Manchester Rapid Transit Study, volume 2

Manchester rapid transit study

Volume 2

Study of rapid transit systems

and concepts

August , 1967

OE LEUW, CATHER & PARTNERS - HENNESSY, CHADW ICK , 0 H EOCHA & PARTNERS

Manchester Rapid Transit Study, Volume 2 Study of rapid transit systems and concepts,

Aug. 1967

This report has been digitised by Martin Dodge from

the Department of Geography, University of

Manchester. The digitisation was supported by the

Manchester Statistical Society’s Campion Fund.

Permission to digitise and release the report under

Creative Commons license was kindly granted by

Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives,

Manchester City Council.

(Email: [email protected])

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. 20 April 2014.

HGHWA YS PLANNING SECTION,

CITY ENGINEER I SURVEYOR'S DEPARTMENT,

TOWN HALL.

MANCHESTER, i:.

Copies available from MANCHESTER CITY TRANSPORT,

2 Devonshire Street North . Ardwick . Manchester, 12.

Copyright Reserved.

Printed by The William Morris Press Ltd.

Wythenshawe, Manchester, 22

Price £3. 3s. Od.

Plans based upon Ordnance Survey map reproduced w ith the sanction of the Controller of H.M . Stationery Office.

Manchester rapid transit study

Volume 2

Prepared for

THE CITY OF MANCHESTER

THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

AND BRITISH RAILWAYS

t~UGUST 1967

by

DE LEUW, CATHER & PARTN ERS - HEN NESSEY, CHADWICK, 0 HEOCHA & PARTN ERS

Consulting Engineers

DE LEUW, CATHER & PARTNERS Consulting Engineers

G. C. Ogden, Esq., C.B.E., M.A., Town Clerk, Corporation of Manchester,

Town Hall, Manchester, 2.

Dear Mr. Ogden,

July 31st, 1967.

In accordance with the letter of July 6th, 1966, we have completed the

study of rapid transit systems and concepts for Manchester. The attached

report contains our findings together with conclusions and recommendations.

We wish to acknowledge the assis·~ance and co-operation received from civic,

railway and other government officials, and from private industry. This

has contributed greatly to the Study.

The opportunity to participate in this important project is appreciated . We

would be pleased to answer any queries which may arise concerning the report.

Yours faithfully,

D. B. Sampson

Partner .

{Associate: Hennessey, Chadwick, 0 hEocha and Partners)

.,. Contents

Section 1 Summary- Conclusions and Recommendations ' 1 .1. Background 1.2. General Approach

1.3. The Route 1.4. Conclusions 1.5. Recommendations

1.6. Effect of Reducing Route Length

Se,ction 2 Introduction 2.1. The Report and Contents

2.2. 2.3. 2.4.

Background Working Party's Terms of Reference Study Control

Se,ction J Scope of Comparative Study

Section 4

Section 5

3.1. Study Corridor

3.2. 3.3. 3.4.

Terms of Reference Extent of Study Approach and Report Format

Selection of Systems for Evaluation 4.1. Rapid Transit Systems Considered 4.2. Criteria for Eligibility

4.3. First Selection 4.4. Second Selection 4.5. Final List for Evaluation

Systems Evaluation 5.1. General

5.2. Elements Common to all Systems 5.3. Alweg 5.4. Duorail 5.5. Safege 5.6. Westinghouse Transit Expressway or

Skybus 5.7. Passenger Comfort and Curvature of

Track 5.8. Comparison of System Speed on Curves

Page

13 13 13

14 20 21

25 25 25 26

31 31 32 32

35 35 35 36 36

47

49 49 55 62

68

72 72

5

Contents

Section 6 Environmental Considerations

6.1. Introduction

6.2. Scope

6.3. Disturbance Due to Noise

6.4. Disturbance Due to Vibration

6.5. Loss of Daylight and Sunlight

6.6. Visual Intrusion and Aesthetics

6.7. Existing Street Network

6.8. Physical Nuisance

6.9. Future Development

6.10. Other Factors

6.11 . Conclusions

Section 7 The Route

7.1. General Criteria for Transit Location

7.2. Station Location

7.3. Vertical Location of the Line Between Stations

7.4. Construction at Ground Level

7.5. Below Ground Construction

7.6. Elevated Construction

7.7. Route Location Between Stations

7.8. Evaluation of Attitude and Location

7.9. Selection of Location and Attitude

7.10. Cost Factors

7.11 . The Route for Systems Evaluation Manchester

Section 8 Capacity and Service

8.1. Capacity

8.2. Service

8.3. Operating Statistics

8.4. Improved Passenger Comfort

Section 9 Stations

6

9.1 . Traffic 9.2. 9.3.

9.4.

Station Design Differences Between Systems and Between Attitudes

Fare Collection

in

Page

77 77 78 84 84 87 95 97 97 97 98

101 101

105 105 107 110 115 11 6 117 118

118

127 127 128 129

133 133

133 133

Contents

Page

Section 10 The Supporting Way

10.1. Geology and Soils 149

10.2. Elevated Structures 151

10.3. Open Cut, Embankment and Ground Level Construction 153

10.4. Rock Tunnel 153

10.5. Cut and Cover Construction 155

10.6. Adaptability of Right of Way and Structures 155

Section 11 Capital Costs 11 .1. Civil Engineering and Construction 161

11 .2. Supporting Way 161

11 .3. Stations 162

11 .4. Yards and Shops 163

11 .5. Signals 163

11 .6. Power Supply System 164

11 .7. Property 165

11.8. Services 165

11 .9. Vehicle Costs 166

11 .10. Engineering and Contingencies 167

11 .11. Systems Comparison 167

Se1ction 12 Annual Operating and Maintenance Expense

12.1 . General 171

12.2. Maintenance of Way and Structures 171

12.3. Maintenance of Equipment 172

12.4. Power Costs 173

12.5. Conducting Transportation 174

12.6. Other Operating Expenses 175

12.7. Summary of Annual Maintenance and Operating Expense 175

12.8. Combined Annual and Capital Costs 175

Seiction 1J Effect of Reducing Route Length 179

7

Appendix Contents Figures Index

A Page Page Page

Appendix Special Study of Two-Mile Elevated Route 1.1. Total Capital Costs 18 6.6b. Photo-montage comparing visual impact in a A.1 . Introduction 183 A.2. Procedure 183

1.2. Total Annual Cost (Operating, Maintenance low density residential area (structures

A.3. Capital Cost 183 and Debt Charges) and Annual Maintenance seen at 100 feet and 150 feet) 91

A.4. Elevated System Crossing a Road 183 and Operating Expense 19 7.1. Study corridor 119

A.5. Elevated Systems Along a Roadway 185 1.3. Concept of Duorai l Vehicle for Manchester 19 7.2. Possible station locations in the central area 120

A.6. Stations 185 2.1. Organization of the Manchester Rapid 7.3. Attitude relative to ground level along the

A.7. Environmental Considerations and Transit Study 27 route 121

Property 185 2.2. Route as selected for systems evaluation 28 9.1 a. Cut and cover station 140 A.8. Services 187 3.1. Preliminary route and station locations 9.1 b. Cut and cover station beneath roadway A.9 . Capital Costs 187

30 141

4.1 . Duorail, steel wheel on steel rail 37 9.1 c. Elevated station 142

4.3. Safege, suspended monorail 37 9.1 d. Elevated station over roadway 143

Appendix B Bus Roadways 4.4. Alweg, 'Saddle- Back' supported monorail 38 9.1e. Tunnel station 144

B.1. Introduction 194 4.6. Transit Expressway, or Skybus, centre guided 10.1. Elevated structures 150

B.2. Description of Throughways 194 B.3. State of Development 194

rubber tyred vehicle 38 10.2. Earthworks 152

B.4. Advantages of System 194 4.7. Bingham, rubber tyred on beamway 39 10.3. Tunnel 154

8 .5. Other Features Requiring Additional 4.8. Aerotrain, air cushion vehicle 39 10.4. Cut and cover , 56

Investigation 195 4.9. Passenveyor, continuous passenger conveyor 10.5. Median sections 157

B.6. Summary 196 system 40 A.1 . Route as selected for two-miles system B.7. Supplementary Study 196 4.10. Telepherique, cable car system 40 evaluation 182

4.12. Guided Busway, standard buses with side A.2. Typical sections 184

Appendix c Rubber Ty red Duorail guidance 41 A.3. Elevated Safege station over Brownley Road 186

C.1. Introduction 202 4.15. Starrcar, small battery operated cars 41 A.4. Elevated Safege station off Brownley Road 188

C.2. Description 202 4.16. Teletrans. sma ll car dispatched on fixed routes 42 A.5. View of elevated structures 189

C.3. Comparison of Rubber Tyred and Steel 4.18. Rapid Belt. small car dispatched on fixed A.6. Elevated structure existing development 190 Wheeled Duorail Systems 202 routes 42 A.7. Elevated structure existing development

C.4. Conclusions and Recommendations 205 4.20. Automatic Rail Taxi, passenger self treatment 191 routing cars 43 B.1 a. Exclusive bus-roadways, elevated and

Appendix D Noise Problems, by Dr. Peter Lo rd 4.22. Linear Induction Motor 44 earthworks 198

D.1. Summary 208 5.1. Alweg Switch 54 B.1 b. Exclusive bus-roadways, tunnel and cut and

D.2. Noise 208 5.2. Duorail Switch 61 cover 199

0.3. Measurement of Noise 208 5.3. Safege Switch. diagrammatic C.1. Typical cross section of track 203

0.4. Noise Produced by Systems Considered 67

5.4. Westinghouse Vehicle C.2. Typical track switch installation 203

for Manchester 209 69 0 .1. Noise intensity at grade with and w ithout

0.5. Comparison of Systems 211 5.5. Westinghouse Switch 71

0 .6. Acceptable Noise Levels 211 6.1. Noise intensity at grade, with and without barrier 214

0 .7. Criteri~ for Location of Transit System 212 barrier 81 0.2. Noise intensity at grade versus earth cut

D.8. Elevation Shielding and Cuttings 212 6.2. Noise intensity at grade versus earth cut and and retaining wall 215

0 .9. Conclusions 212 retaining wall 82 D.3a. Noise rating of London Transport 1938

6.3. Shadow cast by elevated structures for Alweg, Tube Stock 216

E Duorail. Safege and Westinghouse 85 D.3b. Noise rating of Alweg monorail 217

Appendix Visual Intrusion and Aesthetics, by M anc hester 6.4. Length of shadow cast by elevated Duorail D.3c. Noise rating of Safege monorai l 218 Co rporation Planning Department 224 86

6.5. Photo ~montage comparing elevated D.3d. Noise rating of British Rail suburban train 219

structures through multi-storey development 89 D.3e. Noise rating of M.C.T.D. Daimler Fleetline 220

Appendix F Visual Int rusion and Elevated Rapid Transit 6.6a. Photo-montage comparing visual impact in a D.3f. Noise rating of London Transport A60

St ructures, by J. P. Bishop, Fellow of low density residential area (structures surface stock 221

Manchester College of Art and Design 229 seen at 25 feet and 50 feet) 90 D.3g. Noise rating of Toronto rapid transit train 222

8 9

Tables Index

Page

1.1. Rapid Transit systems considered 15

1.2. Attitude considered for systems evaluation 17

1.3. Capital cost- 16-mile route 17

1.4. Annual maintenance and operating expense-16-mile route 18

1.5. Total annual cost- 16-mile route 18

1.6. Comparison of systems 20

1.7. Cost comparison- 16-mile and 9-mile route 21

4.1 . Rapid transit systems considered 34

5.1. Design horizontal curve speeds as proposed by system developers 73

5.2. Speeds on horizontal curves with equivalent comfort factors 73

6.1. Common noise sources 78

6.2. Internal noise levels in dB(A) 78

6.3. External noise levels in dB(A) in flat open country 79

6.4. Variation of noise level with speed 79

6.5. Shielding by grass banks 79

6.6. Existing external noise climates 80

6.7. Expected reaction of public to systems at different locations 81

6.8. Obstruction to daylight 84

6.9. Physical nuisance from systems 97

6.10. Environmental criteria for location of transit facilities 98

7.1. Method of travel to stations 101

7.2. Weather conditions in the Manchester area 102

7.3. Basic attitudes and locations 106

7.4. Considerations in selecting attitude and locations 117

7.5. Some representative costs for rapid transit fixed facilities 118

7.6. Mileage between stations 123

7.7. Attitudes considered for systems evaluation 123

8.1. Car and train requ irement for peak period service 128

8.2. Annual in se,rvice car miles 129

8.3. Vehicle requ irements for peak period passengers at two comfort levels 129

10

11 .1.

11.2.

11.3.

11.4.

11.5.

11.6.

11.7.

11 .8.

11.9.

11.10.

12.1.

12.2.

12.3.

12.4.

12.5.

12.6.

13.1.

A.1.

B.1 .

B.2.

C.1.

C.2.

C.3.

D.1.

D.2.

D.3.

D.4.

D.5.

D.6.

D.7.

D.8.

D.9.

D.10.

Capital costs for supporting way-16-mile route

Capital costs- stations

Capital costs- yards and shops

Signal equipment costs

Costs for power supply equipment and substations

Cost of property

Comparison of vehicle costs

Total vehicle cost

Summary of capital costs

Costs as an equivalent annual amount

Maintenance of way and structures

Annual costs of maintenance of equipment

Annual cost of conducting transportation

Summary of basic expenses

Annual maintenance and operating expense

Combined annual and capital costs

Cost comparison- 16-mile and 9-mile route

Cost estimates for '2-mile study'

Capacity of exclusive bus roadways

Comparative cost estimates per 1,000 feet

Performance comparison

Noise levels in phons for various transit systems

Equipment costs

Examples of common noise levels

Tests and conditions

Internal noise levels in dB (A)

External noise levels in dB(A) in flat open country

Variation of noise level with speed on London Transport Metropolitan Line trains

Shielding given by grass banking on London Transport Bakerloo Line

Ideal internal noise climates

Existing external noise climates

Average insulation of building facade

Expected reactions for various locations of transit systems relative to buildings in four different zones

Page

162

162

163

164

164

165

166

166

167

168

172

173

174

174

175

175

179

183

195

197

204

204

204

208

209

209

210

210

210

211

211

212

213

SUMMARY-1CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Section one

Summary-Conclusions and Recommendations

1. 1 BACKGROUND

This report forms Volume 2 of the Manchester Rapid Transit Study and describes a comparative evaluatiion of rapid transit systems and concepts for use in Manchester. At the same time as this comparative evaluation was being undertaken, a study of existing transportation facilities, such as bus and British Railways commuter service, was carried out by a technical group of Civic, Railway and Ministry of Transport officials.

Volume 1 summarises the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report and those made by the Technical Group. It discusses the purpose of the Manchester !Rapid Transit Study and describes the area and its overall itransportation problems.

Volume 2

In November 1965, a report was submitted to Manchester Corporation by Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited which proposed a Safege monorail rapid transit systenn for Manchester. Early in 1966, a decision was reached biy the Corporation and the Ministry of Transport to carry out a detailed investigation of the suitability of all forms of urban rapid transit for a specified 16-mile route, from Manchester Airport through Manchester City Centre to Langley. This particular route was through the area of heaviest demand as experienced on the present bus system. Consulting Engiineers, De Leuw, Cather and Partners, in association with Hennessey, Chadwick, 0 hEocha and Partners, were appointed in June 1966, to evaluate rapid transit systems as part of the Manchester Rapid Transit Study. The Study was und1er the overall direction of a Steering Group composed of representatives of Manchester Corporation, the Ministry of Transport and British Railways.

The major types of systems considered in the Study were: monorails or beamways; duorails, steel wheel or rubber tyred, similar to the London Underground or Paris Metro respectively; and busways, i.e. special exclusive roadways for bus type vehicles.

1.2 GENERAL APPROACH

The primary intention was to evaluate each system on a comparable basis for use on the designated route in Manchester. This would bring out the relative advanta1~es or disadvantages of each system, in terms of quality of smvice, environmental effects during construction and operation, capital costs, and operating expenses.

Terms of reference for the Study did not include estimates of passenger volumes. Demand will be investigated in other studies currently being carried out for Manchester. Estimates

of potential passengers may vary widely, depending on plans for future land use along the route. Because of the absence of any firm indication of passenger demand for this report, each system was evaluated on the basis of its ability to handle peak hour passenger volumes at three levels:

10,000 passengers per single lane or track per hour



The Study thus contains results covering a wide range in the potential demand for transportation along the route. These results will be of value in co-ordinating transportation and land use planning in the Study corridor.

The primary objective of the Study was to provide information as a basis for selecting a rapid transit system for the Manchester area. The Study was widened at the request of the Ministry of Transport, however, to bring out general information on rapid transit systems which might be useful to urban planners for places other than Manchester.

This report discusses the background and scope of the Study, the evaluation of the various systems considered, the effects of rapid transit lines on the environment through which they pass, criteria for transit location and service, station design, features of permanent way construction, and costs.

NOTE:

The costs given relate to the specific route in Manchester and should not be used for calculating the costs of rapid transit systems on other routes in Manchester nor in other cities.

The report also contains appendices which discuss special studies undertaken as part of the overall Study. These include a special study of a two mile elevated route through an urban residential development; bus roadways; rubber tyred duorail equipment; noise problems; a planning report and a report on civic design.

1 .3 THE ROUTE

The preliminary route for the transit system was based on the alignment proposed for a Safege Monorail. The route was reviewed by the Consultants in a general way, to examine its suitability for other systems. It was altered to some extent to improve location, alignment and station locations.

Systems were compared on the assumption that all would follow the route finally selected by the Consultant. Each systems developer was requested to comment on the Consultant's route to ensure that full advantage had been taken of any flexibility in route location inherent in his system.

13

1.4 CONCLUSION S

Twenty-one rapid transit systems and concepts were investigated to examine their suitability for use along a 16-mile route in Manchester. The systems are listed in Table 1.1. Conclusions from the investigation are as follows:

1. Fifteen of the systems considered had not reached a stage of development to justify their consideration for rapid transit use by 1972. The information and test results for these systems, available at the time of writing, was not adequate to evaluate reliability, performance and costs to the degree required for an extensive system as proposed for Manchester in 1972.

The systems eliminated included:

Air cushion land vehicles;

Fully automated individual conveyances, with various propulsion systems. such as conveyor belts and linear motors;

Monorails using an asymmetrical type of suspension with vehicles suspended in a manner similar to coat hangers.

Aerial cable cars were eliminated because of capacity limitations and operating characteristics.

2. Six rapid transit systems have reached a stage of development where there is a reasonable prospect that they cou ld be built and placed in operation in Manchester by January 1972. These are:

ALWEG - Bottom supported monorail vehi -cles with rubber tyres for support and guidance. These run on a concrete beam ;

DUORAIL - Steel flanged wheel vehicles, run -ning on steel rails;

DUORAIL - Rubber tyred vehicles, with hori-zontal guide wheels. running on concrete or wood surfaces;

SAFEGE - Suspended monorai l vehicles, with rubber running and guidance tyres. Concrete beamway with wooden running surfaces;

WESTINGHOUSE- Lightweight rubber tyred vehicles EXPRESSWAY with horizontal guide wheels. These OR SKYBUS run on concrete running surfaces

and are guided along a steel beam ;

CONVENTIONAL- Operated on exclusive bus road BUS ways with driver, with or without

automatic guidance.

None of the above systems is truly revolutionary in concept. All wou ld be propelled by conventional electric traction motors, with the exception of the diesel or petrol engine buses. The passenger compartment would be supported on, or hung from, wheeled axles.

3. The duorail system with rubber tyres, similar to that in use on some lines in Paris and on the Montreal Metro, is more costly in terms of track construction, vehicle costs and power consumption than an equivalent steel wheeled duorail system. The additional cost for rubber tyred equipment would not be offset by improved performance or comfort nor by reductions in noise levels when compared wlrh modern steel wheeled equipment. (See Appendix C)

14

4.

5.

6.

The guided bus system thought to be the furthest advanced in development is the Throughways System. A prototype vehicle equipped with a guidance device and signal equipment had not been developed at the time of this Study. It also remains to be demonstrated that the concept of guided buses, in wh ich the vehicles would operate partly over public and partly over specially reserved, roadways wou ld have sufficient advantages over a fixed route transit system to offset foreseeable disadvantages. This scheme could eliminate transfer inconvenience for some passengers. Exhaustive studies would have to be made, however, to determine if:

Delays encountered on public streets, which are beyond the control of the transit operator, would cause serious problems in maintaining schedules on the trunk route;

Vehicle utilization would be inefficient if a number of choices of origins and destinations without transfer were to be provided;

Passenger volumes in excess of 10,000 persons in one direction per lane or track per hour could be handled; and

The required merging operations for buses, entering and leaving the trunk route at relatively high speeds, could be accomplished with reliabilrty and safety.

The guided bus system was not investigated in detail, in view of the lack of an operating prototype, as well as the need for operationa l studies beyond the scope of this report. However, a comparison of structure costs for guided and non-guided buses was carried out. This showed that through use of a narrower roadway, possible with the guided bus, savings in structure cost of between 20 and 25 per cent could be realized. Operating costs were not investigated. (See Appendix B)

Extensive development is taking place in the transit industry with research and development programmes being underway for a number of systems. Particu lar attention is being given to the six systems described in Item 2 above, since far greater financial resources are available for development of these concepts than for others. It is most unlikely that any other concept will have reached a stage of development within the next three' years, or by 1970, where its use could be considered for Manchester instead of one of the six systems as listed in Item 2 above. It is probable, however, that test installations to demonstrate new concepts wil l be constructed at international fairs and exh ibitions or on test routes of limited length during the next three years which will greatly advance knowledge of these systems. In fact, several of these new developments, notably Aerotrain, Starrcar, Rail Taxi and the Throughways guided bus system, have already reached the stage where runds have been allocated for this purpose.

At the present time, the four systems which could be considered for use in Manchester are:

ALWEG

DUORAIL

SAFE GE

WESTINGHOUSE SKYBUS

TABLE 1.1 RAPID TRANSllT SYSTEMS CONSIDERED

t.1ft.Ji;I\\ 1h ;\\ t•t4 l• ."t}• ·t'J .... to ooi)J ........ . .I

'"°""cllt1 T"r l":Jl~ hour' r ••••- tori •1\t on·~ ~tD\11'111 111

()cH~lUt•<·OI

(AH • t .. . st,.,JQJI le 1.111'-' tll' t((•("1 Vtl<ltll•

(1 , 1$ t11I . ) -"l •:..:•.;;.;<•;__ __ -'-'-'"-' --

F!Xf.P llOtrn. &YSTt:~tS

I, flWflA ll, sr1:u, WIU:t;J,

2. O~'QJIA I J, fctJllOl:.H TVllG

~. S.I FEGt'

1; , 1'11.Ai\Sl "I' 1.Xl'Ht:~SWAV <HI ~Y.l'llll~

1 ~ RI SOHAM

\'111 ' 11u11 , un<hH' l.trcJH'O nr At lt•·1•

":1•t"t.f, rtaou.•.

Tnyhn \vuJl'vo1,

Co11~l•·1u l Ion '·•Pll\~1J ,

l!tt+i•J T1wmtll ()..l' 4dUJ1"4.:Ul C1 .. wp..n.) (t.• . ~.

llrl,rt! .. UU(P:l Ht:)

::h1rYt.!)Ul', S_,irnl~l'\ll' ~

C'he?lll!UH't , llll. ,

~h)Ol l'tHI' I QUl'bN •

l\C:f.l 11HJhUUffU fh.tCll'lL

COl'l>Ol'1t~ton 1 P1 l l l'ihUl"t•h,

i•u . ( U. tC .A\l'<nl~ is ,

Mitchell C.:ons-tructl1o>n K1n11uar MOO\lte Gn mp .ul<I Jlawlu.1 r St ddl ey ).

Col. S . tl . OJ.111<h.aia.

~<'" Y•trl..

8, A.ER<rfllAl \ bOC.~e\.o 1)1 liw~os ti~ l/ o\crot ria1u • roo-la.

(), fl,\SSC~VE\"Oll l1oturl011\'e)'Ol", r.H~J lv•I .

1.u11du11 ,

t o . '11:1JWlllWJQV1' Suy(1l'i\.. , ai•oovut« , P1•1.1 ncu.

11. co1on1 l\UN• Atn.l)'!= Tt".1l-\Plllll"\

WA\' l 1t1111t.t!•L

Ut, m!JOEll fel~... nu-oiJ15h.· •Y-= Trou1>port 1'1\ Y M•t ted.

IJ, W I OLV IJUS- h,l~·irQ, .\ . 0, ,

""'' 1.llr'l('h .

J.I. l'ONVtt:'l l tl~i,\L Vul'tu111 OUSES

SELEcrt Vi RtXJTli H\'!-""1 UIS

l"i1'J"' Uuul 011 •l"t.L Nl1u,.~rom; 111 tnlh! lm1 '•tll. I.It• 'lfh ~\l\.t•ri. . 111 lffi(' tm• lli~llY YI n11.

1tuhhci1• ~yro,. 1111 "tf\ltl- l u Ht>O )•' l1.1t·• 11 101 lvll

l"l l 'Uj\11.-uv . l·h1111lu• lt~AI "' · '"\f'l" 14Y '""' IU f+IM l1li1I ti\" f\ lllt: ui1t iflll! \!1111l 1c •• J u111.•U1•1J

t1r141111i.. ~"'' lLt_ll ·ilh~ul I I O+ loJ'.>c ... r l90fi. t 111-1 lL J4, 1.1 .... n1·u. ~(t•~.

s11.,11...1t1ltht 1lmwr 1 •' , 't\'l\h n•'•'•a l\tv. flt.•\.ll"lt tllU\Ul·a .

l'nll1\t\'rl4~ •I full •t.ilt

t'U ()11(.•- Jlll t.; hltl trait Jtl l'1",,ll.:L 0

!i.-d1llu·b.1i.). M\IJ'<l .. 't- l'olJlh l 1 t ·h t,;I t._.l l)

c-tt \:~11\0l'•ll. VJ w~- 111 lnl"-t.-llot\l1,.t• ttt

••1, Hll t\lbbor ly1-e~ . t;-1.!.:&t.t.h. , Tlff.)W Ot1•I

l'h•,11 It •OlHJ"th , 1i\erwl Ill~~· l•IH 1~·r•1.

M~11n11o1• .

Chn 'rl1 1 .. ot.vr .. .

1tubl1v1•-\ )'I u I \lull I t. 1 C-:1

1\ll I" llt$ '~ L l'OQdWla)' b

ruut t'N l11.m111 t:Hl tl ancO.

Elut.l)"h mouu-11 .

101..->-IU Ii.: eilt \ ulvd ~ru1 • 1ill!J fltl l -$L.1Jlt..+ JWt)\.d"

tvr~ 0 11 , 11o:11,11u11.rut t un .

Uublar l.)'•U• ,,,, lk\..'.bal s,, pr.ntv'' ' ' · hetAfl"l'rty, aHISlllleM!nleJ hy ,~ont1 u t:t.H1l11n,e hcuu1..tncl ateol ... heel " t a1 h . I ltH.;lr1c .._.,tor •

"l l" \;Ufh lt)h \ Oll.h. h: 1

pt -.>\Ot)IO "llh t.ero '1o!Jlfl<' t.. 11ru1"'thnlli'"h6 .

'S°•> lfUJ\O\ YJWJ QI W.tl Uf'1JDI\

1 wans1 l n :h h.: l•. lraer u.rb .. n ve h l eh- ·fOH•lot" ""' l11}lr.1: ~I unsortnt 11\

f+r'&:UC-h \j$\01"11: <'Ill ,

l.'unll1111i;,1tt 1111~!'Un~u1· X1.l 1nuiot.y11e . ( 11!1\lCl)tO I' ")' .. tt.tlll \', Jth

C'lUl"ll'l~· "1!•11 01'1'1 •

f ri\Jlfl •'fl t' ~)'lllllt!I, l!ft U M.! 1Ul 1 111lt~Ui 14 1' tt

JO:lu~ll•h. 1!hHHl'P1 , r •l>I' nurny \• t nr,

!';t:m·lqr,1 ho•t-.. "''" ;ddo het.-"' Qn11t111n• "' · llJl'fi"f'I 111 t~ln.ll 11n~h1t_ .

''"' ,,, n., ... t_ .. 1•11 PrototfP"" iq t•,.lr'" f.)f .. v,11.i11lt.•l \icnlt• deve lop;iellt , •llh

SflU•t1fl1V tl•\H.t!, ;UifiiSt~QC:.C! lrO'l l'. tt. Ott t I 01 1otrtrh\ cl~. Go\•ern~C!n.t.

:ili.1lhh1rtl l\U •lilt ~Ul\i.llin\.Hl\.:1 .11h'. ,.,.,

wJtO-.:hJ I .:lHUh11( llO\h.6 , ~111tl\..~1uutl'· ~IU\'111•\:l l t111

Uluvc:t ,,i. l"U\l'dl u11u-111it , U:t· t1 l(.tt.tl11m \Ii \l+tlllh\..•t • •

Mu nnNI \'~l11t.'lCI" u11 ~JC- ~.,u+•tH'llU to fi'o'e·1+"'i.. , IHI\

1,.' lll lolVll l'OOiJ'A~>·• , (JI - tllO~I l)' U8 l!Xl)rl!¥111 IJ\l)l't1,

" l'IHltt , olo\1ntu11 n1• In t 11 91DU!tJ tro U au. euhwoy .OJvtio l tnt •~t n>l

eu1:l nut1 o r 1dol1t r lL• OIOI Ol''f,

"0-31• tl.J•. ll .

... .. l•• "·I'·"·

Ku 11 11 •1

tli! ... p.b. (Mo r~ 11 )

~,. 1tut 1.1.

j(• , {111(1 l" u111 rn111

ht,\!1 111

.i,h(!t) 1.U

J 1') 10CIO

10,on1•

\Q lhl'I,

~1,(!(t0 I 11

:<O,t11tt1

:!'J-.JO •l•i~nthni.; ~.r•1'41 • •• on •llOC1n.: • .ll.OCIO

1fafliil{D O(

.. lat1u1\ "lot• "" tt:rmlru 1~.

~H-·ttl ttt . 11, h. 1Ju putnl \ h '1, 011

dJlaC1 111: uml Jt:flJti;n 01 t>Lu l ~on tlt. llll:J ,

\u 1L1lo.

5,1100 111

.:6, 0l!(t

l~. ST,\ RRCAR AJlle ll seu-1 r a.nsil ll'uHvutu:al aa..all llatt• Protol)'l:.t'! t•J u,r 011 Joll-011- 6U •.p. b, • 2A,u(1t1 111 "

t;).l•tJlt or1-oror11i\0tt \:Ir.. • l. ratton •uh ·t"..:t to1' uf W1•111hleo oo '-Ul 11troul~. t.rack 2(1() It , lonr.SrH~ "r 'flUCla\ otc.>ctrllJ<'d b.:tnn •c:' n·c:lj: d•u.•lv1.if\J, troc.•,.o; . £14•rt rte '"".Olorr; .

16 , TEl.f.''MIM~ 1"\:letron5 , A IHVhiiun Cm1"oi1t or •aw.LL \:..ar:. Broc.huro :m41 ro .. ·tl-011 ouh" la •.J•.h. • s l,f!Ofl •

uJ: Tr adel A:;~octates, d1.w~lcl~.HJ 11nd routed luc , At Jlittrl•U ' • c.·o,..:1nd , 0;1

f.t>i:tt1 l •mHtta .1.1noru t'lfH lrh• l"OtlJJ •

17. MOtilJC/\fl t . O, Ha l ton, lJa lluti, C1•111.·4.1pt or ·1~,,1 1 l o1·s F'1 1;..t1>1.h>1H1i r.101UH'ltll u11&v. :.!H ~\.J'f ,h. 1', .MO

IH, l\APlll owr

!'O, Mil">'li\'IH' llAJL 1AXI

'l'CX•Ui' . J JIVC'RI n r ant.I

U. t;U!,.)na.. Tm·onlo 1

n''\i1tlt11L

jJ 111 11•Lt.:horl l'llJ t'UU \.Utl

11l J>!,lf rm~ · ,. comma nd , or\ I IKCO t \)UlOh ,

~h:vtrJ<" r-u\Ot' "•

Con··•tH of tiri•J l 1,;.ur.s Cnnll.\jll Ohl). di .. r-at• IH•ll •• nn root--d lll 1 i.tron•• Ct.It' on•I, t-~l thc•I ttJ\l\V,. 1 \UJht~ t le u ac otor cunvt'vur t•eat l•t't)1 J\,.lnl~ un 3lh ,, ... ~k .

~ '"'"•chusttq; lJl~t Hutu lt-lf\iU tn v~;uc. h: t·niu·c.rt-r t.:on\..tlJ•l v.ih. 11( Tt••·hriut\Jl!y. ror 1v,,lun1l f'AJbltt. lroot

P•>l'lo\ h•IL Clv\olor~-·d ns Studont rr<1 JQ«"t 11\ MI T Vorl11U11 J!J'U1111l hlll

lh'Ullh l. l ocu•trn l I l1t(l1'l11.trl ni; Cu.Ltrl.

1.1.11;kllt:••i.1 Att•c.: l'1U t be\ h:.u Coqr,

f',1111 111 t( t1L'.1'1· " l '" 1• t+1or'''}1-t.• Ii\ .it"

1\111 • '" o ll(~~I'\ HIHn , th'\l'l•l\.011 'l'llh I h

fil\lt'l"•..: 1. ·L111t.1w1 ( Oht1011v11 ""''''' ·lllll),,Wt rrn I>)' 11vudw~tl 1 lut.11•1• 11(•.0"11· u.~.011vQrn~,11t.

j•hl,•tj jl di 11

lwm"''' tll .,. Ill Ol.J!> t•rw.u11011.1l H•'l"tll

tlhf1,Hth4'tJ 1.U1 1J S'OtU tol 1>11h. ,., 1 ., ron 1 1- U11iGoUJ1t 1

~· 1u:nJ 1·t·••tn,, f'ltr1.l11L •1h .. t"f,

illll ,1·,11 '

\1l1C 11) \.;-- ~· ut \.dthh

... ,.ruru'i~I lur d'llt:1"''' :.~1)t t •tt ,u., .. .

11 1r1.1 1 u,

I 11 • h y..,, h.o~ "'Ith

..tJ•rJ 1 "' 1ut.

~tt•dV I ltt· n1,11l irnt ~ 1m 111 \l.\11~·h,."ll"' 1•,

f'IUllY ' " I 11ri)1\ l\'llt 1"11

iii 'I 1111 li 1~10t.u1• ,

t11•h 1•11' 11'1llh••fi1111

lu !J..uH"l' ·tta.

hill) IVt. .1t·Jlll t .>I l•I) t-. \!\1-.:htrtl1.:r.

t ttf!t lfrnlt.c ln.,.

llHlnt: 1 1.dOb11l~f'l.fl,VU1.

tH•itlv rm· 1t11d lo 1th•11

J II !.l(i. IH.lhO~ l t.> l,

HhtllHlF

t \' J1ul1 - J111

1>rC'lUl)'f': 1Po1• urh.1·• ltan ll

J:l l !'\llhlll

i'J'1Hot\,·t,

Ot'I0 1'"lJl\1 f.'hlll'CH.lulhU Int n ••l ,;;ldlnlth•,

t;J l iJIHJh• • •IO

rr{\f<"ll< .

MwJv tur ~ent.hC.'°10\,

f»Yh.C!i Meded 111 " '

~ln('l1· •·ldlllun t.i -· ftlllr-•lo,elu~J lr.Ju!.11

\.~Mt. I•.

I. l ~rUl1111Ut - llt'

l'r'-'' •H"1µt.;.

• h•llV ti .. I I )'ill-.-' .. i..t.•

1h>vo l oph·U>ll ut· .-~ ulll!'fh1\.0 1,nutlon IJ llt•\e.n

tlul l'l1Jt 11 i,:. llhH'OQ hl

llQ 1 l'VI.

l t 1&11balc - ••t .. ct ic .. iu 1-

J l1 4't •V.tlt.'ill! 1101

1tll~u11lulv 1..-•hCH I 11 tlate- .

(.I U:S~U.Jlt: - ttt> l''c.'1\0•

I~) €·, \.Ullle5)l \)f11) ,

1dJ1 l lll•I• - •••hi 1 jl

11\I\'.

' fl a f 1 Ill •f I ,,,,.

t'l llf\jl:•h· ... nu prul.1>LVll'I.

t U1"J1i~t• -I II t•I t•\olv••·

15

r 7. Passenger comfort in terms of seating arrangement,

noise levels within the vehicle, interior finish, ventilation and heating can be made of equal quality for all systems. This also applies to station design.

8. Vehicle riding quality and suspension characteristics may also be made similar within fairly close limits. There may be some tendency for the rubber tyred vehicles to bounce on uneven sections of track and for the short wheelbase Westinghouse vehicle to 'shimmy' at high speeds, however, these features could be investigated and probably rectified in pre-acceptance trials.

9. Vehicle performance in terms of acceleration and braking would depend on acceptable passenger comfort levels. All systems could achieve the desired level of performance to meet these criteria . The average scheduled speed for the Manchester route including station stops would be 25 to 30 miles per hour. Top speeds of 60 miles per hour cou ld be attained by all systems.

1 O. Conventional signalling techniques could be applied to Duorail and Safege. In the case of Alweg and Westinghouse, however, less common techniques have been suggested and it was not possible within the scope of the Study to thoroughly check the integrity of these signalling methods. It has been assumed, however, that all systems are capable of being signalled to standards acceptable to the Ministry of Transport.

11. The Safege system could negotiate sharp curves at a faster speed than the other systems, since its pendular suspension gives equal passenger comfort at higher speeds.

The experimental Turbo Train, a steel wheeled duorail vehicle being developed for intercity use, employs a new type of suspension linkage. If successful, a similar device would permit bottom supported vehicles to achieve comparable comfort to Safege at similar speed on curves.

The Safege vehicle has not been operated in trains of more than one car. Pre-acceptance tests would have to be carried out on a train of vehicles, therefore, to ensure that oscillations are not induced when accelerating and braking while negotiating curves at speed. Oscillation of the prototype Safege vehicle at stations is not acceptable for safety reasons, but could be eliminated according to the licensee.

12. The reliability and safety of steel wheeled systems have been proven by many years of actual use. Of the other systems, only Alweg has had substantial operating experience, during whjch its record of safety and relia bility has been satisfactory.

16

Both Alweg and Safege provide less convenient passenger escape facilities in the unlikely, but possible, event that vehicles must be evacuated when stopped on an elevated structure. Fold out ladders or aircrah type escape slides are proposed by the developers for this purpose. Catwalks for train evacuation could be provided readily on elevated Duorail and Westinghouse structure.

It would be more difficult to do this with the Alweg structure and very difficult to provide on the Safege structure.

13. The Westinghouse and Safege test programmes would have to be expanded before either could pass preacceptance tests essential for the extensive system contemplated for Manchester.

The test track should include curves, and permit operating speeds similar to those proposed for the Manchester route. This requirement is not unreasonable when considered in the light of the multi-million pound investment involved in the transit facility.

Both Alweg and Safege have acceptable switching devices, although these are more complex and expensive than Duorail switches. The Westinghouse system has a design, but no switching device in operation at this writing. Switching on the Westinghouse test track is accomplished by means of a transfer table, a section of track which is moved laterally. This is not acceptable for an operating transit system.

A test installation would not be necessary with Duorail since there is a tremendous background of experience as well as existing tracks which could be used for vehicle tests. The Alweg vehicles proposed for Manchester are of a new design, but these vehicles could be tested on existing Alweg installations.

14. Field tests would also have to be made of the ability of rubbertyred rapid transit vehicles to climb steep gradients as well as to stop consistently in safe distances when operating on running surfaces exposed to the weather. Such tests would be essential before setting final profiles and safe signal spacing for these systems. There is little need for, and little advantage in adopting steep gradients on the Manchester alignment. Only minor savings in construction cost could be realized through increasing gradients above four per cent, the standard adopted in the preliminary route location studies.

15. A major factor in this Study was the consideration of effects on the environment when placing the systems in other than an underground attitude. The main factors considered were disturbance due to noise and vibration; loss of daylight and sunlight; visual intrusion and aesthetics; physical nuisance; and effects on existing street networks and future land use development.

It was concluded that in terms of noise, visual intrus ion and loss of daylight, there is no significant difference between the systems. The major impact on the community would result from introducing any form of elevated or open transit structure into the environment, irrespective of its aesthetic qualities. It becomes somewhat a matter of professional opinion to define the differences between systems.

Duorail and Westinghouse would provide greater scope for imaginative structural design than either of the two monorail systems, with their fixed beamway shapes.

The noise levels produced by all systems would be less than motorway or trunk roadway noises, and would range between 80 and 90 decibels on the A rating scale, 25 feet from the tracks. All of the systems considered could be further quietened by using special techniques. Recently developments in silencing steel wheeled equipment indicate that in combination with welded rail and resilient track pads, steel wheeled equipment generates little if any more noise than rubber tyred

16.

17.

18.

19.

equipment. These developments include resilient wheel inserts and the use of plastic materials fixed to the wheels.

The Duorail system is compatible with the existing B1ritish Railways network serving Manchester. Thus it cou ld be incorporated in any scheme which contemplates joint use of tracks by British Railways equipment andl the transit vehicles.

The bottom supported systems, and particularly Du1orail and Westinghouse, provide a platform which is like·ly to be more compatible with new concepts using air cus:hion and possibly magnetic lift principles than the Safege system, which uses a unique hollow beamway desi1;:ined for suspended vehicles.

This adaptability could be an important feature in view of the rapid advances currently being made in transit technology. It is conceivable that within 20 or 30 years, it might be desirable to replace the initial vehicles with a new and improved concept.

The monorail systems together with Westinghouse Skybus appear to have captured the public interest to a greater degree than steel wheel duorail. The duorail vehicles proposed by British manufacturers for W>e in Manchester are ultra -modern in concept, comfort, and appearance. They should not be compared with obsolete equipment currently in use. A suitable public inform:ation programme would do much to dispel any tendency to associate duorail equipment with the older rapid transit installations.

The 16-mile route selected in Manchester for systems evaluation and costing was based on high standards of engineering, environmental, and design criteria. Costs could be lowered by reducing either the design crite1ria or length. The route was developed for systems evaluation and would be subject to modification in any later and

more detailed functional planning studies. The suggested mileage of underground, elevated and ground level construction is shown in Table 1 .2.

The use of elevated structure through the City Centre received serious consideration in the Study, in view of the advantage claimed for monorail in this attitude, and was rejected in favour of underground construction for environmental and practical reasons. It is unusual to find a continuous corridor through a city centre, except over existing streets, which could be used as an elevated transit route. The time schedule for redevelopment schemes would have to be specially programmed, before an off street alignment could be obtained which would allow a transit facility to be built within a reasonable time period. This cou ld be difficult to achieve in practice.

TABLE 1.2 ATTITUDE CONSIDERED FOR SYSTEMS EVALUATION

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION

Elevated Cut and cover Tunnel Open cut At grade and other earthworks

Total

LENGTH IN MILES

5.0 5.7 1.6 2.5 1.3

16.1

* Note: Safege wou ld vary slightly from the above as follows : Elevated structure, 5.5 miles ; open cut, 3.3 miles ; at grade, nil.

20. Capital and operating costs for the 16-mile route are shown in Tables 1.3 and 1.4 respectively. Total annual costs are shown on a comparative annual basis in Table 1.5, The information given in the Tables is summarized in Figures 1.1 and 1.2.

TABLE 1.3 CAPITAL COST - 16-MILE ROUTE

ALWEG DUO RAIL SAFEGE

Design Capacity 10,000 Passengers per Hour

Fixed facilities £46,800.000 £43,700.000 £54,300,000

Rolling stock 3,100,000 2,300,000 5,200,000 Property 7 ,600,000 7,600,000 7 ,800,000

Total £57 ,500,000 £53.600,000 £67,300,000


Fixed facilities £48,900,000 £45,500,000 £56,300,000 Rolling stock 6,000,000 4,500.000 10,200,000 Property 7,600,000 7,600,000 7,800,000

Total £62,500,000 £57,600,000 £74,300,000

Design Capacity 30,000 Passengers per Hour Fixed facilities £50,300,000 £46,800,000 £58,000,000 Roll ing stock. 9,000.000 6,700,000 15,300,000 Property 7,600,000 7,600,000 7,800,000

Total £66,900,000 £61 ,100,000 £81 , 100,000

*Westingho use rol ling stock costs based on prices in the U.S.A.

WESTINGHOUSE

£43,300,000

3,900,000*

7,500,000

£54,700,000

£45,500,000

7,800,000 *

7,500,000

£60,800,000

£47,000,000

11 ,700,000 *

7,500,000

£66,200,000

17

TABLE 1.4

ANNUAL M AINTENANCE AN D OPERATING EXPENSE-16-MILE RO UTE

ALWEG DUO RAIL SAFEGE


Annual expense £ 850,000 £ 810,000 £ 940,000


Annual expense £1,280,000 £1,070,000 £1,480,000


Annual expense £1, 760,000 £1,410,000 £2,040,000

TABLE 1.5

TOTAL .ANNUAL COST -16-MILE ROUTE

Annual Maintena nee and Operating Expense plus Debt Charges•

ALWEG


Annual maintenanc~ and

operating expense Annual debt charges

Total

£ 850,000 3,630,000

£4,480,000


Annual maintenance and


Total

£1,280,000 4,000,000

£5,280,000


Annual maintenance and


Total

• Interest at 6%

1.1 £80,000,000

£70,000,000

£60,000,000

£50,000,000

£40,000,000

£30,000,000

£20,000,000

£10,000,000

0

£1,760,000 4,330,000

£6,090,000

DUORAIL SAFEGE

£ 810,000 £ 940,000

3,380,000 4,280,000

£4,190,000 £5,220,000

£1,070,000 £1,480,000

3,670,000 4,800,000

£4,740,000 £6,280,000

£1,410,000 £2,040,000

3,920,000 5,310,000

£5,330,000 £7,350,000

----------©--------~--~ ~ ----::::-----------:::-------- --- ___ .. ------- ---- ----___ _.---=------- ---©------ --..-:::-------

Legend - A - Alweg D - Duorail

S - Safege W - Westinghouse

I 0,000 20,000 3 0,000

Passengers - Peak Hour Capacity

WESTINGHOUSE

£ 880,000

£1,320,000

£1,800,000

WESTINGHOUSE

£ 880,000 3,470,000

£4,350,000

£1 ,320,000 3,920,000

£5,240,000

£1,800,000 4,330,000

£6,130,000

TOT AL CAPITAL COSTS

18

1.2 £ 9, 000, 000 PER ANNUM

£ 8, 000,000

£ 7 I 000,000

£ 6, 000,000

£!I, 000,000

£ 4, 000,000

£ 3, 000, 000

£ 2, 000,000

£ ',000,000

TOTAL ANNUAL

COST

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE $OPERATING EXPENSE

20,000

Passengers -- Peak Hour Capacity 30,000

TOTAL ANNUAL COST (OPERATING, MAINTENANCE AND DEBT

CHARGES) AND ANNUAL MAllNTENANCE AND OPERATING EXPENSE

1.3

CONCEPT OF DUORAIL VEHICLE FOR MANCHESTER. PREPARED BY

ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES AND METROPOLITAN CAMMELL

19

The costs given in the Tables relate to the spiecific route

studied and should not be applied to other routes in

Manchester nor in other cities.

