Following on from part 1 which looked at the past, we now concentrate on the recent Tramlink update and look to the future.
A new tram at Wimbledon heading for Elmers End on a training run. Is this a sign of things to come? Thanks to Raji Toyyib for taking this photo.
The Problem of Success
Once TfL gained complete autonomy over Tramlink they were faced with a problem. The system was designed for around 24 million tram journeys a year but the current figure was nearer 29 million, and the standard of service provided did not match the aspirations of either the passenger or TfL itself. Indeed in terms of average passengers carried per tram Croydon was recently identified as the second busiest tram system in the UK and even beats Tyne and Wear Metro light rail. Manchester Metrolink may come out at number one, but even then only just. Given that in Manchester they sometimes couple the two-car trams together it is probably fair to say that Croydon has the most crowded trams in the UK. The obvious first steps were thus to decide on what pattern of improved service would be desirable, possible and appropriate and then to both acquire some more trams for this service and implement any infrastructure improvements necessary.
The New Trams
The interior of a new Variobahn tram. Note that unlike the existing trams the floor is at the same height throughout its length.
The floor is slightly raised over the wheels but you would hardly notice it.
The only platforms that appear to be modified for the new trams are the ones at East Croydon which are slightly curved as the platforms are built on a bridge. The modification is necessary because of the repositioning of the doors which means that there was not level access via the end doors. The work done is quite crude and can be identified by the yellow hatch marks. Note that the length of the platform was not an issue.
The new trams are an improvement over the older ones and shows how technology has advanced. The main advantage is that the entire tram is low floor, with the only concession made to accommodate this being the slight raising of the floor about the wheels. Being in five sections rather than three, the trams also feel less like a train and more suited to winding their way along the street. Like the older trams, the new designs have three bogies – sections two and four being suspended without any wheels below. The number of door openings are the same and, arguably, are better spaced out. This has partially been made possible by a more compact design for the driver’s cab and means that the passenger doors are distributed over almost the entire length of the tram. Finally they have air conditioning.
A rather neat feature is this red LED strip that warns you that the doors are about to close. When the doors are open they are green. The extensive use of LEDs to supplement the strip lighting gives a much more modern feel.
The Current Service
The service proposed, and which is now a reality, is arguably slightly bizarre. It has the feeling of the best that can be done without a major restructuring of the entire service and it is no secret that TfL would love to increase the frequency on the Wimbledon branch which currently has 8 trams per hour (tph). With a single platform terminus, however, at Wimbledon itself, an increase in frequency all the way to Wimbledon is going to be tricky until a second platform can be provided there. Part of the reason for the desire to increase the frequency must be to offer an improved service to Ampere Way – the stop for IKEA and other major stores in Valley Park – and whilst an improved service from Croydon to Wimbledon was not achievable, as an opening gambit an improved service to Ampere Way was.
It was also probably the case that it was recognised that the potential interchange at Elmers End was not being as effective and passenger friendly as it could be. It does not take a genius to spot that a 5tph service linking to a 4tph (off peak) and 6tph (peak) service is not going to lead to the best, or even consistent, connections. The only realistic way of sorting this out is to provide a sufficient frequency of trams so that timetabling for connections is just unnecessary.
The key to the initial solution was to reduce the current service to Elmers End by one to 4tph, and at the same time to introduce a new 4tph service between Therapia Lane (one stop beyond Ampere Way with a convenient turnback facility at the depot entrance) and Elmers End. At the same time the opportunity was also taken to restore the Beckenham Junction service to 6tph.
The problem now was how to dovetail the new 4tph service in between the 8tph New Addington – Wimbledon service and the existing Elmers End service (now at 4tph) in a way that was workable. Obviously one cannot satisfactorily overlay a 4tph service onto an existing 8tph service and the gaps will inevitably be erratic. Furthermore the line between Sandilands and Arena now has three services. Two are 4tph and one is 6tph. Clearly any attempt at timetabling an regular headway was going to be impossible.
Two Variobahns passing just outside Elmers End tramstop using the newly installed passing loop.
