Great Western Coffee Shop

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8257652.stm):

How extraordinarily sensible. And they've even realised that electric ones are more viable!!!

One day Bristol could have them as well........ if it wasn't in the westcountry.

Am not familiar with that part of the world, is this sceme basicly re-opening a line that is currently freight only?

Erm ... rather like the Portishead branch, you mean?  ::) :o ;D

Sheffield Supertram line (double track) from City Centre to Meadowhall Interchange runs for a distance alongside the freight only Woodburn Junction to Rotherham Central line.  Network Rail are to look at putting in a connection between the 2 lines (perhaps between Arena and Carbrook tramstops), then they would need to electrify the freight line which runs on the south side of the valley from adjacent to Meadowhall South tram stop to Rotherham Central station. Just short of Rotherham Central (i.e. west of station) the single line connection (Holmes Chord) from the main Sheffield to Doncaster line (at Holmes junction) trails into the freight line, indeed the double track freight and single track passenger lines run parallel for perhaps half a mile. This single track connection restricts the number of passenger trains into Rotherham Central to about 3 trains per hour each way (i.e. total 6 movements) - 2 Sheffield - Doncaster stopper and 1 Sheffield - Leeds via Wakefield Westgate stopper.

Therefore by running TramTrain on this Sheffield City Centre - Meadowhall Shopping Centre - Rotherham Central route  the frequency of service can be greatly improved and still allow connection with National Rail services at Rotherham Central. I imagine that either a low level platform extension or perhaps a bay with low platform will need to be built at Rotherham, but I guess this will form part of Network Rail's investigation, as any possible intermediate tram stops might.  I am told that the Sheffield - Meadowhall - Barnsley - Penistone - Huddersfield Tram Train scheme is now Phase 2 and is expected to go ahead. Personally I doubt that it will be during the current franchise period for Northern Rail but who knows the next government may see it as priority. The Huddersfield scheme was a very ambitious experiment as it involved trams on 3 types of railway, each with its own regulations and legal requirements: Sheffield / Meadowhall is high speed mixed railway (TENs is it?), whilst Meadowhall to Barnsley is mostly DMU with rare freights, and onto Huddersfield is a stand alone line with only DMUs which could have been operated on a form of drive on sight perhaps with less rigourous signalling. Finding anyone to supply 5 diesel trams was, according to railway press, difficult, whereas electric trams are easier to source.

Hope this helps relate what is proposed to other lines, like Portishead, or even some branches where diesel trams would be the only choice.

Personally I don't see the point in the Penistone project, why don't hey just spend all that money on some decent DMU's to run on the existing line!

I don't think anyone did. It was a DaFT project, in more ways than one. Spending lots of money lowering platforms and buying a handful of non standard diesel trams to replicate the existing once an hour service.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-18100674):

Am I missing something? Why not just run normal trains on the line?

Yet another route ruined by trams - just like Wolverhampton to Snow Hill. ::)

Not quite as simple as converting a railway line into a tram line.

The Sheffield - Meadowhall - Rotherham Central line is a very busy line and carries freight, Intercity, semi-fast and local trains. There are around 12 trains per hour most of the day, that is 12 each way on double track, between Sheffield and Meadowhall Interchange. Of these 3 each way per hour leave the main line at Holmes Junction for the loop via Rotherham Central. Part of this loop involves a single ladder junction and a stretch of single track.

The tram-train does not use this line, but will use the existing tram line from Sheffield City Centre (not the station) and adjacent to Meadowhall South tram stop a short junction will be made onto the parallel freight line. Tram-trains will then share the existing freight line to just south of Rotherham Central where the existing heavy rail passenger line joins the freight line. From here northwards for about a mile tram-train, dmus and freight trains will use the same track to the tram-train terminus at Parkgate retail park.

Trams will operate 3 times per hour into Sheffield City Centre, dmus will run 3 times per hour between Rotherham, Meadowhall Interchange and Sheffield stations (these trains originate from Doncaster (2) and beyond, or Leeds (1).

Currently Supertram runs 8 times an hour City to Meadowhall Interchange, with Meadowhall South being the first stop into town. Presumably tram-train will be additional to these and give 11 journeys per hour from Meadowhall South into the City. Remember that trams run on line of sight and are only signalled at road crossings etc.

