Coventry's very light rail

Sometimes you see an idea that is so clever you wonder why no one thought of it before.  Coventry's proposed very light rail is one of those.   

It has been designed from scratch to minimise costs, with the aim being to allow large towns and small cities to have a tram network.  

First, it has no overhead wires, but runs on batteries which are fast charging.  The tram will be able to run 20 km (12.5 miles) on one charge.  Overhead cabling is expensive, and in historic city centres, unsightly.  

Second, the track is prefabricated.  It is relatively lightweight, and shallower than conventional tram track, designed to be only 11 inches (30 cm) deep.  That way the need to relocate cables, water pipes and gas pipelines is minimised or eliminated.   The track is made off-site, is seated on prefabricated slabs, and is clipped together; it can easily be moved, or even temporarily lifted to facilitate work on utilities.   Constructing the track is the biggest part of building a light rail/tram system.  This technique dramatically reduces costs, and also speeds up construction 10-fold.   Some new tram networks have taken 10 years to build, with massive disruption while they were being built.

The trams themselves will be lightweight, being made of a mixture of steel, aluminium and composites:  

VLR vehicles weigh no more than a tonne per linear kilometre.  Hence, whilst a heavy rail vehicle typically weighs 44 tonnes and can carry 100 passengers, a similarly loaded 11-tonne Coventry VLR vehicle carries 50 passengers. This lower weight reduces infrastructure costs which is a key area for driving down railway costs.  [Read more here]

All these innovations will allow the tram track to be built for about £10 million per kilometre, between one half and one quarter the cost of a conventional light rail.

The track is where the significant cost savings come in. Sitting beneath today’s roads is a crisscross of utilities – gas, water, internet – which can be extremely costly to relocate. This means traditional urban [light] rail can cost anywhere between £25m and £50m per kilometre – with £100m not unheard of in some city centre locations.

The new track, designed from scratch in partnership with WMG and Ingerop, will sit just 30cm into a road surface, minimising the need to move utilities. As a result, Coventry City Council estimates the new track could cost closer to £10m per kilometre to install. [Read more here]

Each tram is about the size of a bus, 11 metres (36 feet) long, 2.65 m (8 ft 8 inches) wide, and 3.17 m (10 ft 5 inches high), and will hold up to 56 passengers.

Why a tram network instead of a bus?

In recent years it has been recognised that due to climate change, air quality, and congestion, there needs to be a shift from cars to public transport.

The permanency of rail tracks encourages clustering of housing, businesses, and leisure facilities along urban routes, whilst improved transport links in rural areas help boost productivity and level up disparities. However, such situations do not necessarily generate high passenger numbers so the challenge is for such rail routes to be financially sustainable.

Nick pointed out that recent developments in technology such as lightweighting, batteries, fast charging, 5G, digital manufacturing, and autonomous operation have made a new mode of affordable rail-based transport possible in the form of VLR which “does what it says on the tin.” [Read more here]

The video below shows a test run.

I consulted the following sources for this article:

The Coventry VLR vehicle – Affordable light rail – part two

The Coventry Very Light Rail Scheme

Coventry Very Light Rail

About Coventry Very Light Rail

Coventry Very Light Rail Set for City Centre Demonstration

VLR – Very Light Rail: A new urban mobility concept in Coventry

More asphalt doesn't reduce road congestion .....

.... but light rail does.

From Transport & Environment (T & E)

We will have to get used to the fact that traffic jams are here to stay. After all, if traffic can move one per cent faster during rush hour, this will increase car commuting by just over one per cent. This follows from research by Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch Road Authority. The study provides a simple insight into the behavioural effects of various mobility measures. These are average effects that can vary in specific situations.

Rijkswaterstaat's findings are in line with international research. A synthesis of five studies concludes that in urban areas, one per cent extra motorway capacity leads to one per cent extra traffic. For urban trunk roads, the figure is 0.75 percent. This confirms the 'fundamental law of road congestion', as one of the five underlying studies is called. A study of the impact of 16 motorway widenings in the Netherlands also shows that the additional traffic growth on the main road network exceeds the increase in capacity.

Congestion regulates mobility behaviour. Excessive congestion encourages drivers to choose a shorter journey, to avoid the rush hour, to travel with someone else or to use another mode of transport. Less congestion has the opposite effect. After the opening of the Zeeburger tunnel near Amsterdam, 16% more cars crossed the North Sea Canal during rush hour, the average occupancy of these cars fell by 7% and 31% of drivers returned to driving during rush hour.

So, congestion remains. Back in 1988, McKinsey advised in its report 'Ending traffic jams' that more asphalt would not solve congestion. The statistics bear this out: after some ups and downs, the time lost per kilometre driven on Dutch motorways today is about the same as it was twenty years ago. Traffic jams slow traffic down by an average of one tenth of a kilometre per hour.

