Trams Making Way for Light Rail Transit · 39 the tram activates the traffic light, extending

New Promise of LRT Systems

Feature

Japan Railway & Transport Review 38 • March 200430 Copyright © 2004 EJRCF. All rights reserved.

Trams Making Way for Light Rail Transit

Shigenori Hattori

Introduction

In 1978, the city of Edmonton in Canadaopened the world’s first urban transportsystem based on the Light Rail Transit (LRT)concept discussed in this article. Overthe next 25 years, LRT systems have beenbuilt in more than 70 cities worldwide.Of the approximately 350 tram systemsnow in operation, about 30% can bedescribed as LRT systems, because theyhave been refurbished and modified toLRT standards.Due to historical differences and differentapproaches taken when introducing lightrail systems, the term ‘LRT’ means onething in Japan and another in Europe andNorth America. This article examinestramways and LRT systems bearing inmind the different definitions and thedifferences in rolling stock, lines andoperations.

Japanese Definitions of LRT

In Japan, there is renewed interest in thepossibilities of tramways and the massmedia use the term ‘LRT’ frequently.Moreover, different writers in differentcountries use the term LRT differently,making it hard for Japanese to understandexactly what kind of urban transit systemLRT is.The term LRT was first coined in the USAin the early 1970s as an attempt torevitalize the image of tramways, whichwere seen negatively as an out-of-datesystem not fulfilling the needs of modernurban transit. When tramcars share theright of way with motor vehicles, theirtransit potential is limited by traffic jamsand competition for space. This factindicated that LRT systems shouldbasically have their own right of way tosupport faster operations.The European and North Americandefinition of LRT has tended to focus on

medium-capacity, electric cars running onrails. The cars are about 2.65-m wide andoperate on their own right of way overelevated track, underground, etc.,permitting higher operating speeds. Thistype of definition could also include manysuburban railways.In Japan, LRT systems are typically viewedas sharing the road with motor vehicles,like the trams in Grenoble and Strasbourg.Although such systems are known as tramsor streetcars in Europe and North America,it is often assumed that even low-floortrams are not LRT systems.Many Japanese cities had tramways in theearly 20th century but most abandonedthem in the postwar period of rapid growthin private-vehicle ownership when tramswere seen as out-of-date. However, thelast 20 years have seen renewed interestas it becomes clear that many LRT systemsin European and North American citiesare helping to reduce automobileemissions and revitalize city centres.Moreover Japan’s greying population iscreating further demand for barrier-freeurban transit using low-floor light railvehicles. The Japanese are beginning tosee trams as a way to reduce urbanpollution and improve city life.Even so, the old trams that managed toremain in operation in Japan when mostcities were tearing up tram tracks aregenerally seen as vestiges of the past.Consequently, when LRT proponents talkabout the advantages of LRT systems, theyemphasize the differences from tramsystems, stressing the modern rollingstock, track and operating systems.Despite this, LRT systems and trams looksimilar, making it difficult for most peopleto appreciate the differences.New LRT systems in Europe and NorthAmerica are following governmentguidelines to promote a modal shift frommotor vehicles to a mix of pedestrian andpublic transit, creating environment-friendly and sustainable development. Inthese regions, LRT systems are seen as a

key part of medium-capacity urban transitsystems supplemented by links to cars,buses and other transportation modesthrough Transpor ta t ion DemandManagement (TDM) strategies.LRT systems fulfil their role as medium-capacity urban transit systems byoperating articulated cars that can be upto 40-m long and sometimes the entiretrain set can total 100 m.Although some tram operators in Japanare modernizing by introducing low-floorlight rail vehicles (LF-LRVs), trams are stillnot highly regarded as an urban transitmode because most rolling stock consistsof 13-m or so bogie cars that are similarto buses. Consequently, we must explainthe effective role LRT systems play inurban transit in many European and NorthAmerican cities to create a consensusfavouring upgrading of Japanese trams toLRT systems. Unfortunately, theconditions in Japan are still not right toreach this consensus.

Modernization ofLight Rolling Stock

Trams in Japan came to be seen in a morefavourable light in 1997 when KumamotoCity introduced models with lower floorsabout 350 mm over the rail head. Sincetram platforms are generally between 200and 300 mm higher than the road level,low-floor carriages almost eliminate thestep when boarding and exiting, whichprovides nearly barrier-free access foreverybody and permits faster schedulespeeds. Passengers have alwayscomplained about high steps right from thefirst days of trams but the early 660-mmdiameter wheels made low floors difficultto achieve until today.New York began operating partial low-floor trams as early as 1912. They werecalled stepless or hobble skirt cars(because women in hobble skirts, whichwere very narrow below the knees, couldboard and disembark with ease). The mid-

Japan Railway & Transport Review 38 • March 2004 31Copyright © 2004 EJRCF. All rights reserved.

section of the car had a door leading to alow floor with the bogies at the two ends.Similar tramcars ran in the Los Angelessuburbs and elsewhere in the USA, with176 manufactured for New York. A non-motorized version was built in Europe inthe 1920s and was pulled by the motorizedcars in a number of German cities.Today’s LF-LRVs use modern motortechnologies to cut floor heights tobetween 300 and 350 m. Switzerland wasthe first country with genuine low-floorcars in the mid-1980s. During the sametime frame, LRT systems were beginningto contribute to urban renewal in the USA;Germany and e l sewhere s ta r tedsegregating trams from road traffic andeven moved some tracks underground.While these improvements helped boostthe role of trams in urban transit it wasthe appearance of low-floor cars thatgreatly increased the appeal as peoplerealized that the almost street-level accesswas very pedestrian friendly. Many citiesthat had torn up their tram tracks decadesearlier began building LRT tracks as partof their urban renewal plans, and citiesthat still had old tramways beganupgrading based on LRT concepts.