Hope this is helpful.

Ok, quite complicated. Thanks for explaining! 8)

I still can't see why they don't just divert passenger trains onto the freight line. Would this bypass the single track?
Or could they double track the existing line?
Sorry - I'm just against tram in general using heavy rail routes.

The XC Sheffield to Doncaster service is so slow. A bit of investment could really speed things up!

Off-topic, but how frequent are the trams on that section? When various persons have lamented the passing of WSMR, or mentioned providing Shrewsbury with some direct London services, I have wondered whether you could build a chord connecting the Wolverhampton - Snow Hill tram line to the mainline Wolverhampton station and route Chiltern's LHCS trains from Marylebone to Shrewsbury/Wrexham via that route (which would avoid the Wolverhampton - New Street route, which I'm told is full, while still allowing the train to call at Birmingham (Moor Street)). Obviously, that only works if the trams on the section are a lower frequency than Birmingham - Wolverhampton mainline rail services to allow paths for the Marylebone - Shrewsbury/Wrexham services.

And diesel-trams? I'm glad that daft suggestion was put aside.

If the trams just run on heavy rail and share it with DMUs and Freight then you have Karlsruhe, Kassel, Nordhausan (metre gauge) and Saarbrucken type system, with true tram trains.  All you have in effect are trains that run on heavy rail on the outskirts of a town and then run through the town centre on the street on the tram lines. Heavy rail trains use the heavy rail lines as normal.

The only thing that could cause problems is that true tram trains should be dual voltage so that the heavy rail bit would be 25KV AC (162/3 AC in Germany) whilst  the street sections would be 600/700 DC. Unless like Kassel and Nordhausen they are EDs and run on diesel on the normal lines.

It seems much better than the daft idea idea running ED trams on diesel on the Sheffield Penistone Huddersfield line. This way heavy rail still uses the heavy rail track whilst pasengers get the option  of joining a tram into the city centre.

At last our planners might just have realised the potential to provided integrated transport in one vehicle.

The trams would have to be axed to make way.
Fine in my opinion - passenger numbers have been very low (no surprise - the train is quicker and the bus is cheaper).
It could be done, removing ATW and LM Shrewsbury from New Street and giving them London services.
Snow Hill would regain platform 4 allowing for a local service on the line.

The existing line could have faster express services taking 15 minutes and the local stopper could be increased to 3 or 4 tph.

Nah - let's use this vital corridor for a pointless tram!
Trams run on the road. That is why they are called trams.

The people of Knutsford in Chesire had their rail service butchered when the mainline to Manchester was switched to trams. Trains are diverted via Stockport (a ridiculous route if you look at a map) and take 20 minutes longer.

I wonder what effect the New Street extension will have on passenger numbers?  Presumably part of that will have street running?

It vacates platform 4 at Snow Hill (but there is as yet no commitment to reinstate it for heavy rail) and runs on street for a couple of hundred yards.

I doubt it'll have much of an effect as people wanting the city centre can already get a train to New Street or Moor Street - still quicker. Or the bus which will remain cheaper.

It's not even going to the Curzon Street station on Moor Street.

Agreed the use of rail lines soley for trams is pointless. However it appears that the Shefield idea is a true tram/train, in other words a vehicle suitable for street running which is also equipped with the necessary AWS TPWS etc to run on heavy rail in amongst other services.

The trouble is up until now "they" DaFT HSE, HMRI have been hung up on the safety issues of having what is in practice a lighter weight road vehicle sharing the tracks with 1000 ton container trains. Forgetting the whole raison detra of railway operation is to keep trains apart in a controlled and safe manner. So provided the tram is equipped with heavy rail signalling then it as safe as any other train on the track.

The only thing I might quarrel about in the Sheffield scheme is that presumably they are ED trams and will on run on diesel power on heavy rail. Personnaly I would like to see the ehavy rail stretch electrified at 25KV to test teh dual voltage concept. Sheffiled northwards is probaly going to be electrified sooner or later in which case  a bit will already be done!

