Parramatta light rail

[pgt]

Speaking of testing, given the light rail vehicles (or trams [?]) being used use a battery in the unwired sections, is there a short bit of overhead at the Westmead terminus for recharging or does it have to get back to the wired section in North Parramatta before it can charge?

Something tells me it's the latter but I wonder how much range the batteries provide in this case (ie. hypothetically in an emergency could a vehicle make it back to the depot from Westmead without overhead wires, or would it need to be towed/pushed?).

[tonyp]

Speaking of testing, given the light rail vehicles (or trams [?]) being used use a battery in the unwired sections, is there a short bit of overhead at the Westmead terminus for recharging or does it have to get back to the wired section in North Parramatta before it can charge?

Something tells me it's the latter but I wonder how much range the batteries provide in this case (ie. hypothetically in an emergency could a vehicle make it back to the depot from Westmead without overhead wires, or would it need to be towed/pushed?).

I believe that Westmead terminus is wired for stationary charging while the tram dwells at the end of a trip before starting out again. This would give it enough top-up to reach North Parramatta.

[Swift]

Your kidding right? More of that Newcastle kiddie ride gruel?
Oh man.

[BAMBAM]

Your kidding right? More of that Newcastle kiddie ride gruel?
Oh man.

What’s wrong with its model? I’ve used the L2&L3 from Town Hall to Central and never had any issues, but this isn’t the same method as Newcastle.

Would love to hear why it’s bad?

[tonyp]

Your kidding right? More of that Newcastle kiddie ride gruel?
Oh man.

The Newcastle tram is a battery-capacitor system. Parramatta is an in-motion charging system, also with a static charging point at one terminus for top-up during the layover. It won't have the delays that the Newcastle operation has.

[Glen]

This map shows the wired sections.

https://www.parramattalightrail.nsw.gov.au/maps

[Swift]

Your kidding right? More of that Newcastle kiddie ride gruel?
Oh man.

The Newcastle tram is a battery-capacitor system. Parramatta is an in-motion charging system, also with a static charging point at one terminus for top-up during the layover. It won't have the delays that the Newcastle operation has.

Good! Better bang for the multiple bucks. Thats a positive. The Newcastle one was dreary and oh so slow.

[matthewg]

Speaking of testing, given the light rail vehicles (or trams [?]) being used use a battery in the unwired sections, is there a short bit of overhead at the Westmead terminus for recharging or does it have to get back to the wired section in North Parramatta before it can charge?

Westmead tram stop has been provided with a 3rd rail at the centre of the platform to charge the batteries during the end-of-run layover.
As a result, all trams will have 3rd rail pickup shoes. This will become obvious once the start running when the 3rd rail shoes cut a furrow down the middle of all that grassed track. The system used is similar to that deployed in Luxembourg city - where the grassed track has an obvious furrow down the middle!

Something tells me it's the latter but I wonder how much range the batteries provide in this case (ie. hypothetically in an emergency could a vehicle make it back to the depot from Westmead without overhead wires, or would it need to be towed/pushed?).

In 'limp' mode, a Newcastle tram can make it from the end back to the depot. I assume the Parramatta trams probably have a similar low-power mode, but it probably wouldn't get a tram with a damaged pantograph back to the depot from Westmead.

Watching the driver's consoles in Luxumburg, the transition of power modes, raising and lowering in the pantograph and the 'at stop charging' are all automated. Luxemburg uses Ultra-caps not batteries, so opportunity charge at every stop in the city centre. The driver just 'holds' till the 'stop' indicator goes out on the console. At the transition to overhead, the same, the tram knows where it is and the driver just waits for the system to give the proceed signal after raising or lowering the pantograph by itself. The Birmingham CAF cars that do similar are also automated. The driver just waits for the go signal at the transition points. Birmingham doesn't have the 3rd rail charge - there are short sections of overhead in the wire-free section to opportunity charge the tram batteries.

[tonyp]

It's a wonder that they didn't just string a couple of lengths of wire over the Westmead terminus for charging through the pantograph, rather than introduce an additional sub-system into the trams and thus another potential point of failure, extra maintenance and extra cost. I guess they must be protecting the aesthetics of the priceless World Heritage architecture at the corner of Hawkesbury Road and Railway Parade, or they've fallen for some spin from CAF.

[Randomness]

Or ditch the battery for third rail all the way so they don’t have to be replaced once they reach their service life.

If assuming malice, PLR probably fell for CAF marketing and have locked themselves into having to buy battery and third rail shoe replacements from only CAF, securing them a good chunk of income in the future. That is assuming the bogies outlive the batteries in those 10 years when CAF will have again come up with their latest, greatest and cheapest replacements.

[tonyp]

Or ditch the battery for third rail all the way so they don’t have to be replaced once they reach their service life.

If assuming malice, PLR probably fell for CAF marketing and have locked themselves into having to buy battery and third rail shoe replacements from only CAF, securing them a good chunk of income in the future. That is assuming the bogies outlive the batteries in those 10 years when CAF will have again come up with their latest, greatest and cheapest replacements.

