3.17   Scott Wilson’s NISP team has been shown interest in the HULTS proposal for Bristol in
       order to look for suitable and reliable suppliers of Bio-Methane in the West of England
       area.




                                            11
4     Joint Local Transport Plan Objectives
4.1   The Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP) has been set up as a joined initiative of Bristol,
      Bath, North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucester Councils to plan and
      deliver transport improvements in the area (West of England Partnership).

4.2   JLTP proposal will:

          •   Provide improved access and regional regeneration
          •   Set environmental standards
          •   Offer social equality and opportunity through readily available public transport for
              all
          •   Meet public transport needs
          •   Improve integration – by providing easy interchange between ferry, bus and rail
              stations at key locations
          •   Encourage modal shift from cars to public transport
          •   Offer easy walking routes between transport stops and homes/workplace
          •   Provide high levels of environmental performance to meet strict sustainability
              criteria
          •   Be an economically viable system

4.3   The HULTS proposal is in accordance with what has been proposed by JLTP. Achieving
      these objectives will provide, above all, a system which adds value to numerous
      development sites along the routes.

4.4   According to JLTP, the Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire and
      North Somerset area will accommodate an extra hundred thousand new homes during the
      next 20-30 years. This will generate greater expectation for people’s mobility and
      accessibility, increasing the pressure on the public transport system and on Local
      Authorities for:

                    •   Suitable public transport

                    •   Congestion reduction solutions

                    •   Air quality improvement

                    •   Road safety



4.5   Regarding public transport, JLTP is looking to submit two major schemes to improve the
      bus network in Bristol and Bath.

4.6   Although these schemes have been developed in partnership with the main bus operator,
      it does not mean Rapid Transit Systems have to rely on buses to give the area a reliable
      and modern public transport service.




                                            12
4.7    The schemes will submit bids to the Department fro Transport (DfT) to develop:

           •    Rapid Transit
           •    Selective highway enhancements
           •    Weston-super-Mare Package

4.8    HULTS is a economically and viable public transport system and a cost effective
       alternative to bus rapid transit that could be used to address many of these goals and
       objectives.

4.9    The current fuel situation will mean that car-users will demand suitable and sustainable
       public transport as an alternative to the car. HULTS, therefore, is proposed as an
       alternative to supplement the public transport network, with high public acceptance and
       thus avoiding the high costs of oil dependence.

4.10   In order to have support and interest of the public and stakeholders in developing this plan,
       suitable means of transport for different routes need to be selected.

4.11   JLTP, however, recognises that several obstacles will have to be faced and that any failure
       in tackling transport problems will have adverse social and economic impacts.




                                              13
5     Infrastructure and Route
      Infrastructure

5.1   HULTS has a unique low-cost infrastructure which allows the tram system to be applied to
      any route. HULTS does not require any external electrification, nor is there a need for track
      insulation as required by electrified tram systems.

5.2   Therefore the costly relocation of cabling and utility services under the track, such as,
      water and sewage will not be necessary. HULTS installation costs are comparable to, or
      lower than, the cost of guided segregated busways.

5.3   HULTS will use the most advanced technique of permanent way installation used for tram
      system applications in the UK. This technique allows minor works to be undertaken around
      or under the track with limited disruption of the tram service. If more major road works have
      to be undertaken involving services (such as sewers) lying underneath a significant section
      of track, a temporary diversionary track can be established that has a simple interface with
      the fixed track and allows tram services to be maintained throughout the duration of the
      works.

5.4   High performance polymers have opened up the possibility to construct an embedded rail
      track with very high vibration isolation performance as well as good electrical insulation.
      Although HULTS does not require electrical insulation, HULTS track will add this extra
      feature. Figure 5 shows in details a section of an encapsulated rail and an embedded
      track.




                         Figure 5 – Pre-coated and embedded rail
                                  Source: ALH Rail Coating ltd




                                              14
5.5   HULTS has been applied in Stourbridge in a train-tram operation as an alternative to the
      conventional diesel train unit. The link between the Stourbridge Junction to the town centre
      has been using the Parry’s People Movers (PPM 60) unit. PPM will provide the chassis
      and the hybrid system to HULTS.



      Route/Plan
5.6   A schematic of the proposed route is shown in Figure 6.
                                                                                            Broadmead



                                                            City Centre




                                                                                            Temple Meads
                                                               Harbourside


                             Cumberland Basin                                       Prince Street
                                                                                    Bridge

                         Ashton                        Spike Island
                         Swing Bridge                                     Wapping
                                                                          Wharf

                                             Southville


             To Portishead
                                                                                     Portishead line

                               Ashton Gate             Ashton Meadows

                                                                                                    LTP preserved route
                             Long Ashton
                             P+R                                                                    Heavy rail route

                                                                                                    LTP preserved route

                                                                                                    Extension to P + R



        Figure 6 – Schematic of proposed rapid transit route, Bristol Centre to Long Ashton P + R



5.7   As a first application, HULTS would be designed as the prime means of conveying people
      between Long Ashton Park & Ride (LA P&R) and key destinations in Bristol such as
      Temple Meads, Temple Quay, Cabot Circus, Broadmead and the Centre whilst serving
      intermediate locations such as Ashton Gate, Spike Island and Harbourside.




                                                  15
5.8    The route uses the existing rail alignment between Wapping Road and Ashton Gate, via
       Spike Island and Ashton Meadows, serving the Museum of Bristol, SS Great Britain,
       residents near Vauxhall Foot Bridge, CREATE Centre, BCC offices, and Ashton Gate area.
       It then crosses the heavy rail line and reaches Long Ashton Park and Ride by a route to be
       defined by further discussion with planners.

5.9    In the Bristol City Centre various options are available.      Figure 7 shown two routes
       selected for the Supertram in 1999.




                          Figure 7 - Options for City Centre Routes
                                  Source: Bristol Electric Railbus



5.10   The preferred route is the route currently preserved in the Joint Local Transport Plan. The
       route from Ashton Vale would cross Prince Street Bridge and join the above route at The
       Grove.

5.11   Subject to discussions with planners, the route would be extended from Broadmead to
       Temple Meads, via Cabot Circus. This would provide a valuable convenient link between
       the shopping centre and the railway station.




                                                16
5.12   Three tram routes are envisaged:

       (1) Long Ashton P&R to Broadmead/Cabot Circus
       (2) Long Ashton P&R to Temple Meads
       (3) Broadmead/Cabot Circus to Temple Meads


       LA P+R to Broadmead/Cabot Circus
5.13   This service would provide access to the Shopping centre from the Park and Ride terminus
       and from intermediate stops on Spike Island.



       LA P+R to Temple Meads
5.14   This service would provide access to Temple Meads Station and the Temple Quay and
       Redcliffe areas – from the Park and Ride terminus and from intermediate stops on Spike
       Island.



       Broadmead/Cabot Circus to Temple Meads
5.15   This service would provide access to the Shopping centre from Temple Meads Station and
       the Temple Quay and Redcliffe areas.

5.16   Service frequencies would be adjusted to meet demand.



       Practicalities
5.17   The tram design is such that it can mix freely with pedestrians in car-free zones, in a safe
       and unobtrusive manner, mix freely with other traffic where required or operate on simple
       to construct segregated tramway.

