Claverton Conference 24/26th October 2008

SUSTAINABLE LIGHT RAIL

By Prof. Lewis Lesley

SUMMARY
In an increasingly urbanized world most personal journeys are made in towns
and cities and are relatively short, in UK 75% under 8km long. In the developed
world, the motorcar dominates these trips. Car drivers will however transfer some
trips to rail. Electrically powered light rail (or tramway) is an economic means for
satisfying many short urban trips. Light rail can be constructed with a minimum of
urban disruption and when coupled with renewable generation is energy
sustainable. It also has a much smaller carbon footprint, when diverted car trips
are included, than any other mode except bicycles.

1.0 Definitions

Light rail is a passenger transport system using steel rails to support and guide
electrically power vehicles, running on street with other traffic and on separate
dedicated lines. Normally light rail is driven “on sight” without railway signaling, so
it can share road space or road alignments, and mix safely with road vehicles.
Ideally light rail should enjoy 100% priority over other traffic, through dedicated
lanes and the pre-emption of traffic lights. Sustainable light rail emits no CO2 in
the operating cycle, using renewable generation. When attracted car trips are
included, light rail reduces total CO2 emissions. It is also financially viable so not
vulnerable to public spending squeezes.

Consistent market research and experience over the last 50 years in Europe and
North America shows that car commuters are willing to transfer some trips to rail
based public transport but not to buses. Typically light rail systems attract
between 30 and 40% of their patronage from former car trips. Rapid transit bus
systems attract less than 5% of trips from cars, less than the variability of traffic.

2.0 Unsustainable energy and transport

The present UK energy consumption mix and its growth, is based on increasing
use of fossil fuels. Not only are these fuels, and in the case of transport use, very
dependent on oil, which is expected to peak in production soonest compared to
other fossil fuels. As importantly whilst stationary users of oil can convert to other
fuels and indeed to renewable energy sources, most transport, especially road
transport has no obvious alternative power system which can be economically
implemented.

1
Fig. 1

It should be noted that whilst total energy use over this period has been nearly
static, solid fuel use has decline gas increased, and oil has been static as the
decline in the use of oil for electricity generation, has been matched by the
growth of (road) transport use.

Fig. 2 Change in energy mix 1990 to 2001

Fig. 3. Energy end users 1990 to 2001

Transport energy consumption is almost equal to oil consumption.

2
Fig. 4 Growth of transport energy use

Road and air travel are almost entirely responsible for the growth of energy
consumption in the sector.

Fig. 5 Modal use of energy in road transport

In road transport, nearly two thirds of energy use is for private cars, with goods
vehicles accounting for another third, leaving all other modes of road transport
using only 3%.

3
Fig. 6 Consumption of transport services

Considering the use made of different modes of passenger transport, the

dominant is private car, accounting for about 800bn passenger km. pa. The next
are an order of magnitude less, bus and rail, each with about 80bn passenger
km. It is worth noting that rail has increased slightly over a 30 year period, whilst
bus use has declined by iver 10%. Air has grown from the least mode in 1970 to
the fourth used mode at about 10bn passenger km pa, with motor and pedal
bikes being about 6bn km pa.

Fig. 7 Transport greenhouse gas emissions

4
Fig. 7 shows air transport as the most serious greenhouse gas emitter because
the Department for Transport has failed to include private car use, which would
be an order of magnitude off the scale about 500million tones pa, and is the main
reason the UK will fail to hit its EU emission targets, without a serious effort yo
divert car trips to less polluting modes.

Fig. 8 Public transport greenhouse gas emissions

In comparison to the other modes of transport, the greenhouse gas emissions

from public transport are trivial. This comes out more clearly in Table 1.

Table 1. Transport % of UK Greenhouse gas emissions

Emitter 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
All 118 127 136 140 146 149 153 151 151
Transport
Public 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6
Transport
UK Total 777 729 756 738 737 707 712 719 697

%Transport 15% 17% 18% 19% 20% 21% 22% 21% 22%

Whilst transport in both absolute and relative terms represents a growing

greenhouse emitter, public transport modes have been reducing emissions in
absolute terms, representing only 4% of all transport greenhouse gases.

Considering in detail how private cars are used (Fig. 9), shows that most trips are
short, and that less than 3% of all trips made are over 50km long. The potential is
therefore great for switching short car trips to better public transport (or cycling),
where the journey time differences are small.

5
Fig. 9 Trip length distribution of car travel.

75% of trips < 8km

50% < 5km
25% < 2km
3% > 50km

The data presented in this section shows that transport is a large and growing
consumer of fossil fuel, that transport is highly dependent on (imported) oil, and
that transport is a growing emitter of greenhouse gases. For passenger travel,
the car is the dominant mode and emitter of greenhouse gas, but the majority of
car trips are short. Such short trips can be attracted to better public transport.
Can market research provide a guide ? Throughout the industrial world, car
drivers are willing and do switch to rail. An insignificant number are willing to
switch to buses. The reasons for this reflect perceptions and experience of
service speed, reliability, travel comfort and social acceptability. Historically
Metros have been seen as the way to give metropolitan areas high quality rail
systems. Light rail however has been shown to give about 90% of the benefits of
Metro at about 10% of the investment cost. This is particularly so when traffic
management measures are implemented to give light rail priority and reduce the
available road capacity for private car use.