The freight line from Meadowhall South to Rotherham Central and the line beyond as far as the new tram terminus at Parkgate will be electrified at the same voltage as the whole Supertram Network in Sheffield, and not at 25kv. No tram manufacturers would quote for ElectroDiesel trams for the original Penistone line plan, which helped get it shelved! These will be electric trams, and operated by the tram operator - Stagecoach Supertram - from the existing tram depot.

So, basically, just an extension of the tram network onto heavy rail lines. I can't see that any of the vehicles could be regarded as Pacer replacements. Heavy rail Pacer replacements for non electrified lines (of which there are many miles) will probably require modern lightweight diesel railcars.

Regarding future electrification of the Sheffield - Meadowhall - Rotherham Central - Doncaster / Leeds line is tied up with MML electrification and the DfT seem frightened to make a decision. I doubt that there is any technical reason why tram line voltage and 25kv can be accommodated only the mile or so of shared track north of Central.

I'm from Sheffield, infact I was on the Meadowhall tram route yesterday.
It will bypass the short piece of single track of the Homes Cord with a much longer one. The tram-train scheme is a great idea because the Meadowhall tram route is a phenomenal success at the moment. The new tram route will link Rotheram's out of town shopping centre, which currently doesn't have a station, Rotheram town centre, Meadowhall, although not the primary Meadowhall stop which is the interchange, South Yorkshire's largest cinema, another reatil park, the arena and Sheffield city centre. Its worth noting that these last four are already on the tram route.

The investment that would be need would be extra tracks as the fast trains every hour are genrally slowed down by the stoppers.

From the Doncaster Free Press (http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/doncaster-news/train-tram-pilot-gets-a-major-funding-injection-1-5329514):

I hope this trial is done with the best available design of tram, and not with a cost-saving value-engineered compromise. If not, it will not be a true trial. For all the reservations expressed by Btline and others, I see this as an important step with potential benefits for the greater Bristol area amongst others.

The major problem with the original plans for the old Avon Metro was the cost of laying down tracks all the way from Almondsbury to the City Centre as the first step. We should soon have four tracks to Filton Bank, a project I have been following with interest. That will give at least double the current capacity from Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood. Bradley Stoke, UWE, Cribbs Causeway, and most other major destinations in Bristol and South Gloucestershire are within a stone's throw of a soon-to-be-electrified railway line. To take Bradley Stoke as an example, it would need only a short length of track, either street running or segregated, to connect with the railway at Patchway, or near Parkway, or even both. At the other end, an exit from Temple Meads by platform 1 could take the tram-train through the new transport hub on Plot 6, around the Grosvenor Hotel and along Redcliffe Way at the Portwall Lane end, over the Bascule Bridge, along the Grove, then around the Centre and Cabot Circus before returning along Temple Way. There are already aspirations  to close Redcliffe Way to traffic, and the rail bridge over the Avon already has a turn out, which used to serve the line to the docks.

For the price of about five miles of tram track, we could have a true network from the northern end into the city centre. Heavy rail would not be compromised, but would be complemented. That would revolutionise the commute for many tens of thousands in a way the the stupid BRT scheme will not do.

Transport supremo Norman Baker is seemingly so certain the trials will be a success that he has told planning authorities that they can assume it as a fact from 2017 when making decisions.

I am assuming that all four tracks between Filton and Temple Meads will be electrified at 25kV ac. How does this work with trams? They seem to use 750V dc?

Dual voltage tram-trains. A proven technology in use in Germany, The Netherlands and France.

rip to the oldham loop line  :'(

Plus ED trams in Kassel standard gauge and Norhausen metre gauge

Nordhausen is of course a diesel/electric hybrid.  But the point is well made: dual voltage and bi-mode power is used extensively.

The Eurostar fleet was built to a tri-voltage standard, with 25KV catenary for France, 3KV DC catenary for Belgium, and 750V DC third rail for England. Some of SNCF's sets were for a time quadrivoltaic, also being able to cope with 1500V DC catenary in parts of the south of France - les Lignes Classiques. The third rail shoes were retracted when not needed, and were removed altogether when HS1 opened.