New technologiesDevelopment of new LF-LRV technologieshas focused on changing the location andconfiguration of bogies and under-floorequipment to achieve a low, flat floor.Early developments moved under-floorequipment to the roof or inside the car.

The next step was to develop stub axlesfor the trailing bogies and small-diameterwheels, allowing the low floor to coverabout 70% of the carriage floor area (70%LF-LRV). Completely f la t f loorsthroughout the cars (100% LF-LRV) weref ina l ly ach ieved by deve lop ingindependently powered bogie wheelslocated under the seats (Fig. 1).Advances in semiconductor technologyreduced the size of conventional under-floor control devices as well the need forregular maintenance, contributing torepositioning. Variable voltage variablefrequency (VVVF) inverter controltransformed the old heavy traction motorinto a small, light, three-phase inductionmotor, eliminating the need for bogiemounting. Insulated gate bipolar modetransistors (IGBTs) also made inverterssmaller and more efficient, permittingsmaller control and other devices.Resistors, batteries and other equipmentused by regenerative braking as well asauxiliary power units have been unitizedand mounted on the car roof. In addition,air brake equipment such as compressorswas eliminated by use of electriccommand braking with a spring-activatedhydraulic release mechanism.Introduction of axle-less bogies openedup the space usually occupied by the longwheel axles to increase the low-floor area.In the early cars, only the non-motorizedtrailing bogies were axle-less but later100% LF-LRV designs moved the tractionmotor to the bogie side. Modifying the

drive made it possible to extend the low-floor space over the powered bogie withthe wheels extending inside the car underthe seats. Single-axle bogies were alsodeveloped to reduce the number ofwheels, thereby opening up more low-floor space. To obtain a wide aisle overthe bogie sections, the bogies areanchored to the articulated bodies so thatthey barely rotate on curved track.The 70% LF-LRV began operating about15 years ago followed by the 100% LF-LRV a few years later. In 2003, there weremore than 4000 low-floor tram sets inoperation worldwide. Although this figureincludes units with a low-floor area of nomore than 10%, about one-third are 100%LF-LRVs (Table 1).Due to structural limits, 70% LF-LRVs withconventional bogies must have interiorsteps, but small traction motors make itpossible to lower the floor near the bogiesto less than 600 mm. Thus, some 70%LF-LRVs have only one step thatpassengers can easily negotiate. Unlikein Japan, fare collection in Europe doesnot involve movement through the carbetween separate entrance and exit doors,so European tram operators do notnecessarily require 100% LF-LRVs. Someoperators prefer cars with conventional,highly reliable powered bogies and drivemechanisms, or cheaper vehicles, so theseare still being manufactured.Different models of 100% LF-LRVs havebeen developed as prototypes and someare being used in transit systems. Each

Stuttgart LRT on own right of way (Author) Strasbourg LRT sharing road with motor vehicles (Author)

Japan Railway & Transport Review 38 • March 200432


Copyright © 2004 EJRCF. All rights reserved.

Table 1 World Manufacturers of LF-LRVs in Early 2003

Bombardier Alstom FormerBombardier Adtranz Siemens Alstom Fiat Ansaldobreda Eastern bloc China Japan Total

Partial (under 70%) LF-LRVs 105 102 210 61 32 43 5 55870% LF-LRVs 446 42 742 301 58 140 157 30 78 1994100% LF-LRVs 54 732 581 178 117 28 3 1693Trailers 60 30 90Total 665 876 1533 570 175 200 200 30 86 4335

Source: Data mainly from Stadtverkehr 2002/12, Metro Report 2002, and Tramways & Urban TransitNote: Data for China and former Eastern bloc mainly verified but some estimates

model has technical advantages anddisadvantages. Two obvious problems aredifficult maintenance of the complexmechanical systems as well as the highcost per unit because there are noeconomies of mass production yet.Mergers have forced some manufacturersto produce a variety of different designs butthey are attempting to unify the various

technologies and develop standard modelsand equipment, aiming for the day whenthey can begin low-cost mass production.

Standard 100% LF-LRVStandard low-floor LRVs appearedbetween 2001 and 2003 and arepromoted by their manufacturers, withvarious names like: Combino (built by

Siemens and chosen by HiroshimaElectric Railway); Citadis (by Alstom);Flexity Outlook (by Bombardier andincluding technology from the formerAdtranz); and Sirio (by Ansaldobreda).These so-called System Cars are basedon many common design concepts andgive an idea of the future of 100% LF-LRV designs.

