"Tram-train"
 

Hello,
I will like to know if you have, in England, towns with a system of tram-train. I.e. a tram who can circulate on railways in the countryside and who can circulate like a tram in citys.
For exemple, Sarrebourg's tram is a "tram-train".
Finally, I will like to know, if this means of transport exist in England, the name given to this system.

Good night

They dont exist in the UK, although there is a line near Newcastle where the Nexus light rail (tram) system shares track with main lin trains. Tram routes in this country sometimes go over former heavy rail routes for part of their route and in the street surface for other parts of their route.

Welcome to the site.

We have trams that run in the streets but also have dedicated railway tracks away from the city centre. Nottingham is an example of this. They are still called Trams!

Metrolink is another example of this, between Altrincham and Navigation road the metrolink shares the track with the railway services, I think it is the only time that train services are on a track where they are under metrolink wires. Metrolink seem to have their own track after Manchester Victoria.

Isn't the Croydon tramlink route half built on old railway routes?

I think there's a bit of confusion creeping into this thread.
The Tram-Trains that gros-beta refers to are trains that regularly run on mainlines together with other heavy rail traffic but can also switch to street running when required. This often involves being able to operate off different supply voltages such as 25kV on the mainline and 750V in urban areas.

David,
The Metrolink and Network Rail tracks are separate between Navigation Road and Altrincham.
To the north of Navigation Road station the Metrolink line from Manchester City Centre changes from double to single track. The Network Rail line from Manchester (via Stockport) does the same and the two single track lines then pass through Navigation Road station. Metrolink use one platform and Network Rail the other. After the station both lines become double track again and run parallel to each other as far as Altrincham where the Metrolink terminates and the Network Rail line continues to Northwich etc.
I would post a scan of the actual track layout diagram but I have just read that it is illegal without permission.:(

That would make sense as I noticed that the tracks come together at Navigation Road, I was travelling on a 142 doing the full journey from Chester to Manchester (underestimated how long it would take :D ) and at N Rd a metrolink arrived opposite the 142, so as they were side by side I thought that the rail tracks had joined the metro lines, I also thought that there had been metro wires above the trtack the 142 was using but if they were single tracks next to each other it wold explain it.

Standard trains used to travel between Altrincham and just before G-Mex on the metrolink line south of Manchester but were stopped from going that way and were diverted via Stockport when the Metrolink started.

There are optismitic plans to use tram-trains from Northwich(Cheshire)-Knutsford(Cheshire)-Altrincham(G Manchester)-Sale-Trafford-Manchester City Centre which may even extend to Chester or Crewe

If you allow me, I will bring some more information : the "tram-train" as it is understood in France is much more looking like a tram than like a train. It is designed for a street use, meaning extra-low platforms or no platform at all, mirrors and all the necessary signals to circulate in streets, and usually narrow dimensions although using a standard track. It has some extra train features (as you mention 25 kV capability, or 15 kV in Germany) and structure strengthenings which are compulsory as soon as the vehicle circulates on standard railway lines.

"Gros-Beta" mentionned Sarrebourg as an example: the tram-train there goes in the city-centre on tram lines, in the streets, and then uses a long suburban railway line (as far as in Germany If I remember correctly).

As far as I know, the Croydon tramlink uses some ancient raiway lines, but they are now totally dedicated to the tram, and there is no penetration of a tram in the railway domain.

This would have made much more sense that the route the DoT in its widom DID choose for a tram-train trial i.e. Huddersfield - Penistone - Barnsley - Sheffield where the tram bit is only a very small part at the Sheffield end.

It doesn't really matter which route the DoT choose as I don't think they have any intention of developing the Tram-Train concept as such. I get the feeling that they are after a replacement for the 14x series trains that is cheaper than a conventional DMU.
Tram-Trains built in mainland Europe would probably meet our heavy rail safety requirements and still fit our restricted loading gauge without too many mods being needed.

Adelaide Metro, or Trans Adelaide in South Australia are in the process of developing tram-trains.

They are purchasing 15 new dual voltage trams as well as 4 additional Flexity Classic trams which they currently use.

The new dual voltage trams will operate alongside electric trains and use the existing Outer Harbor line and then travel to AAMI Stadium and West Lakes on a new track built from the Grange line.

Another extension will be built from Semaphore, linking back through the heart of Port Adelaide from Rosewater. The 4 additional Flexity Classic trams will be added for the initial Entertainment Centre service.

This will be the first 'tram-train' system in Australia.


NL.

The tram-trains for Huddersfield-Sheffield are going to be diesel operation only. If they want to try dual powered vehicles then joining the Manchester Metrolink line at Altrincham is probably the best route and then if the East Lancs to Bury needs a regular passenger service that would be another possibility.

Sorry, but the manchester metrolink is really a tram-train with a max speed of 50mph and it runs at this speed in the counry sections of old railways.
The trams have to switch modes at the city/railway sections.

Although the Manchester-Bury and Manchester-Altrincham sections were originally heavy rail lines the Manchester Metrolink vehicles are NOT "tram-trains" because they cannot share their tracks with "real" trains. As they are only expected to come into contact with road vehicles and other trams they have not been built to the same standards as heavy rail vehicles.

Oh right I get it now.
Could they not be towed on normal lines as they are standard gauge?

Good question.
The Metrolink vehicles are standard track gauge but are they wider than a normal train? If they are normal width then I can't see any reason why a Dellner coupler fitted loco couldn't tow them although obviously they wouldn't be allowed to carry passengers.