Not knowing the technical details, but knowing that the Eurostars draw up to 12 MW of power, I'm amazed that they could deal with the 750V system at all. The French and Belgians built high speed lines to the tunnel whilst it was being dug, and so had a state-of-the-art system in place by the time it opened. We did the usual British thing of fannying about having studies, inquiries, second thoughts, changes of government, etc, and made do with our state-of-the-ark Kentish rail network whilst HS1 was built. The limitations of the power system were never exposed because of the limitations of the track - more than 100mph was not possible for either reason. I spoke with an elderly French man whilst I was on holiday in Brittany, who had just returned from a trip to London, starting from Morlaix by TGV to Paris. "Pendant tout le voyage de Morlaix ^ Paris, de Paris ^ Calais, et de Calais ^ Douvres, le train ^tait tr^s stable et tr^s rapide. Mais apr^s..." 'Nuff said. Thankfully in the past now.

With intra-urban systems, I believe, although I am not certain, that the motors are made to work with 25KV AC. Within the mixed environment, where such a voltage would be unacceptably dangerous, the 550 to 750V DC is converted to 25KV AC via an inverter. High voltage AC current is much less prone to loss due to heat and other reasons over long distances, which is one reason the National Grid is now modelled on 400KV. Within the confines of an urban light rail network, 750V works perfectly well. Modern electronics mean that the switch can be done "on the fly" with little or no driver involvement.

So yes, it does work abroad, and would work here in the UK. Even Bristol.

We will all have to bear with trainer for a little while...since ordering a new diesel/electric hybrid car, he's been a bit one track minded ..... ;D ;D ;D

4 track i right Eurostars were/still are the most complicated trains in the World when DC third rail was used there were 8 operating modes. Three were 25kv with signalling TVM for the high speed 2 for the lines either side of the tunnel and the tunnel itself which was the third. If I remember rightly the only difference for HS1 and LGV Nord was the hour difference on the clock! Through the tunnel although 25KV and  TVM signalling the pan was raised 6".

There were also 25KV BR with TPWS and AWS, Belgium 3000 and French 1500 DC o/h and third rail  (I've lost one).

On thrid rail the sets only drew about 4000hp instead of 14 on HSI and LGVs hence the complaint of the slowness of the journey through Kent before HS1.  Even so the power and S&T engineers had to do an awful lot of work beefing up the powere supplies and immunising signalling circuits.   

So it can be done.

As a further complication, the OHLE through the tunnel is a lot higher than outside, to take account of the double-deck shuttles. I believe the driver has to lower and re-raise the pantograph before entry and exit.

The local  Amsterdam facilities include a tram 51 to Amstelveen (a sort of Bradley Stoke outside Amsterdam that insists on keeping its own local authority) which starts from Centraal Station on the Metro which is third rail and shared with conventional trains and then comes off at Zuid onto a roadway central reservation line with OLE.  This is shared with a conventional tram 5 service that uses a segregated platform for the different height of baording. 

I don't know how to do Google Maps / Street View links but if you put in 'Uilenstede station Amstelveen' it will land you right on it.  (Yes it means Owls city!!).   Street View (take a walk along the road) gives an excellent view of a Tram 5 pulling into its portion of the platform.  Unlike other Amsterdam trams, that only have doors one side, number 5 has them both sides, all little quirks that have to be taken into account.

Thinking about Bristol (as I, like FTN, am want to do) I looked up the Bristol tunnels, and the Portishead line was built as broad gauge so the little tunnels may well be high enough.  The Clifton tunnel was built as NG from the start to join the Port and Pier Railway down at the Avon and that latter line was NG'd at the same time.  I don't know whether it is high enough for OLE; I assume so, as nothing has been said about this by NR.

Sadly NR and DafT have said that neither Portishead nor the Severn Beach line will be electrified, at least not before the current planned projects are complete. The High Output Plant is not yet built, but its calendar is full, and many are clamouring for their branch line to be included. DafT have quite sensibly signalled that no further additions will be made to its schedule until it has finished the current programme. There will be only one train, with presumably only one crew, electrifying one mile of track per 6-hour possession. That takes us to 2019. After that, it would make the greatest sense to carry on mile by mile until the whole UK network is electric. I reckon the Severn Beach line could be done in three weeks, Portishead in about the same, and Bristol to Penzance in about 6 months. For a metro system, the advantages and efficiencies of electric trains are obvious and have been stated.