Figure 1 Low-floor LRV Vehicle Types

Partial low floor

100% low floor

70% low floor

• Ordinary articulated cars coupled to centre-body low-floor section • Trailing bogies with axle-less independent wheels to permit low-floor structure

• Under-floor equipment relocated to roof

• Powered bogies with car-mounted motors to permit 100% low floor• Under-floor equipment relocated to roof

• Like model on left: axle-mounted motors (hub or small geared motor)• Under-floor equipment relocated to roof

( : powered wheels; : trailing wheels)

Partial low-floor car in Basel (Author) 70% LF-LRV in Orléans (Author)

100% LF-LRV in Kumamoto (Author) 100% LF-LRV in Hiroshima (Author)


stiff competition between Europeanmanufacturers sometimes results inmergers and takeovers. The above fourmanufacturers are gradually dominatingthe market for 100% LF-LRVs, leading tothe assumption that standard bodies willb e c o m e e v e n m o r e p r e v a l e n t .Bombardier presently makes a number ofdifferent drive systems, because ofcommitments made during mergers, butit intends to standardize on the axle bogiesused for the Flexity Outlook.Equipment standardization and modularbody designs are driving mass production,which cuts both manufacturing prices anddelivery times for 100% LF-LRVs. Fore x a m p l e , A m s t e r d a m p l a c e d asimultaneous order for 155 cars and tookdelivery of more than 100 just 1 year later.

In some configurations, floating bogielessarticulated cars are coupled to short cabsrunning on bogies. The cabs are spring-mounted on the bogies either directly or ina way that permits slight rotation, ensuringlittle carriage overhang on curves and asmooth ride. The small rotation on curves,permits construction of fairly wide aislesbetween the left and right bogie wheels.For example, the Combino has an aislewidth of between 800 and 830 mm.Different track gauges are supported bychanging the position of the beam on thebogie frame inside or outside the wheels.The structure of the powered and trailingbogies is very similar. A beam links theleft and right axle boxes to provide acantilever supporting the short axles of theindependent wheels and permitting morelow-floor space. In most cases, thetraction motor is mounted on the sidebeam of the bogie frame and the drive andbrake assemblies are mounted as a uniton the powered bogie. The drive for theindependent wheels depends on themanufacturer, but all are based on aconventional design that has provedsuccessful in high-floor vehicles.The Flexity Outlook sold by Bombardierto Linz (Austria) and Eskisehir (Turkey) hassmall-diameter 560-mm wheels withconventional axles driven by small electricmotors mounted on the bogie frame. Thelow-floor section is 365 mm above theground and slopes gradually up to a sectionthat is over the bogies and 450 mm abovethe ground, making this carriage almost a100% LF-LRV. The bogies are mounteddirectly on the car body, which can impactride comfort depending on the track(especially with regard to vertical wheel/rail interaction). For this reason, Alstom’sCitadis offers a choice of three bogie types,each suitable for a specific track condition.Some vehicles are designed as modules thatcan be coupled together to configure therequired length, door positions, and otherfeatures. The modules include cabs withpowered bogies, trailer cars with trailer

bogies, and articulations floating betweenwheeled units. Modular design cuts costsfor manufacturers and increasesconfiguration options for operators. Forexample, the Combino offers 9 possibleconfigurations (Fig. 2), ranging from a three-car articulated vehicle measuring 19 m inlength (running in Nordhausen, Germanyand Melbourne, Australia), to a seven-cararticulated vehicle 43 m in length long(running in Basel, Switzerland and Freiburg,Germany). Operator compartments,windows and other modular units areassembled on the body frame fabricatedfrom aluminium structural parts or weldedsteel. This simplifies manufacturing andresults in a lighter body. The plug doorscreate a smooth, stylish exterior.In addition to technical standardization,

Citadis in Lyon (Author)

Figure 2 Modular Design of Combino Trams

31.5 m

29.8 m

28.3 m

20.06 m

Modular configuration for optional length

42.9 m

41.3 m

38.0 m

39.7 m

CO MBINO

CO MBINO

CO MBINO

CO MBINO

CO MBINO

CO MBINO

CO MBINO

CO MBINO

(Author)




Other 100% and 70% LF-LRVsSome c i t i e s a r e i ndependen t l ydeveloping and running their own 100%LF-LRVs. Vienna has a growing fleet ofultra low floor (ULF) LRVs. Verticallymounted traction motors have loweredthe floor to a surprising 205 mm abovethe ground, and there are plans to put150 of these units into service soon.Zürich has developed its own low-floorCobra tram with an electric tractionmotor mounted on the car and a specialdrive system for the single-axle steeringbog ie . S ix veh ic les have beencompleted.However, many operators prefer 70% LR-LRVs, because they are cheaper anddependable. Bombardier ’s recentlyreleased 70% low-floor Flexity Classic isoperating in Dessau and other Germancities. Frankfurt and Halle are alreadyoperating 100% LF-LRVs and havedecided to augment their fleets with theFlexity Classic. Alstom’s 70% low-floorCitadis has been chosen by new transitsystems in Montpellier, Orléans andValenciennes in France, and in Dublin inIreland. New 70% LF-LRVs are also beingdeveloped and manufactured in theCzech Republic, Poland, Spain, andChina. Some models have attracted USbuyers, partly because of low prices. Forexample, Portland in Oregon has boughtthe Astra manufactured by Skoda.