3.0 Modal shift to light rail

It follows that light rail lines should be built parallel to the busiest roads, with the
highest volumes of car traffic. Only by diverting car trips will light rail reduce
urban greenhouse gas and pollution. Building light rail to serve areas of low car
ownership or high unemployment will rarely make significant ecological

6
contributions.

People drive cars for among other reasons their convenience, speed and
dependability. Despite the rising cost of fuel, cost is rarely the most important
factor in car use. Using taxis is usually cheaper than having a car. For light rail to
achieve significant market penetration, journeys must be fast, waiting times short
and operations 100% reliable. As a rule of thumb people will not wait for longer
than the ride time, since it would usually be faster to walk. For short urban trips of
under 10mins, the service interval needs to be less than 10 minutes, ideally
about 5 minutes, giving an average wait of less than 3 minutes. A “no timetable”,
convenient, turn up and go service is the first requirement to attract committed
car users.

Fast journeys need direct routes and high operating speeds. Light rail service
speeds should be above 25km/hr. Here there is an interaction with stop spacing.
Closer stations mean shorter walks but a slower operating speed. Widely spaced
stations mean longer walks but a faster speed. The local population density will
determine the optimum stop spacing, to minimise overall journey times, and give
a competitive alternative to car use. This optimum will also maximise catchments
and hence patronage, and depending on fares, revenue.

Park and ride is vital both for maximising the attraction of external car trips,
reducing traffic and raising patronage. The factors on the siting of park and ride
stations are well determined and proven in practice. The terminals of tram lines
make good park and ride stations, since there will usually be a tram waiting to
depart, which is important in maintaining passenger confidence. Such terminals
will be sited either on the edge or slightly out of town. This would make the
installation of wind generators acceptable, and provide renewable power.

4.0 R & D for sustainable tramways

Tramways have developed incrementally over the last 150 years. Recently the
trend has been to use modified heavy rail technology, which has increased costs
and the weight of trams. This paper concentrates on vehicle technology, although
other aspects of tramways have also been addressed to reduce costs or improve
performance, especially track and power supply systems. The increase in weight
per passenger space has been noticeable in the last 20 years. Contemporary
trams have masses of about 200kg per passenger, compared to 125kg for
buses.

7
Table 2 Comparison of vehicle weight per passenger

Type of Public Transport Unladen kg No. of Kg per

passengers passenger
Bus
Single deck rigid 9000 53 170
Double deck 12000 84 143
Articulated 18000 140 129
Trolleybus 13000 100 130
Train
Metro car (electric) 32500 150 216
Suburban (diesel) 35400 120 296
Tram
Tatra T5C5 19500 100 195
Manchester Metrolink 46000 200 230
Sheffield Supertram 54000 220 245
City Class 22000 200 110
After Lesley 1994

With frequent start and stops of urban operations, most of the energy used is due
to mass and maximum speed.

Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv2 equ. 1

The two critical variables in urban transit energy use are vehicle mass and the
maximum speed. Many designers have tried to capture braking energy to reduce
overall consumption. Electrical regeneration into batteries or back to the power
grid, or mechanically, e.g. into flywheels, have produced at best 25% power
reductions, ignoring any weight penalties from this equipment. Halving the tram
weight will automatically halve power consumption.

Reducing the maximum speed can be achieved by optimising stop spacing and
using the maximum rate of acceleration that is ergonomically safe for standing
passengers. Most trams accelerate at about 1.0m/s2. Trams that can accelerate
at 1.8m/s2, on a 400m stop spacing, can reduce the maximum speed needed by
3%, to achieve the same operating speed. A 3% lower maximum speed means
6% less energy used per start stop cycle.

Historically trams had steel under frames and wooden bodies for a low mass.
Learning from the automotive and air industries, all metal integral bodies can
have the same mass per passenger space as wood but be much stronger and
safer.

8
Although low voltage dc power systems still supply tramways, the operating
voltages have increased from 500 to 750. This means that the current used has
not increased in line with tram weights, since

W = IV equ.2

Increasing the voltage by 50% means the current has only increased by 33% for
trams twice as heavy. Nevertheless a contemporary 40 tonne tram will draw
about 1400amps when accelerating. This creates a large voltage drop between
the tram and substation, reducing performance, and to increase the number of
trams operating means strengthening the substations and power distribution.

Originally trams were powered by dc motors using variable resistors (rheostats)

for acceleration, another source of energy wastage in heating resistances. More
recently power transistors were used to chop the dc voltage, to give variable
voltages and so vary motor speed. Today most trams use ac motors powered by
variable frequency and variable current inverters, fed from the dc Overhead Line
(OHL).