Recent Major Infrastructure Improvements
As well as procuring the new trams, the infrastructure needed to be in place to handle the improved service. TfL had already announced that the improved service would include more trams to Elmers End so it was no surprise that they replaced a cripple siding near Elmers End with a short passing loop on the section of single track between Elmers End and Arena. Doubtless a more flexible solution would be a second platform at Elmers End, but that would be more expensive and require a much longer timescale.
The other main piece of work carried out was to double most of the the long single track section between Mitcham Junction and Mitcham. It was surprising that on the opening of Tramlink this was initially single track, as it is a long unbroken section. Furthermore it was double track to the end of BR days and so the formation, and possibly even serviceable track, was already in place. The rationale for doing this work now is less obvious because the frequency of service over this section has not yet changed. It is more a case of added resilience and ability to recover the service. It does fit in with TfL’s declared intention for the next stage of improvement though.
New double track just east of Mitcham tram stop. Doubling this long section almost the entire way to Mitcham Junction should aid reliability in the short term and service frequency to Wimbledon in the long term.
The benefits so far
Like London Overground the philosophy on Tramlink is not to distinguish between peak hour and inter-peak service. The difference is simply the level of crowding. Certainly one could argue that in peak travel periods the new service achieves its objective in increasing capacity. In inter-peak periods one could also see the benefit of providing a direct service to Ampere Way from all stops from Addiscombe to Elmers End inclusive, even though a change at Sandilands was hardly inconvenient. One could argue that the trams are more frequent along the new route, but with the erratic service there is a high chance that you will wait exactly the same amount of time as you did prior to the new service being introduced.
The next stage
So what next?
The key objective is clearly to get more trams to Wimbledon and indeed TfL have stated this publicly. There is no officially stated policy on how to do it, but it seems highly likely this will be done by extending the new route 4 (Elmers End – Therapia Lane) rather than providing a more frequent service over the entire length of route 3 (Wimbledon – New Addington). If it were the latter then one would have expected some of the new trams to be used for an increased New Addington – Therapia Lane service. Whilst just increasing the frequency of the entire New Addington – Wimbledon service would be the easiest, neatest solution from the passengers’ perspective, it does lead to a massive over-provision on the long New Addington branch that probably cannot be justified.
With regards to upgrading the Wimbledon Branch, nothing can happen without sorting out Wimbledon itself. A few years past there was talk of abandoning the station and terminating in the town centre. Certainly Network Rail would love to get all of platform 10 back, but this has not been mentioned recently so we must presume that there is somehow a plan to somehow squeeze in a second platform.
The view looking west from Phipps Bridge tram stop. This section is crying out to be doubled.
TfL has committed to removing any remaining single track stretches on the Wimbledon route, which isn’t quite the same as as saying it will be double track all the way. Beddington Lane to Mitcham Junction flyover (exclusive) will be easy and is the obvious section to tackle next. Phipps Bridge to Morden Road (exclusive) is a little harder as it involves crossing three small streams that are part of the River Wandle and so some bridge construction will doubtless be involved. No doubt the Environment Agency will take a keen interest in the work. The flyovers over the West Croydon and Mitcham Junction rail lines would cost a fortune to double for very little benefit and can safely be assumed to be off the menu. If nothing else the timescales involved would preclude these as part of any imminent upgrade. A short section of interlaced track at Mitcham has always been regarded as too difficult to sort out as it means removing large concrete blocks which support a weak retaining wall.
That leaves the short section of single track just to the west of Mitcham Junction where the tram route goes under the bridge carrying the A237 above. The suggestion was made years ago that it would be possible to provide a new opening to the south of the existing one and this currently appears to be subject to serious consideration. Although the work would appear to be expensive for a short section of track, it would remove the operating restriction where Mitcham Junction tram stop has single track at both ends of the platforms and effectively makes the stop a passing loop.
Mitcham Junction tram stop looking west towards Mitcham. If rumours are to be believed, instead of swinging right to go under the single available arch, the westbound track will continue straight on and under the bridge approach.