LF-LRV manufacturers in JapanIn Japan, many people think that thecountry’s first LF-LRVs were the twoarticulated vehicles purchased in 1997 by

Kumamoto City from the Adtranz/NiigataEngineering joint venture. However,Japan’s first low-floor trams date back to1955 when Class Deha 200 cars weremanufactured by Tokyu Corp. for Tokyu’sTamagawa Line (today’s Den’en ToshiLine) in Tokyo. They had small-diameter(510 mm) wheels on s ingle-axlearticulated bogies, permitting part of thefloor to be at a surprisingly low (for thattime) 590 mm above the ground. Theunusual non-standard design led to themodel’s withdrawal from service in 1969but if it was still in the public eye today, itwould be seen as a pioneer pointing totoday’s developments.Most tramway networks in Japan wereabandoned after the 1960s, pushed asideby growth in motor vehicle traffic. Withno new domestic demand for trams,technical development tapered off untiltrams were once again viewed positivelyoverseas. In the 1980s, Japanesecompanies began developing andmanufacturing LRVs, but most wereexported rather than used to modernizethe small domestic fleet. Since the startof these efforts, Japanese manufacturershave built more than 800 LRV sets, butmore than 600 were exported to the USA(some being assembled there). TheseJapanese-built units helped the rebirth oftrams in the USA, a fact that is notgenerally known (Table 2).But Japanese development of LF-LRVs wasdelayed by several factors: overseasmanufacturers held patents on many ofthe basic technologies; low domesticdemand increased development risks; and

Japanese passengers enter by one doorand exit by another, paying the fare beforeexi t ing—a system that would beinconvenient in a 70% LF-LRV withinternal steps. Because of this delay indevelopment, manufacturers importedmost major parts for the low-floor vehiclesbuilt in Japan. Since 1997, NiigataEngineering has manufactured 100% LF-LRVs for the Japanese domestic marketusing Adtranz drive units—five went toKumamoto City, and one each to the citiesof Okayama and Takaoka.This poor development environmentchanged in November 2000 when theBarrier-Free Transportation Law waspassed. This law requires that operatorsrespect accessibility standards whenintroducing new rolling stock andprovides subsidies as tax relief and taxexemptions to compensate for the pricedifference between conventional carsand the more expensive barrier-freedesigns. These changes suggest that morel o w - f l o o r v e h i c l e s s h o u l d b emanufactured in Japan. (Domesticallybuilt LF-LRVs would make maintenanceeasier too.) The new regulations andincentives have created expectations that30% of all rolling stock in Japan will bebarrier-free by 2010.Nippon Sharyo. was the first company totake advantage of the new standards bymanufacturing the Class Mo 800 LRV forthe Minomachi Line belonging to NagoyaRailroad (Meitetsu). The central low-floorbetween the bogies slopes up to the twoends and wheels of different diameters areused, making the design quite unusual.

ULF tram in Vienna (Author) Little Dancer A3 in Kagoshima (Author)


Country Purchaser Class Delivered (year) No. of carriages ManufacturerUSA Philadelphia 9000 1980–82 112 Kawasaki Heavy Industries

100 1980–82 29Buffalo 100 1983 27 Tokyu Corp.Boston 3600 1986 50 Kinki Sharyo

3600 1988 50Los Angeles 100 1988 54 Nippon Sharyo

100 1994 15 Nippon SharyoDallas 100 1995 40 Kinki Sharyo

1999 55Boston 3600 1996 20 Kinki SharyoNew Jersey 100, 2000 1999 45 Kinki SharyoSan Jose 900 2001 30 Kinki Sharyo

2003 70China Hong Kong 1000, 1200 1992 30 Kawasaki Heavy IndustriesTotal 627

Country Operator Class Delivered (year) No. of carriages ManufacturerJapan Sapporo City Traffic Bureau 8500 1985 2 Kawasaki Heavy Industries

8510 1987 28520 1988 2

Hakodate City Transportation 2000 1993–94 2 Alna SharyoBureau 3000 1993–96 4Tokyo Metropolitan Government 8500 1990–93 5 Alna SharyoTokyu Corp. 300 1999–2001 10 Tokyu Corp.Meitetsu Mo 770 1987–88 4 Nippon Sharyo

Mo 780 1997–98 7Mo 800 2000 3Mo 880 1980 5

Toyama Chiho Railroad De 8000 1993 5 Nippon SharyoMan'yo Line 1000 2003 1 Niigata EngineeringKeihan Electric Railway 800 1997 32 Kawasaki Heavy IndustriesKeifuku Electric Railroad Mobo 2001 2000–01 2 Mukogawa SharyoHankai Tramway 700 1987–95 11 Tokyu Corp.Okayama Electric Tramway 9200 2002 1 Niigata EngineeringHiroshima Electric Railway 700 1985 4 Alna Sharyo

800 1983–97 14 Alna Sharyo3500 1980 1 Kawasaki Heavy Industries

Alna Sharyo3700 1984–87 5 Alna Sharyo3800 1987–89 9 Alna Sharyo3900 1990–96 8 Alna Sharyo3950 1997–98 6 Alna Sharyo

Iyo Railway Moha 2100 2002–04 6 Alna SharyoTosa Electric Railway 100 2002 1 Alna SharyoNagasaki Electric Tramway 2000 1980 2 Kawasaki Heavy Industries

Alna Sharyo3000 2003 1 Alna Sharyo

Kumamoto City Traffic Bureau 8200 1982 2 Nippon Sharyo8800 1988–93 3 Alna Sharyo9200 1992–94 5 Alna Sharyo9700 1997–2001 5 Niigata Engineering

Kagoshima City Transport Bureau 2100 1989 2 JR Kyushu2110 1991 3 JR Kyushu2120 1991 2 JR Kyushu2130 1992 2 JR Kyushu2140 1994 2 JR Kyushu9700 1998 2 Alna Sharyo1000 2002, 2004 6 Alna Sharyo

Total 189

Table 2 Japanese LRVs Sold or Exported

Note: An articulated tram set is counted as one car.

