TfL start search for new DLR trains

[snoggle]

DLR have started the process of developing the new generation of DLR trains by seeking to work with manufacturers as to what options and technologies exist and how the need for more DLR capacity can be met. See article.

www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/next-generation-of-docklands-light-railway-trains-planned.html

[Chris M]

Interesting. I think any single-unit train is going to require some pretty flexible bellows, as not only are there very sharp horizontal curves to be negotiated there are some significant changes in vertical curvature - look at a train headed eastbound from Poplar towards Canning Town to see a good example of the latter.

[crusty54]

Yet again transverse seating to be lost.

The views from the DLR are spectacular and these seats fill up first.

More doors likely to mean more standing.

[flippyff]

Somehow missed this in last week's OJ-S update.

ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:144582-2015:TEXT:EN:HTML

<snip>
Short description of the contract or purchase(s):

Passenger journeys on the Docklands Light Railway have been increasing by approximately 8 % per annum with 110 000 000 journeys in the year to March 2015. This level of increase is estimated to continue particularly in the Royal Docks area resulting in the need to enhance services and therefore procure additional rolling stock to serve that demand.
DLR also has a need to consider replacement of its existing 94 B92 vehicles (each 28.8 m long). These LRVs are generally operated as three-car trains (each 86.4 m long).
As part of DLRL's feasibility and strategic work, and with a view towards reduced journey times, improved ambience and reduced whole life costs DLRL is considering the possibility for a new design of rolling stock with a fixed length of 86.4 m (New Train).
DLRL has identified the following features to enable the prospective New Train to meet these objectives:
— fixed formation, walk through train,
— wide open gangways between carriages,
— minimized energy consumption,
— saloon air cooling/heating equipment that does not reduce passenger space,
— driverless operation,
— very high reliability.
A more detailed description can be found in Section VI.2.
DLRL is seeking technical dialogue with established rolling stock manufacturers to assist it in identifying the optimum technical solution to meet its requirements. Options to be considered will include like for like single unit replacement or (possibly more likely) a single full length train (New Train, 86.4 m). The likely order size could be 40—50 New Trains (equivalent to 120—150 single units).
For the purposes of this PIN, DLRL wishes to engage only with rolling stock manufacturers who are capable of delivering a complete rolling stock solution in its entirety, rather than manufacturers of component parts. Any entity which is interested in participating in such a dialogue should contact DLRL at the address set out above.
This is not a stage in a formal competitive process, and it is not the purpose of this dialogue to procure any part of the solution. Rather, the purpose is to provide DLRL with information on what is available and being developed in the marketplace to allow DLRL to develop a strategic solution. Participation in this dialogue is not a prerequisite to, and will not prejudice, participation in any future competitive process.

<snip>

VI.2) Additional information:

New Train Characteristics:
— Complete train length — 86.4 m, over coupler faces,
— Height (static) — 3,515 mm, above rail level Width (static) — 2,650 mm,
— Floor Height (static) — 1,025 mm,
— Maximum Laden Axle Load (Static) — 100 kN, or less Maximum Speed — 80 kph,
— Maximum Acceleration — 1.3 m/s² on level track, from standstill to 20 km/h, over the load range M1 to M3,
— Full service brake rate — 1.3 m/s² on level track, from 80 km/h to standstill up to M4 load,
— Maximum Brake Rate (Emergency) — 0.92 m/s² on level track, from 80 km/h to standstill up to M4 load with a worst case single failure in the braking system,
— Regenerative Braking — Required Track Brakes — Not required,
— Couple Height — 650 mm, above rail level,
— Mechanical Coupler — Compatible with Scharfenberg pattern as fitted to existing vehicles Emergency Egress — A means of exiting the end of train to track level,
— Push Out Capability — Ability for an empty train to push a M3 loaded train up a 6 % gradient,
— The train will be compatible with Thales Seltrac Signalling System,
— The train should be have the option to either automatically close the doors in ATO mode or allow the Passenger Service Agent to initiate door closure in ATO mode,
— Trains will have the facilities to allow the Passenger Service Agent to manually operate the train under the supervision of the Seltrac system (ATP mode),
— Trains will have the facilities to move manually, independent of the Seltrac system (Emergency Shunt mode),
— Train will have the facilities to be moved manually, independent of the Seltrac system (Emergency Shunt mode),
— Ability to transmit CCTV information to control centre in real time,
— Through Gangway between vehicles.
Doors – The existing DLR doors are 1,500 mm wide, with four sets per 28 m vehicle. This is equivalent to ~20 % ratio. DLRL would envisage the new train having a ratio of ~30 %, more consistent with Metro style operation
Passenger Saloon:
— Real-time Auto-Visual Passenger Information System,
— CCTV: Internal full coverage of the saloon and External Look Forward,
— Longitudinal Metro Seating,
— Air Conditioning,
— Vehicle health monitor,
— Doors – The existing DLR doors are 1,500 mm wide, with four sets per 28 m vehicle. This is equivalent to ~ 20 % ratio. DLRL would envisage the new train having a ratio of ~ 30 %, more consistent with Metro style operation
Infrastructure Characteristics:
— Track Gauge — 1,435 mm,
— Minimum Curve Radius — 40 m radius (38 m in Depots),
— Maximum Gradient — 6 %,
— Power Supply — 750 volts DC, nominal Operation:
Reliability:
— The train shall be capable of high levels of reliability. This shall include design features to minimise the risks associated with single point failures.
— The train shall be fitted with a remote monitoring system to allow the Control Centre to monitor the safe, reliable operation of the train in service, in real time, and provide assistance to the on-train Passenger Service Assistant in the event of a problem.
Standards & Assurance:
— The train shall comply with British and European Legislation,
— The train shall comply with the relevant British & European Standards, including compliance with BS-EN45545 for Fire Compliance,
— RVAR 2010 Compliant,
— Assurance shall be accordance with the requirements of ROGS.
<snip>