The conclusions resulting from the cost estimates are as

follows:

V ehic le

Duorail would have the lowest total vehicle cost

Fixed Faci lities

Duorail and Westinghouse costs would be least when

considering the entire 16-mile route. Costs for tihe elevated

portion of the line would be least for Alweg and next lowest

for Westinghouse. The low structural costs for Wnstinghouse

are not inherent in that system. They could apµly •:!qually well

to other systems if low axle loadings comparable to those

for Skybus were adopted.

The cost of fixed facilities and property wou~d not vary

significantly between a system designed to handle 10,000

and 30,000 passengers per hour.

Commo n Items

Costs for services relocation, stations, power supply, signals,

and property would vary to a very minor degree between

systems. Such costs are not relevant, therefore, in systems

evaluation and comparison.

Annual M aintenance and Operating Expe1nse

For the three design capacities considered, annual main

tenance and operating expenses are the lowes1t for Duorail

and highest for Safege.

Two of the items which make up these expenses, mainten

ance of way and equipment, are extremely difficu lt to estimate

for systems with little operating experience to use as a basis

for costing. In fact the costs for these items vary widely for

existing duorail systems, depending on the quality and policy

adopted towards maintenance. The method used in assessing

these expenses for this Study was to relate the maintenance

work to known Duorail costs, as a standard, and either add to

or reduce costs depending on the complexity of each task as

related to a similar operation for duorail.

Power costs would be least for the Duorai l and the lightweight

Westinghouse vehicle. The rubber tyred systems have a

greater rolling resistance to overcome which would increase

power consumption by at least 1 5 per cent, when compared

with a steel wheeled system with equivalent performance

and load.

Crew and supervision costs were assumed equal for all

systems.

1.5 RECOMM EN DATIONS

It is recommended that a steel wheel on steel rail duorail

system be adopted for rapid transit in Manchester. This

system would have a lower capital cost and would have

simi lar, if not lower, operating costs than the Alweg, Safege

and Westinghouse systems. The duorail system would equal

the other systems in terms of vehicle performance and

passenger comfort. It has the additional advantages of being

thoroughly tested and proven. Ouora il would be compatible

with the existing British Railways commuter network serving

Manchester. should joint use of tracks prove advantageous.

TABLE 1.6

COM PARISON OF SYSTEM S

ITEM ALWEG DUO RAIL SAFEGE WESTINGHOUSE

Development status In operation In widespread One test track One test track

at 5 location's use and vehicle three vehicles

Safety Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptnble

Reliability and operating experience Limited to 5 Fully known and Limited to test track limited to test

Locations understood track

Switching device Yes Yes Yes No

Compatibility with present Not compatible Fully compatible Not compatible Not compatible

railway systems

Prospects for adaptability to Fair Excellent Poor Good

future concepts

Testing required Vehicles only None or minor Extensive for Extensive for

vehicle testing track and vehicles track and vehicles

Environmental effects- Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

elevated or in open depending on depending on depending on depending on

location location location location

Maintenance and operation Costs nnd Costs and Costs and Costs and

techniques not techniques techniques not techniques not

well known well known well known well known

Ability to handle capacity above Good Greatest Good Limited

30,000 passengers per hour

Source of supply Limited to No restriction Limi ted to Limited to

Licensees Licensees Licensees

Vehicle costs Fairly high Lowest Highest High

Capital cost property and fixed facilities Fairly low Lowest Highest Lowest

Annual operating expense Low Lowest Highest Low

20

The duorail structure would appearto lend itself to adaptability

in conversion to likely new concepts in the rapid transit

industry. Modern duorail vehicles and well designed elevated

or ground level structures would be as acceptable in the

community in terms of disturbance and visual intrusion as

any of the other systems considered. The main impact

would occur when any elevated structure is built. A further

advantage of the duorail system is that the source of supply

of vehicles and parts, track fittings and structural members is

not restricted to a limited number of licensees.

These factors are summarized in Table 1.6.

Any next stage in planning rapid transit for Manchester shc:>uld

include studies to establish passenger demand and the route,

also design standards for structures and vehicles. Det<1iled

soils investigations wou ld be essential. Property requirements

should also be established and reserved where possiblEi for

the transit facilities.

1.6 EFFECT OF REDU CING ROUTE LENGTH

If a shorter route, say between Barlow Moor Road and

Victoria Avenue, nine miles in length, were adopted as a first

stage in rapid transit construction in Manchester, extensions

to Manchester Airport and Langley could be phased in as

dictated by development and demand.

The effects on costs of reducing the route length from

sixteen to nine miles are shown in Table 1.7. Costs would

not be reduced in the same proportion as mileage since the

shorter route includes the sections of expensive property and

more costly construction through the built-up areas of the

City.

TABLE 1.7

COST COM PARISO N- 16-M ILE AND 9-M ILE ROUTE

(Duorail - Design Capacity 30,000 passengers per hour)

Cars required

Car cost

Fixed faci lities and property

Total capital cost

Annual maintenance and operating expense

16-Mile Route 9-Mlle Route Manchester Airport Barlow Moor Road to Langley to Victoria Avenue

146 cars 112 cars

£ 6,700,000 £ 5,200,000

54,400,000 38,300,000

£61 , 100,000 £43,500,000

f 1.410,000 £760,000

21

INTRODUCTION

2.1 THE REPORT AND CONTENTS

This report forms Volume 2 of the Manchester Flapid Transit Study and describes the Consultant's work, con clusions and recommendations in a comparative evalu.ation of new rapid transit systems and concepts for us;e in Manchester.

Volume 1 describes the purpose of the Manchester Flapid Transit Study as a whole, and contains a description of the area and its overall transportation problems. The main conclusions and recommendations from Volume 2 are summarised. It also describes the result of a 'Study of Existing Transportation Facilities', such as bus and British Rail commuter service, and contains conclusions and recommendations as to how these existing public transport services might be improved. This Study was undertaken by a Technical Study Group which included officers of Manchester Corporation and British Railways.

Overall conclusions and recommendations as to further action required in solving Manchester transportation problems are stated.

The organisation of the overall study and the relationship of one report to another is shown in Figure 2.1.

This report. Volume 2, contains information which will loe of general interest and value in .transportation planning iin all urban areas as well as data particularly related to Manchester and its problems.

2.2 BACKGROUND

Manchester is located 200 miles north of London. It is the principal city in the Southeast Lancashire and Northeast Cheshire Conurbation Area (SELNEC), one of the largest conurbations in the United Kingdom. See Figure 2.2.

The city and surrounding area developed rapidly during the Industrial Revolution as a centre of the cotton industry and is heavily industrialised. The population of the SELNEC area is now about 2t million, and the City of Manchester has a population of approximately 600,000. Within a two·-mile radius of the city centre employment is provided for some 278,000 or almost one quarter of the 1, 190,000 workers in the region. About 160,000 persons are employed in the Central Area proper, which is the focal point of retail, cultural and entertainment activities of the region.

~o major increase is expected in number of persons employed 1n the central area between the present time and 1 981. There will be a change in the type of employment in the central area, however, with activities such as administration,

Section two

Introduction

management and service replacing manufacturing and other industrial activities.

Present travel into the central area during the morning peak period is handled by private vehicles, bus, and British Railways commuter services. About 32,000 commuters use private transport, 100,000 use the bus services and 27,000 travel in on the various rai lway lines serving the area.

The transport infrastructure of main roads and railways in the Manchester area has changed little in the last 30 years and, as in other urban areas in the United Kingdom, is not adapted to the recent growth in road transport. especially the private car. Some fine arterial radial roads were built before the war, but their capacity is limited by the intersections and at peak periods these are severely congested out as far as 10 miles from the centre.

A road construction programme is underway, but it is not expected to keep pace with the very rapid increase in car ownership (present level 1 per 7 persons, estimated level by 1981 1 per 3 persons).

The City takes the view that, even in the long term, three quarters of those who work in the City centre will have to commute by public transport. But as car ownership grows, as industrial jobs in the centre are replaced by offices, and as new residentia l areas are developed at greater distances from the centre, the commuter of the future will demand public transport services of higher standards of comfort, convenience and speed.

2.3 WORKING PARTY'S TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Minister of Transport. Mrs. Barbara Castle, announcing the commissioning of the Manchester Rapid Transit Study in the House of Commons of 14th June, 1966 stated :

"I have decided, with the Manchester City Council, to commission a comparative study of the costs and environmental aspects of several forms of rapid transit. including a monorail. It will be undertaken by Consu ltants, and the Exchequer will contribute 75% of the cost. The Study will add to our knowledge of new systems of rapid transit, and make possible a comparison with conventional rail and bus systems. The study will also show the particular costs and environmental considerations of some of the possible ways of meeting demand on a particular route in Manchester, between Manchester Airport, Wythenshawe, the City Centre, and the northern suburb of Langley. More generally, the need for a rapid transit system to serve these areas, and the ways in which this need might be met is under consideration by a Joint Working Party which Manchester has formed with my Department and British Railways".

25

The Joint Working Party was responsible for :

(a) Supervising the work of the Consultants retained to review and compare all possible new rapid transit systems and concepts. The Working Party delegated this responsibility to a three man Steering Group.

(b) Examining ways in which the existing road and rail public transport services might be improved.

De Leuw, Cather and Partners in association with Hennessey, Chadwick, 0 h Eocha and Partners were retained to carry out the comparative study of new systems. Technical

26

Officers of the City of Manchester and British Railways, studied the potential of existing facilities. To maintain good liaison the Consultants were represented at all important technical discussions.

2.4 STU DY CONTROL

Formal monthly meetings of the Working Party and the Consultant reviewed progress, while informal discussions were held at more frequent intervals with numerous specialist officers of the City of Manchester, the Ministry of Transport and British Railways.

City of

Manchester

Secretary Town Clerk of

Manchester

Ministry of

Transport

~ Rapid Transit Study

Working Party

Officers of Manchester, M.O.T. a B.R. Chairman: City Transport Manager

British Roi I ways

I Comparative Study

of new system

I

Study of

existing !facilities

Consultants

De Leuw, Cather a Pa rtne1rs

Hennessey, Chadwick, 0 hE0icha a Partners

I Conclusions a Recommendations

( Volume 2)

I I

Officers of

Manchester Corporation

and British Railways

I Conclusions a Recommendations

Consideration by Working Party

t Working Party's

Overall Conclusions a Recommendations ( Volume I )

2.1

ORGANISl\TION OF THE MANCHESTER RAPID TRANSIT STUDY

27

2.2

ROUTE AS SELECTED FOR SYSTEMS EVALUATION

28

SELNEC AREA

SCOPE OF COMPARATIVE STUDY

3.1 THE STUDY CORRIDOR

The Study corridor, 16 miles long, extends from Manchester Airport in the south through Wythenshawe, Manchester Central Area and Middleton, to Langley in the north. It bisects two sectors not directly served by British Railways commuter rail service.

A route was specified to the Consultant based on a preliminary study carried out for Manchester by Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited for a Safege monorail system. The Consultant was requested to review the preliminary Sa1fege route to examine its suitability for other systems and to make any revisions which wou ld improve location, alignment or station locations. Prior approval of the Working Party was required before considering alternative locations more than 200 ft. from the Safege route.

The main purpose in route location was to select a common route for systems evaluation. Passenger volumes and origin and destination data were not available for this preliminary study but will be produced from the SELN EC Transportation Study. This data, when available, may have an important bearing on the final selection of a rout13 for rapid transit in Manchester. It should be consid13red, therefore, in later and more detailed studies and functiional planning for any proposed rapid transit facil ities.

The preliminary route and station locations selected for systems evaluation are shown in Figure 3.1 .

3.2 TERMS OF REFER ENCE

The initial terms of reference set out by the Corporation of Manchester were as follows:

MANCHESTER CORPORATION

Terms of Reference of Messrs. De Leuw, Cather and Partners, Consultants, to undertake a comprehensive study of the SAFEGE Monorail and other possible Rapid Transit Systems

1. The Consultants should assess the cost of building, operating and maintaining alternative forms of rapid transit system along a route to be specified, and to provide a quality of service and to cater for traffic volumes also to be specified. The Consultants wi II be guided by a Steering Group of officials from Manchester Corporation, the Ministry of Transport and B1ritish Railways.

2. The forms of transport for study will include:

(i) The SAFEGE monorail;

(ii) An urban electric railway with a 4 ft. St in. gauge;

(iii) A reserved track for buses (special busway) ;

Section three

Scope of Comparative Study

(iv) Any other comparable systems for urban mass transport which in the opinion of the Consultants have reached a stage of development which justifies consideration of installation within the next five years.

3. In relation to the SAFEGE monorail, the Consultants will base their study on the preliminary report by Taylor Woodrow, amplified by further technical material to be supplied, on a confidential basis, by Taylor Woodrow to the Consultants at their request.

4. In relation to the urban electric railway, the Consultants wi ll be responsible for advising on the best type of traction system after study of conditions on the route, and consu ltation with the Steering Group.

5. In considering the costs of structures and tunnels, the Consultants should do:

(i) A survey of the whole route to determine, in consultation with the Steering Group of the Working Party, which sections need to be elevated or in cutting, which could be built on the surface and which wou ld need to be in tunnel.

(ii) Cost estimates for the whole route for each scheme investigated with sufficient breakdown to show the cost of representative sections.

6. The Consultants should consider and evaluate the noise and light effects of each system. The Consultants should provide drawings (and if required models) to enable the Working Party to form its own assessment of the appearance of each system.

7. The Consultants should consider all costs of operation including traction power requirements, manpower requirements, maintenance costs, etc. The Consultants wi ll be guided by the Working Party on requirements which follow from the Government's standards for safe operation of public transport systems.

8. After preliminary study, the Consultants will be expected to submit a programme of work aimed at completion of a final report within 10 months. Cost estimates of each phase of the work (based on an agreed method of charging) should be included.

During the course of the Study the initial terms of reference were amended as follows:

1. In view of the absence of any firm indication of future patronage on the route it was decided to evaluate all systems on the basis of their ability to handle peak hour passenger volumes in three ranges:

7,500- 15,000 passengers passing the peak load point

31

on one track or lane in one di1rection per hour.

15,000- 25,000 passengers passing the peak load point on one track or lane in one direction per hour.

Above 25,000 passengers passing the peak load point on one track or lane in onH direction per hour.

The Study will thus produce results covering a wide range in the potential demand for transport along the route. The results will also be of value in co-ordinating land use and transportation studies for the area by providing costs for public transit related to variations in land use intensity and resulting demands for transportation.

2. A special investigation of a two-mile section ·Of elevated transit structure through a residential area and above an existing roadway was added to the study. The purpose of the investigation was to obtain more detailed information on systems costs and the practicability of building elevated structures through such areas in comparison with an underground structure.

3.3 EXTENT OF STUDY

The Study was designed to be of sufficient depth to achieve two basic goals :

1. Assess the major differences between the various forms of rapid transit along a common 16-mile route1 in terms of quality of service, reliability, safety and environmental effects.

2. Provide a preliminary estimate of total tapital and operating costs for those systems considered suitable for Manchester.

The main objective of the Study was to provide information on which a choice of rapid transit systems for the Manchester area could be based. The Study was also intended to bring out general information on rapid transit systems which might be useful to urban planners in places other than Manchester. For this reason the report goes nnore deeply into the general characteristics of different svstems, and into the problems of fitting them into urban en1vironments, than is usual in studies for specific urban areas.

The Study was not intended to develop a pmliminary or functional design. Its main objective was to establish feasibility as a first step in reaching decisions concerning rapid transit for Manchester. Certain assumptions and time saving steps were taken, therefore, as follows:

Costs were estimated in sufficient depth to 1reflect basic differences in the various systems considered. However, those items which would vary to a very nninor extent between systems-such as stations, drainage and diversion

32

of services-were costed only in sufficient depth to give an indication of the order of costs involved . .

Foundation conditions were established from available soils and geological data only. No borings were taken along the route.

Stations and route location were based on judgement as well as on local knowledge of traffic patterns, present and future land use, and highway planning in Manchester.

Typical station designs were evolved, but specific designs were not made for each station.

It was assumed that the feeder system wou ld be similar for any rapid transit system operated along a fixed trunk route in the Study Corridor. Therefore, feeder bus routes and passenger volumes were not assessed.

Design peak hour conditions were assumed to extend over two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening. Ott peak hour passenger demand one way was assumed to equal one-eighth of design peak hour demand. Capacity requirements were assumed to be approximately equal for areas north and south of the city. It was also assumed that all peak period trains would run between Barlow Moor and Victoria Avenue, the central nine mile portion of the route, and that every second peak period train would continue beyond these points to the outer termini at Manchester Airport in the south and Langley in the north. During off-peak periods all trains would run between Ringway and Langley to preserve a satisfactory frequency of service along the entire route.

3.4 APPROACH AND REPORT FORMAT

The initial stage of the Study was carried out in two parallel phases-preliminary systems evaluation and route selection. The final stage consisted of a detailed examination of the systems considered suitable for Manchester, as derived from the preliminary systems evaluation, using the route as developed in Stage I for systems evaluation. The effects of each system on the urban environment along the route received special attention in the Study.

The following Sections 4 and 5 describe the systems considered. The environmental factors taken into account in selecting the final route for systems evaluation are discussed in Section 6. The other criteria used in route selection and the route itself are described in Section 7. Capacity and service requirements considered in comparing systems are included in Section 8. Design of stations and supporting way are contained in Sections 9 and 10 respectively, followed by capital cost estimates in Section 11 and maintenance and operating expenses in Section 12.

Appendices are attached which supplement information summarised in the body of the report.

SELECTIOl'I OF SYSTEMS

34

TA BLE 4.1 RAPID T RANSIT SYSTEMS CO NSIDERED

Copuct ty lo passengers per-AVCl'OKt! sµued

b~tween 'l'01'fft\ nnl !i (Avi·~ . St o , S1,.1oc- t ng o. 75 .. .. )

hour 1>e1' s1.n· Commltant ' s

~ L tcensou or M11nufactu-1-c1·

FI XED RO\ffE SYSTEJ.IS

l. DUOitt\ lL S'l'EF.t. ~11E£L

2. ' DUORAIL

ftUOBER TYnF.

5. ~0 :-t'.AME

6, 'rRANSJT F.XPRESSWAY OR SK\'BUS

7 , DINGHMI

Vnrioort- M<1nuCaclul'O\'S

\'a1'itJt1s , undor J iccucc o! Atl te1• ~ot·d 1 Ft'Qllt;C ,

T1iylor Woud1·uw.· ComiLn1ct ion L lmi ltHI,

RnJ>hl 1'rnnsi l ()l:>\•CloplllCn\. Compun)' (U,K . Rcp1·cs"u tut ivtJ)

S\trveyor, Xenni i,-:cn· & Chenevel'l., Inc . Mont reo l, Qoebec,

Wost ingh0\1se tlt!cldc Corpot·:ation, Pit t&burgh , Po. (U. ~.Agonts -Mttche l l Construction Kinnear Moodie 0.'0\IJl a nd Hawker Siddl ey).

C1>1. S. IL Bi ngha11111 , New Yo•·k.

8 . A£1tOTftAtN Soclete O'Etudes ~le 1, 1 "Ae1·otrain", Pod s

9. PAS5r.NVF:\'On Jlusscnveyor , 1.t111Hcd . London.

10. 'l\£1..EPHEJUQUF: Nuypri c , Cre1\oble, Pr a11ce.

Stolus u f '!l.££. ocve,opoon t

Steel wheel o n fl lCH.tl Nuroot'ous i n s: tu I 1,.pt.1on~ rn''· Elt'cLrl c 11otor:; • .1 1\ ue;c for 11ony }'Cors .

nutiber tyres o n s pec- 111 u!'le in Pods for ton 1-nl rondv.oy , supvte- years . S'e-w JtystcHl'I '" mcnted by Bi lle 1ruhJnnce ?Jonll'Ct'll llpened l,ie11ms und s teel wheel s l •I Oc tober 1966, II. rails. Uc<: tt•:l c lllt.AQ."S,

!)U$ll0Uded fl,tono1·aii, with t·ubb1.n· tyt'O!i,

£tcctric i:notors .

l'rotolyLJO nt tul l scale on one-mi le tesl track t n Pran~e .

"Sulldle- l>ock" s 1.1pfl0l'l- Publ .ic p11b~enger-cnrnt-(ld :t.tonornll, or boom- 1ng inn11lll:1tions J n way, w1lh rubboir tyres . scottJe, Tokyo nnd l;!lcctdc motors. SO\'fH'nl nmu!i«-'111Cnt patks .

Monoboorn . Electdc m>t<J1°s .

Hubbor-ty1·od vu htc lea on spec-lal t•ondwaya centre boom guidance . £lectr ic muto1·s.

No prot.otypo,

Tv.o- mi te ehtvnted tro&:k nnd Cull-sca le pt·otot)'JlO on demonst1·ution.

Ruhbcr tyros cm s pcci.ol No ln"ototy1:ie . bCatW.·ny , s upplemented b.)' ccntt·e J,.'Uidonce bea'llls and s teel whcol s & ralls. Elect ric m.oton; .

Ai r cushion vehiic l t> , µrototypc wl th aero c ng1ne i.. 1u·o1>4Jl lor dl"ivb .

Cont:inuous 1>;i~mcrngcl'

conve)'Ol" sys tem wl th clectl'ic mo1.ort1 .

Col>le car 8)'istom. l!l c ct ric motor n .

No prototype o l a1' urban nnnsi t vehicl tt , lnter urb1rn vehicle devol<>1'1Clen t buing s 11onsored by f'renc h Oove rn.mcnt .

No protoC.)'pO.

In use as funicu l nt·s tor man )' )'ears ..

COMBINED FI XEO ROUTE & COLLECTOR- Olb'TnlDUTOR SYS'l'EMS

l l. OUIDEO nus- Ail'Yo' DYS T r ntu;poi-t WAY J,iri1t:ed ,

St ondard buses with ~o prut.utn.e. side be om guid1Jnce. Olodel 01• poh••)l eJ1ginc.

12. GUTOEU BUS- 'Ihroug:h,.·ny~ 'rt·QnSJ>orL WAY J.imtle\l ,

St. i:1nd;u·d BmiCH- w l lh Pa·ototypc J.n course or mech ulll CU1 ct.!nt1·~ dev@lopncnl, • ' i lh l;Utd unce ~lovH.e. assistance rroc1- U.K. Oic s\.· l or pct rul 1 • .onginc. Qove rnfi'IClll.

Slnnd11rd b u s with t.lanu 1l1C ltffOI' .uiJv-is~a noL

1("10 l one or nc comn1cmda-t r-ack _<:..:i.:;;o•=-----

20-30 m. 1>. h. 30,000 Lo Study rur a1>PJ lco tlon 60 ,000 in ManchQstcr.

20-:SQ • • Jl. b . 110,()0(1

20-JO t11 , 1>. h. 110,00U

Nu d:ito, No dut-a .

20-30 •11 . p.11. S,000 lo 35. 1100

~o dotn . ~o data .

t2 111. 1>.h. ,. G0 ,000 • (Mork 11)

No dntn . No daln ,

20 .. ·lO 111. 1>. h. s, ooo 'o :10 . 000

20-50 dope11(t i ng- 5 , 000 1. 0 . On $pacJny & 35, 000 dcslgn of »lPt ion GtOIH' & Lernd nn l s .

No dnta. No d1nn .

Stu<l)• for uppUc:ot1cm Ju Manch esUH'.

S LOd)' foa· tl JJJ)lh:nlH)ll I u Mu11ches te r.

Study !or appUc otJou i n Munche.5 ter,

E! l imtnnl.C frQlll fu•·thl"r consii1et·nt Jun .

Study for :11•11t l cnllon tn M:tnchosLer.

f.l1rit1111le -no 1>rolOl)'lle .

F. l i111l 1mte- • n o prolOl YlJe for udrnu tr:U\!iil .

Rl i1dntth.• - n"

J•rolv l ~PC'·

OpcriH ing ch n1·,14.::ceristics not s uil3ble .

Elimi nate - no p r ob1ty-pe ,

Stud)' !' o r Manc.:heS UH', l)ev i C-0 ncedod 'o\' i L l lie a minor addltloo to u Cul l y- <levelopud Lrans1c \•ebJc:le.

13. GU1 DED nos- Jule!Jl'O, A.G.' WAY Zudch . speci31 gu iding device . sufCiciOnt.lY adva nced fOl'

l>Jesel m· patrol engine . c Q1t sidcrat 1on in Mancht.Je.-11'.n' .

JHht11 n:ne - nu l)r OtOL)'J-le,

1•1. CO~V~'Tt ONAL Vnl'iUUS D0$f;S

SELECTl Vf. nou·re SYSTEMS

t 5, ST.ARRr.Alt A Iden se tt-Tr:rn-sil SystcllS Cor porntiQI\ , Wes tboro, Moss.

16 , TELETRt-\NS- Tcle Lrons , ;\ OiY.hJ.on <>1 Trodol Associates, Jnc.

I 7 , MONOOAJJ

18. 1~\PIO Ot!l,T

E. O. Hol tor.i, Oat 1 us , TeXR!'i. J 1weuto1• 11nd 1>ru111oter.

H. Edeus , 1'01·0 1nu,

Cono(hl .

Manned vcM ctes on ux- !\ul.'IE! rous systeas , l>ut elusive rond•·ay!l , at- mostly as cx_pross buse!i i,J,rndc , elevated m· in in mixed Lrntfic . s ubway.01cse i or pet. rot en1rincs cu· elect r i c !IROlOr~.

Intl i vidu11l )ll:I01ll bott- Pt'ototype of cor' on domon,cny- operntod <:ors st1•olion with !Ulcl lun o( uscoble on city stre ets, t.rack 200 rt. . l ong . System or special clE1ctdtied being uctiVCtl)' dovoloped. t racks.Elec t 1· i.c iaoto1•s ,

COnce1>t of smul l c nrs Brochure und mock-u1> on l y .

dispntc hed ond 1·outed a t pot1·01, ' s com:1urnd,on fixed 1·outes .L!neor e tee_:td<: m.oto1~ .

ContOl)t of sm:ill cru•s Proc:aotion11l nunci-lol onl y . dis1>at.ched and routed at pau·on ' s C•t>A1111npd , on Cixcd rout•ls . El ectdc 11to to 1·s .

Conct! !)L of small c:o1· s t.:once1H unty. dispatched anid t'Outed ut pat-t·on's cotam:md , on t 1xed r out.cs, using u t ec: u ·lc mol(.) r c onvcyur belt pr'o1-.ulslon on mn\n Lraclt,

Mad:snchusOlti lust itut& nnnge in veh\ c le con(;u11t-s Concept ti only•

20 . AL'1'0.\IATIC RA IL- TAXI

of Tec hnology, for l"Ci,tionul P'-!blic tro.ns port.nt ion. Developed o.s Student Project at- M11' Vax luus pt•opu l ston

D1·u11h F.lt1CLr1.l'11l Engineel'lng Co .Ltd.

Lockheed Al rcrafl Servh.~ Cot•p,

:,1ys tcms,

Pov 1• p1.1n:;ougvr st:I I 1·oul- v1•0Lol)' 1.io lw1og-ln i,t ca rs. Etc c ti·tc mqtut·e. tlcvol opOd ""\t h f1 u Stcc1·11gc.i-li 1ikngl! c onLrolled :1nc~iol aµppOrt. froo hy overhead e•1ecta•1c po'ill<cr U.H.Oo\•ei·1uricnt. lltck - up ~1r11u1.

Concept- o f snt11l l cars PrOG1otlu110 ! r.iatcr\nt tlispntcbed ornl r outed only. nt pnu•on' s cOQllHtnd; on f UC:od rou 1:ett. ~lcctl'ic t'!Ot.01·-. .

20- -10 m , µ , h. 5 1 000 l,o

depending on 25 , 0UO s pnc1ng and de .. s tun or slot Jon s tops .

~-5 • • Jl. h ...

20 • .p.h. .

I.Kl "' · , •• 11, •

aa,ooo to • l·M,000

3 •1,000 •

G, 3fl0

\lade s by type ot \'Oh icle as 51roposod tor dJ rrcrenl op pl .i co t ions.

"35 n . 11, h. 10 ,(U)O •

\!oricu with 11ppl l cu 1. lu11.

Study os 11 l frst-s' ago dttvclopeent o r as ulUmn Le solu tion if potential 1•idlng J)rovc-5 to ho 1 ~"

lil iminalO - }ll'8Cth:;1b It i L.)' of syslem not odo<1u11tely pro\'e n lo date: .

fili .. i nnto - no prutot.ype, c oncept only,

El 1nitnate - c1n1cepl s OU))'.

f.lhai natc - 110

1u•otetty]-JO .

1:-:1 iminate - conC!e1us Q11ly.

!!limin11le -(1() l)J"OlOl)'5)(r,

Uimlnl\te -nu p1·ototy pe.

•As Olalmod By OovelopcJ

Section four

Sele~ction of Systems for Evaluation

4.1 RAPID TRA NSIT SYSTEM S CONSIDERED

The rapid transit systems to be investigated for use in Manchester, as stipulated in the terms of reference for the Study, were as follows :

(i) The Safege Monorail.

(ii) A 4 ft.- 8t in. gauge urban electric railway.

(ii i) A specially constructed 'busway' reserved for the sole use of buses.

(iv) Beyond these three, other systems which could attain practicabil ity with in f ive years were also to be considered.

A list of systems was compiled based on those known to the Working Party and the Consultant. To ensure that the list of systems was complete, announcements were placed in the international press requesting interested developem to submit details of their systems to the Study for consideration. One example of this announcement, to which there was excellent response, is shown below.

MANCHESTER RAPID TRANSIT STU DY

INV ITATION TO RAPID TRA NSIT SYSTEM

MANUFACTURERS AND DEVELOPERS

An evaluation of Rapid Transit Systems such as monorail, beamways, busways and conventional steel wheel on rail equipment is being carried out for a selected route in Manchester under the auspices of Manchester Corporation and the Ministry of Transport. Interested manufacturers and developers of such public transportation systems are invited to submit preliminary information on these systems to the undernoted for consideration as part of the study.

The route extends from Manchester Airport to the City centre, a distance of 9 miles, and from the city cEmtre northerly a distance of 7 ·6 miles to Lang ley.

Systems to be investigated in detai l must have reached a stage of development where they could become fully operative within a period of 5 years i.e. by January 1, 1972.

Preliminary information on systems and their development status should reach the undernoted no later than August 31st, 1966.

PROJECT MANAGER

MANCHESTER RAPID TRANSIT STUDY

4.2 CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY

In s~lecting the systems for Manchester which warrainted ~etailed analyses, a preliminary evaluation was carried out in two phases.

In the first phase all systems were reviewed to determine if they met the following criteria:

(i) Development status- the system must have reached a stage of development where it could become operative by January 1972. To meet this date it was considered that at the very least a prototype vehicle and roadway must exist to demonstrate that a practicable system had in fact been developed with a reasonable prospect of assessing the manner of operation and costs for the system.

(ii) Capacity-the system must have a capacity of at least 7,500 passengers per lane or track per hour.

(iii) Vehicle performance must be such that the minimum average running speed must be at least 15 mph including station stops averaging one-half to one mile apart.

(iv) The system's operating characterist ics must be suitable for urban transport with station spacings in the range of one-third mile to one and one-half miles, with an operating range of up to 20 miles. Thus central area distributors, such as moving pavements, are not included in the Study.

The second phase of the preliminary evaluation encompassed only those systems which met all requirements in the first phase. It consisted of a general review to eliminate any which were significantly more costly than others with no compensating advantages in service quality or operational savings.

4.3 FIRST SELECTION

The systems included in the first phase of the preliminary systems evaluation are listed in Table 4 . 1. and classified into three groups;

1.

2.

3.

Fixed Route Systems-on which the vehicle travels on a fixed route and stops at stations along the way as determined by the operating agency;

Combined Fixed Route and Collector-Distributor Type Systems- which act as their own local feeder system, by leaving the trunk route at selected locations and using public streets and roads; and

Selective Route Type Systems - which allow the passenger to preselect his destination point, the vehicle travel! i ng without stops via the shortest route to the preselected point.

The selective type systems would use small vehicles, offering greater origin to destination speeds since the vehicles would not stop at intermediate stations. Such systems exist as a concept only. Although some vehicle prototypes have been built, the logistics of vehicle operation

35

and supply to meet a large combination of potential origin

and destination trips has not been adequately investigated

as far as is known.

Table 4.1 also describes the development status, capacity

and performance of each system and how thiis satisfies

the preliminary criteria for eligibility. The systems are

illustrated in Figures 4.1 to 4.21 , the figure numbers

corresponding with the numbers in Table 4.1.

Consideration was also given to new propulsion methods

during this phase of systems evaluation. It was concluded

that the operating characteristics of propeller drive and

turbine engine vehicles were not suited to an intensive

transit type service operating through an urban area where

high noise levels would not be tolerable. The linear drive

electric motor was also reviewed. Although the basic idea

is feasible, a considerable amount of research and develop

ment would have to be done before a devicei would be

available for practical application. Problems presently

studied or anticipated include supply of cunrent, speed

control and maintenance of an adequate gap between the

fixed motor rail and the pole faces carried on ·the vehicle.

The principle of the linear motor is illustrated in Figure 4.22.

4.4 SECOND SELECTION

The systems which satisfied the criteria for eligibility in the

first phase of the preliminary evaluation were as follows:

Alweg-Straddle -type monorail.

Busways- Non-guided.

Duorail- Steel wheel on steel rail.

Duorail- Rubber tyred.

Safege-Suspended monorail.

Westinghouse- Rubber tyred guided vehicle.

In the second phase of the preliminary systems evaluation

the above systems were reviewed on the basis of cost and

operational characteristics. It was concluded that the rubber

tyred Duorail system could be eliminated from further

study because of higher capital and operating costs, with

no significant benefit for this additional cost when compared

with steel wheeled Duorail. The details of this system are

outlined in Appendix C.

36

Regarding guided and non-guided busway systems it also

became evident that it would not be possible, within the

terms of reference of the Study, to carry out a full evaluation

of this concept. The main advantage claimed in these

systems is that one vehicle can perform the dual function

of providing feeder service as well as operating along the

trunk route, whereas some passengers must change

vehicle with systems confined to a trunk route. An evaluation

of this benefit would entail a study not only of the trunk

route, but also the areas tributary to it. before the practic

ability and logistics of vehicle operation and utilisation to

achieve this advantage could be measured. Information for

such a study is not available at present and its collection and

analysis are beyond the scope of this Study.

The guided busway system most advanced in development

- the Throughways Transport System- lacked an operating

prototype. Thus it was impossible to demonstrate the

reliability of the guidance system, the radar signal system,

and the merging operation at station stops essential to

carry the specified passenger volumes. In view of the

possible widespread application of the promising concept

offered by use of reserved busways, the Working Party

decided that a special study should be made. The objectives

of the special study were to obtain comparative civil

engineering costs for a guided busway based on the

Throughway System, and for a non-guided busway. The

subject of busways and the results of the comparative

study are discussed in Appendix B.

4 .5 FINAL LIST FOR EVALUATION

The rapid transit systems considered in the preliminary

evaluation and which were found to warrant detailed

investigation in the study were:

Alweg.

Duorail steel wheel.

Safege.

Westinghouse.

These are described in detail in the following section of the

report.

4 .1

Duorail. steel wheel on steel rail

4.3

Safege, suspended

monorail

37

38

. 4 .4

Alweg, ·saddle-back' supported monorail

4.6

Transit Expressway or Skybus, centre guided rubber tyred vehicle

4.7

Bingham, rubber tyred on beamway

4.8

Aerotrain, air cushion vehicle

39

4.9

4.10

40

Telepherique, cable car system

Passenveyor, continuous passenger conveyor system

4.12

Guided Busway, standard

buses with side guidance

4 .15

Starrcar, small battery operated cars

41

42

4.16

Teletrans, small car dispatched on fixed routes

4.18

Rapid belt, small car dispatched on fixed routes

4.20

Automatic rail-taxi passenger

self routing cars

43

4.22

ROTARY INDUCTION MOTOR

LINEAR INDUCTION MOTOR 44

Rotary Induction Motor Fitld Winding (Stationary)

Stat ionary

Linear Motor Guide Wheels

Stationary Reac t ion Roi I SYSTEM~S EVALUATION

I

5.1 GENERAL

The three main components of any total rapid transit sy:stem in order of importance are:

(i) The route and its attitude with respect to ground levE~I, as governed by the forecast traffic flows and the environment through which the line is located. Environment is discussed fully in Section 6.

(ii) The vehicle requirement in terms of capacity, perform.ance and the means of propulsion.

(iii) The degree of train control or automation best suited to the route and its train and passenger density.

Each of the above items must be considered separately in the light of local requirements and it is not necessary to accept a 'package deal' for any particular system. For example! the automatic control system developed in connection with the Westinghouse Skybus could be used equally well with a modern version of the tramcar, duorail or any of the monorail or beamway vehicles.

The choice of control system and the degree of automation are also a matter for economic assessment once the basic safety requirements have been met. Automation can bring a useful increase in line capacity coupled with a reduction in the power consumption and a saving in manpower.

The systems considered to have reached a satisfactory stage of development where they could become operative in Manchester by 1972 are:

Alweg monorail.

Duorail steel wheeled .

Safege monorail.

Westinghouse Transit Expressway or Skybus.

Each of these systems is discussed in detail in this section.

Capital costs are given in Section 11. The maintenance and operating expenses are discussed in Section 12.

The problem of evaluating specific elements of systems which differ significantly in concept becomes apparent when one considers the wide range of existing standards even within duorail systems. For example, duorail vehicles, desinned recently to suit relatively similar conditions for new sys1rems vary signif icantly with respect to vehicle dimensions, materials, weights and cost.

It would be misleading to evaluate the duorail system b;ased on existing facilities built before the 1950's. Some were

Section five

Systems Evaluation

constructed as much as 100 years ago. Unfortunately, it has not been feasible to improve many of the earlier installations to take advantage of all the technical and design advances which have been made in the meantime. In many cases the design of new extensions has been influenced by the need to handle equipment that would also fit the existing con struction. This evaluation is based on systems bu ilt to meet standards established since 1945.

In the interest of brevity and clarity, elements common to all systems under review have been grouped together. For this Study it is not unnecessary to make any commitments, comparisons or evaluations with respect to these elements. They can be equally well incorporated in any of the systems under consideration.

The major elements of systems that may most readily be compared quantitatively are those that affect costs. Every effort has been made to ensure that all systems have been compared on a like basis as far as practicable, to ensure that the results are not prejudiced due to variations in quality or performance criteria.

A major element of a system affecting costs is the vehicle. Its characteristics significantly affect the cost of civil engineering works as well as operations and maintenance expenses. Many of the featu res of all vehicles can be standardised. This is purely a matter of the customers specification. All the vehicles under study can be designed to provide specified performance with respect to acceleration, deceleration and maximum speeds. They can also be designed to meet specified proportions of standing to seated passengers (standee ratio). The door arrangement, materials for flooring, upholstery, body work, lighting levels, headroom, area per passenger, heating, ventilation, motor controls and other features may also be specified by the buyer, rather than the supplier. Features which cannot be established by specification on the other hand include bogie design and guidance mechanism.

Information based on full scale manufacture and in-service operation is not available for the Safege and Westinghouse systems, since neither is in service on an operating transit system. The same applies to the new Alweg vehicles presently under development as evaluated in this report. Thus it is only possible to base some of the operating and maintenance expenses on assumptions guided by experience gained from duorail systems. Unique elements, characteristic of a particular system, such as the pendular suspension system of the Safege, must be evaluated on their individual merits. Furthermore, due to current world -wide research and development on rapid transit systems of all types, there is a real prospect of early obsolescence for many of the features now considered up-to-date.

47

48

Duorail concept of vehicle interior for Manchester, prepared by Associated Electrical Industries and Metropolitan Cammel

Duorail vehicle interior, London

Duorail vehicle interior, Toronto

5.2 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL SYSTEMS

This category includes characteristics common to al I or several of the systems. There may be slight differences, but not of a degree to affect the analysis significantly. The main elements are:

Stations

Most engineering and architectural features of the stations would be common to all systems. Therefore little distinc:tion can be made between systems on the basis of entrances, stairs, escalators, lighting level, station finish, fare collec:tion systems, and service rooms. Station maintenance and operating standards and expenses, also, would be essentially the same for all systems. Other such elements are parking facilities, feeder bus transfer facilities, internal communications and public address systems.

Signals

Signalling and automation of train operation could be incorporated equally well into any of the systems u1rtder consideration. Hence, these need not be evaluated separately for the different systems. Although there are some cost differences in providing similar signals for the rapid transit systems under consideration, the differences are smal l and have not been taken into account in this Study.

Vehicles

The vehicles of all systems are proposed to be electrica lly propelled. The traction power, common to all systems, ex•cept for the Westinghouse Skybus, would be alternating current converted and distributed to the vehicles as direct current.

Conversion would be by transformers and silicon diode rectifiers installed in electrical sub-stations along the line.

Many recent improvements in duorail rapid transit design can be applied equally to other systems. These include airconditioning, carpeted floors in vehicles, a seat for every passenger, and extensive use of closed -circuit television for policing and control.

5.3 ALWEG

In this monorail system a bottom supported vehicle rides on a single structural beam of near rectangular cross section. The vehicle has two vertical running wheels per axle which bear on the top surface of the beamway. These two wheels are mounted alongside each other much like a dual wheel on a bus, and as such they resemble a single wheel. Two sets of horizontal wheels provide the guidance and stability for the vehicle.

Each pair of horizontal guide wheels bears on, and at the top of, the vertical surfaces of the beamway. A wheel of each pair bears on the opposite surface to that of the other. The horizontal stabilizing wheels also bear on the vertical surfaces of the beamway in a similar manner to that of the guide wheels, except the stabilizing wheels are near the bottom of the vertical sides of the beam.

The running, guiding and stabilizing wheels described above are all pneumatically tyred. Some models of the Alweg vehicle are equipped with solid rubber rollers and solid rubber rims which wou ld bear on the running, guiding or stabilizing surfaces of the beam in the event of deflation of the pneu matic tyres.

49

50

3

9------../

I Supporfino whe 11 .

2 Note - suspended mot or .

3 G;.iide and s.tabi 1z1no wheels

4 Safety wheels

5 Sohd r ubber ro er

The A!weg vehicle

4

6 Sprino-powered bro ke cylinder .

7 Di sc broke.

8 Roc ker suspension

9 Track beom .

5.3.1 State of Development

Research on the Alweg system began in 1951. A one -quarter size prototype, completed in 1952, was subjected to a variety of experiments. Subsequently a trial instal lation, 1.1 miles long complete w ith cars, was built near Cologne. Experiment and research projects were carried out using this line and this research was completed in 1959.

In addition to the research installation at Cologne, Alweg systems have been constructed at Disneyland, U.S.A.; Turin, Italy; Seattle, U.S.A.; and in Japan at lnuyama, Yomiuri and Tokyo.

The Disneyland installation was constructed in two stages; the first in 1959 for sight-seeing within the park area and the second in 1961 to carry visitors to the park from the hote l and parking areas and vice versa. The total length of this single track system is 2.35 miles.

The Turin single track system, 0.63 miles long, was con structed in 1961. It was a shuttle service between the main

Alweg train, Seattle

entrance and the centre of the 'Italia 61' exposition ground. The operation w as discontinued at the termination of the fair, but the structure has been left in place.

The Seattle system is a double track shuttle service which operates between a downtown station and a station at the World's Fa ir grounds. This system, one mile long, was constructed in 1962 to transport passengers between downtown Seattle and the fa ir grounds. At the conclusion of the fair some of the bui ld ings were retained and the fair grounds became a civic centre at which special functions are held. Throughout the year, one train is operated on a single track. During peak months in the summer, both trains are operated.

In 1962, a single track 0.875 miles long was constructed in lnuyama, Japan, to operate between the railway station and a zoo, and for trips within a large park area. The Yomiuri line, 1.25 miles of single track, was bui lt in 1964 to provide service between a ra ilway station and a golf course and for trips within a recreation park. The line between "downtown" Tokyo and the International Airport was built in 1964. It comprises 8.5 miles of double track structure.

51

Alweg installations to date have been applied to short -term,

novel or special services which differ significantly from

normal, long-term, sustained urban rapid transit operations.

This system, however, has a background of operating

experience which is substantially greater than that of other

concepts.

5.3.2. Vehicles

Several different types of vehicle have been developed for the

Alweg system and a continuing programme is underway to

develop new types.

Alweg systems in actual operation differ with respE~ct to train

make up, vehicle dimensions, axle arrangements, seating,

performance, and many other features. As with other

systems the Alweg vehicle can be designed and manufactured

to meet most requirements for comfort, pe1rformance,

durabil ity and appearance.

Early models of the Alweg vehicle have two horizontal axles

per car, i.e., four running wheels per car, with various

arrangements of guide and stabilizing wheels. A more recent

development would employ a vehicle having bogies with two

horizontal axles, i.e., four running wheels on each bogie.

There would be four guide wheels and two stabilizing wheels

on each bogie. Each of these ten wheels would have

pneumatic tyres and each would be equipped with solid

rubber tyred wheels or rollers which would take over in the

event of tyre deflation.

With the Alweg bogie, vehicles can be furnished with two

bogies per car, i.e., four bogies per two-car unit, or alter

natively an articulated vehicle with three bogies per two-car

unit can be provided. Various train make ups are available

and these cou ld comprise one unit or several units of the

following:

Each unit with 2 two-bogie cars, all axles motored.

A three-bogie, two -car articu lated vehicle, all axles

motored.

Each unit of three cars with the end cars motored and the

other car a trailer.

Several other combinations could be provided to suit

particular requirements.

In order to keep the overall height of the Alweg vehicle to an

acceptable dimension, it has been necessary to construct

wheel wells in the passenger compartment. This limits the

flexibility of seating arrangements. In data recently furnished

by the developers, it is stated that studies are underway to

design vehicles in which there will be no wheelboxes in the

passenger compartment. This would be accomplished w ith

out increasing the height of vehicle by reducing the depth

of beamway, the diameter of the running wheels and the

headroom in the passenger compartment. This car, smaller

than previous models, will have reduced carrying capacity.