5.18   A high frequency service will result in only a short wait time at the stops covered. Tickets
       will be purchased in advance of travel from vending machines at each stop or by season
       ticket for regular users via Internet transaction or designated outlets.



       Depot
5.19   The vehicle fleet will be stabled in a secure depot / compound overnight or when out of
       service where repair, maintenance and routine cleaning can be carried out.




                                              17
6     Vehicle Options
6.1   The vehicles will be based on a design which has been modified for commercial
      application in Greece in 2004, shown in Figure 8. The vehicle evolved from the vehicle
      successfully operated by Bristol Electric Railbus Ltd in Bristol from 1998-2000 and has now
      been applied to the Stourbridge Junction – Stourbridge Town line as a permanent public
      transport mode as shown in Appendix 1.




                                      Figure 8 – Proposed HULTS
                                   Source: Transport Design International Ltd




      Tram Body
6.2   The body will be of lightweight construction but built on a substantial chassis, provided by
      PPM, and superstructure. Access for passengers, including wheelchairs, will be by level
      entry from platforms or kerbs, by doors on either side of the vehicle. The vehicles can be
      driven from either end and will have a maximum capacity of 60 passengers. There is the
      possibility of coupling two vehicles together to double the capacity at peak hours.


      Drive Train
6.3   The elements of the hybrid drive train are as follows:

               •   Primary power – A compact, high efficiency, low emission gas engine
                   running on biogas derived from renewable waste sources.




                                               18
•   Energy store and regenerative drive – The gas engine drives a flywheel
    energy storage unit which also receives energy from regenerative braking.
    The flywheel provides the power to the drive motors for acceleration and
    stores the brake energy. This is proven, innovative hybrid technology giving
    up to 40% fuel savings.

•   Fuel store - A tank for compressed natural gas is built into the roof of the
    vehicle. Its capacity will enable re-fuelling at the depot on a once a day basis.
    The depot will incorporate fuel storage and refuelling facilities.




                              19
7     Operations
7.1   HULTS operational characteristics comply with any light rail including the capability of
      running on former railway lines, alongside highways or on street and pedestrian areas.
      Work will be needed to integrate with the city centre traffic signals.

7.2   With the advent of the tram-train operation, HULTS can also share tracks with heavy rail
      vehicles with the ability, however, to enter city centres, safely sharing urban areas with
      pedestrians and cyclists.

7.3   The system is designed for high reliability. Operational costs will be low because of the
      low fuel consumption. Other operating costs, including vehicle leasing costs, along with
      other operational requirements will be similar to those of an equivalent bus service.

7.4   Maintenance and refuelling will be undertaken when individual vehicles are out of service
      either daytime off peak or evenings.

7.5   Vehicle maintenance costs and requirements are likely to be low compared with equivalent
      buses. Track maintenance costs will be lower than those of guided busway because of the
      durability of steel rails, and the high quality of embedded and coated rail technology.
      Evidence will be given when a feasibility study is commissioned.

7.6   Operational and investment costs and operational risks (Appendix 2) have to be assessed
      in a feasibility study.

7.7   HULTS is not a rigid concept, but a flexible one using advanced propulsion which fits
      between conventional buses and electrified light rail trams. HULTS has the advantage of
      being cost competitive with bus rapid transit systems, but cheaper to operate for a given
      capacity.




                                            20
8     Environmental Impacts
8.1   The vehicle will have very low impact on the environment. Details are as follows:

      Atmospheric Emissions
8.2   Atmospheric emissions will be low because of the low fuel consumption and the use of
      biomethane as fuel. As a result, net CO2 emissions will be only 18% of those of an
      equivalent diesel bus due partly to the credit given to the use of renewable waste derived
      biofuel.

8.3   Pollutant emissions will also be reduced to below Euro 6 equivalent levels by use of
      methane as fuel with 100% combustion.

      Noise
8.4   Because of the small size of the engine and its relatively light load due to hybrid operation,
      noise levels will be low in comparison to the equivalent diesel buses.

      Life Cycle Costs
8.5   The vehicle will be robust and by virtue of its service will have a useful life of 30-40 years
      compared with 8-13 years for conventional buses

      Pedestrian Safety
8.6   Guided vehicles are inherently safer than unguided vehicles, particularly in pedestrian
      areas due to the visibility of the track and close control of the vehicle movement. HULTS is
      less environmentally intrusive. The accessibility of pedestrian areas is enhanced without
      affecting the quality of the environment.




                                             21
9     Finance
      Infrastructure Costs
9.1   The costs represent a substantial part of the project. Therefore, any estimate cost
      assessment has to be led by discussion with authorities, contractors and services
      providers when route alternatives are established.



      Vehicle Provision Costs
9.2   HULTS investment costs will depend on vehicle characteristics and the fleet required
      complying with demand. Vehicle price, nevertheless, tend to decrease according to the
      number of vehicles ordered.

9.3   However, according to personal discussions and non-official information with PPM, the
      vehicle manufacturer, the HULTS vehicle price could be around £300-350k.

9.4   In order to predict HULTS costs for the proposed route for Bristol City, a more elaborate
      and thorough feasibility study is necessary.

9.5   In terms of fuel costs alone, bio-methane natural gas is cheaper than most fossil-based
      fuels, which means that running costs for natural gas vehicles can provide considerable
      savings compared to diesel costs. According to the Asia Pacific Natural Gas Association
      (ANGVA), bio-methane is 35% and 30% cheaper than diesel and petrol.




                                           22
10     Meeting Greater Bristol Strategic
       Transport Study objectives - GBSTS

       Extending Choice of Transport Modes for All, and in
       Particular for Private Car Drivers to Encourage a Shift to
       Public Transport

10.1   HULTS is designed to provide an attractive alternative to the car to access central and
       southern parts of Bristol, both for residents and for commuters and visitors approaching
       from the South and South West.

10.2   Residents of Bower Ashton, Ashton Vale, Southville and Spike Island, as well as university
       and school staff and students based in the area, will have the option of accessing Bristol
       by way of quality light rail transport, while car drivers will have the option of parking at Long
       Ashton and completing their journey into Bristol by light rail.

10.3   HULTS design will be to a standard normally expected from modern light rail services,
       which have proved to be more effective than bus services in attracting car drivers.


       Promoting Sustainable Development by Providing High
       Quality Public Transport Links
10.4   The route passes by and through many development areas, including Spike Island,
       Cumberland Basin, Ashton Meadows and beyond. HULTS service will enhance the quality
       of the development by providing an attractive alternative to car use and allowing the viable
       development of a proportion of car free housing, a key feature of sustainable development.

       Improving Access to Public                             Transport          Areas        which
       Currently Have Poor Provision
10.4   At present, Spike Island, Southville, Ashton Gate and Ashton Vale are poorly served by
       public transport. This proposal would result in a frequent service to these neighbourhoods
       giving access to the Centre and to the wider transport network.

       Improving Integration of the Public Transport Network
10.5   The proposed service will link with the 500 circular bus service on Cumberland Road, the
       ferry services at the Nova Scotia and Museum of Bristol, the Greater Bristol Bus Network
       in the Centre and near the Bus Station and with the national rail network at Temple Meads
       station and, when the heavy rail service is operative, with the Portishead line at an
       interchange at Ashton Gate.




