United Kingdom
Study Tours
Transport Oriented Development and the Use of Light Rail in UK's conurbations

Sources: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Region (DTLR); GMPTE (Manchester); NET (Nottingham); NEXUS (Newcastle);
Light Rail Atlas; Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA).
(C)RVDB / Rob van der Bijl, February 2002 - January 2005
update: 100105

Tour impressions, Nottingham, September 13, 2002

The dramatic events reagarding Light Rail in the UK during 2004 will be discussed soon!

New study tours in preparation (2004-2005):
Manchester-Liverpool (UK)-Dublin (Ireland).
Nottingham revisited.


[menu] (or read introduction below) (for Dublin-page click here...)


Light rail systems serve as backbone of most of the new regional public transport systems in the UK. So far UK schemes have generally involved the conversion of regional rail routes to light rail/tramway or the re-use of disused rail routes to some extent and there has not been the extent of planned integration with the physical planning of cities in order to create an urban renaissance that has happened elsewhere in Europe and the United States. Extensive street-running is a feature of only the Sheffield system (though without the benefit of extensive priority measures which extensive street-running requires) and the Croydon system, though the systems in Manchester and Wolverhampton/Birmingham have relatively small amounts of street-running. However, the new Eccles line and other planned lines in Manchester feature extensive street-running; planned extensions in the centres of Birmingham and Wolverhampton will use street tracks as well.
Of course, segregation from street traffic ensures there are no delays due to traffic congestion, whilst street-running in town and city centres, particularly where it is in pedestrianised areas, is highly desirable to allow accessibility and convenience to passengers.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Croydon, centre, February 14, 2002

Trams/light rail vehicles in pedestrianised areas are much more acceptable than motor vehicles or buses as it is exactly predictable as to where they will go, whereas pedestrians, not surprisingly, give buses and other motor vehicles a wide berth for safety and by having to do so the whole ambience of a pedestrianised area is fundamentally degraded.

Most of both the new and the evolving systems have a high level of planned integration with the bus networks in the same towns/cities - some are absolutely text-book examples - e.g. Hannover and Zurich. However, in the UK, since 1986, other than in Greater London, deregulation of bus services has both destroyed and prohibited such planned integration. It is doubtful if there are any examples in the UK of the sophisticated integration which can be found in cities such as Hannover, where buses wait across platform for light rail vehicles to arrive and allow immediate and very easy interchange. Even in Greater London where there is a planned and regulated bus system it cannot be said that integration of this quality exists between buses and underground and Docklands Light Railway (or, probably, Croydon Tramlink).
Interestingly the one exception to the lack of integration in the UK (outside London) may prove to be Midland Metro Line One (Birmingham - Wolverhampton) where the same private sector company is the operator of both the light rail line, local train services and the vast majority of bus services. Here it may be said that the evolution of a local private monopoly enables (but does not ensure) the planned integration which in other countries is achieved by public sector control. Whether it is in the long term public interest for such a monopoly to be in private hands is another matter, especially in the absence of a Regulator for the bus industry to ensure protection of the public interest.

There are currently seven light rail systems in operation (Victorian and tourist tramways excluded):

Nottingham Express Transit, opened in March 2004, 14 km, one line (including spur line).
Croydon Tramlink, opened in May 2000, covers 28 km on three lines.
Docklands Light Railway, opened in 1987 and extended to Lewisham in 1999. Has a total route length 27 km.
Manchester Metrolink, opened in 1992 and recently extended to Salford Quays and Eccles, covers 39 km.
Midland Metro, opened in May 1999. Runs between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, a route length of 20 km.
Stagecoach Supertram (Sheffield), opened in 1994, 29km.
Tyne and Wear Metro, opened in the early 1980s, 59km.

An extension to the Tyne and Wear system has been opened in 2002.
Further new systems have been approved in Leeds and Portsmouth, as have extensions in Manchester. Plans for a number of other new systems and extensions to existing ones are being developed, for example Bristol. But these plans all have become uncertain in 2004. To be continued...

Much of the growth during 1996-2001 has been in London, with use of the Docklands Light Railway almost tripling since 1995/96. In the last year, growth in DLR patronage has continued, and the Croydon Tramlink came into service, with 15 million passenger journeys in 2000/01.
The 10-Year Plan for Transport published in July 2000 set a target of doubling light rail use by 2010.

Passenger journeys on the six modern public transport light rail and tramway systems in England have increased by 27% from 93.9 million in 1999/2000 to 119.6 million in 2000/01.

The seven modern public systems vary in the design of vehicles they use, their size and the amount of segregation from other traffic. Each one is described below. DTLR's 10-year Transport Plan sets a target for light rail use to double over the next decade. Annual returns show an overall upward trend.

Recent surveys by DTLR of public transport use, measured in passenger journeys, show that use has increased over all rail and bus modes. For national rail, passenger journeys in 2000/01 increased by 3 per cent in the year to 31 March 2001, to 957 million journeys. For London Underground the increase was 5 per cent, to 970 million journeys. Light rail is a small, but increasing contributor. Just under 120 million journeys were made on the six light rail systems in England in the year to 31 March 2001. This compares with 94 million passenger journeys a year ago.
Passenger journeys on local buses have a larger share than rail. These journeys also increased in the year most recently surveyed, to 31 March 2000. This was an increase of about half of one per cent on the previous year. The pie charts below show the relative share of journeys by bus and rail, and by type of rail system.

There has been a dramatic growth in patronage on light rail systems since the early 1990s, as these have opened or been extended. Their share in 2000/01 is shown in the pie chart below. The growth in patronage since 1991/92 is shown in the line chart above.

Hurdles and barriers

Light Rail projects in Britain face difficult hurdles from their very conception - hurdles not faced by buses. First of all any light rail/tramway scheme has to obtain statutory powers. It used to be said when Private Bills were required that this cost £1m for each line. The reality was more like £2m. Now, application has to be made for an Order under the Transport & Works Act 1992. The costs are almost certainly higher and the time-scale and complexity longer. Costs of this scale are inevitably daunting for any promoter and especially so for those concerned with ULR (Ultra Light Rail) projects which are small in scale and cost but have to go through the same process to obtain powers with similar costs. £2m to £3m to obtain powers for a £200m scheme is burden enough, but for a £20m scheme it is an insurmountable hurdle and the potential rewards to a promoter are not likely to justify hazarding such a large sum given the uncertainties of success.
Even more significant is the time involved and the uncertainty of the outcome. This has meant that, so far, it has only been public authorities which have had enough stamina to promote schemes, to win the support of local authorities, obtain the powers to construct and operate and justify the case to central government and win central government and European funding. Due to the requirements to transfer as much risk as possible to the private sector and to maximise the private sector's contribution, all the recent schemes have ended up being constructed and operated by private sector consortia.
The Chartered Institute of Transport produced a report proposing changes to the Transport & Works Act procedures but, so far, no commitment has been given by Government to implement any of the proposed changes.
The biggest hurdles facing LRT promoters are (a) getting clear Government support for their projects at a reasonably early stage and (b) financing the project (raising the funding) - the two are crucially interlinked - without Government support in principle, as well as to funding, raising finance from other sources, private and public, is much more difficult. Treasury/Government has set its face against major transport infrastructure schemes. The basic rules set by the previous Government, and continued by the present Government, seem to be:

no operating subsidy must be required or paid.
users should pay through the fare-box for all the benefits they derive and that only non-user benefits (i.e. the benefits to people who DON'T use the new tramway or light rail system) can be counted in the social cost-benefit analysis). It is assumed that the fares people pay equal the full value of the benefits they derive.
the cost-benefit analysis must give a high enough positive net present value. In practice this is a very difficult criterion to achieve because the principal benefits of a public transport system are not allowed to be reckoned as benefits (time value of passengers not at work), though this is allowed in assessment of new road construction projects.
the project's risks must be largely transferred to the private sector.
the maximum contribution possible to the capital cost must be obtained from the private sector (and that contribution must be high compared with other competing schemes).
cautious estimating of ridership must be verified by techniques such as stated preference surveys - asking people whether they will change their travel mode to use a not-yet-built alternative and interpreting the results cautiously almost inevitably produces very cautious conclusions which are then key factors in gauging the viability of the proposed scheme.
finally, and most importantly, since the beginning of the decade, promoters of schemes have had to demonstrate by rigorous analysis that there is not an alternative mode or solution which is more cost-effective. The fact that at least a few schemes have survived and been built is, in a sense, extraordinary and says a great deal for light rail/tramways possibilities in a more receptive environment.

The construction and operation of light rail is subject to a much more stringent and demanding safety regime than exists for its competitor modes (principally cars, but also, in this sense at least, buses). This inevitably imposes a cost burden on to light rail systems which does not have to be borne by, for instance, buses. We do not argue that trams/light rail should not be as safe as they are (indeed this is one of their merits), but we do argue that it is unfair that competitor modes, especially cars, should be allowed to operate to much less demanding safety standards.
Light rail is, comparatively, discriminated against in other ways, for instance the contribution that utilities have to pay towards renewal of their equipment when this has to be moved to allow for the construction of a light rail or tramway line. Proposals to reduce the contribution the utilities have to make towards the renewal of their assets from 18% to 7.5% have recently been sent to the Secretary of State for approval - this represents a considerable bonus for highly profitable utilities and a most unwelcome additional cost to LRT promoters - representing an additional cost to Manchester of some £5m for its proposed extensions to Metrolink. Can it really be the case that there is only a 7.5% betterment element when decades-old utility services are renewed? Light rail is also subject to planning controls (e.g. over the design and siting of stops and stations) which do not impinge on bus operators.

The obsession of Government/Treasury with minimising capital cost has in almost every system in the UK led to consequences which do not make good sense in the longer term - e.g. the number, size and capacity of the Midland Metro vehicles and the number of stations/stops had to be reduced to get the cost of the project down. The consequence will almost certainly be the need, within a short time from opening, to lengthen the vehicles to provide adequate capacity at a much higher cost than it would have cost initially. Some last-minute cost-savings have led to environmental or aesthetic degradation by effectively tearing up commitments made and design standards set e.g. the design of the poles to support the overhead in Croydon town centre.
Light Rail schemes inevitably cost quite large sums of money because they have to create the infrastructure as well as provide the vehicles (LRVs). However, the cost of light rail vehicles could be reduced if there were not such a proliferation of designs of light rail vehicle. In the last 15 years 25 different low floor light rail vehicles have been designed, with the result that an average of only 46 of each design have been built, so the economies of scale that builders of cars, trucks, vans and buses and coaches achieve have not been achieved and the consequent cost per vehicle has been unnecessarily high, which has not helped LRT projects achieve good cost-benefit ratios and, with marginal schemes, has probably meant that some schemes have, as a result, not gone ahead.

Part of the problem has been each city wanting its own design of vehicle, and each manufacturer also wanting to have its own unique offering. Consolidation in the industry and the encouragement of standard approaches by, for instance, the UITP Light Rail Commission and the trend towards modular designs which can be customised cosmetically (i.e. to look different in city A from city B) are beginning to improve this situation.
The weight of light rail vehicles has tended to drift upwards, with all sorts of undesirable implications for the costs of energy to propel them and the strength and cost of the infrastructure to support them. Fortunately, there are now signs of the latest vehicles moving downwards in weight (towards the desirable weight of something like 30 tonnes for a typical LRV as against the 50 - 60 tonnes of some well-known LRVs produced in the current era). The trend to higher weights has been partly due to ever-increasing sophistication, partly to ever more demanding safety requirements and partly due to the inappropriate influence of the heavy-rail culture on light-rail design.
Clearly, for vehicles to cost more to buy and more to run than is necessary is undesirable and doesn't help the achievement of schemes.

The lack of real strategic thinking in the town planning system of the UK has meant that there is seldom a clear decision by the planning authorities, for instance in Structure Plans, that development is conditional on the provision of high quality public transport provision, such as light rail. Structure Plans have tended to be platitudinous about the desirability of public transport and the reality is that individual planning applications, due to their penny packet nature, have rarely, if ever, been seen to be dependent on the provision of a whole local system of public transit, such as a light rail line. All too often developers have satisfied the planning authority simply by paying for improvements to the local road system (as well as "development gain" sweeteners in terms of community centres or whatever).
The new Local Transport Plans system announced by the Government in the Integrated Transport White Paper promises a remedy to these shortfalls but little is evident so far to suggest that this will be achieved. Indeed the short-term, low-cost focus of the first provisional year of Local Transport Plans give concern that this new system may not encourage the sort of long term strategic vision which is necessary.

Despite these very severe hurdles, the fact that a number of schemes have been built in the 1990s in the UK shows that light rail has surmounted hurdles which other modes do not even have to consider - what could be achieved if the playing field was not so heavily tilted against light rail?


DOCUMENT: (C) Light Rail Atlas, February-September 2002


This document is used for RVDB's study tours and is based on work of Light Rail Atlas.



Naar de WEB-site Light Rail Atlas...

This document consists of 11 parts. Use the menu to jump to the part you wish to view.

Study tours

[or back to intro]

or to the Dublin-page]





1. Croydon (Tramlink), or back to: [intro] [menu]

London has two light rail systems in addition to the Underground and suburban rail services. These are the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and Croydon Tramlink. Both systems have connections to the Underground and to suburban rail services. Croydon Tramlink is fed by bus routes serving housing estates in and around New Addington, an area which had limited access to public transport before the system opened. Where possible, bus and tram stops are placed close together, with step-free access between them.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Croydon, centre, February 14, 2002

"Because Trams Beat Jams!"

In July 1998, John Prescott stated in a Government White paper that:
'In a major consultation exercise, people made clear that the time for action is long overdue. People want more choice, more alternatives to using their cars and more reliable journeys when they do drive. They want a better public transport system that doesn't let them down. They want better protection for the environment, and they want less pollution because they are worried about their health.'
Tramlink meets the criteria stated in the White Paper.
It provides a real alternative to the private car, reduces pollution, improves journeys for thousands of people everyday and contributes to the economic well being of the area it serves.

Less is More
Tramlink's electrically powered trams are energy and space efficient. In fact a 30 metre tram (the length of 6 cars) can carry up to 200 people, and that's nearly 3 times as many as a double decker bus.
A double tram track has more capacity than a dual carriageway, yet requires only one third of the space. Trams use far less fuel per passenger than cars, taxis, and other road vehicles, and do not emit any fumes.

Overhead Power
Tramlink is much less intrusive than conventional railways as it does not need wide sections of segregated track. Our trams can also climb steeper gradients and handle tighter curves, thereby fitting in around existing buildings and spaces. Long stretches of our routes use converted railway tracks which are no longer in use, minimising visual and noise impact.

Noise Impact
One of the outstanding features of Tramlink is the quiet and smooth running of the trams. Powered by electricity wires overhead, modern trams generate none of the engine noise of cars, lorries or other road vehicles. In fact Tramlink has been designed with noise reduction in mind. In order to minimise noise, wheels are lubricated to reduce squeaking and track is continuously welded and mainly set in ballast. At our depot all practical steps have been taken in accordance with the 1990 Environmental Pollution Act.

Air Quality
Existing modes of transport are significant sources of air pollution. Exhaust fumes are thought to cause harm to health particularly to those already suffering from respiratory illnesses. Motor vehicle gases also contribute to global warming - about half the current warming effect is due to carbon dioxide (CO2). The Croydon Environment Audit 1995 estimated that nearly 880,000 tonnes of CO2 are emitted by vehicles in the Croydon area every year. Although the generation of electricity needed to run trams has the potential to create air pollution from the power station, this is subject to strict government controls and trams do not emit fumes or pollutants.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Croydon, TramTrain interchange, Beckenham
, February 14, 2002

Flora & Fauna
In building the Tramlink system, we have kept to a minimum the need to disrupt wildlife. Where trees absolutely had to be removed then replacement planting forms part of the landscaping works. When this landscaping is complete there will be more trees in the area than there were prior to construction. Croydon Council has responsibility for landscaping, for which it has set aside a million pounds, and is undertaking a comprehensive programme of replanting which ensures high standards are met.

Soil & Architectural Surveys
Any soil brought into the Addington Hills area is similar to existing soil to ensure that 'alien' material is not imported. The opportunity is being taken to re-establish areas of heather which have been smothered by recent tree growth. Wessex Archaeology carried out an Archaeological Impact Study to identify and protect all known or suspected remains along the routes - archaeological investigations took place during construction in certain areas.

Discussions were held with wildlife groups and the Joseph Firbank Society on the most appropriate ways of protecting badgers living along the route. Badger tunnels and badger proof fences will ensure that badgers cross safely and with ease.

Creating new open space

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Croydon, Coombe Lane, February 14, 2002

Croydon Council has established 2 new open spaces to replace land used by Tramlink:
Stroud Green Well in Shirley. This 5 acre site was once a playing field but had become overgrown. It has now been cleared and opened to the public.
Threehalfpenny Wood. 6 acres previously known as Addington Soakage Field has been transformed and opened to the public.


Three lines cover the conurbation of Southern London:
1 - to Wimbledon in the west, and a branche tot the northeast
2 - to Beckham (northeast)
3- to housing area New Addington (southeast)
All lines use the single loop in the centre of Croydon.


Opened in May 2000. Cost of construction: £200 million. Tramlink operates in and around Croydon, south London. Line 1 runs between Wimbledon in the south west, where it connects to London Underground, via a loop in central Croydon, to Elmers End in the east, with connections to suburban rail services. Line 2 links central Croydon with suburban rail services in Beckenham. Line 3 serves New Addington in the south east. Feeder buses provide further links in the area.
Operator: Tramtrack Croydon / FirstGroup.
Number of stations: 38, all wheelchair accessible. Step-free access to low platforms and the adjacent streets.
Length of Route: 28 km, 3 lines.
Staff: 181
Fleet: 24 trams, all wheelchair accessible.
· Power supply: 750V DC overhead line.
Partly segregated, with on-street running in Croydon. Many ungated level crossings of roads and footpaths. No track or signal sharing with other railways. Trams use their own platforms in Wimbledon and Elmers End stations.
Passenger kilometres 2000/01: 96 million.
Passenger journeys 2000/01: 15 million.
Passenger receipts 2000/01: £12.2 million.
Future expansion: possible extensions to Crystal Palace via Penge or Anerley, and to Sutton via Morden, subject to feasibility studies and funding.


2. Docklands (DLR), or back to: [intro] [menu]

London has two light rail systems in addition to the Underground and suburban rail services. These are the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and Croydon Tramlink. Both systems have connections to the Underground and to suburban rail services.

"Will move into profit"

Docklands light railway (DLR) is of particular interest as it combined elements of infrastructure funding from increasing land values and profits from subsequent land sales through a quasi-public holding agency (London Docklands Development Corporation/LDDC), which was also temporarily responsible for building and operating the light railway.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
London, Greenwhich, February 14, 2002

After planners had initially regarded improved bus services as sufficient for the amount of additional uses envisioned for the Docklands, it was soon realised that a fixed-track system would not only provide much better service quality, but also be a powerful demonstration to private developers that the government was taking the regeneration program seriously, thus capable of kick-starting the process (Collins 1990, Schabas 1990). The initial 12-km segment linking Tower Gateway, Stratford and Island Gardens was funded at equal parts by LT and LDDC, contracted out in a turnkey arrangement and was built for only A $ 26.8m per km (1998 values), the lowest figure for completely grade-separated alignments (see.
While an early parliamentary vote assured half the capital cost for the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) to be covered by central government, and commitments of developers could be gained towards upgrading and extensions in later stages (most notably a £67m contribution by the now-bankrupt main investor on Canary Wharf, Olympia and York), the railway soon ran into capacity limits as well as technical difficulties with automated operation. Costly replacement of control and signalling systems, which constrained operations over a 3-year period, as well as additional engineering tasks like extending platform lengths and inserting level-free track crossings at route junctions stepped up capital costs which now stand at more than A $ 110m per km, including two extensions totalling 9.5 km. Poor reliability and the necessity to suspend evening and weekend services for the upgrading work had gnawed at DLR's public image and made its cost recovery ratio plummet to a low of 15% when the railway was transferred from the responsibility of London Transport (LT) to LDDC in early 1992.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
London, Docklands, February 14, 2002

Since that year, patronage has grown threefold following DLR's upgrading and extensions and the ongoing intensification of urban activity in the Docklands area. Cost recovery, too, has improved to over 80% in 1998 (Hope 1999), not least assisted by unconventional means like hiring out under-used workshop facilities to private clients. The extension to Beckton, opened in 1994, was made to prove that it could, over time, be funded from land value increases in this then largely obsolete corridor (Collins 1990) - a task facilitated by the fact that LDDC was both the serviced area's largest landowner and the light rail investor, which eliminated the need for complicated taxing schemes or lengthy negotiations with private landowners on funding contributions. Eventually, DLR's service to Beckton started before redevelopment did, thus representing a strong incentive to transit-oriented revitalisation.
A further extension of the network to Greenwich and Lewisham, including an underground Thames crossing, has been contracted to a private consortium in a 25-year concession to fund, design, build and maintain, so DLR operates the route on a leaseback basis.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
London, Docklands, Jubilee Line, February 14, 2002

There are reasonable expectations that DLR's operation might move into profit once this crucial link will be in service for some time. Simultaneously, the Jubilee Line underground extension to Canary Wharf, as a result of an earlier government decision to improve access to this largest urban redevelopment area in Europe, is opened already.
While it had earlier been regarded as a potentially threatening competition to DLR, after the tremendous increases in ridership there is now widespread consensus among operators and policymakers that it brings much-needed relief from DLR's overcongestion and assist both systems to coordinate to mutual advantage.


Opened in 1987, at an initial cost of £77 million. Since the original opening, three line extension projects have been carried out: to Bank (1991, £294m), connecting to London Underground, to Beckton (1994, £280m), to Lewisham (1999, £250m), connecting to Connex Rail services. DLR now links Canary Wharf with the City of London, east and south east London.
Operator: Serco Docklands Ltd / CGL Rail.
Number of stations: 34, all accessible to wheelchairs, generally by lifts.
Length of route: 27 km, much of it on viaducts.
Staff: 370
Fleet: 70 passenger cars, all wheelchair accessible.
Power supply 750V DC side rail.
Fully segregated elevated metro style system.
Passenger kilometres 2000/01: 200.1 million.
Passenger journeys 2000/01: 38 million.
Passenger receipts 2000/01: £29 million.
Future expansion: a new line to serve London City Airport. Subject to granting of powers, construction is due to start early in 2002, due to open in 2004-5.


3. Birmingham/Wolverhampton, or back to: [intro] [menu]

New Light Rail in the West Midlands

Promoted by Centro and the West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority, the £145 million Midland Metro opened in the summer of 1999, it is the first street tramway to run in the West Midlands for over fourty years. Funding for the project was gathered from various sources.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
West Midlands, Wolverhampton, March 14, 2002

The Government gave a £40 million grant and a £40 million approved loan towards the project. £31 million came from a European grant, £17.1 million from the West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority, £11.4 million from the private consortium ALTRAM (who were chosen to design, construct, operate and maintain the system). £4 million came from Birmingham, Sandwell and Wolverhampton Councils in conjunction with the Black Country Development Corporation, £1 million from Centro and £0.3 million from utility services.
ALTRAM is the consortium running the show, having won a 23 year concession to operate the system. The ALTRAM team has been responsible for the construction, design and operation of Midland Metro Line 1. Travel West Midlands was awarded the management contract to operate Line 1 and a separate division, Travel Midland Metro, was specially formed to operate and maintain the new Light Rail System. Travel Midland Metro Head Quarters based in Wednesbury has been imaginatively named the METRO CENTRE (not to be confused with the giant North East shopping mall!)
John Laing plc, constructors of Birmingham International Airport's Eurohub terminal, were responsible for the construction of the track, stops and buildings. Ansaldo Trasporti, the Italian-based rail and signalling supplier, were responsible for delivering the trams, signalling and communications equipment, overhead line equipment and power suplly.

Privatisation and PFI Deals in the West Midlands

Source: Labour Research Department for the GMB (October 2001)

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
West Midlands, Birmingham/centre, March 14, 2002

Introduction of a report which looks at how far public services in the West Midlands Area have been transferred to the private sector.

The report finds that the private sector is now getting more than £200 million a year from operating public services in the area. This does not include the income from two major transport schemes, the Midland Metro Line 1 and the motorway alternative to the M6 between junctions 4 and 11.
It identifies a total of 119 separate contracts from 26 separate public authorities, ranging from the housing repairs to urban planning services to the provision of catering services.
By far the biggest is the £50 million per year repairs and maintenance contract that Birmingham City Council gave Serviceteam in April this year. Together with the £25 million contract given to Accord at the same time, this means that repairs and maintenance for
88,000 council properties are in the hands of these two contractors for the next five years.
This is not Serviceteam's only contract with Birmingham City Council. It also has a £5m grounds maintenance contract running for 10 years. Other companies with more than one contract in the West Midlands include: Compass Group plc, which owns Chartwells and Sutcliffe Catering (UK), has four contracts in the area; We Are Cleaning (GB) has contracts with three authorities and Brophy plc has two separate contracts with Wolverhampton Council. Onyx has contracts with Birmingham City Council and Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust, with the Birmingham City contract worth £25 million a year.
Not all the authorities have provided details on the value of the services carried out by the private sector (see below), but using figures from those who have, it can be estimated that in the West Midlands area these authorities pay some £140 million a year to the private sector to deliver contracted-out services.
In addition, local bodies have signed 9 PFI deals in the West Midlands area, and more are planned. In total these have a capital value of £293 million. On average most larger, long-term PFI schemes involve payments of between 20% and 25% of the capital value per year. (The percentage is higher for shorter more capital intensive schemes, like IT). This means that through the 9 PFI schemes in the West Midlands area an estimated further £66 million is being paid to the private sector to deliver public services.
PFI schemes have been signed by local councils, local health authorities and central government departments: deals include the refurbishment of 10 Birmingham schools; the provision of a new hospital radiology department, and two waste to energy contracts.
Furthermore, there are 2 PFI deals in the West Midlands Area with a capital value of £595 million in the transport sector. These are the Midland Metro Line 1 and the new toll alternative to the M6 between junctions 4 and 11. The precise value to the contractors involved, is difficult to calculate as it depends on usage but the companies involved can count on retums over a long period, 20 years after construction for the Midland Metro Line 1 and 50 years for the motorway.


Phasing of the Midland Metro network development (from the Highh Volume Corridors Study of consultant Steer Davies Gleave (2001):
Phase 1 - Extensions to the excisting line (Birmingham-Wolverhampton). Two branches: from Wednesbury to Brierly, and in Birningham from Snow Hill (current terminus) to the city centre.
Phase 2 - three new routes, from Great Barr through Birmingham city centre to Bournbrook, from Airport/Nec, again throught Birmingham centre to Oldbury, Halesowen and Frankley, and from Wolverhampton to Walsall.
Phase 3- Many options possible. All programmed to open in 2012.


Opened: 1999; Cost of construction: £145 million. Line 1 of a proposed three line system, with a mixture of on-street and segregated running on new formations.
Operator: Altram consortium.
Number of stations: 23, wheelchair accessible. Step-free access to low platforms and streets.
Length of route: 20 km
Staff: 144
Fleet: 16 passenger cars, all wheelchair accessible.
Power supply: 750V DC overhead line.
Passenger kilometres 2000/01: 55.8 million
Passenger journeys 2000/01: 5.4 million
Passenger receipts 2000/01: £3.1 million
Future expansion: proposed extensions further into central Birmingham and to Merry Hill.


4. Manchester (Metrolink) , or back to: [intro] [menu]

The best Light Rail system in the world?

Pete Black (Light Rail Planning Officer, GMPTE)

Metrolink has become such a part of Greater Manchester that if you buy a postcard, the chances are that it will have a tram on it. At peak times trams are crowded with people who used to commute by car and off-peak it is well used by everyone. Metrolink has brought an unprecedented level of mobility to many groups and has even created new markets for public transport. So how and why is Metrolink successful, and what new developments are there?

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Manchester, G-MEX, February, 13, 2002

How did it all start?
Metrolink opened in 1992 at a cost of around £152 million. A design, build, operate and maintain (for fifteen years) contract refurbished two run-down suburban rail lines and linked them by a short section of track across Manchester City Centre with a spur to Piccadilly, the main rail station. A fleet of 26 trams operate a service every six minutes for most of the day between Bury to the north of Manchester and Altrincham to the Southwest over the 31km network.
Metrolink has now reached 13.9 million passengers a year and rising after six years of operation. This compares to the forecast maximum patronage of 12 million, and the 7.5 million annual trips made on the two heavy rail lines before conversion to Metrolink. Detailed monitoring studies have revealed that 65% of Metrolink passengers have a car which they could have used instead of Metrolink and that within the prime target area (within 2km of the line) between 14% and 50% of car trips to destinations served by Metrolink have switched to Metrolink. These alone are stunning successes in a conurbation with cheap and often free car parking for commuters and little car restraint. Even better are the benefits that come from full wheelchair accessibility to many other groups such as parents with pushchairs or older people. Some completely new public transport markets have appeared such as short trips within the city centre, and journeys within the corridor rather than to the major centres of Manchester, Bury and Altrincham.

Why is it so successful?
It is not hard to see reasons for the success of Metrolink. The system is simple and easily understood. Segregated suburban running means quick journeys, and city centre track gives good access to the main attractions and work places. The service is frequent and reliable.
Most importantly the system is safe to travel on, and safe to get to - stops and car parks have CCTV surveillance and "panic buttons". The main problem seems to be the need for extra capacity in the peak hours. Extra capacity would almost certainly take more cars off the road.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Manchester, Eccles, February, 13, 2002

Where are we up to?
Extensions were planned even before the first tram ran and if they were all built would triple the network. Following the financial and transport success of the first lines construction of the first extension through Salford Quays to Eccles is now underway. A new contract to design and build the ?160 million extension and to operate the expanded network including the existing system was put out to tender and was awarded to Altram. Altram is a consortium of Laing (Civil Engineers), Ansaldo (Italian tram manufacturer), Serco (operator), and 3i (venture capital company). The new line will be very different from the existing system. The first section threads through Salford Quays, a Docklands regeneration area. Development has been patchy up to now due to poor access, but Metrolink is likely to lead a building boom. The second section is street running along Eccles New Road. This will serve a significant residential population, a large park and ride site and the centre of Eccles. The line is expected to open in Spring 2000.
Powers already exist for four further extensions to Oldham and Rochdale (24 km), Manchester Airport (21 km), the Trafford Centre (7 km) and East Didsbury (5 km). Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority's top priority is now the scheme to take over the Railtrack "Oldham Loop" line which will involve new street running sections to serve the centres of Oldham and Rochdale. This extension could carry eight million passengers each year. The Airport Extension was approved by the Government in 1997. As well as the huge potential for passenger and staff journeys the line would serve Wythenshawe Hospital and a large residential population in the south of the city. Powers also exist to build Metrolink to the out-of-town Trafford Centre but the Authority believes this line should be funded entirely by the private sector. Compulsory purchase powers are currently being renewed for this extension. Compulsory purchase powers are also being renewed for an extension to East Didsbury. This line is unlikely to be built as a complete extension but the potential exists to extend the line to GMPTE is also awaiting the outcome of a public inquiry held in June 1997 into proposals to extend Metrolink 10km to Ashton-under-Lyne, serving a large residential population, Ashton town centre and several major regeneration areas including the Commonwealth Games site which will have a new stadium.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Manchester, centre, February, 13, 2002

In just six years Metrolink has established itself as a very successful transport system. It has increased mobility for many groups while tempting people out of their cars. It has been able to do this in a deregulated bus environment, with little or no traffic restraint and without operating subsidy. It is an indispensable part of any integrated transport strategy for Manchester.
The success of Metrolink may be partly to do with the size and density of Greater Manchester, and the specific route. Light Rail is an expensive option which can only currently be justified for large cities. But it is a very impressive record, and a clear indication that investment in good quality public transport works. Come and see for yourselves!



Opened: 1992 at an initial cost of construction of £140 million. A two line system with both sections meeting on-street in central Manchester in Piccadily Gardens. Extension to Eccles opened in March 2000, £160 million.
Operator: Altram.
Number of stations: 36. Standard height platforms as many suburban stations are served by the system.
Length of route: 39.1 km
Staff: 303
Fleet: 32 passenger carriages, high floor design similar to trains, but wheelchair accessible.
Power supply 750V DC overhead line.
Partly segregated. Major use of former rail alignments, with street running in central Manchester. Metrolink shares major stations with rail franchise holders.
Passenger kilometres 2000/01: 152.3 million
Passenger journeys 2000/01:17.2 million
Passenger receipts 2000/01: £18 million
Future expansion: three extensions approved using a mixture of street running, former railway alignments and some new alignments. One line will serve Manchester Airport.


5. Nottingham (NET), or back to: [intro] [menu]

The first tram is unveiled at Bombardier's works in Derby on 13 August by Transport Minister John Spellar.
Photo courtesy: LRTA

Nottingham needed an integrated transport system

The new tramway of Nottingham (UK) - Nottingham Express Transit line 1 - has been launched March 8th (2004) by Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Transport. It took sixteen years of planning and more than three years of construction to make this Grenoble inspired tramway a reality. NET is a state-of-the-art tram system, which is successful already. It runs from Hucknall, through Bulwell and Hyson Green and into the city centre, terminating at Nottingham railway station. There is also a spur line to Phoenix Park (just off the M1 at junction 26).

Some history... Back in 1988 Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council came together with Nottingham Development Enterprise , representing local businesses interest, to consider the city's future transport needs. It was clear that if Nottingham's fabric and economy were to be regenerated and the Nottingham of the future was to be a city that remained a great place to live, work and visit then our transport infrastructure had to be renewed.
The overriding principle of these considerations was that Nottingham needed an integrated transport system and that high quality, reliable public transport had to form the backbone of that system. Nottingham needed a public transport system that could move large numbers of people without contributing the problems we needed to solve; road congestion and local pollution. A number of options were considered before a light rail vehicle, a tram, was decided upon as Nottingham's solution. Powered by electricity, well-suited to integration with the city's traffic management systems, clearly of a high quality and economically feasible to build and to run Nottingham's tram would form the ideal backbone to the public transport system of the Nottingham of the future.
During 1994 working through the GNRT company, the two Council's presented to Parliament their plans for the first line of a tram system running from Hucknall, in the former coalfields to the north of Nottingham, right through to the heart of the cityand with a spur line to Cinderhill and attract motorists onto public transport with ample park and ride facilities all along its route. Lengthy deliberations in committees of the House of Commons and House of Lords and the submission of extensive evidence covering viability, public acceptability and environmental impact ended with the granting, subject to a number of Undertakings on the part of the two Councils, of permission to build Nottingham's tram in the GNLRT Act 1994.
Tram systems are not cheap to build - but they are worth it. All utility services must be moved from under the tram route before tracks can be laid and overhead power lines installed. New bridges must be built and new road layouts are needed. You need a fleet of trams and depot in which to house and maintain them. All in all a £200 million investment.
The two Council's invited tenders to build their tram system and selected Arrow Light-Rail from a strong field as their chosen concession company to design, build and operate Nottingham's tram. Arrow Light-Rail comprises civil engineering firm Carillion , rail vehicle builder Bombardier (formerly ADtranz), experienced integrated public transport operator Transdev and, importantly, Nottingham City Transport the largest existing public transport provider in the city.
Arrow's funding to build the tram is secured via a Private Finance Initiative for which Government approved credit in December 1998. Once this PFI funding was confirmed detailed negotiations were embarked upon, in May 2000 contracts were signed and in June 2000 work to build a public transport system fit for the Nottingham of the future began.
The NET Project Team, working for both Councils and based in Nottingham City Council's Lawrence House offices, now acts as client for the project ensuring that what Nottingham gets from Arrow is the best system possible and the impact of construction on the vibrant life of the city is minimised. The team is also managing the consideration of future route options aiming to start work on more lines by the time line one is complete. (2002)

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Nottingham, city centre, May 27, 2004

Design, build, fund, operate and maintain

Arrow Light Rail Ltd is a special purpose company formed to design, build, fund, operate and maintain Line One of Nottingham Express Transit (NET), a modern light rail tram system for Nottingham.
Arrow is owned by six partners, each bringing their own particular skill and expertise to the organisation:
The Promoters of the scheme, jointly Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, awarded the concession to Arrow for a period of 30.5 years, under what is the largest local authority Private Finance deal ever completed.
Arrow have let a 3.5 years fixed price turnkey contract to a consortium comprising Adtranz and Carillion Construction for the design and construction of the tram system. Adtranz are providing the trams, power, signalling and communications systems, and Carillion the civil engineering, track and tramstops.
Arrow has also let a contract to the Nottingham Tram Consortium (NTC), comprising Transdev and Nottingham City Transport, who will operate and maintain the system for 27 years.


Line 1 runs from Hucknall, north of the city, into the centre of Nottingham and its railway station. A park-and-ride site close to the M1 will be connected with Nottingham via a spur at Cinderhill.
A consultant team led by Turner & Townsend and officers of the councils have developed proposals for expansion of the system (mid 2002). They recommended routes for line 2 (Clifton via Wilford) and line 3 (Beeston and Chilwell via Queens Medical Centre).

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Remained tracks of Nottingham's 'Victorian' tramway (closed 1936); at bus depot (former tramway depot)
Nottingham, September 13, 2002


Opening: March 2004. Cost of construction: £180 million (PFI).
Operator: Arrow.
Number of stations: 23 (including 5 P&R sites). Low platforms.
Length of route: 14 km
Staff: ...
Fleet: 15 passenger carriages (Bombardier), 100% low floor, 33 m long.
Power supply 750V DC overhead line.
Partly segregated. Major use of former rail alignments (no track sharing), with street running in central Nottingham.
Future expansion: two extensions planned (Line 2 and 3).


6. Newcastle, or back to: [intro] [menu]

The Tyne and Wear Metro

Track sharing at East Boldon
On the 'main line' from Pelaw to Sunderland
Photo courtesy: LRTA

Newcastle (300,000 inhabitants) is the centre of Tyne and-Wear, an urban region (> 1,000,000 inhabitants) which includes other towns like South Shields and Sunderland.
The Tyne and Wear network is a metro-like light rail system, using newly built track and coverted main lines.
The river Tyne is crossed on a new bridge. There are also short tunnels between Tynemouth and North Shields and between Chillingham Road and Byker. Some grade crossings excist along the branch to the Airport and one at Howdon on the route to Tynemouth. The new Sunderland Line shares tracks with main line services.

The system is operated by Nexus: the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive, which also administers funds on behalf of the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority. Patronage has been declined due to bus deregulation during the eighties. Recently patronage is improved. However, the use during the first months of its operation of the Sunderland extension seems to be disappointing.

Extension Sunderland

Source: LRTA (Iain D.O. Frew, 11 April 2002)

The extension of the Tyne and Wear metro from Pelaw over Railtrack's metals to Sunderland and thence over the relaid line to South Hylton duly opened on Easter Day 31 March 2002. Park Lane station, under Sunderland's bus station was not sufficiently complete and will not open until 28 April, but everything else was ready. At many of the stations the fitting out with metro furnishings was not quite complete and many lack the laminated panels for the walls of shelters, but this did not prevent the stations opening for the new service. Nexus must be commended for how completely they have resigned the entire system to include mention of Sunderland and South Hylton on direction boards etc.

The new service operates approximately every ten minutes - there are slight variations due to the times of Railtrack workings. Services comprise two articulated metrocars and this represents a considerable increase in capacity over the former service. Arriva still run a half hourly fast service from Central Station to Sunderland and thence to Hartlepool or Teesside. The bi-hourly Transpennine service from Liverpool to Sunderland that was to be cut back to Newcastle continues to run though loads are light. The Metro service replaces Arriva's half hourly locals.

The volume of traffic originating at Sunderland is already much higher than that generated by the former service. The eastern of the two old island platforms has been widened and is used by all trains. The northern end is used by Arriva and the southern end by Nexus. A new entrance with a lift has been built at the northern end which means that the substantial pram traffic attracted by the Metro is at the wrong end of the station for the lift. Being totally covered over the station is inevitably something of a dark hole and a great deal more is needed to make it in any way attractive. Fellgate, the first new stop east from Pelaw, is an immediate success with steady traffic all day long. St Peter's in contrast is extremely quiet so far - perhaps BR's decision years ago to close adjacent Monwearmouth was justifiable after all! On the reopened section of the Durham branch, University is building up useful traffic and South Hylton is surprisingly busy. A nearby school is producing substantial traffic. Pallion is quite busy at peak hours but is quiet so far off peak.

The South Hylton services are already overcrowded significantly at busy times - not just the rush hour - and the question of three car trains is already being mentioned. The platforms at all of the new stations can be lengthened to take three cars easily, as can all the stations on the pre-existing parts of the system. The extension is off to a great start and there is so much potential for further growth when new car parks become fully used, and communities rediscover a convenient frequent service on their doorsteps


The future of public transport in Tyne and Wear starts here

Source: NEXUS (25/07/02)

THE Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority has ratified a visionary plan for the future of public transport in Tyne and Wear. Called “Towards 2016”, the plan is the culmination of extensive consultation on the future of public transport in Tyne and Wear by public transport operators Nexus. The opinions of local authorities, operators, passengers and the public have been taken into account when compiling the document. And there is widespread support for the plans which will bring 50 per cent of Tyne and Wear residents within reach of high quality public transport.

Some routes will be served by street-running trams which operate on Metro tracks and some routes may be served by advanced bus systems. Technical, financial and operational experts are now examining the proposals in detail with a view to implementing the schemes contained within the document.

Equally welcomed are plans to make public transport easier to use, and to provide flexible services that operate at times and to places that are determined by passengers. An extended commuter rail network will provide access to jobs for people who live in Tyne and Wear and in neighbouring areas.

Mike Parker, Director General of Nexus, said: “This report heralds a new era in public transport provision. As congestion grows the quality and capacity provided by public transport needs to undergo a step change. The next 15 years will see major projects such as Orpheus rally over the mantle of the Metro, a major transformation of the speed and reliability of our main bus services and new technologies in ticketing and information which will reduce the need for cars for many journeys.”

Danny Marshall, Chairman of the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority, said: “I am delighted that this major plan has the support of our five local authorities. We all recognise that the ‘do nothing’ scenario is not an option. “I will be working with my colleagues in the District Councils in Tyne and Wear to ensure we have a coherent countywide approach to transport issues such as parking and traffic management to promote public transport as a more attractive option.”


Yellow line: Newcastle/centre-Tynemouth-Newcastle/centre-Pelaw.
Green line: Airport-Newcastle/centre-South Shields, -Sunderland.


Opened: between 1980 and 1984, the first of the new metro style systems outside London. Cost of construction: £284 million (outturn prices). Mostly new railway construction under central Newcastle and over the Tyne, with some use of former rail alignments. An extension to Newcastle Airport opened in 1991, and to Sunderland in early 2002 (partly track sharing).
Operator: Nexus, the Tyne & Wear PTE.
Number of stations: 58
Length of route: 77 km
Staff: 606
Fleet: 90 passenger cars, all wheelchair accessible.
Power supply 1.5KV DC overhead line.
Segregated metro style system with some stations underground, and some grade crossings.
Passenger kilometres 2000/01: 229.2 million
Passenger journeys 2000/01: 33 million
Passenger receipts 2000/01: £24 million
Future expansion: “Towards 2016” (street-running trams, which operate on Metro tracks, and quality bus corridors).


7. Sheffield (Supertram), or back to: [intro] [menu]

Is it really super?