It is claimed that the reduced capacity of this new type of car

will be compensated for by reductions in costs of permanent

structures, rolling stock and operating expenses. However,

the economics and acceptability of this vehicle can only be

evaluated approximately at this time since it is in a preliminary

stage of development.

The Alweg vehicle proposed for Manchester would be a

two-car articulated unit carried on three bogies. The overall

length would be approximately 90'-3", the width approxi -

Alweg vehicle suggested for use in Manchester

mately 10' - 0" and the floor area for passengers would be

approximately 900 square feet. Assuming the wheel boxes

could be incorporated into the seating arrangement to

provide the standee-seat ratio specified and that 2.5 square

feet per passenger would be provided accordingly, the

maximum load would be 360 passengers. The empty w1~ight

of vehicle per passenger would be 214 pounds.

Unlike other rubber tyred vehicles, the proposed A lweg

vehicle would have a relatively low empty weight per

passenger. The bogies are somewhat heavy but there are only

three per 2 unit articulated vehicle. If the weight is considered

to be equally distributed on the running wheels, each of the

12 wheels on a vehicle wou ld carry 10,600 pounds. This

weight appears to be high for the speed and type of service

to which the tyres would be exposed. Some testing would be

required to confirm that these loads could be carried safely,

and without excessive tyre wear.

The proposed vehicle would be designed for a maxiimum

speed of 50 mph. Mean acceleration rates of 2.7 miles per

hour per second (mphps) up to 22 mph and 1.8 mphps up to

Single track Alweg beamway, Seattle

44 mph are lower than specified but it is anticipated that

these can be readily increased if required.

The cost of the Alweg vehicle is estimated at £70,000 which

is equivalent to £194 per passenger. This is competitive with

other systems. Similar to other rubber tyred vehicles, there will

be additional power consumption as a consequence of

rolling resistance. This will result in increased operating costs

when compared to a steel wheeled vshicle.

5.3.3. Track

Except for the switches, the simplicity of the Alweg beamway

is a significant asset. It lends itself to economic and rapid

production and erection, since most of the major components

are prefabricated. The most economical span length is about

65 feet. The beamways are constructed of reinforced concrete.

Rubber and other deposits on the concrete surfaces could

tend to result in sl ippery conditions which may prove a

problem when wet. Unlike the Safege beamway, the Alweg

beamway running surfaces are not sheltered from the weather.

53

5.1

- ... z ... :I '

~1 ~ ' !::: I! .. 0 ... ~ •f

e 1~ l ~ i~

I

I I

I §. .. -.. 2

Two types of switch have been developed both oif which are

costly. As a consequence of their complexity they will require

a considerable amount of maintenance. The two types are

the flexible and the articulated switches.

The flexible switch is a box-section steel or light metal track

girder which is capable of bending. It is operated! by geared

motors and a worm drive unit. In the straight through position this switch can be negotiated at full sp1eed. In the

turnout position the speed is limited by the switch radius to

about 28 mph.

The articulated switch (Figure 5.1) consisting of two rigid reinforced concrete beams, is less costly than the f113xible type.

54

ALWEG SWITCH

In the turnout position it is chorded rather than curved.

Consequently it is proposed to locate it only where trains are

compelled to operate at slow speeds, such as at the ends of

stations and in storage and maintenance yards and shop areas.

Alweg has disadvantages in that it is necessary to build the beamway for all attitudes and in all areas. Additional

excavation and structure is required to house the beamway

in below ground level atti tudes.

Emergency evacuation of passengers would be by means of

built-in ladders or aircraft type escape slides. This method has

shortcomings which could be overcome by installing catwalks

on elevated structures.

Duorail vehicle at Expo '67,

Montreal

5.4 DUORAIL

Duorail is the system presently in widest use for urban mass

transportation. In effect many of the so-ca lled monorai l

systems are a form of narrow-gauge duorail. Similarly, the

Westinghouse Transit Expressway and the Paris and Montreal

rubber tyred systems are basically duorail systems. The

rubber tyred duorai l Montreal-type system is considlered separately in Appendix C. The Transit Expressway is

discussed later, and is a concept differing somewhat from

duorail. In this Study, consideration of duorail is confined to

conventional flanged steel wheel vehicles operating on steel rails.

5.4.1. Stage of Development

The forerunners of modern duorail rapid transit systems were

the intercity railways and the tramways. The earliest use of

railways for public transportation in cities dates back to the world's first underground line, the London Metropolitan, in

1863. This system operated initially with steam locomotives.

Steam locomotives for urban transit were soon displaced by

electrically-propelled vehicles. In 1890, the City and South

London tube opened with electric power. This was follo1wed

by the electrification of existing underground railways. At

the same time, surface operation of electric trams was meeting with considerable favour.

El . ectric street railways, also referred to as tramways and

streetcar lines, proved to be extremely efficient in providing

an economical and satisfactory level of urban mass trans

portation service. They gained almost universal acceptance in large cities. Tramways, however, have such handicaps as

route inflexibility and conflict with other surface traffic,

which result in slow overall speed, limited capacity, and

vulnerability to heavy snowfall. Nevertheless, tramways

continue to provide acceptable service in many large cities

of the world. In North America and the United Kingdom,

however, they have been replaced by petrol, diesel or trol ley

buses, except in a few special instances. Trams operating in

exclusive rights of way, even though not grade-separated, are

capable of a high level of service at reasonable cost. In such

cases, witli modern vehicles, single-track capacities of 18,000 per hour at average speeds of 20 miles per hour may be

attained.

As cities grew in area and population, tramways pro

gressively became incapable of offering satisfactory service.

The situation deteriorated rapidly in some cities due to the

increasing use of motor cars. Many cities, both in Europe and

on the North American continent, are meeting this problem

by developing rapid transit systems. In most cases, these are of the conventional duorail type.

Duorail rapid transit systems, for the most part, are forms of

improved tramways, which were gradually developed to their

present stage. In these regards, tramways have been the

proving grounds for many developments concerning the vehicles, traction power, and track structure.

55

Successful innovations which have been incorporated in

rapid transit systems have taken the form of:

Providing an exclusive grade-separated right of way,

depressed, at ground level or elevated.

Automatic coupling of vehicles into trains.

Use of signals, more recently, automatic train control.

Off-vehicle, more recently, automatic fare collection.

Vehicle floor level platforms and increased ratio of

vehicle door width to vehicle length, for rapid and

convenient loading and unloading of vehicles.

Duorail rapid transit systems in operation includle sections

below ground level, at ground level (but grade-separated at

intersections), and elevated. They operate in open cut, in

tunnel, in highway central reservations, on railway rights of

way, on embankment, and on elevated structum. Conven

tional duorai l has been adopted in most large ci tie's throughout the world.

There are marked differences, understandably, between

systems inaugurated in the early years and systems planned

since 1945. Of particular interest is the thinking with respect

to elevated structures. At the outset, these were readily

adopted in several cities, notably Boston, Chicago, New

York, and in the Liverpool overhead railway. Recently, many

of these structures have been, or are proposed to be, dis

mantled. There appears to be general dislike of elevated

structures in built-up districts, particularly within the central area. They are being accepted outside the centnal business

districts, however, in some cities, as in Rotterdam.

An important attribute of the duorail system is th13 extremely

high capacities of which it is capable. Capacities of 30,000

passengers per track per hour may be readily obtained on

most existing systems; 40,000 per hour can be expected

normally and 60,000 per hour is within practicable limits

using special station designs.

56

Peak period headways are generally about two minutes with

off-peak headways varying from five to ten minutes. Average

speeds vary with station spacing, station stop time (or dwell),

turn around time, alignment, and vehicle performance

characteristics. Existing systems have average speeds ranging

from 15 to 30 miles per hour. Vehicles can be designed for

speeds well in excess of 55 mph, but for most existing

systems average speeds could not be increased because of

station spacing.

The similarity between duorail and tramways and railways is

a significant advantage for the following reasons:

It would be feasible to use existing railway tracks.

Existing railway maintenance facilities might be utilised

in part or wholly.

Many of the manufactured items that would be required

are standard.

A large pool of trained personnel is available for

maintenance and operation.

One aspect of duorail receiving continuing attention is noise.

This subject is discussed in greater detail in Section 6.

It need only be noted here that noise levels on duorail

systems range from 'near painful' on older systems to 'very

satisfactory' on newer systems.

Seven North American cities have duorail systems in

operation. There are 20 in European cities, one in South

America, and three in Japan. The majority of these have

extensions in the design stage or under construction.

Of the many major cities around the world with initial

duorail systems in the design stage or under construction,

the Bay Area Rapid Transit District system in San Francisco

is of particular interest. Considerable funds have been expend

ed to research, develop and incorporate into this system the

most modern innovations and the highest possible standards

of service, comfort and safety.

Duorail vehicle, Boston

'

Duorail vehicle, Toronto

Duorail vehicle, London

57

...

Concept of Duorail vehicle for Manchester, prepared by Associated Electrical Industries and Mtitropolitan Cammell

58

5.4.2. Vehicles

Duorail vehicles in existing rapid transit systems vary in size from 35 feet long by 7' -4" wide to 75 feet long by 1 Ct' - 4 '' wide. Trains vary from combinations of motor and trailer cars to all cars powered, some with two-car articulated units, and some with three-car articulated units. Maximum speeds range from about 40 to 75 mph, initial acceleration rates from 2.2 to 3.2 mphps and service braking rates from 2.5 to 3.2 mphps. The ratio of standees to seated passengers under maximum loading, a measure of comfort provided on the different systems, ranges between approximately 2. 5 to 1 and 20 to 1. Empty weight of vehicle per square foi0t of floor area can vary from 75 to 150 pounds.

Concept of Duorail vehicle for

Manchester, prepared by Associated

Electrical Industries and Metropolitan

Cammell

It is apparent from the foregoing that the levels of service and comfort provided by existing systems, as well as the costs of operation, cover extremely wide ranges. Most of these differences are accounted for by age.

The current trend in North America is toward a large I ightweight vehicle with increased empl:iasis on high performance and passenger comfort. The vehicle becomes more economical up to a length of about 80 feet. both as to first cost and cost of operation. An overall width of 10 feet gives flexibility in seating arrangement as wel l as seats of aimple dimensions. The width of the veh icle affects civil engineering costs, but this only becomes very significant in tunn1el or tube construction.

The duorail vehicles assumed in this Study for Manchester would be completely modern in all aspects and similar to

that as shown below. These would be self-propelled light-weight cars in semi -permanently coupled pairs, each about 70 feet long by 10 feet wide by 11 feet high. Each car would have two two-axle four-wheeled bogies and would weigh 56,000 pounds empty. Allowing 2.5 square feet per passenger, it would accommodate 279 passengers producing an empty weight of vehicle per passenger of 200 pounds. Acceleration and deceleration rates would be three miles per hour per second and top speed 60 mph. It is assumed that maximum economic advantage would be taken of lightweight construction techniques to reduce weight and to keep maintenance costs low.

Vehicles would be designed to include in -cab signals and

automatic speed control. They could also be convertible to automatic train operation. Based on quotations from manufacturers, these cars would be delivered on the system, ready for operation, at a cost of about £40,000. This would be equivalent to £148 per passenger at design capacity.

5.4.3. Track

Two basic types of track construction are employed for duora il systems. The rails may be fastened to sleepers or directly to a concrete invert. There are two running rails which, in some systems, are also used to ca rry traction power and signal current. Either third rail or overhead power distribution systems may be employed. In some cases a fourth rail is also used for power distribution to prevent any interference with underground electrical services.

59

60

Sleeper and ballast track construction, Toronto

Rail fastened to concrete invert, Toronto

Many proponents of sleeper and ballast track construction claim that it is superior to the other types with respect to noise reduction qualities. However, results of tests do not indicate that there is any significant advantage in this re!~ard. Continuously welded rail is much less noisy than bolted rails. Most new duorail installations have employed weilded rail and many of the older systems have been convertHd to welded joints. Welding the rai l also improves the quality of ride.

Most systems use running rails weighing about 100 pounds per yard. The most common track gauge is 4' -8f' but the gauge in Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev is 5' - 0" and there are

z Q I-iii z 0 Q 0.. I-

iii I- 0 :;) 0.. 0

I-0 :c w (!)

z <( a: a: :;) I-I- Vl

SWITCH

POINT

other gauges in limited use. Many different types of rail are manufactured which vary in shape, dimension, weight per unit of length, and metallurgical composition. Rai l wear, particu larly on short radius curves, has been a problem but this is being lessened with the use of heat treatment and lubrication. Another continuing problem is that of corrugating rail which requires rail grinding at periodic intervals as a corrective measure.

Over the years many different types of special trackwork have been developed including turnouts and crossovers. These are used extensively in rapid transit systems.

5.2

DUORAIL SWITCH

61

Sleeper and ballast track is used throughout many systems. Sleepers may be of wood or reinforced concrete. They may be full length, i.e. each supporting two rails, or they may be half length embedded in a concrete base slab. M ost recent systems dispense with sleepers, and anchor the rai ll by means of chairs and rail cl ips directly to the concrete structure. To reduce noise, and in certain installations, to insulate the rails, a rubber pad is used to separate the chai1r from the concrete slab. Several variations of these installations are employed. Research is continuing in this field to reduce noise further.

Construction without the use of sleepers is of advantage in cut-and-cover structures, since depth of exc.avation is reduced by about a foot. Less maintenance is required than with sleeper and ballast construction.

5.5 SAFEGE

The Safege rapid transit system proposed for Manchester would consist of a symmetrically suspended monorail. The licensee of th is system Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited, claims that it would have the advantage over other systems under review in that it would be acceptable as an elevated system, whereas others would not be acceptable in this attitude. Any elevated system would cost considerably less to construct than an underground system. It is not claimed that it would be less costly to constru ct Safege underground than other systems.

5.5.1 Stage of Development

A t rue monorail, by definition, is a sing le rail serving as a track

62

for a suspended vehicle. Contrary to popular belief, the application of this principle to public transportation is not new. An installation of this type has been in operation since 1903 in Wuppertal, Germany. One suspended type monorail has been constructed in Japan and another in Dallas, Texas, but neither operates as part of an urban public transportation system.

The maximum speed of the Wuppertal monorail is 31 mph, a very low speed. A major disadvantage of this type of monorail is its tendency to oscillate, but sway would be controlled in the Safege system.

The problem of instability, inherent in all single rail systems, would be largely overcome by Safege by use of two closely spaced rails, instead of one. Lateral deflections would be

Safege vehicle

limited to approximately six degrees by stops incorporated in the bogie.

This system is sponsored by a French agency, Societe Anonyme Francais D'Etudes des Gestian et D'Enterprises. The concept has been developed to the extent that a full scale prototype vehicle and elevated test track has been built near Orleans, France. The system is not in commercial use. but the test track installation has been in operation for about six years.

The particular feature the Safege system offers which is an advantage over the other systems under review is the suspension principle; the others are bottom-supported.

In designing for the dynamic forces which result from a vehicle negotiating a curve, the roadbed is super-elevated.

1 -----...._ 6

4

9 ~~-1-----5

----2 7-----~

_...--llllf~t;;;~~~rt--=:;;:-~~==--~--a

PrtC:O•t c:oncr•t• beomwOlll· 6 Pneumatic: dampers ond , Ru11111n9 ' '" face outomoh c tevelltno

l Troctoon motor, r•duet1on 7 Roll domper

oeor, O•ff•rtt1t1ol 8 HoOll tent1lf St t f l ~O!ffy

• Gu•dt wllttl coble

) Aun111n9 Wl\etl 9 eroku .

Safege beamway and vehicle suspensio.n

63

This reduces the discomforting centrifugal force acting on

the passengers. The forces applied to the track are also more

equally distributed and the tendency for the vehicle to leave

the track or overturn is reduced. The shorter the radius of a

curve and the higher the speed, the more supe1'-elevation

is required. There are practica l limits, however, to the amount

of super-elevation, or cant, which may be used. The limit is

approximately five degrees to the horizontal.

The reason for the limitation is that a vehicle may negotiate a

curve below design speed, or it may stop on a curve. This

results in a condition of imbalance similar in effect to the

imbalance which results from a vehicle negotiating a curve

that is not super-elevated. Because of the pendu lum- like

characteristics of the suspended Safege system, there is a

tendency for these conditions of imbalance to be corrected.

The vehicle attempts to assume a degree of supe1r-elevation

suited to the curve radius and vehicle velocity. Because of this

characteristic, the velocity on curves with the Safoge system

could be greater than with other systems. This wou Id improve

the running time for a Safege train as compared with other

systems. On a line with many short radius curves this might

reduce the number of vehicles required for a given volume of

patronage. This does not apply, however, in the case of the

route as selected for Manchester.

The suspended vehicle's beneficial effect on curves was

noticeable in the comfort of the ride on the test installation.

Whether or not equal benefits would be retained with cars

operating in a train has not been tested. Tests should be

conducted with three or more cars coupled to form a train

in order to ascertain if problems would arise in the couplings.

Other problems on curves might also be uncovered which are

not revealed by the operation of a single vehicle.

The suspended system has disadvantages which offset the

benefits to some extent. One of these is the additional

clearances that would be required for the swing of the

vehicle, particularly on curves in structure. This would

result in a significant increase in first cost for underground

structures compared to the cost of systems with vehicles of

the same size but bottom-supported instead of suspended.

The added cost would be greater in shield -driven circular

tunnels, since the track could not be rotated to furnish the

required cant on curves as it would be if built for supported

vehicles. Normally the bore required throughout the length of

the running tunnels would equal that required for sway on

the shortest radius curve.

Another characteristic of the Safege system as presently

proposed, which is not acceptable, is the position of the

vehicle in stations. When the vehicle is stationary there would

be a six inch gap between the edge of platform and the

vehicle, and the floor of the vehicle would be six inches above

the platform. Both of these dimensions would vary with the

swinging of the cars. The developer has advised! that these

dimensions could be reduced somewhat and that it would

also be possible to dampen the oscillations of the cars when

trains were approaching, stopped at, and leaving, station

platforms. The Consu ltants believe that these chainges wou ld

have to be made in the current design before the system would

be acceptable from a safety standpoint.

The Safege test track is built in steel and is not of the same

design as that proposed for the system in Manchester. It is

64

reasonable to assume that the proposed prestressed concrete

beamway cou ld be constructed without insurmountable

difficulties being encountered. The beamway, of modified

horseshoe-shaped section and its orientation with respect to

load application, however, is unusual from the structural

viewpoint. The licensees advise that structural model tests

have been made which confirm their analysis. This is an

acceptable procedure, but it would be advisable to test a

prototype member prior to design to ensure that it could be

manufactured satisfactorily in large quantities on a pro

duction basis.

5.5.2. Vehic le

The Safege vehicle proposed for the Manchester rapid transit

system is connected by pendular linkage to pneumatic tyred

bogies which run on an overhead track.

There are two bogies per vehicle and each bogie has four

pneumatic tyred load bearing wheels. One electric motor

drives each pair of these wheels through an axle-mounted

reduction gear and differential unit. Guidance of each bogie is

accomplished through four horizontal pneumatic tyred wheels

which bear against guiding rails mounted inside the beamway.

The coach body would be 52'-8" long by 8'- 2t'' wide. The

proposed train would be made up of three coach units with all

axles motored. Trains would consist of three, six or nine

coaches. Alternatively multiples of two coach units (all

axles motored) , or of three coach units (middle coach an

unmotored trailer) would also be available.

The floor area of the vehicle would be 432 square feet. Using

the common loading arrangement as that specified for all

systems, i.e. 2.5 square feet per passenger, the maximum

load per vehicle would be 173 passengers. Based on a 51 ,000

pound vehicle, the empty weight per passenger of capacity

would be 298 pounds. The manufacturer uses a lower

standee-seated passenger ratio, 102 to 48, for a total

passenger load of 150. This would increase the vehicle weight

per passenger to 343 pounds.

The relatively high weight would be due in part to the

extensive use of steel in the construction of the car. Some

reduction could be achieved through use of aluminium, but

the reduction would probably not be significant. Greater

vehicle weight per passenger is inherent with a rubber tyred

vehicle compared with a conventional duorail vehicle,

because of its heavier bogie and smaller floor area. The load

carrying capacity of a pneumatic tyre under rapid transit

conditions- high speed service with numerous stops and

starts-is considerably less than that of a steel wheel. The

permissible live load restricts the number of passengers that

can be carried per wheel, hence the smaller floor area. The

relatively greater bogie weight may be attributed, among other

things, to the weight of the extra wheels and tyres and the

complex suspension system.

The maximum service speed proposed for Safege is 50 mph.

This is less than outlined in the study specification, but

appears to be reasonable. More detailed study may show this

to be the optimum top speed for the Manchester system. In

any event, vehicles for any of the systems could probably

be designed to give the speed desired. Rates of acceleration

and braking would be 3.3 mphps, both slightly above the

specified rates. The same rates could be attained by other

systems, but are considered too high for passenger comfort.

Safege prototype vehicle

Cut·away of Safege vehicle

showmg bogies

65

It is claimed that Safege and other rubber tyred vHhicles could negotiate steeper gradients than steel wheeled equipment, but there would be no significant advantage in using sustained gradients steeper than four per cent in Manchester.

The cost of a Safege vehicle was estimated at £56,000, or £324 per passenger of capacity. This cost is hi£1h compared to the other systems and could be attributed 1to the bogie design and the need for supporting members in both the roof and the floor of the vehicle. The higher vehicle weight per passenger and the greater rolling resistance of rubber tyred vehicles compared with steel wheeled vehicles would be reflected in significantly higher power consumption.

5.5.3 T rack

The proposed beamway would consist of precast, prestressed concrete inverted U-shaped sections with four wheel bearing surfaces and three conductor rails. The wheel bearing surfaces would be constructed of hardwood .. The rubber tyred driving wheels would run on two horizontal surfaces whi le two vertical surfaces would serve the g uide wheels. The conductor rails would be of mild steel, oine for power feed and two for return current. The enclosied beamway would protect the running surfaces and the conductor rails from rain, snow, sleet and icing, an advantage not shared by the other rubber tyred systems.

66

Safege bogie

The beamway would be approximately six feet deep by six feet wide. This substantial cross section wou ld make it structurally advantageous to use a standard span of 104 feet on tangent. The span would be reduced to 60 feet on curves.

A switch has been developed for the system and satisfactorily tested on a prototype model. The design is somewhat intricate, however, and switches could require high maintenance due to their complexity.

Emergencies occur from time to time on every rapid transit system which necessitate disembarking passengers between stations. When such conditions arise, facilities must be available to permit passengers to leave quickly, safely and with minimum assistance from train crew members.

Two alternative methods of emergency evacuation of passengers from stalled or disabled vehicles have been suggested. One involves a hinged stairway that would normally be swung up into the underside of the vehicle body. When required, one end would be lowered. Access would be through an opening in the floor. Use of this apparatus, however, might be difficult and hazardous. Another alterna · tive proposed by the developer would involve the use of aircraft-type slides which would be carried inside the vehicle. It is anticipated, however, that this method would also be attended by serious problems. In the Consultants'

opinion an improved method of evacuation would ha1ve to be developed before this transit system would be acceptable.

Track and power supply maintenance crews wou lld be carried in a vehicle suspended from and operated along the beamway when service is stopped. Repairs, othe1'Wise, would be carried out from a tower mounted on a lorry. This could prove extremely difficult where access at groundl level is restricted . It appears that emergency situations could arise

Moving Blades Provide Continuity of Running Surface

+

+

which could not be handled promptly. This is a serious handicap in an urban transportation system.

Another major disadvantage of the Safege system would be the need to build the beamway structures throughout storage areas as well as in maintenance yards and shops where duorail would be at ground level. Also, a large number of the complex and expensive Safege switches would be required in such places.

POSITION

Operat ing Lever

5.3

SAFEGE SWITCH, DIAGRAMMATIC

Mode/of Safege switch

67

5.6 WESTINGHOUSE TRANSIT EXPRESSWAY OR SKYBUS

This system is based on the use of small lightweight automated rubber tyred cars, operating singly or in trains. The Transit Expressway resembles both the rubber tyred duorail and the guided bus systems.

The prototype includes a single track closed loop in at-grade and elevated attitudes. Each car is self-propelled and is carried on two single axles rather than on two bo1gies as are the other systems under consideration for Manchester.

Four wheels (two duals) are mounted on each axle. These rubber tyred traction wheels run on a concrete track. The vehicle is guided by pneumatic tyred horizontal wheels which bear on the sides of the web of a steel guide beam. There are four horizontal guide wheels per axle, two on each side of the guide beam. The beam is installed parallel to and midway between the running rails.

Cars and trains are crewless ; the trains are monitored and controlled with a digital computer located in one of the stations. Since the vehicles operate in one dimction only, the trains must be looped rather than switched back in order to reverse the run.

5.6.1 Stage of Development

The Transit Expressway began as a project for Pittsburgh, U.S.A. The Port Authority of A llegheny County1 sponsored this project and made funds available for the construction and test of an installation in South Park, a publicly owned recreational park near Pittsburgh. In addition the project was financed by the United States Government, the Pennsylvania State Department of Commerce!, The Port

68

Westinghouse vehicle and test track, Pittsburgh

Authority of Allegheny County and Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Participating Companies.

Design of the Transit Expressway commenced in 1962. Field construction work was initiated in July 1964. The line is a 9,360 foot long single direction loop and includes two stations. Three cars operate on the roadway, either singly or coupled together in a train.

The first complete trip over the roadway by a vehicle was made on manual control in August 1965. The system was operated manually for a four day County Fair in September 1965, and parts of the test programme were carried out in the winter of 1965-66. To test operation in a sub-freezing environment the main field work on the testing programme was started in February 1966 and final field observations were made in June 1966. The Report on testing and evaluation was completed in February 1967.

The demonstration project has illustrated that the ideas embodied in the concept of the Transit Expressway are feasible. Several of the innovations have been proved and many problems overcome. The test programme revealed where improvements will be required.

It was demonstrated that constant headway operation with variation in the number of cars per train to meet demand is feasible. Using the three cars at South Park as separate trains, 70 second headways were run. Based on this, the developers predict that 90 second headway operation shou ld be practical on a revenue system run by centralised control and supervision. Under ful ly automatic operation, trains were run safely with reliability and accuracy on the test track installation.

Three -phase 565 volt a.c. power is distributed by wayside

-

/, I I

j

I /,

fl

I

I 1 ·

Air and steel spring comb.

2 Signal wire system.

5.4

3 Receiving and transmitting antenna.

4 Safety disk

5 Differential and hypoid drive.

6 3 Phase collector system.

7 Pneumatic guide tire.

8 Steel guide rail.

I

. / I I

I I

--

WESTINGHOUSE VEHICLE

69

rails to the moving trains. The power is converted to d.c.

by on-board equipment. Several advantages may come from

this method of handling power.

Further research and development would be required,

however, before the system could be considemd for an

extensive system of providing full scale high capacity rapid

transit service such as is being considered for Manchester.

5.6.2 Vehicles

The Transit Expressway car for the demonstration project

was built to specifications not determined entire1ly by the

Westinghouse Electric Corporation. It is not the type of

vehicle that the developers propose for Manchester. As with

the other systems under study, the vehicle which would be

furnished for Manchester could be built to meet specific

requirements.

As previously mentioned, each vehicle is carried on two

axles. The axles are standard bus or lorry axles with conven

tional full floating differentials. The axles are not fixed and

are steered by the guide wheels.

The developers suggest a vehicle for the Manchester system

that would differ from the test vehicle in several respects.

It would be larger, 35 feet long by 8 feet 8 inches wide and

would be equipped with 100 hp traction motors. Assuming

an area of 2.5 square feet per passenger the car would have

capacity for 120 passengers. The proposed ca r would weigh

20,500 pounds which gives an empty weight of vehicle

per passenger of 171 pounds. This compares favourably

w ith modern lightweight duorail equipment.

This favourable weight ratio is unusual for a rubber tyred

transit vehicle and would be due, to a large extont. to the

single axle automotive assembly in lieu of the two axle bogie.

A fully loaded car would weigh about 39,000 pounds which,

if uniformly distributed to the axles, would give a tyre load

of 5,000 pounds. The running wheels are not paired with

safety wheels. Presumably the dual wheels are e:<pected to

provide for the requisite safety in the event of sudden

deflation of one tyre. Further testing of this feature would be

required since, quite often, both tyres fail at the same time

when a blowout occurs. Safety discs, alongside each rubber

tyred guide wheel, are designed to withstand lateral and

vertical forces which may be applied to them in the event

of tyre failure.

The test vehicle has a door on one side only since the car is

not designed for reversible operation. At South Park, the

station platform is always on the same side of the car. The

developers could furnish vehicles with doors on both sides

and it is expected that there would be little difficulty in

building a vehicle which could operate in both directions.

The Transit Expressway cars on the demonstration project

performed satisfactorily with respect to acceleration and

deceleration and provided a comfortable ride. Acceleration

rates, by design, were approximately 2.3 mphps which is

less than that specified for Manchester. The acceleration

rate cou ld be readily increased to 3 mphps.

The noise level inside the vehicle is very satisfactory and

noise generation outside the car compares favourably with

that of other systems.

The cost of the Westinghouse vehicle as proposed for

70

Manchester would be approximately £28,000, not including

costs for air-conditioning and automatic control gear. This

cost was supplied on the basis of costs in U.S.A. These

features were included in the test vehicle, but since they are

not included in the vehicles of other systems under review

for Manchester they have been eliminated from the Westing

house vehicle for equitable comparison. It is calculated that

the car cost per passenger at maximum capacity would

amount to approximately £246.

5.6.3 Track

The roadway for the Transit Expressway may be readily

built in any attitude much as with conventional duorail. The

test track installation is elevated for the most part and at

ground level over a short distance.

The predominant span length for the demonstration project

elevated structure on tangent is 60 feet, and on short radius

curves, 50 feet. There are two long spans, one of 120 feet

and one of 130 feet. The rectangular columns are built up

from four plates welded at the corners.

Concrete track slabs, 22" wide by 5" thick, poured in place,

act compositely with structural steel stringers. These are

positioned directly under the car wheels. The pairs of

stringers in each span are tied together at 15 foot centres

with structural steel diaphragms. The guide beam, a wide

flange structural steel shape is attached to the structure at

the centre of each diaphragm.

Electrical heating elements are buried in the track slabs at

the acceleration and deceleration zones of the two stations

to melt snow or ice.

The Transit Expressway operated successfully under incle

ment weather and little wheel slip was experienced when the

vehicle accelerated from a stop on gradients up to four

per cent during a snowstorm.

The experience in the South Park demonstration project is

too limited to provide an accurate projection on the life of the

roadway.

The installation suggested for Manchester could include a

maintenance and escape walkway but the test track did not

have one. Further improvements would be required to

prevent the accumulation of snow on the running surface of

the track. The riding quality of the vehicle was impaired when

the train travelled on roadway covered with three quarters

of an inch of compacted snow.

A satisfactory switch has not been developed to date.

Vehicles are put into and taken out of service singly with a

transfer table. This would not be acceptable for a fu ll scale

operation in which trains, rather than single cars, must

quickly enter or leave the line. A switch has been designed

but this has not been built and tested in actual operation.

Further study will be required in connection with the power

distribution system. The system could meet many serious

problems in an installation involving several multi -unit

trains with increased voltage. The system cou ld of course be

supplied with d.c. power in the same manner as the other

systems considered for Manchester. This assumption has been

made in this Study after discussion with Westinghouse

representatives.

Westinghouse vehicle and test tmck

J

5.5

GUIDE BEAM ----ROAD WAY

WESTINGHOUSE SWITCH 71

5.7 PASSENGER COMFORT AND CURVATU RE

Passenger comfort standards on both highways and transit systems have been the subject of much research. Passenger com fort depends on both angular and linear acceleration and is manifested by dynamic forces acting on the passenger.

Dynamic forces to which a passenger is subject tall into three t:ategories.

1. Linear Forces. These are generated by linear ac:celeration as a resul t of the application of tractive power or the application of brakes.

2. Vertical Radial Forces. These are generated al a change in track gradient such as in passing through a crest or sag.

3. Horizontal Radlal Forces. These are generated by directional changes as in negoti ating a curve.

Regardless of the operating capability of any system, th e effect of these forces on the passenger must be kept within acceptable limits if passenger discomfort is to be avoided and general acceptance of the system by the publi1c is to be

achieved.

Linear forces can be governed equally for any system con sidered in this report by application of acceleration and retardation standards, Limiting values are considered to be 0.15 g (0.15 "' the force of gravity) .

Vertical radial forces are a function of 'radius' of vertical curvature and vehicle speed. M aintenance of these forces within acceptable limits can be done equally for all systems considered in this report by construction of suitable vertical

curves.

Horizontal radial forces are governed by the horizontal radius of curvature and speed. These forces can be kept within acceptable limits by adoption of su itable curve radii, operating speeds and cant. A basis for system comparison is present. however, due to the differences in vehicle suspension

systems.

To minimise the effect of dynamic forces when negotiating curves, a cant is usually applied to the guiding or supporting roadway. Neglecting body roll, this adjusts the vehicle floor to a position perpendicular to the resultant force. When the speed and cant are accurately calculated the passenger has a sensation only of an apparent slight increase in weight. This is generally known as an equilibrium speed condi tion for any particular curve.

In transportation experience it has been found that passengers can tolerate the forces generated on curves at speeds higher than the equi librium speed. This subject has been studied in depth by a Joint Committee of thH American Railroad Association and American Railway Engineering Association.

The report of the joint committee showed thH following pertinent facts. The maximum undiminished, unbalanced latera l acceleration that can be tolera ted with comfort by a seated passenger is 0.1 g. Standing passengers are equally able to tolerate constant unbalanced lateral accelt:iratlons but they are more susceptible to irregular or sudlden lateral

accelera tions.

The tests conducted by this joint committee employed conventional North American main line railway equipment and

72

test cars on main line routes. The committee findings. therefore, are particularly relevant to main line rai lway alignment and service. Rapid transit service is more severe on the passenger insofar as rates of linear acceleration are greater and their occurrence more rrequent, due to the closer spacing of stations. Also, horizontal curves are sharper and more closely spaced. In the absence of data related to rapid transit service. the tolerable limit for undiminished, unbalanced lateral acceleration was assumed to be 0.075 g. This is in the median of the perceptible range of the Joint Committee Passenger Ride Comfort Scale.

If body roll were not present this figure, together with track cant, could be used to calculate maximum permissible comfort speeds on curves. With bottom supported vehicles, body roll is a characteristic which can be reduced to a minimum but cannot be eliminated. It varies in magnitude with each type of veh icle suspension. For this report a maximum body roll of 1.25 degrees for bottom supported vehicles was adopted for comparative purposes.

For maximum permissible comfort speed, an effect ive reduction in cant of 1 .25 degrees, without reduction in speed, will impose an additional lateral accelerative force on the passenger of 0.022 g. For bottom supported vehicles, therefore, the equivalent maximum unbalanced accelerative force to be used for calculating speed, allowing for body roll, is

0.053 g.

With fixed suspension systems it is necessary to adopt a maximum floor cant so that, in the event of the vehicle stopping on a curve, passenger discomfort due to this cant will not be unacceptable. A common practice is to limit floor cant to a maximum of 6.0 degrees plus body roll on account of this aspect. The floors of cars with pendular suspensions. such as Safege, assume an attitude at or close to horizontal when stationary.

Desired passenger comfort standards are achieved by limiting the vehicle speed to the limits of unbalanced accelerative force as described above.

5.8 COMPARISON OF SYSTEM SPEEDS ON CURVES

The speeds shown in Table 5.1 were submitted in the technical literature of the Safege, Alweg and Westinghouse systems. They are listed with the equivalent speeds of a duorail system based on the criteria outlined in the previous section. Also shown are the 'g' values, or unbalanced horizontal forces on the passenger resulting from the stated speeds and cants.

The Westinghouse submission makes reference to tests o f comfort in highway vehicles which is only partly applicable to the present investigation.

A comparison of the maximum comfort speeds on curves for all systems applying the same comfort criteria is shown in Table 5.2. The criteria of 0.053 g maximum unbalanced lateral accelerative force and 6 degree maximum floor cant was used for Alweg, Westinghouse and Conventional Duora il. For Safege the maximum lateral accelerative force was limited to 0.072 g because of the rated load llmit of th e outer guide

tyres.

The Safege vehicle has a curve speed advantage over other systems of four to thirteen miles per hour for the same

comfort criteria. This advantage is due to the pendular

suspension system.

main line railway use. This uses a pendu lar type suspension which could match the speed advantage of the Safege system, depending on the outcome of current development. Its use for rapid transit application could be investigated where sharp curvature is justified.

A new type of suspension has been developed for duorail

vehicles which is under test on the Turbotrain, designeid for

Maximum Unbalanced

Horizonlill 'g'

Design Criterit1

Curve Radius

(foot)

J 1910

4 1432

5 1146

6 955

7

8

9

10

12

14

16

19

CURVE

3 4

5

6

7 •

8 90

1 (J

12 14 .

1 (j

1.9

8 19

716

637

573

477

409

358

302

RADIUS

(loot)

1910

1432

1146

955

819

716

637

573

477 409

358

302

TABLE 5.1

DESIGN HO IRIZONTAL CURV E SPEEDS

AS PROPOSED BY SYSTEMS DEVELOPERS

ALWEG

0.18

Standing Load

M aximum Mm<imum

Beam Cant Speed

(mph)

6 - 50 65

6 - 50

6 - 50

6 - 50

6 -50

6 - 50

60

55

50

50

47

DUO RAIL

0.053

Standing Load

Maximum Equilibrium Speed

Track Cant Plus Overspeed

(mph)

6 67

6 58

6 52

6 47

6

6'

6

6

6

6

6

6

44

41

39

37

34

31

29

27

SAFEGE

0072

Standing Load Maximum M aximum

Body Cant Normal Speed

(mph)

8 - 30

8 -30

8 ' - 30'

8 -30

8 -30

8 -30

8-30

a· 30

8 -30'

48

46

43

39

37

34

31

• Moxiniu111 normal speed greater th<t H 50 mph not stated.

TABLE 5.2

SPEEDS ON HORIZONTAL CUIRVES W ITH EQUIVALENT COMFORT FACTOR

Beam Cant

6

6 '

6 5 ·

6

6

6

6

6 '

6

6

6

ALWEG

Max Comfort Speed (0.053g) • (mph)

67

58

52

47

44

41

39 37

34 31

29

27

Track Cant

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6 5 ·

6

6

OUORAIL

Max. Comfo11 Speed (0.053g) (mph)

67

58

52

47

44

41

39 37 34 31

29

27

Body Cant

SAFEGE

Max. Comfort Speed (0.072g) (mph)

80

74

62

56

52

48 46

43

39 37

311

31

After all-Owing for effect of vehicle body roll

WESTINGHOUSE

0.13

Horizontal Elevator

Road Maximum

Cant Speed

3 - 10

4 - 0

4 -45

5 - 15

5 -45

5 - 45

5 -45

5 45

5 ·_45

5~5 ·

5 ' -45

(mph)

so• 47

44

11

37

35

32

WESTINGHOUSE

Road Max. Comfort Cant Speed (0.053g) •

(mph)

6" 67

6 58

6 52

6 47

6 44

6 41

6 39

6 37

6 34

A 31

6 29

(3 27

73

Turbo train suspension system

74

Model of Turbo train being built for Canadian National Railways

ENVIRONMENTAL COl~SIDERATIONS

Section six

Environmental Considerations

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Rapid transit facilities represent a major investment with major long-term impacts on the community. Two important groups of people to be considered in planning the transit route are those who wi ll use the system, and those who live, work, shop or enjoy recreation in the areas through which the line w ill pass. This section is concerned with the environmenta l effect on this latter group of people.

The Manchester Corporation Planning Department supplied local knowledge and expertise of planning policies and existing regulations which aided the Consultant in setting environmental standards. The Planning Department also interpreted the wider implications of such standards on future transportation and land use planning in Manche:ster, and in addition constructed models of various urban locations in Manchester, and developed photo-montages of rapid transit systems in varying attitudes. Appendix E is a special report by the Planning Department.

6.2 SCOPE

The environmental factors involved in transit planning have been identified as :

Disturbance due to noise.

Disturbance due to vibration.

Covered transit bridge to minimise visual

intrusion and noise disturbance, Toronto

Loss of daylight and sunlight.

Visual intrusion and aesthetics.

Effects on street networks.

Physical nuisance due to fumes, dust and other pollutants.

Restrictions on future development.

Other factors.

Each of these factors represents a separate item related to environment. They are each discussed in turn below and their collective effect is considered at the end of this section.

The systems examined to establish the effect of construction and operation on the present and future environment are:

Alweg monorail.

Duorail steel wheel on steel rail.

Safege monorail.

Westinghouse Transit Expressway or Skybus.

It was assumed that all systems wou ld be fully acceptable from an environmental standpoint if located underground. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to establish criteria which would have to be met by each system if it were to be built in open cut, at ground level, or on elevated structu re, and where possible, to compare the relative effect on the environment created by the different systems.

77

6.3 DIST U RBANCE DU E TO NOISE

6.3.1 Introd uct ion

Noise consists of pressure fluctuations of many different

frequencies. These are random in amplitude but occur simul taneously. The subjective impression or loudness depends firstly on the frequency distribution, and secondly on the magnitude of the fluctuations. Any objectiv13 measurement must compensate for the ear's variation of sensitivi ty

with frequency. The simplest method of doing thiis is to use the 'A' weighting network, buil t into a soundl meter to convert the sound pressure level into loudness level expressed in decibels on the A rating scale - dB(A) .

Some examples of noise levels are given below.

SOURCE

TABLE 6.1

COM M ON NOISE SOU RCES

Soft whisper at 5 ft.

Inside small saloon car at 30 mph

Inside British Railways suburban train at 40 mph

Inside bus aw ay from drive unit

M arket Street, Manchester, average noise in day time-peaks neglected

Oxford Street, London. average noise in day time-peaks neglected

Edge of M1 Motorway, average noise in day time-peaks neglected

Weaving shed

LOUDN ESS LEVEL dB{A)

34

70

71

73

74

76

90

96

Sound measurements relati ng to rapid transit were not available for all the systems to be evaluated. Thus it was necessary to carry out sufficient measurements 1to compare the systems with regard to their noise level under different conditions. The programme of field measurements under taken by the Acoustics Group, University of Salford, is described fully in Appendix D.

6.3.2 Measurem ents

M ethod used

A Bruel Kjaer precision portable sound level meter was used. This carried a capacitor microphone w hich was calibrated

using a pistonphone. The output from the me ter was fed into a UHER 4000L portable tape recorder. Some measurements were taken on site bu t most of the results were obtained by analysis of tl1e tapes in the laboratory using a Bruel Kjaer Microphone Amplifier and high-speed sound level recorder. (Levels were accurate to _ 1 dB(A)). All meter readings were obtained with the instrument set to the 'A' weighting network. The microphone was placed at various distances from the test vehicle when making outside measurements. When used for inside measurements, the instrument was held in the same relative position for al l

vehicles examined.

M easurement of noise produced by systems co nsidered for Manc hest er

The systems considered for Manchester fall into the following

broad groups :

1 . Monorails (for purposes of noise comparisons it was assumed that Alweg data cou ld be used for Westing

house).

2. Duorails with steel wheels.

Internal noise levels as measured, are summarised on Table 6.2. The prime interest. however, was in external

noise levels.

The standard condition for systems comparison was in the open w ith the vehicles at ground level travelling at about 40 miles per hour. In the proposed Manchester system, most of the exposed track will either be in a deep cutting or on an elevated structure. Measurements were made in the vicinity of a cutting, therefore, on one Duorail system at a speed of 40 mph Table 6.3 shows measurements for vehicles travelling at speeds of 38 to 43 mph The special external measurements on London Transport trains travelling at 47 mph in the open and at 40 mph in cuttings are

shown in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 respectively.

TAB LE 6.2

INTERNAL NOISE LEVELS IN dB(Al

Vehicles travelling at 38 to 43 mph unless otherwise stated

TORO NTO LONDON

POSITION OF ALWEG BF:ITISH RAIL RAPID TRANSIT TRANSPORT SAFEGE

MEASUREMENT MONORAIL SUBURBAN TRAIN (30 mph) METROPOLITAN LINE MONORAIL

Directly over drive unit 81 71 68 (under diive unit)

Away from drive unit 71 78 78 (in open) (In tunnel) 82 (in tunnel)

• Not measured

78

TABLE 6.3

EXTERNAL NOISE LEVELS IN dB(A ) IN FLAT OPEN COUNT RY

Vehicles travelling at 38 to 43 mph unless otherwise stated. M easurements were mode at a height of four feet above ground level. Systems at

grade unless otherwise st.ited

ALWEG DISTANCE FROM MONORAIL TRACK CENTRF IN FEET

0

25

50

100

·Not measured

l;!lev::itecl track

85

80

75

68

GR ASS

BANKING

BR ITISH TORONTO RAPID LONDON RAIL TRAMS IT TRANSPORT suburbe1 n M easured Estimated M etropolitan Bakerloo tra in (30- 35 nipl1) (42 mph) Line Line

88 81 84 87

83 76 79 +

78 73 76

TABLE 6.4

VAR IATION OF NOISE LEVEL WITH SPEED

London Transport Metropolitan Line trains measured at 25 ft. from track centre

SPEED IN MPH NOISE LEVEL IN dB{A)

38

42

47

86

87

89

TABLE 6.5

SH IELDl llJG BY GRASS BANl<S

London Transpor1t Bakerloo Line trains at 40 mph

POSITION A

>.<

"' __ _l

POSITION 8 x

90

JO o' ~o o 2 5 o' 25 o' -r -r

TRAINS ON TRACK No.

'1

2

2

MEASURING POSITION

A

A

c A

B

MEASURED NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A)

84

68

61

82

69

SAFEG E MONORAIL

Ground Elevated Level

POSITION c x

81

77

73

Level

82

84

78

76

79

6.3.3 Comparison of systems

1. At 25 ft. the variation in external noise level between the quietest and noisiest systems was about ten dB(A), a doubling in intensity. It is thought that 25 ft. is the best distance for measuring noise levels from the~ different vehicles. At this distance the effect of a number of cars rather than a single car is to increase the duration of the noise but not the level.

2. The noise from all systems is decreased by between four and six dB(A) by doubling the distance! from the

track.

3. The noise level immediately beneath the Safege system is less than that immediately beneath the Alweg system because of the shielding provided by the Safe1Je vehicle.

4. The extra two dB (A) produced by the elevated section of the Safege system as compared with the ground level section can be attributed to increased track and support vibration. This would be an engineering probl1em on any system and should not be regarded as special to Safege.

