The Light (Rail) Fantastic: A Look At the Croydon Tramlink

1. Another great article, thanks

2. There are two critical road crossings on Addiscombe Road

   The first is the A232 junction near Sandilands. Presently there are five roads, one of which carries trams, plus an additional direction just for trams. It has to be one of the most complicated junctions in the country. Surprisingly at present it works reasonably well but one suspects it might be nearing maximum capacity in the peaks and could easily become a major source of traffic hold ups if trams continue to get priority. That is more serious westbound as buses get caught up in the delays. Eastbound buses are unaffected by any traffic delays.

   The second junction is that of Addiscombe Road and Cherry Orchard Road. Although on the face of it a much simpler junction it causes much higher levels of congestion and very significantly delays buses. I doubt there is any spare capacity at all.

   For those reasons, I think the Dingwall Loop is a waste of money because the traffic constraints are probably further east on Addiscome Road. If the Dingwall Loop seems expensive, doing something about Addiscombe Road would be much more expensive. The A232 junction could be relieved by moving the tram tracks north to run along the current road bed with traffic running along the current track bed. That would remove 95% of the conflict between trams and traffic but would be hugely disruptive to implement and mean relocating Sandilands tram stop.

   Cherry Orchard could only be relieved I think by an underpass.

3. I hope TfL have been working with Merton to mitigate the additional traffic congestion on the Kingston Road caused by the extra four tram crossings at Merton Park – that stretch of road from Wimbledon Chase to Colliers Wood can be painstakingly slow.

4. “a proposal to lay the first section of new tram track in London for many years,”
   new tram TRACK has been laid at several places (e.g the doubling at Beddington Lane). The proposal is for a new tram line (a new route)
   [I will slightly reword this. PoP]

   The closure of Wimbledon starting on a Monday is surely not just to do with shopping. Sunday 12th July is likely to be one of the busiest days of the year at Wimbledon.
   http://www.wimbledonticketsandhospitality.com/wimbledon-venue-details
   [Belatedly I had realised this and changed the text but clearly not it time to avoid you spotting this error. PoP]

5. A link to the Tram Strategy document would have been appreciated 🙂 (Found it at https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/outline-concepts-for-trams-south-london.pdf)

   As a resident of near-to Crystal Palace, I’ve long given up on the extension there.

   I guess I’d be annoyed if I lived in New Addington and liked having a link to the retail sites on the Purley Way – which are surely a major reason behind the popularity of the Wimbledon branch.

6. Sykobee,

   I very deliberately did not link to that tram strategy document because I wanted to cover 2020-2030 (the period to which that document primarily relates) in another article.

7. Sure, feel free to remove the link 🙂

   I see that there is local opposition to the plans already: http://insidecroydon.com/2015/05/19/tfls-48m-loop-schemes-could-break-the-link-in-tramlink/

8. I remember the Wimbledon – West Croydon line in BR days, I think it had a train every 40 (?) minutes, during the building of Tramlink the replacement bus carried few passengers, it does show the difficulty of predicting future usage when a poor service is substantially improved, or a non-existent service is introduced, the initial DLR and two car DMUs on the GOBLIN are other examples, although with the Jubilee extension the extra capacity was built in.

9. The typo in the title seemed so obvious (“Fantasic”) that I assumed I’d missed a pun. But, having read the article, I can’t spot it.

10. Not quite sure why the loop is welcomed so warmly here as it will result in trams turning back before final users’ destinations. It is estimated that one-third of all passengers would have to change to reach North End as many trams would not run around the existing town centre loop or cross town to Valley Park or Wimbledon, or cross town to East Croydon from the west. Furthermore, it adds little additional capacity or resilience as trams can already turn back at East Croydon.

    The reason behind this scheme is that Croydon Council wants fewer trams across Wellesley Road to allow more cars to drive into the future Westfield car park. As the Tramlink director has said the Council wants to half the number of trams crossing Croydon by 2030, with services slowed to 20mph. Remove this element and the extra capacity provided by the loop could have been obtained much more cheaply with longer trams and platforms.

11. And just how much money do you think the combination of new, longer trams, extending all platforms and reworking tracks would be for that to be worthwhile? I saw £100m mentioned elsewhere – hence it is being put back to the future (and I am sure PoP will have his say on that in the next article).

    OTOH, why not put the Westfield parking road UNDER Wellesley Road for a longer distance (hey, money is clearly not an issue) so that traffic doesn’t compete with trams? Or put the through traffic in the tunnel leaving the surface road as a Westfield approach road.

12. The typo in the title seemed so obvious (“Fantasic”) that I assumed I’d missed a pun. But, having read the article, I can’t spot it.

    My fault. Fixed.

13. Any reason why you have not mentioned the cheaper and far more effective option of lengthening the trams?

    As has been mentioned in the comments the Dingwall Road loop is expensive, creates passenger confusion in where the services are and does not take passengers to where they want to go.

14. Copied from the IanVisits site
    “The nature of the streets and space available means that trams will never get any longer, as they could end up blocking road junctions, so the only way to increase capacity is to remove bottlenecks, and add more track”

15. Lengthening is not considered a problem by TfL:
    https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tramlink/dingwall-road-loop-extension

16. @John
    “It is estimated that one-third of all passengers would have to change to reach North End as many trams would not run around the existing town centre loop or cross town ”

    More than two thirds of trams from the east, and all trams from the west, will call at George Street and/or West Croydon, which serve North End. That’s 36tph approaching Croydon, of which only five will use the new loop. Even if you only consider the trams from the east, its 5/24 which is less than a third. Of the 24tph from the east, 12 will go to Wimbledon and seven round the West Loop, with only five round the new loop.

    In any case, passengers should not have to wait long for one which does. Whether they choose to wait for one at their originating stop or change at East Croydon is of course up to them.

    And to say “one third all passengers would have to change to reach North End” is to assume that “all passengers” want to go there.

    More accurate to say that “20% of those passengers whose destination is North End may have to wait an extra 3 minutes for a connection”.

    Or even, half the passengers on the Addington branch (which the diagram shows to be the only one actually affected) who want to go to North End will either have to wait an extra five minutes for a tram going all the way, or change at East Croydon (average wait less than 2 minutes). Neither seems to be an undue hardship!

    “or cross town to East Croydon from the west”
    All trams from the west go, and will continue to go, to East Croydon

    “Furthermore, it adds little additional capacity or resilience as trams can already turn back at East Croydon.”
    Turning at east Croydon requires blocking a running line until a suitable slot is available. Trams will be able to be held on the loop out of the way. I quote from the article: “The trams going around the Dingwall Road loop would have a minute or two stand time timetabled at the new Lansdowne Road stop and authority to depart would be given by the controller with the intention of ensuring the 6 minute interval service to New Addington had even headways as much as possible “

17. @Peter Staveley – 29 June 2015 at 13:30
    Any reason why you have not mentioned the cheaper and far more effective option of lengthening the trams?

    Ian, in his post yesterday on a visit to the tram depot:
    http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2015/06/28/a-look-around-croydons-tram-sidings-and-repair-depot/
    points out the problem with longer trams:
    “If a tram breaks down outside the shed, it can be coupled up to another tram and dragged back to the shed for repairs. However, if the brakes fail, then another tram has to be hitched onto the back — leading to the rare site of three trams joined together passing through Croydon. And with a police escort, as they block much of the road traffic when that long.
    The nature of the streets and space available means that trams will never get any longer, as they could end up blocking road junctions, so the only way to increase capacity is to remove bottlenecks, and add more track.”

    He also points out the problem of increasing the frequency of trams:
    “The loop has another long term benefit. Although the trams share the road with other traffic, they have priority at traffic lights. With increased trams on the lines, you could end up with road traffic effectively blocked at nearly permanent red lights to let trams pass. Adding more track and streets around the centre means they can continue to feed trams into the centre, without overloading the existing road junctions.”

18. @Peter Staveley,

    I have not mentioned the subject of lengthening the trams because I am only covering enhancements up to 2020. And trust me, it would not be cheaper. One can argue about whether it would be more effective. TfL estimate £100 million to lengthen the tram stops, one committee on Croydon Council produced looked approvingly at a report suggesting it could be done for £2 million. Based on experience with Croxley Rail Link I know which one I would believe. I also understand that the £2 million estimate was based on costs of laying a comparable size of garden patio – I am sure the Office of Rail and Road would have a fit with that and ask all sorts of compliance and other questions.

    Sykobee,

    Yes I saw that this morning as it is a link in Ian Visits Report on the Tram Depot. Basically it is a load of nonsense. The town centre had 21tph in total on opening. For years it had 20tph. Currently it has 22tph but only because of the not-very-useful temporary line 4. It will have 20tph come 2016 and after the Dingwall Road loop is built it will have 19tph. There are many scenarios possible that will put the figure back up to 20tph or higher. Some journeys around the town centre loop may not be so easy to make in future but that is a different issue.

    John,

    On the other issue of what Croydon Council supposedly wants in future, I think this is jumping the gun. The haven’t yet ratified their transport plan. Lets wait and see if they do. If what you say is true then it is completely at odds with draft version so I will treat the comment as baseless rumour until I have evidence to the contrary.

    Anonymous,

    I suspect Ian reported this based on a staff comment made at the depot. This is at variance with the TfL report on the long term future of trams.