Untangling the service
Readers who can follow the patterns in the recently introduced service are probably thinking that the whole thing has become a complete dog’s dinner with erratic headways and inconsistent connection times. No indication of the proposed eventual service has been officially given so we will take the rare liberty of speculating what might happen. To do so it is necessary to take a step back and look at the entire Tramlink network as a whole.
In essence the problem is to match the service to and from Wimbledon (the western branch) with the branches to the east (New Addington, Elmers End and Beckenham Junction). Services from the East are also capable of going around the town centre loop and returning east again. Services from Wimbledon cannot do this.
We have to make a few presumptions so let’s state these at the outset. We presume that the desired frequencies are:
- Wimbledon – 12tph
- New Addington – 8tph
- Elmers End – 8tph
- Beckenham Junction – 6tph
The whole thing would be a lot simpler if the Beckenham Junction service were also 8tph, but the route running parallel to National Rail from Birkbeck to Beckenham Junction is single track with a couple of passing places. The worst remaining single track section on the entire network is between Harrington Road and Avenue Road stop. In the middle of this is Birkbeck tram stop which is a single platform serving both directions. It would not be easy to provide a passing loop here due to the tram/rail overbridge at the end of the platform. To reliably provide 8tph on this branch is probably a challenge and unnecessary anyway.
The only real way to provide a regularly spaced service on the bulk of the Tramlink system is to only provide 4 trams per hour between Wimbledon and New Addington. It then follows that to maintain a even interval service of 8tph to New Addington there has to be a 4tph service New Addington – Croydon Loop. That leaves 8tph from Wimbledon which have to go somewhere other than New Addington. It would be possible to split those equally between Elmers End and Beckenham Junction, but with 6 tph to Beckenham Junction overall this would probably lead to a very complex and erratic working timetable. Far more likely is the notion of sending all of these 8tph to Elmers End.
This will of course lead to an erratic service to and from Elmers End but with an additional 6tph between Arena and Sandilands serving Beckenham Junction, the frequencies would be sufficiently intense for it not to matter. The exception to this is Elmers End tramstop itself which would have 8tph but alternating between 5 minutes apart and 10 minutes apart. Funnily enough that is exactly what happens now, and the current timetable gives a feeling that it is really there to pave the way and test various aspects of the ultimately desired service.
If the above description is correct, and bear in mind it is speculation, then it seems likely that some time in the next few years we will see:
Infrastructure improvements
- An option taken up for four further “Stadtbahn” trams.
- Plans to provide an extra tram platform at Wimbledon.
- Further doubling on the Wimbledon branch
A timetable change
- All Elmers End – Therapia Lane trams continuing to Wimbledon
- All Elmers End – Croydon Town Loop trams diverted to Wimbledon
- 4tph (50%) of New Addington – Wimbledon trams diverted to run New Addington – Croydon Town Loop
Looking Further to the Future
Looking further ahead, all political parties support the principle of extending Tramlink to Crystal Palace which would diverge from the Beckenham Junction branch after Harrington Road. If that proposal is developed it will be interesting to see how the indicative service would fit in with any timetable in existence at the time. Even assuming a simple additional service of Crystal Palace – Croydon Loop one has to wonder if Arena – East Croydon can handle an extra 6tph in each direction. That becomes 20tph in each direction as far as Sandilands and 28tph on the short stretch between Sandilands and East Croydon, which crosses the A232 red route. It may be that one of the branches will be reduced to a shuttle service.
Overall, Croydon has been lucky that the pieces were in place to implement a cheap tram system. What started off as a cheap and cheerful system now has issues of capacity and it looks like some expensive infrastructure upgrades are going to be inevitable at some time in the future. Nevetheless those upgrades are probably going to be better value for money than any other rail-based scheme in London. Comparisons with the DLR are inevitable – Tramlink was a solution designed to fit the available space, infrastructure and money rather than one created from the ground up to fit the need. Like the DLR, it has also been an overwhelming success, despite initial hiccups and problems. It will thus be interesting to see if it follows a similar pattern to the DLR in terms of expansion and if, when it reaches 25, it’ll be getting the same kind of plaudits which it will most likely deserve.