                                                23
       Promoting Social Inclusion by Improving Access to
       Employment, Retail, Community, Leisure and Educational
       Facilities
10.7   The route will link with the David Lloyd centre, the existing and proposed new football
       stadium, Ashton Park School, UWE Bower Ashton, Ashton Court, The Riverside Garden
       Centre, Bristol Record Office and other B Bond offices, including the CREATE Centre,
       Spike Island Arts complex, The SS Great Britain and Maritime Heritage Centre, The
       Museum of Bristol, The Centre, North Harbourside and College Green, Redcliffe and
       Temple Quay, Broadmead and Cabot Circus.


       Improving Safety Along the Corridor by Providing a High
       Quality Public Transport Alternative to the Private Car
10.6   The service will meet 100% the quality standards of conventional light rail transport giving:

           •   Improved safety to pedestrians

           •   Improved safety to standing passengers and comfort in general due to the high ride
               quality

           •   Level entry for wheelchair access and rapid boarding

           •   Regular reliable services

           •   Attractive vehicles


       Meeting the Specific Scheme Objectives

       Mode Shift from Car

10.7   The Park and Ride service is specifically designed to attract drivers, particularly those
       entering Bristol via the A370, to leave their cars and complete their journey by the light rail
       service. Also, those living or working in the vicinity of the route will be encouraged to use
       the service rather than having to seek parking spaces at their destination.

       Helping Reduce Traffic Congestion
10.8   By providing an attractive alternative to car use, traffic will be reduced as will the demand
       for central area parking. This will alleviate congestion in the City Centre, Hotwells,
       Bedminter and Southville




                                                24
        Contributing Towards Economic Growth
10.10   The proposed service will increase the accessibility of commercial areas such as
        Broadmead, Cabot Circus, Temple Quay and also developing areas such as Spike Island,
        Cumberland Basin and Ashton Vale. It will allow for the sustainable expansion and
        economic development of South Bristol without significantly increasing its carbon footprint.

        Addressing the Local Context Criteria

        Low Emission Technology
10.11   The vehicles are designed for maximum fuel efficiency by use of light rail technology to
        reduce wheel losses and hybrid propulsion to recover brake energy. Fuel consumption is
        thus up to 40% below that of the equivalent standard bus. Emissions are further reduced
        by use of compressed natural gas which is low carbon and clean. It is proposed to use
        renewable methane derived from waste sources so as to render the operation carbon
        neutral.

        Ability for Services to Serve All Four Authorities
10.12   Bristol and North Somerset will be served by this route. If appropriate, the technology
        could be applied along all the rapid transit corridors proposed in the Joint Local Transport
        Plan with similar environmental benefit.

        Retention of Road Network Capacity
10.13   It is not intended to remove any road capacity. Where a reserved path is not available,
        e.g. in the centre, the vehicles will share road space with other traffic or with buses on bus
        lanes. Little impact on traffic flow is expected, except for an improvement due to a general
        reduction in traffic.

        Integration with the Network of Showcase Bus Corridors and GBBN
        Proposals
10.14   Where the service shares road space with the bus services (e.g. in the Centre) full
        integration at stops is envisaged facilitating transfer and interchange between services.
        The operators of the tram service will participate in any joint ticketing system that emerges
        in order to reduce boarding delays and allow through, city-wide, ticketing for passenger
        convenience.

        Integration with the Proposed Bath Line 1 Scheme
10.15   No direct connection with the Bath scheme is proposed at present but there is no
        fundamental incompatibility. Bus Rapid Transit and light rail can share the same alignment
        so that both can be part of an integrated network.




                                               25
        Maintaining, and where Possible Enhancing, Existing Cyclist and
        Pedestrian Provision.
10.16   Features will be incorporated to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in areas of
        shared use in accordance with HM Inspectorate requirements. By use of stretches of
        single track, the existing pedestrian and cycle path along the New Cut will be preserved.

        Maintaining Amenity Value of the Existing Corridor
10.17   The light rail service will be designed to have minimal impact on the surroundings
        particularly regarding noise and pollutant emissions. The amenity value could be
        enhanced by the added accessibility which the service provides.

        Physical Opportunities and Constraints of the Technology

        Ability to Restrict Access to Authorised Vehicles
10.18   Most of the route will be on dedicated tramway though access will be available if required,
        on occasions, to heavy rail traffic, in this case, the Bristol Harbour Railway steam
        operation. Except in the centre and on the Ashton Level Crossing, road traffic will be
        excluded from the route.

        System Resilience in Terms of Vehicle Breakdown
10.19   In the unlikely event of vehicle breakdown, the normal practice of propelling the vehicle
        from behind using a serviceable vehicle will be employed to move the faulty vehicle off the
        route.

        Alignment Width (land take) – Horizontal Alignment
10.20   For a double track the width of land take is under 7.2m. Much of this is land already
        reserved for LRT. It is envisaged that sections of the route will be single track with passing
        points. This is to avoid interference with cycle and pedestrian routes along the New Cut.
        Doubling of this stretch would require use of Cumberland Road, possibly by removal of
        parking spaces.

        Ability to Deliver Level Boarding
10.21   The tramway is guided throughout so that gapless level entry is provided at every stop.

        Ability to Negotiate or Cross the Infrastructure
10.22   Light rail is inherently safe for pedestrians, who can cross the track without impediment
        with full awareness of the route of oncoming light rail vehicles. Other traffic can cross the
        track which, if on road, is flush with the road surface.




                                               26
        Impact on Road Network at Junctions
10.23   Where the route is along the road (e.g. in the centre), the vehicles mix with other road
        traffic or run along buslanes. At junctions the vehicles will obey normal traffic signals
        unless special priority arrangements are made.


        Maintenance Requirements
10.24   The light rail system will have its own purpose-built depot where routine maintenance will
        be carried out.

        Deliverability and Viability of the Technology

        Capital Cost of Infrastructure and Vehicles.
10.25   The rail infrastructure can be installed at a cost of below £3M per km which compares
        favourably with the cost of guided busway and has the advantage of being more durable.


10.26   The vehicle cost per passenger is similar to that of the equivalent hybrid low emission bus.
        The leasing cost may be lower due to the longer life of light rail vehicles compared with
        buses.

        Operating Costs of Infrastructure and Vehicles and Reliability
10.27   Operating costs are below those of the equivalent bus services on account of the fuel
        costs and track maintenance cost which are lower than that of the equivalent busway.

        Risk Associated with the Technology.
10.28   The hybrid light rail technology has already been successfully demonstrated on the
        Stourbridge Junction to Stourbridge Town branch service where it has gained acceptance
        by Her Majesty’s Rail Inspectorate (HMRI) for daily service operation on this line. The
        vehicles proposed for the Bristol operation will employ the same drive technology.

        UK Safety Case
10.29   Street running will require permission under the Transport and Works Act. The proposers
        have been advised by HMRI that the costs of obtaining this will be proportional to the
        scheme cost and therefore will not be prohibitive and will be incorporated into the overall
        cost.