19. John,

    I wouldn’t go as far as to say not a problem. To quote the relevant paragraphs
    
    Considerable thought has been given to the lengthening of trams and tram stops and they form part of our longer term planning towards accommodating passenger growth by 2030. We have looked at options for single trams up to 43m long, as well as coupling two trams together.

    Both options would require significant platform lengthening works across the network. This would require us to buy additional land, and would also have an impact on highway operations, particularly at junctions. Another key consideration is the statutory need to retain good access to trams for those with mobility impairments or pushchairs – which in some cases would force us to realign the track.

20. Haha, using the cost of laying a garden patio as a baseline? Seriously? Wow. I know that Croydon Council has only been a year in its current Labour incarnation and probably lost a lot of experience in the switch, but that is absolutely ridiculous.

21. Sykobee,

    I thought perhaps I really ought to be very careful and dig out the report. I think I must now choose my words more carefully. The report actually has the name of John Jefkins MBE on it. You may note he is the person behind the linked to by IanVisits here.

    To quote from the article John Jefkins is “a leading figure in Croydon’s Liberal Democrats”. Sadly I think one of the Croydon Committees took the report seriously because it looked impressive to them and they really don’t like TfL’s figures (which doesn’t make them wrong) and they would rather have longer trams than more trams.

    I’ll try and remember to bring the report to the next meet up so we can all have a good laugh. The report’s figure even claims to include a 50% optimism bias.

    On a more serious note, in my opinion, the Liberal Democrats, more than other parties, have a bit of a habit of producing bonkers transport ideas. I think the problem is not that they are worse than other parties at having people with unrealistic ideas. The problem is that their structure allows and encourages free thought and promoting local initiatives. Without some supervisory overseeing organisation to stop these ideas getting into the public domain and embarrass the party they will always be a fertile ground for this sort of thing.

    I am aware I am sailing very close to the wind with political comment. So this may get deleted by other moderators. In any case I really don’t want this to develop into a discussion of party politics.

22. Oh boy my favourite topic! (rubs hands)…

    First of: a small error. There IS one word too many in this sentence:

    remember this is needs to be in use by mid 2019 which is just four years away

    [Corrected. Thanks PoP]

    Second of: Tram lengthening is a non-starter for another reason: The CR4000s which form the bulk of the fleet cannot be easily extended. These have two banks of motors powering the bogies under each end of the tram. Hence extending the vehicles would be very difficult if at all possible – as you would have to add another motorised section with a raised floor. I don’t think Bombardier (the manufacturer of these trams) would have an off-the-shelf solution for this. You would therefore need to replace these trams with new ones, even though they have barely reached half of their overall life.

    (The other type of tram in service in Croydon – the Stadler Variobahn – is relatively easy to extend by adding another two sections – a long ‘hanging’ one and a short one with a wheelset.)

23. Are there really no public layout plans for the extra platform at Wimbledon?

24. I didn’t mean for my comment to be political – it was just a comment that new councillors might not have the same amount of experience as those that went out (not whether they are any good or not).

    I am sure that TfL could pick a single platform within the centre of Croydon and do a cost analysis of extending it (with more robust materials than B&Q paving slabs), and exceed £2m just for that single platform. And it would be accurate.

25. A couple of comments – I lived in Mitcham when the West Croydon -Wimbledon line was run by BR. I think the service was every 2 TPH in both directions. The line had more capacity as it had a fair number of coal trains passing through on their way to Croydon B Power Station and the Croydon Gas works. The partial collapse of the North wall of the Mitcham Station cutting resulted in the closure and removal of this piece of track making the single line section even longer from Mitcham Junction ( as far as Merton Park ?) . I think the service also stopped around 20:00;. In the end it was only 1 TPH as with few trains people brought cars or travelled other ways such as the 64 bus.

    In terms of the new service pattern Tramlink provides the major connection from West Croydon to East Croydon stations. With the one way loop the service from West Croydon to East Croydon is quite good but the other way you only have the trains that go round the loop and it takes much longer. Some of the time lost can be made up by using the side entrance to P4 at West Croydon which has an almost cross platform connection if you want to go west towards Sutton on National Rail. The Eastbound National Rail connection to Tramlink is not so good as you have to walk back to the over bridge and then either exit the station entrance and walk down Station Road or else walk down Platform 4 to the side entrance and back to the tram stop. All in all it does not feel a very integrated solution.

26. “The proposed Dingwall Road loop will be just 500 metres long with one new set of points at one end and a new set of points and crossover at the other end. ”

    I assume you mean “crossing”, not “crossover”.

27. Sykobee,

    I was more concerned about my comment being treated as political and how things might develop rather than anything you wrote.

    An Engineer,

    Yes I think that is roughly correct. I am pretty sure the service went from 2tph (requiring 2 trains) to a 45 minute service (requiring one train). The trouble was this meant carrying a timetable around with you. Either way it was next to useless and unloved.

    I have mentioned this before but the original plans presumed trams could go along North End – in those days not pedestrianised. The problems you describe a result of doing what they could to salvage the scheme once a number of pedestrian deaths in a newly bus-only North End caused a decision to be made to ban all traffic (including, in the future, trams) from North End. The current layout in the town centre is not ideal but I have never seen a viable alternative.

    Straphan,

    As John Jefkins in his report points out, they couple together CR4000s in Cologne. The fact that the trams have plenty of life left in them and cannot easily be stretched is yet another reason why TfL is taking a “not yet” approach rather than a “never say never” line to longer trams.

    Dave Russell

    I meant crossover where one set of tracks crosses the another. A crossover need to be installed in George St at the southern end of Dingwall Road to enable trams taking the Dingwall Loop from East Croydon to cross over the eastbound track along George Street. “Crossing” would imply a pedestrian crossing.

28. “I meant crossover … “Crossing” would imply a pedestrian crossing.”

    Nope.
    One track crossing TO another forms a ‘crossover’ (as in George Street).
    In this case its would be a pair of facing points in the westbound leading to a ‘crossing’ over the eastbound track. Basic terminology.

    [I stand corrected though I am a bit concerned that people will think I am referring to a pedestrian crossing. I have changed it. PoP]

29. @PoP: Indeed, Cologne does operate 60m long trains typically formed of two 30m trams coupled together. However, lengthening platforms to 60m from the current 30m would probably be impossible at many locations throughout the Croydon network. Lengthening them to – say – 45m would, on the other hand, be much easier.

30. I have found that report into longer trams online. I have taken a copy for prosperity posterity.

    You can read it for yourself here.

    If you do a search on “garden patio” you will get four hits.

31. Not to mention – were the platforms to be extended to 45m there is a large batch of nearly new trams that could be bought at bargain prices in a certain city in the northern part of Great Britain…

32. That report looks extremely amateurish. And if their research doesn’t extend to basics like checking the name of the network (“Tramtrack?”) or how to spell “brake”, how are we to trust their figures are any more reliable?

33. @timbeau
    I do feel that tramlink attracts these amateurish ideas and schemes from all sorts of people, more so than most transport networks. It may be something to do with the fact that people feel because it’s not a ‘proper’ railway, improvements are ‘easy’ and ‘obvious’.

34. Re PoP,

    Oh dear – I just don’t know where to start with that report.
    I could see some locations costing more than his entire budget.
    I suspect the East Croydon Station Tram Stop might end up costing rather a lot as soon as you start thinking about what lies below the tarmac (a weak bridge deck on the north side).

35. PoP
    On a more serious note, in my opinion, the Liberal Democrats, more than other parties, have a bit of a habit of producing bonkers transport ideas
    REALLY?
    [SNIP of unacceptable cross-reference to an entirely different thread on this site]

    Actually, a viable alternative is to have trams running N-S along North End, as there are trams in a pedestrian area already in Croydon.
    [SNIP of unacceptable sarcasm]

    One tiny point where “that report” may have a valid question…
    Why, indeed canot two trams go through one green road-traffic-light?
    Does strike me as odd.

36. Timbeau 17:23

    Actually the concessionaire that used to run Tramlink was Tramtrack Croydon Ltd and this webpage copyright 2014 gives the impression that they still exist.

37. The Dingwall loop is a terrible idea and would be a huge waste of money. The routes will become confusing as no one will understand where the trams will go. People will board, hoping to change trams somewhere in the town centre, then get horribly confused by the two one-way loops.

38. @PoP I was a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate earlier this year, and I think what you said about the party allowing members to have ideas in public is fair. What I don’t see is what would be embarrassing about non-expert members having ideas, however ill-informed, in public and then finding out from experts whether they work. If they won’t back down in the face of evidence from real experts, then that’s different, but, in my experience, rare.

    On the note I came here to write, here in Manchester, GMPTE / Metrolink operate on an assumption that 30tph (in each direction – there’s no one-way tram operation in Manchester) is the limit for tram lines that cross streets, and nothing busier than 10tph runs along a street where it shares lanes with road traffic.

    There’s one exception on the new network, which is the crossing of Oxford Street / Peter Street at the bottom of St Peter’s Square, which will be operating 45tph in each direction in 2019. However, that’s a very unusual road junction, in that the road traffic is one way at that point, so the junction only has to deal with three directions of traffic (two of which are tram-only).

    At that density, it’s completely impractical to try to maintain separation (and it really doesn’t matter if a two-minute interval slips to three minutes anyway), so trams just queue for the lights to change and then all go through together. There’s no formal “flighting” in the timetable; they just are allowed to bunch up on the very high-density sections.