This analysis also implies that converting roadways to pedestrian zones, i.e., making roads traffic-free, will not increase congestion, even while it makes using the streets more pleasant for pedestrians.

Meanwhile, building light rail leads to less congestion, shorter travel times, and less pollution: 

From Science Direct

I find evidence that an increase in the supply of [light]rails [in European cities] leads to less congestion, less travel time and less pollution. Furthermore, I find that cities with a new rail system have 7% less congestion, 1% less travel time and 3% less pollution than cities with no rail systems. I find no evidence of different pre-trends of treated and control cities. The impact of rails on congestion, travel time and pollution is gradual, and increases over time.

The analysis would imply that expanding a light-train or tram system after the first section has been constructed will lead to further traffic/congestion reductions, especially with network effects.

This paper suggests that in Melbourne (with the world's largest tram network) the impact is somewhat larger, despite stops being much closer together than on most light rail systems:

In inner Melbourne trams have a much higher impact in reducing congestion; vehicle time travelled and total delay on the road network decreases by 3.4% as a result of tram operations. The average road network speed rises from 41.6 km/h to 41.9 km/h (an increase of 0.9%). The operation of trams in inner Melbourne increases actual travel time on average from 2.14 minutes/km to 2.13 minutes/km. Although trams contribute to reduce the number of car trips on the road network, the average travel speed increases slightly. This is because the travel speed on links with non-exclusive tram rights-of-way decreases due to the low speed of trams and boarding/ alighting passengers. The tram network contributes to reduce 16% of the number of moderately congested links in inner Melbourne

The moral of the story is clear:  if your freeways are getting congested, don't add more lanes or more freeways.  Build light rail.  And add pedestrianised streets, which, the Melbourne experience shows, work particularly well with trams.

See also :  Metcalfe's law

Light rail

A tram/light rail system is the cheapest mass transit option for medium density suburbs, cheaper than freeways and high density underground rail.  Sydney, after getting rid of its tram network in the 50s, has started rebuilding a light rail network, as the blogger "My Ordinary Life" mentions:

The Sydney Light Rail has announced it is adding 90 services a week to its Central Station to Dulwich Hill line. Passenger numbers rose 60% in the last financial year. The line was extended to Dulwich Hill in 2014. 

This bodes well for the Randwick and CBD extensions currently under construction.

Light rail is nice: it runs like a tram on city streets, but becomes a train of sorts in the suburbs.  And the power it runs off can come from renewables, it produces no diesel fumes, and its stops (in the city) are close to where you want to go.

First commercial BYD Skyrail opens

Source

When BYD (the world's largest maker of electric cars and busses) announced its new monorail product SkyRail, I was very interested in it as a partial solution to Melbourne's transportation problems.  It seems odd that a city in a developed country should have major transportation problems, but in fact Melbourne shares some of the problems of rapidly growing cities in the third world. Melbourne's population is growing by 2.2% per annum, faster than Mexico City's, and much faster than New York's or Berlin's. 

Instead of expanding the rail and tram networks bit by bit over the last 3 decades, a string of inept governments has flubbed the expansion of public transport in the metro area.  Trains, trams and freeways are jam-packed, making daily commuting slower and slower and more and more unpleasant.  Melbourne is one of the few big cities in the world without a railway line to its airport.  A monorail to the airport would make travelling to and from Melbourne a far pleasanter experience, and  in fact a wider monorail network would nicely complement the existing tram and the rail systems.  A monorail can be situated down freeway medians, along arterial routes, and through densely  built up areas, whereas trains would have to routed underground (v. expensive) and new tram routes would require closing the roads where they are to be located for up to 3 years, temporarily worsening congestion.  What's true for us would be true for many cities round the world.


When it launched, BYD said this about its monorail:

As a mass transit alternative with relatively smaller passenger capacity, BYD’s “SkyRail” delivers numerous benefits, including: capital expenditure 80% lower than metro, construction period two-thirds shorter than metro, excellent topographic adaptability due to higher climbing ability and smaller turning radius, reduced noise to allow travel through architectural complexes, visual integration into the cityscape thanks to transparent bridges and independent right of way, flexible management to allow for capacity between 10,000 to 30,000 passengers an hour (each way) and a high speed of up to 80km/h. It is very applicable to small and medium sized cities, heavy traffic routes, CBD’s and routes connecting tourist attractions in large cities. 

[Read more here]

At the time, I wondered how many systems BYD would sell.  I admit to being skeptical.  I was wrong.  The first has just opened in the Chinese city of Yinchuan, there are 10 systems under construction and another 30 systems starting construction next year, all in China.  And my guess is that if mayors of other cities see it working in China it will be widely installed across the world.

Reducing traffic congestion in large cities and metropolises will need the expansion of mass transit.  London's Crossrail project is a good example of a high density--but very costly-- metro rail project.  For smaller cities BYD's SkyRail looks attractive.  We might even get one in Victoria.

Metcalfe's law

 

The London Underground is a dense, connected network, which makes it extraordinarily valuable
 to London and Southern England. 

From History-Computer

Metcalfe’s Law is one of the foundational principles of network economics. It suggests that as a network grows, its value grows much faster than its user base.

The idea behind Metcalfe’s Law is that, while a network’s cost generally grows as a direct proportion of its total number of nodes, its value grows in proportion to the square of that number. Network value grows fast because it’s related to the number of connections between nodes rather than the number of nodes. Metcalfe’s idea implies that node connectivity is the real source of utility in a network.

The word node comes from a Latin word that means knot. In this context, we use it to mean any endpoint in a network. Telephones, computers, train stations, or individual people can all act as nodes in different kinds of networks.

A network with 10 of these nodes might cost about 10 times the price of one node, but Metcalfe’s Law suggests that the network’s inherent value will be closer to 100 times the value of one node. If you add a node, the cost will jump to 11, but the value will jump to 121, the square of 11. In mathematical terms, network cost grows linearly, but network value seems to grow nonlinearly as an exponential function of the total number of nodes in the network.

Metcalfe’s Law isn’t a physical or perfect law of network value. Just like economics has the idea of supply and demand that works perfectly only under perfect conditions, Metcalfe’s idea of network effects is more of an approximation rather than an exact formula. It’s most useful as a conceptual model that you can use to think about network economics in general terms.

Metcalfe’s Law observes that any network’s value is a proportion of the square of the network’s total number of connected nodes.

The mechanics of Metcalfe’s Law are simple. If a network gains new nodes that can connect with all its existing nodes, then the amount of connections grows much quicker than the number of nodes. Every single new node adds as many connections to the network as there are existing nodes.

When Metcalfe first came up with the idea, he indicated that the formula for a network’s value worked best as an exponential function of its total number of nodes. He and other researchers like Bob Briscoe later scaled it back, calculating that the network value was closer to a logarithmic function of its number of nodes.

In 2013, data analysts from the Netherlands released a broad study of seven years of internet use across 33 European countries. They concluded that the growth patterns of smaller and newly launched networks do seem to follow Metcalfe’s exponential estimation. As a network grows, however, the growth of its value seems to taper off into a logarithmic rather than exponential function of its number of nodes.

Other recent studies involving data from the past decade from Facebook, Tencent, Bitcoin, and Ethereum networks also indicate that these networks seem to fit Metcalfe’s observation in their initial phases and then slow down as they reach widespread adoption.

The network effects of this value escalation tend to be both direct and indirect.  

We call network effects symmetric or direct when a node increase provides direct utility to the other nodes. We can see direct network effects in social networks like Twitter or Tinder, where additional users joining directly improves the user experience of the existing users, giving them the possibility of more followers or matches.

We call networks effects asymmetric or indirect when there is more than one type of node and a node increase provides indirect utility to other types of nodes. Indirect network effects show up in networks like Uber or Airbnb, where more drivers and hosts indirectly improve the experience of the riders and guests, and vice versa. Indirect effects often look like increased supply encouraging increased demand, which then encourages even more supply.

Metcalfe’s Law seems to work best when all the nodes in a network have equal value and provide equal benefit. Nodes with fewer connections are less valuable than highly connected nodes.

Many networks don’t match Metcalfe-style growth because some new nodes don’t create connections with all existing nodes. This can happen when, for instance, new users of a network speak different languages or have interests and expertise in areas that don’t overlap.

To estimate network effects accurately, we have to take into account not only the number of nodes but also the affinity between nodes. If a network’s cost per user is fixed and later users use the network less than the trailblazers, the newer users will be less valuable to the network, and the network will become less efficient.

While experts in network economics and computer science continue to battle over whether the correct formula for calculating network effects should be exponential, logarithmic, or some other function, Metcalfe’s general point is clear. A network’s overall value tends to grow much quicker than its size.

Metcalfe’s Law of network effects seems to have the strongest applications in these four main kinds of networks:

• Physical networks
• Protocol networks
• Personal networks
• Market networks

Physical networks are composed of physical nodes connected by physical links. These include electrical grids, roads, railroads, sewer systems, and broadband internet services.

Thanks to Metcalfe’s Law, it’s not uncommon to see these physical networks grow so powerful that they overwhelm smaller competing networks and turn into monopolies or duopolies. When that happens, governments tend to nationalize them and call them utilities.

Protocol networks are standards of use for digital or communications networks. They layout sets of rules for how nodes in a network must format and process data.

Nodes in protocol networks are generally digital devices rather than humans, so you can think of protocol networks as computer languages. Just like a human language, once a protocol network has been widely adopted, it’s nearly impossible to replace.

Ethernet is an example of a protocol network. When Metcalfe and Boggs came up with the Ethernet standard, other local area network protocols existed. Thanks to Metcalfe’s Law, however, the more market share Ethernet captured, the less valuable the competition became until it dwindled to almost nothing. More recent examples of protocol networks include Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies.

A network is considered personal when the nodes are people. Human nodes may be anonymous or may have their real identities tied to their usernames.

Personal networks generally grow when real-life people find value in them and influence their inner circles to join as well. When a large number of people who you like and respect are using a network, you’ll usually find a lot of value in joining it too.

Examples of personal networks include TikTok and Facebook.

Market networks take the identity-based format of personal networks and combine it with the transactional focus of marketplaces to facilitate mass transactions from many buyers and sellers. Instead of optimizing for quick transactions, market networks generally encourage long-term projects that allow users to improve their reputation with each successful purchase or sale.

Market networks provide value in both directions, from the sellers to the buyers, and vice versa. In double-sided systems like these, the value is derived from the network connectivity not from the specific system itself. Once a market network is established, the two sides tend to cement the network in place. To get users to move, you have to find a way to provide more value to both sides at once than what they’re getting from the existing network.

I'd never heard of Metcalfe's Law before I read this article, but I realise now that I'd always understood it without being aware of it.  

In particular, I thought of it as it applies to public transport networks.  Think of the extraordinary network of the London Tube, including the Underground, the Overground, the new Elizabeth line (Crossrail), the tram network, and mainline trains and airports, where almost every line connects with several other lines.  

In Victoria, the tram (light rail) and transit networks don't connect very well.  There are connections at the main downtown termini, but in the suburbs, because the tramways and railways were owned by different companies, their stops at the end of the line are sometimes far apart.  It has been suggested to the public transport authorities that tram lines should be extended to the nearest railway station to improve network connectivity.  Alas, this still hasn't happened.  Although the Labor government has committed to a new outer circle rail line, which will connect all the radial suburban branch lines.  Predicatbly, the LNP opposition doesn't want it.

Major Japan Railway now powered by100% renewables

 From AP News

Tokyo’s Shibuya is famed for its Scramble Crossing, where crowds of people crisscross the intersection in a scene symbolizing urban Japan’s congestion and anonymity. It may have added another boasting right.

Tokyu Railways’ trains running through Shibuya and other stations were switched to power generated only by solar and other renewable sources starting April 1.

That means the carbon dioxide emissions of Tokyu’s sprawling network of seven train lines and one tram service now stand at zero, with green energy being used at all its stations, including for vending machines for drinks, security camera screens and lighting.

Tokyu, which employs 3,855 people and connects Tokyo with nearby Yokohama, is the first railroad operator in Japan to have achieved that goal. It says the carbon dioxide reduction is equivalent to the annual average emissions of 56,000 Japanese households.

The technology used by Tokyu’s trains is among the most ecologically friendly options for railways. The other two options are batteries and hydrogen power.

And so is it just a publicity stunt, or is Tokyu moving in the right direction?

Ryo Takagi, a professor at Kogakuin University and specialist in electric railway systems, believes the answer isn’t simple because how train technology evolves is complex and depends on many uncertain societal factors.

In a nutshell, Tokyu’s efforts are definitely not hurting and are probably better than doing nothing. They show the company is taking up the challenge of promoting clean energy, he said.

“But I am not going out of my way to praise it as great,” Takagi said.

Bigger gains would come from switching from diesel trains in rural areas to hydrogen powered lines and from switching gas-guzzling cars to electric, he said.

Tokyu paid an undisclosed amount to Tokyo Electric Power Co., the utility behind the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, for certification vouching for its use of renewables, even as Japan continues to use coal and other fossil fuels.

“We don’t see this as reaching our goal but just a start,” said Assistant Manager Yoshimasa Kitano at Tokyu’s headquarters, a few minutes’ walk from the Scramble Crossing.

Such steps are crucial for Japan, the world’s sixth-biggest carbon emitter, to attain its goal of becoming carbon-neutral by 2050.

Tokyu Railways.
Note 3 ft 6 inches (Cape) gauge
The high-speed rail is 4' 8½" (standard) gauge

Some commentary in the article damns this move with faint praise.  Yet any shift away from fossil fuels is better than no shift,  not just because it reduces emissions, even if it's by less than we would like, but also because it reminds everybody that we have to de-carbonise.  De-carbonising the world is a mammoth undertaking, and can only be achieved step-by-step.