Revolution VLR

[stivesnick]

A group of rail industry companies has got together to build a prototype very light rail vehicle. Some initial funding has come from the Government. 

 

The aim is to cut costs to enable new railway lines to open. From the photos it is certainly not a new Parry People Mover nor a new Pacer!

 

The vehicle which can seat 56 people is currently on a short  test track at Ironbridge but could be moved to the Great Central Railway to allow for more extensive testing. Its not clear what impact strength it has so if it would be able to run on the mainline. 

 

My initial thought was that the capacity is not much more than a single deck bus so unless it could offer a much better journey time you would be better off with a bus - although a two car version would be possible. 

 

Link to company web-site: https://revolutionvlr.com/about/

 

There is a useful product brochure that is too large a file to load onto this site. 

 

 

Regards 

 

Nick 

[Pandora]

Visually attractive inside and out, and those seats look inviting for a journey.  No comment as to the economics,  the competition is an urban Tram unit converted to run on fossil fuel or battery power.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Pandora

[Wickham Green too]

Hmmmm ........................... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacerailer

[number6]

Lots of innovative stuff in the Revolution railcar including an adaption of a standard freight bogie into an efficient self contained power bogie. It uses aluminium and carbon fibre to keep weight down has quality interiors. Also to be put together in local pop-up factories. It is not intended for mainline use because the crashworthiness required would mean you'd end up with a heavy vehicle perhaps already available from another manufacturer. Think self-contained branchlines or reopenings. Caveat - I'm designing a book for the designer responsible - they have good pedigree including back in the 80s the LT prototype tube trains, Jubilee and Piccadilly trains, IC225, trams, light rail and lots of interesting international stuff including in Australia and China. Their recent work includes a tram for Coventry and proposal for similar in Cambridge.

 

[Edwin_m]

31 minutes ago, number6 said:

It is not intended for mainline use because the crashworthiness required would mean you'd end up with a heavy vehicle perhaps already available from another manufacturer. Think self-contained branchlines or reopenings. 

The key issue for me is how many (few) branches can be operated without touching any track used by other services.  Maybe not quite on the fingers of one hand, but not far off.  Stourbridge, St Ives and Looe spring to mind - a few years ago I did a mental trip round the network and couldn't find many more.  Even if the service itself is self-contained, and fuelling and some maintenance can be done on the branch, the unit will need to go to a depot at some point that that requires special arrangements to use the main line or a transfer by road.  

[RichardLong]

7 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

The key issue for me is how many (few) branches can be operated without touching any track used by other services.  Maybe not quite on the fingers of one hand, but not far off.  Stourbridge, St Ives and Looe spring to mind - a few years ago I did a mental trip round the network and couldn't find many more.  Even if the service itself is self-contained, and fuelling and some maintenance can be done on the branch, the unit will need to go to a depot at some point that that requires special arrangements to use the main line or a transfer by road.  

The obvious line that meets that criteria is on the Isle of Wight - but of course they’ve already just got new trains…

[BernardTPM]

Maybe they will get some VLRs around 2060 or so...

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hi all,

 

I think this is a fascinating idea, and we were lucky enough to be invited to see the demonstrator in action before Xmas at the old Ironbridge Power Station. 

 

It is worth pointing out that the concept isn't limited to the rail vehicles but includes pop-up stations and maintenance sheds that cost a fraction of the usual. 

 

And the train uses freight bogies that are proven sturdy enough to cope with rough track, while being light enough that in some areas existing bullhead could be reused.  Preparing and checking the out-of-use but existing tracks at Ironbridge for the demonstration runs was done in a fraction of the time that would be needed for heavy rail use.

 

For anyone interested we put together a short video on our YouTube channel: 

 

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Revolution Ben

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

The key issue for me is how many (few) branches can be operated without touching any track used by other services.  Maybe not quite on the fingers of one hand, but not far off.  Stourbridge, St Ives and Looe spring to mind - a few years ago I did a mental trip round the network and couldn't find many more.  Even if the service itself is self-contained, and fuelling and some maintenance can be done on the branch, the unit will need to go to a depot at some point that that requires special arrangements to use the main line or a transfer by road.  

That thought immediately occurred to me as well and there are very few lines where they could be used.  The 'modular maintenance facility' might make them a more viable proposition on some self contained lines but you are then into the unavoidable need to provide rail access to such a facility and that would mean not only space to erect it but also providing pointwork - and the latter is expensive even using recondition material (if you can find any). 

 

What wasn't so clear was the performance the trains will achieve.  Having looked at (professionally) a number of reopening projects over the years one key feature which invariably emerges is the question of speed.  On one project the proposed line speed was 90mph in order to achieve commercially acceptable timings.  On another we were definitely looking at speeds in excess of 60mph and ideally around 75mph - again in order to achieve commercially realistic/attractive timings to tempt people out of their cars.  These sort of speeds might again reopen the whole crashworthiness debate especially if a route involves level crossings. 

 

Incidentally there are plenty of branchlines where bullhead rail - sometimes well over 50 years old - is in everyday use and where visits from Perway gangs and tamping machines are pretty rare events.    With 'ordinary' 2nd generation, bogie, DMUs, even running at 60mph or more, track wear is limited and a substantial sub-roadbed isn't really needed.   Thus I tend to be a little sceptical about the claims made in respect of track where the real key to what is needed will relate as much to speed and curvature as to axle loadings

[stivesnick]

One possible route for these vehicles is the re-opened March to Wisbech line as an initial shuttle service until the Ely area upgrade scheme is done, which would allow through trains to Cambridge. 

 

Nick 

 

 

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, stivesnick said:

One possible route for these vehicles is the re-opened March to Wisbech line as an initial shuttle service until the Ely area upgrade scheme is done, which would allow through trains to Cambridge. 

