In the above image, note a) the unobtrusive nature of the wires carrying renewable energy b) tram is not delayed by traffic, since this is now mainly inside the tram, and those who need to drive are following, relatively unimpeded,
From Roger Harrison, Ex Project Director for the Tramlink Consortium, Written to a mail thread on the Bath Tram National Experts Group email.
For those who aren’t aware, I was formerly the PD for the Consortium Tramlink Nottingham Ltd (and its Holding and Finance Companies) which won the D-B-F-O-M contract for Phase Two which included two new lines and TUPE transfer of Bombardier maintenance staff to Alstom and of O&M staff to the new Wellglade (20%)-Keolis (80%) operating subsidiary. I then became Chairman of the three Concessionaire Companies (TNL, TNHL and TNFL). The concept was that the private sector paid for the construction (ie to provide an incentive to complete on time) and once built, part of the funding was paid to consortium at the end of construction and the rest over the remaining years of the concession on a monthly basis to the operator concessionaire against a range of Key Performance Indicators. Generally performance and reliability has been in the upper 90%s, often reaching 97/99%. The shareholders at the beginning were 6: the concept being that the shareholdings of the four “industrial” shareholders (Keolis SA, Vinci plc, Alstom and Wellglade invested 12.5% each) was balanced 50-50% with the two private equity investors Meridiam (30%) and OFI Infravia (20%). Over time Meridiam became the major shareholder and provided management to TNL in return for payment. I retired in 2015 and there have been changes of the funding banks since that time and shareholdings may have changed.
TNL had two subsidiaries – one to build (an unincorporated 50-50%JV between Alstom and Vinci Construction) and one to operate and maintain both the rolling stock and the infrastructure as an integrated tramway (a JV between Keolis 80% and Wellglade 20%) known as Nottingham Trams Ltd. NTL subcontracted the rolling stock maintenance to Alstom. The total public project cost about £570m of which £430m budgeted for construction (with additional major cost overruns funded by the private sector)..The rest of the construction was funded through loan finance. The actual cost of construction was higher than budgeted, so the construction JV lost money, but the public sector didn’t because all the construction risk lay with the private consortium. The operation and maintenance has been profitable based on ticket prices similar to bus ticket prices. The revenues more than covered the O&M costs. The shareholders invested a lot of their own money (c £100m) and were repaid once the construction completed. The remainder was funded by debt financing,provided by the European Investment Bank and other major banks (European and Japanese plus RBS). Inevitably when the pandemic hit the country, revenues collapsed and the financing model became difficult without government support. More recently, revenues and passenger numbers seem to be recovering towards pre-pandemic levels. The 23 year contract was signed in 2010. The two new lines were built on time (3 years) but the commissioning of the system was delayed by 8 months, costs overran. Cost overruns were due to delays (liquidated damages), higher than expected utilities diversion costs, many snagging issues, legal/financing and initial concept design costs and additional built in costs for risks. Therein lie the advantages of DBFOM projects (revenue and construction risk with the private sector, generally built more quickly) but they will be more expensive and large amount of debt funding makes these kind of projects less attractive when faced with economic shocks like the pandemic. If more of the cost had been raised through the WPPL perhaps the project model would have been more sustainable in the event of a major economic shock. I doubt whether any private contractors would undertake a project of this type today without the risk being more equitably shared with the public sector, although there are alternative examples of PPP funded projects throughout the world, including one in Reims (France). European Investment Bank relatively cheap loans are no longer available since Brexit.The cheapest sources of loan finance are available from HMG’s Public Sector Loans Board and these are available to all public authorities and local councils but supply is limited. Nevertheless, the lesson from France is that the more the funding comes from the Local Authority and the Region the more likely the project will proceed. PPP can work and payments are spread over many years, but there must be a big change in the allocation of risks between the public and private sectors for them to be viable and attractive to investors.
70% payments to the consortium come from the Government in the form of monthly payments for meeting the monthly KPIs over the period of the concession, paid via the contract holder – Nottingham Cit Council. The remainder comes from the Local Authority Nottingham City Council – mainly from the WPPL. The WPPL was the first of its kind in the UK and works well. It closely resembles the Virement Transport means of financing LRT in France. The WPPL did not drive away potential investors away – quite the opposite. My own feeling is that this type of funding could be used to fund a greater proportion of cost, as in France, where very little financing is provided by central government – 97% from the Region/LA involved. The removal of 20 million passengers from the roads of Nottingham reduced congestion and levels of pollution and Nottingham City Council has invested in many other forms of green transport – cycling, electric buses etc. The buses are modern and run by Nottingham City Transport (inner routes) and Trent Barton Ltd (redial routes).Ticketing is modern and similar to Oyster in London. The price of tickets still remains relatively low and comparable with bus ticket prices. When I retired, average ticket prices were little more than an average £1.30/ticket.