I was wondering when trams would stop serving Wimbledon for the platform woks, so I checked track closures 6 months ahead and there are no scheduled closures at Wimbledon, so I’m assuming this means the platform works will be completed while the service is still running.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=yxXdVNz8DNjvaqibgsAI&url=http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/track-closures.pdf&ved=0CCMQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNHKVn96Ccbv_0RqYPVkDBPPmzoOmQ
I don’t think the recent increase in Sunday frequencies to Wimbledon has been mentioned. Nice that transport timetables are finally noticing that weekend afternoons, and esp Sunday afternoons are now busier than mon-fri midday. Accept that for the trams there is need for more staff, which takes time but it has taken rather a while.
@Kingstoncommuter,
I don’t think we can assume anything. These works seem to be incredibly problematic. The was one very big prolonged closure planned for early 2015 this got cancelled. No explanation has been publicly given nor have details of how and when they now intended to carry out the work.
@Robert Butlin,
These received very little publicity and were initially only advertised on the trams themselves. Subsequently, in late January, TfL issued a press release about it.
Presumably the next stage is to increase the Sunday daytime frequency on the other two lines to every ten minutes during the day on Sunday. I would also argue there is an overdue need to increase frequencies on Saturdays between 6 and 9 p.m. These do seem to be quick easy wins.
When trams to Wimbledon go to 5 minute frequency come 2016 it will be interesting to see if this applies to Sunday daytime as well.
south West Trains services aren’t serving Wimbledon most February weekends according to posters. It is possible trams were retained instead to reduce the impact on weekend shop trade?
I now see that the closures between Wimbledon and Dundonald Road (originally scheduled for early this year) are starting to appear at the end of the six month lookahead of track closures starting on Tuesday(!) 21st July.
21st July is officially the first day of the summer holidays. I b their infinite wisdom the London schools holiday setting body had seen fit to make the last day of school s Monday. I doubt many will not use it for staff training but still it is part of term time. Flights were quite cheap the previous weekend relative to usual too.
@PoP – I had heard that TfL were minded to get Wimbledon Fortnight (tennis) out of the way first, so this seems to fit in any case.
@MPSRTPC Has just tweeted a pic of a new tram on its way to Therapia Lane on the back of a low loader with police escort.
I have noticed that the Dundonald Road to Wimbledon closures have disappeared from the six month look ahead track closures once again.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/track-closures.pdf
I don’t think this presentation has been linked to on LR before. It sets out the issues and longer term plans for improving Tramlink capacity and services in and around Croydon.
WW
I see “Sutton extension” is on the list, but Crytal Palace has evaporated …
Greg – there doesn’t seem to be room to the east of Central Croydon for it, given they are planning on 31tph on that route (15tph New Addington, 8tph Becky J, 8tph Elmers End).
News today on TFL site of Tramlink 15 th birthday . See –
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/news-articles/happy-birthday-london-tra
While TFL talk of upgrades and double tracking the reality is the network has not grown in the same way as the DLR did in its formative years with schemes to extend to Crystal Palace , Sutton etc still awaited.
I wonder why the recent new bridge at the north end of East Croydon Station would have been better if it had been built large enough to incorporate a double track Tramlink ?
@WW: Thanks, it fleshes out a bit more some of the thinking behind the Trams 2030 plan linked to upthread. It seems the long-term approach to the limited scope for expansion of capacity at Wimbledon is to build a spur to South Wimbledon and run extra trams on the branch to there. This then becomes the natural destination for a Sutton branch too – even though the councils and their consultees would rather Sutton trams went to Wimbledon proper. An on-street loop at Wimbledon would raise capacity but doesn’t seem to be on the cards.
Re Ian J,
The presentation WW linked to views long term as upto 2024 and anything beyond that isn’t really discussed. Page 11 has in interesting note on the graph for the early 2030s “Crossrail 2 opportunities” which you could take to include an on Street Loop at Wimbledon?