    Incidentally, there is flighting in that area for the next year or so because the track has been reduced to single-track until August 2016 for a major reconstruction of a tram stop (demolishing two platforms, building four new platforms – and remember that Metrolink has 960mm platform heights, like National Rail, so that’s a major exercise – and going from two through-tracks to four tracks on two routes to the north and three tracks on one route to the south). Trams are flighted through the single-track to maintain 10tph service.

39. Theban

    I agree that the Addiscombe road/ Addiscombe grove/ Cherry orchard Road junction is a major cause of congestion. There is a compulsory purchase solution which is to widen Addiscombe Road so that there are two lanes eastbound, with the buses generally turning left and other traffic right. I say compulsory purchase because the land to do this is in the forecourt of what was once the NLA Tower.

    I feel doing so would help a great deal, as the bus and taxi delays at East Croydon eastbound can be very significant 3-4 mins stuck there is not unusual.

40. @ PoP – I understand that the operation of the Croydon trams is still outsourced to Tramtrack Croydon with the drivers being employees of First Tram Operations. What TfL has done over the years is buy out the infrastructure, then undertake upgrades directly / fix asset health issues and then, as you say, maintenance transferred in house.

    On the wider issues in the article I’m not convinced by the Dingwall Road loop. It feels like a solution in search of a problem but subject to a funding cap. The issues raised in the article and subsequent comments about constraints points to a difficult future for Tramlink. I know you will say more in the next article so I’ll stop my comments there.

41. @ PoP

    Is that the same John Jefkins who seems to militantly argue for HS2 in the comments section in every newspaper article on the subject?

42. @Miles

    Re: John Jefkins. I think you’re right. I had an exchange with someone by this name in the Guardian comments recently where he attempted to make a case for his favoured East West Euston Cross idea with lots of through running of trains to the Continent in place of the expanded Euston terminal. Better stop now as that’s well off the tram topic!

43. @Hedgehog
    “The Dingwall loop routes will become confusing as no one will understand where the trams will go. People will hope to change trams and get horribly confused by the two one-way loops.”

    Simple – all trams can have announcements made at East Croydon to change there for other branches (Don’t they anyway?). No different from telling people on Aldgate trains to change at Liverpool Street for Aldgate East and beyond, rather than staying on to the bitter end. On line diagrams at stop out east, westbound passengers don’t need to see the complete loops, you just have three branches, terminating at Wimbledon, Wellesley Road via Lansdowne Road, and Wellesely Road via West Croydon

44. @PoP “I have taken a copy for prosperity.”
    Or possibly for posterity?

    [Oops! PoP]

45. I have added a diagram near the start of the article that gives the frequencies currently run on the different services.

46. Recent work at Nottingham has shown that installation of tram tracks on the public highway is a task that cannot be done quickly

    Well, in the UK at least. Compare with current work in Melbourne, where one tram line is being extended by about 150m to allow an improved terminal layout. Work began at 11pm last Friday and will be finished in time for the start of service on Monday. Admittedly there were a couple of weekend shutdowns in the last few months for utilities works, but the work includes a new platform and replacement of a stretch of existing track as well.

    @Richard Gadsden: GMPTE / Metrolink operate on an assumption that 30tph (in each direction – there’s no one-way tram operation in Manchester) is the limit for tram lines that cross streets

    Again, Melbourne manages 60tph plus per direction on Swanston Street, which has several busy roads (including with other tram routes) crossing it. There must be similar numbers of buses, or more, along Oxford Street.

47. @Ian J
    The Melbourne work sounds impressively fast, but the speed you give (for how long the physical modification took) does not include any planning, optioneering, consultation or legal work. I think those are the aspects which (recent UK experience suggests) take forever and a day.

    Although the timescale you give does make an interesting contrast with the work at Wimbledon, which could be seen as comparable.

48. Whether travellers are happy to arrive and leave from Wellesley Rd may depend on how inviting this stop appears. This implies plenty of shelter and a wide and safe subway/bridge which promotes the perception that the stop is integrated with the shopping centre. I seem to remember a proposal to close the existing subway, completely counter-productive.
    I am less concerned about the differing destinations. Travellers from the east for Centrale/West Croydon already have to change from Wimbledon trams.

49. In terms of tram frequencies on busy urban roads, I would like to offer up Aleje Jerozolimskie in Warsaw. The track there is in the central reservation of a dual carriageway with 3-4 lanes per direction and standard at-grade crossings. In the high peak hour there are 40tph in each direction. At the two principal junctions in the city centre (Metro Centrum and Dworzec Centralny – both junctions are roundabouts with other three-lane dual carriageways) they cross 23 and 26tph respectively – at grade, but with no trams turning. There is as yet no priority system for trams at traffic lights – but all stops are double-length (i.e. two trams can stop at the same time) and each traffic light phase allows two trams to cross at the same time. From observation, queues of about 5-6 trams form in the peaks, but things do flow somehow.

50. @ Straphan – perhaps the difference is that local politicians in Warsaw know how trams work and don’t have to impose arbitary “max no of trams per hour” limits for fear of delaying a few motorists? It seems clear to me that we have not yet got a satisfactory volume of tram / tramway construction and operational experience in the UK. This may partly explain long timescales and high costs to get anything done and irrational concerns about what is “feasible”. Only Manchester seems to have developed momentum but even then a lot of the construction activity has been on former rail alignments rather than on highways (I know some lines are on the road). We remain stuck on a learning curve rather than having expertise and knowledge.

51. Just to be clear, a major concern in Croydon is not delaying motorists but delaying pedestrians. Rightly or wrongly it has been decided that expecting pedestrians to use a subway (even if it directly links to the shopping centre) is wrong and that they should be able to cross the busy Wellesley Road on the level and not be delayed too much in doing so. For this reason alone it is expected that the timing of trams between West Croydon and Wellesley Road tram stop will have to be extended, with all the consequences that entails, to allow for a pedestrian crossing and trams having to wait for it to clear. This on its own is causing concerns. It probably a significant reason why in future they don’t want to plan for more than around 20tph around the town centre.

    As I see it, what TfL are trying to do in Croydon is to maximise the realistic number of trams per hour by providing additional facilities rather than trying to run the all along the same section of track. Lansdowne Road tram stop will probably be as close, or almost as close, to the shopping centre as West Croydon station. Central will remain closer but involves a long escalator ride to get up to street level in the main shopping area. As always, I get frustrated by people looking at how this fits into today’s transport network rather than how it will fit into the network as it will be by the time it opens.

52. @WW: Nothing of the sort. For a city its size Warsaw has an abysmally small and dysfunctional rapid rail network (metro and suburban rail) and trams are forced to step into the void. Each of the 40 trams in the high peak hour can carry about 250 people and is full and bursting. The level of service agreed on is the absolute maximum which prevents all major junctions from completely blocking up – which would slow down not only ‘a few motorists’ but a few thousand bus passengers, too.

    @PoP: Am I correct in thinking the current pedestrian underpass also happens to stand in the way of the curve from Lansdowne Road into Wellesley Road and will have to be demolished?

    Also, in terms of accessibility, I think if the George Street stop were to be located right at the junction with High St and North End that would be the closest to the new shopping centre. This would require a realignment of the tracks and making trams block cars while serving the stop, but this would be by no means impossible.

53. straphan,

    I presumed they first decided that the subway had to go. It has been talked about for years and there have long been plans to add a pedestrian crossing to that stretch of Wellesley Road. If they were that keen to retain the subway they could have extended it.

    One of the problems with the subway is that it is now integral to the shopping centre. I don’t know about the obligations of the Whitgift centre but they could simply close the entrance into the shopping centre and then there would be no means of crossing the road at that location. Already if you have a dog with you, you are not allowed to use it as the Whitgift Centre does not allow dogs. This seems wrong to me as the subway was built with public funds and for years was a public subway but, it seems, it isn’t any more.

    Trams serving George Street tram stop already block the road. For the most part cars are not supposed to be there anyway except during a few permitted hours. George Street East is cycles, trams and vehicles requiring access only. Years ago there were plans to relocate it, but further the other way, because the stop is both very busy and substandard – it really could do with wider platforms and more street space for passing pedestrians.

54. @ John
    Not quite sure why the loop is welcomed so warmly here as it will result in trams turning back before final users’ destinations. It is estimated that one-third of all passengers would have to change to reach North End
    

    From the Dingwall Loop, if your final destination is North End would it not be quicker to simply walk? Especially if and when Wellesley Road is rebuilt as something a bit more boulevard, a bit less motorway.

    Not helpful for people headed further West, certainly, but for town centre destinations, West Croydon etc., the proposed loop is close enough for a 5 minute walk.

55. Indeed Hilltopper,

    To respond further to John’s point …

    Currently from the east all 22tph trams go to the south end of North End (George St tram stop) but from the east only 10tph continue to the north end of North End (West Croydon tram stop).

    In reality practically no-one wants to get to North End which is a road albeit a pedestrianised one. They want to get to the shops. Regardless of whether it is the current shops (e.g. the Whitgift centre and Centrale) or their future replacement I think they will be better off.

    If travelling from the east there will only be a very short walk to the nearest entrance to the Whitgift Centre if they get off at Lansdowne Road tram stop. On the return journey I would argue that they would be better off with every single tram in service calling at nearby Wellesley Road. So that is 24tph. Alternatively they can make their way back to Lansdowne Road and not wait too long for a tram and get a chance to grab a seat while the tram waits to depart. If travelling from the west then the service to Central Croydon is 12tph at even spaced which will be unaltered by the introduction of the Dingwall Road loop.