                                               27
11         Appendices
Appendix 1 – Vehicle Characteristics

Vehicle Technical Data
                         Length                         9.6 m
                         Width                          2.4 m
                         Height                         2.7 m
                         Entry height                  0.45 m
                         Seats (approx)                   22
                         Passenger capacity               60
                         Max. speed                    65 km/h
                         Tare                             9t

Primary Drive
                   Ford 2 litre gas engine
                   Hybrid drive system, brake energy recovery
                   2x 12v battery supply for ancillary power

Energy Store Unit (per drive):
                   500kg 1m diameter flywheel, normal effective speed range 1000-2600 rpm

Transmission:
                   Linde hydrostatics through final drive gearbox,

Braking:
                                                       2
                   Normal (regenerative) braking 1m/s
                                                                              2
                   Emergency braking through sprung on, air off discs at 3m/s
                   with normal adhesion
                   (Tread and or track brakes available if required)
                   Air operated sanding gear to the driven wheels

Running Gear:
                   Solid axle with wheels 610mm diam. to tram profiles
                   Suspension, chevron type with coil spring optional

Heating (per vehicle):
                   2x Water heated air blown

Maximum Speed:
                   65 km/h

Minimum Curvature:
                   15m radius




                                              28
Appendix 2 – Costs and Risks
Provisional Operational Costs

These costs are subjected to a thorough feasibility study for specific route or network. This will depend
on:

         •   Route
         •   Operational features
         •   Vehicle characteristics for the project
         •   Availability of fuel
         •   Depot facilities
         •   Administration


Project Risks.

    1. Project Delivery
          Risk                     Control Mechanisms                           Remaining Risk

 Unable to fund capital   Pre project requirement that                 Low- Project will not be initiated
 Infrastructure           infrastructure is funded by the              without agreement.
                          development.
                                                                       Low- Funds need to be secure
 Vehicle                  Multiple sources to be pursued               before contract.
 Development
                                                                       Low- Leasing Co. and operator
  Vehicle Costs           Investigate at feasibility study stage.      have to be happy with costs and
                          Tender supply/builder                        returns.
 Unable to deliver        Competent Design with experienced            Low. Elements of technology
 acceptable design.       independent technical support. Test          have been demonstrated
                          procedures built into project from the       elsewhere.
                          start.
                          Assessed at project feasibility stage.


 Do not achieve           Check with planning authority and light      Low. Development is largely in
 planning or regulatory   rail regulators early and before contract.   rebuilt areas and planning needs
 consents                                                              can be incorporated.




                                                       29
  2. Operational Risks.

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




                                          30
                                                                                                                               Technology Review




                                                                APPENDIX C

          DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET TRACK, OFFICE OF THE RAIL
                           REGULATOR, MAY 2008




\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc

                                                                                                                                             Appendix
Technology Review




       \\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc



Appendix
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET TRACK




Tramway Technical Guidance Note 1

                             Page 1 of 21
Contents


Introduction                                                                               3
Design requirements for street track                                                       4
Features of UK second generation track designs                                             7
Systems with in-situ embedment                                                             7
Systems using pre-cast embedment                                                           9
Generic problems with concrete slab construction                                           10
Generic problems with floating rail construction                                           11
Solutions capable of meeting the requirements                                              12


Photographs and diagrams

1. General street track with tram                                                          3
2. Lateral roll of rails causes road surface damage                                        8
3. Welding a rail joint                                                                    9
4. ALH6 polymer pre-coated SEI 41GP grooved rail                                           9
5. Pre-coated rail installed on concrete slab                                              10
6. Tie bar arrangement of rails used on the Blackpool tramway                              12
7. Example of traditional track construction in Graz                                       13
8. Grooved rail profiles                                                                   14
9. Twinblock concrete sleepers for street track in Grenoble                                15
10. Rheda City precast sleepers in use on a renewal in Croydon                             15
11. New track in The Hague, showing expanding foam injection                               16
12. Welded repair to keeper flange – Fleetwood                                             17
13. Example of street surface reinstatement using concrete blocks and hot poured sealant   18
14. Reinstated grooved rail in Manchester                                                  19
15. Street and segregated track in Montpellier                                             19
16. Example of traditional drain boxes for grooved rail                                    20
17. Transverse drain in Montpellier                                                        21




                                                 Page 2 of 21
Introduction

This guidance is issued by the Office of Rail Regulation. Following the guidance is not compulsory and
you are free to take other action. If you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to
comply with the law. Railway inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this
guidance as illustrating good practice.




Author:

J R Snowdon, I.Eng, FIET, FIMechE, Chief Engineer, Tramtrack Croydon Ltd (30 April 2008)

At the request of HM Railway Inspectorate and with the assistance of the members of -

•     The Light Rail Engineer’s Group

•     The ORR Tramway Standards Group

•     HM Railway Inspectorate.




                                              Page 3 of 21
Design requirements for street track


Requirements
1. The primary requirements for any design of tramway track which will be used in the street 1 are:

     a. suitable load bearing foundations
        the foundation provided to support the rails should be of a load bearing strength that is sufficient
        to support both the foreseeable tram and traffic loadings without distress;

     b. adequate rail support
        the rails are adequately supported to allow operation of both trams and foreseeable maintenance
        vehicles without distress to their foundation or to the surrounding materials;

     c.    prevention of gauge movements
           the rails are held to gauge by positive means, sufficient to resist the lateral forces exerted by the
           wheelsets, by the motion of the vehicle and other highway vehicles;

     d. suitable rail fixings
        anchored securely to the underlying foundation such as to be able to resist any lateral and/or
        vertical movements induced in the rails as a result of thermal expansion and contraction.

Considerations
2. There are a number of further requirements, principally in regard to the future maintainability of both
the track and the street, which also need to be observed, namely:

     e. rail maintenance
        any coatings applied to the rails in order to limit the propagation of stray currents should be
        consistent with the long term maintenance requirements of the operator and the types of
        equipment likely to be available to them when there is a need to access and expose the full depth
        of the rails in order to effect repairs or electrical connections;

     f.    ducts
           where the tramway’s cable ducts are constructed alongside the track foundation, a break joint
           should be provided so as to permit the latter to be excavated with minimal risk of consequential
           damage to either the ducts or the material in which they are encased. Additionally, where
           practicable, the cable ducts should be laterally separated from the track slab, particularly through
           curves and switch & crossing work, so as to allow for subsequent flexibility in the track alignment
           when renewal works take place. Undertrack crossings should be as near to 90º to the track as is
           practicable and protected so that the risk of damage when excavation of the track slab is taking
           place is minimised;

     g. under track excavation
        it should be possible to excavate trenches of moderate width across the width of the trackform
        without disturbance to the alignment of the rails. Depending upon the rail section chosen,
        trenches of around 1m in width can normally be spanned by the rails without any additional
        support;

     h. track renewals
        following works to renew the rails, or alter the alignment or track layout, the track should be
        capable of operation, under speed restriction if necessary, as soon as is practical, consistent with
        the needs of restoring the service as soon as possible. A normal expectation is that the track
        should be usable with the rails supported on temporary blocks or packing pending reinstatement
        of the underlying foundation layer;



1
  Within this document “street” is used as a generic term to describe any road, highway, carriageway or pedestrian area, including grassed track in
such environments, where it is necessary to construct track such that the rails are nominally level with the surfacing.