On the Portishead line, the floor of the Ham Green to Pill tunnel was lowered by digging it out as part of the project to reopen the goods line. It enjoys W9 loading gauge, and one assumes that the tunnels on that line are high enough to accommodate electrification. The Severn Beach line is limited to W6 gauge, probably because of Montpelier and Clifton Down tunnels. It was double track throughout until late 1970, so presumably has enough height through the centre of the tunnels for electrification of a single line, even if it is accomplished by use of an overhead rail rather than cable. I don't know if it would be possible to re-double the entire line with electrification, but if it can be re-doubled except for the tunnels, that would more than double the current capacity, I reckon. So when we have an electrified double-tracked branch line, then maybe tram-train will come to the line.

All public transport will be powered by electricity one day. It makes sense to put it on rails, to benefit from the reduced friction and from the discrete route. The dirtiest coal-fired power station is cleaner than the cleanest diesel bus or car.

There may be a number of reasons why every branch line won't be wired, but I very much doubt that the 'full diary' of the high output train will be the main one.  It is just as likely to use normal road rail plant to wire up a typical branch line, as just done on the Paisley Canal branch during 2012...

Paul

Silly me FTN, not mentioning Montpelier tunnel.  I've walked through that one too!   ::)

Yes I knew there was no immediate promise to electrify but I see it as inevitable, otherwise the step change in provision will not be achieved.  Actually, on the Clifton line (I prefer that name to Severn Beach line, as the latter does not describe the current raison d'etre so well) partial re-dualling, as FTN points out, is almost certainly more important at present, both for increased frequency and reliability.

To me, an urban local service needs minimum 15 min frequency (turn up and go), and go to where people want to go.  In Bristol that is (now) TM office area, Broadmead (office and shopping) and Centre (office and entertainment).  That is why I think Bristol must have some sort of tram / train implementation as indeed does FTN.  Otherwise all the 4 tracking and so on will not deliver to residents a rail solution for mass transit.

If you live near Clifton Down you will always get a bus down to at least two of the above destinations IMO.  If you live near Sea Mills or Redland, the choice begins to get interesting.  This is because if you could stay sat on one vehicle, the fact it goes a bit round the houses, is less important and convenience more so.

The other thing about local stations, is their proximity to local facilities.  Clifton is smack bang where it needs to be, Montpelier not bad but could make its presence better felt from the A38 Cheltenham Road,  the projected reinstatement of Ashley Hill is near the UWE but needs some form of local shopping to increase footfall.  In fact an extra stop at the actual Ashley Hill overbridge between Montpelier and Stapleton Road should be considered (probably needs lift and /or stairs).

To me, urban planners should be looking at all the locations, of which the above are just examples.   A junction from the relief lines from north of Stapleton Road down to the M32 (take up a lane each way) would enable trams to access the central area quicker.

I've looked at the Sheffield projects carefully and it seems this is exactly the approach Bristol should use.  The irony at Rotherham is that the tram will start its westward journey from their own out-of-town shopping area (Parkgate) and of course it passes the Meadowhall one, also out of town, on the edge of Sheffield.  Apparently, the managers of Parkgate are afraid it will simply extract Rotheram-ites to Meadowhall!

I could see the same nonsense happening with Bristol's  (SGC's?) Cribbs Causeway monstrosity.   :-[ 

Normally, the 25kVac supply from the pantograph is transformed down to 1500Vac, rectified and fed to the motor control system (PCM and resistances, thyristor or inverter). On third rail, only 750Vdc is available at best (it can be 590V) and half Volts means quarter power, 3MW instead of 12MW. The Eurostars thus had a balancing speed up the Kentish hills of 44 mph! Even this current was a lot for SE Division substations to cope with.

The Evening Standard did a prophetic cartoon of the Chunnel mouth, with a French TGV meeting a UK Victorian 4-wheel, open topped tram, head on.

South Yorkshire benefits from having parallel Midland and Great Central (MS&L) routes, so might possibly avoid the need for dual voltage locally. Also, the safety record of TPWS has probably made the tram-train possible.