This design was followed by three low-floortypes—known as the Little Dancer series—manufactured by Alna Koki (now AlnaSharyo Co., Ltd.). All have conventionalaxle bogies. The three types are:• Single-unit Little Dancer S with bogies

at extreme ends to permit central low-floor area

• Three-car Little Dancer A3 with low-floor floating articulation and total offour axles for two cab units (registeredas bogie car)

• Three-car Little Dancer L with shortarticulation with axle bogies andsmall-diameter wheels

Kagoshima City started operating three A3vehicles in January; Matsuyama Citystarted operating two S cars in March2002; and Kochi City started operatingone L vehicle in April. Also in April,Hakodate City took delivery of arefurbished model with a low-floor areabetween the bogies and internal steps.Nagasaki City started running the three-unit articulated Ultimate model in March2004; the design is an innovative versionbased on the A3 and L types.However, all these vehicle designs useexisting technologies with a low-floorbody placed on conventional axle bogies.Some vehicles do not offer enough low-floor space because of the limitationsinherent in the body structure and theoverall length. Even so, they havesucceeded in the sense that the low-floorsections offer easy access and the vehiclesthemselves have about the same capacityas a bus, which is considered adequatefor a tram in Japan. But these vehicleshave not evolved toward the low-floorstandards in other parts of the world,where articulated vehicles are common.Structural limitations and the farecollection system do not permit a majorreduction in stop times, althoughboarding/exiting times have beenreduced, and these problems remain tobe tackled.However, the future looks bright. Japan’spublic and private sectors have decidedto join forces in developing a narrow-gauge bogie for extra-low-floor LRVs topermit construction of aisles at least800-mm wide (required for wheelchairusers who must move along the aisle topay the fare when exiting) even whenrunning on 1067-mm narrow-gauge track.The development programme will includework on LF-LRV elements such as ultra-small motors, control and braking devices,and bogie frames. Plans call for theprototyping of bogies that incorporatethese elements with a view to launchingdomestic manufacture of 100% LF-LRVs.




With support from the government, in April2001, major rolling stock manufacturersjoined an association to promote researchinto bogie technology. The research isfocused on development of one type ofsingle-axle steering bogie, and two typesof double-axle bogies (one with a hubmotor, the other with a beam motormounted on the side of the bogie frame).There are plans to use the newdevelopments in low-floor articulatedvehicles for Hiroshima Electric Railwaywith a prototype to be built during FY2004.I f manufac tu r ing cos t s a re cu t ,development of 100% LF-LRVs in Japanwill encourage more domestic operatorsto purchase them. Okayama has alreadytaken delivery of Niigata Engineering’s100% low-floor Class 9200, nicknamedMomo (peach). So much attention wasgiven to the design of this vehicle that ithas a fun-to-ride reputation and showshow cities can use LF-LRVs to improveurban living.

Rubber-tyre tramsA rubber-tyre tram is a type of hybridbetween an LRV and a trolley bus with aguide wheel that guides the tram along acentral rail embedded in the right of way.It is being developed in France and takesadvantage of the LRT concept whileproviding a more flexible transit system atlower cost. Power is collected using apantograph and the controls are automatic.Along some parts of the route, the tramleaves the central guide rail and operatesunder its own power using a diesel engineto generate electricity. With its modulardesign and low floor, the tram looks verymuch like a 100% LF-LRV and has aboutthe same capacity, but the rubber-tyre tramis bimodal and can either follow a centralrail or run freely on roads. The extraadhesion provided by the rubber tyresenables it to negotiate urban streets withgradients of more than 10% (100 per mill).France has had considerable experiencewith rubber-tyre transit systems, notable

examples being the subways in Paris andLyon and the new driverless VAL system.As a consequence, it is well placed tocarry on the tradition with rubber-tyretrams. There are three systems usingdifferent current collection and guidancemethods. The TVR (Transport sur VoieReservée ) sys tem deve loped byBombardier has begun operations inNancy, Caen and Rouen (see pp. 17–20).

LRT Track Modernization

Compared to heavy rail, LRT offers moreoptions when considering where to laytrack in urban areas. Indeed, LRT trackcan be built along almost any city street,and if the streets are too narrow orcrowded, etc., the track can be elevatedor put underground. Due to this flexibility,LRT track can serve pedestrian districts asa so-called ‘transit mall’ and many citiesworldwide are reporting that transit mallsare revitalizing their downtown cores.LRT has another advantage not enjoyedby similar-capacity automatic guidedtransport (AGT) systems or monorails—itcan be connected to existing railway trackto offer through services. This advantageis now being exploited by connecting lightrail networks to existing heavy rail linesin order to share the track system by

running LRVs on track used previously bysuburban and freight trains and by usingabandoned rail rights of way.