                                                                Page 4 of 21
     i.    adjacent road level
           the road surfacing adjacent to the rails to be capable of being adjusted post installation in order to
           ensure that the effects of rail wear and road surfacing settlement can be compensated such that
           the road surface can be maintained nominally level with the rail to within the accepted standards
           (see below);

     j.    street track surface
           the materials used to build up the level between and around the rails to restore the ground or
           street surface should be capable of ready removal and replacement by alternative materials and
           finishes should the need arise for future aesthetic or highway reasons;

     k.    current return capacity
           that the rail cross-section 2 should be as large as practicable so that, in combination with the use
           of cross-bonding cables and/or parallel return cables, the electrical impedance of the traction
           return path is minimised, thereby minimising the return voltage drop to the traction substations.
           This will increase the overall energy efficiency of the system, reduce the risk of electric shock
           from the system and/or reduce the number of substations that are required;

     l.    rail renewal
           the rails should be capable of being electrically welded in order to enable –
           • the effects of side and/or head wear to be made good with the rail in-situ,
           • new rails to be inserted 3 ,
           without special requirements as to pre-heating and without causing distress to any components of
           the track system which are in contact with the rails;

     m. duct and equipment access
        access manholes to the tramway’s cable ducts and other trackside equipment should be
        positioned such that they can be accessed without significant interruption to either tram or road
        traffic, or undue risk to staff working in such manholes;

     n. rail joint levels
        where it is necessary to join new rails to existing rails that have side and/or head wear, it is
        readily possible to lift and/or slew the existing rails so as to allow the contact faces across the
        joint to be made level 4 ;

     o. expansion joints
        traditional practice in the UK has been for fully embedded grooved rail to be continuously welded
        and installed without provision for expansion, based upon the relatively limited variation that
        occurs in the ground temperature and the limited exposure of the rail itself to solar heating.
        Where it is considered that the provision of an expansion joint would be of benefit in limiting
        stresses in the rail and/or the rail fastenings, it should be such as to comply with (p) below;

     p. rail joints
        where rails have to be joined mechanically, the minimum standard is a six-bolt fishplate,
        preferably secured by Huck Bolts (or similar) and with the rail ends butted tightly together. Where
        relative movement of the two rails is necessary, it is desirable that the joint is scarfed, ie
        overlapped, in order to lessen the deleterious effects of impact as the tram wheels cross the joint.
        In all cases, it must be possible to obtain ready access to the fishplates in order that the joint can
        be maintained;

     q. rail transition
        where it is necessary to change rail sections, particularly between Vignole and Grooved rails,
        purpose made transition rails should be provided. These should always be located on straight
        track, if necessary on the approach side of any curve, so that the tram wheels can be properly
        centred in the gauge and impacts between them and the flared entry to the groove avoided. If this




2
  The ruling cross-section is that when the rail is fully worn.
3
  The process of replacing worn rail may require the rail being retained to be lifted in order that the running surfaces are maintained level whilst at
the same time not causing the trackform to creep downwards into the street construction.
4
  Not being able to do this can cause significant difficulties in the renewal of, for example, turnouts that are incorporated into curved track, or can
result in the progressive downward migration of the track as successive renewals take place at the same location.
                                                                  Page 5 of 21
           cannot be guaranteed, even on straight track 5 , it may be necessary to insert a short length of
           renewable check rail on both sides of the track immediately ahead of the grooved rail transition,
           in order that they can take any impacts;

     r.    groove transition
           changes from wide to narrow groove rail, eg on the departure side of curves, should also be
           aligned such that the tram wheels are not presented with a sudden change in lateral alignment.
           This applies particularly to the inner (or low) rail;

     s.    electrical return path
           it must also be remembered that the track, specifically the rails, provide the electrical return circuit
           from the trams to the substations, and are therefore required to act as efficient electrical
           conductors in addition to their mechanical role. The standards which relate to this aspect of the
           track design are set out in the Design Requirements for Stray Current Management, covering the
           design of the power system as a whole and the measures pertinent to managing the generation
           of stray current.




5
  Typically as a consequence of the use of bogies (or trucks) having independently rotating wheels, which cannot be regarded as having any self-
steering properties.
                                                               Page 6 of 21
Features of UK second generation track designs
3. All of the second generation tramways built thus far in the UK and Ireland 6 are characterised by
having track forms in which:

             •    the rails are encapsulated in an elastic polymer material, which serves as both an electrical
                  insulator (against stray current) and a vibration isolator/damper (against noise and vibration);

             •    the rails are either held in place solely by virtue of the adhesive properties of the polymer or a
                  combination of holding down bolts bearing on the pre-coated polymer jacket and in-situ cast
                  concrete;

             •    the rails are mechanically independent of each other (i.e. there are no metal:metal
                  connections between them, or between the metal and the concrete substrate that provide
                  positive control of the gauge);

             •    the rails are supported on a reinforced concrete slab in which the reinforcement provides both
                  structural integrity and is intended to act as a stray current mitigation measure.

Whilst each of the various designs could be said to have fulfilled the expectations of their designers and
constructors, the same cannot always be said regarding those with the responsibility for their
maintenance. The passage of time has revealed various shortcomings in relation to their performance
and/or maintainability. This is necessarily more apparent with the longer established tramways.

It also has to be remembered that the time pressures on the tramway operator to restore a section of
track to operational use are considerably greater than those on the contractor, which factor has not
always been properly considered in the overall track design.

Systems with in-situ embedment
4. Descriptions and requirements for suitable load bearing foundations are as follows.

       a. Rail support
          The earliest of the second generation tramways are characterised by the use of reinforced
          concrete track slab construction with the rails supported in a bed of polymer material, poured in
          place after the rails had been set to line and level. In each case, the rails are not mechanically
          fixed either to the slab or to each other.




             The slab can be of either shallow or full depth construction, according to whether the concrete is
             carried to, and forms part of, the road surface (full depth) or is submerged by the street surfacing
             (shallow depth).
             With shallow depth slabs, the rails are effectively bonded to the slab only around their foot, and in
             the absence of any mechanical fixings, have been found to roll laterally under tram loads,
             particularly in curves. This in turn leads to distress in the surrounding street surfacing, which
             lacks the strength required to resist these forces.


6
    Metrolink (Manchester), Supertram (Sheffield), Midland Metro, Tramlink (Croydon), NET (Nottingham) and LUAS (Dublin)
                                                             Page 7 of 21
                   Lateral roll of rails causes road surface damage                     J Brown


     The lateral movement of the rail also leads to interference with the wheel:rail interface, to the
     extent that undesirable levels of flange front and back contact can be generated. Such a system
     fails to meet Requirement (b), and can be expected in addition to suffer higher levels of rail and
     wheel wear, as well as increased highway maintenance costs.