5, Taylor-Woodrow and Alweg claim that the Safege and Alweg systems could and would be made quieter for an actual installation, which is probably true.

6. The Duorail systems using steel wheels on steel rails could also be made quieter by certain modifications using plastic inserts or fixtures on the wheels (see Ap1pendix D).

7. The noise from both steel wheeled and rubber tyred vehicles has a similar frequency content.

8. The noise level from the London Transport surface stock travelling at 47 mph is three dB (A) higher than when travelling at 38 mph This indicates that noise level increases by three dB (A) when vehicle speed is increased by 20 per cent.

9. The measurements obtained at a cutting on London Transport's Bakerloo Line indicate that a cionsiderable degree of shielding from noise could be achieved for all systems in cut.

6.3.4 Noise climates

Before proceeding to determine the acoustic environment created in the neighbourhood of the transit track, noise climates due to the existing traffic conditions wem examined. These are shown in Table 6.6 based on the Wilson

Report.'

6.3.5 Noise criteria for location of transit systems

Since the transit system is proposed to be rou1red through areas where the ideal criteria as established in the Wilson Report are normally exceeded, it shou ld be sufficient to stipulate that the introduction of the transit system should not produce noise levels greater than those prevailing and that preferably they should be less. The maximum frequency of any transit system is likely to be one trai111 every two minutes in each direction and this disturbance wou ld not be

continuous.

1 . Wiison Committee. Noise-Final Report. H.M ,S.O.

80

TABLE 6.6 EXISTING EXTERNAL NOISE CLIMATES*

GROUP LOCATION NOISE CLIMATE IN dB(A)

Day Night 8 a.m.- 1 a.m.-6 p.m. 6 a.m.

A Arterial roads with many heavy vehicles and buses (kerbside) 80-68

B 1 . Major roads with heavy 75-63

c

D

traffic and buses

2. Side roads within 15- 20 yards of roads in groups A or B (1) above 75- 63

1. Main residential roads 70- 60

2. Side roads within 20-50 yards of heavy traffic routes 70-60

3. Courtyards of blocks of flats, screened from direct view of heavy traffic 70-60

Residential roads with local traffic only 65- 56

70- 50

61 - 49

61-49

55-44

55- 44

55- 44

53-45

* Noise cl imate is the range of noise level recorded for 80% of the time. The level exceeds the higher figure for 10% of the time and is less than the lower figure for 10% of the time.

Su itable criteria would be that the maximum noise level produced by a transit system, for no more than ten per cent of the time in the peak period, should not exceed the noise level which is exceeded during ten per cent of the time by existing traffic. The transit noise levels given in Table 6.3 may be compared with the existing external noise climates as given in Table 6.6. If the transit noise level is less than or equal to the existing level, no reaction need be anticipated. However, if the transit noise level exceeds the existing level, there will be some reaction. The expected reactions for the different systems are shown in Table 6.7.

6.3.6 Vertical location and noise reduction by shiel d ing

Noise from a transit line above ground level would be similar to the noise at ground level. Elevation of the structure need not be considered a special case, providing the support structure is designed to minimise vibration. If the structure has solid barriers alongside it. these will provide some shielding. Noise levels will then be reduced as if barriers were built alongside a ground-level track.

Noise from the far track is shielded slightly less than noise from the near track, and Figure 6.1 shows the average shielding effect which might be expected. Upper storeys will be shielded to a lesser extent, but at a height of 20 ft. above the track and at a distance of 100 ft. the noise level will stil l be reduced by 5 dB(A).

Cuttings over 6 ft. deep may be expected to give an even greater shielding effect than barriers. The banking should be absorbent in order to avoid reflection from the far side. Examples of the shielding resulting from cuttings are shown

on Figure 6.2.

A.

B.

c.

D.

TABLE 6.7 EXPECTED REACTION OF PUBLIC TO SYSTEMS AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS

NOISE CLIMATE

Arteria l roads with many heavy vehicles and buses

1. Major roads with heavy traffic and buses

1. Main resldenttal roads

2. Side roads within 20- 25 yards of heavy traffic

3. Courtyards of blocks of flats screened from direct view of heavy traffic

1. Residential roads with local traffic only

50 It

., e ::> 0

"' 11> V)

·c; c 11> > 0

_Q

"' +J .s:: Cl "iii I

0 x 0

EXPECTED REP1CTION

+ 25 ft.

Strong complaint Mild complaint Mild annoyance D No effect S&A

Strong complaint Mild complaint D Mild annoyance S&A No effect

Strong complaint D Mild complaint S&A Mild annoyance

No effect

Strong complaint D, S &A Mild complaint Mild annoyance No effect

85db(A)

!10

DISTANCE FROM NOISE SOURCE (A = Alweg D = Duorail S = Safege)

+ 50 ft. + 100 ft, ~ 200 ft.

D, S &A

D S&A

D S&A

D S&A

D, S &A

D, S &A

D

S&A

D S&A

75db(A)

100 ft

0 , S &A

D, S &A

D, S &A

D S&A

Distance frorn noise source - No Barrier

75 db (A)

70

65

60

50 100 II

Distance from noise source - 6 Foot Barrier

6.1

The shielding to be expected from 6 ft. high barriers adjacent to a twin-track Duorai/ system.

l\JOISE INTENSITY AT GRADE, w11rH AND WITHOUT BARRIER

81

6.2

82

Q) 0 :; 0

"' Q)

"' "(5 c:

£ Q)

> -~

~ .E O>

'Qi :c

Q)

~ :J 0

"' Q)

"' '(5 c:

9 Q)

.::: c;; ~ .E !J)

'Qi :c

50 fl

0

110 ft

50ft---

Noi se Sou rce

0

Noise Source

x 0

0

75 db(A)

80 db (A)

85 db (A)

50 100 II

Distance from noise source - At Grade

75db(A)

100 ft

Distance from noise source - Earth Cutting

70db(A)

50 100 fl

Distance from noise source - Retaining Wall

The shielding to be expecWd from siting the twin-track Duorail system in a cutting

55 db(A)

NOISE INTENSITY AT GRADE VERSUS EARTH CUT AND RETAINING WALL

Acoustic barrier alongside track, Expo

'67, Montreal

Train in landscaped cutting,

London

83

6.3.7 Conclusions

1 . All of the systems produce external noise levels of between 80 and 90 dB(A) at a distance of 2!3 h. when vehicles travel at about 40 mph at ground level in the open. It is probable that these levels could be reduced somewhat by special techniques.

2. Noise shielding such as barriers or locating in cutting to produce acceptable noise levals, would reduce the distance to residential units.

6.4 DISTURBANCE DUE TO VIBRATION

While special studies concerning vibration were not carried out during the course of the Study, it appears from preliminary observations along the route that the Manchester area is not prone to transmitted vibration. Buildings in the1 City and alongside rail lines are reported not to suffer from the problem to any unusual degree. Therefore, it is assumed tlhat normal precautions, such as rails mounted on resilient pads, would be adequate to prevent any undue disturbance from vibration.

6.5 LOSS OF DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT

6.5.1 Introduction

This section concerns the effect of each system when carried on elevated structure on the restriction of daylight and sunlight to adjacent buildings. It covers the existing methods of measurement, their applications to tlhe systems and pictorial examination of each system.

6.5.2 Daylight

Method of Measurement

1. The Building Regulations- 1965.

2. Planning Bulletin No. 5-"Planning for Daylight and Sunlight".

3. British Standard Code of Practice No. 3.

4. Subjective Judgements.

The Building Regulations-1965 replace sundry local by -laws governing distance between buildings. The new regulations are designed to allow an architect moire flexibility in designing layouts. They specify a zone of open space which must be left in front of living room winidows. The distance that this zone projects in front of the liiving room window depends on the height of the building, but for twostorey houses it is 12 ft. This very small dimension is used by designers of new housing areas only for special housing types. It is not normally used in town planning iin assessing the effect of a new structure on an existing houso. Generally speaking, the standards set out in Planning Bulletin No. 5 are in most cases more restrictive than the Building Regulations. This Bulletin sets out a method of assessing the amount of daylight reaching the windows of 1commercial and residential buildings and defines acceptable1 limits.

Subjective judgements are also used in assessin!;J the effect caused by placing a new structure close to exisfing houses,

84

because of the need to safeguard privacy. These judgements often result in a new structure being sited further away from houses than if the daylight requirements had been rigidly applied.

In the case of overhead structures where daylight can penetrate beneath, it is not possible to use the permissible height indicators because they are based on daylight loss caused by a solid structure. It has been necessary, therefore, to refer to the basic principles from which the indicators were derived and apply them to rapid transit structures in a typical situation. The principles are illustrated by the Waldram Diagram which is described in the Code of Practice No. 3.

The results are set out in Table 6.8. The Code of Practice recommends that daylight obstruction should not exceed 5% by this method of measurement. It may be seen from Table 6.8 that, with the one marginal exception of Duorail at 25 h., none of the systems infringes the standard set out in the Code.

TABLE 6.8

OBSTRUCTION TO DAYLIGHT

% Obstruction at the ground floor if parallel houses are at the stated distances from the structure

25 ft. 50 ft. 1 00 h. 1 50 ft.

ALWEG 4·2 2·7 0 ·9 0·5

DUORAIL 5·1 3·3 0·8 0·4

SAFEGE 3·5 3·5 2·5 1 ·8

WESTINGHOUSE 4·9 2·4 0·6 0·4

6.5.3 Sunlight

The elevated structures would vary in height from 20 ft. to 39 ft.; some would have continuous decking, others would have divided decking. The column spacing, the height of the structure and the type of decking will affect the amount of obstruction to sunlight. It was considered sufficient for comparison purposes to develop the shadow effects of the various systems as though they were located along a north-south axis. Figure 6.3 illustrates th is shadow effect for each system. Study of these illustrations, using the shadow effect rating as a guide to sunlight loss, gives the following results:

Least sunlight loss 1. Westinghouse.

2. Alweg.

Most sunlight loss 3. Duorail and Safege.

The length of shadow cast by an elevated structure at various times of the day during the year is shown in Figure 6.4, using Duorail as an example.

Jt

. v.

ALWEG

DUO RAIL

SAFEG E

W ESTINGHOUSE

--=:::::::::::: 6 0 ::<,• ~$91%1' 6 P. rn

6.3

, ·rX,'~lr""'·"' .-, ---

=::::::::::::: Ii 0 ,"'

6P.rn.

Ylljtl tfef ti

60.m 6 p.m,

SHADOW CAST' BY ELEVATED STRUCTURES 85

6.4

86

-<t a: 0 => c c w

~ w ...J w

> al

.... en <t (.)

~ 0 c <t :I: en LL 0 :I: .... CJ 2 w _,

e· 0 cl. c:D ot

e. ~ 0 0 ~

\

\ \

~ ~;. \ o~ \ g..

~.\ 0 Po

\ \ ,,,,,,, ,;

\~

\\ \ ' ~

~

>- >-er er c( c( :::> :r :::> er u z CD er c( L&I c( ., IL :I

. '-E. Ii. ~ i-

·e ~c

\ "' !J \

\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1

.<~ ~- °"

"" 0 ~ ~,.

\ \ "" ~\ \

~ ~

~ "' ~ ~ ~ ~ !-...._

..J LU iX >- z Cl. < :::> c( :I .,

i -

I

7 7

~ I

I / I _v I I

v I I I / I v /_V~ L---~

l/

~ v -

~ -~ ...

er UJ CD er

I- :I UJ (/) UJ al

>- :::> I- 0 ..J " Cl. I-:::> :::> UJ u ..., c( (/) 0

j

I I I 7 II I /;, v ~

er er UJ al UJ

:I al :I UJ LU > u

0 L&I z 0

0 0 ,.,

0 Q)

N

0 CD N

0 v N

0 N N

0 0 N

0 Q)

0 ID

0 v

0 N

0 Q

0 Cl>

0 ID

0 v

0 N

0

6.6 VISUAL INTRUSION AND AESTHETICS

6.6.1 Introduction

A decision to construct lengths of elevated rapid transit structures would mean the introduction of a dominant visual element into the urban environment. It has !been assumed that elevated structures built for any of the systems

under consideration for Manchester would be of the hi£1hest standard of design and would be planned in co -ordination with land use to achieve proper balance and scale between adjacent buildings and the structures. This has not always been the case with elevated systems constructed in the past.

6 .6 .2 Transit underground, in cut and at grade

This section of the Study is primarily concerned with evaluating the impact of elevated structures. A completely underground system would be the ideal attitude in that there would be no problems of visual intrusion and aesth«3tics . A system in cut offers a compromise. With proper landsca1ping

Transit line in landscaped cutting, Toronto

much can be done to relate embankments to surrounding areas. A facil ity at ground level, whilst not as visually disruptive as an elevated line, might create sizable problems in maintaining accessibility between adjoining areas, unless it followed on existing natural or man-made barrier.

6.6.3 Transit elevated structure

To study the effects of elevated structures, models to a scale of -fr in. to one foot were produced by the Manchester Planning Department. These depicted elevated routes through three typical Manchester settings:

A. Amid pre-war semi -detached dwellings which will be occupied for several more years.

B. Where more recent residential development prevails, including high rise residential development.

C. As part of a special study of an elevated facility over the road in a suburban area (see Appendix A).

87

Photographs of both the model, and of the actual location were taken from common points in order that a true com

parison cou ld be made. It must be emphasized that the locations for the photographs do not necessarily signify that the route will be through these areas. The settings are on ly used for comparison of the systems.

When viewed as a whole the models understate the visual

impact of the structures on the surroundings. A. montage technique, using photographs taken 'on site', togiether with photographs of the models taken with the aid of a modelscope, illustrates more realistically the relationship between the various Rapid Transit structures and adjoining buildings, as seen in Figures 6.5, 6.6a and 6.6b.

The model studies did not include elevated stations. These are much more dominant than the track structure and require special civic design treatment.

Conclusion

Ttie structure required for a conventional Duorail system

would not be much more intrusive visually than the structures required for either of the two monorail systerns or the Westinghouse system. There appears to be no reason to

88

Transit line at grade, Toronto

rule out elevated Duorail where elevated monorails wou ld be acceptable. The Stockholm, Rotterdam and San Francisco installations illustrate how impressive a well designed conventional elevated rai lway structure can be. It becomes a matter of conjecture and personal opinion to define the

differences between systems. The major impact results from introducing any form of elevated structure into the environ ment, irrespective of its aesthetic qualities. Both Duorail and Transit Expressway provide greater scope for imaginative designs than the two monorail systems, where beamway shape is fixed. The modelscope photographs and

other illustrations were viewed by members of the Planning Department and the Steering Group. The general impression obtained by this group was that there was no great difference in impact between the systems. However, the Consultant subjectively rated the systems with respect to aesthetics

and visual intrusion as fol lows:

Least Intrusive A lweg

Westinghouse

Duorai l

Most Intrusive Safege

6.5

ALWEG

DUORAIL

SAFEGE

WESTINGHOUSE ·

Photo-montage comparing elevated structures through multi-storey development

89

ALWEG ALWEG

6.6a

DUO RAIL

WESTINGHOUSE WESTINGHOUSE

90 25 FEET 50 FEET Photo-montage comparing visual impact in a low density residential area (structures seen at 25 feet and 50 feet)

ALWEG ALWEG

DUO RAIL DUORAIL

SAFEGE SAFEGE

WESTINGHOUSE W ESTINGHOUSE

100 FEET 150 FEET 91 Photo-montage comparing visual impact in a low density residential area (structures seen at 100 feet and 150 feet)

Elevated Alweg structure, Seattle

Elevated Alweg structure, Tokyo

l

Elevated Duorail structure,

San Francisco

Elevated Duorail structure, Rotterdam

93

94

Elevated Safege structure at test track, France

Elevated Westinghouse structure at test track, Pittsburgh

I 6.6 .4 Distance between elevated structures and dwell ings

It is difficult to be precise about how far away a structure should be so as not to dominate the view from resideintial properties, but a minimum of about 150 ft. is recommen1ded by the Consultant. A reasonable scale would seem easily obtainable between any of the elevated structures and high blocks of flats. The desirable distance between the structures and such buildings, however, should be fixed just as it would be in the case of smaller dwellings- that is, by talking account of the inhabitants' view from the lower floors.

Where extensive redevelopment is taking place this standard could be modified by integrating the dwellings with the elevated structure. Thus by the judicious use of sound insulation, landscaping and other modern design tHchniques, it should be possible to develop suitably desig1ned dwellings for siting less than 150 ft. from elevated structures for any of the systems.

6.6.5 Conclusions

The Working Party and the Consultants are of the opinion that, visually, the degree of difference between the systems is not sufficiently significant to suggest that one might be acceptable where another is not.

The major impact would result from introducing any form of elevated structure into the environment. The relationships between structures and buildings on hilly or uneven ground would have to be specially interpreted, depending on topography, bearing in mind the above criteria.

Except for special circumstances as indicated above, all the structures, irrespective of systems, would be visually obtrusive, particularly within the 150 ft. limit recommended above. It is emphasized that the design treatment and

Transit line at grade, Toronto.

Note security fence

quality of construction would be more important than differences in structural outline between the various systems.

6.7 EXISTING STREET NETWORK

The construction of any rapid transit system would have two major effects on the street network : that of the physical barrier created and that of the increased traffic generated by the stations. All systems would have similar effects.

6.7.1 Physical barrier

Open cut and underground attitudes would have little effect on the street network. 'At-grade' and 'transition sections' between some attitudes, however, wou ld affect streets crossed by the route. Piers and columns for elevated structures on street locations significantly affect the capacity and safety of the arteries. This would require special attention.

At grade

Crossings at grade wou ld requ ire the cross street to be depressed or elevated. This would isolate the street frontage for some distance on each side of the transit route.

Transition sections

Where the attitude changed from below ground to above ground, or vice versa, a problem would be created in maintaining the crossing streets over sections some 1,000 ft. in length. This condition wou ld require either special treatment, such as bridges or street closures, or a location which is free of cross streets.

At stations which will be about 600 ft. in length, some streets might have to be closed, particularly if associated with parking or bus terminal facilities. In areas of redevelopment such problems could be readily accommodated.

96

Elevated transit line along residential boulevard, Rotterdam

Street network maintained across transit line, elevated and in cut and cover, Toronto

6.7.2 Increased traf fic generated at stations

The capacity of the street network in station areas will have an important bearing on the increased traffic which can be tolerated at such points. It may be necessary, therefore, to improve the surrounding roads or carryout traffic management improvements to avoid congestion and delay. The degre13 to which each station will generate traffic will depend on the number of feeder routes, car parking ~paces, and residential and commercial density. The car parking will have an environmental effect on the surrounding area. This factor should be taken into consideration when selecting the locations of stations which are to have major 'park .and ride' facilities.

6.8 PHYSICAL NUISANCE

The items included in this category include fumes, dust, water spray, fal ling objects and oi l or grease relevan1t to elevated structures. Possible nuisance in connection with these items is listed in Table 6.9.

TAB LE 6.9

PHYSICAL NUISANCE FROM SYST EMS

ITEM

Fumes

Dust

Water

Spray

Falling Objects Parts Etc.

Alweg and Westinghouse

Nil

Nil

May drip or drop

Slipstream from underside of vehicle onto street

Oil and grease from bogies may fall on people in street

SYSTEM

Safege

Nil

Nil

May drip or drop

Slipstream from underside of vehicle onto street

Possible, although oil and grease probably retained on vehicle roof

Conventional Steel Wh13el

Nil

Nil

Negligible

Negligible

These items probably would not be significant, but it might prove necessary to install light screening under beamways which crossed the streets. (See also Psychological Aspe?cts and Appendix A). It is emphasized that this screening would not act as a safety device to support a derailed vehicle.

6.9 FUTUR E DEVELOPMENT

Construction of a new transportation facility will inevita1bly have a major impact on the area through which it passes. This will occur in the vicinity of stations as well as betwieen the stations.

6.9.1 A rea at t he stat ions

Irrespective of the attitude, the stations will attract development. They may be used, if desired, as centres to stimulate

the concentration of residential or other development. Development of air rights at or near stations could readily be accomplished if the line were depressed or underground, but no example of a major development is known where lines are elevated. There are good examples of elevated stations integrated with shopping centres in Sweden.

6.9.2 Areas bet ween st at io ns

The location of the transit line between stations. in other than underground construction, will affect the land use adjacent to the line over a long period of time. In view of this, care has ~o be taken in selecting an alignment to ensure that it will not create an effect on land use which will be detrimental in the future.

The major impact will occur in residential areas. Here special care will be necessary to avoid disturbance and visual intrusion. The continuing improvement of residential environmental standards would suggest that in the long term the line should be underground or in open cut when it is routed through such area or areas of proposed residential development. Elevated lines could however, be integrated into an area where major development or redevelopment is contemplated. It is interesting to note that planners in Paris and Stockholm have adopted a policy of constructing lines underground through residential areas, while San Francisco voters have shown strong opposition to elevated structures in residential areas.

In areas zoned for future industrial, commercial or green belt purposes the need to avoid disturbance and intrusion is not so significant. These areas can usually be effectively handled by careful architectural and landscaping treatment.

6.10 OTHER FACTORS

Other factors considered were invasion of privacy, psycho logical aspects and safety.

6.10.1 Invasio n of privacy

The invasion of privacy would occur along any new route where transit passengers could observe residents in their houses or gardens from the tracks. A serious invasion of privacy could occur where the track is less than 100 ft. from existing properties. The problem could be moderated by screening the line or by maintaining a distance greater than 100 ft. (which also might coincide with the criteria for noise disturbance).

6.10.2 Psychological aspects

The effect of a Safege vehicle crossing the path of a motorist might prove to be disturbing. This handicap might be overcome by the installation of light screening under the Safege vehicle path. (See also Physica l Nuisance and Appendix A). The extent of this problem cou ld be assessed only by field tests.

6.10.3 Security

This factor is mainly concerned with the earthwork attitudes. Where the transit system is in earthworks there is the

97

problem, already experienced by British Raillways, of

preventing trespass, particularly by children. It is recom

mended that safety fencing should be:

6.11 CONCLUSIONS

In terms of noise, visual intrusion, aesthetics and loss of

daylight there is no significant difference between the

systems. Strong enough to prevent physical entrance.

Of a type which precludes climbing. In locations where a line is to be constructed in the open,

one system would be as acceptable as another.

Such as to permit the observation of trains (Children are

more likely to climb a solid barrier to see wha11: is on the

other side).

The clearance distances from existing buildings in various

urban conditions in Table 6.10 are recommended by the

Consultant. Under certain circumstances it might prove

necessary to modify the criteria for social or economic

reasons. Major deviations from the criteria might have grave

environmental disadvantages over the long term. Fencing satisfying these conditions should also be properly

designed and landscaped.

TABLE 6.10

ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA FOR LOCATION OF TRANSIT FACILITIES

DOMINANT LAND USE

Underground

Existing and Proposed Industrial Acceptable

Existing and Proposed Commercial Acceptable

Existing Residential Acceptable

Residential Redevelopment Acceptable

Open Space Acceptable

98

ATTITUDE OF TRANSIT LINE

Open Cut

Acceptable, subject to communications being maintained


Acceptable, subject to communications being maintained; also noise and special visual considerations

Acceptable, subject to communications being maintained; also noise and special visual considerations to be met

Acceptable. subject to communications being maintained; also noise and special visual considerations to be met

Ground Level



Acceptable, subject to communications being maintained and a desirable minimum of 1 50 ft. to nearest residential unit

Acceptable, subject to communications being maintained and a desirable minimum of 1 50 ft. to nearest residential unit

Acceptable, subject to communications being maintained; also noise and special visual considerations to be met

Elevated

Acceptable, subject to noise and daylight criteria

Acceptable, subject to noise and daylight criteria and architectural considerations

Desirable minimum 150 ft. to nearest residential unit.

Minimum distance less than 150 ft. subject to architectural considerations and civic design

Acceptable, subject to communications being maintained ; also noise and special visual considerations to be met

THE ROUTE

7.1 GENERAL CRITERIA FOR RAPID TRANSIT LOCATION

The alignment of a rapid transit l ine should be predicated on passenger demand and the convenience of access for patrons to the transit system. It should also be compatible with the environment through which it will be constructed and will operate. Physical features, such as topography and soil cond itions, which will have an effect on the cost of fixed facilities must also be considered. Costs, however, should be secondary to convenience of access and environmental considerations.

The success of the system can be affected drastically by choosing an alignment which is inconvenient for the potential passengers by only a matter of a few hundred 1feet. The transit facility will serve the community for decades. Design standards should thus acknowledge the upward trend in design, aesthetics and operating standards. Otherwise,. the system may become obsolete before its useful service life is over.

The first step in locating a transit line in a given corridor is to select station locations, then to fix the route between the stations. System characteristics may then be establishe,d to operate the route and a vehicle type selected to meet desired performance standards.

7 .2 STATION LOCATION

Th'e important factors to be considered in station location are:

Present and future land use.

Impact on the surrounding area (land use, traffic congestion, et cetera).

Present and future passenger prospects.

Accessibility for pedestrians and feeder bus passenners.

Roadway accessibility for motorists and availability of parking space.

Station spacing.

Section seven

The Route

Connection with other transport facilities (e.g. British Railways).

Physical limitations of the site.

The emphasis to be placed on each of these factors should vary with the particular location of the station under con sideration. For example, little emphasis shou ld be placed on accessibility to motorists for central area stations whereas this feature becomes very important at outlying stations. Pedestrian accessibility at central area locations, on the other hand, is of prime importance. In North America transit passengers are reluctant to transfer to a surface system in the central area or to walk more than 1,000 feet.

One of the most difficult factors to reconci le is station spacing. Close spacing gives maximum accessibility to the system but increases total travel time for many passengers. Travel time must be competitive with travel times by private car, however, if motorists are to be attracted to the system. Similarly convenience of access to pedestrians in the central area, which suggests close station spacing, is extremely important if the system is to be attractive.

Feeder bus service should be fast, frequent and convenient. Transfer facilities should require minimum walking, few if any stairs, and little exposure to street traffic and weather. Facili ties at outlying stations for park and ride and kiss and ride patrons should be attractive, convenient to stations and I accessible over routes which are relatively uncongested. ' - .. Successful feeder bus and parking facilities are illustrated in Section 9- Station Design.

The following table indicates the importance of facilities for feeder bus service and for motorists in two North American cities.

The standards for quality of speed, comfort and convenience of transfer for public transportation services can be expected to become higher in the future, just as have housing and other living standards. The climate of Manchester is such that continuing acceptance of public transport will depend in part on the care taken in station design and location to keep

TABLE 7,1 METHOD Of' TRAVEL TO STATIONS

METROPOLITAN PERCENTAGE OF PASSENGERS IN SURVEY BY MODE OF SECONDARY TRANSPORTATION AREA Service Drove Driven Bus Walk Total Remarks

Philadelphia Reading R.R. 39 22 39 100 From interview survey of P.R.R. 32 7 61 100 riders- 6 :45 to 10 :45

a.m.-1959 Cleveland

9 53 3 100 From postcard survey of 12 42 11 100 riders on West Side rapid

West Park Terminal C.T.S. 35 Triskett Station C.T.S. 35

transit-peak period- 1959

101

walking distance in the open to a minimum. This i.s particularly true with regard to access to the downtown stations and at transfer points between the rapid transit system and bus, railway and parking facilities. Pleasant covered pedestrian ways, station areas and vehicle interiors will p1rovide an attractive alternative to surface travel by private car. The importance of this aspect becomes apparent from an inspection of Table 7.2.

Stations may readily be integrated with commerciall and high density residential development. They may be used as an effective land use planning tool in stimulating new develop-

mentor redevelopment, as has been done on a large scale in Stockholm where transit lines planned to serve developing areas were built at the same time as the new suburban communities. The stations form the core of the new suburbs along the transit l ines. The area around each station is devoted to shopping and other community activities. High density residential development surrounds the shopping area while low density housing has been placed outside this ring. Feeder buses serve both transit passengers and shoppers. The communities are generally separated by green belt areas.

The major roads run through these green belt areas, isolated from local streets.

TABLE 7.2 WEATHER CONDITIO NS IN THE MANCHESTER AREA

NUMBER OF DAYS IN MONTH WITH RAINFALL EXCEEDING

0.01 inches 0.04 inches

Manchester Manchester Mornings Rainfal l

MONTH Airport Bolton Airport Bolton with Fog Inches

Jan 18 20 13 15 8.5 3.5

Feb 15 17 11 12 7.6 2.2

Mar 13 15 9 11 6.6 2.1

Apr 13 15 9 11 3.1 2.1

May 13 14 10 11 0.7 2.3

Jun 15 17 11 12 0.4 2.5

July 16 18 12 14 0.8 3.3

Aug 16 17 13 14 0.6 3.9

Sep 16 18 12 15 2.2 3.1

Oct 15 17 11 13 6.4 2.9

Nov 18 19 13 15 8.4 3.1

Dec 19 22 15 17 9.7 3.3

Annual 187 209 139 160 55.0 34.3

----

102

Mean Mean Duration Temperature- of Bright Degrees Fahrenhei t

35.2 34.7 37.4 41 .5 45.7 50.9 54.8 54.2 50.7 45.3 40.3 37.1

43.9

Sunshine Hours/Day

0.74 1.54 2.90 4.40 5.57 5.52 4.66 4.46 3.21 2.35 1.00 0.60

1126(hours) 25% of possible

hours per day

Station interior, Montreal



103

To draw passengers from areas one-quarter mi le or more from the rapid transit line, stations should be located on or adjacent to streets capable of supporting bus feeder service.

The stations should also be situated such that bus access is direct and not delayed by heavy traffic en route or a1t adjacent intersections. Suitably located off-street bus loa1ding bays have many attributes, especially where a station is also the terminus of a transit or bus route. On-street kerb loading bays should also be considered where street traffic volumes permit, especially if the stop at the rapid transit station is only

a line stop on the bus route.

The passenger arriving by car falls into orie of two categories; kiss and ride or park and ride. The kiss and ride term is used to describe those passengers who are driven to or from the station in private cars and dropped off or picked up, usually

by their wives. The park and ride term is used to describe those passengers who drive themselves to a stationi and leave their cars in a parking area.

For both types of customer each station should lbe located adjacent to a main street. Access points should be positioned

104

Station in Community Centre, Stockholm

such that congested streets and intersections are avoided.

To encourage kiss and ride operations, the access points should be convenient for both transit users and their drivers. Some short term parking space will be required for cars waiting to pick up passengers. For the park and ride passenger the entrance to the parking area need not be adjacent to the station. The walk between the station and the parking areas

should be as convenient as possible for the passenger who

has parked. I -<:::-='

Data being gathered from transportation surveys in M anchester will show the station locations in the proposed corridor for which the greatest passenger potential exists.

Future planning, future housing and commercial developments, and future surface feeder routes should also be anticipated since rapid transit may give great impetus to the development or redevelopment of any area. Such data were not available for this study; in lieu of such information, the Planning, Transport and Highway Departments of the City of Manchester were consulted. Stations were located on the

basis of their intimate knowledge of local factors.

7.3 VERTICAL LOCATION OF THE LINE BETWEEN STATIONS

There is no operational reason for the transit structure to be accessible to the public between stations nor for it to be in any particu lar location or attitude, that is elevated, at ground level, in cut or underground. The principal factors applicable to the rapid transit structure between stations are directiness of route, degree of intrusion, and cost. Cost includes acquisition of right of way, protection of adjacent structures, diversion and reinstallation of public services, and construction of the supporting way.

Installation of a rapid transit structure in a developed area will involve physical intrusion during and after construction. The degree of intrusion will vary with the construction technique adopted and the attitude of the structure, i.e. whether it is above, at, or below ground level. Intrusion will also vary with the horizontal location of the rapid transit structure, i.e. whether it is on existing streets or rights of way or is removed from, or parallel to, such rights of way. The three basic possible attitudes of rapid transit structures, variati~ns thereof, and influence of location are outlined in the following paragraphs. Table 7 .3 lists and illustrates the three basic vertica l attitudes with major variations due to horizontal location.

7.4 CONSTRUCTION AT GROUND LEVEL

A rapid transit line in this attitude occupies space at gmund level. Consequently with this attitude the rapid transit tends to divide the area through wh ich it passes, un less it follows existing natural or man-made barriers such as rivers, railway tracks or limited access motorways. Access between the areas

Transit at grade in expressway

median, Chicago

on the two sides of the rapid transit right of way is possible by means of overpasses or underpasses. The right of way required is permanently occupied at surface level and the possibility of the disposal of subsurface property rights is extremely remote. The disposal of air rights, commencing at clearance elevation, 14 or 15 feet, above ground level, is unusual but feasible. The effect on the environment of this attitude is discussed in Section 6. Possibilities for treating the right of way to improve the appearance of a ground level facility include screen walls and landscaping. The appearance of an at grade transit line is similar to controlled access highways or rai lways at ground level.

At grade faci iities may be built off existing streets or in the central reservation (median) of a controlled access highway.

7 .4.1 Off Street

Where a line is built off street, existing streets or roads crossing the transit route must be grade separated if they cannot be closed. Grade separations sometimes cause considerable damage to properties fronting on the approaches to the structure. This problem may be overcome by building the transit line either above or below ground level, in which case road crossings are maintained at the level of existing streets and roadways.

7.4.2 In a Central Reservation

A rapid transit alignment along the central reservation, or median, of a controlled access divided highway does not involve the problems outlined above. If the highway is not of the controlled access type, however, problems similar to

105

BASIC

BASIC ATTITU DE

AT GRADE

OR

AT GROUND LEVEL

BELOW GRADE

OR

BELOW GR OUND LEVEL

ELEVATED

OR

ABOVE GROUNC. LEVEL

106

TABLE 7.3

ATTITUDES AND LOCATIONS

S YMBOLIC REPRESENTATION VARIATIONS

~ ~ RAPID TRANSIT VEHICLE

·-r- POSSIBLE -- PROPERTY

OFF STRl.lT

PR~ llNE

EXIS:::t- 0 EHlllRONM ENJ i~~ --. -

CARFf !AGEWA'r .( MIN A OW) CAllRl46EW4f 7

IN M(DIAN

~ --,§ a ~ (@) ~. -

-· ~N~Wt ~SIBLE - OPERTY

OFF STREET I' ' LIN!:

CU r AND COVER @16J

I MIN R o w I EXISTING

I~ f ENVIRONMENT

ON STREET I ... ::: • 0 0 .... ~

CUT AND COVER ur•urv SER VICES , . /

@Ji@

~STING IR:ONMEIH .

TUNN!::L \ UTILITY SERVIC ES

<@) (@)

. R 0 W t I

OPEN CUT

(EARTHWORKS)

(@ ~ .._ RETAINING

WA LL --MIN ROW

_,

OIFf STREET (]} ~

n 1.- PRQP(Rf't

: c LINE

' Mitt R 0 W

~~ I

lN MEDIA N _[O ~ & --.-- .,_.__-

OQ ON S rREET

~ ~

I\ 0 w 1

OQ EMSANhMENT / 1 A[T41N I NG

( t: ARTliWORKS) WALL

those discussed above at crossing streets are encountered. For this reason it is usually impractical to locate rapid transit at grade along an arterial or local street.

Where rapid transit facilities pentitrate a developed environ ment off street, ground level construction is seldom feasible. Th ey are feasible and inexpensive to build, however, where:

The environment is undeveloped and will remain so; or

The new transit facility will be alongside an ex isting natural or man-made barrier such as a river or railw;ay.

7.5 BELOW GROUND CONSTRUCTION

In this attitude the rapid transit vehicle is operated below the level of the original ground. The original ground surface is either undisturbed, restored to its original condition on completion of construction, or left unrestored peniding decisions as to its ultimate use.

Where tunnelling methods are used, only subsurface E!ase ments are required. Where property must be acquired, as in the case of off street cut and cover or open cut construction. surface and air rights would be available for disposal on completion of construction.

The choice between building the underground structure by tunnelling or the cut and cover method of construction1 is a decision of major Importance. The main fuctors which have a bearing on this decision are: constwction cost and safety; disruption in commun ity activities and traffic; and con venience of access to trains. These factors are not listed in

order of importance since the weight to be given to each would vary by location.

The cost differential between the two methods would be influenced by the following items. For cut and coverproperty acquisition; maintenance and restoration of underground services: maintenance of traffic; underpinning bu ildings and restoration of street surfaces. For tunnel-more complex excavation techniques ; lengthier sta irways and escalators and costlier structu ral components. The type and condition of the soil has a significant effect on the costs of both methods.

Safety of the construction men, of nearby buildings and of underground services would also be affected by the typei and condition of the soil, particularly in tunnelling where it is more ditticult to observe and control soil conditions.

With the cut and cover method there would be much greater disruption to the everyday life of the commun ity, particularly in the city centre area, for periods during construction. This would inconvenience traffic and the conduct of business. Often, too, it is necessary to demolish buildings and relocate residents and businesses.

W1th tunnelling, it might be necessary to locate the structure at a relatively great depth. Preliminary investigations wou ld suggest a maximum depth of about 90 feet in Manchester. This would have an important effect on the service furnished by the transit facility. Travel time would be increased dpe to the addi tional time requ ired for vertical lt'avel between street and platform level.

The p1eliminary soils data available for this Study would suggest !hat tunnelling is feasible through the central area of

Manchester. Also that lt would be less expensive and disruptive than cut and cover constru ction. Thus the cost of the line was based on the tunnelling method.

The line has been placed at a depth where it was fairly certain that the sandstone would be suitable for tunnelling and that underground services and building foundations wou ld not be affected. A final decision on the merhod of construction through the centra l area wou ld have to be based on detailed soils and other investigations which were beyond the scope of this Study. These would be an essential part of the functional planning for transit in Manchester.

7.5.1 Cut and Cover

The cut and cover method of building the rapid transit structure consists basically of three stages:

excavating a trench with supported sides, second ly

constructing the structure In the trench by normal methods and finally

backfilling over the top of the faci lity to the level of the original ground and restoring utilities and streets.

The principal advantage of this form of structure for shallow below-grade construction is that many sections can be built simulraneously. A high rate of progress is consequently achieved. Unlike soft ground tunnelling. no specia lised construction equ ipment such as tunnel shields or material such as linings is required. The cut and cover method may be used for construction either off street or along existing streets.

An off street location results in the fastest and most straight forward means of construction for an underground facility. Property is needed between cross streets. Some buildings may have to be underpinned. Traffic on cross streets can be maintained by means of temporary decking. Utility services can be hung from this deck temporarily until permanently reinsta lled when the excavation is backfilled. The cleared right of way is available for disposa l on completion of construction. It can be used at station sites for commute1· parl<ing, oH street bus transfer facilities and above-ground station mezzanines. Above-ground stations permit the rapid transit structure to be constructed at less depth, and conse quently at less expense, than would otherwise be possible.

The rapid transit facility can be aligned along a street where the intensity of building development is such that the cost of properly for oH street construction would be too high. While right of way costs are thus kepi to a minimum, other factors and costs are introduced. All util ity services running along the street or crossing the line of cut have to be temporarily supported and subsequently replaced. Most of al l of the street area over the cut may have to be decked temporarily if street traffic must be maintained.

High capacity stations must also be at a sufficient depth below street level to accommodate mezzanines or cross passages between street level and platform level. This not only involves extra construction cost because of depth but also a greater vertical travel distance for patrons. Property for off street bus transfer facllitfos and commuter parking, if both are required 1

is not obtained as part of the right of way in this design. It may have to be purchased at loca tions remote from the station in areas where the street frontage is occupied by expensive buildings.

107

Cut and cover construction showing street decked to maintain traffic

Cut and cover construction

Cut and cover construction with

track slab in place

Tunnel section with steel lining,

Toronto

109

7 .5.2 Tunnel

Tunnelling is particularly suited to urban areas where property costs are high and street traffic and utility services ;are dense. The cost of this form of structure depends largely on subsoil conditions existing along the route. Tunnelling may be more or less expensive than cut and cover construction. In Stockholm, for example, tunnels are even less expensive than elevated structure, due to the excellent quality of the rock. Stations are usually constructed by the cut and cover method unless the tunnels are very deep. Except for the stations and access shafts, the cost of tunnel construction does not increase greatly with depth. The selection of a route in a city centre, therefore, need not be influenced by factors 1other than those of convenience of access.

Tunnels are usually constructed at greater depth than other forms of transit structure. Consequently vertical travel by patrons is increased at some disadvantage to the user.

7.5.3. Open Cut

This attitude may be considered as equivalent to the first stage of cut and cover construction. It consists essentially of an open trench with either sloped sides or vertical sides retained by some form of earth retaining structure. It can be used with an on street alignment only where sufficient median or shoulder width exists, a situation whkh is not commonly found in cities. It is normally employed with an off street alignment. therefore, where the density olf development is low. Since its basic form consists of an open trench with sloped sides, the width of right of way required is the greatest of any of the various attitudes. In some instances it is possible to preserve existing valuable buildings which do not lie directly on the alignment by constructing retaining walls to support the buildings and to hold the surrounding ground.

110

Cross streets may be carried over the cut on bridges from which services are permanently supported.

This transit attitude ordinarily is more intrusive than those where the line is completely covered.

Air rights above a cut can be developed readily by construction of a deck supported on columns founded at or below the bottom of the cut. Floor level for the development would normally coincide with the level of the surrounding area, a feature which is attractive to potential developers. The area at ground level is also available for construction of aboveground station mezzanine. The area surrounding stations may be decked over and used for off-street bus transfer facilities and commuter parking. Opportunities exist. moreover, for attractive landscaping of the sloped sides of any portions of the excavation remaining open.

7.6 ELEVATED CONSTRUCTION

An elevated transit structure, in common with below grade attitudes, allows cross streets to be grade separated without changing the street level unduly. Whereas the below grade attitudes intrude least on the environment, the elevated attitudes impose maximum intrusion. Elevated transit structures offer the greatest challenge for advanced aesthetic structural design. Although good design treatment may reduce visual intrusion, it cannot completely conceal the physical presence of the elevated structure.

The property requirements for_elevated structures vary with the type of area through which they are built. In industrial areas, the only requirements may be the purchase of air rights, property for supporting columns and temporary surface easements during construction. In residential areas

landscaped open cut, London

landscaped open cut, Toronto

the width of right of way will be dictated by environmonta l considerations, as discussed in Section 6, as well as the physical dimensions of the structure. In city core areas where property costs would be extremely high, the structure would have to follow existing streets or vacant areas in existing or future building developments. It is unusual to find such a conti nuous corridor through a city centre which is pro grammed for redevelopment with a time schedule to allow a transit facility to be built over a reasonable time period.

The effect on environment resulting from construction c1f an elevated structure through a central area is also a major consideration, as discussed in Section 6.

An elevated structure may use an alignment on or off the street system, as discussed in the following paragraphs.

7.6.1 Off Street

The extent of property required would depend on the type of development in the area through which the structure was to run. After construction, the surface of the right of way would

be avai lable for other uses. The use would be limited, of course, by the presence of the overhead structure. Off street bus transfer facilities, car parks and station mezzanines could be built below the structure. The potential for air rights development above the structure would not be good as these rights would commence only from a height of at least 35 feet above ground level.

With an off street alignment. interference with services and cross streets would be minimal.

7.6.2. In Median

An alignment for an elevated rapid transit facility along the central reservation of a dual -carriageway would not require

' the acquisition of property if the median was wide enough to accommodate the supporting columns including adequate horizonta l clearance for safety. The medians of roads built to modern standards are usually wide enough for this purpose. A portion of the structure might overhang the highway, however, in which case it would be necessary to provide adequate vertical highway clearance. Where bridges over the highway were encountered, the transit structu re

111

112

Off street elevated structure, Toronto

Elevated structure in boulevard

Elevated structure,

San Francisco

Elevated structure alongside

highway, Pittsburgh

113

Alweg elevated over street, Seattle

114

Duorail elevated structure alongside street, Rotterdam

1 I

would have to be further elevated. Where intersncting streets or ramps passed under the highway, however, the transit structure would be unaffected. The elevated facility could also be built above and alongside the highway instead of above the median.

Passenger access to stations in medians would not be ideal, and some form of passageways over the highway traffic lanes would have to be provided. It would not be practicable to provide spaces for commuter parking close to the station except by decking over the highway right of way.

7.6.3 On Street

There are two possible methods of providing an elevated structure in streets with no central reservations or with insufficient width.

Where sufficient right of way width exists, the road cou ld be reconstructed with a dual-carriageway and the transit structure built in the central reservation. Where scope to widen the roadway is limited, as is common in urban an3as in Britain, the elevated structure could be supported on 1POrtal frames. An example of this method in a specific area (Wythen shawe) is examined in Appendix A of this report.

Services might have to be relocated to a greater or lesser extent depending on their location and the type of foundation structu re. This work would probably not be as extensive, however, as that required for cut and cover construction along a typical major street.

Station mezzanines could be located beneath the transit structure. It is not good practice to have patrons cross streets at grade near busy stations. Mezzanines shou Id be built one level above ground and platforms at the next higher level about 25 or 30 feet above the street. Thus the track structure would also be higher at station locations. Space for

Elevated three level station under

construction, Rotterdam

convenient off street bus transfer facilities and for parking would not normally be readily available on existing streets. Bus stops could be accommodated in kerb bays under the stations if space is available and traffic conditions permit.

7.6.4 Embankment

In this form a transit facility would be built on compacted earth. This method would be suitable for an off street align ment. As with off street open cut, a wide right of way would be required unless retaining walls were used. Underpasses would provide access between areas on opposite sides of the line where desired. Embankment could be used to advantage where the line passed through undeveloped hill and valley terrain or alongside rai lways or levees. It is assumed that suitable fill materia ls wou ld be available. A combination of open cut, at-grade, and embankment construction might be used to advantage to obtain a low cost graded right of way through suitable areas. These are referred to as 'Earthwork Sections'.

7.7 ROUTE LOCATION BETW EEN STATIONS

It is not within the terms of reference of this Study to develop final alignment criteria for application to the route. Such criteria specifying limiting conditions for vehicle design would result from functional planning studies. The major aspects of alignment control are:

Minimum radius of curvature.

Rate of change of track gradient.

Rate of gain and run off of track cant.

Transitions from straight to curved track.

Maximum track gradient.

Gradient compensation for curvature.

115

An ideal alignment would consist of straight horiwntal track with drainage gradients where beneficial. Also risir1g gradients approaching, and falling gradients leaving stati1ons, would assist with braking and acceleration.

The study alignment for Manchester was devefoped with standards for curvature and gradient which are generally accepted as good practice. Maximum gradients of 4.0 per cent and curves having a minimum radius of 600 feet were used. These criteria are within the physical capabiility of all of the systems considered. They leave some flexibilitv for change in the course of functional engineering planning. At that time, savings in construction cost resulting from the use of steeper gradients or smaller radii of curvature should be weighed against operating costs and quality of :service.

