The 12:08 service to...

[JN1]

The Edinburgh Tram saga seems to be a mix of:

1. Crap management at TIE.
2. It costing more to relocate utilities than was originally estimated.
3. Delays caused by disputes between TIE and the contractor.
4. The council deciding to cut the route back to Haymarket then changing their mind when the SG told them if it didn't go to St. Andrews Square they'd withdraw their money.

I have heard that the contractors told TIE that they had no real idea what was under the streets of Edinburgh so that their estimate for the costs could be wildly out. Looks like they were right.

[Swede]

Leeds is one of the English cities I know the least about, with that said here's a few of my thougts on the last update:

The Bradford crossrail makes so much sense that it ought to be on a otl to-do list right now.

The supertram lines you've drawn look to be highly cost-effective (at least in operational costs). Also looks like one that'll spur demands for new lines that easily cover other parts of the urban/suburban areas and the airport.
The way it starts with two branches, converges, diverges, converges again and diverges again reminds me of the Northern tube line.

[Bureaucromancer]

Originally Posted by Swede

The way it starts with two branches, converges, diverges, converges again and diverges again reminds me of the Northern tube line.

Though not in a good way.

[Swede]

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

Though not in a good way.

Hopefully the Leeds supertram will have a track lay-out that's easier to work with and station lay-outs that make more sense to passengers. It all depends on the frequency of trains and passenger loads. As a starter-system for LRT in Leeds I think it's a great idea. The Northern line needs splitting into two "clean" lines - as will this Leeds line eventually. So it might be good planning for a future split as part of the expansion plans.

[Devvy]

Originally Posted by JN1

The Edinburgh Tram saga seems to be a mix of:

1. Crap management at TIE.
2. It costing more to relocate utilities than was originally estimated.
3. Delays caused by disputes between TIE and the contractor.
4. The council deciding to cut the route back to Haymarket then changing their mind when the SG told them if it didn't go to St. Andrews Square they'd withdraw their money.

I have heard that the contractors told TIE that they had no real idea what was under the streets of Edinburgh so that their estimate for the costs could be wildly out. Looks like they were right.

Yeah that would do it. Sounds like every little thing that could be a complicated mess, was a complicated mess

Originally Posted by Swede

Leeds is one of the English cities I know the least about, with that said here's a few of my thougts on the last update:

The Bradford crossrail makes so much sense that it ought to be on a otl to-do list right now.

The supertram lines you've drawn look to be highly cost-effective (at least in operational costs). Also looks like one that'll spur demands for new lines that easily cover other parts of the urban/suburban areas and the airport.
The way it starts with two branches, converges, diverges, converges again and diverges again reminds me of the Northern tube line.

Cheers. Bradford Crossrail has been talked about for decades, but there was never the real will to get it done. As you say, it makes so much sense - I wonder how much money would be saved from operating 1 station instead of 2 for operation, maintenance & staffing costs!? Not much chance of it getting done right now in OTL though...there's a load of unsightly modern buildings in the way after both stations were moved slightly back from the city centre at some point.

I've got plans on how I want to expand the Supertram, there are a number of candidates out there.

Originally Posted by Swede

Hopefully the Leeds supertram will have a track lay-out that's easier to work with and station lay-outs that make more sense to passengers. It all depends on the frequency of trains and passenger loads. As a starter-system for LRT in Leeds I think it's a great idea. The Northern line needs splitting into two "clean" lines - as will this Leeds line eventually. So it might be good planning for a future split as part of the expansion plans.

I'm not sure what the capacity is for a tram line. I'm speculating somewhere around 24tph (1 every 2.5 minutes......my rough guidelines for track capacity so far have been 16tph "normal" heavy rail, 20tph for "intensive" heavy rail, 24tph for London Underground).

As you say, I'd like to think this would be a good start to LRT in Leeds, there's plenty of expansion prospects in this area. Whether you could split the "dual" line as it is in this TL - I think it would be difficult.