At altrincham and various other smaller stations, the original Manchester, south junction and altrincham railway's platforms are still used and at navigation road, the station is shared with northern rail trains.

I have a copy of the Metrolink handbook and a Metrolink tram is 2650mm at its widest point (doors) They should, in theory, be able to go anywhere on the rail network that has the most common loading gauge of W6a (2820mm above platform height and 2700mm below)

The only problem a Metro-Link tram has is wheel profile, orginally the tyres were turned to a profile which was slightly different from a heavy rail one, but could still run on the original BR tracks on the Altrincham and Bury lines and the new city centre and Eccles routes.
Since the track was relayed they have been turned to a tram profile which is ok on plain rail track but can have problems on check rails and pointwork on the heavy rail system.

Thanks for that JEB. I had forgotten about wheel profile differences when comparing trams and heavy rail vehicles.
Years ago I believe that there were some places where heavy rail wagons were allowed to traverse street tram lines by running on their flanges due to the lower profile track.

So if this is true in theory a national network train use the metrolink line.
I know there is some very tight curves but nothing a class 142 pacer unit can't handle.
This would be great as a special seeing one of these in the city streets.
One ambition of mine is to see C13 and 14 4-4-0T's working the line once more on specials.
It could be done as there is the same gauge and height restrictions for this type.

And to prevent light rail and heavy rail vehicles coming into contact it would have to run in the middle of the night when all the Metrolink trams were safely tucked in bed....................Now there's a thought, a Pacer railtour bouncing around the streets of Manchester on its flanges in the middle of the night. It could be called "The Vomit Dodger" :D

Sadly an ambition never likely to be realised unless you have a C13 or 14 hidden away somewhere. Incidentally weren't they 4-4-2T's?

Yes they were.
Don't worry, I've got a plan up my sleeve as well as a spanner, a copy of new scientist and a pack of kleenex tissues!

I was thinking that a pacer could run on a sunday when there are less trams.
Like the name I have to say.
As far as the C13 and 14's are concerned, there is a great chance for a new build here.
I wonder what metrolink would say?
No probably.

If no-one else noticed, there's a 4 page article on this very subject in the current edition of the Railway Magazine.
Cheers. 62440

Ah well I will purchase this as soon as poss then thanks!

Mainline trains have taken a ride on Metrolink in recent years.

Metrolink hired 3 Class 08 shunters and a Class 60 locomotive from EWS in order to help with the relay of track on the Bury and Altrincham lines.

The ex-BR sections of Metrolink where and still are built and maintained to Network Rail standards, to the point that I believe staff even carry up to date Network Rail literature to assist them with this.

I did have a photo of a Class 60 on Metrolink metals but can't find it at the moment. This proves it did occur, however;

http://www.ews-railway.co.uk/cmsnews...45D244AF8CE%7D

But as EWS states there, there are problems with clearences brining main line locomotives onto the Metrolink network, certainly in the city centre where the OHL is far too low for a mainline loco to fit under (I believe EWS had to bring their locos in via the connection at the ELR).

So there is no chance of fitting a Pacer into the city centre because the wires are too low.

I also don't see a Pacer making it up the gradient towards Shudehill on tram tracks without derailing to be honest.

Non starter.

Indeed they did. Indeed, all the ballast and rails used for the relaying of the Bury line came over East Lancs metals. If I remember correctly, they used to use a mainline engine to haul them from Hopwood groundframe, through Heywood, down Broadfield Bank and in to Bolton Street. They'd then attach a cut down 08 to the back, and shunt the wagons in some sidings, specially laid for the purpose, down by the steam shed at Baron Street. Whether the mainline diesels (either 60s or 67s, I forget which) actually made it on to metrolink metals I'm not sure.

In the very early years of Metrolink, they held a depot open day, and one of the exhibits was Gothenburg, which got to the depot under it's own power. It was apparently chosen as it was the only steam engine on the line which would fit under the over head wires.

During the upgrading work EWS Class 60's were permitted to work on the Metrolink line from Bury to Collyhurst Tunnel. Only the cut-down 08's were permitted to proceed through the tunnel into Manchester Victoria. The Metrolink handbook states that the overhead wires on the railway sections are at a nominal height of 4700mm but that trams can cope with a minimum height of 3900mm in places. This could explain why a Class 60 with a height of 3931mm could operate as far as Collyhurst Tunnel but only a cut-down 08 with a height of 3610mm could pass through the tunnel. ( For reference the actual trams are 3700mm high with their pantographs lowered)
I don't understand this as the Metrolink handbook states that the overhead wires in the City Centre section are actually higher with a nominal height of 5500mm above the roadway. I assume this is to cater for high road vehicles such as double-decker buses.
I can't argue with that:D

I don't see how EWS can claim anything anymore.
Is it not DB Shenker?

It wasn't at the time, so no. "DB Schenker" weren't involved, if you like.

Either way, I hope you aren't trolling. =/

Forgive my ignorance but what is "trolling" ?

Making an off-topic comment purely to provoke a negative response / arguement, or to derail the thread for no real reason except to score points.

Not to say he is, but, anyway.

Sorry, quite right!

I should have explained myself more clearly really. What I had in mind specifically was Victoria station, which any Pacer would have to pass under to get to the city centre.

If you look at the OHL at Victoria, it's pretty clear no main line train could reasonably fit under it, at least to me. It looks *very* low IMO.

I think it used to be called "s--t stirring" in my day.:D