OTC

I knew it was bad, but didn't realise it was that bad! As my French neighbour pointed out, you can hurtle through the French countryside at 180 mph before slamming on the brakes as you enter the UK. Good thing we got HS1 sorted eventually,


Historically correct, too, the line having opened as the Clifton Extension Railway in 1874. It ran as such between Clifton and Mangotsfield for 3 years until the Clifton Down tunnel was completed.

There is another matter that needs to be addressed locally - cost. If you work in the city centre, and live in Severn Beach, you could change to bus at Clifton Down, Montpelier, Stapleton Road, Lawrence Hill, or Temple Meads for the last mile.. The return fare to Clifton Sown from SVB is ^2.00, whereas the bus fare from Clifton to town and back will set you back^4.00, or ^3.50 if you get Plusbus with your rail ticket. That really puts off anyone without a bus pass from doing the journey this way. First Bus should be made to greet passengers with a cry of "Stand and deliver!" until such time as the councils get a proper integrated fare sorted out. I prefer walking, but not everyone can.

Good points.  I looked up my Amsterdam example again and the fast tram runs on 750v DC third rail while it is on the metro and then puts up the pantograph on leaving and picks up 750v DC from the OLE.  I imagine a Bristol fast tram could do more or less the same, 'just' switching to 25kv AC at the TM Hub.  Do any of our experts think that is OK, as all I know about electricity is that it is a dumb way to die to rely on anyone else as to whether the mains is isolated or not when effecting repairs?

That example I gave about people getting out at Clifton to change to bus, is clearly not going to be the case, unless pax are financial masochists, as long as First Bus are involved anyway.  (Is there not a parent company?).   

An update on the original subject - from Rail (http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/11/27/final-approval-given-for-sheffield-tram-train-pilot) magazine:

And the first vehicles have arrived ... via the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-34948557)

(There are pictures too)

It's been a while since there was news to report, but the first new vehicle was rolled out of the depot to meet the Minister.

The TV report is here. (http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=51215X1253782&site=skyscrapercity.com&xs=1&isjs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F148612619&xguid=81eb343d51d67526c1ef1d52fc85c88f&xuuid=a3a70615880cbed41c85d3a65d2c4b22&xsessid=3b81825eb03551b8e070559db01c26ae&xcreo=0&xed=0&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyscrapercity.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Fs%3D0d02767854a6d07dbc6f1e7794bd2551%26p%3D129249028%23post129249028&xtz=0&abp=1)

Those of us who live in Bristol will watch it and groan. Are we really spending all that money on MetroBust?

Update ... final one of 7 tram trains 399201 to 399207 delivered last November (2016) and a hope that the service will operate from summer next year (2018).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_399

http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,fresh-doubt-over-58-million-rotherham-tramtrain-project_21523.htm

That's better news than I read elsewhere, which was slanted towards Stagecoach actually pulling out of the project, not just being able to if they want.

From Rail Technology Magazine (http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/first-passenger-service-finally-launches-on-delayed-sheffield-tram-train)


Comment - apparently informed - is not positive


and


and

Don't pull the cork on the shampoo just yet. This doesn't mean that the first tram-train has run from Sheffield to Rotherham, but that the first of the vehicles delivered almost two years ago will for the first time carry passengers on the original Sheffield Supertram routes. I understand that services will be run as "charity specials" tomorrow - no charge, but a charity bucket on each tram, to receive unwanted buttons, foreign coins, and the occasional 20p piece. See here  (https://www.stagecoachbus.com/news/yorkshire/2017/september/st-try-one-of-our-new-citylink-trams) and the embedded PDF if you are thinking of nipping along for a freebie.

The infrastructure is, AIUI, complete for the link between supertram and the national railway. Hopefully, trials on that will start soon.

While the delays to the scheme make Bristol's MetroBust build look speedy, and the costs make it seem more of a white elephant than that beloathed project, the naysayers are missing a couple of things.


The current rail service has about the frequency of the Severn Beach line. The tram-train will run as well as, not instead of, that, and you won't have to pay much to ride to the station from elsewhere on the network.

This is a research and development project, which has included lots of metallurgical studies as well as engineering, which will, if the trial is ultimately a success and the government wills it, inform similar projects elsewhere in Britain.