     This situation does not arise to the same extent where a full depth slab is used, in that the greater
     strength of the concrete is better able to resist the lateral forces generated in the rail. However,
     the exposed edges of the concrete slab are liable to crumble under road traffic loads, leading to
     highway defects for which the tramway operator may be liable. Similar effects can occur with
     shallow depth slab construction at the interface between the embedment medium and the
     highway surfacing.

b. Rail welding
   A common practice on tramways elsewhere in Europe is the longitudinal welding of the rail to
   make good the effects of wear to both the side and head. With the rail embedded in polymer, this
   is considerably more difficult due to the problems created by heat build-up, and if, as has
   commonly been the case, hardened or heat-treated rail has been used, the required preheating
   can be hard to achieve without causing the chemical decomposition of the polymer, with
   consequent health hazards to the welders. Without adequate temperature control, there is a high
   risk of initiating cracks in the rail, leading to breakage and, ultimately, premature renewal at
   considerably greater cost.

c.   Rail break repairs
     A further consequence of polymer embedment is that it becomes very difficult to gain access to
     the rail in the event that, for example, a crack requires repairing, or an electrical connection is
     required, or when a new section requires to be welded in. Generally, whilst the concrete can be
     broken out using common highway maintenance tools, cutting through the polymer requires an
     altogether different approach. So far, the only effective methods involve either the use of sharp
     tools to physically cut it, or the use of very high pressure water jetting.

     Renewal generally requires the road surface to be saw cut on either side of the rail so that the rail
     can then be pulled out of the road. Depending upon how well the rail and concrete were cleaned
     prior to the embedment being poured in the first place, the bond between the two can be
     sufficient to cause small but significant quantities of concrete to be pulled away from the slab.
     Further, it is still necessary to excavate a significant size hole at each end of the section being
     renewed in order to allow the welds to be made to the existing rails.




                                            Page 8 of 21
                                Welding a rail joint                    M Howard


       A secondary problem is that the rail, with the polymer still attached, has a zero scrap value and
       can be difficult to dispose of.

Systems using pre-cast embedment
5. Descriptions and requirements for systems using pre-cast embedment are as follows.

   d. Pre-coated rail break welding
      As an alternative to the above, some systems have been constructed using rail to which the
      polymer jacket has been applied in a factory environment, so that the amount of in-situ work,
      which is always subject to weather conditions, is reduced to the on-site encapsulation of the rail
      ends where they have been welded together, and to switch and crossing work.

       This technique also facilitates a much higher degree of control over the relative levels of the rail
       head and the surrounding street surface in that the usual method of installation is to set the rails
       to line and level on the previously cast concrete slab and then make up the surrounding street to
       the level of the rails. Crushed stone can be added to the top/exposed surface of the polymer to
       aid skid resistance.




                         ALH6 polymer pre-coated SEI 41GP grooved rail      NTC
                                              Page 9 of 21
        However, once installed, the same problems can exist in terms of the difficulty in accessing and
        welding the rail itself as with the in-situ embedded systems, for the same reasons. The extent to
        which this can be a problem will depend on the polymer used, the steel grade, particularly if
        significant preheating is required, and the ability to achieve adequate heat dissipation during
        welding processes.

Generic problems with concrete slab construction
6. The generic problems associated with concrete slab construction are as follows.

   e. Road level
      Significant problems emerged early on with level differences between the rails and the adjacent
      concrete, sometimes well over the limits of what could be considered compliant with either the
      1870 Tramways Act interpretation of “level” or the more recent redefinition that resulted from the
      legal case Roe vs. Sheffield Supertram, which had resulted primarily for the inherent differences
      in construction accuracy for the vertical alignment of the concrete work and the rails, and were
      blamed for a number of instances involving loss of control of road vehicles.




                   Pre-coated rail installed on concrete slab                                        D Keay


   f.   Level resolution
        To a large extent, the pre-coated rail systems were designed to overcome this problem by
        ensuring that the rails could be laid first, and the street surfacing subsequently laid by reference
        to the rail level. However, the same principles can also be followed using traditional tramway
        track construction, so long as the surfacing is laid after the rails have been fixed, as was normal
        practice with traditional street track construction.

   g. Current track alteration practice
      It has also become practice in the UK to build the track on a reinforced concrete slab, with the
      concrete in at least some cases being of a high strength grade (at least C40) so that
        (i) the slab can act as a bridge across trenches up to 2m in width, and

        (b) the reinforcement can act as a collector mat for intercepting and redirecting stray currents from the
        traction return circuit.



                                                   Page 10 of 21
         As a consequence, it becomes much more difficult to either modify the track to accept tiebars or
         direct fixings to the slab, or to alter the alignment without first breaking out the slab entirely. That
         task is also made difficult by the high strength of the concrete employed and the amount of
         reinforcement present, and can thus represent a major cost and time element in any track
         renewal works, the latter giving rise to high risks of possession over-runs.

    h. Track replacement difficulties
       Rail replacement has exposed the difficulties of access through the track slab, in that although
       the rail can be released along its length by saw cutting the concrete, outside of the polymer, it is
       still necessary to excavate access holes around and below the rail at the cut ends, and to clean
       the remaining ends of polymer before welding.

Generic problems with floating rail construction
7. The generic problems associated with floating rail construction are as follows.

    i.   Polymer only supported rail allows too much movement
         Compared with traditional forms of tramway track construction, the extent to which the rails can
         move when they are supported solely in polymer, especially the softer grades, is liable to cause
         problems with track drains, as well as any other equipment, such as connection boxes and point
         mechanisms, that are attached to the rails, and non-welded rail joints.

         The relative movements between the two are liable to result in failure and subsequent
         mechanical deterioration, whilst fishplated joints, particularly where only four bolts are used, are
         inadequately supported and once some wear has taken place on the fishing surfaces, will
         progressively deteriorate.

         At the same time, where the rails have been embedded in polymer, even if only partly, it becomes
         next to impossible to undertake any basic maintenance work on the joint unless the polymer is
         removed first. Even then, unless attended to as soon as looseness has become visible, it is
         difficult to recover the situation as a result of the damage that has started to occur to the fishing
         surfaces of both the rail and the fishplate.

         The failure of such joints in Switch & Crossing work is also liable to cause consequential damage
         to major components, such as the switch or crossing legs, which are then expensive to repair,
         given the complications introduced by any rail embedment.

         Where switches are located in street areas where they are run across by other road traffic,
         particularly goods vehicles and buses, the mechanical security of the point mechanism is
         prejudiced as a result of the relative lack of support. The case containing the mechanism is
         usually supported on lugs welded to the rails, with the result its vertical movement under road
         traffic loads can be sufficient, over time to cause these lugs to break. Because they are contained
         within the embedment, they cannot be inspected without excavation, and first sign of breakage is
         when the whole mechanism case becomes loose in the road.

    j.   In-situ adjustment
         Whenever it becomes necessary to replace sections of rail with new, it is essential to ensure that
         the head and gauge or keeper faces (as appropriate) are lined up across the joint. In the vertical
         direction, it is usual to lift the remaining old rail to meet the head of the new, whilst laterally it is
         necessary to slew the old rail. However, when the rail is encased in polymer and effectively
         bonded to and/or constrained by the surrounding concrete, there is very little latitude to do this
         without considerable additional excavation. Consequently, it becomes easier to set the new rail to
         line up with the old, with the effect that as the latter is then replaced, the vertical and horizontal
         alignment starts to drift, with potentially significant effects.

    k.   Noise and vibration
         Once the rail is supported on elastic materials, eg polymer, it becomes a mass/spring system in
         own right. At the same time, it is usual, with modern trams, for the tyres to be resiliently mounted
         on the wheel centres, which are then resiliently coupled to the bogie frame and car body in turn.