For "Extension 1" (early 2000s maybe, just tentative at the moment), I'm thinking about taking over the line down to Wakefield, which is probably under utilised in this TL and hardly has any stations along it, so local people aren't particularly well served along it. Intercity services from London to Leeds travel in from the east of Leeds via Garforth (quicker), and Intercity services from London to Wakefield travel through Wakefield Kirkgate station before running on to terminate at Huddersfield. Not a lot of traffic using Westgate station.

The most difficult thing so far is, when looking at tram lines on the road, is judging where a tram can feasibly run. There's a lot of steep hill roads around Leeds (at least too steep for a tram)!

[Bureaucromancer]

Experience in Toronto would seem to suggest you're right about tram frequency. Obviously you can run more than that with line of sight operation and the like, but especially with street running any more frequency is mostly just going to result in bunching and vehicle convoys (if anything less desirable on a largely PROW system than a traditional tram line IMO).

You'd probably be surprised by the hills trams can manage though. I'd have to dig around for actual numbers, but there's really not that much restriction. The real issue is fitting them into the right of way width, especially if you want to give it a dedicated ROW (though European and especially British systems seem more open to new build mixed traffic sections on mostly PROW than we are in North America).

[fscott]

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

Experience in Toronto would seem to suggest you're right about tram frequency. Obviously you can run more than that with line of sight operation and the like, but especially with street running any more frequency is mostly just going to result in bunching and vehicle convoys (if anything less desirable on a largle PROW system than a traditional tram line IMO).

You'd probably be surprised by the hills trams can manage though. I'd have to dig around for actual numbers, but there's really not that much restriction. The real issue is fitting them into the right of way width, especially if you want to give it a dedicated ROW (though European and especially British systems seem more open to new build mixed traffic sections on mostly PROW than we are in North America).

I am not sure if this applies but in San Francisco routes that have Trolley Buses and steep hills. When the have to use a Diesel bus it cannot go up the hill when full. The people have to get out and walk. Not sure how many hill their light rail has since they have Cable Cars. Boston had/has some pretty steep grades on their light rail. Electric traction seems to handle the steep grades better.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by fscott

I am not sure if this applies but in San Francisco routes that have Trolley Buses and steep hills. When the have to use a Diesel bus it cannot go up the hill when full. The people have to get out and walk. Not sure how many hill their light rail has since they have Cable Cars. Boston had/has some pretty steep grades on their light rail. Electric traction seems to handle the steep grades better.

The max grade that San Francisco's LRT system has to deal with is about 9-10%, the old streetcar system here dealt with grade a couple of percentage points higher, but no more.

[Bureaucromancer]

Originally Posted by fscott

I am not sure if this applies but in San Francisco routes that have Trolley Buses and steep hills. When the have to use a Diesel bus it cannot go up the hill when full. The people have to get out and walk. Not sure how many hill their light rail has since they have Cable Cars. Boston had/has some pretty steep grades on their light rail. Electric traction seems to handle the steep grades better.

Trolleybuses are pretty much astoundingly good at hill climbing with the combination of electric traction and rubber tires. From what I've heard the biggest problem they have is that they can be too light to get enough traction when empty.

I still haven't looked it up, but off the top of my head 12% does sound like about the right number for LRVs.

[Devvy]

Interesting. My main concern, as you point out, for a tram system on a gradient was the metal wheels which obviously aren't going to provide as much traction as rubber tyres. But even a gradient of 10%, if achievable by a tram, is more then I thought!

[Bureaucromancer]

It looks like 8% is about as much as you WANT, 10 is common (including in Sheffield) And you probably won't find equipment that cant manage 12.

[Devvy]

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

It looks like 8% is about as much as you WANT, 10 is common (including in Sheffield) And you probably won't find equipment that ant manage 12.

Quite - after more reading, Kingsway Tunnel in London was for trams and had a 10% gradient. It's old trams just about managed the ascent, as long as they didn't stop....would probably manage it now with modern motors.

Either way, as you say, 8% is about the limit of desirability.

[JN1]

The hills in Dundee are a lot steeper than that and they never seemed to bother the trams that used to be there.

I guess the irony with Edinburgh is that it had a perfectly good tram system. They current works actually uncovered remains of its predecessor.