The APS "third rail" in Sydney has proved to be unreliable, but passengers rarely suffer the effect of that because the batteries take over when power from the rail is lost. The in-motion charging system with sections of wireless operation is OK, but no need for a third system just for one terminus. It's just profligate, but not as profligate as adopting other power supply systems at all when OHW is the cheapest, most reliable, proven and lowest maintenance system on the market.

[matthewg]

Or ditch the battery for third rail all the way so they don’t have to be replaced once they reach their service life.

There is no reason the traction batteries shouldn't last as long or longer than any other 'wear part' on the tram (provided the battery management is properly designed and implemented). I expect that the trams will go through several wheelsets, and have bearings and suspension springs replaced several times before the battery pack needs swapping out.

And the 'spent' batteries are full of useful material - batteries don't consume the materials in them, just change their physical form to be less effective. The metals can be extracted and reformed into new batteries.
Yes, the recycling chain for the various lithium chemistries isn't there yet, but lead acid batteries have as high as a 95% recycling rate, so it can be done.

I suspect the part they will go through the most is the 3rd rail shoes, and not from wear, but hitting things in the '4ft'.

Attached is one of my photos from Luxemburg city - where the run CAF trams 'wire-free' through their city centre (just like Parramatta!)

They have lots of nice grassed track at the northern end - and there is an obvious furrow in the grass where the 3rd rail pickup shoe knocks down the grass.

I do wonder what the single 3 rail charging bar has added to the cost of the PLR. Each tram needs the pickup shores and the control/signalling system to turn the power on to 3rd rail, then the station and supply itself needs DC switching and safety interlocks to ensure power is NEVER applied to the 3rd rail when there is not a tram car on top of it. A short section of contact bar overhead would have been a LOT simpler. Not as if Westmead had any aesthetics to 'protect from unsightly overhead'. I could see an argument for wire-free across the campus of the old Cumberland Hospital, but once across the river, and into the area around Westmead Hospital, they should have gone back to overhead supply. Not as if they could have made the area look any worse than it does already. Running up the hill and back from Westmead station would have charged the traction battery for the short run across the 'historic' Cumberland Hospital 'campus'.

[Swift]

Wow talk about a street Tangara.
Just shows how poorly we plan in Sydney insisting on that 3rd rail crap.
The Luxumbourg shot makes me feel serene. No shot of a Sydney LRV elicits that except the section along Devonshire St - if they only weren't coupled.

[tonyp]

The Luxumbourg shot makes me feel serene.

And the operator will never need to buy a separate trenching tool.

[Randomness]

There is no reason the traction batteries shouldn't last as long or longer than any other 'wear part' on the tram (provided the battery management is properly designed and implemented). I expect that the trams will go through several wheelsets, and have bearings and suspension springs replaced several times before the battery pack needs swapping out.

And the 'spent' batteries are full of useful material - batteries don't consume the materials in them, just change their physical form to be less effective. The metals can be extracted and reformed into new batteries.

My argument is based on ACR being proprietary and one of the most expensive parts to replace given battery cost. I know batteries are recyclable and an industry will grow around it but I’d guess that the warranty agreement for the trams don't allow for using batteries not approved and installed by CAF - hence why I expect a significant markup for them even beyond market price. Even more so as governments generally don’t want to void warranties. The same locks on repairability are happening in every technology sector whether that be John Deere tractors or Apple devices.

It’s a given that parts will have to be replaced, but needless spending on unnecessarily expensive technologies like these are ones that should be avoided by procurement departments.

I’d hope the battery management is good too. I’m not sure about the effects of heat on supercapacitors (which Wikipedia states ACR is based off of), but feeding lots of energy quickly into lithium batteries creates lots of heat that ruins the charge capacity quicker.

[Swift]

That's going to be another Mercedes and Leyland situation with the buses where they corner taxpayer money for inflated ongoing parts cost. NSW just never learns. It's not their money being wasted.

The old legacy system was ultra simple without any of this unnecessary difficulty in moving human beings about. It doesn't need to be alien tech.
And please can we get rid of the synthesised bell. It's just so cheesy.

[boronia]

Bear in mind that The Great River City Light Rail consortium, led by Transdev, has been awarded the €330 million (AUD 536 million) ‘Supply, Operate and Maintain’ contract for Stage 1 of the Parramatta Light Rail Project in Sydney (Australia). Transdev Australasia, Transdev Group’s Australian subsidiary, will be responsible for the testing, commissioning and ongoing operation and maintenance for a term of eight years
from construction completion.

No doubt a new (more expensive) contract will be let at the end of this period.

[Aurora]

What are the chances Stage 2 won’t go to the same consortium?

[matthewg]

Even more so as governments generally don’t want to void warranties. The same locks on repairability are happening in every technology sector whether that be John Deere tractors or Apple devices.