56. PoP

    I’m trying to work out what “In fact the number of trams around the Dingwall Road Loop would only go down by 1tph due to an additional proposal to supplement the Elmers End service with a 2tph service that would serve the town centre” means, and I can only make sense of it by substituting “town centre loop” for “Dingwall Road loop”. Is that correct?

    [Oops. Yes it is. Now corrected. PoP]

57. timbeau

    “No different from telling people on Aldgate trains to change at Liverpool Street for Aldgate East and beyond’ – true in terms of service but not in terms of fare payable, because as a general rule on trams (and buses) a fare is payable each time you board, while transfers between trains are free. So changing at East Croydon costs, but not doing the same at Aldgate.

58. Greg

    “Are there really no public layout plans for the extra platform at Wimbledon?” – see http://planning.merton.gov.uk/MVM/Online/DMS/DocumentViewer.aspx?pk=1000081617&SearchType=Planning%20Application, particularly http://planning.merton.gov.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning%20Application/1000081000/1000081617/13P2705_Outline%20Design.pdf.

59. @PoP: a major concern in Croydon is not delaying motorists but delaying pedestrians

    A legitimate concern, but again Swanston Street in Melbourne has more pedestrians than Regent Street (page 52), after a concerted effort over decades by the city council, advised by Jan Gehl (the guy best known for pedestrianizing Times Square in New York). The secret seems to be to have traffic signals on short 90 second cycles and have the trams go through in pairs. It also helps that as in most countries, turning vehicles are expected to give way to pedestrians so there is no need for a separate pedestrians-only phase.

    get a chance to grab a seat while the tram waits to depart

    That does raise a question about the choice of a loop rather than, say, a twin-track terminus. It won’t be possible for one tram to pass another which is laying over on the loop. This isn’t a problem with the proposed service pattern where only one route uses the loop, but seems to lack the flexibility you would need if you wanted more than one route to be able to use it.

60. @Mike 0115

    To quote the TfL website page on Tramlink fares:

    “Both pay as you go and cash single tickets cover one transfer made between trams and/or connecting bus routes T31, T32, T33, 130 or 134 (made within 70 minutes of touching in to pay as you go at the start of your journey, or within 90 minutes of buying a cash single ticket).”

    There is a typo as 134 really means 314. However, the principle of transfers does exist.

61. Thanks, James – I learn something every day!

62. When the revised bus network is introduced in New Addington later this year, free transfer will be available between the 64, 130, 314, 353, 359, 433 with the 464 added following consultation.

    https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/new-addington

63. Thanks Mike!

64. @straphan (with apologies for the delay in commenting) – and even 40tph is exceeded on the Bahnhofstrasse in Zuerich, with 5 routes offering 6 or 7 minute service intervals – the equivalent of about 47 tph. What’s more, at Paradeplatz, this cavalcade crosses 4 other routes with a combined frequency of around 35 tph. Never seen any tramjams longer than about 2 sets. At these levels of service, stop dwell time is likely to be the major constraint on frequency. [Those with long memories will remind us that the Embankment services provided something like 120 cars in each direction, but service speeds were much slower and, I suspect, boarding less “safe”.]

65. @Mike

    There is no cost to change tram. Tickets are valid for 75 minutes changing trams as required.

66. @Mike
    Those plans make very interesting reading, and explains a lot. Essentially a “Clapham Junction Overground ” type arrangement, although it appears that there will still be a single track approach – probably necessary given the limited width available under the bridge at the country end. The siding at the London end (actually an extension of the second platform) is interesting – it could be used to tuck away a failed tram, but equally could be used to hold a spare tram in reserve.
    One useful feature, whether intentional or not, is the moving of the existing platform further from the bridge – necessary to accommodate the points, but it does also mean that people will not crowd around at the bottom of the steps, and give those of us trying to catch a Thameslink a better chance of doing so. A similar effect has been achieved on platform 5 by moving the stopping point further towards London. It was done to accommodate 10-car trains, but as all trains are still 8-car what it has actually done is to move the rear of London-bound trains, and thus the crowds of people wanting to join the trains, further from the bridge.

67. Flighting doesn’t increase capacity that much but it does delay trams.

    As to lengthening presumably the new Lansdowne Rd stop will be built longer in anticipation?

    The original trams have doors inset from the ends of carriages. With this design 50% longer trams could be accommodated without lengthening platforms by letting trams overhang platforms so I suspect that the cost of longer trams would be much lower than £100m

    Longer trams aren’t initially needed on the whole network anyway so lengthening could be phased. It could start with the present Line 4 which despite what PoP says is valuable in increasing capacity to Purley Way shops.

68. @Graham H: All lovely figures, but the locations you are talking about in Zurich are pedestrianised streets almost completely devoid of cars. The locations I am talking about in Warsaw look like so:

    https://goo.gl/maps/SJD2A
    https://goo.gl/maps/OD27t

    Arguably not the prettiest place on Earth, but much closer in terms of what Wellesley Road looks like today than the tranquil world of wall-to-wall expensive watch boutiques that you speak of.

69. Theban,

    Not disputing that line 4 is helpful in improving the service to Ampere Way and Waddon Marsh. That really is its saving grace. But the reality is that they seem to turn up at quite random intervals and don’t really enhance the service as much as they should. On quite a few occasions I have caught a crowded tram at Wimbledon and when we get to Therapia Lane I see the next tram for Elmers End is due in a couple of minutes so I get off and get that one. I sometimes almost have the tram to myself because it is right behind the tram I got off.

70. @Ian J – I was surprised by the point about Swanston Street in Melbourne having more pedestrians than Regent Street. I worked in Melbourne for several years and was back there earlier this year. Swanston Street was always a bit dowdy, with tacky discount stores, no large “anchor” shops and is certainly not a premium shopping street like Regent Street.

    There are however, lots and lots of trams and it also goes past Flinders Street station for suburban rail services.

    I’d therefore characterise Swanston Street more as a transport hub than a destination in its own right. Lots of people go there to go somewhere else, but they don’t linger. There is little worth seeing on that particular street, but there is nearby.

    To pick up on the reference to Jan Gehl, I think it is difficult to create a place that is both a major transport hub and a place where people like to visit and linger. They can certainly be close to each other but being exactly the same place seems to be difficult.

71. A few points to add:

    The subway under Wellesley Road between Lansdowne Road and The Whitgift Centre has steps at both ends but a ramp only on the Lansdowne side. When the Whitgift is closed the subway can still be used, but only by the able-bodied. (When the Whitgift is open there are ramps and lifts available).

    Neither that subway, nor the other near Poplar Walk, have a good reputation. My daughter, for example, will not use them yet they offer the only practical way for a pedestrian to get from West Croydon Station to the new East Croydon entrance. The Dingwall Loop will not help, because the trams will be running anticlockwise.

    Although a massive undertaking, it is a shame that the Whitgift rebuild does not include extending the George Street underpass as far as Poplar Walk. With the ‘through route’ traffic out of the way there would be much more room for buses and trams to co-exist with two, or even three, islanded pedestrian crossings.

    To be noted is the fact that the pavement at West Croydon tram stop is being widened, by using a strip of railway land at the rear of West Croydon’s Station’s platform 4 wall.

    When trams through central Croydon are disrupted by track maintenance, a way is needed for Wimbledon branch trams to be turned without the time spent stopping and reversing. A loop around the ‘Reeves Wood’ island would achieve this.

72. @ Anon 0734 – just to be very pedantic it is bus to tram or tram to bus transfer that is permitted in New Addington. Your wording suggests there is transfer between the bus routes you list which is incorrect. I see we have the strange situation where you can have a cash transfer ticket (£2.50) from tram to bus but no longer one in the reverse direction! All because there are ticket machines accepting cash at Tramlink stops. I wonder what happens if you buy two tickets at the same time – one for outward, one for return – and try to board a bus in New Addington with a paper ticket on the return trip? In theory you’re not defrauding anyone but there could be argument over times on the ticket.

    I know we have had lots of fun with Tramlink ticketing in the past but I’ll just remind people, having double checked my latest copy of TfL ticketing guide obtained via FOI, that if you change trams using Oyster PAYG / CPC you are supposed to touch in again at the interchange point (you are not charged twice provided it is within 70 minutes of the initial touch in).

73. @straphan – I’m very familiar with the Aleje Jerozolimskie, having worked in Warsaw a number of times and used the tram system extensively. I’m not clear, however, what point you are making – yes, the Aleje Jerozolimskie is much dowdier than the Bahnfostrasse (I don’t think I mentioned the watch shops, as I thought that the actual nature of the shops wasn’t relevant to tram operation), but in the case of Warsaw, the trams there run on central reservation, which is where the stops are located, too*, whereas in Zuerich, the trams actually mingle with the pedestrians. Prima facie, you might think that reserved track would permit closer headways and than mixed use.

    * Just for amusement, when I first visited Warsaw, c1995, I stayed at the Hotel Zentrum, which overlooked that giant roundabout where the Aleje Jerozolimskie now meets the metro and which contains a very large tram “station”. Not only was the hotel decor frozen in c1970 – telephones with rectangular handsets for example – but the time I ate there, the restaurant was offering a “Hunters’ Evening” in which the waiting staff wore suitable field clothing… (the effect was slightly spoilt by the menu’s poor English – I didn’t try the “Haunters’ sausages”, as I had an early meeting the next day).