7.7.1 Horizonta l Curvature

The criteria governing the relationship between horizontal curvature and speed are discussed in Section 5. lln genera l it would be desirable to use flat curves between stations unless there were major capital cost savings to be reallised by the use of sharp curves. Sharp curves introduce operating speed restrictions, increased maintenance of roadbed and equipment, and increased power costs over the life span of the facility. These added costs might offset partiallv or entirely any savings in first cost obtained by lowering tlhe desirable standards of curvature.

The Safege vehicle would have the ability to negotiate· curves faster than other vehicles with the same degree of passenger comfort. For example, on a curve with a radius of 950 feet the speed for Safege would be 56 mph and for other systems 47 mph. On curves with a radius of 350 feet th•:l equivalent speeds would be 34 mph for Safege and 29 mph for the other systems.

The pendular type suspension being introduced and tested

116

Transit on embankment. Toronto

on the Turbotrain, a bottom supported steel wheeled vehicle for high speed inter-urban travel on existing railway lines, is expected to permit speeds equivalent to those possible with the Safege pendular type suspension. The pendular type suspensions cost more and are more complex than conven tional suspension systems. They wou ld be advantageous, however, on transit routes which must use sharp curvature, for physical or other reasons.

Curves at stations would increase the clearance gap between vehicles and platforms and should be avoided for safety reasons, if possible.

Sharp curves could be used if necessary at approaches to stations since trains would not be travel ling at full speed at these points and the curves would have little effect on operating speeds.

7.7.2 Gradient

A gradient of 4.0 per cent, or four feet in 100 feet, was found to be the maximum gradient necessary for the Manchester route. Some of the systems considered have rubber tyres which, it is claimed, could climb gradients of 10.0 per cent or ten feet in 100 feet. There would be little economic advantage in using steep gradients in Manchester. Their use would result in high power consumption and brake wear. Steep gradients might also pose operating problems on open track due to lack of adhesion under slick or icy track conditions. The 4.0 per cent gradient also leaves some leeway for adjustment if found necessary in later functional planning.

7.8 EVALUATION OF ATTITUDE AND LOCATION

The various possible attitudes and locations discussed in Sections 7.3 to 7.6 are summarised and rated as to their features and use in Table 7.4.

TABLE 7.4

CONSIDERATIONS IN SIELECTING ATTITUDE AND LOCATION

Use of Access Intersecting Areas for ATTITUDE Surplus Between Multi- Environ- Streets or Maintenance Parking Convenience AND Right-of- Adjacent Aesthetic Contract mental Rights-of- Utility and Bus of Station LOCATION way Areas* Treatment Construction Effect way Services Transfer Arrangement

At Grade Doubtful Over/ Screens or Suited Intrusive Structure & Minor Not Poor off Street Underpass Landscaping Approaches Inherent

At Grade None Over/ Screens or Suited Partially Grade Not Not Poor in Median Acquire:J Un:Jerpass Landscaping Intrusive Separated Necessary Inherent

Cut and Excellent Unaffected Not Suited Unobtrusive Temporary At Inter- Inherent Excellent Cover Required Decking secting off Street Streets Only

Cut and None Unaffected Not Suited Unobtrusive Extensive Extensive Not Good Cover Acquired Required Temporary Inherent on Street Decking

Tunnel None Unaffected Not Limited Unobtrusive Unaffected Not Not Good Acquired Required Suitability Necessary Inherent

Except at Stations

Open Cut Good Overpass Landscaping Suited Partially Overpass At Intersecting Inherent E.xcellent Intrusive Streets Only

Elevated Limited Unaffected Limited Suited Intrusive Unaffected Unaffected Inherent Excellent oH Street Except for

Footings

Elevated None Unaffected Limited Suited Partially Grade Unaffected Not Inconvenient in Median Acquired Intrusive Separated Except for Inherent

Footings

Elevated None Unaffected Limited Suited Intrusive Unaffected Varies Minor/ Not Inconvenient on Street Acquired Extensive Inherent

Embankment Poor Underpass Landscaping Suited Intrusive Overpass Unaffected Not Inconvenient Inherent to Good

" Where relevant

In determining which attitude or location shou ld be sel1ected for any particular line or environment there are seivera l fundamentals to consider. These are discussed in vairious parts of the Report, and are restated and summarised below for the convenience of the reader.

7.8.1 Convenience of Access

Rapid transit systems must be easily accessible if patrons are to be attracted and retained . Stations should be located at centres of demand. They should be accessible to pedestrians as well as to railway and feeder bus patrons and motorists. Vertical travel between street level and platforms should be kept to a minimum. Conflict with surface traffic at station approaches should be avoided by good desi1gn.

7.8.2 Attitude and Intrusion

Construction of a mass rapid transit facility is a major undertaking in any city. In Manchester, it would entail the exp1enditure of large sums of public money. More far-reaching than this, however, is the fact that once constructed the life of the facility would be upwards of 50 years. Decisions in the planning phase with respect to attitude and location, tlherefore, would be unalterable except at great expense for at least this length of time. Economies in the selection of attitude may create environmental problems for the future. Thus while first cost will be important, full consider.ation should be given to the impact of the line on the environment through which it would be routed in terms of community

development, the present and future street and roadway network, existing and future property values, and air rights development.

7.9 SELECTION OF LOCATION A N D ATTITUDE

Ignoring cost as well as the physical criteria governing location such as curvature and gradient, certain attitudes are particularly suited to specific environmental conditions, as follows:

Environment Preferred Attitudes

Greenbelt and existing Earthworks rights of way Elevated structure

Industrial Areas Cut and cover- off or on street

Elevated structure

Residential Areas

Central Area

Earthworks

Cut and cover- off street Open cut- off street

Cut and cover- on street Elevated structure only where special treatment is possible to minimise environmental effects

Tunnel Cut and cover- on street

117

7.10 COST FACTORS

Cost is a major factor which should be evaluated for each separate line and location if a realistic and practical conclusion is to be drawn. Costs quoted in relation to the route studied in Manchester might be meaningless and could lead to erroneous conclusions if applied elsewhere.

As stressed previously the first cost of fixed facilities cannot be the overriding consideration in transit location. Continuing maintenance and operating expenses should also be taken into account. Factors which are difficult to assess, such as environmental values and the quality of design i;tandards, should also guide decisions.

Costs applicable specifically to the situation in the Manchester Study Corridor are given in Sections 11 and 12 of this report. General conclusions drawn from the Manchester situation concerning the cost of fixed facilities for various attitudes are given in Table 7.5. The cost of property and relocation of services, which would range widely with location, have been excluded since these costs could be completely misleading. Station costs are also excluded and examples am given in Section 9. The costs are not meant to be representative for any particular system. They are given only as an indication of the magnitude of costs involved in providing fixed facilities for rapid transit.

TABLE 7.5

SOME REPRESENTATIVE COSTS FOR RAPID TRANSIT FIXED FACILITIES- (See explanation of costs bolow).

ATTITUDE

At Grade -Off Street -In Median

Open Cut -Off Street (Depth to allow for future cover)

Elevated Structure - Off Street (Height to give - In Median roadway clearance) - On Street

Cut and Cover - Off Street - On Street

RANGE IN COST PER 1,000 FEET OF DOUBLE TRACK-£

60.000 180.000 60,000 180.000

130.000 275,000

85,000 175,000 90,000 180,000 90,000 185,000

350,000 470,000 440,000 560,000

Tunnel - In soft competent rock- lined 460,000 615,000

-In shattered soft rock

Note: Costs Included

Earthworks Structures Track and Power Rail Power Supply Signals Engineering Contingencies

925,000

Costs Not Included

Services Stations

1, 125,000

Transformers and RHctifiers Yards and Shops Property Rolling Stock Special Works, such1 as road bridges, underpinning, soil stabilisation, pumping and ventilating equipment.

7.11 THE ROUTE FOR SYSTEMS EVALUJl\TION IN MANCHESTER

Running on a north-south axis approximately 16 miles long. the corridor extends from Ringway Airport in thie south to Langley in the north. It passes through the Manchester city centre and bisects two sectors not served by existing rail facilities. This corridor, specified in the terms of reference, was

118

used by Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited to locate the line for the Safege Monorail when submitting their proposals, in November 1965, for an overhead rapid transit system for

Manchester.

The alignment and station locations are shown on Figures 7.1 and 7.2, while Figure 7.3 shows the attitude relative to ground level.

This feasibility study was not commissioned for the purpose of selecting a final alignment nor for recommending the extent of the system. Transportation survey data were not available. The passenger demand along the corridor therefore, could not be assessed. The system was designed for assumed peak capacities of 10,000, 20,000 and 30,000 passengers per hour in one direction per lane or track.

7.11.1 Land Use

The land use along the corridor outside the city centre is predominantly residential of varying age, with the newer buildings generally towards the extremities of the line. The corridor includes some commercial and industrial areas. The only open and unused land exists near the Airport, at the River Mersey and west of Alkrington between Blackley and Middleton.

The Southern Section

Wythenshawe, in the south, is principally a Corporationdeveloped housing estate covering 5,600 acres with a population of 100,000. It has been built over a period of 35 to 40 years. The Wythenshawe Civic Centre is at an advanced stage of planning and design, parts having already been constructed. Associated with Wythenshawe, the Sharston Industrial area has a working population of 6,500. It contains light manufacturing factories of mixed nature.

Immediately to the north of the Wythenshawe Estate and Sharston lie Northenden, West Didsbury and Withington. These are essentially residential districts consisting of property developed over the last 100 years, some buildings having much useful life remaining. On Palatine Road for instance, along a length of one and one-quarter miles, large houses standing in their own gardens-in some cases onehalf to three-quarter acre plots- are now converted into f lats, University and College halls of residence and other uses. Parts of Northenden and the northern part of Withington, close to Platt Fields, however, contain much later residential development with properties of the one-family house type.

To the south of the City Centre, the Manchester Education Precinct includes, in an area approximately one and onequarter miles long and one-third mile wide, the University of Manchester, the Institute of Science and Technology, City colleges, and the United Manchester Hospitals. When the precinct is fully developed by the mid 1980's the total daytime population will be more than 40,000, of which about 25,000 will be students. The Precinct contains and is surrounded by old housing included in various scheduled clearance and redevelopment areas. A large amount of this clearance has now been accomplished and much rebuilding within the Precinct and in the surrounding areas is underway. South of the Precinct and in the general area of the corridor near Platt Fields, a number of large and important schools, colleges and halls of residence are situated.

7.2

l _J~ l I

WM I TWOATM

KNOTT Mill STATION STAUT

PClSSIBLE STATION LOCATIONS IN THE CENTRAL AREA

ROUTE AS SELECTED FOR SYSTEMS EVALUATION NOT TO SCALE

120

The Central A rea

The Centre of Manchester is roughly bounded hy the rail termini of Victoria/Exchange Station, Piccadil ly· Station, Oxford Road Station and Central Station (possilbly to be closed soon) and the River lrwell. Rebuilding of bombed areas has taken place since the war, and there are now comprehensive redevelopment plans for large pans of the central area for commerce, administration, shoppilng, warehousing and marketing. Bus public transport is opierated by the Manchester City Transport while other munlclpal and private transport companies serve the Manchester central area. The main bus termini in the central area are llocated at Piccadi lly, Chorlton Street and Cannon Street, and Victoria Bus Station, Salford.

The Nort hern Sectio n

Clearance of slum property and redevelopment is also in progress north of the City Centre in Collyhurst, where a number of high rise apartment blocks have been erected. Farther north in the corridor, extensive redevelopment is proposed to replace old housing in Harpurhey and adjacent areas, whilst Blackley at the northern boundary of the City of Manchester, and Alkrington beyond, are districts of recent and modern residences typical of the inter-war style of building. Middleton is an old industrial town, the centre of which is planned for redevelopment for commercial and shopping purposes. At Langley, Manchester has biui lt a new Corporation town since the war. as an overspill, in a similar style to that in Wythenshawe. The population of Langley is 20,000.

A irport

Manchester Airport is located at Ringway eight miles south of the City Centre. It is an international airport for domestic, European and trans-Atlantic passenger and freight services, and ls third only to Heathrow and Gatwick in importance for passenger handl ing in the United Kingdom. Curmnt extensions to the runway will al low for ful ly lade1n aircraft, including the very large aeroplanes of the near future, to satisfy expected demands for non -stop flights over much longer distances than at present.

Parks

Public parks along the corridor are notably at Platt Fields, Whitworth Park (at the southern end of the Education Precinct) . Queens Park and Boggart Hole Clough.

7.11.2 Road Improvements

As part of the SELN EC Highway Plan, Manchester has plan ned a large number of new major roads and road improvements which concern the rapid transit corridor. Many of these proposa ls are for motorway type roads w hich, when constructed, wi ll cross the corridor. These proposals include the Sharston By-pass and the Sa le Eastern/Northenden By -pass, all schedu led for commencement in the period 1968/70. Other schemes schedu led after 197(3 are the Outer Ring Road (northern and southern sections), Simonsway improvement, Queens Road improvement, and the lnne1' Ring Road/City Centre road, crossed on the nor1h

122

and south perimeters in each case. Radia l road lrnprovement schemes along or closely parallel to the corridor include the Palatine Road improvement/Cambridge Street extension and Rochdale Road improvement, all scheduled for commencement after 1976. The most important of the radial road improvement schemes, however, is for the extension of the existing Princess Parkway southwards from Altrincham Road to form the northern end of the Cheshire East-West motorway (M56). Princess Parkway and Princess Road will be improved to near motorway standards from the junction with Altrincham Road through to Mancunian Way. This work is programmed to commence after 1968. At the southern extremity of the Parkway extension there is also a proposal to construct a link between Manchester Airport at Ringway and the M56 motorway at a junction on the Manchester/ Cheshire boundary. There is no immediate plan to up-grade or improve Brownley Road, Wythenshawe, or Manchester Road, Midd leton in the foreseeable future. The newly constructed Mancunian Way is a partly elevated road designed to urban motorway standards. within the line of the proposed Inner Ring Road. This road, which was opened to traffic in March, 1967, is also crossed by the proposed rapid transit corridor.

7.11.3 Station Locatio ns

Station locations were selected in consultation with offica ls from the Manchester Corporation Highways, Plann ing and Transport Departments. They are based on extensive knowledge of local land use and highway planning trends and transportation in the corridor. Information on travel in the corridor which wil l be of assistance in confirming these locations will be forthcom ing from the current SELNEC Transportation Study.

Station locations are shown in Figure 7.1 and listed in Table 7.6

7.11 .4 The Line Between St ations

The line between Rlngway and Langley is shown in Figure 7.1. The alignment through the Centra l Area is shown in Figure 7.2.

In selecting the route the Safege al ignment was used as the basis for study, as stipu lated in the terms of reference. Nine alternatives of varying lengths were considered . The major deviations from the origina l route occur at the University Precinct and through the Central Area. The impact of the route on land use, roadway improvernent, and environmentar factors were all taken into account. Discussions were held with the appropriate officials concerned with these matters in selecting the final alignment for systems evaluation. The locat ion and attitude selec ted reflect desirable standards for a transit line through tl1e study corridor. Refinements in the alignment would no doubt result from a detai led functional route study. Such a study wou ld constitute the next step toward construction of new transit facilities along the Study Corridor in Manchester.

The type of construction considered in each area for pu rposes of systems eva luation is shown in Figure 7.3,

Table 7.7 lists the lengths of various types of construction or attitude considered for th e route.

TAB LE 7.6

MILEAGE BETW EEN STATIONS

CENTRELINE STATION DISTANCE (Mi les) CHAINAGE NAME

0 00 South end of rapid 0

2 50

67 50

108 80

153 ·1 80

220 .t. 80

277 I 60

338 60

403 50

440 00

470 00

498 40

511 90

531 00

548 50

602 00

641

671

50

90

748 60

806 50

850 20

852 70

transit Ringway

Shadow IVloss Road

Wythenshawe

Hol lyhed1~e Road

Northenden

Barlow Mloor Road

Withington

Platt Lani~

Whitwortih Park

Un iversitv

Oxford Road (British Railways)

St. Peter's Square

Market Street

0.05

1.28

2.06

2.91

4.18

5.26

6.41

7.64

8.33

8.90

9.44

9.70

10.06

Victoria Station 10.39 (British Railways)

Collyhurst 11.40

Queens P'ark

Moston Lane

Victoria A.venue

Middleton

Langley

12.16

12.73

14.18

15.28

16.10

North encl of rapid 16.15 tra nsit

TABLE 7.7

DISTANCE BETWEEN STATIONS (Miles)

1.23

0.78

0.85

1.27

1.08

1.15

1.23

0.69

0.57

0.54

0.26

0.36

0.33

1.0·1

0.77

0.56

1.45

1.10

0.82

0.05

ATTITUDE CONSIDEBED FOR SYSTEMS EVALUATION

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION

Elevated Cut and cover Tunnel Open cut At grade and othc1 Earthworks

Total

LENGTH IN MILES

5 5.7 1.6 2.5 1.3

16.1

Note: Safege wou ld vary slightly from the above as follows. eleva ted structure, 5.5 miles; open cut, 3.3 miles; at grnde, nil.

123

CAPACITY AND SERVICE

8.1 CAPACITY

The capacity of a rapid transit system may be convenie1ntly described in terms of the maximum number of passenge1rs it can carry past a given point in one direction during a one hour period.

Design hour capacity should be based on demand at the maximum load point during periods of peak travel. This criterion shou ld reflect peak demand over a period of one hour - even less if peaks within the peak hour are signific:ant.

In this Study, three levels of design hour capacity were considered in evaluating systems giving results representa1tive of a wide range in capacity, as follows:

10,000 passengers per lane or track per hour in one direction; 20,000 passengers per lane or track per hour in one direction; and 30,000 passengers per lane or track per hour in one direction.

Passenger estimates for the Study Corridor were not available for this report. It is anticipated that when this demand becomes known, however, it will fall within the range indicated.

The following assumptions were made with regard to capacity in service design for the 16-mile line from Manche1ster Airport to Langley:

(i) Capacity requirements are approximately equal for areas north and south of the City, respectively.

(ii) The train frequency adopted for study purposes reflects the lower passenger demand at the extremities of the line as follows:

Peak Period Service

Alternative t rains run :

Manchester Airport - Mile 0, to Langley -Mile 16.

Barlow Moor Road - Mile 5.26, to Victoria Avenue - Mile 14.18. This is commonly referred to as a short turn service.

Off Peak Service

All trains run between Manchester Airport and Lan1gley to preserve a reasonable off peak service freque1ncy over the entire length of the route.

(iii) It was assumed that design hour conditions would extend over two peak hours in the morning and two peak hours in the evening.

(iv) Off peak one way demand would equal one eighth of design hour capaci1y. However, desirable comfort

Section eight

Capacity and Service

standards and possible surges in off peak travel dictate operation of usually about one-quarter peak capacity during off peak periods.

8.2 SERVICE

The following criteria were adopted for all systems in establishing service standards :

Train Performance

- Acceleration, 3.0 mph/sec.

- Braking, 3.0 mph/sec.

- Maximum Speed, 60 mph.

Runn ing Distance for Trains

- One way, 16.05 miles, round trip, 32.10 miles.

- Short turn trains, one way 8.9 miles, round trip 17.8 miles.

Stations

- Twenty including termini; spacing as given in Section 7.

Speed and Running Time

- Average station stop, or dwell, 20 seconds.

- Total layover time, 180 seconds - 90 seconds at each terminus.

- Schedule speed, including stations stops and layover time, 25 mph.

- Time for full round trip, 1 hour and 17 minutes.

- Time for short turn round trip, 47 minutes.

Schedules

- Weekday service - 19 hours in each 24-hour day.

A.M. Peak 2 hours

P.M. Peak

Off Peak

Saturday service

Sunday and holiday service

Headways or Train Intervals

2 hours

15 hours

19 hours

15 hours

- Weekday peak periods - 2 to 4 minutes, 7 ! minutes at extremities of line.

Off peak service 10 minutes maximum.

Assumed Loading of Vehicles

- Maximum load = 2.5 square foot of gross car floor per passenger.

- Maximum during rush hours= 0.85 X Maximum Load.

127

Note : An allowance of 2.5 square feet per passenger is equivalent 10 a standee rario of approximately 2.75 standing passengers for each seated passenger. This standard was adopted to eliminate the effect of variations in seating arrangements and nnethods in calculations of vehicle capacity by the various systems developers.

The loading factor or 0.85 was applied to maximum vehicle capacity to compensate for uneven loading of trains in peak periods, as well as for uneven loacling of cars in a single train.

Off peak service would be governed b·~ desirable service frequencies rather than capacity. Thus few, if any, passengers would stand during times of off peak travel.

8 .3 OPERATING STATISTICS

Comparative vehicle requi rements and operatin•g statistics have been obtained for the four systems studied in depth. The resu lts are shown In Tables 8.1 and 8.2 for the three assumed levels of service.

8.3.1 Vehicle Requi rements

The various systems developers have submitted a car design capable of carrying a calculated number of passengers using the standard method as adopted for all systems. This governs the number of cars required to handle the three peak hour design capacities. Rather than select a common headway for all systems, which is the more usual practice in determin -

ing vehicle requirements, a practica l train lengll1 was ass11med to su it the vehicle capacity for each system. Headways were then selected in the range of two to four minutes to p1oduce optimum system vehicle requirements fo1 the three design hour volumes.

Table 8.1 gives the basic car requirements to operate the three levels of service Total car 1equirements are governed by the design hour volumes and the duration of their peak.

Example of Basic Capacity Calculatio n

Safege vehicle, capacity 173 passengers, assume cars made up in sets of three to form basic train unit. Design hour capacily 1 0,000 passengers per hour.

Vehicle required to pass pea l< load point in one d irection per hour

10.000 173 0.85

Number of trains ol 3 cars

Headway between trains

67.95 cars

67.95 3

60 mins.

22.65

22.65

2,64 minutes

Trnin required on route at schedule speed of 25 mph

22.65

25 mph 32.1 miles

29.2 say 30 trains

30 3 90 cars

Thus total ca r requirement to meet design capacity, neglectinn allowance for spares, is 90 cars.

TABLE 8.1 CA R AND TRAIN l'lEQUIREMENT FOR PEAi< PERIOD SERVICE

SYSTEM ALWEG DUOR/\IL SAFEGE WESTINGHOUSE

'A' type

Car size• 45' l( 10' 70' "10' 53' )( 8'2'' 33' x 8'8''

Car capacity (at 2.5 sQ. ft. passenger 153 :l3B 147 96 & load factor of 85%)

Design Hour Capacity 10,000 Passengers Pei Hour Cars required per hour 65.36 42.02 67.95 104.16

Trains required per hour 16.44 21.01 22.65 20.83

Cars per train 4 2 3 5

Headway in minutes 3.64 2.84 2.64 2.87

Trains on route 18 22 24 22

Total car requirement 70 114 72 110

Design Hour Capacity 20.000 Passengers Per Hour

Cars required per hour 130.72 84.04 135.90 208.32

Trains required per hour 21 79 21 01 22 65 20.83


Headway in minutes 276 2.84 2 65 2.87


Total car requirement 135 88 144 220

Design Hour Capacity 30,000 Passengers Per Hour

Cars required per hou1 196.08 126 06 203.85 312.48

Trains required per hour 24.51 21 01 22.65 20.83


Headway in minutes 2.4<~ 2.84 2.65 2.87


Total car requirement 204 132 21u 330

• Car- the basic passenger carrying vohicle. All systems use ind1v1dually supported crns except Alweg 'A' type. The Alweg basic irain un11

cons1s1s of two cars on thmti hng1es. aniculatcd to fo1n1 one unit

128

8.3.2 Tra in Miles

Annual train mi les have been assumed to be nbout equn l for all systems, and would be approximately 2,000,000 miles per annum. The train miles reflect service frequency which would be selected to meet passenger demand 1ather than the characteristics of any particular system. (It has been assumed that all trains would be operated w ith a minimum crew or one man. Thus one advantage of fully autormitic train control, whereby frequent off peak service can be maintained at no crew cost, was not apnlicable in this study) .

8.3 .3 Car Miles

Annual car miles were derived from ca1' miles 1•equlre1d to produce peak period capacity, since these directly rnflect Lhe capacity of the vehicles proposed fo r each system. A factor of three was used to obta in totfl l annua l car miles from annual peak period car miles, based on experience elsewhe1·e. This eliminates any influence on car miles resulting from an arbitrary selection of headways, also the number of ca1rs in trains for off peak service. In the case of duorail, however, it w as found necessary in handling the 10.000 capacity level only, to increase car miles above the theoretical minimumto provide for a practical minimum of two cars per train in off peak service. This reflects the high capacity of the duorail cars selected for study purposes. These would have surplus

capacity to hand le off peak traffic relared ro the 10,000 passenger design level.

Table 8.2 gives annual 'in service· car mile statistics.

8.4 IMPROVED PASSENGER COMFORT

The vehicle requirements as shown in Table 8.1 are based on a stanclee si tuation for passengers during the periods of peak travel, and allow for 2.5 square feet of vehicle floor area per passenger. This produces a ratio of about 2.75 standing passengers to one seated passenger, or 27 per cent of maximum load seated. The number of standing passengers would b8 at a maximum at the peak load point and wou ld be less al other points on the line during rush periods, when few passengers would need to stand for a journey of more than ten minutes duration,

An iddal comfort situa tion would be ob tained by providing seats for all passengers and this would requ ire about 6.75 square feet of vehicle floor area per passenger. This quality or service wou ld result in vehicle requirements being more than doubled which would create problems in providing train service for the design hour capacity of 30,000 passengers per hour

The vehicle requirements to provide seats for all passengers during peak periods is shown in Table 8 .3, with examples of train size at 90 seconds headways to handle a design hour capacity of 30,000 passengers.

TABLE 8.2 ANNUAL IN SERVICE CAR MILES

A LWEG

'A' type

Design Hour Capacity 10.000 Passengers Per Hou1 Tol<i l annual ca1• miles 5.200.000

Dcsiyn Hour Capncity 20,000 Passengers Pei Hol.11 I oral annual car miles 10,000.000

Dosl~in Hour Capacity 30,000 Passengers Per Hou1 Total 11nnual oar miles 15.100.000

DUO RAIL

4 000,000

6,600.000

9.800,000

TABLE 8.3

SAFEGE WESTINGHOUSE

5.300,000 8,600,000

i 0,700,000 16,300.000

16.000,000 24,500,000

VEHICLE REQU IREMENTS FOR P EAK PERIOD PASSENGERS AT TWO COMFORT LEVELS

SYSTEM ALWEG

'A' type

C.1pac11y 10.000 Passengers Per Houi 27~\ sonted 70 vehir.le>s

100 ,o seated 190 vehicles

C.if>acaty 20 000 Passengert-o Pei Hout '21% s11111ed 136 w h1r l11s

1 OU% seater! 366 vehicle:"

Cnpac11y 30.000 Passengers Per HOLll' 27% seat~d 204 vuh1cles

I 00% o;(l,1\13cl

Tri1111 Sin• (at '10 sue headway )0,000 seated passengers P•·1 hour)

560 vehiclns

14 Cilt'S

a 115 foe•

630 ft:or

DIJOR.t IL

14 V(lh1clr~s

I I H veh1clC1.,

B!J vehicle::.

138 vehicles

132 v0h1cles

:itili voh1cl8S

q Ctlt'S ,,

70 "''''

r..w leet

SAFE GE WESTINGHOUSE

72 vehicles 11 0 vehicles

195 vehicles 297 vehic les

144 vehicles 220 vehicles

390 vehicles 594 vehicles

21 6 vehicles 330 vehicles

585 ve111cfes tl!:l1 vehicles

14 cars 22 cars ,, 53 feet i11 33 feet

736 feet 726 feet

129

STATIONS

Criteria for the location of rapid transit stations are discussed in Section 7. This is extremely important to the success and efficient operation of the line and its impact on areas in wlhich the stations are situated.

The location of a station having been established, it remains to design the station so that adequate provision is madEi for the traffic it will be required to handle. In the main, the im1Portant features of station design are not related to any partic:u lar system.

9.1 TRAFFIC

Station designs are governed by peak period volumes of passengers entering and leaving the trains and by the methods of travel to and from the stations.

Passengers travel to and from stations by : walking, transferring from other rapid transit lines, surface transit, railways, driving cars, driven in cars by others, etc. Provision should be made for each method as it applies to particular statiom; by including in the design, facilities for bus transfer, parking and sheltered waiting areas.

It is important to plan the station so that walking is reduced as much as possible and maximum convenience is provided! for the passengers. It is essential that the design should provide channelisation of all forms of traffic to minimise conflict between flows. Through this, loading and unloading of trains is expedited and platforms may be rapidly cleared. Con sequently station standing time and headways may be kept to a minimum with consequent savings which result flrom increased average operating speed.

9.2 STATION DESIGN

The main elements in station design are width and speed of escalators, widths of stairways, corridors, and platforms, and fare collection facilities to provide for relatively unimpeded passenger flow. Also, all features which contribute to passenger comfort and user acceptance such as illumination, ventilation, cleanliness, durability of materials, safety and aesthetics should be given careful consideration. Cost influences the degree to which each of these items may be provided in station design for given volumes of passengers. The importance of protecting passengers from weather as brought out in Section 7 is also of great significance1 in acceptance of the system.

Stations vary from the simplest form of brick or concrete block building, with little provision for the protection and convenience of passengers, to monumental showpieces, complete with murals, air conditioning and elaborate surf.ace finish materials, with enclosed mezzanines permitting passengers to reach the platforms without crossing streiets.

Section nine

Stations

Mezzanine areas in busy stations may include space for renting as shops or have direct connections to nearby stores and office bu iidings. Both types of station are to be found on existing systems. The stations for the Manchester rapid transit could include some or all of these features.

The cost estimates are based on attractive and functionally appropriate stations varying in complexity according to their location. The station exteriors should match the areas in which they are located as they are likely to appear in future years. Stations should be capable of handling increasing passenger volumes without costly reconstruction. Certain basic costs inherent in station design do not vary with patronage volumes. This is reflected in station costs for the three capacities. The station costs are shown in Section 11 , and range from £240,000 to £750,000.

9 .3 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SYSTEMS AND ATTITUDES

The only features of station design varying with the systems considered are the location of platforms relative to the vehicle running surface, and the elevation of platforms relative to mezzanine or street level. Significant changes in design do take place, however, depending on whether the station is elevated, at ground level, in cut and cover construction or in tunnel. Examples of stations in these various attitudes are shown in Figures 9.1 a, to 9.1 e.

9.4 FARE COLLECTION

Fare collection methods, including joint fares for connecting services, should be simple and efficient. The traditional method of fare collection using ticket clerks and ticket collectors often produces annoying queues and entails high labour costs.

Recent experiments on London Transport and in North America show that automatic fare collection is practicable and acceptable to patrons. This method of fare collection, however, is at present economical only at fairly high passenger levels. It is most successful when applied over an entire system.

As an interim solution the use of books of multi ride tickets or tokens is recommended. These would be valid for travel over specific areas or zones. These tokens or tickets could also be made to operate exit and entrance turnstiles. Consequently the number of ticket collectors and inspectors would be kept to a minimum. In determining station staff costs in this Study it has been assumed that a ticket col lection method as described in the above paragraph would be provided. An investigation of the economics of automatic vs. manual ticket collection and vending should form part of any more detailed studies at a later stage in planning transit for Manchester.

133

Transit station in Stockholm suburb

134

Parking and feeder bus facilities, Cleveland

Parking, Toronto

Inbound and outbound passenger separation, Montreal

135

136

Station interior, London



Shops in station mezzanine, Toronto

137

136

Station interior, London



Shops in station mezzanine, Toronto

137

138

A simple and attractive suburban station, London

A simple and attractive suburban station, London

Station exterior, Montreal

Elevated station under construction,

Rotterdam

139

9 .1a

140

0 1 •

• •

I• J) //

// //

// /;

// //

( ( 11 II

" ·~ Jf E:= ~'"1 I I IE=:_;j I I'~ j l E~=l I

llj jll I I lj 111 I I

I : ~ ~ : : : :

• • I I

1: ~I t i ti ~1 ! ~

I I

1: ~: ~,

~

' ..

• •

PLAN AT CONTROL AREA LEVEL

CUT AND COVER STATION

L :>

'1 11

tJ • •

D- 2 ... _ _ ,. .. ....,,,,.;2;;;0 l 1tf

9.1b

I ~

~o ·I ' D- r ~~

-{HJ

• •

f z

" 8 8

• • I

STOlltAGC C..f&Nlfi!G U C.

I

I Il l I I I 111 Il l I

I 1 • 111 I I I I I 1 • II E- I

:v--u_ I I I I I

lJ I I I I I I • t

Ii • I I II

I II II ~ • I I II II

~ I I(

~ ~ • I )J ,,

~ ,, ;/ ,, ;// ,, /; ,, ,, i

,,, // ,, ~1 ; //

\' // I\ I " ( ( I I I I


'1'11:U:T L.(.VU,

PLAT'FOftM lEY[L

CUT AND COVER STATION BENEATH ROADWAY 141

9.1c

142

., I

• J

r-1 L •


STMU U.:VCl AND CONTlllOL AAU L(Vf.l

ELEVATED STATION

; 1

I I 1 I I I I I

; ! 81 ~ ~ ~ ~

...1 --:-'----__;_-..i.' ---1-L


9.1d

ELEVATED STATION OVER ROADWAY 143

9.1e

0;. ,;.• _,• _ _...;•~· ..... ,,,;,;tO r, .,

144

j_ I _J =

I Q •

I = ' .. I 1=

I Cf' • t ~ • -

I -

I I ~ ~ I

~ I g I

i I I II 1111 ,1

I I 1' :I I' II

l PASS&GCWU I 111 11 II

,11 ii I I I

,11 1, 1 1•

I 11" :. Ii I •• :I I I I'

.. ..


TUNNEL STATION

Station control area, Montreal

Ticket vending machine, London

145

146

Turnstile for automatic fare collection, London

Turnstile for automatic fare collection, London

THE SUPPORTING WAY

The supporting way for rapid transit systems is defined as the structures which carry the vehicles, or the construction required for the passage of them. The supporting way varies with system attitude and location. It must be designed to provide for the various conditions of subsoil, terrain, existing structures and environmental development through which it is constructed.

Figures 1 0.1 to 1 0.5 show typical cross sections of the supporting way, in the various attitudes for each of the systems considered in this report. The dimensions and figures apply to tangent conditions only and vary on horizontal curves to provide clearance for vehicle chording and overhang.

The dimensions are those of the dynamic envelope and represent the extreme positions of the vehicle under normal operating conditions. The outline of the vehicle, as represented by the dynamic envelope, resu lts from vehicle movements relative to the track due to combinat ions of suspension deflection, sway, pitch, and nosing. The clearances between the dynamic envelope and fixed trackside structures and the dynamic envelope on the opposing track are minimum and have been approved as such by the Ministry of Transport.

Average overall dimensions have been used for the structural elements. These could be revised in the course of any final structural design. This could affect the estimates included in this report but would not affect the order of costs to a significant extent. Similarly, the designs and methods of construction as outlined are preliminary and have been employed primarily for comparative purposes. In this regard, emphasis has been placed on the use of reinforced concrete, prestressed and in other forms. This should not be construed as a recommendation for final design, since conditions which prevail at that stage could dictate extensive use of structural steel.

The following is a brief description of the subsoil conditions likely to be encountered along the selected alignment, the engineering considerations resulting therefrom and comments on the typical cross sections for the various attitudes of each system.

10.1 GEOLOG Y A N D SOILS

Available data on soils and geological conditions are included in the Consultant Engineering Geologist's report. These data are supported by soils reports and geological profiles supplied by the Manchester Corporation City Engineer and Surveyor, The City Architect. the Geological Survey, and the University of Manchester.

Section ten

The Supporting Way

(a) General Description

Drift deposits for the length of the route are predomin antly boulder clays, variable in thickness, occurring with pockets and cappings of sand, silt, and gravel. Alluvial deposits occur extensively at the River Mersey and River Irk. The underlying solid rocks, sedimentary of Permo Triassic Age are filled, folded and faulted. They consist mainly of Keuper Marl and Bunter Sandstone, associated in some zones with Keuper Waterstones, Manchester Marl and Collyhurst Sandstone. The surface of these rocks was subject to glacial action leaving soft weathered material above the sound strata. In the case of the Bunter Sandstone, the surface stratum is compact sand.

In north Manchester, carboniferous coal measures and slates occur along the Collyhurst-Oueens Park length and near Middleton. Just north of Victoria Station, drift deposits are absent and Bunter Sandstone is present at ground level.

(b) Ground Wat er

Only limited data on ground water conditions are available. In the City centre, the location of underground lengths of the rapid transit route, water levels are of particular importance, since the Bunter Sandstone is very porous and existing faults could result in extensive water problems during tunnelling.

There are a number of deep water bores in the City centre still in operation, drawing off large quantities of water. Whilst pumping continues, the water table will remain depressed. It has not been possible to determine ground water levels at-rest and as an interim measure the worst conditions for water have been assumed for the tunnels.

(c) Mining Subsidence

Settlement due to mining coal is expected to occur extensively along the route over an area from Victoria Station to Queens Road. Near Middleton, there is risk of settlement from old mine workings. Allowance has been made in the civil engineering costs to cover the extra structural measures that will be necessary in these areas.

(d) Footings and Foundations

Five basic types of foundations to support columns and structure have been selected for cost estimating purposes and are based on the limited available soils and geological data along the route. Because the majority of th is information is descriptive only, soil strengths and bearing capacities have been estimated, and will have to be confirmed by a comprehensive soil survey at a later date.

149

10.1

150

15·5'

ALWEG

HEl!;HT & COLl*H $1?[ \/ARIABLE

TOP Of FOOTING

SAFE GE

27· 5 '

HDG>IT & COLUWI SIZE \/ARIA8LE

DUO RAIL

19·81

HEl<iHT & CCL UMll SIZE \IARIA8LC

TOP OF FOOTI N 6

WESTINGHOUSE

ELEVATED STRUCTURES

(e) Tunnels

The depths of tunnel were determined by using the criterion that the tunnel extrados shou ld be not less than 20 feet below sound rock horizon, with the assumption that an average depth of 20 feet of weathered rock overlays the Bunter Sandstone in the City centre.

Geological information indicates that the Sandstone through which the tunnels would be driven contains a number of fau lts. smash zones. and areas of pebble beds in conglomerate form. Tunnel linings to be used would differ to suit the various peculiar conditions expected in these zones.

10.2 ELEVATED STRUCTUR ES

In this Study, it has been assumed that concrete columns and crossheads, which may be either in situ or precast, (Figure 10.1) will form the piers for all systems. All designs submitted by developers have been checked for structural sufficiency for particular spans. The spans may be varied to suit conditions. Alweg alone have indicated provision between the base of the pier and the footing for adjustment for heavy settlement or subsidence, but similar provision could be made for the other systems.

A suggested finishing tolerance for the riding surface is the highway standard of i of an inch on a 10 foot straight edge, or 1 in 1,000. To achieve this, the expected tolerance wou ld have to be about 1 :1,500, and casting deformations, prestressing camber. level of bearings, bearing deflection, superficial roughness and load deflections would have to be taken into account. Most systems apply an in situ running surface which avoids exceptionally close manufacturing tolerances. All systems have a live load deflection of less than

1 .~oo of the span, a part of which may be absorbed by precamber. Load excited oscillations are not expected to be of structural significance.

The systems have been checked for overall stability against combinations of the following loads : self weight, weight of vehicle, weight of passengers, impact, nosing and lurching, braking, acceleration, temperature. wind, centrifugal force.

A safety factor often omitted by developers of rapid transit systems is provision for emergency evacuation of passengers from vehicles stopped between stations. Structures for conventional elevated railways include a safety walk with handrail for this purpose.

The prototype elevated structures for Alweg, Safege and Westinghouse do not have a safety walk and it is not normally included in artists' illustrations of these concepts. Consequently, the impression is created that these structures are relatively unobtrusive from the visual and loss of light aspects. This could be misleading if safety walks are required.

10.2.1 Alweg Beamway

The beam is a precast prestressed box, 55" deep and 34" wide. It is simply supported at a span of 65 ft. between cross heads. On curved sections the spans are reduced to about 45 ft. for a 600 ft. radius curve. Vehicles run directly on the structural concrete. The 65 ft. beams weigh about 40 tons and wou ld be lifted into position by mobile crane. Alternatively, the bea~s may be launched by a special gantry supported on previously erected adjacent spans.

Alweg claims that the beams can be cast to within ± -h inch and can be placed so that the running surfaces wou ld be accurate as to line and grade. The claim is based on Alweg experience with systems in use in Tokyo. Settlement would be taken up at the bearings. A connection between the pier and the top of the foundations has been designed permitting subsidence movements to be accommodated.

The beam and pier design has been checked for overall stability and found satisfactory.

10.2.2 Duorail

For purposes of this Study, the elevated structure assumed for Duorail consists of two simply supported precast prestressed concrete beams which support an in situ deck slab. The steel rai ls are placed in chairs fastened directly to the deck. Spans are 60 ft .. the beams, weighing about 23 tons, would be lifted into position by mobile crane. Alternatively, they could be erected by using a special launching gantry supported on the previously constructed adjacent span. The costs per unit length of elevated structure would not vary significantly for spans in the 60 ft. to 100 ft. range.

Provision would be made in the track chairs for adjusting the rail accurately to line and grade after construction. Settlement would be adjusted by shimming under bearings, but no provision has been made for subsidence movements. Beams and deck sizes were designed to meet the loads, forces and stresses resul ting from the Duorail vehicle contemplated for use in Manchester.

10.2.3 Safege Beamway

The beam is of precast prestressed inverted U section 7' - 611

wide by 6' deep, with the running surfaces cantilevered from the inside bottom edges of the beam. Spans are genera lly 104 ft. and the beamway is simply supported from an overhead crosshead. Spans are reduced to 76 ft. for 600 ft. radius curves. The 104 ft. beams weigh about 90 tons. It is proposed to transport them to the site by slinging them from bogies which would be suspended from the previously constructed beams. At the site they would be lowered to the ground, rolled to a position directly under their span, and raised into place. A cross piece would be bolted on to complete the erection. Laminated Agobe planks are bolted onto the structural concrete to line and grade, to form the running surface. The beams are supported on bearing pads, but there is no special provision for the adjustment of the structure in the event of settlement or subsidence.

The beam and pier design has been checked for overall stability. However, due to its shape many complex secondary stresses are developed in the beam and these have been the subject of analysis by the licensee. To prove his design analysis, the licensee proposes to construct a beamway and subject it to test.

10.2.4 Westinghouse

A modified version of the existing prototype is proposed for Manchester. It would include:

Precast presuessed concrete beams with in situ diaphragms and compositely acting in situ topping. The beams are carried on rubber bearings set on piers. A steel I section beam guides the vehicle and keeps it from overturning.

151

10.2

ALWEG DUORAIL

CUT


EARTHWORKS 152

The 60 ft. beams, weighing about 25 tons, would be lifted into positon by mobile crane or launched by special gantry from the previously constructed span. The prefabricated guide rail is carried in chairs bolted to the diaphragms. Adjustment of the guide rail and adjustment for settlement may be obtained by shimming, but no provision is contemplated for adjustment due to subsidence.

The passenger load assumed by Westinghouse in the design of the prototype is considerably lower than those assumed in other systems. The loading has been increased to conform with Study criteria, and the structure has been modified accordingly by increasing the structural section.

10.3 OPEN CUT, EMBANKMENT AND GROUND LEVEL CONSTRUCTION

Figure 10.2 shows typical cross sections of rapid transit line both in cutting and on embankment. Side slope alignment cross section would be represented by a combination of both. Ground level structure would be similar to that shown in Figure 10.5, for location in the central reservation, or median, of highways.

Features common to all systems in these attitudes would be :

A continuous two foot wide space beyond the dynamic envelope for track maintenance workers.

Security fence for safety and to prevent trespass on the right of way.

Turfing of slopes to prevent erosion.

Storm drains for cutting and ground level attitudes. Drainage outfall would be existing sewers or watercourse, by pumping if necessary.

Features of these attitudes which apply to particular systems are as follows :

10.3.1 Alweg

The piers are reinforced concrete pedestals founded on spread or combined footings. These are longitudinally spaced at 13 foot centres. Anchors for connection to the beamway are embedded in the pedestals. As an alternative, depending on soil conditions and location, the spans are 65 feet. Costs have been based on the most economical arrangement at each particular section. The guidance surfaces on the sides, and the running surfaces on the top, of the beamway would be accurately finished for riding comfort. The running surface may be textured to improve traction and it may be necessary to embed heating elements in the beamway for snow melting. Power distribution and signal cables are mounted on the sides of the beamway.

In order to prevent a dust nuisance condition which could be created by fast moving trains, the ground surface would be blinded or receive some similar treatment.

10.3.2 Duorail

C?ntinuously welded running rails and insulated power rails would be carried on sleepers and ballast underlain by granular base. Sleepers would be timber or concrete.

10.3.3 Safege

Th.e foundations would be designed to meet prevailing sub SOii d'. con 1t1ons and would be reinforced concrete spread

footings or piles with reinforced concrete caps. The beamways would be supported from a crossbeam carried on a single column or a two column bent. Columns, crossbeams and beamways would be of reinforced concrete, the yoke of the beamway being seated on crossbeam projections.

Wooden running and guidance surfaces would be mounted. horizontally and vertically, respectively, inside the beamway. Signal cables and power distribution conductors would also be mounted inside the beamway. Similar to Alweg, the ground surface would be treated to prevent a dust nuisance which could result from the passage of fast moving trains.

10.3.4 Westinghouse

Track construction on granular base would include reinforced concrete stringer beams carried on concrete sleepers and rock ballast. A reinforced concrete rai l would be constructed on the stringer beam. The running surface of the rail would be accurately finished for riding comfort.

A textured finish could be applied to the top surface of the running rail to improve traction. Heating elements may be included to prevent accumulation of snow or ice. The steel I section guide beam, midway between and parallel to the running rails, would be mounted on the sleepers. Power distribution conductors and signal cables would be supported from the stringers.

Alternative methods of supporting the stringers, including driven or bored piles or spread footings, could be used as dictated by soil conditions.

10.4 ROCK TUNNEL

Figure 10.3 shows the basic elements of the transit structures which would be constructed through the sound Bunter Sandstone underlying the City of Manchester. The form of construction through shattered rock sections, suspected to exist at geological faults, has not been shown. These sections would be essentially similar to those indicated except that the in situ concrete lining would be augmented with fabricated steel segments.

It is proposed to bore the tunnels by using digger shields except in shatter zones where it may be necessary to resort to hand methods and pregrouting.