The problem isn't just extras - it's the entire computer control system. Recently a Polish train manufacturer got 'busted' for putting code into their train control systems that detected what depot the train was being serviced in and 'bricked' the train. This was found after the rail operator hired a 'white hat hacking team' to reverse engineer the train computers after several trains 'died' while being serviced at the new maintenance contractors' facilities. The OEM was about to get the servicing contract back when it was found the train computer had the GPS coordinates of all the 'competitions' maintenance facilities. The manufacturer denies it of course and claims that 'hackers' had inserted the code into their systems! The 'white hat hackers' disabled the geolocate function in the computers and the trains booted up and ran fine.


All of the electronics on a modern tram is proprietory - there is only one source for many of the circuit cards, and even connectors that break can be 'custom' and only available from the OEM. The definition of 'reasonable cost' for these parts can somewhat vary depending on if you are the supplier or consumer of the parts! Batteries are probably the least of your worries on that front.

The problem with the ACR 3rd rail charging 'station' (and Alstom's APS) is that the interaction between the power supply and the tram is proprietary. The only way another manufacturer can supply trams for lines is to license the technology from a competing company. (And then do extensive testing to ensure it's still safe.) That puts future bidders for additional rolling stock at a competitive disadvantage. No matter what you think about the pros or cons of 'wire-firee' I do think it's unnecessary additional complexity to an already overly complex vehicle. If Westmead had a short section of overhead instead of the 3rd rail, any vendor could bid to supply more trams in the future. With the 3rd rail charge station, any future bidder has to license a CAF control module or attempt to reverse engineer (and then safety certify) the 3rd rail power pickup capability.

Battery trams (and battery support for the overhead) are both not new ideas. Some early electric trams had batteries. But the cost of building overhead fell faster than batteries were improving so the idea died off. But not forever

[Swift]

Now I even more firmly believe Brisbane has the right idea.
Light rail isn't worth the cost now. A huge expense to make a place look like it's progressed.
The Gold Coast Light Rail has turned out the best in the country and was a worth while project. It's actually beneficial and well set up.

[tonyp]

Now I even more firmly believe Brisbane has the right idea.
Light rail isn't worth the cost now. A huge expense to make a place look like it's progressed.
The Gold Coast Light Rail has turned out the best in the country and was a worth while project. It's actually beneficial and well set up.

There are two issues with the Brisbane "metro" solution that make it inferior to light rail. One is that it has less capacity, the buses only being 24 metres long, while trams come in lengths ranging from 30 to 60 metres and can move vastly more people per hour given the same headways.

Secondly, Brisbane City Council has chosen a power supply solution that ties the buses to set layover times at termini in order to top up charge. This reduces their flexibility to recover the timetable in the event of disruptions. The Brisbane busway routes are a classic case for trolleybus operation.

Ironically, the designers of the Parramatta light rail have also reduced its flexibility by not having wires in the runup to a terminus, thus requiring trams to be tied down at the terminus for a top-up charge. However, having multiple live platform tracks does mitigate this.

[matthewg]

Now I even more firmly believe Brisbane has the right idea.
Light rail isn't worth the cost now. A huge expense to make a place look like it's progressed.
The Gold Coast Light Rail has turned out the best in the country and was a worth while project. It's actually beneficial and well set up.

Except Brisbane 'metro' has a lot of the same costs without the potential future capacity. The 'buses' are battery electric with complex energy management electronics. They will be 'flash' charging at the terminus which is hard on the batteries. So they are chock full of proprietary technology.

Due to the weight and length (as well as the weight), the bi-artic buses will only be able to run on the specially built road for them, if that road isn't built to greater than normal standards, the large heavy buses will pound it to bits pretty quickly.
About the only extra is in theory normal buses COULD use the 'metro' route as an express road into town.

I don't know how Sydney was conned into the surface charging arrangement for Westmead. There are no aesthetics to protect on the run up the hill from the river, the road is faced by soulless car parks and utilitarian hospital buildings. Installing overhead in that area couldn't make the place look any worse than it already does. So why were we (the state of NSW) conned into making that segment 'wire-free' and doubly why were we conned into the surface power supply to charge the batteries at the terminus?
On the Cumberland hospital grounds, I can sort of see the argument, with the gardens and the heritage buildings, less so for the Parramatta CBD, but Hawkesbury Rd?

[tonyp]

Without any inherited in-house tram expertise (and local consultants typically lacking the same), together with refusal to consult Victoria where all the Australian expertise lies, it's inevitable that TfNSW falls for the soft-sell of the proprietary suppliers. We have to remind ourselves to be grateful that at least we have the extra capacity provided by trams, even though the operations might be a little bumbling (in common with many bus and Sydney Trains operations it should be said!) and short on cost-efficiency.

[Merc1107]

About the only extra is in theory normal buses COULD use the 'metro' route as an express road into town.

Brisbane's busway system is already established, and regular buses will continue to use the busways post-Metro. It is only the heavily-patronised trunk routes along the busway being "converted" (and I use that term incredibly loosely) to metro/bi-artic operation, those routes being the 66, 111 and 160.

[Fleet Lists]

Back to Parramata Light rail please = Brisbane Metro etc has nothing to do with this.