South Wimbledon might be needed while a loop is constructed and brought into service and to divert passengers away from interchanging at Wimbledon during station rebuild for CR2? Also more trams across the A238 Kingston Road Level crossing could cause traffic in the area to grind to complete halt (comparatively few crossings of the rail /tram lines and the River Wandle funnel all the traffic on to very few roads). So more Wimbledon services might need this nettle grasping. Clapham North etc users on the Northern Line will be “delighted” at the prospect of trams to South Wimbledon…
@ngh
“Also more trams across the A238 Kingston Road Level crossing could cause traffic in the area to grind to complete halt (comparatively few crossings of the rail /tram lines and the River Wandle funnel all the traffic on to very few roads). ”
It was the 1990 plan to extend Merantun Way to a junction with Kingston Road, bypassing this level crossing (at a time when the line saw just two trains an hour) that lost the Conservatives the three seats in Merton Park Ward, and thus control of Merton Borough Council.
From what I have seen, during rush hour, Wimbledon town centre is congested enough as it is. Surely adding a tram loop will make traffic problems even worse. Also where would this tram loop even be and where would it leave the current tram line?
Wimbledon Town Centre loop
I have seen several suggestions – Mr JRT on 17/9/12 @ 11:22 upthread has a route from Merton Park via Hertfield Road and Queens Road. Another suggestion was from Dumdonald Road via Hertfield Crescent and either Beulah Road or Herbert Road.
Another (27th sept @22.23) was via Gladstone Road, with a new road taking over the track bed between Merton Park and Dundonald Road with a bridge across the railway to connect with Worple Road.
@ngh: Page 11 has in interesting note on the graph for the early 2030s “Crossrail 2 opportunities” which you could take to include an on Street Loop at Wimbledon?
More likely it could mean that Crossrail 2 could free up another platform at Wimbledon for Tramlink’s use?
@timbeau: It was the 1990 plan to extend Merantun Way to a junction with Kingston Road, bypassing this level crossing (at a time when the line saw just two trains an hour) that lost the Conservatives the three seats in Merton Park Ward, and thus control of Merton Borough Council.
Thanks, interesting to know. Note the strongly negative reaction in the consultation to Option 1B, which would take the tram across the same bit of recreation ground that Merantun Way would have crossed.
For those less familiar with the area, Merantun Way and part of the recreation ground are on the alignment of the former Merton Abbey Mills branch line.
The Northern Line also runs directly underneath the recreation ground and Option 1B would be directly above the tunnels for part of the route through the recreation ground.
1951 1:2500 OS map:
http://maps.nls.uk/view/103028688
I quite often wait for a Beckenham tram at East Croydon and see up to three New Addington trams and up to three Elmers End trams pass with only one Beckenham Junction arriving. No matter what TPH are applied to the system the computer system controlling the trams doesn’t seem to be scheduling them correctly.
@MIRV
If you are waiting for a Beckenham Junction tram you will only ever see one of them – the one you board.
And “Up to” three of the others is not the same as ALWAYS seeing three. On average you should see two trams before yours, but on 20% of occasions you would see four. (and 20% of the time your tram will come first)
Given that the scheduled service frequency to Becky J is every 15 minutes (thanks to the long single track section) and to both the other termini is every 7.5 minutes, you would expect every fifth tram to be for Becky J, and thus to see between zero and four other trams before yours arrives. In theory you should never see more than two to the same destination, but occasionally they may get out of sequence so three is not out of the question.
timbeau,
Sorry, it’s the right idea but your basic premise is wrong.
Route 1 Elmers End – Croydon – Elmers End is every 15 minutes
Route 2 Beckenham Junction – Croydon – Beckenham Junction is every 10 minutes
Route 3 Addington – Wimbledon is every 7½ minutes
Route 4 Elmers End – Therapia Lane is every 15 minutes
So if you just miss a tram to Beckenham Junction and the system is running perfectly you would expect to see at least one, possibly two, trams to Elmers End and at least one and possibly two trams to New Addington. There shouldn’t be three of any of them but, roughly speaking, trams are regulated in the same way as buses, not as trains, so it wouldn’t be that surprising if something like as described did happen.