Transit malls to revitalize citycentresMany European and North Americancities are revitalizing their centres byconstructing pedestrian malls that usenearby city streets as transit routes. Cartraffic is prohibited in the pedestrian mallsbut pedestrians, trams, buses, bicycles,etc., can use them. Americans generallydescribe these areas as transit malls whileEuropeans call them pedestrian zones.The problem with the latter term is that itdoes not distinguish between malls thatare served by a public transit system andthose that are not.Transit malls are people-friendly areas forstrolling and other urban activities. Theyare often constructed in city centres thatfell on hard times when over-dependenceon cars caused road congestion andforced urban functions and businesses intothe suburbs. The provision of urban transitinto the centre raises the profile andrevitalizes it. The transit mall movementbegan in the 1960s with two successes—Munich Mall (opened in 1970) inGermany and Nicollet Mall (1967)opened in Minneapolis.Unlike an ordinary shopping mall, a transit

Freiburg Transit Mall (Author)


mall is developed in tandem with thetransi t system that wil l serve i t .Development revitalizes not only the citycentre but the overall transit system too.Elevators bring customers to the variouslevels of tall department stores, while thetransit system shuttles people horizontallyfrom one end of the mall to the other,creating the atmosphere of a large, unifiedzone. The transit system providesconvenient access to the city centre,reducing the need for parking lots andhelping people enjoy city life withoutworrying about parking fees. Thedowntown mall distinguishes itself in away a suburban shopping centre cannot.Transit vehicles are useful not only fortransportation but also add atmosphere tothe urban landscape.In Europe and the US, LRT systems are oftenchosen as the most suitable transportationfor pedestrian transit malls; the consensusis that LF-LRVs are easily accessible toeveryone, they promote development ofpedestrian-oriented urban infrastructure,and they have shown that they can improveurban living. The worldwide LRT trend hascaught the Japanese imagination becauseit suggests how they can regenerate theirown city centres; Fukui City is holdingpublic trials with a view to building its owntransit mall.

LRT sharing track with heavy railThe transit system in Karlsruhe, Germany,has become a test case, proving that a tramnetwork can be linked successfully to anexisting railway network to providethrough services. Development (since1992) of rolling stock that can run on bothAC and DC power made it possible to runthrough services between the tramnetwork and the Deutsche Bahn AG (DBAG) heavy rail network. One result wasa dramatic increase in ridership. Thelongest line stretches 124 km fromHeilbronn through Karlsruhe to Forbach.Japan has also had success runningthrough services between heavy rail andtram networks and the cities of Gifu,Fukui, Kyoto and Hiroshima currentlyoperate such systems. However,Karlsruhe is the world benchmark,because the tram network expanded itsservice area and offered through servicesto the city centre at more frequent intervalswith fewer changes from one line toanother by taking over the DB AGsuburban operations. This flexibleapproach provided vastly improvedservices at a relatively low cost andbecame a model for all cities on how torevitalize rail services. Some 7000trackside Park & Ride encourage residentsto use public transport and enjoy the

advantages of both road and rail modes.Another result is that the city centres haveremained economically healthy, with lesspollution and motor vehicles.Some problems needed to be resolvedbefore launching the through services.First, the DB AG catenary uses 15 kVacat 16.66 Hz, while the urban tram systemuses 750 Vdc. Second, the governmentregulates the two networks differently,enforcing EBO standards for constructionand operation of railways, and BOStrabstandards for tramways, resulting indifferent car structures, signallingequipment, and performance criteria.Third, it was technically difficult toreduce the size of transformers for low-frequency AC power transmission.Operations became possible afterdevelopment of dual-voltage vehicleswith small, light AC/DC transformerssatisfying space and weight restrictionson trams (Fig. 3).The January 1996 German railwayreforms transferred jurisdiction from thefederal to the state level for grantinglicences to operate short-distance urbanpassenger services, and for provision ofsubsidies. This made it easier to applythe Karlsruhe model elsewhere inGermany, starting with Saarbrücken in1997 and Chemnitz in 2002. Kassel anda number of other cities are planningsimilar projects.In France, Strasbourg and Mulhouse planto introduce a so-called Tram Train basedon the Karlsruhe model. Other shared-track projects will offer through serviceslinking electrified LRT networks with non-electrified railway tracks, using light dieselrailcars travelling into city centres, orhybrid rolling stock with a dieselgenerator. As a first step, the Siemens’Combino Duo with a 180-kW dieselengine is scheduled to start throughservices at Nordhausen in Germany usingthe tracks of Harz Railways (HSB), whichis famed for its steam operations.

Figure 3 KarlsruheTransit Network

WörthS1, S11

S1 S11

S1

S11

S5S5

S4

S9

S9

S3

S3

S31

S6

S5(3)

(3)

(3)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(1)

(4)

(6) (6)

(6)(6)

(3)

(2)(1)

(1)

(1)

(3)

(3)

(2)

(1)

(1)

(1)(1)

S2

S4 S41

S2

HBF Central Central StationStationCentral Station

Rastatt

Baden-Baden Forbach Herrenalb Bad Wildbad

Ittersbach

Pforzheim

Mühlacker

Eppingen

Menzingen

Odenheim

Bruchsal

HochstettenHeilbronn

Bretten

Bietigheim-Bissingen

DC TrackAC Track

0 10

Note: Numbers in parentheses ( ) show service frequency per hour

(Author)




Blending in with urban landscapeStrasbourg in France decided to rununiquely designed LRVs that wouldbecome a symbol for the city and thestrategy has successfully improved thecity’s image. Today’s transit systems areexpected to blend in with the surroundingcityscape and add to its aesthetic appeal.Cities planning LRT systems sometimesface opposition from residents who fearthat the catenary will be an eyesore.There are various ways to configure thecatenary and supporting poles so that theyblend in with the urban landscape. Useof centre poles reduces the number ofpoles, which can also be erected amongtrees. On narrow streets, the catenary canbe strung from buildings and insulatedwire eliminates ceramic insulators.Going one step further, the catenary canbe eliminated by using a ground-basedcollection system like the LRT launchedby Bordeaux in December 2003. Suchsystems were used by trams years ago inWashington, London and other cities. Thevarious available technologies arepromoting LRT acceptance in historic citycentres where appearance is important.Noise pollution is another growing issue;LRT noise emissions are much lower thanolder tram systems due to new resilientwheel designs and improved tracks.Noise can also be reduced by grassingover the right of way as more cities aredoing. For example , Zü r ich in

Switzerland reports that a grassy right ofway reduces noise levels by 10 dBA,improving the environment of residentialneighbourhoods. In Germany, Infund hasdeveloped a system of placing rails overexcavated depressions and fastening withpoured resin. This system has beenadopted in a number of places and furtherreduces noise and vibrations.Grassy rights of way are also attractive.In places where they extend laterally intoparkland, they form a natural carpet thataccentuates the park. Since 2002, theJapanese cities of Hiroshima, Kochi andKumamoto have grassed some sections oftheir rights of way for trams.

Modernization of Operations

To maximize its role, LRT must beintegrated within the overall transitsystem. This can be achieved bydeveloping a joint network with existingrailways and bus l ines, by usingTransportation Demand Management(TDM) strategies that encourage Park &Ride and other links with motor vehicletraffic, and by establishing convenientfare-payment systems. In Europe, suchmethods have greatly contributed toimproving the urban fabric and increasingLRT ridership.City residents favour LRT systems onlyif they offer relatively high schedule

speeds and reliability. Schedule speedsin the West are close to 20 km/h evenfor LRT systems sharing the road withother traffic (17.4 km/h in Grenoble;19.2 km/h in Karlsruhe; and 21.1 km/hin S t ra sbourg ) . J apanese t ramsgenerally average only 10 to 15 km/h,making them unable to satisfy today’surban transit needs.Japanese tram operators aim to raiseaverage schedule speeds to the 20 km/hachieved in other countries but theycannot do so unless the length of timesfor stops at traffic lights and whenboarding/exiting are shortened. Trams inJapan are actually stopped for almost halfthe travel time (Fig. 4). It is generallyagreed that raising schedule speedsrequires trams to run on their own rightof way with priority at traffic lights and afare system with no payment whenboarding or exiting.

Priority at traffic lightsOne way to reduce travel time is to givetrams priority at traffic lights. A numberof different systems have been introducedto control traffic lights so that trams wasteless time waiting at intersections, makingit possible to raise the schedule speed.Priority traffic light systems generallyinvolve either linking tram operations toindividual sets of traffic lights, orestablishing an operation control centre thatcoordinates both tram and motor vehiclemovements. Generally, a transponder on

Figure 4 Average Operation Patternof Hiroshima Trams

Running50.3%

Boarding/exiting16.1%

Waiting at traffic lights33.6%

Grassy right of way in Hiroshima (Author)


the tram activates the traffic light, extendingthe green time or shortening the red time.Some buses have such a system too.If an operation control centre performscoordination, each tram is located usingeither a global positioning system (GPS)or ground coils, etc. Wireless signals fromthe GPS, etc., are transmitted to thecontrol centre, which then controls thetraffic signals to give the tram priority. InZürich, data transmission devices areinstalled along routes and location codereceivers are installed on trams. When atram passes by, the ground-based devicesends a signal via the onboard receiver toa tram control device at the operationcontrol centre. The control centre usessoftware to calculate the optimum flowpattern at specific intersections and for thegeneral traffic, taking into account thecurrent road traffic information. Tramsapproaching a traffic light are givenpriority within these parameters. Tramschedules are input into the controlequipment memory and this data is usedto compare actual tram locations withscheduled locations. The difference isdisplayed at the control centre and ononboard monitors, making it possible tobring operations closer to the schedule.A number of German cities are attemptingto opt imize t ra f f ic f low throughinformation from operation controlcentres. One example is the StuttgartTransport Operation by RegionalManagement (STORM) project in Stuttgart.The aim of this and other such projects isto develop comprehensive operationcontrol systems that give priority to publictransport and reduce car traffic.But LRT vehicles cannot be given priorityat all intersections. For example,tramways almost always have to crossmajor roads and national highwayssomewhere; in some cases they crossthrough tunnels, underpasses, etc.

Wireless transmissionsOperation control centres can also use

tram location data to control other tramoperations and provide information topassengers. In Amsterdam, tram locatorsare installed along all routes. Theytransmit wireless signals to the operationcontrol centre where the location data isdisplayed for all trams. The data is usedto give schedule-related instructions totram drivers and to provide informationon departure times at major stops.Location systems give European LRToperators the opportunity to provideinformation at stops. The information isdisplayed on LED panels, and includes thearrival t imes and dest inations ofa p p r o a c h i n g t r a m s . Wi r e l e s stransmissions from the operation controlcentre send the data to LED panels alongthe routes. Arrival data is also transmittedto tram cabs so that drivers can coordinatedeparture times at transfer terminalsshared by buses and LRT vehicles.

