Supplementary memorandum by the Confederation
of Passenger Transport UK (RT 19A)
LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS
Following the oral evidence given to the Transport
Subcommittee by Messrs Depledge and Lusher on behalf of CPT we
would respond to the supplementary points as follows:
ULTRA LIGHT
RAIL
How significant a role is there for Ultra Light
Rail systems as an attractive and cost effective alternative to
the car?
Ultra Light Rail is a largely untested mode
at present. Experimental designs such as the Parry People Mover
have demonstrated that the mode is cheap and technically feasible.
It remains to be seen whether it can be an economic mode of transport.
Like standard light rail, it requires a fixed infrastructure and
must be approved through the Transport and Works Act process.
However, it has a lower speed and carrying capacity compared with
standard light rail, and its attractiveness to car users remains
to be proven. As compared to the bus alternative, then, it would
appear in general to have the disadvantages of light rail without
the benefits.
There may be specific circumstances where Ultra
Light Rail could have a role to play. One possibility that comes
to mind is to link a city centre with a poorly-located railway
station. Bristol Temple Meads is one example of such a station,
another is Stourbridge where there is currently a demonstration
project of the Parry People Mover. This reinforces the point in
our submission that the transport needs of each city must be assessed
according to their specific circumstances. Ultra Light Rail could
give the transport planner another tool in the armoury of available
solutions, to be assessed alongside other possible solutions.
TRACK SHARING
What technical and administrative barriers are
there to track-sharing in the UK?
Track sharing refers to the mixed running of
heavy and light rail vehicles at the same time on the same track
(generally, Railtrack track). It is recognised that light rail
vehicles cannot meet all the construction and operating standards
which apply to heavy rail; they would not be light rail vehicles
if they did. Railtrack has therefore recently developed, with
the assistance of HM Railway Inspectorate and ourselves, a set
of standards[8],[9]for
track sharing by light rail vehicles. The general principle is
that vehicles of lighter construction can be acceptable if suitable
risk control requirements are in operation and a risk assessment
is made to demonstrate that no additional risk is incurred.
The standards address such issues as wheel profiles,
braking performance, visibility of vehicle, layout of headlights
etc. One obvious concern is collision prevention; this was raised
in the Committee's questions to the Light Rail Transit Association.
The consequences of a collision between a heavy rail and light
rail vehicle could be very serious, therefore the signalling system
must provide a very high degree of protection. In practice, this
means that control by signal observation alone will not be acceptable,
and shared running will only be permitted if all vehicles using
the shared line are fitted with suitable and compatible protection
systems such as train-stop or train protection and warning system
(TPWS).
Light rail vehicles must also go through a Route
Acceptance procedure to demonstrate that they are suitable for
the route on which they are to be used (as must all rail vehicles
on Railtrack infrastructure). The details would depend on the
particular circumstances, but this might mean, for example, light
rail vehicles not being permitted to track-share with high speed
trains or fast freight trains.
All the relevant factors would be considered
as part of a Railway Safety Case which would need to be accepted
by Railtrack. Many light rail operators already submit Safety
Cases directly to the Health and Safety Executive for their current
operations; they are a legal requirement for systems defined as
railways (such as Tyne and Wear Metro), and some tramway operators
do it voluntarily. (The Committee may wish to note that HSE has
recently introduced a substantial charge for this approvals process,
which is akin to charging for a VAT inspection or a roadside check).
It should be noted that there are other, less
demanding forms of track sharing than mixed running, the main
ones being:
— exclusive running, where heavy and
light rail use the same track but not at the same time, for example
where the light rail line is available for freight trains at night.
Here, there must be suitable interlocking signals and points to
ensure that one type of vehicle cannot access the line when it
is in use by the other.
— parallel running, where light and
heavy rail share an alignment but with no connection between the
tracks. Here, the required precautions are fairly obvious, such
as ensuring that there is sufficient separation between the tracks
and that signals cannot be confused.