 

Nick 

 

 

It would probably still have to share some track with the heavy engineering trains going into Whitemoor.  

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

It would probably still have to share some track with the heavy engineering trains going into Whitemoor.  

Which could give rise to an interesting question where there might be a need to assess the cost of providing (if space allows) separated infrastructure to permit use of one of these trains against the cost of a more conventional train using mixed traffic infrastrucrure.

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Which could give rise to an interesting question where there might be a need to assess the cost of providing (if space allows) separated infrastructure to permit use of one of these trains against the cost of a more conventional train using mixed traffic infrastrucrure.

Agreed, especially as any extension to Cambridge (or anywhere else) would have to be a conventional train in any case.  

 

Tram-trains have a similar issue of not meeting the normal heavy rail crashworthiness standards.  On the Metro Sunderland extension (not actually a tram-train but the same applies here too) and the Rotherham tram-train this is mitigated by enhanced TPWS fitment, reducing the likelihood of a collision to compensate for the greater severity if one does happen.  The same could probably be done with this vehicle, but I've not seen any mention anywhere of that being proposed.  ERTMS would effectively provide the same protection for free, but it's probably decades before it might spread to any routes where this vehicle might operate.  

 

Another option, used in the USA, is time separation - trains operate at night when there is no tram-train service.  But I doubt NR would accept time restrictions on engineering train access to their major depot at Whitemoor.  

Edited April 6, 2022 by Edwin_m

[298]

More snake-oil from the Warwick Manufacturing Group. It's basically a BR green Railbus sixty years too late, apart from the branch lined mentioned and then only at off-peak times the network is too over-utilised to justify such low capacity trains, and any new projects still require high projected loadings to make the capital expenditure worthwhile.  

[The Stationmaster]

On 08/04/2022 at 05:47, 298 said:

More snake-oil from the Warwick Manufacturing Group. It's basically a BR green Railbus sixty years too late, apart from the branch lined mentioned and then only at off-peak times the network is too over-utilised to justify such low capacity trains, and any new projects still require high projected loadings to make the capital expenditure worthwhile.  

Our local, 5 mile long, branch could be operated on a self contained basis provided that a maintenance depot could be created to avoid  mainline running to/from the nearest existing depot.  Land could probably n be madea availble to build the depot but a new connection would be required with all the cost that entails plus the depot would need to be staffed - even if only at night and a local staffing arrangement would be required to provide Drivers.  

 

But even standing aside all that cost the 'train' is lacks the accommodation to cover what is currently handled by a 3 car set on weekdays and it is not clear if its performance would achieve the  existing journey time which is essential to maintain a half hourly interval service for much of the day.   In other words the train would seem to be of very limited utility, and would probably involve considerable additional costs, to replace conventional units on a line which is already operating.

[DY444]

On 06/04/2022 at 13:32, Edwin_m said:

Agreed, especially as any extension to Cambridge (or anywhere else) would have to be a conventional train in any case.  

 

Tram-trains have a similar issue of not meeting the normal heavy rail crashworthiness standards.  On the Metro Sunderland extension (not actually a tram-train but the same applies here too) and the Rotherham tram-train this is mitigated by enhanced TPWS fitment, reducing the likelihood of a collision to compensate for the greater severity if one does happen.  The same could probably be done with this vehicle, but I've not seen any mention anywhere of that being proposed.  ERTMS would effectively provide the same protection for free, but it's probably decades before it might spread to any routes where this vehicle might operate.  

 

Another option, used in the USA, is time separation - trains operate at night when there is no tram-train service.  But I doubt NR would accept time restrictions on engineering train access to their major depot at Whitemoor.  

 

The problem with TPWS is that there have been a number of collisions in recent years that it didn't prevent.  Salisbury obviously because it can't do anything about brake failures or locked up sliding wheels, and the rest because the protecting signal was cleared for a permissive movement. 

 

You can provide all the train protection you want but permissive working or degraded working under failure are always going to present a higher risk.  If you allow light weight vehicles with low crash worthiness to mix with "ordinary" trains then sooner or later the Swiss cheese holes are going to line up and the two are going to come together.  We know which one will come off worse.

[Edwin_m]

6 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

The problem with TPWS is that there have been a number of collisions in recent years that it didn't prevent.  Salisbury obviously because it can't do anything about brake failures or locked up sliding wheels, and the rest because the protecting signal was cleared for a permissive movement. 

 

You can provide all the train protection you want but permissive working or degraded working under failure are always going to present a higher risk.  If you allow light weight vehicles with low crash worthiness to mix with "ordinary" trains then sooner or later the Swiss cheese holes are going to line up and the two are going to come together.  We know which one will come off worse.

That's fully understood, but you can't protect against all collisions and even with trains meeting the full crashworthiness standard the consequences of collisions can be severe.  It's one of the few areas where the safety authorities have accepted a principle based on balance of risk rather than on absolutes.  

[DY444]

9 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

That's fully understood, but you can't protect against all collisions and even with trains meeting the full crashworthiness standard the consequences of collisions can be severe.  It's one of the few areas where the safety authorities have accepted a principle based on balance of risk rather than on absolutes.  

 

Exactly, you cannot guarantee there will be no collisions no matter how comprehensive your signalling protection is and yes some collisions are of such force that no amount of practicable crash protection is going to materially mitigate the effects.  What I am driving at is the principle of treating collision avoidance and mitigation as a zero sum game (ie where more of one is perceived to cancel out the lack of the other) needs to be kept within reasonable limits and not treated as infinitely variable.

 

Having said that, in general I am all in favour of the sensible and consistent analysis and balance of risk.  Imo it is something the railway industry in the round is not very good at and the financial consequences of that are enormous.