[Devvy]

Photo Scrapbook
May 1994



The BR Intercity service to London King's Cross stands idly at Leeds awaiting to leave. This train is also hauled by the prototype BR Class 89 locomotive (*1).



A Network South East service running between London Waterloo and Barnstaple sits at Salisbury station.



An Intercity APT3 service from the East Coast Main Line stands at Glasgow. Most ECML services terminate at Edinburgh, as Glasgow is well served by WCML services.



A "Northern Rail" service (the sector for passenger services in Yorkshire) crosses Knaresborough Viaduct.



An Intercity APT1 train reaches Par, heading towards London Paddington station.



A Central trains service from Redditch to Lichfield; part of the new Cross-City lines in the West Midlands, using the new BR Class 323 units.

----------------------
Notes: A few little pictures (as we've been devoid of them recently). Just something to the side before I start writing an in-depth Spotlight on something. Maybe Southampton & Portsmouth...not covered there yet (as far as I remember!)

All pictures are copyright "John Armitstead, York", from his website: http://www.johndarm.clara.net - nice little library of pictures

*1: There was only ever one single BR Class 89 unit, a prototype. It ran frequently on ECML services.

[JN1]

Filth! Porn! Desgusting, should be banned!

Seriously though nice update, even if a couple of the photos are of bean-cans.

Don't know if I've posted this link before: http://www.fictitiousliveries.co.uk/, but it might have someuseful pics alonside the ones that were done for fun.

[Devvy]

Yeah seen that site, have several pictures saved for the future

And while the Pacer is little more then a box on wheels, I do like that picture!

[Devvy]

Network South East & Central Trains Press Release
January 1995

Network South East (NSE & operator for passenger trains in London & the wider south east region) and Central Trains (operator of passenger trains in the Midlands region) have joined forces today to announce the formation of several "sub-business units" under each of them. These new organisations are aimed at larger metropolitan areas that are significant commuter draws, and will be more locally run, enabling them to better serve the area.


A Central Trains service at Moor Street station.

For Central Trains, this heralds the creation of a new "Central Metro" business unit, running a set of services through Birmingham and the West Midlands area. This includes the electrified "Cross-City Line" which is recording huge levels of passenger uptake since the update, and a several other diesel lines. The routes included are:

- Alcester - Lichfield (via Redditch, University, New Street, Aston & Sutton Coldfield) (*1)
- Malvern/Evesham - Wolverhampton/Walsall (via Worcester, Bromsgrove, University, New Street, Aston & Hamstead) (*2)
- Royal Leamington Spa - Wolverhampton (via Coventry, Birmingham Airport, New Street & Dudley Port) (*3)
- Bewdley/Worcester - Tamworth (via Kidderminster, Blackheath, New Street & Water Orton) (*4)


Network South East services at Stratford. Note the lack of NSE livery; these units were some of the oldest in the NSE fleet and thus last to receive the livery.

For Network South East, this means the creation of 3 business units due to the huge area that NSE covers. The first, "Silverlink" will cover urban London rail links that complement the London Underground system by offering orbital routes around central London, including:

- Custom House - Watford Junction (via Camden Town, Harrow & Wealdstone & Watford High Street) (*5)
- Billingsgate - Richmond (via Camden Town, West Hampstead & Acton Central) (*6)
- Victoria/Clapham Junction/Tulse Hill - Deptford Junction (via Denmark Hill & Peckham Rye) (*7)


A Network South East services in the Solent region.

The second unit will be "Southern" which will operate metro services around Southampton & Portsmouth. Network South East and Central Trains will be working with the Government to provide a business case for the wider electrification in the Solent and Birmingham areas, in order to convert most of the stock in the area to electric traction. "Southern" routes will include:

- Salisbury to Hythe (via Romsey, Chandlers Ford, Eastleigh, Southampton Central & Redbridge) (*8)
- Salisbury to Gosport (via Romsey, Redbridge, Southampton Central, Netley & Fareham) (*9)
- Lymington to Portsmouth (via Brockenhurst, Redbridge, Southampton Central, Netley, Fareham & Portchester) (*10)


Norwich station at early morning.