They've made rapid progress then since I paced through Rotherham on 142028 and then 142023 on 14th August. Work on the new tram platforms at Rotherham Central looked to me to have only just been started and the OHLE was not complete (some masts were up but no wires that I noticed). One of the new class 399 units for the project was out running (out-of-service) in Sheffield city centre, I think for driver-training purposes.

I don't think Rotherham Central is the planned terminus for the tram train. Although I couldn't see how they were going to string the OHLE through Rotherham Central, there was evidence of works for the tram-train on both sides of that station including what I believe to be the tram-train terminus in an area beyond Rotherham Central which looked like an industrial estate.

It is a shame such a hash has been made of this trial as I think tram-trains would be ideal for Swansea with a line from Mumbles to Neath sharing part of the route with trains to and from Swansea Docks and possibly a later phase sharing the Gowerton-Llanelli section.

Sheffield to Rotherham trains run three times each hour - 2 services to Doncaster at half hourly interval, and 1 train per hour stopping service to Leeds. Journey time 12 to 13 minutes. Sheffield Supertram takes closer to 20 minutes from Meadowhall to Sheffield City Centre (Cathedral) so the tram ride from Rotherham is likely to take 25 or even 30 minutes, and frequency isn't going to be better than every 20 minutes.

Trains and trams are likely to serve different markets as Sheffield Midland Station is an uphill 10 minute walk to the shops and the tram stops are a bit of a walk to the railway station for onward train journeys. Hallam University and Grenville College are nearer to the Midland Station.

Progress being made ...

From Metro Report International (http://www.metro-report.com/news/single-view/view/sheffield-tram-train-runs-onto-network-rail-infrastructure.html)

Good news, and not before time!

From my mailbox this morning - a suggestion that the Tram Train be used on the Portishead line.   There is more meat on the bones of that suggestion; looks like it will get a study.   Good or bad idea?  Could you (dear reader) be more positive if it attacks funding from beyond the West of England and / or shares Sheffield technology to help make it affordable?

Passenger services start tomorrow - http://www.britishtramsonline.co.uk/news/?p=24289 . How long behind that will Portishead be?

Oh dear, not a good start:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-sheffield-tram-crash-major-13479119

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-news-live-major-incident-declared-as-tram-crashes-with-lorry-and-derails-stretch-of-m1-near-sheffield-shut-following-major-four-vehicle-crash-1-9412673

Not a tram-train (or Super Tram Train as the reports have it), which would be lost if going down the Staniforth Road.

The news feed does say, later on, that it was a new tram-train - if so, we'll have to see why it was running that service.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-45976460

Sheffield-Rotherham tram-train crashes after being hit by lorry


There does appear to be a knowledgeable witness:

"Steve Barber, 63, from Nottingham, who is vice-president of the Light Transit Association, was travelling on the new tram-train when the crash happened."


I don't know the area, but the BBC says this about the tram train route:"The tram-trains will travel on the Supertram network from Sheffield Cathedral to Meadowhall South before proceeding over a new section of track linking the tram line to the rail track called Tinsley Chord."

Well according to other places it was Tram-Train unit 399204:
http://www.britishtramsonline.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/1.204-sc-550x412.jpg

Why would it not be?

The tram-train service to Rotherham crosses Staniforth Road between the Woodbourn Road and Attercliffe tram stops.

Vehicle number was 399 204. One of the Vossloh/Stadler tram-trains.

Well, neither do I - but I can now see that it was where the tram route on Woodbourn Road crosses Stanifirth Road, which does explain it.

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/uks-first-ever-tram-train-launches-in-yorkshire-

Who'd be a prophet, eh?

The tram-train units are also being used in "normal" services within the Sheffield network. This may be relevant in this incident.

Clearly that would be impossible! How would the tramtrain know whether it was a train or a tram when it got to Quays Avenue? If it was a train, it could not possibly proceed any further (even at 8km/h) because that would involve crossing a road, which as we know would be outrageously dangerous; if it was a tram then it could happily run down the middle of the road without a care in the world. Its poor electronic brain would output error code 42, and then shut down.

RAIB have responded (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/collision-between-a-car-and-tram-sheffield) to the accident on the opening day and to another one in November at the same junction. Neither merits a full investigation, but two in one place so quickly has led to a published note and a letter to the council: