West Midlands Metro Tracklaying in Brum

[Tim H]

And why is the bird lady on the left about to be bashed on the head!

 

I remember for years after the trams went, every time a city centre road was dug up, trams tracks would re-appear.

I would expect by now, after all the remodelling there aren't any left to find.

 

Keith

 

I saw some tram tracks uncovered in Deansgate in Manchester only a couple of years ago. A lot of track still down there.

[SNCF stephen]

It would have been a small hotel.

It's not a particularly large patch of ground, having a smaller footprint than either of the office blocks built next to it!

 

I assumed it was to be the third office block but shaped to take account of the corner site.

 

Keith

It was to be a 21 storey hotel so although its footprint would have been small it would have been very tall. The apartment block adjacent to it would have been even taller at 30+ storeys. There would have been a joint glass entrance to both buildings. 

[melmerby]

A few more shots this evening, taken earlier today

 

The points in Bull Street now seem to have a gap in the blades but it still looks a bit narrow for the flange to pass!

 

 

Unlike last week the curved rails are at last definitely starting to join up!

(They were working to join up the other track whilst I was taing the photo)

 

 

The finished length of southbound track even has the adjacent pavement alongside the old Lewis's building finished off.

(Unlike the northbound track which hasn't even been started)

 

 

A ground level picture of the small bit of "park" by the Charles St. bridge (It is definitely inaccessible with a padlocked gate.)

 

 

I was looking at the route of the tram as it leaves Stephenson Street to head for Snow Hill and it is going to be a dificult start.

As soon as the tram pulls away from the Stephenson Street stop it goes around a pretty tight curve at the Waterstones corner then up Stephenson Place which looks to be about a 1:10 gradient.

It is not going to be easy, especially if the rails are greasy!

 

Keith

[Edwin_m]

For people used to trains, trams are surprisingly sure-footed.  Some years ago we were testing a Croydon tram and fitted dispensers to drop soapy water in front of the wheels.  Even with the sanders disabled it was virtually impossible to make it lose grip. 

[melmerby]

For people used to trains, trams are surprisingly sure-footed.  Some years ago we were testing a Croydon tram and fitted dispensers to drop soapy water in front of the wheels.  Even with the sanders disabled it was virtually impossible to make it lose grip. 

It is still approaching the theoretical maximum gradient of steel wheel on steel rail.

It's easier if it is on a straight track with the vehicle already moving, but the Metro will be rounding a bend and accelerating from a standstill at the same time.

 

Some info here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_steepest_gradients_on_adhesion_railways

 

Keith

[SNCF stephen]

The Ansaldo T69s were procured on the basis that they would be able to negotiate the steep gradient out of Stephenson Street up to Corporation Street. However, in the articles stating why they are to be replaced it was frequently mentioned that they needed a tram capable of negotiating tighter curves and steeper gradients despite the fact that the design for this section of Tramway has been set in stone for  a significant period of time. 

[SNCF stephen]

Here are a few shots from earlier this week. 

 

Here is Corporation Street looking north. The trackbed looks like it has been installed:

 

Alongside Snow Hill the track has been installed and the tarmac gone down. That appears to be it for the moment:

 

Then finally a shot of the CAF Urbos3 Trams that will operate on the line:

 

Edit - Whilst looking for clips of the CAF Urbos3s on youtube I found this 

Edited May 28, 2014 by SNCF stephen

[melmerby]

Here are a few shots from earlier this week. 

 

Here is Corporation Street looking north. The trackbed looks like it has been installed:

IMG_3682 copy.jpg

 

The concrete appears to be be going down in shortish strips, presumably to reduce disruption.

Your picture seems to show a bit more in place than in the ones I posted earlier.

 

Whilst the track was being laid across Colmore Circus the road was closed for three weeks and all traffic had to access Colmore Row via Livery Street.

I didn't notice that it made a great deal of difference to the traffic, apart from the temporary bus stops that had to be provided alongside the station.

Maybe they should shut it permanently! As it is I assume there will have to be lights to control the crossing once the trams are running.

 

Keith

[melmerby]

Here are a few shots from earlier this week. 

No photo (I forgot my camera!)

The concrete strip in Corporation Street now has track sitting on it all the way from New Look to Union St.

The guys were levelling it up with the screw system that's in the sleepers.

 

The Southbound track in Bull St. still isn't joined up on the curves!

 

Keith

[SNCF stephen]

The concrete section on Corporation Street is the foundations for the stops there. They are not opposite each other being in a staggered formation instead. I would guess that if is because of the space available to the line in this location. Hopefully I will get out there tomorrow evening to see it before some nice Ale...

[melmerby]

Some more pictures of progress as of last Thursday

 

Corporation St. track now in concrete:

 

 

Close up of a section:

 

 

Bull St track now all welded together and some concreting in the distance:

 

 

This is what they have to deal with when re-routing services: (Corner of New St & Stephenson Place)

 

 

Keith

[melmerby]

Another update on Progress, although not too much this week.

 

Entrance to Bull Street & crossover now set in concrete:

 

 

Work continues on the next stretch in Corporation St.:

(Between Union St. & Lower Bull St)

 

 

Plenty going on in Stephenson St.:

 

 

Waterstones Corner with start of new shop front:

 

 

Keith

 

 

[SNCF stephen]

Snap! I was out today and took a few as well. The angles in these shots are not quite as good but you might find it interesting:

 

 

I believe the Urbos3 Trams will be coming into service in the next few weeks. Driver training has begun and the first set of 4 will be available shortly but an official date has yet to be announced. I can vouch for the fact that they have great ride qualities and are very quiet compared to the T69s. Part of me hopes that they try to run a T69 on the extension. Since they will be stored there is a possibility that they could see use if there was an issue with the new trams although I cannot imagine how the new trams could have any issues that are worse than the current ones...

 

 

[melmerby]

The "district energy system" is having some effect on the excavations around Stephenson Place/New Street as it involves laying some rather large insulated pipes from one side of the city to the other, crossing the route of the Metro.

AFAIK It's part of joining the East Side scheme to Broad St.

The picture of the hole with all the sevices in, which I posted, is part of it.

The trench is pretty deep (- 3m?) and has two of these pipes side by side

 

http://chp.decc.gov.uk/cms/district-heating-birmingham

 

This will need to be completed before the tracklaying commences over it's route.

 

Keith

Edited June 20, 2014 by melmerby

[melmerby]

A few more pictures with current progress Tuesday 1st July

 

Bit more track down in Stephenson St

(this will go as far as the Pinfold St junction in the distance, although the tram stop/terminus for New St will be where the raised concrete is.

This enables the extension to the ICC to be built without disrupting running of the trams.)

 

View in the other direction:

 

Waterstones corner progresses: (or not?)

 

Tarmac down in the first stretch in Corporation St.:

 

Work progresses on the next bit:

 

East side of Bull St now open again:

 

Concreting by the Bull St stop:

 

Just laid tarmac at the Colmore Circus end of Bull St:

 

Keith

Edited July 1, 2014 by melmerby

[Dave47549]

.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Dave47549
Removed pointless guff

[SNCF stephen]

I doubt it, I understand they don't have enough grunt to get up to New St. from 'Waterstones Corner', which was part of the excuse* to order new kit.

 

*No excuse needed really, the original batch really are tat.

 

 

 

My understanding was that they were procured on the basis that they would run on further extensions to Line 1 which included to Five Ways. I suspect that whilst they may not find it easy they could get up the New Street climb. The T69's have powered bogies whereas the Urbos 3's have individual wheels powered which reduces weight so I suppose that could be a factor as to why they would not offer as good a performance as their replacements. 

 

I do agree that they are tat but I will miss them when they are gone. The fact that Midland Metro manage to operate the system so well with such poorly made trams is a testament to their professionalism. 

[Dave47549]

.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Dave47549
Removed pointless guff

[Edwin_m]

I was involved many years ago in a feasibility study into the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill route and was assured at the time that the T69 was specified to cope with the steep climb from the former Dudley station site into the town centre.  I'm not sure how they demonstrated compliance though! 

[wombatofludham]

I was involved many years ago in a feasibility study into the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill route and was assured at the time that the T69 was specified to cope with the steep climb from the former Dudley station site into the town centre.  I'm not sure how they demonstrated compliance though! 

 

Correct, I worked for Centro as part of the Metro team and they were indeed specified to - theoretically at least - climb Castle Hill in Dudley.  I say theoretically as when built, the trams ended up with numerous variations between them, and trying to keep the builders to spec was nigh on impossible, (Google "AnsaldoBreda" and see just what other contracts they have made a mess of) so whether they actually could make the climb is a moot point.  I do have a lot of sympathy with TMM, they were brought in as operators once the system was built so had absolutely no say in the future maintainability of the route or vehicles and as the Government had insisted on a "Design, Build, Operate and maintain" contract, where the Government insisted the contractors would build a system to make a profit and be easy to maintain, Centro was limited by the rules of the award of finance as to how much say they could have in making sure the system was fit for purpose - the Government's naive view was the operator will want to have a system that makes money, so of course they'll build it to last.  The fact the long term operator came in after it was built so couldn't influence how cost effective the line would be to maintain was probably deliberate but we'll never know.  Suffice it to say a lot of the subsequent problems with the route are down to that decision  by the Government to insist on a DBOM contract and their tight-fistedness. 

 

That said, if you think Line 1 is cheap and nasty, you don't know just how close you all came to having to put up with a guided busway.  The Department for Transport in London at one point were only willing to fund a guided busway because it was seen as a more "cost effective" (i.e cheap) option.  The problem is the DfT in London at that time had no idea of regional transport needs.  It beggars belief now but one of the reasons why the DfT kept rejecting electrification of the Cross City line was they couldn't see why a "rural branch line in the Midlands" should be electrified ahead of the Chiltern lines.  Had the former MP for Lichfield not committed suicide with his seat looking it would fall to Labour, it would probably have been many more years before the Cross City was electrified.  Fortunately, it genuinely looks as if the DfT have now got some idea that there are commuting needs in provincial cities and although spending is still heavily skewed to London, some money is leaking out beyond the London travelcard zone.

 

That said, given when I joined Centro in 1990 we were looking forward to having a network, we had a good team and were making progress, albeit slowly, since Line 1 the senior management at Centro have frankly lost the plot. Instead of having the confidence of GMPTE who, when knocked back for their big-bang extension plan kept the team together and just got on with the job of building the network line by line, and have now got the job virtually done, or the team at Nottingham who started after Centro but are now overtaking them with extending their route, Centro senior management became obsessed with bus solutions, convinced they would never get Government money for the other routes.  The team, who had learned how to do what are now called "public-private partnerships" virtually on the job were allowed to disband, and all the hard won expertise went to private consultants, ironically now helping other cities build light-rail schemes whilst the West Midlands tinkers at the edges.  I've probably said too much but one day I intend to write a book about how the project was handled and be damned, I do feel that the people of the West Midlands have been badly let down by very senior decision makers both in Birmingham and London. 

[Alan J Kirkman]

Correct, I worked for Centro as part of the Metro team and they were indeed specified to - theoretically at least - climb Castle Hill in Dudley.  I say theoretically as when built, the trams ended up with numerous variations between them, and trying to keep the builders to spec was nigh on impossible, (Google "AnsaldoBreda" and see just what other contracts they have made a mess of) so whether they actually could make the climb is a moot point.  I do have a lot of sympathy with TMM, they were brought in as operators once the system was built so had absolutely no say in the future maintainability of the route or vehicles and as the Government had insisted on a "Design, Build, Operate and maintain" contract, where the Government insisted the contractors would build a system to make a profit and be easy to maintain, Centro was limited by the rules of the award of finance as to how much say they could have in making sure the system was fit for purpose - the Government's naive view was the operator will want to have a system that makes money, so of course they'll build it to last.  The fact the long term operator came in after it was built so couldn't influence how cost effective the line would be to maintain was probably deliberate but we'll never know.  Suffice it to say a lot of the subsequent problems with the route are down to that decision  by the Government to insist on a DBOM contract and their tight-fistedness. 

 

That said, if you think Line 1 is cheap and nasty, you don't know just how close you all came to having to put up with a guided busway.  The Department for Transport in London at one point were only willing to fund a guided busway because it was seen as a more "cost effective" (i.e cheap) option.  The problem is the DfT in London at that time had no idea of regional transport needs.  It beggars belief now but one of the reasons why the DfT kept rejecting electrification of the Cross City line was they couldn't see why a "rural branch line in the Midlands" should be electrified ahead of the Chiltern lines.  Had the former MP for Lichfield not committed suicide with his seat looking it would fall to Labour, it would probably have been many more years before the Cross City was electrified.  Fortunately, it genuinely looks as if the DfT have now got some idea that there are commuting needs in provincial cities and although spending is still heavily skewed to London, some money is leaking out beyond the London travelcard zone.

 

That said, given when I joined Centro in 1990 we were looking forward to having a network, we had a good team and were making progress, albeit slowly, since Line 1 the senior management at Centro have frankly lost the plot. Instead of having the confidence of GMPTE who, when knocked back for their big-bang extension plan kept the team together and just got on with the job of building the network line by line, and have now got the job virtually done, or the team at Nottingham who started after Centro but are now overtaking them with extending their route, Centro senior management became obsessed with bus solutions, convinced they would never get Government money for the other routes.  The team, who had learned how to do what are now called "public-private partnerships" virtually on the job were allowed to disband, and all the hard won expertise went to private consultants, ironically now helping other cities build light-rail schemes whilst the West Midlands tinkers at the edges.  I've probably said too much but one day I intend to write a book about how the project was handled and be damned, I do feel that the people of the West Midlands have been badly let down by very senior decision makers both in Birmingham and London. 

I completely echo that story about the Cross City I heard it from source inside the DfT. There were many rumours of The LMR GM and the Divisonal Manager being seen with a length of hose pipe looking for an MP!!!!! At a Joint TLRS/LRTA/TMS/ERS meeting last year we were told by a very senior Centro officer ( and It was no doubt true because amongst the attendees was Andy Steel, one time manager of MM and now the ICP for approving the CAF Urbos3s) that T69s can climb out of Stephenson St the problem is stopping on the way down if the Magnetic brake goes demic. Urbos 3s will be allright on their other brakes as well. So T69s will be limited to Upper Bull St crossover..  

[wombatofludham]

I was "lucky" to be on board one of the trams in Naples on the Ansaldo test track when they tested the magnetic brake.  We very nearly all ended up in the cab with the driver, so they did work at one time!

 

I have to say the last time I heard a Metro tram go past (on Bilston Road in Wolverhampton) late last year it sounded like it was dragging a fitter's bag of spanners along underneath it, and given the builder has never been able to supply spares efficiently and there has always been at least one tram out of service as a "Christmas tree", and seeing how the similar Oslo trams built at the same time are being replaced, I bet TMM are counting down the days until the new CAF vehicles enter service.

 

[Edwin_m]

Sounds like the problem isn't the effectiveness of the magnetic brake but the effectiveness of the alternative brakes.  The magnetic brake isn't failsafe and shouldn't be relied on in service (being just for emergencies) so it's bad news if the tram can't stop on a gradient without it.  Especially if there is a right angle bend at the bottom and a shop front to hit if it doesn't make the turn!

 

I think Andy Steel was the source of the "spaghetti" quote on the T69s, so glad to hear he is on the alert for unnecessary pasta in the successors. 

[Alan J Kirkman]

Precisely Edwin! Andy quite likes the CAF cars but I'd prefer the Bombardier Flexity 2 both on Specification and having axles and a limited bogie swivel (2.5 Degres either side of the centre line) and after riding Edinburgh. He was also the source of the C**P quote about the T69s.

[SNCF stephen]

You have to remember that 'line 1' isn't 'line 1', but was chosen basically out of desperation as the originally preferred 'line 1' got bombed out big time. Thus the chosen line was more an act of desperation to finally get something up & running. The fact that the proceeds from the sale of the WMPTE bus division merely covered a feasibility study sums up the farce full stop. I'm fairly sure that the T69 tech' spec doesn't stand up to that short incline - certainly it was mentioned as a reason/excuse for new kit. Who actually knows? - maybe they could do it, but i wouldn't put money on them still being fit to do it a second time!

 

As for 'managing to operate the system', the 'system' hasn't run to its originally specified timetable since day one!

It did operate for a very short period of time in 2005 but then tram failures meant they could not maintain it.