Coordination with othertransport modesThe biggest difference between tram/LRTsystems and other forms of urban transportis that the former are a key urban transitmode in the backbone of the overallnetwork. Buses are feeders for the tramsystem and the locations where the twosystems intersect are passenger transferpoints. Suburban Park & Ride facilitiesprovide a link between the car and LRTbecause free parking encourages peopleto leave their cars in the suburbs and ridethe rails to the city centre.Coordinated fare systems also promotetransit use. In Germany and othercountries, transit operations are integratedand joint fare and zone systems areestablished to offer convenience and easyrecognition. To encourage people tochoose rail over road, some Japaneseoperators have recently introduced areduced-fare pass system, billed asprotecting the environment. These andother measures are boosting publictransport ridership and reducing car use.

Fare collection systemsIn Japan, low schedule speeds preventtrams from becoming the cornerstone ofany urban transit system. The farecollection system is one major reason forsluggish speeds. In most cases, the driververifies that each passenger has paid thefare. The reason is to ensure companyprofitability and fairness to all passengers,but the time-consuming process keepstrams stopped for considerable periods,increasing travel time.In the West, the driver is generally notinvolved in fare collection at all.Passengers are responsible for paying theirfare, buying the ticket at the stop or onboard and presenting it at the designatedplace. If the ticket has no date and timestamp, they are responsible for getting itstamped. To inhibit fare dodging, ticketinspectors make spot checks and violatorsmust pay a fine that is many times morethan the cost of a regular ticket.This system began in Europe in the 1960s.It lets passengers board and exit from anydoor, which also increases schedulespeed. Even a long articulated LRTvehicle requires only one employee,reducing wage and equipment costs, andincreasing profitability.Tramways still operating in North Americaused to have a fare box and an employeeveri fying payment, but s ince theintroduction of LRT systems in 1978, theyhave switched to the European system.The motive was putting passengerconvenience ahead o f opera to rprofitability, since convenience attractsmore passengers and contributes to urbanrenewal. In the early stages, there werefears that fare dodgers would increase andrevenues would fall, but stringent randominspections has kept the rate low. Thisencouraged other tram companies tointroduce the new system as a way to cutwage costs. San Francisco’s Proof ofPayment system is a case in point.In the West, it is felt that offering greaterpassenger convenience is more important




than preventing a slight drop in revenues.In any case, the revenue drop may becompensated for by the fines. The priorityis on lower equipment costs, shorter stops,fewer delays and a smaller wages burden.Meanwhile, governments have tended topromote low-fare policies rather thanprofitability, to encourage the use ofpublic transport and reduce car traffic.Japan stands out in contrast; transportationcompanies are expected to make a profitand the principles of fairness for allpassengers and respect for the fare systemhave created a perceived need to verifyeach passenger’s fare payment. Anotherfactor is that fare dodgers pay a fine thatis no more than twice the regular fare. Thelow fines are regulated by law, making itdifficult to adopt an honour system evenwith spot checks. Fines would have tobe raised to Western levels, but this wouldrequire legal changes. This environmentmakes it difficult to change.One solution is greater use of non-contactIC cards. However, informationtechnology (IT) cannot solve the inherentproblems of the honour system, becausepossession of a card or proof of farepayment would still have to be verified.Hong Kong launched its Octopus non-contact IC card system in 1997, butcontinues with rigorous on-board spotchecks to promote use of cards and inhibitfare dodging.The non-contact IC card might not be afinal solution to Japan’s fare collectionproblem, but it is one way to raiseschedule speed. The non-contact

Setamaru IC card introduced in July 2002on Tokyu’s Setagaya Line in Tokyoencourages use by awarding points thatcan be used to travel for free on asubsequent journey as well as discountedtravel on Saturdays and Sundays. If othercompanies introduce such incentives,cards would become more popular, andif the cards could be used on otheroperators’ networks, the city transit systemwould become even more convenient.Japan’s fare collection system may evolveto take advantage of this potential, but willprobably not adopt the honour systemused in the West.

The Future

It is important to realize that worldwideinterest in trams and LRT systems springsnot from a desire simply for modern tramsystems but from a general consensus thatLRT systems open the door to urbanrenewal. Although such systems canbecome an essential part of the urbanfabric, like roads, parks, water, andtelephone and electric lines, there is a limitto what companies can do on their own

to use LRT systems to promote sustainableurban renewal. Responsibility forconstructing and improving LRT systemsis being assumed by both the public andthe private sectors, with financialassistance from national and localgovernments to support both constructionand operations.In Japan, tram systems (especiallyvehicles) are being modernized.Increased interest has prompted more than70 regions to study the feasibility ofconstructing their own LRT systems.However, only a few cities have anychance of reaching the construction stage,mainly because cars are still consideredto have priority on city streets. It is difficultto form a consensus regarding securingland for tram rights of way; urban transitis expected to make a profit and thecapacity of LRT systems is limited, makingit difficult for the public to differentiatebetween LRT systems and buses.These obstacles must be removed beforeJapanese cities start building advancedLRT systems and that day is probably stillfar off. �

Bus & Ride in Portland (Author) Octopus non-contact card fare payment in Hong Kong (Author)

Shigenori Hattori

Mr Hattori is General Manager of Public Relations at the Nagoya/Boston Museum of Fine Arts. He

graduated in 1976 in Economics from Toyama University before joining Nagoya Railroad where he

worked for 25 years in the public relations and personnel departments. He was a member of the

Nagoya City Transport 21 Working Group and the LRT Systems Technical Specialist Working Group.

Trams Making Way for Light Rail Transit · 39 the tram activates the traffic light, extending

Documents

Transcript of Trams Making Way for Light Rail Transit · 39 the tram activates the traffic light, extending