The third unit will be "Anglia Railways" which will comprise of commuter services for Norwich - which are largely segregated from the rest of the Network South East services. These routes will include:

- Norwich - King's Lynn/Fakenham (via Wymondham & East Dereham) (*11)
- Norwich - Aylsham/Sheringham (via Hoveton & Wroxton) (*12)
- Norwich - Great Yarmouth (via Acle) (*13)
- Norwich - Lowestoft (via Reedham) (*14)
- Norwich - Cambridge (via Wymondham, Thetford & Ely) (*15)

The business units will commence operations in April 1994.

----------------------------
Notes: I've made a load of (*) numbers here to go through the lines easily & accurately define each line, with some extra notes after the Heathrow Express confusion! All these services are what I'd consider as metro stopping (or rural stopping in Norfolk's case!) services, and are "city-focussed" mini-sectors unto themselves. NSE covers a huge area, and is primarily a London commuter/traveller service - so it makes sense for Southampton & Norwich commuter services to be semi-spun off. NSE still retains all control, judge devolves some of the decision making and management to the local area. Birmingham doesn't have a metro system (unlike all other large cities in this TL!), so Central Metro services are meant to semi-cater for that deficiency.

1) This is this TL's version of the OTL Cross-City Line, although the line runs further south through Redditch then it does at the moment. The extra stations would be Redditch North (OTL Redditch station), Redditch South, Studley Common & the line terminates at Alcester.
2) These services from Malvern & Evesham would run from Worcester along the OTL Cross-City Line (together with *1) as far as Aston, where it would head towards Hamstead and then to Malvern & Evesham services going their separate ways to Walsall, or to Wolverhampton (with stops at Darlaston & Willenhall).
3) Because all Intercity Cross-Country services run through Snow Hill station rather then New Street station in this TL, there's a lot more capacity through New Street and generally along the line. This services operates along the WCML Birmingham branch, but there are a couple more stops (between Birmingham and Wolverhampton) then in OTL due to less strain on capacity.
4) This would be the western half of the OTL "Snow Hill Lines" that run out from Snow Hill to Worcester via Kidderminster in OTL - including a little bit of the OTL Severn Valley (heritage) Railway, which would probably still exist in this TL, linking Bewdley up towards Telford. In this TL, the services from Worcester/Bewdley run through Kidderminster, Stourbridge Junction, Blackheath before joining the line into New Street station at Smethwick Galton Bridge station. Services just run down through Birmingham Airport, then to Coventry, then turning off to run to Leamington Spa. This also means that Kenilworth keeps it's station unlike OTL!
5) This is this TL's version of the Watford DC Line, except that it runs through Primrose Hill to Camden Road station, and then on to Stratford where it continues down the (OTL now closed and converted to DLR) section to Custom House station. The Custom House - North Woolwich section is now in use by the Fleet Line in this TL. Some trains would probably still run into Euston from Watford during peak times.
6) This is the western part of the OTL North London Line. Trains from Richmond run through Acton, West Hampstead and Camden Road as per OTL. However, after passing Homerton, the line then takes the branch south through Old Ford, Bromley, All Saints before terminating on the northern edge of Canary Wharf at "Billingsgate" station. Canary Wharf Fleet Line station is close by. OTL, this branch was damaged during the war. After the war, the northern part was concreted over to be the A12 road, and the southern half eventually became the DLR.
7) This is the remaining stub of the "South London Line", after it was cut short of London Bridge in this TL following HS1. It now terminates at Deptford Junction - when the time comes (at some undefined moment) I think this is a good candidate to link up with the LU East London Line in a project reminiscant of the OTL East London Line conversion.
8) So the Solent. The Salisbury - Romsey "loop service" through Southampton is divided up, so this one runs through Southampton on to the branch to Hythe. This branch is still open in OTL, but only for freight services. Not a huge stretch to keep it open for passengers as well in this TL. Passenger services terminate at Hythe rather then Fawley though so as not to disturb freight operations at the oil refinery (and going forward I don't think an oil refinery is the best place for overhead electrification!).
9) This is the other side of the OTL loop service, now running through Southampton, on to Fareham, and then down into Gosport. The Fareham to Gosport branch still exists in this TL, as a large section of it from Fareham was continually used up til the 90s for MoD trains.
10) The Lymington branch line now runs in to Southampton (instead of terminating at Brockenhurst). The services continue on through Fareham to Portsmouth, although they have to be dual voltage in order to convert to 3rd rail electrification at Portchester and run on into Portsmouth.
11) OTL, this is predominately the Mid-Norfolk (heritage) Railway. The Norwich-Wymondham-Dereham-Swaffham-King's Lynn line wasn't seen by Beeching as needing to be closed in OTL I believe - all those towns have reasonable populations and is the only Norwich - King's Lynn link. Anyway, the line stays open, and the branch to Fakenham is eventually kept (after some light railway experiments in this TL which eventually were cancelled. I'm going to put that down to poor rolling stock, a couple of misfortunate incidents and an unregular service driving passengers away. Sounds rather like many other OTL lines that...).
12) Services from Norwich heading north to Aylsham means that the Bure Valley (heritage) Railway is butterflied away. The other side of the branch heads up to Cromer and Sheringham as per OTL.
13) Norwich to Great Yarmouth via Acle is pretty much as per OTL. The line that still exists in OTL between Reedham and Great Yarmouth stations via Berney Arms is closed and long gone in this TL, however (on a side point) NSE trains still run from Ipswich via Saxmundham and Beccles to Lowestoft *and* from Ipswich to Saxmundham and on to Leiston.
14) Norwich to Lowestoft is exactly the same route as per OTL.
15) Norwich to Cambridge is the same as OTL.