Usually when these things are investigated there is a bit of an exaggerated claim or a combining of different events which gives the impression of a more dramatic situation than actually happened.
MIRV,
The situation should improve when they change the service pattern next year with the introduction of the new trams and there will be 6tph from Wimbledon to Beckenham Junction (and another 6 to Elmers End). The regulation will have to be far tighter on that route and I suspect they will then be very reluctant to cancel a Wimbledon tram – much easier just to “thin out” the New Addington – Croydon – New Addington service if it is necessary (with all those trams) to cancel something.
I suspect what happens is that priority is given to regulating the Wimbledon services with everything else fitting in around them.
@poP
“Croydon – Beckenham Junction is every 10 minutes”
“The situation should improve when they change the service pattern next year with the introduction of the new trams and there will be 6tph from Wimbledon to Beckenham Junction ”
An improvement from every 10 minutes to 6tph?
timbeau,
No. An improvement in the regulation so that 6tph in the timetable is more likely to mean a tram every ten minutes in reality than it does now. I really thought I had explained that very clearly and can’t see that I could have done much more to make it so.
It is going to be next to impossible to write anything sensible if you choose to extract a sentence out of the context in which it was written to make it appear that I hadn’t thought it out.
@PoP
Yes, I had realised what you meant – it just looked odd!
Even a small reduction in timetable frequency might be worth it if it meant greater reliability. I’d go for a reliable 12 minutes over a random 10/20 minute lottery.
Ok, I can see your reasoning with the TPH but how do you explain two trams to Elmers end within 2 minutes of each other and the same with New Addington. Some times one is stuck up the backside of the one in front, the Elmers end drivers must train as hard as Linford Christie to sprint from one end of the tram to the other to get out of Elmers end before the one behind arrives.
MIRV,
Because as I have said before you are basically running a glorified bus service with steel wheels on steel rails. There are no signals to regulate trams. You have traffic lights and some special signals to avoid trams colliding in single track sections but that is it. So if one tram is running late then it takes more passengers which slows it down and the next tram is empier and speeds up. On road sections it is complicated by the fact that you can’t really wait at a tram stop like Lebanon Road for a couple of minutes to lose time. Nor can you really wait at tram stops that are shared with other routes because you may be holding up another route. In any case, once you have left Croydon on the Elmers End and Beckenham Junction routes there is not much point in hanging around because you won’t pick up many extra passengers but you do may have a lot of passengers on board who want to complete their journey as quickly as possible. You can’t even dawdle at traffic lights to miss a phase to lose time because the trams have inbuilt priority at lights.
You may think that this is all very unsatisfactory and, to some extent, I would agree with you. As I have said before, the new Wimbledon service next year should improve things as there will basically be only two routes to regulate: Wimbledon- Elmers End/Beckenham Junction and New Addington – Croydon – New Addington.
There are things that could be done. One would be not to give priority at traffic lights if the tram is early. Probably better still not give priority at traffic lights if it is less than the headway minus two minutes since the previous tram on that route passed and there is no tram less than two minutes behind it. Or something like that.
Another thing is to enable a driver to know how long since the previous tram departed and where he can safely wait to lose time. Bus drivers know if they are too close to the bus in front so it shouldn’t be too difficult to convey that information to tram drivers.
It would be great if East Croydon tram stop had four working platforms so you could hold trams to a right time departure but it only has three platforms and there are supposedly issues with the middle one. So when a tram arrives at East Croydon it has to depart as soon as possible.
Hope that makes some kind of sense.
@MIRV
” Sometimes one is stuck up the backside of the one in front, the Elmers end drivers must sprint from one end of the tram to the other to get out of Elmers end before the one behind arrives.”
I could be mistaken, and it’s a while since I’ve been there, but isn’t the Tramlink platform at EE long enough to take two trams? The second to arrive would, of course, have to be the first to leave.