74. Reynolds 953 13:36 “I think it is difficult to create a place that is both a major transport hub and a place where people like to visit and linger.”
    I’ll bite! New York Grand Central and St Pancras International. Rare exceptions that prove the rule, I guess.

    RayL 13:58 “Neither that subway, nor the other near Poplar Walk, have a good reputation”
    Interesting things, subways. I don’t have much of a feel for Croydon (not having lived around their for nearly a decade and a half) but there was a similar case locally in Stourbridge with cries for a surface crossing of the ring road to replace a “dangerous” subway. The inconvenient truth was that nobody had ever died (and few had been injured) from any cause in the subway, but crossing a major road presents obvious risks, however well signalled. After a process of several years – including a short-lived police station in the subway, protests about the location of the surface road crossing (which is in the only possible location and so cannot be exactly where the subway is) and objections from shop owners who were bypassed by pedestrians using the surface crossing – we have ended up with both a surface road crossing and a much-improved subway which links the new bus station (and the Town rail station) with the town centre. So maybe everybody’s happy now…

75. When I worked in Croydon, I used the Wellesley Road subway to get into town almost every day at lunchtime. During the day, I didn’t find it oppressive or dangerous at all, partly because it always seemed busy and was bright and well lit. I know subways are out of fashion in urban planning today, but whilst some are truly appalling, this one is relatively good in my opinion. I think if planned well subways can have a useful role to play in some cases. Stopping and reaccelerating all the vehicles in Wellesley road every couple of minutes for a surface crossing will do no favours whatsoever for the environment in terms of fuel use, pollution, and traffic noise and will adversely affect both pedestrian and road travel time.

    I had a couple of nights stopover in Stourbridge as part of a canal trip a few years ago and was mightily impressed with the inner gyratory system there. It just never seemed to block up, with traffic moving constantly at a reasonable speed with no traffic lights at any of its junctions. The bus and rail station link subway seemed to be yet another good example of a well-planned subway, and it was was well used.

76. @ Casper Lucas – the problem with subways is largely one of perception. People perceive them as being dangerous and offering no escape route if something happens. There is also a long history of television and film presenting subways as dangerous violent places where escaping with your life is the exception. I’ll be honest and say I don’t like them either. Earlier this year I had to get across Wellesley Road in Croydon and had the misfortunte of using *that* subway. It was horrible. The steps at the west side were in poor state of repair and hadn’t been cleaned in months given the accumulation of dust and rubbish. Even allowing for the effect of pollution from the main road it was clear no one cared about the safety of those steps. I recognise the issues with providing a surface crossing in the obvious place on Wellesley Road but if that subway is to remain in use then serious money and effort has to be spent on it to make it appear safe and welcoming and convenient to use.

77. Mark Townend:
    Praise for the Stourbridge ring road – wonders will never cease! (Although I also think it works pretty well.) It has sprouted a number of traffic lights in recent years, although not at the junction by the canal basin, prompting the inevitable protests. If your visit predated those it must also have predated the new bus station and associated improvements, in which case your enthusiasm surprises me…

    WW: I quite agree.

78. @Walthamstow Writer, 1 July 2015 at 17:53

    The subway must have deteriorated since I last used it. I first used it regularly in the mid- 1990s before the tram. Later, when I was working in central London, my duties often took me to Croydon. I was last there probably in about 2007 or 2008 although I don’t recall using the subway at that time.

79. @ Mark T – the only bit that chimes from your post was that the subway was reasonably busy. I was there on a cold February Sunday which may have affected my mood but the steps were so poor that I actually noticed things like the dirt accumulation and broken tiles and step edges. I can understand a level of wear but the condition struck me as a safety risk that Croydon Council were not paying much attention to.

80. @ Walthamstow Writer @ 14:35 – plead guilty, sloppily worded.

81. Walthamstow Writer,

    I can understand a level of wear but the condition struck me as a safety risk that Croydon Council were not paying much attention to.

    Why should they? If the signs that adorn it are true it is part of the Whitgift centre.

82. Wellesley Road subways – As an almost daily user until quite recently, both are used heavily during office and shopping hours and safety fears are minimal. Out of those periods, there would be hardly anyone around who would wish to cross the road in the first place.

    The northernmost one across from Sydenham Road/Bedford Park has ramps on both sides and provides useful access to the adjacent car park and West Croydon station environs. The southernmost one from beside Lansdowne Road (with a ramp) has a disabled-friendly lift on the Whitgift Centre side, providing access to the pavement and bus stops there. I do not think that this access is blocked off when the Whitgift Centre is actually closed, since the shutters are a little further inside it. Having said that, ‘nobody’ uses the subway once the offices and shops have closed for the night, so that’ll be the best time for the trams to run in the future, once an ill-thought-through pedestrian crossing replaces that subway!

    In any case, to cross the road without a pedestrian crossing there would merely entail a few footsteps from the Wellesley Road tram stop onto nearby George Street and cross the road there, above the road underpass.

    The reason why the Lansdowne Road subway is so popular is exactly because there is a ramp on that side but no ramp on the other side and the main entrance to the busy shops in the Whitgift centre is at that lower level. Accordingly, I assume a new ramp within the new development will have to be built level with any new pedestrian crossing to permit access to most of the shops. It must be remembered that the busiest access to the Whitgift centre is at that lower level but on the North End side of town and the present car parks (try their lifts for safety-feelings!).

    If WW found detritus around the steps of the subways, then he shouldn’t be surprised, bearing in mind the multi-direction winds that abound in that tower block wind tunnel that is Wellesley Road and the litter-prone public!

83. It strikes me that Wellesley Road and its traffic is creating a linear barrier between the shopping centre and East Croydon. It might be better to extend the underpass and remove all through traffic from the surface instead, creating a plaza with some shared space for local traffic, trams and buses.

84. @Anomnibus – I agree – the walk from East Croydon to the shopping centre across Wellesley Road has always struck me as as inviting and as daunting as trying to enter a Mexican prison. (The point about urban highways as being divisive and separating towns from their hinterland has already been made recently on this forum in relation to Stourbridge,but the examples could be multiplied endlessly, alas – Leeds is very bad and Horsham deserves some kind of award for unwelcoming non-integration).

85. I concur that the subway to the Wellesley Rd stop is not the prettiest. However, the budget should run to a refurbishment.
    In contrast a replacement pedestrian crossing would be very unpleasant on a wet and windy day, unlike in George St where one can transfer from tram to shops more or less in the dry.
    Assuming the road layout will be roughly as now, it would also need to cross four/five lanes, presumably in three sections, which would cause its own disruption to traffic and be potentially more hazardous than most crossings.

86. @Anomnibus, 2 July 2015 at 03:47
    It strikes me that Wellesley Road and its traffic is creating a linear barrier between the shopping centre and East Croydon. It might be better to extend the underpass and remove all through traffic from the surface instead, creating a plaza with some shared space for local traffic, trams and buses.

    Maybe something like this?:
    http://www.townend.me/files/tramlink.pdf
    (see second page)

87. @Mark Townend:

    Yes, something like that.

    I like the finish given to Clermont-Ferrand’s Place de Jaude*. An aerial view showing the same road and the Translohr guided busway can be seen here.

    Note how the road near the top of that second photo is laid out: access for private vehicles is very limited and even buses are banned. Pedestrians clearly don’t see the line as a barrier either.

    (The descending stairway seen near the top left of the square is not for a metro, but one of the accesses to the car park that was built under the square back in the mid-1980s. The Place de Jaude is used heavily for bus interchange.)

    * (There are a lot of images in that slideshow. This one shows how the square looked back in 1903, including the town’s original trams.)

88. Correction: I’ve just realised your suggestion still leaves southbound traffic on the surface.

    I’d push all through traffic below ground, with limited local access for private vehicles for loading / unloading purposes only. Through traffic would be required to use the extended underpass, leaving something similar to the second photo in my link above, albeit with the space shared by both buses and trams.

    The idea is to eliminate the ‘barrier’ effect, but this requires removing all private through traffic entirely from street level.

    That said, building such an underpass would be expensive and cause a lot of disruption, so I can understand why the option hasn’t gained any traction.

    Perhaps Croydon may consider a Small Dig project in future to replace its unsightly overpasses and (partially completed) ring road into a tunnelled version. This could allow the entire centre of the town to be pedestrianised, with only public transport allowed in. It would also allow the ring to be completed, vastly improving traffic flow for vehicles that are only passing through.

    (This may sound far-fetched, and it is for now, but the rise of Low- and Zero-Emissions Vehicles would make such tunnelling a lot cheaper by reducing the need for the extensive ventilation and fire prevention equipment currently required by road tunnels. So I wouldn’t rule this out in future.)

89. It all comes down to what the plan for Wellesley Road is, which we won’t know until Westfield/Hammerson submit their planning application. At the moment, it feels very much like the back of the town centre – there’s no active frontage to speak of, the west side is all car parks and empty office blocks. My guess is they’ve got a medium/long term ambition to change that dramatically – perhaps hoping to shift some of the present-day Wellesley Road traffic over to Roman Way, and make Wellesley feel like more of a public-transport-oriented high street.

    Croydon has seen a substantial fall in traffic over recent years, such that at most times of day, the three big north/south arterials (Purley, Roman & Wellesley) between them offer more capacity than is likely needed – and certainly more than adjacent parts of the network (Streatham Vale, Whitehorse Road etc.) can cope with. When the town centre does get bad, it’s mostly because the single lane roads to the north are gridlocked – there’s 8 or 9 lanes of north/south capacity through the centre, but barely half that a mile or two further north.

90. @Graham H: I think this is an issue of what you perceive to be a worse working environment for trams: a central reservation along a busy road with signal-controlled crossings; or a pedestrian zone with little or no motor traffic and no signal-controlled junctions. I perceive it to be the former, you perceive it to be the latter.

91. The model and all the pictures of the vision for westfield show a big crossing of Wellesley Road on the level at Lansdowne Road. This leads right through the centre to a new wide access onto North End where Sports Direct is now. Don’t forget it will be completely rebuilt so a slope can be added to take people naturally down to North End on one level. It’s down another couple of stories then to Tamworth Road and the Centrale tramstop. George Street stop will be right nezt to the Southern entrance, Wellesley Road next to the Eastern entrance and both roughly the same distance to the cere of North End via the shopping centre.

92. Just to add some visual imagery to what Purley Dweller has said there is a video and other info on the Westfield / Hammerson joint website for redeveloping Croydon.

    http://thecroydonpartnership.com/

93. Thanks for the link. It really helped me – someone who moved away from Croydon 25 years ago who still remembers the Whitgift Centre opening

94. @WW:

    I can’t find any detailed imagery for Wellesley Road itself. It looks like the road will remain much as it is today, with only minor tweaks.

    Most of the street prettification appears to be focused on the opposite side of the development.

95. @ Anomnibus – go to the Croydon Councilwebsite, access the Planning Application register and search against ref no. 12/02542/P Click into that application and then click the Document label. This brings up another window containing a vast number of documents which you can search to your heart’s content. There are multiple volumes for the Design and Access Statement and also Public Realm plans. Enjoy.

96. @Walthamstow Writer:

    I get only 7 results from that reference number, most of them at least a couple of years old, and all of them about as clear as mud regarding the planned treatment of Wellesley Road.

    Wellesley Road appears to be one of the shared boundaries of a group of related (re)development schemes in the area, so it is mentioned numerous times, but it’s difficult to get a clear picture of what is planned for the road as a whole. I’m not seeing anything other than some cosmetic work at the George Street junction, and a new surface crossing further north, at Lansdowne Road, to tie the rebuilt shopping centre in with the new East Croydon footbridge.

    The rest is just vague hand-waving with little hard information except the modifications to the tram stop there. I suspect the council simply hasn’t decided on the exact details as yet.

97. @ Anomnibus – well I’m not going to go to any more effort. There is reasonable info in the Public Realm documents which are included in that application which the Council has approved.

98. Try 14/05321/DT – there’s more information there.

99. Drat. All I can find is this:

    Wellesley Road – New crossings and improvements to public spaces
    18 Jan 2015
    A six-week public consultation on the £4.3m scheme to improve Wellesley Road was held in August 2013. Improvements to make central Croydon’s busiest road more pedestrian-friendly will include:

    • a new pedestrian crossing at Lansdowne Road across to the Whitgift Centre entrance, involving closing and filling in the existing subway to create more space;

    • a new pedestrian crossing between Bedford Park and Poplar Walk, involving closing and filling in the existing subway to create more space;

    • wider, less cluttered footways with new paving, lighting, signage, seating, and planting.

    Works are currently scheduled to start on site in January 2015 and be completed by October 2015.

    This seems like cut-rate cosmetic changes rather than anything substantial. I can’t see the above providing anything other than minor short-term improvements. It certainly does little for the much-vaunted ‘permeability’ they keep banging on about in the masterplans.

    On the other hand, access from West Croydon station looks pretty good. Maybe Croydon would rather visitors used that station instead.

100. @Anomnibus
     West Croydon station is much smaller and much less welcoming than East Croydon. Although the bus station is being rebuilt and the tram stop is having a ‘facelift’, I have seen nothing about any improvements to the actual train station.

101. @Anomnibus – he means “railway station”

102. @Kingstoncommuter:

     West Croydon is where the Overground goes and is therefore (currently) the only “Croydon” station on the Standard Tube Map. There isn’t even a hint of the existence of East Croydon station on that map as the Tramlink routes aren’t shown at all.

     If I were a politician in charge of attracting fresh [Snip! LBM] customers to Croydon, I’d be looking at making the most obvious ‘gateway’ station as attractive as possible. It’s new customers that the rebuilt and expanded shopping centre will need, not just the existing ones who already know about East Croydon Station.

     Wellesley Road’s refresh looks like a basic cosmetic job judging by what I’ve found. I imagine the money to extend the underpass into a full-on tunnel is just not available, but it may happen when the next regeneration / redevelopment cycle comes around in about 30-40 years’ time. By then, it’s a safe bet that road vehicles will have changed radically anyway.

103. Noticed today where the trams are actually turning round during the Wimbledon shut-don. I’s about two tram lengths from the platform end at Wimbledon – almost under Wimbledon Bridge House, at the point where the tramline converges with the St Helier line.

     Surely it would have been possible to put in a temporary platform for the duration, accessible from Hartfield Crescent, to save people the trek to Dundonald Road half a mile away ?

104. @timbeau – If you look at the satellite view of Hartfield Crescent, it seems as though passengers would have had to make their way through a private back garden to reach the road from such a temporary platform.

     I recall also that some of the live work was also going to be around there, with the yard in the vee of the railway and tramway being a works yard.

105. @Graham
     No gardens involved – it’s much closer to the station than that. (look on Google earth to see where the two tracks converge into one)

     If the will had been there, access could have been arranged through the shopping centre or its rear access road behind Cascades Court, or by a footbridge from the footpath running alongside the far side of the tracks, (Francis Court).

     (I was just surprised to see a tram just off the end of platform 9/10 when I got off a train there)
     In either case, the platform could be on the side of the tram opposite the works yard in the “V”
     (Indeed, there are some who think the tram stop should have been there in the first place)

106. It has been suggested that flighting isn’t possible but two days ago I watched two eastbound trams pass as a flight through the traffic lights on Addiscombe Road. It suggests some extra capacity across central Croydon could be unlocked.

107. @Kate – it may be that the issue is presenting 2+ flighted trams – on different routes, for obvious reasons – reliably together to the junction. If you can’t do this then the timetable will “default” to the single car crossing. (In places where there have been multiple presentations, it is probable that that reflects either very high frequency services such as the former Embankment routes so bunching doesn’t matter so much, or the timetable has been exceedingly robust eg the Bahnhofstrasse in Zuerich.)

108. Actually I suspect it depends on whether or not one is willing to accept a small delay to tram times. That carries a cost of course but flighting two trams across Wellesley Rd between West Croydon and Wellesley Rd (or a Dingwall Loop if configured to run in that direction) looks eminently feasible.

109. @Kate – “eminently feasible” -hardly so – the key word in my comment is “reliably”. If it was that feasible buses would always run to time…

110. @Graham H – I was on a tram on Friday 17th and the flighting that Kate mentioned happened. This was at 0620 so any delays delays to trams would have been minimal. It will be interesting to see if this will happen during the peaks in central Croydon.

111. Wearily, the key word was “reliably” – of course flighting can and does happen but to write a timetable which can be delivered 24/7 it has to be able to happen every time. It wants only a minute or two delay to a car and the flighting will collapse – as it does on normal railways.

112. Having been fortunate enough to visit the Tramlink control room & depot last Sunday I specifically asked if the controllers can intervene to override the traffic signals in Croydon Town Centre. The answer was no. There are limited capabilities with the signalling so far as controllers are concerned and it tends to be used most on sections that do not mix with road traffic. The trams apparently download the full timetable for the running number they are assigned and the system is designed to keep them as close to timetable as possible. The trams “request” their way through the system and have priority through junctions and over other traffic where this can be controlled. Late or early running is flagged on the control room system diagram. The “senior controller”, who did the talking, said there was limited scope for tram drivers to make up delays. It was all down to swift dwell times at tram stops given the necessary speed restrictions along the routes. The usual interventions like quick turnrounds at termini or curtailing trams short to regain their return path were the usual interventions to try to restore on time running. There was an acknowledgement that each driver has their own capabilities / limitations when it comes to their driving. Just the same as you see with any manual driving of rail vehicles.

     The performance stats for the system’s daily operation were pretty impressive although some of the maintenance scoreboard was not quite where it should be – that’s what was said to us. Looking at the basic numbers it seemed that unit reliability was certainly below target (using mean distance between failures – MDBF). Overall though it looks to be a well run little operation where First Group and TfL have clearly worked out how to work together. I was slightly surprised First have a 30 year contract for the system’s actual operation. I assume that’s a hangover from the original Tramtrack Croydon arrangement given TfL bought out the rest.

113. Walthamstow Writer,

     What I presume you didn’t see was the CCTV pictures of Croydon because, I understand, the controller does not have these. So effectively he is working blind as to traffic conditions in the town centre which has always seemed crazy to me.

     My understanding is that it is the Stadler trams that can’t meet the MBTF targets though I am happy to be corrected. I wonder if this is behind the order for another two trams (always an option in the contract for the Stadlers) as I can see no current plans to increase the service until the Dingwall Road Loop is built and that won’t happen until they finally get round to building the new shopping centre and hence release the money for it.

114. WW: Fascinating. Downloading the whole timetable at the start sounds like there might be problems if a tram is turned short and gets in front of the one it is supposed to be behind, so two trams have effectively swapped diagrams. Maybe they can “reprogram” them remotely, otherwise the new front one is going to keep bothering the driver with “slow down a bit” hints. Or have I misunderstood? (I rather suppose that the answer is going to be something like “it’s not quite as simple as that” !).

115. @ PoP – having gone back and looked at the photo I took inside the control room the CCTV images are of the tram stops / depot and not wider Croydon. I don’t recall the CCTV images being something the controller “griped” about. The biggest moan was that the tram departure boards at stops reflect the timetable and not the actual movement of trams. Strikes me as a bit bonkers given they have a new tram management system supplied by Siemens. That would be the same Siemens that installed I-Bus on 8,000+ London Buses and which sends data to displays at stops, on computers, Apple Watches and smartphones. 😉 [and yes I know Siemens sold the bit of the business that provided I-Bus to another company!]

     Neither of the tram types were meeting their targets. The older CR4000s were performing far better than the Stadlers but there were comments that the depot was still on a bit of a learning curve with the Stadlers as they have far more computer based technology in them. “Bathtub curves” were mentioned. 🙂 The CR4000s are going through a mid life refurb programme – there was a tram in the depot having its interior work done. Another was having its 34-weekly [1] hand wash and polish. There was a team of contractors with “mops, squeegees and soapy liquid and wax” making a tram shiny again. Happens every weekend apparently. I was quite surprised at this level of cost being incurred but I thought it was a nice touch – reminiscent of Terry Morgan at Tube Lines insisting that J, N and P tube trains had to be clean and shiny every morning.

     [1] the fleet being 34 trams.

     Having ridden a Stadler for the first time at the weekend I thought they were rather swish – airy, spacious, nice large windows, decent number of seats. Plenty of people with buggies and disabled people using the system. Reminded me how lucky Croydon is to have trams – the relative speed and greater capacity and next to zero vehicle level emissions are really what’s needed elsewhere in London to fix the crisis afflicting people’s ability to get around effectively.

     @ Malcolm – it’s the timetable for that tram’s workings throughout the day. None of this is complicated stuff really. London buses “know” which schedule they are on based on the info that comes via the driver’s module when they log on to the bus. How else can the bus “know” if it is divergent from its timetable or the headway? Obviously the bus “talks” to the I-Bus system and info goes back and forth but even so there is a set of vehicle level “intelligence” to support the working of the overall system. Doing the same for trains / trams / metros is “old hat”. I even said to the Tram Controller that it was a real surprise to me that they were having the problems they were with the stop info displays not being able to cope with real time divergence from schedule. If a tram is due at a stop in 2 min but is 2 mins late the stop display says “2 mins” and then vanishes when the tram’s 2 mins away – a bit like those dreadful “real time” bus displays in provincial bus stations that only work to the timetable. You might as well not bother.

     The controller said that any decision to curtail a tram was taken with a view to it regaining its path in the other direction so it would be back working to the “plan” it downloaded in the morning. I asked whether they were paid to run to timetable or to run to “headway”. To be honest I didn’t get a clear answer. They clearly aim to achieve a full run out of trams for the peaks and to run over the target service volume (target is 99% or higher). However the conversation about how they monitor the service was a mix of trying to get trams to run on time *and* ensuring passengers had a standard waiting time. This mirrors what TfL ask for on high frequency bus services – they don’t care if all the buses are 10 mins late if they are all spaced, say, 8 mins apart (as per the timetable spec). Of course life isn’t that neat because you get uneven headways as as soon as a bus runs late or early and the timetable looms large when a driver has a scheduled meal break or shift start / end. Then the driver and the controller start to get concerned about the timetable because a late relief means the driver will be late picking up his next bus after his break (mandatory break times can cause this).

     I’ll stick my photos from the depot visit on the LR photo group when I’ve edited them.

116. @WW – In the original plan prior to opening of the system, there was indeed the intention to link with the then existing Croydon town centre CCTV but it was one of those things cut when the budget was pared to enable the scheme to go ahead. There was a parallel problem that the two systems were not compatible with one another, so additional monitors would have had to be provided at Therapia Lane, apart from anything else.

     “Reminded me how lucky Croydon is to have trams…(they) are really what’s needed elsewhere in London to fix the crisis afflicting people’s ability to get around effectively ” – Yes indeed. A message I and many others have been trying to get across for decades, unfortunately without much success (so far).

117. GF
     Yes … DfT seem to have taken over hating trams rather than railways.
     How long since Sheffield-Rotherham tram-train was posited?
     Still not in service, because, in spite of it working perfectly well in Germany, we have to re-re-re-invent the wheel (& everything else)

118. Greg Tingey

     The impression I get is that we (the UK) are not reinventing the tram-train, but having to work out how to implement the requirements on the existing railway

119. @Greg T – but they have *always* hated trams, alas. [I can’t explain this – in the ’70s when Blackpool was the only survivor, they were viewed as a legal nuisance, but now that we have many decades of experience of modern street running, those issues have all been dealt with. As you say, what is there to discover about tram trains that isn’t already and universally known? Excuses, excuses]

120. Westfield pulls plug on £15m payment for tram network – A £28m investment in a new tram loop in Croydon town centre looks to be dropped

     “Westfield and Hammerson have pulled a promised £15million investment in Croydon town centre. The money was to have gone towards the cost of the “Dingwall Loop”, some extra track near East Croydon on which trams could be diverted to make it easier for cars to enter the car parks of the long-promised supermall.

     “With Transport for London budgets being squeezed, it seems likely that without the cash from Hammersfield, the £28million Dingwall Loop will now be scrapped altogether…”

     Inside Croydon

121. Not really sure why it was reported now as it happened quite a while back.

     TfL’s current plans for trams in Croydon could at its politest be described as fluid. Some ideas but very little actually funded. One funded item is a bit of double tracking near Elmers End and a second platform there. Now Elmers End is back down to 6tph it won’t be much of a benefit unless there are other enhancements in future.

     The other funded item is reinstatement of the automatic turnback in the centre platform at East Croydon – which seems horribly like a cheap and less satisfactory alternative for the unfunded Dingwall Road Loop.

     The council meeting mentioned in the item (I was there) had a slide presentation by TfL representatives which can be found here. Ignore the bit about Thameslink which is clearly very out of date. As it was mentioned that the proposals relied on third party funding there appeared to be general resignation that the proposals wouldn’t happen. No real explanation was given as to the rationale behind the latest plans (other than to support increased housing along the Croydon-Wimbledon corridor).

     I would take the report with a pinch of salt with some of its reporting. The ‘widely disliked’ scheme seems a bit inaccurate in that the people (and the reporter) seems to be a bit unhappy that it was ditched.

     Mr Jefkins reinstated his belief that it would be much cheaper and better to make the existing trams longer though describing this as read as ‘a practical option’ is extremely subjective. Get ngh in the pub and ask him if it is a practical option if you want an opposing viewpoint.

122. Re automatic turnback – what was/will be automatic about it?

123. Herned,

     Don’t get excited. It merely means that the points can be set from the tram rather than either the driver having to get out and insert a point lever into the mechanism or someone else do this. In other words, the points will operate like all the other ones.

     The centre platform at East Croydon has long been problematical. The was an RAIB report on a derailment in 2012 as a result of these points (unique on Tramlink) being faulty and it hasn’t been properly fixed since.

     Since that derailment the centre platform has only been used for planned engineering works or emergency working when extra staff are positioned there to act as pointsmen (points people). Its all been a bit of a disgrace. In my mind, reading the report, this was clearly a factor in a subsequent RAIB report concerning a tram running with doors open but when I suggested this to the RAIB they dismissed this – which leaves me with a certain lack of confidence in the organisation.

124. Regarding tram-trains, I noticed from a Google Earth aerial image that the road overbridge at Rotherham Central station was being re-decked in June 2017 . That such a major piece of work was being carried out so late in the project suggests it had became necessary because of changes to the specification, namely the late decision to build the OHLE on NR infrastructure to full 25kV standards so it can be converted with little effort in the future despite being energised initially at 750V, and there being no firm plans to upgrade to 25kV in the future. That would have brought into play all the current problems concerning how to implement safe 25kV safety clearances in the vicinity of tightly constrained UK platforms and structure gauge as newly interpreted from the European TSIs (Technical Standards for Interoperability) that came into force fairly recently. Assuming this bridge reconstruction was not envisaged originally, unexpectedly having to do such major additional work at such a late stage is a complete disaster for cost control and timely completion. Similar problems have bedevilled most current electrification projects.

125. @PoP – “It merely means that the points can be set from the tram rather than either the driver having to get out and insert a point lever into the mechanism or someone else do this. In other words, the points will operate like all the other ones.”

     I think you’ll find that all the frequently-used points are set by ‘Control’ at Therapia Lane depot and not by the tram driver as such because the trams don’t have on-board, automatic point-setting kit as may be found elsewhere abroad. See the “Signalling Control and Service Regulation (Tram Management System – TMS)” section here for an explanation:
     http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/infra/control.shtml

     The points serving the centre platform at East Croydon had to be disconnected from “Control” following that RAIB-reported incident and thus then could only be manually operated. Since the system was flaky enough, that centre platform wasn’t reconnected in a rush. There are also a number of crossovers which have always only been operated manually with a point lever but they are only used for out-of-course working. The one lower down George Street is a good example.

126. Graham Feakins,

     Which is very strange because I remember some emails you forwarded to me a few years ago explaining how ‘the system’ knew not only which tram was approaching a set of points (in normal use – not an exceptional one like the trailing crossover in George St East and which isn’t used with passengers aboard) but also its intended route. The points were then set automatically on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. This email was more recent than the link in your comment.

     If control regulates the junctions as you now suggest then technically you could argue it isn’t a tramway, it is a railway. One subtle different between a tramway and an electric railway with overhead power supply is that at junctions a tramway works on ‘first come, first served’ basis (automatically or under control of the drivers) and on a railway a signaller controls the movement through junctions in an order of his choosing (which is usually determined by a timetable). As I understand it, even in the old days of more traditional trams with pointsmen at busy junctions, the pointsman’s only job was to look at the destination of the next tram and route it appropriately – which is what I understood from those emails is basically what happens today but in more advanced form.

127. Why not just spring load the points at East Croydon? The terminus near where I lived in Brussels was done like that. It worked fine…

128. Graham Feakins,

     Aha. That email was sent when I was researching Tramalot. As a result of the information you provided I wrote:

     The tram is detected by loops in the road that pick up a signal from an antenna located at the end of the trams with only the one in proximity to the front cab being active. Intriguingly the loop not only knows that a tram has passed but also knows which tram has passed.

129. It is my understanding that a tram’s route is downloaded to it at each terminus. Armed with this data the tram send messages to track loops to determine which way the points should be set. What I do not know is whether there is any communication between central control and the track loops once the loop has received a tram’s instructions. What I do know is that it’s all automatic assuming it’s all working correctly.

130. @PoP – I interpreted what you composed as being that it was the drivers who can set the automatic points from the tram, as common elsewhere, and not because ‘the tram can do it itself’. In Croydon, if the points are not set correctly for the intended route, then the driver has to contact Control at Therapia Lane to get them changed.

131. Southern Heights (Light Railway)

     Even if spring loaded points were permitted, it wouldn’t help with four of the six points involved in operating the centre reversing platform – which is accessible from both ends.

     I don’t know how many of the points involved need to be made ‘automatic’. I presume all of them.

     Carto Metro may make this clearer.

132. I think you’d only need have control of two out of the 8 points in the area. All the others can be spring loaded.

     However you seem to imply that spring loaded points are not allowed?

133. Southern Heights (Light Railway)

     I now see what you are referring to. I don’t know if spring-loaded points (or similar) are banned but they certainly have been problematic. See derailment at Phipps Bridge.

     I was thinking more that when a route is set into the middle platform from one end you want to prevent it being possible for a tram to enter from the opposite end and spring loaded points would not achieve this. To my mind the points here are interrelated and spring loaded points acting independently would not be appropriate. If it were a dead-end terminus things might be different.

134. PoP: although preventing trams from entering any section of track from each end and having a head-on collision is desirable, is it quite necessary on a line-of-sight tramway? Collision (head-on or otherwise) with a road vehicle is a much greater risk, surely?

135. Malcolm,

     Although tramways are referred to as operated by ‘line of sight’ this isn’t really the case in single track sections – certainly not when you can’t see all the single track section as in the case of the Waddon flyover.

     For another example, before the extra loop was put in, you didn’t want a tram leaving Arena, 1 km from Elmers End, whilst there was a tram in the platform at Elmers End even if, technically, the entire single track section was visible by both drivers. So there would have been protection built in.

     There is a short section of single track near New Addington Health Care centre. They didn’t bother signalling it because they thought that no collision would take place and it would be safe to rely on drivers using line of sight. I can’t find any official report but the inevitable did happen.

136. Even if vehicles can stop within sighting at design speed, meeting on a single line is not only a safety problem. It soon develops into an operational nightmare as one tram will now have to back up out of the way to let the other one out. Delays and confusion ensue, with room for further human error and risk.

137. Even on rubber/asphalt rather than steel/steel systems, a lengthy or busy stretch which only has room for single line working will be signal-controlled.

     See for example Wallingford Bridge.

138. Mark Townend,

     Yes, indeed-ie. There is the classic story of the Mill Hill East branch in the early days of ATO on the Northern line. A train was stationary at Mill Hill East. Another train was allowed to depart from East Finchley to Mill Hill East. It could do this quite safely because the ATO equivalent of block sections were clear immediately in front of it and no other train had been authorised to enter them. Eventually it would have detected that the platform was blocked and brought the train to a safe stand.

     Of course the RMT shouted that this was not a safe system, that their members were put at risk (despite nearly all Northern line drivers being ASLEF) but that wasn’t true. But, as you say, it was probably an operational nightmare.

     Needless to say, the software got amended soon after that.

139. PoP: you may be thinking of this collision at New Addington, in 2005: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c906840f0b602410001b5/R112006_060720_New_Addington.pdf. But the diagrams at https://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/infra/maps.shtml, last revised on July 2000, just a few weeks after the opening, show stop/proceed signals protecting the single track, and the report makes no mention of any previous collisions here (but a number of SPADs), nor of any post-opening installation of signals.

     Are you sure that the signals were put in post opening as a result of the inevitable?

140. @PoP: you can actually leave the springs off most of them!

     The only place you need some control is where lines from each direction allows acces to the centre road to reverse. If the tram goes back it is automatically directed onto the correct track. All the other points will only be used in the correct sense and the spring loading is to reduce wear and tear, except for the pair to the west of the station. They will wear quickly and it should be either pole operated or electrically controlled.

141. Betterbee,

     My bad. And I couldn’t find the report to check because I hadn’t realised it happened so long ago.

     It was not the lack of a stop indicator on this single track section as I implied. It was the lack of SPAS (Signal Passed At Stop) indicators.

     SPAS indicators are poles with blue lights on a single track section. They flash if a tram enters the single track section when it shouldn’t. This alerts both the errant tram driver and any potential tram going the other way. It was this that wasn’t installed because it was thought unnecessary.

     I should have written ‘They didn’t bother signalling it with SPAS indicators because they thought that no collision would take place and it would be safe to rely on drivers using line of sight if a stop signal was passed‘.

     Note that the report gives

     the absence of SPAS indicators providing a local warning that a SPAS event had occurred on the single line section between King Henry’s Drive and New Addington.

     as a significant contributing factor.

     For some reason, I can’t view the diagrams but presumably they don’t show any SPAS indicators on the relevant single track section.

142. @PoP – Try the complete collection download in a .zip here:
     https://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/infra/maps/diagrams.zip
     Extract these amd you will find the New Addington branch extremity on 17.gif. No SPAS indicators are shown, BUT they’re also not shown anywhere else on the single line sections either! Only signals and points indicators are shown. Were they an original feature?

143. Mark Townend,

     I assumed so but my memory is clearly not 100% reliable. I would have thought they would be almost essential for some locations e.g. the road overbridge just west of Mitcham Junction, the short section of interlaced track just west of Mitcham and on entering Wimbledon station.

144. The blue lamp SPAS indicators were installed right from the beginning on longer sections of single track as also e.g. between Harrington Road and Birkbeck.

145. Have SPAS indicators since been installed at New Addington? It’s a long time since I’ve been there!

146. @Betterbee: I think I can see something at the Croyden end, that look like a signal. But it’s hard to be certain as I’m getting it from Streetview…

147. I don’t actually know what a SPAS indicator looks nor their siting rules around junctions. They may be a wide viewing angle beacon placed anywhere on OHLE masts etc as opposed to highly directional signal heads. Don’t forget that as well as tram signals the system also features tram points indicators on approach to facing junctions which use a similar traffic light head on a slim post (with different indications clearly). I also note from looking at streetview that the Croydon bound points indicator appears not to be illuminated. That could be because the points are not actually detected correctly in either position, but also may be because there is no route set towards them from one of the starting signals at the terminus. I don’t know the signalling standards employed so can’t be sure but to extinguish the points indicator unless a route is set towards it for a short single track section like this could be an alternative SPAS measure – i.e. you leave the terminus without proper authority, but on approaching the points you stop before the points indicator because it is dark. The system might also be capable of extinguishing a points indicator if a SPAS is detected in the opposite direction. I’m just speculating in all this but the blue flashing SPAS can’t be used on a public highway and the site at New Addington is very close to the road.

148. I’ve discovered my own answer. I found a few SPAS indicators looking at streetview around the Wandle Park flyover They are blue beacons placed periodically throughout the single line section, attached typically to every 2nd or 3rd OHLE stanchion. probably every 50m or so to ensure a tram at any point along the single line is within visibility of at least one example. The first one past Reeves corner heading towards Wimbledon is placed on its own separate post on the opposite side of the single line from the stanchions, by the fence next to the NR tracks, possibly for sighting reasons approaching round the sharp bend under the Roman Way viaduct. Going up the ramp there are three more visible attached to stanchions. There are no beacons visible around New Addington and the single line is only about 70m long.

149. Mark Townend, Betterbee, Southern Heights,

     This has prompted to me to read the accident report in more detail. Particularly paragraph 55 which states:

     The non-fitment of SPAS indicators on the single line section was decided at the time of design approval; it has been justified by a number of safety arguments which include the low (35 km/h) speed limit over the section (25 km/h over spring points), driving on line-of-sight and the ability for end-to-end sighting.

     (My bold)

     So that answers some questions – but not the answers I was really looking for. So spring points are permitted but have the disadvantage that they restrict speed. 25kph is quite slow and even at East Croydon I could envisage at least part of the tram exceeding that speed when going over them. I suspect that also at places like East Croydon spring-loaded points would be subject to a lot of wear and tear.

Comments are closed.