         The result, particularly if the support for the rail is relatively elastic, is that both the wheel rim and
         the rail can be set into oscillation as a result of either dynamic interaction or external inputs such
                                                  Page 11 of 21
        as a railhead discontinuity at a joint. This in turn becomes a generator of further excitation as well
        as noise and rail corrugation.

        From observation, it is evident that the firmer the rail support, the less likely this is to occur. To an
        extent, some of this, particularly the higher frequencies, can be attenuated by means of dampers
        fitted to the wheel, or the wheel rim. However, the resonant modes are complex and cannot
        always be controlled in all respects.

Solutions capable of meeting the requirements
8. Producing a track form which will meet these requirements requires three fundamental elements in its
design, namely:-

        •   a foundation layer, sufficient to transmit the loads imposed on the rails into the underlying
            substrate, ie the subsoil,

        •   rails, of sufficient weight to both support the trams and provide a sufficient return path for the
            electric traction current,

        •   means for maintaining the rails to the correct gauge and alignment under the vertical and
            horizontal loads imposed upon them.

   l.   Foundation
        As with the highway itself, some means is needed to spread the weight of the vehicle such that
        neither it nor the surface it is standing on will sink into the underlying ground. For railways, this
        was accomplished by supporting the rails on sleepers and ballast such that pressure exerted on
        the ground was low enough to be borne by the subgrade.

        Similar techniques were adopted for the early street railways, but with the passage of time and
        heavier vehicles, were ultimately found wanting, with decay of the otherwise inaccessible
        sleepers being a significant factor. By the start of the electric tramway era, c.1890-1900, it had
        became more normal to set the rails directly on to a continuous concrete bed as a better means
        of support. The rails were held to gauge by steel tiebars, and anchored to the concrete, frequently
        by short lengths of old rail, laid transversely and secured tightly to the new running rails. The
        latter are necessary as a means of ensuring that the rails remain in place even under thermal
        stress, since they are neither pre-stressed (as in modern CWR practice) nor provided with
        expansion joints, it being normal to either weld or close joint the rail ends. The concrete
        foundation was simply laid up to the bottom of the rails, without any internal reinforcement.




                           Tie bar arrangement of rails as used on the Blackpool tramway


                                                Page 12 of 21
                    An example of traditional track construction in Graz in 2004


    This method for laying street tramway track is still in widespread use across Europe and has
    changed little other than by way of the insertion of resilient elements between the rail and the
    concrete, and the introduction of precast concrete sleepers which are then cast into the slab. In
    some instances, a single layer of reinforcement is used, but only as an anti-cracking measure in
    the same manner as for concrete highway construction.

    There are also a number of systems that were developed in the latter part of the 20th century,
    principally in Eastern Europe, where the trackbed is formed of precast concrete slabs which are
    laid on to a prepared subgrade, with the rails then inserted into slots cast in the top surface and
    retained by rubber strips. These systems are not suited to other than plain track, and require an
    accurately laid sub-base to support the slabs, as there is no scope for subsequent adjustment.

m. Rail weight
   Although not essential, it has long been established practice in Europe and elsewhere for
   tramway track to be laid using grooved rail. There are a number of different sections available,
   largely as a result of historical and national differences however, consistent with Requirement (k)
   above, it is preferable to adopt as large a section as is practicable. It is also preferable from a
   maintenance viewpoint to adopt a section which is in large scale use, and thus readily available
   from the rolling mills.

    As one example, the German Ri60N section fulfils these requirements, with the complementary
    Ri59N section (having a wider groove) for use on curves of less than 100m radius.




                                           Page 13 of 21
                                                                  Grooved rail profiles


        n. Gauge and alignment
           Where the rails are laid on a plain concrete slab, as per traditional methods, it is necessary to
           provide some means whereby they are
           (a) held to the required gauge and
           (b) tied so as to resist the overturning forces induced by the action of the wheelsets on curves 7 .

             The traditional, and still current, method is to use steel tiebars, usually fabricated from flat or
             round bar construction and bolted to the rail webs at suitable intervals, typically every 2m on
             straight track, 1.5m or less on curves of less than 150m radius.

             This method also has the advantage, useful during maintenance activities, that the track can
             remain safely usable, albeit under restriction, even without the underlying concrete in place, with
             the rails simply supported on packing blocks.

             A modern alternative, adapted from the methods used to construct the slab tracks used for high
             speed railway lines, is to attach the rails to precast concrete sleepers, or sleeper blocks, which
             after being lined and levelled are then embedded in the mass concrete foundation slab. To
             facilitate this, these sleepers are only partially cast so that their internal reinforcement cage is
             exposed and becomes embedded in the slab. Such systems have the benefit of positively holding
             the rails to gauge and restraining them against twisting under wheel steering forces on curves.
             Gauge tiebars are not required, the function being provided by the sleepers, and replacement is
             considerably simplified by comparison with the polymer embedded track systems, rails can be
             readily unclipped from the sleepers to facilitate replacement.




7
    On typical street tramway curves of <50m radius, these can be very considerable, in the order of 30-40kN.
                                                                 Page 14 of 21
                 Twinblock concrete sleepers for street track in Grenoble   E Hollis




        Rheda City precast sleepers in use on a renewal in Croydon                J Snowdon


Irrespective of the method used, it is beneficial to place a layer of resilient material between the
rail foot and the concrete in order to provide some cushioning against vibration transmission and
to avoid the fretting action between the rail and the concrete which would otherwise occur under
repeated loading.




                                       Page 15 of 21
                        New track in The Hague, showing (nearest) expanding foam injected into the gap
                                              between the rail and the concrete.

      o. Rail hardness
         Rails are available in both normal (700 / R200 grade) and heat-treated (900 / R260** grade 8 ) or
         alloy steels (typically 1100 / R340** grade), the latter intended to provide greater wear resistance
         and thus longer life. Whilst there are some attractions to using harder rails on curves that are
         expected to receive heavy wear, their life is still significantly less than the same rails on plain
         track.

           As an alternative to the considerable cost of replacing such rails, it has become a common
           practice to rebuild the side and/or head wear by welding. Whilst readily practicable on normal
           R200 grade rail, careful control of the welding process is required for the harder rails if the risk of
           cracking is to be avoided. This requires either preheating or very careful control of the welding
           process, usually by automated techniques, to ensure that cracks do not develop in the heat
           affected zones behind the welds and subsequently propagate through the rail section. It should
           be borne in mind that, because the rail is fully embedded, it is not always possible to monitor the
           progress of any crack beneath the visible surface of the rail head.

           It must also be borne in mind that excessive rises in the rail temperature can exceed the safe
           limits for the polymer, causing both degeneration and exposing workers to hazardous fumes and
           fire risk.