Features of the transit structure in rock tunnel common to all systems are:

Reinforced concrete lining, augmented with fabricated steel segments where required.

Drainage channel or pipe in reinforced concrete invert discharging to pump sumps in invert.

Features of this attitude which apply to particular systems are :

10.4 .1 Alweg

Reinforced concrete invert with pedestals at 13 ft. centres longitudinally and embedded anchors for beamway fastening.

Precast prestressed concrete beamway in 13 ft. long sections, anchored to pedestals through bearings. The guidance and running surfaces would be accurately finished for riding comfort and the running surface may be treated to improve

153

10.3

VARIES

ALWEG OUORAIL

VA~ I E:S

· ·-


TUNNEL 154

tyre adhesion. Power and signal contact cables are carried on the sides of the beamway.

10.4.2 Duorail

Reinforced concrete invert. Continuous welded running rail fastened directly to, but isolated from invert, by means of rubber pads between rail plate and invert. Fibre sleeves and washers isolate the rail plate from the anchor bolts. The power rail mounted on insu lated brackets anchored directly to the invert. Non-combustible acoustical material applied to the lower part of the tunnel.

10.4 .3 Safege

Reinforced concrete invert and pedestal bases. Structural steel framework, at five foot centres, fixed to the tunnel walls and pedestals to carry running and guidance surfaces. Power conductors and signal cables supported from the roof of tunnel. Non-combustible sound insulation material applied to upper part of the tunnel.

10.4.4 Westinghouse

Reinforced concrete invert and stringers. Reinforced concrete accurately finished riding surface. Steel I guide beam anchored to invert.

Power and signal conductors supported from the stringers. Non-combustible sound insulation material may be applied to lower walls of the tunnel if necessary.

10.5 CUT AND COVER CONSTRUCTION

Figure 10.4 shows the basic elements of construction for this attitude. Temporary works to facilitate construction have not been indicated, nor have underground services work or ground surface restorations.

Features of construction which would be common to all systems are as follows :

During excavation, the sides would be supported by struts spanning the width of the excavation, the struts being removed when the structure is completed. An invert drain discharges to sumps. Water in the sumps would be pumped to existing sewers in the vicinity if a gravity outfall is not possible.

A reinforced concrete box structure would be constructed in lengths of 40 to 50 ft., joints between adjacent sections of box structure being sealed with water stops embedded in the concrete. The roof may be waterproofed if necessary, and the centre wall constructed with openings at 8 ft. centres to provide refuge bays for maintenance workers.

Features of this attitude which apply to particular systems are :

10.5.1 Alweg

The track beam would be carried on reinforced concrete pedestals at 13 foot centres, long itudinally anchored to structure invert and with anchors for beamway fastening. The Precast prestressed concrete beamway, in 13 ft. long sections, would be anchored to pedestals through bearings. The

guidance and running surfaces would be accurately finished for riding comfort and the running surface may be treated to improve tyre adhesion. Power and signals conductors would be carried on the sides of the beamway.

10.5.2 Duorail

The continuous welded running rails would be fastened directly to, but isolated from the invert. by means of rubber pads between the rail plate and invert. Fibre sleeves and washers isolate the rail plate from the anchor bolts. The power rail would be mounted on insulated brackets anchored directly to the invert. Non-combustible sound insulating material would be applied to the lower part of walls.

10.5.3 Safege

Structural steel framework at 5 ft. centres would be fixed to the box structure walls and roof to carry running and guidance surfaces. The power and signal conductors would be supported from the roof of the structure. Non-combustible sound insulation material would be applied to the upper part of the walls and roof of the structure.

10.5.4 Westinghouse

The track and guidance beams would be carried on reinforced concrete stringers anchored to the invert of the structure. The reinforced concrete track slabs would have an accurately finished riding surface. Steel I section guide beams would be anchored to the invert. The power and signals contact cables would be supported from the stringer haunches. Non-combustible sound insulation material may be applied to the lower part of the walls of the structure if necessary.

10.6 ADAPTABILITY OF RIGHT OF WAY AND STRUCTURES

Public transport in urban centres continues to receive more and more attention in most of the world's large cities in the interests of relieving traffic congestion. Consequently there has been a tremendous stimulus in research and development in the transit field. New concepts of rapid transit systems are being and undoubtedly will continue to be developed.

Irrespective of the system selected, a transportation right of way is secured when the decision to construct a transit line is reached. This right of way can be adapted at a later date to a new concept. The problems in converting to a new concept would depend on the nature of the fixed faci lities existing at the time of change-over.

In Manchester there would appear to be an excellent opportunity to integrate any future transit system with British Railways operations and facilities. Thus, while it is not absolutely essential that vehicles should be able to operate over common facilities, a decided advantage would be gained by using a duorail system basically compatible with the existing railway facilities.

In the case of new concepts it is extremely important in selecting a system for Manchester to consider future developments in the transit industry, and what form these are l ikely to take. The system to be constructed for use in 1972 should have fixed structures which are adaptable to future concepts. Although it is difficult to make predictions

155

10.4

II I I

R.O W 40·0 ' min.

ALWEG

R 0 W. 37 O' rn1n.

o_J

SAFEGE

i!oi;;e;;l!!!ii5iiiiiiiiii1;i!o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~20 feel

156

VARI ES • ' IT'l in. DESIRABLE

- WATER STOPPED ( XPN, J091T 'J(J"/t

I I I

·/~,{$ .<Y ~V! . .C.· .,.

R O W 41 •0 °m1n -- _, I I I

I ..... ~s,,.,:sr)s.: .. <

• - VARIES 4' min

r---r------1-------'-~ - ()(SIRABLE

DUO RAIL

~360°min. -----i

I I

I ACOUSTIC INSULATION

I 5·D' t.;i ON INTERIOR

-- ---'"""'------ VERTICAL WALLS

22·2' .

WESTINGHOUSE

CUT AND COVER

27·2'

I OVERPASS STiUCTURE OUTLINE

r------- -1 ____ _, I t I I '. I

~I ~! Jm "1:· ~ 'f'Jf·, _..l ~ ~ L __ I 3 8 . 66' ~

ALWEG

33· 1'

30 . 3'

'-

44 . 59'

SAFEGE

o I!! liiil!!!!liil!!5siiiiiiiiii'i!!o !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~20 fee I

4 .0•

OVERPASS STRUCTURE OUTLINE

· I

10.5

27·3'

I OVERPASS ~TRUCTURE OUTLINE

r------_ .. _J ____ ~ I I I

~11 .skkl ... ~tfi: I 38 · ao ' I

DUO RAIL

I OVERPASS tTRUCTURE OUTLINE

r------J_J ____ , I I I I I

l ~T I '~ ~!·eJ·~

I 34 • 5 o· i WESTINGHOUSE

MEDIAN SECTIONS

157

with any degree of certainty, present trends indicate that systems of the future will most likely be bottom supported and may use air cushion or magnetic lift principles. The system which appears to be most adaptable would be duorail, since the basic structure in all attitudes consists of a flat platform.

The adaptability of the four systems in various attitudes is described below.

10.6.1 Elevated Structures

While all structures shown in Figure 10.1 would be specially designed for the respective systems, the form of structure for Alweg and Safege would be specific for these systems. In the light of present knowledge of possible transit developments they would have minimal adaptability. The c,onventional duorail structure is considered to be the most adatPtable since it could accept such systems as rubber tyred Paris Metro, Westinghouse, air cushion vehicles or individual transit systems such as Starrcar. Up to a point. Westinghouse enjoys similar adaptability but is limited to lighter loads.

10.6.2 Gro und Level Structure

The ground or earthworks for each of the structures shown in Figure 10.2 are all approximately equally adaptable for use by other systems. However, in the case of Safege it would be necessary to remove substantially more fixed structures in order to obtain unhindered use of the right-of-way. Westinghouse and Alweg are approximately equal, and duorail would be superior in this respect.

10.6.3 Tunnel and Cut and Cover Structure

The forms of structure are shown in Figures 10.3 ;and 10.4. To obtain unhindered use of the structures, Alweg and Safege

158

would require the removal of the greatest amount of track structure followed by Westinghouse with conventional Duorail requiring the least. However, it is reasonable to assume that the larger the internal dimensions of the enclosing structure the greater would be the adaptability. The principal dimensions and available cross section areas are tabulated below in decreasing order of adaptability, available area being the criterion.

SYSTEM

Alweg Safege Duorail Westinghouse

TUNNEL Area

Diameter S. F.

2/18.3' 2/17.0' 2/15.6' 2/14.0'

524 454 383 308

10.6.4 Conclusion

CUT AND COVER Dimensions Area (H x W) S.F.

2/15.8 ' x 12.4' 392 2/17.1 ' x 10.8' 369 2/12.5, x 1 2.9' 323 2/12.2' x 10.4' 254

Of the elevated and ground level forms of structure con sidered, that for conventional duorail would appear to be the most adaptable. For tunnel and cut and cover structures, if size alone were the criterion, the Alweg structure would appear to be the most suitable. There is no advantage however, for area in excess of that actually required. There fore, on the basis of 'adequate size', Alweg, Safege and Duorail would be equally adaptable closely followed by Westinghouse.

Although not specifically a factor to be considered in this particular section of the report. conventional duorail structure would accept railway rolling stock which is in widespread use.

It may be concluded that the duorail structure, in addition to being the most adaptable, would be the most compatible.

I

,, .

• 1

CJ~PIT AL COSTS

with any degree of certainty, present trends indicate that systems of the future will most likely be bottom supported and may use air cushion or magnetic lift principles. The system which appears to be most adaptable would be duorail, since the basic structure in all attitudes consists of a flat platform.

The adaptability of the four systems in various attitudes is described below.

10.6.1 Elevated Struct ures

While all structures shown in Figure 10.1 would be specially designed for the respective systems, the form of structure for Alweg and Safege would be specific for these systems. In the light of present knowledge of possible transit developments they would have minimal adaptability. The conventional duorail structure is considered to be the most adaptable since it could accept such systems as rubber tyred Paris Metro, Westinghouse, air cushion vehicles or individual transit systems such as Starrcar. Up to a point, Westinghouse enjoys similar adaptability but is limited to lighter loads.

10.6.2 Ground Level St ructure

The ground or earthworks for each of the structures shown in Figure 10.2 are all approximately equally adaptable for use by other systems. However, in the case of Safege it would be necessary to remove substantially more fixed structures in order to obtain unhindered use of the right-of-way. Westinghouse and Alweg are approximately equal, and duorail would be superior in this respect.

10.6.3 Tunnel and Cut and Cover Structure

The forms of structure are shown in Figures 10.3 and 10.4. To obtain unhindered use of the structures, Alweg and Safege

158

would require the removal of the greatest amount of track structure followed by Westinghouse with conventional Duorail requiring the least. However, it is reasonable to assume that the larger the internal dimensions of the enclosing structure the greater would be the adaptability. The principal dimensions and available cross section areas are tabulated below in decreasing order of adaptability, available area being the criterion.

SYSTEM

Alweg Safege Duo rail Westinghouse

TUNNEL Area

Diameter S.F.

2/ 18.3' 2/ 17.0' 2/ 15.6' 2/14.0'

524 454 383 308

10.6.4 Conclusion

CUT AND COVER Dimensions Area (H x W) S.F.

2/15.8 ' x 12.4' 392 2/17.1 'x 10.8' 369 2/12.5 ' x 12.9' 323 2/12.2' x 10.4' 254

Of the elevated and ground level forms of structure considered, that for conventional duorail would appear to be the most adaptable. For tunnel and cut and cover structures, if size alone were the criterion, the Alweg structure would appear to be the most suitable. There is no advantage however, for area in excess of that actually required. There fore, on the basis of 'adequate size', Alweg, Safege and Duorail would be equally adaptable closely followed by Westinghouse.

Although not specifically a factor to be considered in this particular section of the report, conventional duorail structure would accept railway rolling stock which is in widespread use.

It may be concluded that the duorail structure, in addition to being the most adaptable, would be the most compatible.

CAPITAL COSTS

11.1 CIVIL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION

Costs for civil engineering construction were estimated from quantities measured from developer's drawings and from cross sections for each system in the various attitudes. These unit quantities were adjusted to reflect variations in track profiles. The cross sections are described in Section 10 and illustrated in Figures 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4.

Commensurate with the scope of this report, costs were estimated on the basis of advisory prices supplied by the systems developers or on current bid prices in the construction and transit supply industries.

11.1 .1 Comparative Systems Cost

Cost estimates were based throughout on common ly accepted construction techniques and materials. The same advantages in use of special materials or techniques were applied equally to all systems except for exclusive features.

11 .1 .2 Civ il Engineering Costs

The civil engineering cross sections were examined for all systems. Principa l items of construction work and materials were selected which would be common to al l systems in their respective attitudes. These items were then defined in specification form irrespective of system type. Subsequently, two or more such items were combined, where practicable, into a major division of construction work which could be represented by a single measured quantity. The small inaccuracy inherent in this procedure could be overcome only by using detailed drawings for estimating purposes. Any inaccuracies introduced by the method used would be less than the usual spread between tenders for civil engineering works.

11.1 .3 Unit Rates

The unit of measurement representing each major item of work not of a specialised nature was priced by considering its constituent parts. Unit rates tendered for similar works from various contracts in Lancashire formed the basis of the preliminary unit prices selected. These preliminary unit prices, together with the appropriate major work item speci fications, were discussed with three prominent civil engineering contractors as well as with other engineers familiar with construction works in Lancashire before adoption for use in the study.

The unit rates are thought to be accurate for the Manchester area and for the sub-soil conditions prevailing along the rapid transit route selected. They would not necessarily be applicable elsewhere, even in Britain.

Section eleven

Capital Costs

11 .1.4 Special Items

Each system developer was requested to submit unit prices for specialised items of work such as beamways, trackways, running decks, switches and bearings. These prices were checked for competence and adopted if deemed appropriate. In some instances these items of work have not been constructed commercially. The unit prices adopted, therefore, are subject to some conjecture. In the context of this feasibility study, however, they serve the intended purpose.

11 .1.5 Variable Quantities

The major items of work fall into two categories: those that are constant in quantity per unit length of rapid transit structure such as beamways, box structures, tunnelling and fencing ; and those that vary in quantity per unit length of structure depending upon location and height above or depth below ground level such as excavations, footings, columns and support of sides of cut.

If quantities were constant for un it length of structure, the cost per unit of length was determined by a simple extension of unit prices against quantities. If quantities varied per unit of length of structure, however, the same basic extension was made after quantities for a representative length of. structure had been determined. These quantities were obtained from specially plotted quantity parameter curves for each system, having axes representing quantity and variable dimension.

11 .2 SUPPORTING WAY

For purposes of cost estimating, the supporting way for the rapid transit facility is defined as all civil engineering works, both temporary and permanent. Supporting way excludes yards, shops, stations, signals, power supply, property and relocation or restoration of disrupted services. These items are all dealt with in subsequent sub-sections.

Cost estimates were made for about 73 mi les of structures as follows:

Complete 16-mile route for Alweg, Duorail , Safege and Westinghouse (64 route miles of cost estimates) .

Two-mile elevated route through Wythenshawe for Alweg, Duorail, Safege and Westinghouse (eight route mi les of cost estimates) (see Appendix A).

Typical' 1,000-foot lengths in each attitude of a Throughways Bus facility and a bus roadway (6,000 feet of cost estimates) (see Append ix B) .

11 .2.1 Method Used

The civil engineering work was divided into over 60 items. Specifications were prepared and unit prices developed for

161

each. The unit prices included contractors' profits, distribution of normal preliminary expenses such as insurance and setting up. and adjustment to normal civil engineering unit prices resulting from construction of a ribbon facility through an urban area. The prices were current as of May 1967. Cost estimates were made for standard lengths of 1,000 feet. Shorter sections were used if the attitude of the facility changed within a 1 ,000-foot section.

To obtain quantities and costs of supporting way, two criteria were laid down:

The systems were to be examined on a comparable basis; and

The final cost estimates were to be as realistic as possible.

With these two criteria established. the quantity take -offs were divided into two parts :

Standard sections (repetitive for each attitude) ; and

Extra costs (non-repeating items).

Standard cross sections for each attitude and for each system were developed. Each cross section had non-variable and variable quantities. Generally the latter varied with the level of rail in relation to existing ground level. Graphs of rai l level against quantities were drawn up for the various attitudes and systems.

The extra items for each case were costed as lump sums. Cost estimates for these items were derived from knowledge of the work required. Such works, generally common to all systems, included such items as maintenance and restoration of properties adjacent to the transit right-of-way, shoring and underpinning of buildings and other structures, construction of vehicular and pedestrian overpasses, and provision of drainage pumping facilities.

11 .2.2 Checking of Overa ll Costs

For an overall check on the quantity take-offs and cost estimates, curves were developed for varying levels for each system by attitude for the standard sections. These graphs served as a measure of the cost per foot of each system under assumed conditions.

While care was taken to ensure the accuracy of the cost estimates, it is emphasised that they can only be preliminary at this stage. All available soils and geological data along the route were analyzed by the Soils Consultant. The findings were used to decide on the type of foundations necessary.

Construction of the rapid transit facility may be contracted out in relatively short stages or contracted for as a complete 'package'. This decision and several others of a similar nature will affect costs significantly.

The estimates of capital cost for civil engineering and construction of the supporting way are given below.

TABLE 11.1 ESTIMATES OF CAPITAL COST FOR SUPPORTING WAY

16-M ILE ROUTE

162

ALWEG DUO RAIL SAFEGE WESTINGHOUSE

£23,380,000 £21 ,320.000 £27,910,000 £20, 710,000

11.3 STATIONS

The cost estimates for stations are given as lump sums. These have been calculated on the basis of items additional to continuing the standard supporting way structure through the station. In other words, if a station were deleted it would be necessary only to subtract the cost of that station from the estimates.

Station costs were estimated for typical structures as follows:

Elevated stations.

Stations in open cut.

Cut and cover stations.

Stations constructed in tunnel.

In each instance the costs have been calculated to reflect the location of the station and the relationship between existing ground level and the top of rail elevation. The lump sums include:

Structures.

Interior and exterior architectural finish.

Escalators.

Public and employee washrooms.

Concessionaire facilities.

Bus transfer faci lities.

Electrical installations for permanent and emergency illumination.

Signing.

Turnstiles and attendants' booths.

Station ventilation. drainage and other mechanical work.

Landscaping.

The following station costs were estimated on the basis of a design hour capacity of 30,000 passengers in the heavier direction at the point of heaviest loading in the peak 60 minutes.

TA BLE 11.2 CAPITA L COST- STATIONS

STATION

Ringway Shadow Moss Wythenshawe Hollyhedge Road Northenden Barlow Moor Road Withington Platt Lane Whitworth Park University Oxford Road (British Railways) St. Peter's Square Market Street Victoria (British Railways) Collyhurst Queens Park Maston Lane Victoria Avenue Middleton Langley

Total

ESTIMATED COST

£300,000 255,000 375.000 375,000 240,000 240,000 315,000 315,000 400,000 135,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 315,000 240,000 240,000 315,000 265,000 315,000

£7,640,000

For a design hour capacity of 20,000 passengers, the above total would be reduced to £7,250,000.

for a capacity of 10,000 passengers past the heavy load point, the total cost of stations wou ld be further reduced to £6,490,000.

The lower costs for the smaller capacities reflect the lesser requirements for platform lengths, mezzanine areas and escalators.

No allowance has been made in the cost estimates for facilit ies for parking at the stations, either for park and ride or kiss and ride services. It is emphasised, however, that provision should be made for this Important service at all but t he city centre stations.

The costs used reflect a quality of contruction which would provide attractive and functional stations.

11 .4 YAR DS AND SHOPS

It would be premature at this stage to select a location for maintenance yards and shops for a rapid transit system for Manchester. The size and shape of the land area required for such a complex generally dictates the selection of undeveloped land. Preferably it shou ld be located near an existing railway line as well as a road to facilitate deliveries. It is also preferable that the site be contiguous to the route rather than beyond a terminal. Since several good sites are potentially available. selection of one at the appropriate time should not be a problem. Undeveloped land in Manchester is in great demand, however. for housing, schools and industry. Thus immediate action should be taken to ensure that land is reserved for this essential part of the system as soon as there is a plan to proceed w ith a rapid transit line. The air rights above such a site might be made available for other developments.

In the absence of a definite site for the yards and shops it is possible to make only a tentat ive estimate for property. This is i ncluded in the property estimates.

Similarly, since site configuration is unknown, it was not possible to make a preliminary layout as a basis for cost estimates. These costs have been estimated on the basis of existing yards and shops of systems presently in operation.

It is anticipated that the yards and shops would include : sufficient track or beamway to store the entire fleet of cars ; a repair shop with stores area for minor repairs and periodic maintenance; a car shop for washing, cleaning and inspection ; and a way and structures building to house material and equipment for maintenance of fixed facilities. Lockers, washrooms. lunchroom and offices wou ld also be included.

The facility would be served by a heating plant on the site.

The yards and shops would be fully equipped to carry out the various functions efficiently. It has been assumed, however, that rnajor overhaul and major rebuilding of rapid transit cars could be carried out most economically in a transit car manufacturer's shops. The type and amount of shop equipment would differ to some extent for the four systems considered. Since few data were available for all but the duorail system it has been assumed that the cost of the requisite shop equipment for all systems would be about the same.

Building dimensions and storage track lengths would vary with capacities and train make up. Maximum train lengths would be :

MAXIMUM TRAIN LENGTHS-FEET

DESIGN HOUR VOLUME ALWEG DUORAIL SAFEGE WESTINGHOUSE

10,000 20,000 30,000

180 270 360

140 280 420

159 318 477

165 330 495

For the purposes of this study it was assumed that building and track capacity would be the same for all systems. There would be some variation between systems, but this was neglected since car width differences wou ld also affect building costs. Furthermore. consists 9nd headways could be adjusted so that train lengths could be altered.

There would be a difference, however, in the cost of yards and shops for the three levels of design capacity. This would not be directly proportional to design capacity nor to the number of vehicles, as the estimates show.

The major differences in the cost of yards and shops between the systems would result from cost differences in the track, roadways, beamways, and switches.

The table below shows the estimated cost of yards and shops at the three levels of design capacity. Cost of land is not included nor has any allowance been made for engineering and contingencies,

11.5 SIGNALS

The train control equipment envisaged, which would be equally applicable to all systems, is currently in use. It consists of automatic block train protection with in-cab signals as well as speed vigilance and stop controls to protect against driver error. It would meet the initial needs of rapid transit in Manchester.

TABLE 11 .3

CAPITAL COSTS-YARDS AND SHOPS

DESIGN CAPACITY IN PASSENGERS PER HOU R ALW EG DUO RAI L SAFEGE WESTING HOUSE

10,000 £2,640,000 £2,520,000 £:3,960,000 £:2,760,000

20,000 3,000,000 2,760,000 4,320,000 3,120,000

30,000 3.180,000 2,880,000 4,560,000 3,360,000

163

Equipment of this type is suitable for conversion to automatic train operation. Studies to determine the justification for fully automatic train operation would form part of the functional planning stage for the system finally selected for Manchester.

The staffs of Westinghouse Brake and Signal Company and AEl- General Signal Limited were most helpful in supplying costs and in commenting on the signal systems.

11 .5.1 Signal System

The signal system would be based on maximum train speeds of 60 mph with an ultimate potential to handle minimum headways of 90 seconds. Trains would be protected from following train movements by the automatic block system. Track circuits would detect the presence of a train on a section of track and would also convey information governing train operation to the signals displayed in the driver's cab. On approaching a diverging junction the clear signal would not be displayed unless the points were correctly set and proved. If the driver failed to observe a restrictive signal, such as 'reduce speed' or 'stop', the train brakes would be applied automatically. All train movements would be displayed on a diagram in a central control area. This headquarters would also conta in controls for all non-automatic signals and points. The personnel in this central control area would be responsible for the operation of the trains. It would be feasible to operate each train with one man using this system.

Track circuit currents for signal and control purposes are normally conveyed by the running rails on duorail systems. The methods used to convey signal information on the other systems vary, mainly due to their use of rubber tyres. The Safege system would use the power conductor rails for signalling purposes.

In the Westinghouse experiment and on some Alweg installations, use of inductive type signals and controls has been generally successful. However, for purposes of this report it is assumed that a physical contact-shunt arrange· ment can be designed for all systems studied. Provided that continuous power rails or other metal contact is available in place of the running rail, which usually carries signal current in

standard duorail practice, signal cost should remain in the same order for all other systems.

Signal estimates consist of two elements ; the track side signals circuit and controls, and the on train equipment needed to give continuous signal indications in the operator's cab and to control train speed where necessary. Differences in total signalling costs in Table 11.4 result from the varying number of cars required for each level of service investigated.

Signal costs are shown in Table 11.4. The additional cost to convert the automatic block duorail equipment, as considered in this report, to automatic train operation would range from £500,000 to £800,000 for the lengths of system and capacities investigated.

11.6 POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM

The costs would include equipment for substations to convert power supplied by the North West Electricity Board to 750 volts D.C. for distribution to the vehicle traction motors. The costs for substation buildings are included in the costs for power supply. The cost of the distribut ion system between the substation and the vehicles is included in the cost of permanent way.

In determining substation requirements, allowable overload conditions were taken into account and adequate provision was made to protect train operators in the event of a local breakdown in supply. Substation requirements would vary by system since each has different peak and total power requirements. All rubber tyred systems would require at least 15 per cent more power than a steel wheeled system for equal performance and train weight. (The reasons are discussed in Section 12.4.) In addition, the weight of the vehicle required to move a given number of passengers varies and this is also reflected in power requirements.

In the case of the Alternating Current distribution system as proposed by Westinghouse. the developer has agreed that the costs for power supply equipment and power consumed would not vary significantly from that which would be experienced if a 750 vol1s Direct Current system was used for estimating purposes adopted for all systems. Costs for power consumption are given in Section 12.

TA BLE 11 .4

DESIGN CAPACITY IN PASSENGERS PER HOUR

10,000 20,000 30,000

DESIGN CAPACITY IN PASSENGERS PER HOUR

10,000 20,000 30,000

164

ALWEG

£1 ,990,000 2,260,000 2,530.000

SIGN A L EQUIPMENT COSTS

DUO RAIL

£1 ,890,000 2,060.000 2,240,000

TABLE 11.5

SAFEGE

£1,900,000 2,090,000 2,290,000

COST FOR POWER SUPPLY EQUIPMENT AN D SUBSTATIONS

ALWEG

£ 750.000 980,000

1,230,000

DUO RAIL

£ 590,000 870,000

1,140,000

SAFEGE

£ 810,000 1,050,000 1,550,000

WESTINGHOUSE

£2,000.000 2,300,000 2,600,000

WESTINGHOUSE

£ 590,000 870,000

1,140,000

·11.7 PROPERTY

Estimated costs for right-of-way acquisition were prepared with the assistance of the Manchester Corporation Estates 13nd Valuation Department. The staff gave valuable assistance and advice to the Consultant during the course of the study i:m matters related to land and other types of property.

lit is stressed that these estimates were prepared without the !benefit of detailed knowledge of the properties affected. The Jfigures are designed, therefore. to show only the order of magnitude of cost. They should not be taken as precise. !Furthermore, it was not possible to average costs for various lengths into unit figures without misleading results. Refinement of the study alignment during later functional engineering studies might reduce the estimated property costs.

The cost estimates for right-of-way for the running track alone were based on minimum land requirement for each system. J::stimates were not made for the extra land that would need to be taken for the elevated structure sections to satisfy the desirable environmental criteria in existing residential areas.

No property costs would be entailed in the tunnel sections. In off street cut and cover and elevated structure sections, an additional ten feet has been allowed on one side of construc tion areas as a temporary easement for working space.

The property cost estimates for station areas were based pn prevailing prices at each location. Credit was taken in the estimates for resale of surplus property and for value of air rights.

It was not feasible to estimate the number of parking spaces required without specific knowledge of potential demand at nach of the various station locations. Thus, a provisional umount has been included in the estimates for these facil ities which would include property, paving, access roads and control.

Detailed investigations of sites for yards and shops were not undertaken as part of this study. To avoid understating c:osts it was assumed that vacant sites may not be available ctt suitable locations, which would involve the purchase and removal of existing buildings ; and may also involve purchase of right of way for a track connection if the yards or shops would have to be located off line.

Estimated costs of property for the complete rapid transit facility would not vary significantly for each system, as s:hown in the following table.

11 .8 SERVICES

Staffs of the following organizations rendered invaluable assistance in assembling data on the services affected by the rapid transit route and in preparing cost estimates related to their relocation or restoration :

Central Electricity Generating Board.

General Post Office.

Heywood and Middleton Water Board.

Manchester Corporation.

Middleton Corporation Surveyor.

North Western Electricity and Gas Boards.

11.8.1 Method Used

Costs in connection w ith affected services were estimated in two ways.

Individual larger services-for example, water pipes in excess of four inches diameter-were designated as major services. Cost of changes affecting major services were then estimated in co-operation with the appropriate authority. Both temporary measures during construction and final restoration of the services were considered .

lesser services such as the numerous domestic feeders and overhead telephone wires were estimated on a lump sum basis. It was assumed that all services would have to be maintained in use at all times except perhaps for short switch-over periods.

11 .8.2 Special Pro blems

The main problems would occur with sewers. Most other services are at a shallow depth and also their gradient is seldom a factor. The rapid transit facility would be in a deep tunnel in the city centre, and complicated underground services wou ld be avoided, except for station entrances and mezzanines. Elsewhere, the off street alignment recom mended wou ld be of great advantage in limiting the amount of disruption of roads and of services in them.

11 .8.3 Different Attitudes

Elevated Structure

Most elevated structures would be located off street. In general. the support footings could be placed to give clear spans over cross streets, thus avoiding the underground

TABLE 11 .6

ITEM

S:upporting way

Sitations

•·Parking areas at stations (Including paving)

"Storage yards and Maintenance s hops

l otal

"Provisional estimates by Consultant

ALWEG

£4,000,000

500,000

2.000.000

1.100.000

£6,600,000

COST OF PROPERTY

DUO RAIL

£4,000.000

500,000

2,000,000

1.100,000

£6,600,000

SAFEGE WESTI NGHOUSE

£4,200,000 £3,900,000

500,000 500,000

2.000,000 2,000.000

1,100.000 1.100.000

£6,800,000 £6,500,000

165

services. Simi larly the few major services which are not laid in the streets could probably be avoided.

Cut and Cover

It has been assumed for estimating purposes that services would be temporari ly maintained in or over the cut during construction. In most cases, new duct, pipe or cable would be laid within the four foot cover over the top of the structure.

Major sewers would be more difficult to deal with. In some instances, remedial works would be necessary, such as diverting a sewer or building an interceptor along the route to pick up connections severed by the t ransit structure.

Open Cut

Services in cross streets wou ld be re-located in a services duct in the new overpass structure. During construction of the overpass, the services would be relocated temporari ly.

At Grade

Services would not be involved on the portions of the route where this type of construction is proposed.

The difference between systems in the cost of maintenance and restoration of utility services was found to be insignificant

in terms of this study. Services costs, likewise, would not be affected by design capacity. No allowance was made for contingencies.

The cost of the relocation and restoration of utility services was approximately £1 , 100,000.

11 .9 V EHICLE COSTS

Vehicle cost estimates were obtained from systems developers except for duorail, for which estimates were quoted by two manufacturers. These costs were reviewed by the Consu ltants. They appear to be reasonable for the types of vehicles considered.

The most significant factor in comparing vehicles of equiva lent comfort and performance is the capital cost per passenger of capacity. Another important item of comparison is the weight of the vehicle per passenger of capacity since this would affect power costs. These and other items are compared in Table 11.7.

Vehicle costs by system, for each level of service considered for the 16-mile route are shown in Table 11.8.

Contingencies are not provided for in the costs shown.

TABLE 11.7

COMPA RISON OF V EHICLE COSTS

ALWEG DUORAIL SAFEGE 'A' Type

Cost per basic train unit £70,000 £40,000 £168,000 (2 car set) (per car) (3 car set)

Car size 45' x 10' 70' x 10' 53' x 8'2"

Unladen car weight in pounds 38,500 60,000 51,500

Maximum car capacity at 2.5 180 280 173 square foot per passenger (per car) (per car)

Vehicle cost per passenger £194 £143 £324

Cost per pound, light weight £0.9 £0.7 £1.1

Vehicle weight per passenger in pounds 213.89 214.28 297.69

•Westinghouse cost based on prices in the United States of America.

ALWEG 'A' Type

Design Hour Capacity-10,000 Passengers Per Hour Minimum basic train unit requirement 35

Spares Cost per basic tra in unit Total cost

(2 car sets) 4 £70,000 £2.730,000

Design Hour Capacity-20,000 Passengers Per Hour Minimum vehicle requirement 68

Spares Cost per vehicle Total cost

(2 car sets) 7 £70,000 £5,250,000

Design Hour Capacity- 30.000 Passengers Per Hour Minimum vehicle requirement 102

Spares Cost per vehicle Total cost

166

(2 car sets) 10 £70,000 £7,840,000

TAB LE 11 .8

TOTA L V EHICLE COST

DUO RAIL

44

6 £40,000 £2,000,000

88

10 £40,000 £3,920,000

132

14 £40,000 £5,840,000

SAFEGE

24 (3 car sets} 3 £168.000 £4,536,000

48 (3 car sets) 5 £168,000 £8,904,000

72 (3 car sets) 7 £168,000 £13,272,000

WESTINGHO USE

* £28,000 (per car) 33' x 818 11

20,500

114

£246

£1.4

179.82

WESTINGHOUSE

110

11 £28,000 £3,388,000

220

22 £28,000 £6,776,000

330

33 £28,000 £10, 164,000

11.10 ENGIN EERING A N D CONTINGENCIES

The costs quoted in the preceding paragraphs of this chapter represent the estimated direct construction, equipment and installation cost for each of the systems.

These sums do not include the expense of pre-investigations, design. construction inspection, contingencies, administra tion and financing, although all are essential features of a project. The following percentages and estimates of cost for these items are considered appropriate.

Engineering

To cover the following aspects-12 per cent of cost:

1. Functional report.

2. Soil investigations and testing.

3. Civil, electrical and mechanical design including preparation of contract drawings, specifications and conditions of contract.

4. Architectural services for treatment of stations and elevated structure.

5. Supervision of construction, inspection and acceptance testing.

Contingencies

To provide for unforeseen eventualities- 15 per cent of cost. These funds would be expended only upon specific approval of the agency responsible for administration of the project.

Administration

No specific sum has been suggested for expenses incurred by the agency responsible for the administration of the project.

Table 11.9, Summary of Capital Costs, includes the sums allowed for Engineering and Contingencies.

11.11 SYSTEMS CO MPARISON

11 .11 .1 Tota l Capital Costs

Total capital costs for the route are summarised in Table 11 .9.

The Duorail and Westinghouse systems are shown to be least costly. Safege would be much more expensive than any of the other systems. The Westinghouse costs are influenced by the use of low axle loading. Commensurate savings in structural costs could be realised by the other systems, however, if they used comparable loadings, which they could readily do if it were desirable.

11 .11 .2 Capita l Cost as an Equiva lent Annual Cost

Two methods have been used-

1. Straight line depreciation plus average interest.

2. Capital Recovery Factor (sinking fund amortization plus Interest on first cost).

Interest rate has been taken at 6.0 per cent. Life expectancy for the items being considered is as follows :

ITEM (Capital Recovery Factor) Years at 6%

Building structures and permanent way 60 (0.062)

Signals and power supply equipment 30 (0.072)

Rolling stock 25 (0.078)

TABLE 11.9

SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS

Design Hour Capacity-30,000

ITEM

Track and structure Services Stations ~ower supply Signals Yards and shops Engineering (12%) Rolling stock Property Contingencies (15%)

Total capital costs

ALWEG

£23,380,000 1,100,000 7,640,000 1,230,000 2,530,000 3,180,000 4,690,000 7,840,000 6,600,000 8,730,000

£66,920,000

Estima t ed Total Project Costs by Items DUO RAIL SAFEGE

£21 ,320,000 , ,100,000 7,640,000 1,140,000 2,240,000 2,880,000 4,360,000 5,840,000 6,600,000 7,970,000

£61 ,090,000

£27,910,000 1,100,000 7,640,000 1,550,000 2,290,000 4,560,000, 5,410,000

13,270,000 6,800,000

10,580,000

£81, 110,000

Estimated capital costs for Design Hour Capacities of 20,000 and 10,000 would be as follows:

ALWEG DUO RAIL SAFE GE

WESTINGHOUSE

£20,710,000 1, 100,000 7,640,000 1,140,000 2,600,000 3,360,000 4,390,000

10,160,000 6,500,000 8,640,000

£66,240,000

WESTINGHOUSE

Des~gn Hour Capaci1y-20,000 £62,540,000 £57,640,000 £74,370,000 £60,800,000 Design Hour Capacity-10,000 57,550,000 53,570,000 67,360,000 54,720,000

Note: Total capital costs do not include engineering on the items Rolling stock and Property. An allowance for contingencies has been applied to all items.

167

The equivalent annual amount for property has been taken at 6.0 per cent of the value. Sample calculations using both methods are shown below.

EQUIVALENT ANN UAL Example AMOUNT ITEM CAPITAL Method 1. Method 2.

AMOUNT Straight Line Capital Depreciation Recovery plus Average Factor Interest

Track and structures services, stations, yards and shops £42,420,000 £1,990,000 £2,630,000

Signals and power supply 4,360,000 280,000 310,000

Rolling stock 6,720,000 480,000 520,000

Property 7,590,000 460,000 460,000

Total annual amount £3,210,000 £3,920,000

Equivalent annual costs based on the capital recovery factor method are shown in Table 11.10.

TABLE 11 .10

CAPITAL COSTS A S AN EQUIVALENT ANNUAL AMOUNT

ALWEG DUORAIL SAFEGE

Design Hour Capacity-10,000 Passengers Per Hour

Capital cost £57,550,000 £53,370,000 £67,360.000

Equivalent annual amount 3,630,000 3,380,000 4,280,000

Design Hour Capacity- 20,000 Passengers Per Hour

Capital cost £62,540,000 £57,640,000 £74,370,000


Design Hour Capacity-30,000 Passengers Per Hour

Capital cost £66,920,000 £61,090,000 £81,110,000


168

WESTINGHOUSE

£54,720,000

3,470,000

£60,800,000

3,920,000

£66,240,000

4,330.000

-

ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE

Section twelve

Annual Operating and Maintenance Expense

12.1 GEN ERAL

tn this section, the four systems studied in depth, Alweg, ouorail, Safege and Westinghouse are evaluated to derive anticipated overall operating costs. For each system, items contributing to costs are compared and an appropriate increment or reduction in cost has been assigned where applicable. The annual operating and maintenance costs have been estimated under five main divisions:

Maintenance of way and structures.

Maintenance of equipment.

Power costs.

Conducting transportation.

Other operating and overhead expenses.

Most costs are related to in service vehicle miles, a common basis of cost accounting in rapid transit properties.

No cost records for long term operation under normal public service conditions are available for the Alweg, Safege and and Westinghouse systems. In the case of existing duorail systems, the unit costs for operations and maintenance vary widely between various operating authorities, since each adopts a different policy towards standards of maintenance. For example, some undertake maintenance on cars daily, others weekly. The approach to mechanical maintenance also differs depending on many factors.

In view of the above, and to achieve a consistent basis for comparison, the costs in this chapter are based on a common standard of maintenance for all systems. Each system has been examined to determine how the various maintenance functions might differ from duorail, based on experience gained in maintaining structures and vehicles on a typical duorail property.

12.2 MAINTENANCE OF WAY AND STRUCTURES

The cost of maintenance of way and structures averages approximately 15 per cent of the total annual maintenance and operating costs of a rapid transit system. A minimum of 20 per cent of this cost is generally constant for any level of traffic, and common to all systems. The larger part of maintenance expense is for track and roadway labour and materials. These costs vary directly with the gross ton miles operated on any system or portion of track.

The estimates shown in Table 12.1 have been divided into three accounts, dependent on the differences in items maintained and the application of costs to the various systems. These are:

Constant costs; applicable to all systems.

Main roadway costs; variable by system gross ton miles.

Roadway surcharges ; which differ between systems and also vary with traffic or gross ton miles.

Maintenance of way and structures costs total approximately £1 per gross ton mile on existing transit systems.

12.2.1 Constant Costs

Certain items that are part of maintenance of way and structures would be common and very nearly uniform for all systems under consideration. These are maintenance of :

Structures.

Drainage and lighting.

Ventilation and pumping equipment.

Station cleaning.

Station equipment, escalators, lighting.

Power distribution, communications.

Signals and other control equipment.

It has been estimated that basic annual costs for the above items on all systems wou ld amount to £57,500.

Because of the unique nature of Alweg and Safege structures, access to maintain the signal systems along the line would be difficult. Similarly, access to maintain the power distribution systems on Safege and Westinghouse structures would be difficult. Surcharges have been added to the constant costs on this account.

12.2.2 Main Road Bed, Running Surfaces and Rails

Many elements of roadway maintenance will be similar for each system, since the lengths of route in the different attitudes are approximately the same for all of the systems. The following major elements would require continu ing adjustment and maintenance :

Running surfaces and guiding rails.

Special work, including switches.

Yard trackage.

Surcharges have been added to equate the extra costs which apply to each system as follows :

The steel running rails of the duorail system are subject to wear on curves and in acceleration and deceleration areas at stations. A surcharge is added for this.

Both the Alweg and Westinghouse systems run on rubber tyres w ith a relatively low bearing pressure on the concrete track. In exposed locations, it would be necessary to clean the running surface of wet debris and ice build-up from time to time. A surcharge is added for this.

For each turnout on the Alweg, Safege and Westinghouse

171

systems, greater electric motor capacity must be provided to move a length of the heavy supporting structure than wou ld be the case with duorail. A surcharge is added for this.

Similarly, for Alweg, Safege and Westinghouse, special electro-mechanical locking devices are needed to hold the large switch element in place at the end of its travel. A surcharge is added to these systems to cover the maintenance of these devices.

More labour, time and care would be required for the checking, adjusting, and replacing the wearing parts on the large switches of the Alweg, Safege and Westinghouse systems. A surcharge is added to each of these systems for this.

12.3 MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT

This division includes all labour, materials and machinery costs for maintenance associated with the rolling stock on the system. It usually averages between 14 per cent and 16 per cent of the total annual operating costs. For rolling stock manufactured to typical rapid transit quality standards, two

factors contribute to the cost of maintenance; firstly, ease of accessibility to equipment components for inspection and maintenance and secondly, the complexity of each equipment component used.

As a guide to the cost apportioned to each component of the systems under consideration, the breakdown of costs for a typical duorail steel wheel vehicle are:

(a) Inspection and light maintenance 10%

(b) Car cleaning and yard movements 30%

(c) Trucks and running gear excluding motors 13% (d) Electrical - auxiliaries and traction equipment 11 % (e) Body and paint 10%

(f) Overheads including annual and statutory holidays, supervisory and clerical staff 15%

(g) Shop account for light, heat and power, etc. 9% (h) Miscellaneous 2%

100%

TABLE 12.1 MAINTENANCE OF WAY AND STRU CTUR ES

Constant Costs

Basic

Signals surcharge

Power surcharge

ALWEG

(57,500

7,000

Total Annual Constant Amount £64,500

Variable Costs per 1,000 Gross Ton- Miles

Basic £0.83

Main roadbed surcharge 0.05

Switches surcharge 0.1 O

Total Variable £0.98

Design Capacity 10,000 Passengers Per Hour

Thousands of gross ton miles £107, 100

Total variable

Total constant

Total (rounded)

104,950

64,500

(170,000


Thousands of gross ton miles £206,000

Total variable

Total constant

Total (rounded)

201,880

64,500

£270,000


Thousands of gross ton miles £311,060

Total variable

Total constant

Total (rounded)

172

304,840

64,500

£370,000

DUO RAIL

(A) Items Contributing to Annual Cost

£57,500

(57,500

£0.83

0.10

£0.93

(8) Annual Costs

£128.300

119,320

57,500

£180,000

£280,460

193.850

57,500

£250,000

£314.290

292,290

57,500

£350,000


£57,500 £57,500

3,500

1,750 3,500

£62.750 £61 ,000

(0.83 £0.83

0.05 0.05

0 .10 0 .10

£0.98 £0.98

£139,200 £97,100

136,420 95,160

62,750 61 ,000

£200,000 £160,000

£281 ,090 £184,030

275,480 180,350

62,750 61,000

£340,000 £240,000

(420,320 £276,610

411,910 271 ,080 62,750 61,000

£470,000 £330,000

Using the above subdivisions of expense, each system was examined for features which would tend to vary its costs with respect to duorail. These are outlined below and summarised in Table 12.2.

12.3.1 Inspection and Light Maintenance

Checking of electrical systems would be about the same for all systems.

Access for inspection of wheels, tyres, guide wheels and brakes would be more difficult in the Alweg system. A surcharge is added for this.

Access for light lubrication would be more difficult for Alweg. A surcharge is added for this.

Access for inspection and adjustment of current collectors would be difficult for Alweg. A surcharge is added for this.

The auxiliaries of the Safege system are in the roof of the car, under panels, and hence access and adjustment are more difficult. A surcharge is added for this.

No surcharge is added to any system for inspection and maintenance of automatic doors and lights.

12.3.2 Car Cleaning and Yard Movements

These are combined functions, since the same staff would be employed to move cars in rush hours. and clean them in off-peak hours. For the four systems under consideration, car marshalling and cleaning expenses would be approximately equal.

12.3.3 Trucks and Running Gear, excluding Motors

It would be difficult to lubricate the main bearings of the Alweg car. A surcharge is added for this.

Steel tyres have a life of about 1,000,000 miles and cost about £40 each to replace (materia l and labour), whereas it is claimed that rubber tyres have a life of about 200,000 to 300,000 miles and cost about £80 each to replace. The difference in cost. td per car mile, is a surcharge to the Alweg, Safege and Westinghouse systems.

All three rubber tyred systems under consideration have rubber tyre guide wheels, requiring maintenance and replacement. A surcharge is added for this.

Steel wheels are subject to flattening which requires wheel grinding, and to tread wear necessitating re-profiling. A surcharge is added to the duorail system for these operations.

Access for adjustment or replacement of brake shoes would be more difficult in the Alweg and Westinghouse systems. A surcharge is added for this.

Removal and replacement of a complete bogie would be very difficult for the Alweg system. A surcharge is added for this.

12.3.4 Electrical, Auxiliaries and Traction Equipment

Access to check or replace traction motor brushes would be difficult in the Alweg system. A surcharge is added for this.

12.3.5 Body and Paint

Most items of body and paint work would be the same for all systems under consideration. However, a surcharge is added to the Safege system to cover inspection, adjustment, lubrication and maintenance of the car suspension linkage and dampers.