I'm sure most of you will recognise the names from OTL train operating companies

PS: Over 50,000 views. Blimey - thanks for reading all!

[Geordie]

Looking as good as ever, Devvy.

I'll try to get a chance to look over that last update with some OTL maps and route diagrams, in order to leave some vaguely informed comments and questions.

[Broader Liberty]

Is Silverlink going to be any better ITTL than OTL? My dad used to use the service frequently shortly after its creation and has every expletive to throw at it. Apparently the service was absolutely awful and there were more than a couple of occasions when he would be getting a late night train from work when the train would suddenly be terminated halfway there and he would be stranded miles from home.

[Devvy]

Sorry guys - I've been trapped in Olympics fever all this week (and likely this week coming as well), and I have tickets to go watch the athletics on Wednesday

Originally Posted by Geordie

Looking as good as ever, Devvy.

I'll try to get a chance to look over that last update with some OTL maps and route diagrams, in order to leave some vaguely informed comments and questions.

Cheers fella!

Originally Posted by Broader Liberty

Is Silverlink going to be any better ITTL than OTL? My dad used to use the service frequently shortly after its creation and has every expletive to throw at it. Apparently the service was absolutely awful and there were more than a couple of occasions when he would be getting a late night train from work when the train would suddenly be terminated halfway there and he would be stranded miles from home.

Kind of yes, and kind of no. The Gospel Oak - Barking service doesn't exist here - Gospel Oak - Tottenham Hale (branching off at South Tottenham) exists as one of the Thameslink West branches, and South Tottenham - Barking is solely in use as a freight branch. So Gospel Oak - Tottenham Hale is far better served then OTL (although still has to share with a fair amount of freight), but South Tottenham - Barking isn't served at all.

For the North London Line, I think things might be *slightly* better then OTL, but not much. Much of the focus on rail transport for London focusses on getting travellers in and out of London, not around it - that's the job of the London Underground, leaving the "Silverlink" (OTL and this TL) lines overlooked. There would be less freight on this area (most freight running via Barking, Gospel Oak to the MML or on through West Hampstead and out on to the WCML), so tracks would probably be reduced to two tracks along the length of Camden Road - Dalston Kingland.

The south London area has the benefit of having a busy and well utilised commuter network to share with, so that area will probably be much more punctual and effective a route.