The market for tramcars is limited, with a world production of less than 1000
annually. In comparison over 100,000 buses are built annually, so can afford to
invest in product development, and in comparison to trams be more technically
innovative. This is compounded by the replacement cycle for buses being
typically 10 years, and 30 years for trams (70 in Blackpool). In comparison to
private cars, trams appear obsolete long before they are worn out.

Fig. 10 Tram still running in Blackpool after 100 years

9
Even at the most optimistic levels of investment in new tramways, the vehicle
volumes will not be large enough to support mass production, the usual way to
reduce unit costs. The TRAM research project begun in 1988 has turned this
logic around by identifying mass produced components off the shelf (COTS) from
other industries, that can be used unmodified on trams. The challenging part has
been to manage the interface between different standard components, and the
rail environment, which in some aspects is kind and in others harsh.

The R&D process began with simulations and calculations, progressed to bench
and laboratory testing, then the construction of a slave vehicle using a redundant
1930!s tram in Blackpool. Finally a full size prototype vehicle was built and tested
in Blackpool. From that experience, the tram was rebuilt, re-equipped with the
next generation COTS and tested in Birkenhead and Blackpool.

Fig. 11 Slave tram being fitted out at Carnforth Depot

One of the advantages of COTS is that the original equipment manufacturers

(OEM) are engaged in constant product improvement. This means the tram
builder can piggyback on that to achieve more advanced vehicles with a
minimum of investment. As an example the power train COTS used on the City
Class tram has a high level of energy efficiency, and continuous power
optimisation to reflect varying vehicle loads and track conditions. In overall terms,
the power train is better than 90% efficient.

10
Fig. 12 Prototype tram at Fleetwood on clearance tests

A team from the Electrical Engineering Dept. of the University of Manchester

measured power consumption and compared it with other contemporary trams.
(TABLE 1). This found the city class uses significantly less than similar capacity
and performance trams, and less even that smaller, lighter but older trams in
Blackpool. Part of the reason for the higher energy efficiency is of course lower
vehicle mass, and part through the advanced power electronic COTS.

Table 3 Power consumption of various tramcars

Tram type Weight (tonnes) Power use (kWh/km)
Blackpool Centenary 18 1.5
Manchester Metrolink 46 4.1
Croydon Tramlink 38 3.9
Sheffield Supertram 54 4.5
City Class 22 1.0

11
Fig.13 Prototype at Blackpool Pleasure Beach 2006

5.0 Application projects

How do new capital technologies get introduced when the market is dominated
by the public sector, where a minimum of three previous satisfied customers are
needed ? We might reflect how quickly mobile phones would have been
introduced in Britain, if telecoms was still a monopoly of the GPO ? This “Catch
22” can be broken by private sector initiatives, where the risk is taken by the
investors, who then get the rewards from commercial projects.

Changing the fundamental economics of tramway projects, away from a

subsidised public sector controlled environment is however the subject of another
paper ? Suffice it to say that privately funded projects are being progressed,
which will enable the rate of new tramway projects in the UK to increase from the
average of one every 4 years achieved over the last 20 years of public funding, to
several a year. It might thus be possible to catch up with German levels of
tramway provision in 20 years, rather than 150. Several of these privately funded
projects are linked to complementary renewable power generation, making the
tramways energy self sufficient, zero CO2 and when attracted car trips are
factored in, a net reduction of urban CO2.

12
Fig. 14 Coping with steep hills and tight curves in Birkenhead

6.0 Conclusion

To reduce CO2 in urban travel, significant numbers of car trips must be attracted
to public transport (or cycling ?). Buses have not been able to achieve that, and
also need imported fuels that add to CO2 and other health threatening emissions.
Tramways are proven worldwide to attract up to 50% of their patronage from car
users. Technical R&D to improve the efficiency of trams, with the adoption of
COTS to reduce costs, makes new tramways CO2 reducing and give value for
money. With the reduction of the cost of Photo Voltaics, and better power density
batteries or super capacitors, the roof of a tram is big enough to be the
renewable power generator, not needing any other power supply. That however
is the subject of another paper, and the technology is some way in the future.

13
Fig. 15 New city class tram nearing completion at Blackburn factory 2008

References

Lesley.L, Winstanley. A, Renfrew. A, Barnes.M and Chymera. M

Power Consumption in a new LRV
Railway Engineering June 2007, ISBN 0 94 7644 61 10

Lesley.L,
City Class LRV,
The Rail Engineer No. 27, Jan 2007

Lesley. L
Affordable Mass Transit ?
Mass Transiot, Washington DC, Feb 2005

Lesley. L Contributor
Improving public transport in England through light rail,
National Audit Office. 19th April 2004

14
Lesley. L,
Light rail – value for money ?
Report to National Audit Office. Feb 2003

Lesley. L
The role of rail in European public transport.
PTIU Seminar, Shire Hall Mold, 6th Dec. 2000

Lesley. L
Progress with the TRAM low weight LRV
Light Rail 94 Conference 8-10 November 1994
Proceedings Published by Transport Science Ltd. ISBN 0 906442 21 3

Revised 5th Dec. 2008

15