We believe that these arrangements overcome
the administrative barriers to track sharing by setting out the
technical and operational requirements that must be met, and requiring
a demonstration that no additional risk will be incurred.
How considerable is the potential for converting
existing heavy rail lines to light rail or guided bus operation
and for track-sharing by light and heavy rail systems?
Can you give examples of the lines in the UK which
would be most suitable for conversion or track-sharing?
The advantages of converting an existing heavy
rail line are that it can be cheaper and easier than renovating
a heavy rail line or constructing a light rail line from new.
The sort of line which might be suitable for conversion or track
sharing would be one which offered the potential for a substantially
better service if light rail could run at higher frequency and
divert from the line to give better access to the city centre
and possibly suburban or satellite centres as well. Manchester
Metrolink was a system of this type, and might well have been
suitable for track sharing if the standards had been available
at the time.
It is difficult to be specific about locations
without a detailed study of the local transport patterns. There
are probably lightly-used lines in most cities which could be
considered for conversion, but it would depend on an assessment
of the relative costs and benefits. It would be important to remember
that if a line is lightly used it may be because it does not go
where the passenger demand is. There may also be benefits in converting
quite heavily-used rail lines if light rail offered a significant
improvement in access and penetration to the city, or relieved
demand at a congested point on the rail network.
Much the same criteria would apply to conversion
to busway operation, whether guided or not. A busway might well
be cheaper to construct (though not necessarily when a rail trackbed
exists already), and offers the advantage that buses can serve
areas off the line as well. It should be noted that constructing
a busway on land which is not within the limits of a highway may
require Transport and Works Act approval in the same way as a
light rail line.
What criteria should be used when evaluating the
potential for conversion or track-sharing?
The criteria for evaluating the potential for
conversion or track-sharing should be the same as for evaluating
a new light rail line, or any other form of transport investment.
The investment must be judged as part of a range of options for
transport in the area, taking account of the number of passengers
carried, the numbers attracted from cars, the reduction in noise
and pollution, and the improved accessibility which light rail
offers for disabled people. (On this latter point, in our written
evidence we mentioned our concerns about the effects of the DDA
on light rail operations, and we would be happy to expand on these
if the Committee wished).
The assessment would need to weigh the benefits
of the scheme (including time savings and benefits to non-users
such as reduction in congestion and development potential) against
the costs incurred, and come to a conclusion about the best option
for the particular area concerned.
EFFECTS OF
THE MERSEYSIDE
DECISION
What implications, if any, has the failure of
the Merseyside Rapid Transit scheme to gain approval under the
Transport and Works Act had for the promoters of other LRT schemes?
Without more detailed knowledge, it is difficult
to answer this question. It would be a cause for concern if a
properly-thought out scheme failed to obtain approval, but we
do not know if the non-approval was on the merits of the scheme
itself or a result of a failure of the Transport and Works Act
process.
We understand that the Inspectorate expressed
doubts about the use of cable-guidance in a pedestrian area, and
about the arrangements for park-and-ride facilities. Normally,
these features would be fully considered and evaluated as part
of the appraisal process before a scheme was presented to an inquiry.
We also understand that the Inspector commented that the scheme
would abstract passengers from bus services. We would consider
this to be a matter for the commercial judgement of the operators
concerned, and not part of the Inspector's remit.
Provided that a rapid transit scheme is properly-thought
out and evaluated, and considered on their merits at a public
inquiry, we see no reason why the Merseyside decision should have
implications for other schemes.
I trust that the information above is helpful
to the Committee in reaching their conclusions. We would be pleased
to assist the Committee further in any way.
David Walmsley
Fixed Track and Integration Officer
24 January 2000
8 Railway Group Standard GM/RT2452 "Acceptance
of Trams and Light Rail or Metro Vehicles for Shared Running on
Railtrack Controlled Infrastructure" Back
9
Railway Group Guidance Note GE/GN8502 "Operation of Trams
and Light Rail or Metro Vehicles over Railtrack Controlled Infrastructure". Back
| 