The agglomeration of South Yorkshire centred around Sheffield became the second urban region in Britain to reintroduce street-running light rail in 1994. Unlike Manchester's Metrolink which connected two existing suburban rail lines, Sheffield's 29 km Supertram system was developed from scratch, largely without using existing rail infrastructure and involving a high share of on-street alignments, making up over half of
the network.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Sheffield, Middlewood, March 14, 2002

Also, construction and initial operation of the system was carried out by a subsidiary of the publicly-owned regional agency South Yorkshire assenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) and only privatised (as planned) in 1998, four years after opening.
Funding of the Supertram derived largely from a central government grant and regional loans (in equal parts), while local businesses, most prominently a large shopping centre at one of the five branch termini, also contributed a minor amount.
More than in most new light rail cities, Sheffield's Supertram faced an uphill battle among policymakers, the general public, the media and not least the competitive public transport environment. While planning authorities had, after years of studies and debates, gained approval and funding for Supertram as the preferred option to alleviate the traffic stranglehold and CBD decline Sheffield was experiencing, the high level of
disruption to businesses and traffic along the routes during construction appears to have dimmed public enthusiasm about the project even before inauguration.
Other than Manchester's Metrolink which could bank on existing patronage from the heavy rail lines it took over, Sheffield's Supertram had no influence on the kind and level of services bus providers would continue to offer in its corridors and thus started virtually from zero. A number of teething problems had to be overcome, such as the regulation of traffic along the on-street alignments which had initially caused trams to be caught up in congestion, or the procedures for ticketing and cooperation with other carriers (after stationary ticket machines had become prone to vandalism, Supertram resorted to the introduction of on-board conductors which seems to have resulted in a not insignificant ridership boost). While all indications are that the CBD has gained economically with retail sales and building occupancy rates up, revitalisation of other areas along Supertram's corridors appears to be slow and not obviously higher than in parts of Sheffield not served by the system. Above all, the development of ridership has been below expectations for the first few years, though latest figures (post-1996) look more optimistic.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Sheffield, centre & Halfway, March 14, 2002

Not surprisingly, the unfavourable first years of Supertram put an enormous financial strain on the operator, then still controlled by SYPTE. Unbacked running costs and non-trading credits had caused financial liabilities to SYPTE amounting to £115m in early 1998. The agency lost a court case against national government who had wrongly been perceived as contractually tied to bridging this gap. The debt burden resulted in a rather symbolic sale value of £1.5m when Supertram's operations were privatised in that year; the context was the likelihood of council tax increases which would have worked further against the public image of Supertram and possibly of light rail schemes in Britain in general (Harding 1998).

However, since 1998 much has been improved! Supertram is used very well during the last few years. This Light rail is reallly super, as a local newspaper stated. Parts of the infrastructure is or will be improved. Extensions has been planned.


Malin Bridge-centre-Halway

An extra service operates between 9 am and 6 pm from Meadhall to Herdings Park via centre. This third line shuttles between 3 stops in the centre. Trams from Meadowhall turns at Cathedral for direction Herdings Park (and vice versa).


Opened: 1994/95. Cost of construction: £240 million. On-street running tramway with some segregation from other traffic.
Operator: Stagecoach Holdings (from 1997). Owned by South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive.
Number of tram stops: 47, step-free access, wheelchair accessible.
Length of route: 29 km
Staff: 250
Fleet: 25 passenger cars of low floor design, all wheelchair accessible.
Power supply 750V DC overhead line.
Passenger kilometres 2000/01: 38 million
Passenger journeys 2000/01: 11 million
Passenger receipts 2000/01: £7 million
Future expansion plans: route extensions are being considered.


8. Future projects, or back to: [intro] [menu]

Leeds Centre Loop of the new 3-line system

Approval was granted in March 2001 for the £487 million Leeds Supertram and the £190 million South Hampshire Rapid Transit, both of which are currently at the tendering stage and are due for completion in 2006. Three extensions to Manchester Metrolink are also at the tendering stage. New systems are also planned for Bristol (£194m) and Merseyside (£215m). Transport for London is considering four rapid transit schemes in the capital, using either guided buses or trams. A number of other schemes are under consideration or are being developed by local authorities.


9. Blackpool and more, or back to: [intro] [menu]

Balloons and doubledecks

Blackpool is the only 'Victorian' tramway which survived the destruction of UK's trams in the pre- and post-war period of the last century. Still doubledeck trams run along the boulevard. Some of them are called 'balloons'.
In the near future this old tramway will possibly be converted to a real light rail system.

Photo: (C) Light Rail Atlas/Rob van der Bijl
Ballooncar at boulevard
Blackpool, summer 1978


All other tramways in the UK are heritage, museum, or tourist systems (such as Beamish, Crich and Seaton).


10. Links, ofback to: [intro] [menu]

Croydon Tramlink - www.tramlink.net
London DLR - www.dlr.co.uk
London - www.londontransport.co.uk
Manchester Metrolink - www.gmpte.gov.uk
Sheffield Supertram - www.supertram.com
Newcastle - www.TyneandWearMetro.co.uk - www.nexus.org.uk

Naar Light Rail NL...

LIGHTRAIL.NL & Light Rail Atlas
Dutch experts

Urban Design, Consultancy & Research

Dr Rob A.J. van der Bijl

Light Rail Transit Association.
Worldwide Light Rail promotors.


11. Study Tours ,or back to: [intro] [menu]

your questions and suggestions...
LRNL or Light Rail Atlas


Northwestern Europe
Düren - Cologne/Bonn - Ruhr area;
Hannover - Kassel - Bielefeld;
Saarbrücken -
Strasbourg - Nancy;
- Nantes - Paris;
Saarbrücken - Karlsruhe/Heilbronn - Stuttgart;
Belgium coast - Lille - Gand - Antwerp;
Londen - Birmingham - Manchester - Sheffield - Nottingham;
Manchester - Liverpool - Dublin;
Paris - Rouen - Lille - Valenciennes.

Middle and southern Europe
Basel - Zürich - Bern - Lausanne - Genève;
Milan - Turijn - Genova;
Napels - Messina;
Valencia - Barcelona - Bilbao

Eastern Europa
Poznan - Lodz - Warsaw - Krakow;
Prague - Most - Plzen - Brno;
Helsinki - Petersburg;
Moscow - Noginsk - Kolomna;
Kiev - Dnepropetrovsk.

Northern America
Portland - Seattle - Vancouver;
Calgary - Edmonton - Toronto;
San Francisco - Los Angeles - San Diego;
San Francisco - San Jose - Sacramento - Salt Lake City - Denver;
Boston - Newark - New Jersey - Philadelphia - Baltimore;
Boston - Buffalo - Pittsburgh - Cleveland
New Orleans - Memphis - Dallas

Southern Amerika
Buenos Aires - Curitibá
- Rio de Janeiro

Johannesburg - Durban - Capetown (urban planning);

Hong Kong (city) - Hong Kong (Tuen Mun) - Manilla;
Tokyo - Kyoto - Hiroshima.

Sydney - Melbourne - Adelaide

DOCUMENT: (C) Light Rail Atlas, February-September 2002

back to: [intro] [menu]