8
    BS EN 14811 lists steel grades as both Rxxx & RxxxGHT, the latter designating heat treated steels.
                                                   Page 16 of 21
                                Welded repair to keeper flange - Fleetwood


    For this reason it is the practice of some of the well-established European systems that normal
    (700 / R200) grade rail is used in the high wear areas, if not throughout the system. Once the
    initial wear has taken place, it is made good by welding using hard wearing materials, thus
    obtaining the wear characteristics of the higher grade steels but retaining the advantages of the
    weldability of the normal rail.

    As these wear, the hard facings can be renewed several times before wholesale renewal of the
    rail becomes necessary. As a rule, the costs of replacement normally outweigh the costs of repair
    by welding many times over, reducing the life cycle cost.

p. Wheel hardness versus rail hardness
   Consideration must also be given to the relative hardnesses of both the rail and the vehicle tyres,
   particularly in areas where sliding (as against rolling) action takes place. This normally occurs in
   the curves, and experience has been that there should be a distinct difference between the
   hardness of the two components; empirical evidence would indicate that where the rail and tyre
   are of comparable hardness significant roughening of the surfaces can occur, resulting in an
   increased risk of derailment, as well as higher wear.

q. Surface reinstatement
   The level of any surfacing adjacent to the rail head should be such that the tram wheels,
   particularly in a fully worn condition, do not run on the surfacing such as to cause damage, as
   well as unnecessary noise and vibration. Where possible, the surfacing should be kept below the
   top of the rail head, subject to any limitations as regards the safety of other road users and/or
   pedestrians.

    Depending upon whether the finished track is in the carriageway (shared) or segregated, the
    surface between and outside of the rails is built up using a combination of mass concrete and
    normal bituminous street surfacing materials, sand- or stone-bedded blockwork, crushed stone
    or, if appropriate, earth and grass.

    Whichever method is chosen, it is necessary to consider how it will be maintained in the future,
    both from the point of view of reinstatement following maintenance and the issues of controlling
    the height of the rail head relative to the road surface. Experience with bituminous materials has
    shown that these can be difficult to lay accurately and with the proper consolidation over relatively
    narrow widths, such as alongside the outside of the rails and in turnouts.

                                           Page 17 of 21
             Further, such materials are by their nature susceptible to flow under repeated loadings by road
             vehicles following the same track. This can result in the tram rail becoming significantly proud of
             the adjacent surfacing and vice versa. Buses present special difficulties in this regard as a result
             of weight and suspension characteristics, particularly where they routinely wait in shared tram
             and bus lanes, such as at traffic signals and stops.

             Alternatively, there are foreseeable advantages to reinstating the road surface around the rails
             using concrete blocks 9 , in that these can relatively easily be adjusted to be level with the rails
             when laid and subsequently as the rails wear. It is a technique used on various tramways in
             Europe with no apparent problems, with slabs typically ranging from 400mm square to the full
             width of the “four-foot” and 2-2.5m in length. The technique is essentially only a modern day
             equivalent of the granite and/or wooden setts used on the first generation tramways.




                               An example of street surface reinstatement using concrete blocks, with hot
                                                poured sealant between blocks and rail




9
    Not to be confused with the small concrete paving bricks used in, typically, pedestrian and non-trafficked areas.
                                                                  Page 18 of 21
                        Rail concreted in place                   M Howard


A third option, subject to the approval of the street authority, is to surface using concrete. This
should, as with any concrete used to infill between the top of the slab and any bituminous
surfacing, be of a lower strength such that it can easily be excavated as and when it is necessary
to access the rails and their fixings. This does, however, carry the disadvantage that the edges of
the concrete next to the rail edge sealant are liable to crumble over time.

For track which is not shared with road vehicles, the space in between the rails, and between the
rails and the edges of the track can be infilled with a variety of materials, ranging from crushed
stone to earth sown with grass, or compacted sand on which concrete or stone blockwork is set.
Where the infill material is porous, appropriate and adequate drainage should be provided to the
section between the rails, or between tracks, by the inclusion of drains in the foundation slab at
the time of construction.




                     Street and segregated track in Montpellier       E Hollis



                                      Page 19 of 21
r.   Drainage
     In addition to any provision made for the drainage of surface water from the street as a whole,
     arrangements should also be made to drain water from the rail grooves at appropriate intervals
     and/or locations. These should be on straight track as far as is possible and should not, unless
     there is no other option, be located in curves of less than 50m radius. The drainage slots should
     be of sufficient size not to become easily blocked by street detritus and/or sand dropped by
     trams, and should be formed by machining, with generous radii at the corners in order to avoid
     stress concentrations under lateral loadings.




           An example of traditional drain boxes for grooved rail prior to concreting in. J Snowdon


     Examples of typical detritus that will end up in rail drainage slots include -
     -     food remains from fast food outlets, typically packaging and chicken bones
     -     disposable pens, of the sort found in catalogue stores and betting shops
     -     coffee stirrers
     -     plastic drinks bottles and cans, which lodge in the groove and become crushed

     all of which may not necessarily block the drain slot by themselves, but which, once lodged, then
     provide sufficient obstruction for other detritus, including tram sand, to collect and ultimately block
     the slot.


     It is also common practice on established tramways to install a continuous drain along the centre
     line of each track, into which both the rails, the top of the track slab, if covered by a porous
     material eg grass or stone, and point mechanism boxes can drain. This is in turn drained to the
     highway drainage system at suitable intervals, thereby minimising the number of under-rail pipe
     connections needed. It also facilitates the use of transverse drainage gulleys between the rails in
     order to drain that part of the highway, which can otherwise tend to act as a wide channel.




                                            Page 20 of 21
                                      Transverse drain in Montpellier   E Hollis


Drainage water should be led into purpose made drain boxes bolted to the rail web before being
conducted into the street drainage system. The size, number and capacity of the drainage boxes at any
location should be sufficient to ensure effective drainage under all reasonable conditions of rainfall and
maintenance.

These boxes should incorporate a silt trap, sufficient to allow for both normal detritus and the additional
sand which may be dropped by the trams, as well as facilities for rodding and/or flushing through the
drainage connections leading from them. Connections to the street drainage system should be of
adequate size, having regard to the fact that the rail grooves often act as drainage channels for a
significantly greater area than the street in the immediate vicinity.




                                               Page 21 of 21
                                                                                                                               Technology Review




                                                            CONTROL SHEET




Project/Proposal Name:                                              WEST OF ENGLAND RAPID TRANSIT


Document Title:                                                     Technology Review


Client Contract/Project Number:
SDG Project/Proposal Number:                                        207514-L


                                                             ISSUE HISTORY


Issue No.                                Date                                Details
1.0                                      14 July 2008                        Draft to officer team for comment only
2.0                                      25 July 2008                        Draft for internal client comment only
3.0                                      30 July 2008                        Draft for internal client comment only
4.0                                      22 September 2008                   Final Report
                                                                     REVIEW


Originator:                                         Ian Sproul


Other Contributors:                                 Chris Ferrary, Dick Dapre, Peter Armitage


Review By:                                          Print:         Peter Armitage


                                                    Sign:



                                                               DISTRIBUTION


Clients:


Steer Davies Gleave:


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\7500s\7514\Work\207514-L Tec Review\Final Report - September 2008\Final Document for Client\Technology Review v4.0.doc




                                                                                                                                       Control Sheet

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:30
posted:8/12/2011
language:English
pages:145