12.3.6 Overheads

Supervisory and clerical expense, including annual and statutory holidays, would be in the same proportion to the total basic maintenance of equipment costs.

12.3.7 Shop Account and Miscellaneous

For each system these would be the same proportion of the total basic maintenance of equipment costs.

12.4 POWER COSTS

This item includes costs for the purchase of electric power and the maintenance of substations and the traction power distribution system. Circuit breakers, transformers. silicon rectifiers and attendant control circuits have reached such a high level of reliability that maintenance costs of these items would be negligible.

The Electricity Board has suggested that the bulk cost of purchased electric power be taken at a flat rate of 2d per kilowatt hour for the purpose of this preliminary study. No

TABLE 12.2 ANNUAL COSTS OF MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT

ALWEG DUO RAIL SAFEGE WESTINGHOUSE

Unit cost per vehicle per mile 8.4 pence 7.0 pence 8.4 pence 6.5 pence


Car miles per year 5,200,000 4,000,000 5,300,000 8,600.000 Annual cost (rounded) £180,000 (120,000 £190,000 £230,000


Car miles per year 10,000,000 6,500,000 10,700,000 16,300,000 Annual cost (rounded) £350,000 £190,000 £370,000 (440,000


Car miles per year 15,100,000 9,800,000 16,000,000 24,500,000 Annual cost (rounded) £530,000 £260,000 (560,000 £660.000

173

differentiation has been made between peak load and offpeak load rates. The characteristics of transit operation are such that no substantial advantage can be taken of low priced energy in off-peak periods.

Train operation has been simulated by means of electronic computer, for a full length round trip of the line. The simula tion was based on the station spacing, alignment and grade of the proposed rapid transit line, and the car performance and motor characteristics of the duorail steel wheel transit car, all as described elsewhere in this report.

The simulation was made as a contribution to this study by Associated Electrical Industries Limited of Manchester, England, to whom sincere thanks are extended. The General Electric Company of Erie, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. also undertook a similar analysis.

The electric power consumption for duorail has been converted to kilowatt hours per ton mile and applied to the other systems by assuming :

(a) that under the normal speeds to be experienced on this urban transit line, the air resistance of the trains of different configuration would be very similar. Streamlining would have little different effect between the systems considered;

(b) that the electric/mechanical efficiency of the power train, i.e., the electric motor-drive shaft-gear box, for all the systems would be approximately equal.

Power costs would be higher for the rubber tyred trains due to increased rolling resistance compared to steel wheel trains. For the purposes of cost comparisons made in this report, the power usage per unit weight of rubber tyred vehicles has been taken as 15 per cent above that for steel wheel vehicles. This figure of 15 per cent increase is very conservative. Values obtained elsewhere suggest a range of between 15 and 35 per cent, depending on station spacing.

12.5 CONDUCTING TRANSPORTATION

This item includes all expenses involved in running the transit system, given the necessary fixed faci lities, rolling stock and power. Costs common to each of the systems are :

Station crews, ticket collectors, platform men, and train crews.

Supervisors and control staff.

(Yardmen and switchmen are included under maintenance of equipment).

Train crewing costs would be in direct proportion to the number of hours worked, which in turn would be directly related to the number of train miles operated. Since all systems require the same order of train miles for all capacities, the annual crew wages will be the same for all examples costed. Based on one-man train operation the crew costs have been estimated at £80,000 per annum. With the built-in safety devices in the modern transit system, such as safety doors on the cars and automatic signal systems, one-man operation is now common.

For station crews it has been assumed that five men would cover the 19 hours the station is open, at least two men being on duty during the off-peak hours and three men being on duty for the morning and evening peak periods.

Labour costs include allowances for overtime rates, holidays, pension, sick leave, bonus, uniforms and other current fringe benefits.

Supervision and control staff costs have been taken as 10 per cent of the combined cost of station crews and train crews. The cost of conducting transportation is as shown in Table 12.3.

TABLE 12.3 ANNUAL COST OF CONDUCTING TRANSPORTATION

Train crew costs Station crew costs

Sub-Total

Direct supervision 10%

Total (rounded)

£ 80,000 135,000

£215,000

21,500

£240,000

TABLE 12.4 SUMMARY OF BASIC EXPENSES

ALWEG DUO RAIL SAFE GE WESTINGHOUSE

At Capacity 10,000 Passengers Per Hour Maintenance of way and structures £170,000 £180,000 £200,000 £160,000 Maintenance of equipment 180,000 120.000 190,000 230.000 Power costs 150,000 160,000 200,000 140.000 Conducting transportation 240.000 240,000 240,000 240,000

Total £740.000 £700,000 £830,000 £770,000

At Capacity 20,000 Passengers Per Hour Maintenance of way and structures £270,000 £250,000 £340,000 £240,000 Maintenance of equipment 350,000 190,000 370,000 440,000 Power costs 280,000 250,000 390,000 260,000 Conducting transportation 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000

Total £1 ,140,000 £ 930,000 ( 1,340,000 £1,180,000

At Capacity 30,000 Passengers Per Hour Maintenance of way and structures £370,000 £350,000 £470,000 £330,000 Maintenance of equipment 530,000 260.000 560,000 660,000 Power costs 440,000 380,000 590,000 390,000 Conducting transportation 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000

Total £1 ,580,000 £1,230,000 £1,860,000 £1 ,620,000

174

12.6 OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES

Other necessary transportation expenses not included in the

foregoing are : administration, stationery and printing,

insurance, damages, injuries, research and public relations.

From experience in other properties, this group of costs

would aggregate approximately 15 per cent of the basic

expenses as listed in Table 12.4. These costs would be

constant and approximately equal, therefore the duorail costs

have been calculated and used for all systems.

12.7 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING EXPENSE

The costs are summarised in Table 12.5.

12.8 COMBINED ANNUAL AND CAPITAL COSTS

Table 12.6 shows total annual costs which include the annual operating and maintenance expense plus capital cost converted to an annual amount. The capital costs have been converted to an annual amount using the capital recovery factor method with six per cent annual interest rate (See Section 11 ).

TABLE 12.5 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING EXPENSE

ALWEG DUORAIL SAFE GE WESTINGHOUSE


Maintenance of way and structures £170,000 £180,000 £200,000 £160,000

Maintenance of equipment 180,000 120.000 190,000 230,000

Power 150,000 160.000 200,000 140,000

Conducting transportation 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000

Other operating expenses 110.000 110,000 110,000 110,000

Total £850,000 £810,000 £940,000 £880,000



Maintenance of equipment 350.000 190,000 370,000 440,000

Power 280,000 250,000 390,000 260,000

Conducting transportation 240,000 240.000 240,000 240,000

Other operating expenses 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000

Total £1 ,280,000 £1 ,070,000 £1,480,000 £1.320.000



Maintenance of equipment 530,000 260,000 560,000 660,000 Power 440,000 380,000 590,000 390,000

Conducting transportation 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000

Other operating expenses 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000

Total £1,760,000 £1,410,000 £2,040,000 £1,800,000

TABLE 12.6 COMBINED ANNUAL AND CAPITAL COSTS

ALWEG DUO RAIL SAFE GE WESTINGHOUSE


Annual maintenance and operating cost £850,000 £810,000 £940,000 £880,000

Annual debt charges 3,630,000 3,380,000 4,280.000 3,470,000

Total annual cost £4,480,000 £4,190,000 £5,220,000 £4.350,000


Annual maintenance and operating cost £1 ,280,000 £1 ,070,000 £1,480,000 £1,320,000

Annual debt charges 4,000,000 3,670.000 4,800,000 3,920,000

Total annual cost £5,280,000 £4,740,000 £6,280,000 £6,240,000


Annual maintenance and operating cost £1, 760,000 Annual debt charges 4,330,000

£1.410.000 £2,040,000 £1,800,000

3.920.000 5,310,000 4,330,000

Total annual cost £6,090,000 £5,330,000 £7,350,000 £6.130,000

175

EFFECT OF REDUCING ROUTE LENGTH

J Section thirteen

Effect of reducing route length

The construction of transit facilities along any route may be phased to meet development and demand. Costs have been developed for one possible first phase of rapid transit construction in Manchester to show how costs for this route wou ld compare with costs for the 16-mile route, as used for systems evaluation. This sample length extends from Victoria Avenue to Barlow Moor Road - a distance of nine mi les.

Costs are compared in Table 13.1 opposite. The cost saving would not be proportional to the reduction in mileage since

it would include the expensive section of construction and operation through the built up area of the City.

Duorail costs for a design capacity of 30,000 passengers per hour have been used as an example. A similar relationship would exist for the other levels of service and systems.

TABLE 13.1

COST COMPARISON- 16- M ILE AND 9- MILE ROUTE

(Duorail-Design Capacity 30,000 Passengers Per Hour)

16-MILE ROUTE 9-MILE ROUTE Manchester Barlow Moor Airport to Road to Victoria Lang ley Avenue

Cars required 146 112 Car cost £6,700,000 £5,200,000 Fixed facilities and property 54,400,000 38,300,000

Total capital cost £61, 100,000 £43,500,000 Annual maintenance and operating expense £1,410,000 £760,000

179

•

APPENDIX A

...

' .....

ROUTE AS SELECTED FOR 2-MILES SYSTEMS EVALUATION 2-MILE ROUTE

Appendix A

Special Study of 2-mile Elevated Route

A.1 INTRODUCTION

The 16-mile route adopted for purposes of systems comparison and preliminary cost estimating contains about 5 miles of elevated structure, of which only about one quarter mile is along and over a roadway.

During the course of the Study, it was decided that further comparative study of the environmental impact and the construction costs of building the four rapid transit syst•ems over a roadway was desirable. Consequently, it was decided to proceed with an additional study of approximately 2 miles of elevated route. The purposes of this special study were :

(a) To evaluate the cost of elevated versus cut and cover construction along the same route.

(b) To evaluate the difference in cost between 4 systems (Alweg, Duorail, Safege and Westinghouse) on an elevated route over a roadway.

(c) To evaluate the environmental effect of introducing a rapid transit structure elevated over a road throu£1h a residential area, and further to evaluate the differetnce, if any, of the 4 systems in this attitude.

A.2 PROCEDURE

As proponents of an elevated structure suspended ov·er a roadway, Taylor Woodrow (Safegelicensees) were reque:sted to submit two suggestions for 2-mile lengths of the route which they considered could be over a road. One of these suggestions, located through the Wythenshawe area, was

chosen by the Committee to serve as the test case (see Figure A.1). Working with the Consultants, Taylor Woodrow prepared a horizontal and vertical alignment for Safege for the 1.9-mile route as f inally selected. The Consuitants also developed alignment for the A lweg, Duorail and Westinghouse systems, and then prepared capital cost estimates for all four systems.

A .3 CAPITAL COST

Table A.1 summarizes the capital cost estimates for the four elevated systems in the 1 ·9-mile section. A comparison is also made with the cost of the original alignment in cut and cover, proposed as part of the 16-mile route. The table of costs does not include rolling stock, signals, switches nor yards.

A.4 ELEVATED SYSTEM CROSSING A ROAD

The Westinghouse and Duorail systems are supported on beams or a deck, and consequently when the elevated structure crosses a road there is no difference from a normal over bridge as far as a motorist on the road is concerned. With the Alweg system, a driver will see a beam straddled by the vehicle, and visually it will appear that the bottom of the vehicle is level with the soffit of the beamway. In actual fact, the bottom of the vehicle does project below the beam, but by less than 1 inch. For the Safege system however, with the vehicle suspended below the beamway, it is conceivable that a motorist approaching the point where the

TABLE A.1 COST ESTIMATES FOR '2-MILE' STUDY (Actual Length = 1·90 miles)

ALWEG DUORAIL SAFEGE 2-Mile 16-Mlle 2-Mille 16-Mile 2-Mile Route1 Route2 Rout•a1 Route2 Route1

Civil Engineering3 £754,000 £3,040,000 £1,368.000 £2,849,000 £1,149,000 Services £134,000 £252,000 £134,000 £252,000 £134,000 Stations £500,000 £630,000 £500,000 £630.000 £500,000 Property £291,0004 £220.000 £291.0004 £220,000 £258.0004

TOTAL £1 ,679,000 £4,142,000 £2.293,000 £3,951 ,000 £2,041 ,000

NOTES: 1. The total length of the '2-Mile route' is elevated 2. The '16-Mile route' consists of 1 ·40 miles cut and cover and 0·50 miles elevated 3. (a) Civil engineering includes road reconstruction. traffic diversions, etc.

(b) Civil engineering costs do not include: (a) an allowance for contingencies (b) engineering design end supervision (o) sig1nals (d) cmssovers (e) Wl1yside power equipment (f) alliowance for 'undertrays· for Safege

16-Mile Route2

£3,244,000 £252.000 £630,000 £220,000

£4.346,000

WESTINGHOUSE 2-Mile 16-Mile Route1 Route2

£1,038,000 £2,896,000 £134.000 £252,000 £500.000 £630,000 £291 ,0004 £220,000

£1 ,963,000 £3,998,000

4. Property costs do not include purchase of abutting property along Brownley Road. For the '2-Mile route' environmental considerations

could increase costs by an additional £493,000

183

A.2

184

0 II 10

Ji E

ALWEG

34·0'

SAFEGE

zofnt

.. , E -.. ~

4 .•

DUO RAIL

WESTINGHOUSE

TYPICAL SECTIONS

rapid transit line crosses over the roadway could be distracted, or could experience anxiety as to the clearance between his vehicle and the Safege vehicles cro:;sing directly over the roadway ahead of him. If this is a val id consideration, it would apply particularly to those drivers unfamiliar with the area. The problem could be likened to a road crossing the end of an aerodrome runway. Without an actual installation it is virtually impossible to prove or disprove whether this psychological problem would exist or not. However, this factor is the basic reason for increasing the normal Ministry of Transport roadway clearanco for over bridges from 16 ft. 6 in. to 18 ft. 6 in. for the Safege system.

If by trial it were found to be a problem (presumably only on high speed trunk roads), a light screen cou ld be placc3d in the 2 ft. clearance margin (between 18 ft. 6 in. and 16 ft. 13 in.) beneath the vehicle. Such a screen would not have to bear the vehicle load, only snow load and passengers using the screen as an emergency walk, in the event of vehicle breakdown. A screen 1 00 ft. long could cost as muc:h as £8,000. This cost however has not been included in the capital cost estimates.

Taylor Woodrow, Safege licensees in the U.K., are o1f the opinion that there is absolutely no need of such a sc:reen and the following is an extract from their letter to the Consultants on this matter:

"We have in the past given considerable thought to this matter and feel that there are three existing situations that could be considered :

1. In many locations heavy and light aircraft takt3 off over a road and although it is not completely comparable, the noise associated with aircraft could be regarded as an additional hazard.

The Safege Monorail beam, we feel, will b1e of assistance as it is a permanent reminder that a vehicle may travel across the road and will act as advance warning.

2. At Wuppertal in West Germany the suspended type of monorail has been in service for many years without showing that there is any particular hazard to vehicles travelling on the road.

3. At our Test Track at Chateauneuf-sur- Loire the line crosses the public road at 90°. It is a situation completely comparable with the one under discussion. There has been no objection by the Highway Authority in the five years of service, nor has any hazard to road vehicles been observed".

In our opinion, this 'possible' hazard will never be prov1m or disproven until an actual test installation is constructedl and operated. The 'public road' referred to above is not a high volume trunk road. It would seem likely that at leas:t on trunk roads, some sort of screen suspended between adjacent portals, or perhaps simply a concrete portal over the road in question, would be likely.

A.5 ELEVATED SYSTEMS ALONG A ROADWAY

A.5.1 Civil Engineering

Construction of the elevated rapid transit facility along1 and over Brownley Road could be achieved in two ways, eiither by reconstructing the road as a dual carriageway, with

columns down the centre, or else by constructing portal frames spanning the existing roadway.

Due to the relative narrowness of the right of way it was decided to use the latter method and typical portal frames for each of the four systems are shown on Figure A.2. These structures would be used only when the system followed the centre line of a road. Elsewhere on the 2-mile section the standard column section (see Figure 10.1) would be used.

A.5.2 Operation along a road

Duorail would appear to the road-user as a continuous deck -similar to a narrow elevated motorway.

Alweg and Westinghouse vehicles running above open beamways would be clearly visible to the road user, and possibly distracting. The beamway 'between' the road user and the moving train would tend to give him a sense of security, however there may be a tendency to 'race' the train if it was travelling in the same direction. Also there is the possibility of water spray and some oil drip from the vehicles which would not be retained by the structure.

Safege runs below an open beamway and would be visible to the road user. As the train would travel below the beamway there could be the disturbing effect of 'lack of security' against collision where the train was moving in the opposing direction to that of the road user. Alternatively there could again be a tendency to ' race' the train if it was travelling in the same direction as the road user.

In the event of a breakdown or of maintenance no problem would arise with Duorail, nor with Westinghouse, provided they incorporate the safety walk as proposed. However, the problem of evacuating passengers from Alweg and Safege should the occasion arise, could be a problem due to the vehicles on the road.

The above observations would tend to be more acute as the running speed of the road users increased.

A.6 STATIONS

A typical elevated, over the road, station for Safege is shown on Figure A.3. Figure A.4 shows a Safege station elevated but off Brownley Road. Stations for the other three systems would be of substantially the same design as that suggested for Safege.

A .7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PROPERTY

Environmental considerations have been discussed at length in Section 6 of the main report. The following comments supplement Section 6, and relate to the specific environmental impact of the elevated structure along and over Brownley Road.

The existing environment along Brownley Road is low rise, medium density housing development, generally in the form of two storey semi-detached dwellings, with minimum space between dwellings and little or no public open space.

The effect of any elevated transit system upon this environment would be so drastic as to create a radical change in the existing urban structure (see Figure A.5).

185

A.3

186

.. •

t t I ~ r • •

I I I

DI . 110 .,. 1}~~Jo . L~ir

• I r i ....... -===== I I ., I I I PEOESTRIA::. WALKWl'Y

I I

CL • ;)

I I I I I I

I zl

"'' ~I ~I ... , ~I ... 1

gl "'1

I

" u ..

~ PLAN i~T CONTROL AREA LEVEL

ROADWAY

'I

PLATFORM LEVEL

CONTROL AREi' LEVEL

STREET LEVEL

0 !I ID 20foot

ELEVATED SAFEGE STATION OVER BROWNLEY ROAD

In any elevated system routed through a residential area i t Is of prime importance that the physical structure of track. and supports be imaginatively designed. The emphasi~: on simply reducing costs per unit to the minimum, for an elevated structure which w ill be built to stand for the next fifty years or more, is reminiscent of nineteenth century 'overhead railway' thinking. Because the track is the most expensive part of any rail system these supporting structures should reflect twentieth century technology and env-ronmental standards in evaluating effects on adjacent buildings.

Three possible situations have been considered wheret the transit structure would be elevated above the existing rioadway structure.

(I) Average w idth of carriageway about 30 ft. with a further 35 ft. on each side to the face of exh~ting buildings. In this instance, if the rail track and supports were built over the road, the dlst1:mce between track and existing dwellings would! be little more than 40 ft. (See Figure A.6).

The majority of existing roadside planting would lhave to be removed and if existing dwellings were retained, the proximity of the rail t rack could create conditions of physical and psychological disturbance .

The influence of the transit line under tlhese conditions could prove destructive-generating along its route a belt of urban blight and decay such as may be found w here earlier overhead systems have been routed through residential areas in other cities.

(II) In anticipation of this 'decay factor' the demolition of roadside dwellings, at the time of track construc·tion, may provide the only sure solution to prevent fuiture environmental deterioration.

The initial cost of land acquisition and demoliition (but not re-housing) could amount to some £493,.000 along Brownley Road if this principal were adopted.

As a result of demolition, the shortest distance between rail track and dwellings would be approximately 130 ft., a distance over w hich the effec:t of the transit line would be greatly reduced. This disturbance could be further reduced by careful landscaping of the zone between dwellings and r1oad.

The use of earth banking and generous transplanting of mature trees would provide acoustic and visual insulation and at the same time create a systenn of public green space and walks, which would be a welcome addition to the existing environment. (See Figure A.7).

(Iii) In areas of the route where urban renewal or development is already scheduled, it is possiblo to consider a building type more closely integrated w ith the transit system than traditional forms would allow.

This building type may be termed loosely as a 'route building'-essentially linear in form and following closely the route of the transit line. Providing certain design conditions were followed, this building type could be located within 100 ft. of the track. The buildings could be oriented to allow gardens or open space and large windows to face away from the roadway and transit structure.

Advanced techniques in building construction to provide such items as acoustic insulation would enable residential and other buildings to be integrated with transportation facilities to give a high level of human amenity.

The environmental effects of a Rapid Transit System upon a local community centre, such as that proposed at Wythenshawe, must be carefully considered in relation to the existing traffic structure and the probable form of building development which may take place in these areas.

East of Brownley Road a high density housing zone is proposed, with local amenities and public open space. On the west a commercial development including shops, offices, hotel and a public entertainment centre is contemplated. The centre Is bounded on the north by an existing low rise, medium density, housing estate. The southern limit is Simonsway.

The existing major road running north-south (Brownley Road) forms a natural division at grade between the two sectors of the development area. To provide full integration of various activities within the Civic Centre, the main pedestrian level could be elevated above Brownley Road, providing east-west access through the development site. Service traffic and parking could be located below the pedestrian 'deck' at existing ground level.

A.8 SERVICES

The columns supporting the portal frame would interfere with services in the footwalks. Thus allowance has been made for relocation of all major services along the roads involved. In using a portal frame rather than centre piers along Brownley Road it is not necessary to relocate or interfere with a large diameter sewer running down the centre of the roadway.

The street lighting would have to be removed from columns and relocated into the portal frames. Extra light ing wou ld be required for some systems depending upon the reduction in daylight caused by the deck.

A.9 CAPITAL COSTS Table A.1 summarises capital cost estimates for the four systems, for both the two-mile route, which is completely elevated, and also for the 16-mile route, which is both in cut and cover and elevated.

187

A.4

I,

188

.. • ..

I I I

, I

I . ! o+-d--+9:0 I ! <HJ

•• gl t tt. ~: ~· I i i " I ""1 ~ I o o: I wl ' ~ I 81 I "'. '

r--1 ...

.. STREET

8 LEVEL ..

PLAN A,T CONTROL AREA LEVEL

o ii 10 20fett

P LATFORM LEVEL

STREET LEVEL ANO CONTROL AREA LEVEL.

ELEVATED SAFEGE STATION OFF BROWNLEY ROAD

-

A.5

ALWEG

DUO RAIL

SAFEGE

WESTINGHOUSE

VIEW OF ELEVATED STRUCTURES

189

_. <O 0

_. <O _.

ELEVATED STRUCTURE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

ELEVATED STRUCTURE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TREATMENT

)> • 0)

)> • .......

1 .

APPENDIX B

I ;

1

I ~

B.1 INTRODUCTION

Among the systems selected for detailed comparison in the Manchester Rapid Transit Study, the guided bus proposed by Throughways Transport Limited was the only systom whose operations were radically different from normal concepts of rapid transit.

Appendix B briefly describes this system, an outliine of the state of development, the apparent advantage1s of the concept and the reasons for not including the system in the general evaluation of systems in the Manchester Rapid Transit Study.

The report concludes with a description of the special investigation carried out at the request of the Steering Committee.

8 .2 DESCRIPTION OF THROUGHWAYS

Throughways Transport Limited was incorporated in May, 1966 to develop and market a public transport system basically consisting of a guided bus on a private track. Sir Miles Thomas serves as Chairman, and shareholders include:

Hill, Samuel & Co. Limited Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons Limited The Leyland Motor Corporation Limited Transport Holding Company Sperry Gyroscope Company Limited E.M.I. Electronics Limited.

The basic system proposed by Throughways is the operation of buses on feeder routes converging onto exclusive bus roadways for high speed operation into the central area. The buses would operate singly and not in bus trains. For these exclusive bus roadways, Throughways have begun the development of two basic components necessary to ensure reduced construction costs, and increased capacity and safety. The two components are the bus guidance system and fog signal system.

(a) Guidance:

The guidance system consists of a 1 in. slot in the centre of the busway and a metal probe with one end sliding in the slot which has its other end lfixed to a control unit in the bus. Any lateral movemeint of the probe in the slot results in the probe arm rotating with respect to the bus, this movement being converted by the control unit into wheel movement. With this guidance system, Throughways propose a roadway width of 9 ft. 8 in.

(b) Fog Signal :

A radar system is proposed for operation in fog

194

Appendix B

Bus Roadways

conditions which basically consists of a radar transmitter on the front of each bus and a radar transponder on the back of each bus. The method of driver control in fog would be maintained by cab display, except that if the driver failed to apply his brakes in a potentially dangerous situation, they would be applied automatically.

B.3 STATE OF DEVELOPMENT

Before the Throughways system could be put into practical operation three basic concepts that would have to be successfully developed are:

Guidance System:

The sliding probe system outlined previously has not reached the state of development where a working prototype is in operation.

Fog Signal System:

The fog signal system consists of radar components and methods which Throughways claim have been well tested for other transport systems. There is no working prototype, however, of the application of these radar components methods for bus operation. The initial Throughways' proposal is that for clear weather, signalling would consist of 'coloured lights and track equipment' and that normal manual driver control would be maintained. The third basic concept which would have to be developed further for a particular situation is the operation of moving buses on exclusive busways. This would include diverging to and merging from station lay-bys, also the feasibility of having buses 'skip' alternate stations.

Summarising the present state of development, Throughways are proposing a system in which the vehicle is standard equipment. but the two electrical/mechanical concepts that make this a 'new' system are yet to be developed properly. In addition, verification of the complex operational feasibility for a particular situation has not yet been carried out. This would analyse an existing transport situation to determine the logistics and economic feasibility of the principle of using a common vehicle for feeder use and on the trunk routes. The quality and frequency of service desired would have an important bearing on the results from such a study.

B.4 ADVANTAGES OF SYSTEM

A true comparison between the dual-purpose vehicle operation, as proposed by Throughways, and normal rapid transit operation with feeder buses would involve an analysis of the transportation conditions in Manchester. This is beyond the scope of the present Study.

A preliminary appraisal of the possible advantages of the busway concept compared to normal rapid transit operatfions has led to the following conclusions:

1. 'High Frequency of Service'

It is claimed that because of the high frequencv of service, short waiting times at feeder bus stops wil l be achieved. However, on a given suburban feeder route, there appears to be no justification for increasing frequency of bus service merely because of the existence of the guided trunk route system. The frequency of bus service on a given feeder route can only be economically maintained by the patronage on the route. For those passengers boarding the bus at a trunk line station, however, there should be a savings in waiting time1, as the frequency expected at the trunk line stations could be 30 seconds or less, compared to 90 seconds or more In normal rapid transit operations.

2. 'Elimination of time and inconvenience arising in transfer from one mode of transport to another'

This elimination of transfer time would not occur for all passengers. Firstly, there would be a considerable number of passengers, who because of distance, habit and convenience would arrive at a trunk line station by foot or by car, irrespective of the trunk system u:>ed. Secondly, even with a complex routing of feeder and trunk line bus service, some passengers would still have to transfer in order to reach their destinations. Transfers would also be necessary for a large number of passenoers due to the probability of the buses 'skipping' alternate stations.

For those remaining passengers who board the bus on a feeder route and continue on to their destination on the trunk route, there would be a saving in transfer time.

Real time savings effected by elimination of the transfer situation could be relatively marginal, and would cinly effect some of the passengers. Possibly the more 1real advantage to passengers would be the comfort and ci0nvenlence in not having to change modes of t ransport. Little if any data is currently available on this aspect, and market research studies would have to be carried out: to make a quantitative assessment.

B.5 OTHER FEATURES REQUIRING ADDITIONIAL INVESTIGATION

1. Signal Control :

Throughways' proposal is to have automatic signal control only during fog conditions. In clear weather, the principle of driver control would be maintained. In

preliminary discussions between the Consultants and representatives of Throughways, the question was raised as to whether the system should be under continual automatic signal control due to the short headway and the problem of merging. The merging manoeuvre is critical as Throughways propose that all stations be located on 'lay-bys' in order to allow through operation of some buses.

2. Capacity :

The capacity of the busway is directly dependent on safe headways on the trunk route and on the loading capacity of the stations.

Preliminary investigations indicate that station capacity is not the major controlling condition, but rather that the system capacity would be controlled by trunk line headways as affected by merging. A preliminary analysis of capacities was carried out based on the following assumptions:

Assume three conditions of buses stopping on the trunk route:

S = 1 Buses stop at every station S = 2 Buses stop at one station in two S = 3 Buses stop at one station In three

Maximum capacities in buses and passengers per hour in one direction, and headways, were estimated and are shown in Table B.1 for the following control conditions.

Condition A-As set out by Throughways, relying on driver control.

Condition 8-The Consultant's preliminary analysis of Throughways' proposal, modified for a signal control operation as outlined by Throughways for fog conditions. (Assume maximum speed of40 mph).

Condition C-The Consultant's preliminary analysis modified to comply with conventional signal control. (Assume maximum speed of 40 mph).

3. Station Lengths :

While Throughways proposed a station platform length of about 100 ft., the lengths necessary for acceleration and deceleration add up to an additional 800 ft. Consequently, the total lay-by length, from exit point to merge point, for a station at a design speed of 30 mph results in a lay-by length of about 900 ft. For 40 mph this length would increase to over 1.300 ft. in the central area, where stations are located about H mile apart, problems could result in actually fitting- in the stations due to lay-by lengths required.

TABLE B.1

CAPACITY OF EXCLUSIVE BUS ROADWAYS- PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ONE DIRECTION

BUSES PER HOUR CONDITION

S-1 S-2 S-3

A- Driver Control 227 454 550 B- Radar Control 70 278 344

C-Conventional Signal Control 58 97 97

PASSENGERS PER HOUR (Based on 60 passengers per bus)

S-1 S-2 S-3

13,620 27,240 33,000

4,200 16,680 20.640

3,480 5,820 5,820

HEADWAYS IN SECONDS ON TRUNK ROUTE

S-1 S-2 S-3

16 8 6·6

51-6 13 10·6

62 37 37

195

4. Alignment:

The Consultants submitted the preliminary horizontal and vertical alignment developed for comparison of systems to Throughways for their comments. Discussions between the Consultants and representatives of Throughways indicate:

Vertical Alignment:

General agreement as to grades, however Throughways believe it is not necessary to be in tunnel in the central area.

Horizontal Alignment:

Throughways proposed an alternative1 horizontal alignment based on the assumptions that;

- there is no need for the trunk route to pass through the station locations suggested by the Consultants at focal points of demand because buses could 'feed' from these locations onto the trunk route.

- it is acceptable to have busways elevateid or at grade on alignment proposed by Throughway:s, whereas it is necessary to have the busways in tuinnel on the Consultant's alignment.

-service to the central business district would be from an encircling distributor loop located at grade or on elevated structure.

8.6 SUMMARY

There are two basic problems in evaluating the guided bus system proposed by Throughways under the terms of reference of the Rapid Transit Study. Firstly, the state of development of the system is such that a number of basic concepts and features necessary for a viable form of rapid transit are yet unproven. Secondly, a realistic comparison of the proposed Throughways' system with the other systems could not be carried out without an investigation into the overall transportation requirements of Manchestier.

In view of these two problems. it was decided to oliminate the Throughways' system from the final analysis and comparison of systems. However, considering the apparent attractiveness of this valid and worthwhile proposal, the Co111sultant was requested to make a civil engineering cost comparison for typical 1,000 ft. sections of structure as proposed by Throughways, compared to that required for an unguided bus. No comparison of property or rolling stock costs, nor of operating costs was to be carried out.

B.7 SUPPLEMENTARY STUDY

B.7.1 Introduction

To evaluate the difference between the guided and unguided systems, a typical cross-section for an exclusive roadway for unguided blls operation had to be developed. There is' very little precedent for this type of facility in this country or elsewhere. Consequently the Consu ltants, following discussions with the Road Research Laboratoiry and the Ministry of Transport, developed a typical cross-section for unguided bus operation. The cross·section waB developed only for making a cost comparison for purposes of this study.

196

B.7.2 Guided bus roadway

The typical cross-sections developed were based on the cross-section proposed by Throughways Transport Limited. Some of the criteria used by Throughways in developing their section were:

Breakdowns: no provision for passing in the event of a breakdown. The following bus would push the broken down vehicle to the next station. No requirement for footpaths tor passengers alighting from the broken-down bus. Normally the passengers would remain in the bus until it was pushed to the next station. In the case of an emergency, such as fire, doors at each end of the bus would be used.

No roadway lighting required.

Vertical clearance: sufficient only for 'dynamic envelope' of single decker bus.

Horizontal clearance: dynamic envelope, plus allowance for a very minor deviation of the vehicle.

Structural Loading : bus loading only on 'tracked' location (i.e. over beams only).

B.7.3 Bus roadway (unguided)

Basically there are two different concepts of a bus roadway.

Firstly, there is a normal roadway with standard Ministry of Transport vertical and horizontal clearances and structural loading, which is reserved exclusively for buses. Such a roadway could later be incorporated into the motorway system of a city, or even be used by 'other' traffic at varying times (e.g. late night use of the bus roadway for commercial vehicles) .

A second concept of bus roadway would be to consider the bus roadway is built, operated and maintained by a local authority transport organisation for the exclusive use of buses. While th is concept wou ld not allow the flexibility inherent in the previous type, considerable capital savings wou ld be achieved due to lesser requirements for vertical and horizontal clearances and structural loading. It was decided that this second type of bus roadway should be assumed for the basis of direct comparison with Throughways' proposals.

The basic criteria assumed as standards for design are as follows:

Provision for breakdowns, footpaths and lighting same as for Throughways.

Structural loading: bus loading from kerb to kerb.

Horizontal width: assume as is the case with Throughways' proposal, a 'no passing' condition in the event of a breakdown. We believe it would be reasonable to use a 14 ft. 'roadway width' on the assumption that the vehicle is driven only by professional, skilled drivers, and that it would be desirable to separate physically opposing flows of traffic (this becomes structurally desirable in cut and cover. and in tunnel).

One lane motorway ramp design standards are 14 ft. minimum roadway width both in Britain and for many overseas highway authorities. However, motorway ramps normally have shoulders or verges of varying widths, with minimum clearances from the face of kerb to obstructions

of between 3·5 to 6·0 ft., depend ing on the highway authority and the standard of design. Ideally then, the bus roadway width should be 14 ft. plus some clearanco to obstructions. As the barrier would be continuous. rather than an occasional obstruction such as a flyover, the 'drift' effect would become less important. While the foregoing assumptions are not based on fact. but rather judgment, we have assumed a maximum 14 ft. width (face of barri£ir to face of barrier) for each bus lane. However, at the time that: the Rapid Transit Study was being carried out, the Road Research Laboratory began conducting tests on bus operation on exclusive roadways. Basically, the tests consisted of having a number of bus drivers from a local transport authority in Britain drive a Leyland Panther bus over a number of circuits on a roadway of varying width. This bus roadway was marked out by studs on the Road Research Laboratory's test track at Crowlhorne, and the width was varied from 9 ft. 6 in. to 12 ft. The buses operated at speeds var~dng between 30 and 40 mph, and the route Included both tan gent, and curves varying down to 200 ft. radius. While average operating speed reduced on ly slightly as the width was reduced, there was considerable increase in the number of ·collisions' that would have occurred if the edge of the driving lane had been a barrier.

From the Road Research Laboratory test. it would appear that an 11 or 12 ft. width rather than a 14 ft. could be sufficient. However, we do not think that such minimal widths would be practical.

Consequently as the minimum width for comparison, we would recommend 14 ft. Some of the basic reasons for widening beyond 11 or 12 ft. are that:

(a) While under the test conditions there were tfew 'collisions', the possibility of a collision must be designed out of a public transport operating facility.

(b) The test conditions did not allow for the psychological effects of a continuous barrier guiderail on an elevated

structure, or worse still, for the roadway being in cut and cover, or in tunnel.

(c) A safety allowance for crosswinds should be provided especially when considering the effect of crosswinds as buses emerge from cut and cover. However, in order to estimate the 'sensitivity' of varying the roadway width it was decided to carry out cost estimates also for typical 1,000 ft. lengths for an 11 ft. width, even though we would not recommend such a minimum.

Figures B.1 a and B. 1 b show typical cross-sections for both Throughways' proposal, and for an unguided exclusive bus roadway. While we have adhered to Throughways' proposal for a guiderail on structure, we would normally recommend a more positive guiderail in this situation, and consequently have shown such on the suggested bus roadway crosssection.

Comparative cost estimates were made using the same technique and unit rates as used for the ana lysis and comparison of the other rapid transit systems. Costs were confined to civil engineering only, and did not include relocation of services or roadways, lighting, property costs, stations and yards, rolling stock, or signal equipment. Also, the costs shown do not include a 15% contingency item or a 12% engineering allowance. Finally, no costs were allowed for ventilation in tunnels and cut and cover, as such equipment would be common to both bus systems. For either system, with buses operating at 30 mph, at 15-30 seconds headway, the capital cost of ventilation cou ld amount to some £70,000-80,000 per mile for cut and cover, or for tunnel. Additional ventilation costs would be required in the cut and cover and tunnel stations.

Table B.2 summarises the capital cost estimates.

The table shows a cost advantage in favour of the guided system in the order of 12% of construction cost. Operating cost would also have to be considered of course in any full cost benefit analysis.

TABLE B.2

COMPARATIVE COST ESTIMATES PER 1,000 FT,

ATIITUDE THROUGHWAYS UNGUIDED BUS ROADWAY 14 ft. width 11 ft. width

(recommended minimum) (not recommended)

1 ,000 ft. of Tunnel (bunter sandstone, no faults or special ground water problems) . In tangent £315,000 £416,000 £357,000

1,000 ft. of Cut and Cover £302,000 £381.000 (339,000

1,000 ft. of Earthworks. (Open cut, average height of 16 ft,) £45,000 £57,000 £51,000

1,000 ft . of Elevated Structure, on 40 ft. piles (average height 10

roadway surface of 20 ft.) £92.000 £112,000 £106,000

197

B.1a

0

198

THROUGHWAYS BUS ROADWAY (UNGUIDED)

I I I I I I

k -' I 31-15'

2·67 . ~-~, , ··.

11-0" RUMBLE

0·51

9·67' l·O' . 0 ·841

14·0' . 4'

fl· 171

15·681

17·5' '

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE

t OVERPASS STRUCTURE~ / OUTLINE

-21 _L -----~~-------, . - ___ ]___ -1 I I

I I I

I ,.5· ~ ~"~*~~ 2-0 l r-=-- 'i) N~v 3.5' .~·' ~ ~~ I ' q I a:

' ' '-!-s. 1°-0

11 RUMBLE STRIPS

0·51 9 .57'

'< 1 ', ............. __ 1·5

1 14·0' 3.5'

12·67'

2 4 e 8 fol

19·0'

EARTHWORKS EART HWORKS

EXCLUSl'VE BUS-ROADWAYS, ELEVATED AND EARTHWORKS

TWIN TRACK.

THROUGH WAYS

AIR DUCTS 11701

C/C STAGGERED

VARIES 41MIN . • /~;::::.-:t /:,-==-=--=-=- - =. i

DESIRABLE • t/ /rs If /' ,..--=--=---==~ -r-t---+---...... ~-~

I I I

ACOUSTIC! INSULATION

5-0° ON INTERIOR VERT.

l----'-'"'--"---W-A-1LLS I 10·0'

13·01

CUT a COVER

5·0° ACOUSTIC INSULATION

DUCTS 112 ML. C/C STAGGEREO

4"x 12" DRAINAGE CHANNEL

o 2 .. 6 e , .. , ROCK TUNNEL

B.1b

BUS ROADWAY (UNGUIDED)

VARIES 41

MIN. OESIRABLE

~ Q

~TWIN TRACK

,,,,.----/ ---

/ /,,,- AIR

d I /'N PU

( --

EXIST. GROUND OR STREET

-----} / ----// /,... AIR

I I /OUTLET

I I ---

1 '

o:J I

-I{) -0 -o ~ <:t = cO i

0

5·01

ACOUSTIC INSULATION

<t

ACOUSTIC INSULATION 5·0' HIGH ON ALL INT VERT. WALLS

14·0' 16·0' 18·75°

CUT a COVER

14·01

ROCK TUNNEL

EXCLUSl\lE BUS-ROADWAYS, TUNNEL AND CUT AND COVER

199

.

' ''

I

APPENDIX C

1 '

-

C.1 INTRODUCTION

The Paris Metro type, bottom supported rubber tyred vehicle, is in use in Paris and Montreal. This vehicle was developed to utilise the greater adhesion for traction obtained by using rubber on concrete, as compared with steel on steel, and also to reduce noise levels for passenge1rs using the system.

Beginning in 1956 in Paris, this equipment replaced old steel wheeled equipment dating from 1914. Conversion of line No. 11 (4 miles) and line No. 1 (9 mile:s) has been completed and conversion of line No. 4 (7 miles) is underway at present. Officials of R.A.T.P. advised recently that further conversion of other lines to rubber tyred operation is not programmed, in view of the high cost to install the special track for rubber tyred operation under traffic and the slow progress in conversion due to the limited working time available for work crews. Such problems would not be present in a new system. New steel wheeled e'quipment is being developed to replace rolling stock on the remainder of the Paris system.

The Montreal system came into operation in October 1966 and consists of three lines with a total length oy 15·9 miles. Equipment for the Montreal system consists of 246 powered cars and 123 trailer cars.

C.2 DESCRIPTION

The rubber tyred vehicles are basically similar in all respects to steel wheeled equipment with the exception of the bogies. The Montreal system is described below.

C.2.1 Track and roadwayj(See Figures C.1 and C.2) The most unusual aspect of the Montreal Metro is the concept of rubber tyred trains running on concrete 'rails'. The track and roadway assembly is composE~d of three elements as follows:

1. A pair of steel safety rails weighing 70 pounds per linear yard that provide guidance at switches and support in case of pneumatic tyre failure. They also provide negative return for traction current.

2. Two 10 in. wide reinforced concrete running rails spaced 6 ft. 6! in. apart. Each concrete rail is located immediately outside the steel rail and at the same level.

3. Two linear steel guide rails located 8 ft. 2t in. apart provide lateral guidance and power supply for the cars. Each guide rail is made of smooth finish angle steel measuring 6 in. x 4 in. x tin. The guide rails are supported by insulators capable of withstanding a fonce of up to 13,000 pounds spaced on 9 ft. centres.

1 Abstract from 'Special Study in Depth of the Montreal Metro' by The Institute for Rapid Transit, Chicago, Illinois, May 1966.

202

Appendix C

Rubber Tyre Duorail

The steel safety and guide rails are insulated by a polyester material reinforced with fibre glass. Cinch anchors are used at the back part of the guide rail insulator. Other anchors are made of one inch deformed construction rods installed into a two inch hole bored in the concrete invert and filled w ith a non-shrink pre-mixed metallic grout. Proper elevation of these components is obtained by using filler between the invert and the components concerned. All trackwork is installed in this manner except for switches and surface tracks in the shop area which are installed on ballast.

C.2.2 Rolling stock

Each car has two bogies w ith four pneumatic load bearing tyres per bogie which also provide traction in power cars. The rubber tyres are supplemented by flanged steel safety wheels inboard of the rubber tyres. These steel wheels are used to guide the trains through switches and as brake drums. Four horizontal pneumatic tyres bear outwards against side rails adjacent to the running track to provide guidance. In the event of failure of the load bearing or guidance tyres the steel safety wheels engage the steel rails.

The Metro type vehicle therefore has 24 wheels as compared to 8 wheels on the conventional steel wheeled vehicle in which guidance is accomplished by means of the steel flange of the wheel.

C.3 COMPARISON OF RUBBER TYREO AND STEEL WHEELED DUORAIL SYSTEMS

The two systems are compared below under the headings Traction, Noise, Vehicles and Track.

C.3.1 Traction

The improved adhesion of rubber tyres on concrete as compared to steel wheels on steel rails will have a bearing on vehicle acceleration, deceleration and the ability to climb gradients. These features and power consumption, which is also an item in traction, are compared in Table C.1 for both systems.

The improved adhesion of rubber tyres on concrete as compared to steel wheels on steel rails is only of benefit in transit operations where there is a decided advantage in using very steep gradients of 6% rather than 4%. For the Manchester route there does not appear to be any significant construction cost benefit in using grades steeper than about 4%. Furthermore, for the same route it is extremely unlikely that steel wheel slippage would occur.

There is no operating experience w ith rubber tyred equipment running over track in the open and problems may exist in operating in ice and snow conditions or if wet leaves or mud get on to the track, even at 4% grades. The running surface may be expected to become polished w ith use and to have a rubber deposit on the surface, producing low adhesion when slick w ith a combination of dust and moisture. Roughening

C.1

C.2

~OP r:~~::"

.TIE PLATE polye~tcr

FILLER X

I

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF TRACK (ONE SET OF RAILS)

llC 1' •HI'

TRUCK

TYPICAL TRACK SWITCH INSTALLATION 203

ITEM Acceleration and deceleration. Limited to 3·3 mph per second based on comfort and safety for standees

Adhesion

TABLE C.1 PIERFORMANCE COMPARISON

RUBBER TYREO SYSTEM Cannot use full potential in transit system with passengers standing or moving in vehicle

Coefficient varies from 0·90 for ideal conditions to 0·05 on wet ice. Low bearing pressure will pose problems with ice, sleet, snow, wet leaves or mud on sections of open track. No operating experience hn the open to give dimensions to this problem. Sne>w melters feasible but incur additional cost. Improved adhesion, neglecting weather conditions in the open, may:

1. Reduce requirement for number of motored axles

2. Permit ste,eper gradients to be used, desirable max 6% (of doubtful benefit in Manchester}

Rolling resistance and power consumption Larger contact surface and energy absorption in tyre flexing will increase power requirements by 10% to 25% depending on station spacing. This will also have an effect on feeder size, transformer, switch gear and rectifier equipment

STEEL WHEELED SYSTEM No problem in achieving 3·3 mph per second

Coefficient varies from 0·35 for ideal conditions to 0·15 for wet ice, to a low of 0·10 for worst condition likely to be experienced in Rapid Transit operat.ion. Low wheel to rail contact area gives high bearing pressure which inhibits formation of ice sheet and skin of wet leaves. In actual operation sanding is very effective and problems in adhesion are rarely experienced

All axles must normally be motored to provide desirable acceleration of 3·3 mph/sec. Maximum desirable gradient 4% for all weather conditions

Least rol ling resistance of all surface land transportation

of the running surface from time to time could bie necessary to rectify this situation. The power used for traction by vehicles equipped with rubber tyres would be between 10 and 25 per cent higher than that consumed by similar vehicles equipped with steel wheels, depending on the operating characteristics of the route. This additi-0nal power is dissipated as heat, a factor which will have an important bearing on ventilation costs for underground structures.

Vibration Levels in Rapid Transit Vehicle Systems 1964'. These measurements are repeated below and were taken inside the vehicles at 30 mph in tunnel and also on station platforms. Noise levels generated in the open by Metro type vehicles cannot be measured at present since both the Paris and Montreal rubber tyred vehicles are confined to underground routes.

Additional annual power costs for rubber type duorail equipment as compared to steel wheel equipment would be in the range £50,000 to £150,000 for the1 route in Manchester.

It should be noted that noise inside vehicles and at stations is affected to some extent by the degree to which vehicle bodies are insulated from noise and the acoustic treatment for vehicles, tunnels and stations.

TABLE C.2 C.3.2 Noise NOISE LEVELS IN PHONS FOR VARIOUS TRANSIT SYSTEMS

The Paris Metro rubber tyred vehicles are extremely quiet when compared to the older equipment which formerly used the lines converted to rubber tyre operation. Modern steel wheeled systems in Berlin, Toronto and Hamburg compare favourably with the Paris system as shown by measurements taken in the field and reported in a Report prepared for the National Capital Transport Agency in Washington 'Noise and

LOCATION

Inside Vehicle at 30 mph in tunnel

At Stations when Train Arriving

ITEM

*Cost per Vehicle

*Size of Car

*Unladen Weight (Pounds}

Maximum Passenger Capacity (2·5 sq. ft/passenger}

Vehicle Cost Per Passenger

Cost Per Pound Light Weight

Vehicle Weight Per Passenger

*Data Source: Institute of Rapid Transit. Chicago, Illinois.

204

TABLE C.3 EQUIPMENT COSTS

RUBBER TYRE SYSTEM (Montreal}

£41,000 (Averaged for 3 Car Units} Power Trailer Power

55 x 8'-1"

60,000 (Powered Car} 34,000 (Trailer Car} 51,500 (Average}

178

£230

£0·80 (Average}

289 pounds (Average}

PARIS PARIS BERLIN HAMBURG TORONTO RUBBER STEEL STEEL STEEL STEEL

89

101

105 85 87 90

108 98 105 96

STEEL WHEEL SYSTEM (Toronto} (Boston}

£33,000 £37,000

75' x 10'-4"

55,000

310

£106

£0·60

177 pounds

2 Car A-B Units All Axles Powered

70' x 9'- 6"

70,000

265

£139

£0·53

263 pounds

The low noise levels experienced inside Metro type vehicles and in stations is equalled by steel wheeled systems in Berlin, Toronto and Hamburg. It is not possible to mea1sure noise generated by the rubber tyred vehicles in the oipen, however, there is no reason to believe that modern .steel wheeled equipment running over welded rail with resilient track pads will necessarily be any noisier than the rubber tyred equipment- at least to a degree which might have a major bearing on systems selection.

C.3.3 Vehicles

The rubber tyred equipment has complex bogies and 24 wheels per car as compared to 8 wheels per car for .steel wheel equipment. This will be reflected in higher capital costs and increased maintenance costs for equipment. The Table C.3 compares costs for vehicles built in Nlorth America during the period 1962- 1964 and while there1 are many factors affecting vehicle costs which must be 1~onsidered in a detailed analysis, the costs shown do bear out the conclusions that rubber tyred vehicles will be more expensive than steel wheeled equipment. Adoption of rubber tyred Paris Metro type vehicles will result in a significant increase in first cost for equipment in the order of £4,000,000 and also annual costs for vehicle maintenance when compared to similar cost items for steel wheeled equipment.

C.3.4 Track

The first cost of the roadbed for Metro vehicles is higher ·than conventional track. There are two tyre tracks and four rails, in place of two running rails and a power rail in the conventional track structure. The added costs for Metro track

Track for rubber tyre Duorai/,

Montreal

will be in the order of £50,000-£60,000 per mile of double track in tunnel and higher in the open where conventional track can be laid on sleepers. Track costs for the Paris Metro type rubber tyred system over a sixteen mile route in Manchester will be at least £1,000,000 more than for a conventional steel wheeled system.

C.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A preliminary evaluation of the Paris Metro type rubber tyred transit system has shown that this system will be significantly more costly than a conventional steel wheeled system, both in capital costs and annual operating expense. An indication of the comparative train and car mile statistics produced by the Montreal vehicle can be derived from the figures of Safege in the body of the report. The proposed Safege car size and train make-up requirements are identical to those of the Montreal rolling stock.

The advantages in adoption of this system due to improved adhesion of wheels will be marginal for the Manchester route, particularly over sections of track constructed in the open. It is considered that any advantage in noise reduction will also be marginal in view of the low noise levels produced in modern steel wheeled systems.

The higher capital costs for vehicles and track in the range £2m. to £6m. and increased operating expenses as anticipated for the Paris Metro type rubber tyred systems are not offset by commensurate advantages due to improved adhesion or noise reduction when compared with modern steel wheeled systems. It is therefore recommended that the Paris Metro type rubber tyred system should not be considered for use in Manchester.

205

Rubber tyred equipment, Montreal

Bogie - Note flanged steel wheels inboard of rubber tyres

APPENDIX D

-·

D.1 SUMMARY

The report opens with a brief introduction to the' subject of noise and a definition of the various technical terms; employed. All noise levels are given in dBA but octave banid analyses are included in the appendix. The systems considered are busways, monorails and duorails with steel whee1ls.

The prime concern is with external noise and the direct comparison of systems shows that the monorails are marginally quieter than the duorail systems. It is thought that the noise from both monorail and duorail systems could be reduced at source.

Barriers are found to be very effective and it seemis inevitable that they will have to be used to maintain a satisfactory noise environment in some areas. In view of the shielding which is required the initial difference between the noise levels produced by the monorail and duorail systems is relatively unimportant.

D.2 NOISE

A sound or noise consists of rapid pressure fluctuations which travel outwards from the source at the speed of :::ound. The pressures are small in magnitude ranging from a minimum audible pressure of 2 x 1 0-4 microbars, whetre 1 bar corresponds to atmospheric pressure, to 200 microbars, above which physical pain is experienced. Beca1use of the comparatively wide range it is customary to use the logarith mic ratio of the actual pressure, p, in microhars to the minimum audible pressure which gives the sound pressure level (S.P.L.) in decibels (dB).

i.e. S.P.L. = 20 Log10 p

2 x 10-4 dB

The frequency at which the fluctuations occ:ur is also important. The ear is most sensitive to frequencios between 1,000 and 4,000 c.p.s. and the reference p1ressure of 2 x 10·4 microbars or OdB is only the minimum audible pressure at 1,000 c.p.s. As the frequency moves away from this range so the sensitivity of the ear decreasies. At 100 c.p.s., for example, the minimum audible S.P.L. is 40 dB and fluctuations below 20 c.p.s. or above 16,000 c.p.s. are not heard. Noise consists of pressure fluctuations of many different frequencies which are random in amplitude but occur simultaneously. The subjective impression or loudness depends firstly upon the frequency distribution and secondly upon the magnitude of the fluctuations. Any objective measurement must compensate for the ear's variation of sensitivity with frequency, and the simplest method of doing this is to use the A weighting network, which can be built into a meter and converts the sound pressure level into loudness level expressed in dB (A).

208

Appendix D

Noise Problems By Dr. Peter Lord

TABLE D.1

SOME EXAMPLES OF COMMON NOISE LEVELS

SOURCE

Soft whisper at 5 ft. Inside small saloon car at 30 mph Market Street, Manchester Oxford Street, London Edge of M1 Weaving Shed

LOUDNESS LEVEL dB(A)

34 70 74 76 90 96

D.3 MEASUREMENT OF NOISE

A Bruel and Kjaer precision portable sound level meter was used. This carried a capacitor microphone which was calibrated using a pistonphone. The output from the meter was fed to a UHER 4000L portable tape recorder. Some measurements were taken on site but most of the results were obtained by analysis of the tapes in the laboratory using a Bruel and Kjaer/Microphone Amplifier and High Speed Level Recorder. Levels are accurate to ± 1 dB.

The loudness of the noise may be assessed in a number of different ways. The simplest way, as has already been mentioned, is to apply an electronic weighting network to the microphone signal before it appears on the meter. This approximately compensates for the sensitivity of the ear and gives a loudness level in dB(A). An alternative method is to divide the noise into eight octave bands centred on 63, 125, 250, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000 and 8,000 c.p.s. These are plotted on special graph paper and the equal loudness (or noise rating) contour which is just not exceeded by any of the eight octave band levels is taken as the noise rating or N.R. number. This method is slightly more accurate than the former because the contours take into account the variation in sensitivity of the ear with level as well as with frequency. However, except at very low or very high levels the increase in accuracy is small and usually the dB(A) value is numerically about 4 more than the N.R. value. The real advantage of the noise rating method is that the graphs also give information about the frequency content of the noise.

The results indicate that the dB(A) value is numerically 2 to 4 greater than the N.R. number in all of the measurements and therefore the dB (A) system will be used throughout this report for quoting loudness levels and assessing annoyance

This conforms with the procedure recommended in the Wilson committee report on noise (Ref. 1 ). The graphs used for determining the N.R. number are, however, included in case it is necessary to compare the frequency distribution of different noises.

D.4 NOISE PRODUCED BY SYSTEMS CONSIDERED FOR MANCHESTER

Measurements were also made on one duorail system travelling at 47 mph. In the proposed Manchester system most of the exposed track will either be in a deep cutting or on an elevated structure. Measurements have therefore been made in the vicinity of a cutting on one duorail system at a speed of 40 mph. Table 02 summarises the tests and the conditions. Tables 03 and 04 show the measured interior and exterior noise levels in dB(A) produced by vehicles travelling at speeds of 38 to 43 mph. The special external measurements on London Transport trains travelling at 47 mph in the open and at 40 mph in cuttings are shown in Tables 05 and 06. Octave band analyses are shown in Figures D3a to D3g.

The systems considered for Manchester fall into the following broad groups:

1. Busways.

2. Monorails.

3. Duorails with steel wheels.

Although internal noise levels have been measured, the prime interest is in external noise levels. The standard condition for systems comparison is in the open with the vehicles at ground level travelling at about 40 mph

TABLE D.2 TESTS AND CONDITIONS

TRANSIT SYSTEM LOCATION OF TEST TEST CONDITIONS COMMENTS

Manchester Corporation Transport Buses

South Manchester Flat open ground surround· ing dry roads at ground level

Measurements were made on Daimler Fleetline and Leyland Atlantean double-deck buses and on a Leyland Panther cub single deck bus. The Fleetline results are representative Of all three. Noise levels at cruising speed (35 mph) are almost entirely due to engine noise and slightly exceed the noise levels produced when the vehic le is accelerating hard through lower gears

Safege Monorail

Alweg Monorail

British Rail Suburban Electric Train

Toronto Rapid Transit System

London Transport

POSITION

Oirectly over/under drive unit

A.way from drive unit

Chateauneuf-sur-Loire

Cologne

Between Alderley Edge and Chelford

Toronto

1. Near to Northwick Park on Metropolitan line

Open ground in vicinity of experimental track partly at ground level and partly elevated

Open groundl in vicinity of elevated expe1rimental track

Open ground in vicinity of track at groun1d level

Open ground in vicinity of track at grounid level

Open ground in vicinity of track at grounid level and in cutting with 12' high 30° banking

Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited claim that the experimental track is not representative for the following reasons (Ref. 2). (a) The uneven condition of the running surfaces at the test track is not representative of the standard which can be maintained in commercial application. The resulting reduction in extent of bogie pitching w ill lead to quieter running on a rapid transit route. (b) On the test track, the negative current pantographs bear on a steel channel which also serves as a guide surface. This feature creates a noise source which wil l be absent from a commercial application in which negative conductor rails are provided separately and insulated from the rest of the beamway

An early prototype vehicle was used for the tests. The developer claims that the noise has been reduced in later models

The train was a four -coach unit with overhead pick-up opera·ting on all-welded rails

Measurements carried out by Toronto Transit Commission on 6-car Hawker-Siddeley units travelling at speeds of 30 to 35 mph

8-car surface units travelling at speeds of between 35 and 47 mph

2. Near to Kingsbury on Open ground in vicinity of 8-car underground units travelling at speeds of between 30 and Bakerloo line track in cutting wrth 25' 42 mph

high 30° banking

l fABLE 0 .3 INTERNAL NOISE LEVELS IN dB(A)

Vehicles Travelling at 3;9 to 43 mph unless otherwise stated

DAIMLER FLEETLINE BRITISH RAIL BUS SAFEGE ALWEG SUBURBAN (35 mph) MONORAIL MONORAIL TRAIN

77 68 81 71

73 71

TORONTO LONDON RAPID TRANSPORT TRANSIT METROPOLITAN (30 mph) LINE

78 in tunnel 78 in open (Ref. 3) 82 in tunnel

209

TABLE D.4 EXTERNAL NOISE: LEVELS IN dB(A) IN FLAT OPEN COUNTRY

Vehicles Travelling at 38 to 43 mph, unless otherwise stated. Measurements were made at a height of 4 rt. above ground level

DISTANCE FROM TRACK CENTRE IN FEET

0

25

50

100

TRAIN ON TRACK

2

2

210

DAIMLER SAFEGE MONORAIL ALWEG BRITISH RAIL TORONTO FLEETLINE BUS MONORAIL SUBURBAN RAPID (35 mph) ELEVATED TRAIN Measured

TRACK (30- 35 Ground Level Elevated Level mph)

86 81

80 77

73 75

8'' ;. 85

84 80 88 81

78 75 83 76

7fi 68 78 73

TABLE D5 VARIATION OF NOISE LEVEL WITH SPEED ON

LONDON TRJ\NSPORT METROPOLITAN LINE TRAINS

Measured at 25 ft. from track centre

SPEED 11\I MPH

38 42 47

TABLE D6

NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A)

86 87 89

TRANSIT Estimated (42 mph)

84

79

76

SHIELDING GIVEN BY GRASS BANKING ON LONDON TRANSPORT BAKERLOO LINE

MEASURING POSITION

A

B

c

A

B

Trains travelling at 40 mph

POSITION A

>.<

"' N

MEASURED NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A)

84

68

61

82

69

POSITION s x

POSITION c x

LON DON TRANSPORT

Metro· po Ii tan Bakerloo Line Line

87 90

ESTIMATED NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A)

84

66

62

82

67

0.5 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS

1. The internal noise levels are of lit tle significance since they are a function of body design. The noisier vehicles could be quietened if there were reason to do so.

2. At 25 ft the variation in external noise level betwoen systems is about 10 dB, a factor of about 2 in perceived loudness. 25 ft. is the best d istance for comparing the noise levels from the difierent vehicles because at this distance the effect of a number of cars as opposed t10 a single car is lo increase the duration of the noise but inot the level.

3. The noise from all systems falls off at between 4 and 6 dB per doubling of distance from the track, e.g. 25 to 50 ft., 50 to 1 00 ft. or 1 00 to 200 ft.

4. The noise level immediately beneath the Safege system is less than that immediately beneath the Alweg system because of the shielding provided by the Safege vehicle.

5. The extra 2 dB produced by the elevated section of 1the Safege system as compared with the ground level section can be attributed to increased track and support vibration. This is an engineering problem on any system and should not be regarded as a special case.

6. Taylor-Woodrow and Alweg claim that the Safege and Alweg systems cou ld both be made quieter, which is probably the case.

7. The duorail systems using steel wheels on steel rails could also be made quieter by the following modifications :

(a) The use of damped wheels (Ref. 4) shows that w heel squeal can be reduced by as much as 23 to 36 dB while a reduction of 4 dB can be obtained at all frequencies under normal operating conditions.

(b) Shrouding the wheels.

(c) Placing absorbent baffles alongside the track (Ref. 5 claims reductions of 11 dB from 4 ft. high barriers).

(d) Placing acoustic treatment between the rails.

8. The noise from the buses is largely due to the engine at a speed of 35 mph and this is difficult to reduce.

9. The noise from both steel wheeled and rubber wheeled vehicles has a similar frequency content. Most of the objectionable noise occurs within the octave bands centred on 500, 1,000 and 2,000 c.p.s. (See Figures D3a to D3g).

10. The noise level from the London Transport surface stock travelli ng at 47 mph is 3 dB higher than when travelling at 38 mph (This is confirmed by Ref. 5 which shows an increase of about 6 dB at 60 mph compared with 30 mph). No comparable measurements are available for the rubber wheeled systems, but It is to be expected that the noise level wi ll increase with speed. It seems reasonable, therefore, to conclude that the noise level increases by 3 dB when the vehicle speed is increased by 20% on both rubber and steel wheeled vehicles.

11. The measurements obtained around the cutting on the London Transport Bakerloo Line indicate that a considerable degree of shielding is achieved. The estimated

levels shown in Table 06 for comparison with the measured levels have been obtained w ith the aid of Ref. 6. The agreement is good and it is felt that this reference can be used for estimating the shielding w hich would be g iven by any other cutting or solid barrier.

0.6 ACCEPTABLE NOISE LEVELS

The Wilson committee report on noise (Ref. 1) suggests that the noise levels shown in Table 07 should, in the case of offices, never be exceeded and, in the case of dwellings, not be exceeded for more than ten per cent of the time.

TABLE D7 IDEAL INTERNAL NOISE CLIMATES

NATUR E OF PREMISES NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A)

Quiet Offices

Busy Offices

Dwellings in a busy urban area

Day

55

68

50

Night

35

It is admitted that these levels are rarely achieved and this can readily be seen by looking at Table 08, which shows the noise level exceeded for ten per cent of the time in a number of different types of locations in which traffic noise predominates. Peak noise levels in groups A and B (1) can exceed these levels by as much as 10 dB.

TABLE D8 EXISTING EXTERNAL NOISE CLIMATES*

GROUP LOCATION NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A)

Day Night 8 a.m.- 1 a.m.-6 p.m. 6 a.m.

A Arterial roads with many 80-68 heavy vehicles and buses (kerbside)

B 1 . Major roads w ith heavy 75-63 traffic and buses.

2. Side roads w ithin 15-20 yards of roads in groups A or B(1)

C 1. Main residential roads 70-60 2. Side roads w ithin 20- 50

yards of heavy traffic routes 3. Courtyards of blocks of

flats. screened from direct view of heavy traffic

D Residential roads w ith local 65-56 traffic only

70-50

61-49

55-44

53-45

•Noise climate is the range of noise level recorded for 80% of the time. For 10% or the time the level exceeds the higher figure and for 10% of the ti mo it is less than the lower figuro.

There is, of course, a difference between the internal and externa l noise levels which is equal to the insulation of the facade. It is usually dependent upon the windows and is shown in Table 09.

211

TABLE 09 AVERAGE INSULATION OF BUILDING Ft~CADE

TYPE OF WINDOW AVIERAGE INSULATION IN dB

Single glazing with open windows (10% of wa ll area) 10 Single glazing w ith closed poorly fitting windows 20 Sing le glazing with closed well fitting windows 25 Good double glazing 40-45

Dwellings commonly have open windows cind if it is assumed that the busy urban area in Table D7 1corresponds to group C in Table 08, it is apparent that the ideal noise cl imate is normally exceeded by about 10 dB. Ouiet offices are more likely to be sited on roads of group B and again open windows lead to excessive noise levels. Closed windows provide a satisfactory noise climate for 90% of the time and ideally, of course, double glazing is required.

0.7 CRITERIA FOR LOCATION OF TRANSIT SYSTEM

Since the transit system is to be routed through .areas where the ideal Wilson criteria of Table 07 are normally exceeded, it will be sufficient to stipulate that the introdu{:tion of the transit system should produce noise levels less than those already in existence. The maximum frequency of any transit system, except buses, is likely to be one1 train every two minutes. At 40 mph the passage of a train takes about 6 seconds and so the noise produced by the 'train occurs for just under 10% of the time. If buses are to carry an equivalent number of passengers to the train there is likely to be one bus every ten seconds at the peak periods. Again the noise which they create will occur for approxi mately 10% of the time and if these vehicles we1re put on to the roads of groups A or B (1) the noise climates on these roads would undoubtedly be increased, becau:se then the higher figure shown on Table 08 would be e:Kceeded for 20% of the time.

A suitable criteria then would be that the maximum noise level produced by a transit system for no mone than 10% of the time in the peak period should not excee1d the noise level which is already exceeded for 10% of the time by existing traffic noise. Using the results given in Table 04, the noise levels produced may be compared with the higher figures given in Table 08. If the new noise level is less than or equal to the existing level no reaction need be anticipated but if the new level exceeds the existing level tlhere will be some reaction. The expected reactions for the different systems are shown in Table 010.

0.8 ELEVATION, SHIELDIN G AND CUTTIN GS

Simple elevation of the structure need not be considered a special case, provided that the support structure1 is properly designed, i.e. it should not resonate, shake or rattle.

If the structure has solid barriers alongside it, then these will provide some shielding and noise levels will be reduced in the same way that they would be if barriers were bui lt alongside a ground level track. A six foot high barrier alongside a Duorail system, for example, could easi ly

212

reduce noise levels in the same horizontal plane as the track by 10 dB. Noise from the far track is shielded slightly less than noise from the near track but f=igure 01 shows the average shielding effect which might be expected. Upper storeys are shielded to a lesser extent but at a height of 20 ft. above the track and at a distance of 100 ft. the noise level is still reduced by 5 dB. Cuttings, because they are deeper, may be expected to give an even greater shielding effect than barriers. The benefit which may be achieved by putting a twin track Ouorail system in cuttings with either 45° or vertical bankings is illustrated in Figure 02. The banking should be absorbent in order to avoid reflection from the far side. Grass would be adequate on the 45v slope but some special absorbent is required on the vertical walls.

0.9 CONCLUSIONS

1. All of the systems produce external noise levels of between 80 and 90 dB(A) at a distance of 25 ft. when travelling at about 40 mph at ground level in the open.

2. The manufacturers of the Alweg and Safege systems claim that their vehicles could be quietened. It is also thought that steel wheeled systems could be quietened by attention to wheels and rails. The buses are more difficult to quieten because the noise comes from the engine.

3. The noise level from all systems would be increased by about 3 dB for all systems if the speed were increased to50 mph

4. Taking the Toronto rapid transit as typical of a Ouorai l system travell ing at 40 mph it would need to be located no nearer than 300 ft. from residentia l roads with loca l traffic only (Group 0 in Table 08) for the existing noise environment not to be increased.

5. Elevation of the Toronto system above ground level would not increase the noise level provided that the support structure is well engineered.

6. Putting 6 ft. high barriers alongside the Toronto system would mean that it cou ld be located at a distance of 150 ft. from the residential roads in 4 above.

7. Putting the Toronto system into a 20 ft. deep, 32 ft. wide vertical cutting would mean that it could be located at a distance of 50 ft. from the residential roads in 4 above.

8. The Alweg system and the buses could be shielded in a similar manner to the Toronto system because the noise sources are low down.

9. The Safege system would be more difficult to shield because the noise source is above the vehicle.

References

1. Wilson Committee. Noise-Final Report, H.M.S.O., Cmnd. 2056, 1963.

2. Private communication from Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd .. to D. McCorquodale. Ref. 145/M29/ MAA/ AW 3- 11 - 66.

3. Comparison of noise and vibration levels in rapid transit vehicle systems, NCTA Tech. Report, April, 1964.

4. Private communication dated October 10, 1966, from the B. F. Goodrich Company to Mr. J , J. Heffermann, Dillon Associates. P.O. Box 219, Station K, 88-90 Eglinton Ave. E., Toronto, Ontario, Canada. re: Civil Engineering Society Paper, Philadelphia, October 20, 1966.

5. Aerial Structure Noise and Vibration Measurements, Technical Report prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bech~el, San Francisco, California by Wilson, lhrlg and Associatas Inc .. October, '966.

6. W. Furrer, Room and Building Acoustics and Sound Insulation Butterworths, 1964.

1 TABLE D.10 EXPECTED REACTIONS rOR VAR IOUS LOCl:\TIONS OF TRANSIT SYSTEMS RELATIVE TO BUILD INGS

IN FOUFI DIFFERENT ZONES

BUILDING LOCATED EXPECTED IN VICINITY OF REACTION

A. Arterial roads Strong complaints with many heavy vehicles and buses Mild complaints

Mild annoyance

No reaction

B. 1. Major roads with Strong comploints heavy traffic and buses Mild complaints 2. Side roads within 15-20 yds of roods in Mild annoyance groups A or B above

No reaction

C. 1, Main residential Strong roads complaints 2. Side roads within 20-25 yds of heavy traffic Mild

complaints 3. Courtyards of blocks of flats Mild screened from direct annoyance view of heavy traffic

D, Residential roads with local traffic only

No reaction

Strong complaints

Mild complaints

Mild annoyance

No reaction

DISTANCE OF TRANSIT SYSTEM FROM BUILDING FACADE IN FEET 25 50 100 200

British Rail London Transpo1rt Daimler bus Toronto R.T.

Safege Alweg

British Rail London Transport Daimler bus Toronto R.T. Safege Alweg

British Rni l London Transporit Daimler bus Toronto R.T.

Safege Alweg

British Rail London Transport Daimler bus Toronto R.T.

Safege Alweg

25


Safege Aiweg


Brftish Rail London Transport Daimler bus Toronto R.T.

Safege Alweg


Safege Alweg

50

British Rail London Transport Daimler Bus Toronto R .T. Safege Alweg



Safege Alweg

British Rail London Transport Daimler bus Toronto R,T,

Safege Alweg

100

British Rail London Transport Daimler 13us Toronto R.T. Safege Alweg

British Rail London Transport Daimler bus Safege Alweg

British Rai l London Transport Daimler bus Toronto R.T.

Satege Alweg


Safege Afweg 200

DISTANCE OF T'RANSIT SYSTEM FROM BUILDING FACADE IN FEET

213

D.1

Q) u :; 0 fl)

Q) fl)

'i5 r: 0 .. Q)

·~ "' ~ .c Cl

'Qi :x:

Q)

~ :l

Sl Q) fl)

'i5 r: 0 .. Q)

> '+:: "' ~ .. J:: Cl

'Qi :x:

214

!10 II

EIO d b ( A )

85 db (A)

Noise Source

0

0 !10 100 ft

Distance from noise source- No Barrier

75 db (A)

50 It

70

65

Noise Sourse 60

0 x 0 50 100 It

Distance from noise source - 6 Foot Barrier

The shielding to be expected from 6 ft. high barriers adjacent to a twin-track Duorail system

NOISE INTENSITY AT GRADE, WITH AND WITHOUT BARRIER

Q) u :; 0 fl)

CD fl)

'i5 r: 0 .... Q)

> ·~

~ .... J:: Cl

'Qi :x:

Q)

~ :l 0 fl)

Q) fl)

'i5 r:

.9 Q)

·~ "' ~ .c Cl 'Qi :x:

Q)

~ :l

Sl CD fl)

'i5 r:

.9 ~ ·~

~ .. J:: ~

CD :x:

50 fl

0

!501t

5011---

Noise Source

0

Noise Source

x 0

0

75 db (Al

85 db(A)

110 JOO ft

Distance from noise source -At Grade

75db(A )

100 f t

Distance from noise source - Earth Cutting

70 db (A)

50 100 fl

Distance from nioise source - Retaining Wall

The shielding to be expected from siting the twin-track Duorail system in a cutting

D.2

55 db(A)

NOISE INTENSITY AT GRADE VERSUS EARTH CUT AND RETAINING WALL

215

D.3a

! -a:i "O

...J w > uJ ..J

w 0:: ::::> (/) tJ) w er: Q.

0 z :::> 0 (/)

0 z .q: CD

w > ct .... u 0

216

140

130

120

110

100

90

eo

70

60

50

40

30

40

10

0

-10

Noise Rating Number = 87

SC>und Pressure Level = 90 dB (A)

1.30

125

120

ll 5

I I 0

105

100 95

90

85

80 75

70

65

60 55

50 45

40

35

30

25 20

15

10

5

0

63 250 1000 4000 125 ~00 2000 8000

OCTAVE EIANO CENTRE FREQUENCY ( C/S)

25 ft. from track centre. Vehicle speed = 42 mph

1 '""' z ~

0:: w a> ~ ::> z (!)

z .... ct a:

w ~ 0 z

NOISE RA~TING OF LONDON TRANSPORT 1938 TUBE STOCK

I ~

ai "O

..J w > w ...J

w a:: ::> I/) (./)

w a: 0..

0 z ::i 0 . (/)

0 z <l ID

w > <l .... u 0

140

130

120

11 0

10 0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

Noise l~atin.g Number = 78

Sound Pressure Level = 80 d 8 (A)

130

125

120

11 5

110

105

100 95

9 ·0

85

80

75

70

65

60 55

5'0

45

40

35

30

25 20

15

10 5·

0

63 25i0 1000 4000 12·5 500 2000 8000

OCTAVE BAND CENTRE FREQUENCY (C/Sl

25 ft. from track centre. Vehicle speed= 42 mph

D.3b

1 ;z ...... a: w a:> ':E ::> z (!) z .... ct n:

w (/)

0 z

NOISE RA~TING OF ALWEG MONORAIL 217

D.3c

! ~

cxi "O

...J w > LLJ ...J

w 0:: '::) Cf) (/)

w 0:: a..

0 z => 0 (/)

0 z <l al

w > <l I-u 0

218

i40

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

1:0

0

- 10

N1oise Rating Number = 79

Sc1und Pressure Level = 8 1 d 8 (A)

130

125. 120

11 5

11 0

105

100 95

9·0

85

80

75

70

65

60 55

50 45

40

35 30

25 20

15

10

5

0

63 250 1000 4000 1 :~s 500 2000 8000

OCTAVE BAND CENTRE FREQUENCY ( C/S)

25 ft. from t'rack centre. Vehicle speed = 42 mph

1 z _.

0:: w Q)

::!: => z (!)

z I-<l 0::

w (/)

0 z

NOISE RATING OF SAFEGE MONORAIL

D.3d

Noise Rating Number = 86 ·

Sound Pressure Level= 89d8(A)

140

130 130

120 125

120

1 110 II 5

110

100 105

' ~

cri 100 -0

90 95 .J 90 uJ z >

_.

w 80 85 a: .....I w

80 en w ::!: 0:: 70 75 => :::> z Cf) (/) 70 (!) w z 0:: 60 65 I-a.. <l

60 0:: ·o z 50 55 w :::> (/) 0 50 0 Cf) z 0 40 45 z 4 40 Q)

30 35 u..; > <t 30 I- 20 u ZS 0

20 10

15

10 0

5

l 0 -10

63 250 1000 4000' 125 500 2000 8000

OCTAVE BAND CENTRE FREQUENCY (C/Sl

25 ft. from track centre. Vehicle speed = 42 mph

NOISE RATING OF BRl1rlSH RAIL SUBURBAN TRAIN 219

D.3e

Noise Rating Number = 8 3

Sound Pressure Level = 8 6 dB (A)

140

130 130

120 125

120

I II 0 II 5

I 110 ·105

1 100 --a:i 100 · """:

ID 'I? 95 " ..... 90 . --...J 90 z ...J' w ..... w > 85 et: > w 80 w w ..J

80 ID ..J :::E w :;I w Q: 70 75 z a: :::>

:::> (/) 70 ~ (/) I/)

z .(/) w 65 ~ w et: 60

a:: Q. cf Q. 60 a: 0

55 w 0 z 50 Cl) z :::> 6 :::> 0 50 0 (/) z (/)

0 40 45 z o ·

4.0 z c( <t 1D al 30 35 w w > 30 > c( <t' ... 20 ~ u 25 u 0

20 0

10 1 5

10 0 5

0 -10

63 250 1000 4000 125 500 2000 8000

OCTAVE BP1ND CENtRE FREQUENCY ( C/S)

25 ft. from centre of vehicle. Vehicle speed = 35 mph

NOISE RATING OF M.C.T.D. DAIMLER FLEETLINE 220

D.3f

Curve (a) (b) (c)

Noise Rating Number = 85 82·5 81

Sound Pressu re Level ::: 89 87 86 d 8 (A)

Vehicle speed = 47 42 38 m.p.h.

~4-0

130 t30

120. 125 120

110 11 5

110 10.5 100

1 10(} 95 90 ·go z .......

80 85 a: w

·80 CD :::E

70 75 :::> z

70 ~ z 60 65 I-cf

60 a:: so .. 55 "" (/)

50 0 z

40 45

40 30 35

30 20 25

20 10

15

10 0

5.

0 -to

63 250 1000 4000 125' 500 2000 8'000

OCTAVE BAND1 CENTRE FREQUENCY ( C/S)

25 fl~. from track centre

NOISE RATING OF LONDON TRANSPORT A60 SURFACE STOCK

221

D._3g

Noise Rating Number :: 82

So1und Pressure Level = 84 dB (A)

APPENDIX E OCTAVE BAND CENTRE FREQUENCY (C/S)

25 ft. from track centre. Vehicle speed corrected to 42 mph

NOISE RATING OF TC)RONTO RAPID TRANSIT TRAIN 222

Appendix E

VISUA~L INTRUSION AND AESTHETICS

Introduction

The main problem foreseen regarding visual intrusion and aesthetics was in the introduction into the exiisting urban environment of elevated rapid transit structures. Clearly the construction of these structures would introduce a dominant visual element into the townscape with which neighbouring areas would have to live for many years. Because of the serious implications with respect to the above on grade alignment, it was necessary to evaluate, at an early stage, the likely impact of structures on the urban setting in order to arrive at the criteria required for determining a satisfactory vertical alignment.

Method of evaluation

It was recognised that judging the relative aesthetic differences between the structures for the various systems would be largely subjective. The approach was to gather as much information as possible, carefully avoidin£1 any undue emphasis on one particular system, to present tlnis information to a panel of chartered town planners to seek their reaction and comments, and to find out if the1re was any consensus of opinion.

Models to a scale of 1 /16th of an inch to 1 ft. we,re prepared, showing the elevated structures in typical urban settings. These models proved to be of the greatest valu1e in understanding the likely impact of structures. When viewed as a whole the models undoubtedly understate the viisual impact of the structures on the surroundings, and it is only with the use of a modelscope that a more accurate inte1rpretation is obtained. The models, and photographs of them taken through a modelscope, together with journal iillustrations, photographs, and films of existing systems, were displayed to the panel, three of whom had a high degree o1f experience and training in civic-design.

The same process was repeated before memlbers of the Rapid Transit Study, whose comments confirmed those put forward by the first panel.

Figures 6.5 and 6.6. in the report have been produced by mounting photographs of the models of elevated structures on to prints enlarged to conform to the same scale. Accuracy was controlled by taking the photographs through a modelscope carefully positioned to simulate the actual view that was later used on site to provide the backg1round. This method, rather than architectural renderings, provided the best results for assessing visual effects.

It should be noted at this point that the elevatod structure required for reserved bus-ways would be similar to the one required for a conventional rail-system, therefor1e, the same model was used to represent both.

224

By Manchester Corporation Planning Department

Conclusions

The principal conclusion agreed by the panel with regard to elevated structures, was that the degree of difference between each system is not sufficiently significant to suggest that one may be acceptable where another is not.

The illustrated material that was available to the panel showing the structures that have been built for the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventional railway installations have shown how impressive a well elevated conventional railway structure can be, and this dispelled any tendency to associate such a system with the railway structures of the 19th Century.

From the models it would appear that a reasonable scale is obtained between the elevated structures and tall blocks of flats, even when sited relatively close to each other; however, the desired distance between a dwelling and the structures should be fixed in this case just as it would be with smaller dwellings-that is by taking into account the inhabitant's view from the lower floors.

It is difficult to be precise about how far away a structure should be so that it does not intrude unduly on the view from residential properties, but a minimum of about 150 ft. on level ground is recommended. However, it was recognised that in special circumstances, that is extensive new development or redevelopment which could be integrated with an elevated structure, the standard of 150 ft. could be modified. For instance, with judicious orientation, sound insulation, and landscaping etc. it should be possible to develop satisfactorily suitably designed dwellings within 100 ft. of any of the elevated structures. This standard of 150 ft., arrived at by the method outlined above, was later given added weight by simulating the view from a bedroom window on to each structure at various distances, and Figures 6.6 (a) and (b) illustrate the kind of view of the structures which would be obtained at eye level from the front of a dwelling house at distances of 25, 50, 100 and 150 ft. The relationships between structures and buildings on irregular ground should be interpreted separately according to conditions, bearing in mind the above criteria.

Except in the special circumstances referred to above all the structures considered would be visually obtrusive, particularly within the distance of 150 ft. put forward, and it must be emphasised that the architectural treatment and quality of construction are more important than the differences in the structural configuration for each system.

LOSS OF DAYLIGHT

Method

British Standard Code of Practice No. 3 sets out a recommended method (based on the 'Waldram' diagram) of

assessing daylight loss in the room of an adjoining buillding due to a new construction. This diagram is a grid on which complicated structures can be plotted and a resulting 'sky component' calculated. The component is the amount of unobstructed sky visible from a point in a nearby dweilling expressed as a percentage of the hemisphere of the sky, and the Code recommends that the obstruction should not exceed 5%.

It should be noted that for the purpose of assessing daylight loss due to the construction of rapid transit struc1tures in an urban environment a situation was assumed in which there were two-storey houses on the other side of the structures from which the measurements were taken; these houses accounted for 2·2% of the obstruction at 25 ft. and 1 ·2% at 50 ft. At distances of 100 ft. and beyond there was no obstruction due to the houses at the other side of the structure.

Losses of daylight to dwellings at ground floor level, at distances of 25 ft., 50 ft., 100 ft., and 150 ft. from the near edge of each structure were measured. These distances are not precise, the same point for daylight loss measurement was used for each system, and this point fixed at the distances given from the near edge of the cross-beam of the widest structure, i.e. Safege. All structures measured in this exercise were T-beam.

Conclusion

The results, set out in Table 6.8, show that transit structures placed in an urban environment are unlikely to give rise to serious problems of siting with regard to daylighting. Visual intrusion and noise are the more serious problems and in solving these any loss of daylight to nearby premises would be adequately covered.

225

"

I

j

"

APPENDIX F

I

I

I

Appendix F

Visual Intrusion and Elevated Rapid Transit Structures by J. P. Bishop, Fellow of Manchester College of Art and Design

During the time that the Manchester Rapid Transit Study was being carried out, the Manchester College of Art and Design initiated a study of the visual aspects of rapid transit systems on the Manchester environment.

The College's study was in no way connected to the Flapid Transit Study. However, just at the time of the report being finalized, the following document was submitted toi the Manchester Corporation. As these notes are directly concerned w ith the ever important visual impact, and have been prepared by someone with a completely diff1erent background and approach than either the planners or engineers who conducted the environmental studies (Section 6), it was considered that it would be of great value to include the notes with the report.

The following then, is an un-abridged version of Mr . .John P. Bishop's notes on visual form and intrusion of rnpid transit in Manchester.

MANCHESTER COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGNI

School of Advanced Studies. June 1967

Notes on the visual form and intrusion of the following systems of rapid transit in the City of Manchester planned along the general route studied by the consultants.

(a) Elevated railway-Duorail -Monorail-ride on beam

slung under beam.

(b) Underground Railway.

(c) Busway, roadway-elevated -at ground level.

The above types of transit have been considered in the following areas of the city.

(1) In the existing city centre.

(2) In areas of non-residence.

(3) In areas of change and renewal.

(4) In areas of stability.

(5) In areas of development.

(6) In areas of open country.

In the following notes it has been assumed that concrete structures will be considered, as steel ones would have greater maintenance needs. An intelligent use of steel in a structure, forgetting its maintenance cost, may have groater \fisual potential than concrete and certainly in existing areas of the city centre have greater harmony with the surroundings.

(a) DUORAIL

The structural form of the duorail track between stations would vary due to the needs of the site in a particular area. The breadth and mass of the beam and deck may be changed to allow more variation and interest in engineering form, more sculptural and organic shape than the repetition of an elevated monorail.

A parallel case could be drawn between an elevated Duorailway structure and that of an elevated road such as the Mancunian Way, but one major difference between the two should be borne in mind and that is the slip roads. This continuous change in level and break up of form, due to access and exit roads, relieve a monotony which would be present in a single level system, as would be the Duorail.

The deck of a Duorail structure would be about 27 ft. 6 in. in width, similar to the single lane ramp structures on the Mancunian Way which are 24 ft. in width. By way of comparison the three lane dual carriageway elevated section of the Mancunian Way at Oxford Street is 79 ft. in width.

A note is entered at this point as to the necessity for the landscaping of the sections of the route excluding those that run through open country; these only requiring minimal landscape treatment. Any form of elevated or at grade transport system within the areas sited will require extensive landscaping, similar to sections of the Mancunian Way, if it is to be additive to the city environment. No system should be erected in the city until money for this essential treatment is available.

(b) MONORAIL

The structures of the monorail systems are completely repetitive, a repetition broken only by station stops at economical distances; the length of track in between stops is likely to be very boring visually to the passing observer and the person living close by the route.

The monorail structures do not have the same solidity and sculptural form that would be possible with the Duorail and indeed the monorail structures 'colossal' though they tend to be are very linear and sparse of any visual relief. The involved and 'expressed' design of the structural supports to resist thrust on curves etc. may supply some relief visually.

(c) UNDERGROUND RAILWAY

Here the problems of visual form and intrusion do not occur, but in the case of the underground, if this system be chosen, it is vital that adequate design consideration be made of station and tunnel structure and the environment created, and that finance be available to obtain this environmental

229

research. This does not mean that provisional sums should be included for 'cosmetic' treatment of public spaces but that the whole question of environment arnd human experience be considered prior to design, as was originally intended with the B.A.R.T. system in San Francisco. A system in which the environment has been cornsidered in detail is the Montreal Metro.

(d) BUSWAY-ROADWAY

Visual considerations for these systems, when ellevated, are as for the elevated Duorail with again emphasis upon landscaping and structural form.

The following paragraphs consider elevated strnctures in different areas of use along the route.

(1) In t he existing c ity centre

If an elevated structure were inserted into the present or planned city form it would be very close to the buildings. This juxtaposition may not be unpleasant visuall\f in certain cases, but the proximity of buildings to the system~; passenger could cause unpleasant visual sensations. In film, produced in the School of Advanced Studies, simulatin~J travel by elevated monorail in the city centre these sensations were present

Any insertion of an elevated structure into the existing city centre would only produce, on the whole, undesirable visual effects and depreciate many existing relationships of building to street and square etc. For these re.asons it is thought that the rapid transit line should be unde!rground in the city centre.

(2) In areas of non-residence

Areas in this category are industrial estates, warehouse areas etc. and here an elevated structure would be acceptable if proper visual relationships between the structu1re, existing buildings and roads were considered. It is vital that the city authority does not feel it can lower the standards of visua l intrusion and landscaping to util ity and non-existent levels in these areas, in order to make a saving financially, for this can only increase the existing 'twilight' atmosphere of these areas.

(3) In areas of change and renewal

Areas in this category are housing along RochdalH Road, the Education Precinct and various other sections of 1the route.

These are areas where it is vital that definite plans for local transport are made, for it is in the renewal of these areas that provision can be made to incorporate an elevate•d st1·ucture and the whole organisation of the renewal area will relate to the traffic system.

In the case of the Education Precinct the plans for the scheme are so advanced and the existing buildings to be retained so positioned that an elevated struclture could hardly be inserted into the design, let alone incorporated.

230

The linear form of the precinct would have lent itself ideally to a 'spine' formed of the rapid transit line.

(4) In areas of stabilit y

Areas in this category are Wythenshawe Housing Estates, parts of the south west residential areas of the route and areas near the northern terminus. These areas that will not change in the next decades do not have the scale of building and relationship of building to site to accommodate an elevated structure, and any 'device' to insert such a structure into these areas could only have undesirable visual effects. These effects have been simulated by techniques of photo~ montage. An underground route is advised in these areas.

(5) In areas of development

Areas in this category are part of Wythenshawe Town Centre and other virgin sites designated for building. In this type of area the possibilities are endless for the incorporation of an elevated transport system into new building complexes and a 'total' approach to the problem is possible.

(6) In areas of open country

Although this type of area is not common along the route, the erection of an elevated structure could provide an interesting and exciting visual contrast between the natural and man made forms.

CONCLUSIONS

As a designer I would advise that the rapid t1·ansit line through the City of Manchester should incorporate both elevated and underground sections in the types of area listed above. Ground level sections of route should be avoided except in special areas, for example, where the track can run down the centre of an existing highway, and even this is not visually advisable as I feeJ it provides the strong suggestion of a barrier between one part of the city and another.

The structure of any elevated system should not be 'softened up' by the application of art work or sculptural relief but be interesting in its form and combination with the landscape.

Finally, when all considerations of route and structure have been made for an elevated system, there remains the financial outlay that must be made to introduce the system sympathetically into the city form through landscaping and planning or re - planning the surrounding areas. If there is not the finance available to treat the total system in this manner then the higher initial cost of a total underground system may provide a less visually destructive answer to the city's transport problem.

John Proctor Bishop, Dip.Arch.(Manc.), D.A.(Manc.) (Hons). Fellow of Manchester College of Art and Design.

June 27, 1967.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The assistance given by the following is gratofully acknowledged :

The Departments of the City of Manchester.

The Ministry of Transport.

British Railways, London Midland Region.

London Transport.

Cheshire County Council.

Lancashire County Council.

The Town of Middleton.

The North West Electricity Board.

The Central Electricity Generating Board.

The North West Gas Board.

The General Post Office.

Heywood and Middleton Water Board.

Acoustics Group, University of Salford.

Manchester College of Art and Design.

Rapid Transit Development Company Limited (Alweg Licensees) .

Associated Electrical Industries.

Metropolitan Cammell Limited.

Hawker Siddeley Group.

General Electric Company, U.S.A.

Taylor Woodrow Construction Company Limited (Safege Licensees) .

Westinghouse Electric International Company.

The Mitchell Construction Kinnear Moodie Group (Associated with Westinghouse).

Brush Electric Engineering Company Limited.

AEl-General Signal Limited.

Westinghouse Brake and Signal Company Limited.

Other system developers, organizations, and individuals who generously provided information and assistance.

PHOTOGRAPHS

London Transport.

Toronto Transit Commission.

Associated Electrical Industries.

Metropolitan Cammell Limited.

The Hawker Siddeley Group.

Westinghouse Electric International Company.

United Aircraft Corporation.

231

i ! ' r i ~ I J

.·

Manchester Rapid Transit Study, volume 2

Documents

city of manchester

study of rapid transit

manchester libraries

corporation of manchester

university of manchester

manchester city transport

manchester city council

study corridor