[astockfan101]

Fixed formation then at a few stations it would have to use selective door opening again unless they make the platforms longer witch at some of them they should.

[Chris M]

I don't know of any issues with SDO on the DLR at present, so as long as there are no doorways part on and part off the platform there shouldn't be a problem.

Of all the stations where SDO is used, I think only Cutty Sark would have much need of the added door capacity, and that will be the most expensive station (by a massive amount) to alter given that it would require expansion of tunnels under a world heritage site.

Elverson Road could probably be done if there was a need, but I think it's one of the quietest stations on the network and so the cost benefit just doesn't stack up.

Gallions Reach isn't worth spending the money on at this point as the station will likely need to be rebuilt in some way if it becomes a junction station for a Dagenham branch.

Royal Albert is the one I know least about, but I get the impression that it's quite a peak flow station and so the costs of building platform extensions on the very elevated site are not worthwhile most of the day.

[flippyff]

Does this "The train should be have the option to either automatically close the doors in ATO mode or allow the Passenger Service Agent to initiate door closure in ATO mode," suggest 'cold weather door closing' as per the 378s on London Overground or pushing the train captains even further towards a ticket checking only role?

[Chris M]

From reading something (Ian Visits?) the suggestion is that it would allow for unattended train operation, although there are no current plans to use that other than in an emergency.

[davidp]

May 9, 2015 1:53:13 GMT crusty54 said:

Yet again transverse seating to be lost.

The views from the DLR are spectacular and these seats fill up first.

More doors likely to mean more standing.

Traverse seating will certainly be lost from most of the train but presumably it must be possible for these new trains to be driven from the Lead Driving Position and therefore the first set of seats would still have to be traverse. And perhaps that would imply that the second row of traverse seats would survive as well?

Regards All
David

[Deleted]

How about making them bi-model and then linking the Croydon Tramlink System to the DLR?

XF

[crusty54]

May 16, 2015 6:29:21 GMT @xercesfobe said:

How about making them bi-model and then linking the Croydon Tramlink System to the DLR?

XF

Vehicle height, DLR has platforms and Tramlink doesn't.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2015 7:59:13 GMT crusty54 said:

May 16, 2015 6:29:21 GMT @xercesfobe said:

How about making them bi-model and then linking the Croydon Tramlink System to the DLR?

XF

Vehicle height, DLR has platforms and Tramlink doesn't.

This issue is common on the USA with either steps that move to between street and platform level as seen on the MUNI in SF however these systems can be unreliable!

XF

[crusty54]

May 16, 2015 8:33:18 GMT @xercesfobe said:

May 16, 2015 7:59:13 GMT crusty54 said:

Vehicle height, DLR has platforms and Tramlink doesn't.

This issue is common on the USA with either steps that move to between street and platform level as seen on the MUNI in SF however these systems can be unreliable!

XF

And would delay highly intensive services so not really an option.

[Chris M]

They also couldn't have level access to both sets of platforms unless you're moving the whole floor - I suspect it could be cheaper (and certainly more reliable) to build dual height platforms.

You also have an incompatibility of power supplies between Tramlink and DLR, any dual purpose vehicle would need both pantographs and retractable and isolatable pickup shoes for the bottom-contact third rail. You'd need a dedicated driving position, as the current ones do not meet the requirements for tram vehicles (See Paragraphs 290-296 on PDF page 58 of the regulations)