Hope that helps.
Roger Harrison
Nottingham. Could someone with knowledge of the tram give me their comments please? Did taxes go up massively? Did it cause massive disruption? How many times has it been extended?
Dave Andrews
|
18 Nov 2021, 20:58 | |||
|
||||
Nottingham used the WPPL for finance, it was said it would lead to masses of businesses leaving Nottingham, which didn’t happen, instead, it has been an attraction for new businesses.
There has been one extension, Phase 2, but this of course is two lines, doubling the passenger numbers to 18m+ (before the pandemic – from my experience, most have returned). There was disruption during building, particularly in Beeston, but after, the benefits have been massive, and Beeston seems to be thriving, with much new development. There is likely to be at least one further extension, from Clifton to a new development of 3,000 houses and businesses. Other extensions are likely, one to the east into Gedling probably next on the list. The cancellation of HS2b though reduces the likelihood of extension from Toton Lane, though getting into Long Eaton is a possibility, as is going on to Derby, only about 8 miles further. I will continue to campaign for the latter, about 40,000 people commute daily between the two cities. This though is bedevilled by local politics, the counties and intermediate boroughs don’t cooperate, and fear a takeover by the cities. Derby and Nottingham cities though do. We need a change in the organisation of local government in the EM.
I can’t understand the comments about “ugly vehicles”, the trams are sleek and attractive, and fit into the cityscape much better than any road vehicle, and of course don’t emit masses of pollution, and run on renewable energy.
Regards,
Dave G.
|
Thu, 2 Dec 2021, 18:04 |
 |
||
|
||||
Many thanks, Martin. My strong impression is that (a) a Workplace Parking Levy is a brilliant idea: minimal collection costs and zero avoidance or evasion! and (b) the fact that Nottingham is a Unitary Authority actually enables policy to be implemented rather than just shunted from one local organisation to another.
Mike Godwin, BaBTA
|
2 Dec 2021, 18:36 |
|
||
|
||||
Thanks Mike for those very useful comments.
It’s all very speculative of course, but I have particular sympathy for your view that
(b) the fact that Nottingham is a Unitary Authority actually enables policy to be implemented rather than just shunted from one local organisation to another.
The fact that Nottingham City Council is on its own, unencumbered by a County Council or a Combined Authority seems to be a strength.
However there has also been a history of genuine co-operation between Nottingham City and Notts County Council that has been largely successful for decades.
There is also at least one other factor: Nottingham City Council has been doing public transport progressively for at least 50 years. This includes preserving its Municipal bus service through the ravages of privatization, and carefully resisting the impact of deregulation, often through very nifty political and legal footwork. But it has not been all about political gaming; they have deployed genuine transport expertise, commercial acumen and responsive bus service development throughout this time.
I am not sure that our local authorities here could catch up on the past 50 years. Perhaps an effective Integrated Transport Authority, based on WECA or similar might be our best hope here, because our geography and history are so different. though that of course is optimistic speculation.
Martin
If you believe this then I have a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
The trams run part full for most of the day only filling at rush hour. Most of the passengers get aboard at the park and rides as they live in the countryside but want city wages but aren’t paying WPPL, extra Community charge or anything else towards the cost.
In Beeston the works overran repeatedly and the noise from the trams on bends is incredible, even indoors. My brother is a civil engineer and observes that the turns are very tight for the running gear fitted. Beeston is falling further, faster than any other town centre despite huge student numbers shopping locally. Additionally it is losing money at a huge level and this has got worse as the system extended. The trams that stop block the traffic when sharing the road and if one breaks down (almost a daily occurrence) the whole line stops and people are getting onto buses if they’re lucky.
Many of the tram promoters live nowhere near the lines and, in one case at least, urged their supporters to use multiple identities to troll consultation pages. With Nottingham getting more and more electric buses which are infinitely flexible the tram is being shown as the obsolete technology it is.
If you want a congestion solution then there is an easy one, already working in many cities and one country Luxembourg. Make local public transport free to the passenger, remove city centre parking, establish park and ride car parks charging a daily rate and shorter periods to ensure that the external users contribute, and set up bus only roads using electric buses. Cheaper, more benefit, flexible, safer, and more likely to clear the roads of single occupancy SUVs at peak periods.
I have spoken with people who have lived and worked in Notingham over many years and Nicholas Perry’s comments are to use their words ” bollocks”.,Nicholas Perry would appear to be one of those people who just hate trams on principle irrespective of the actual facts. Here is a copy of his comment with my comments interjected:
“THIS COMMENT IS SO WRONG…..
“If you believe this then I have a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
The trams run part full for most of the day only filling at rush hour. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, TRAMS CAN AFFORD TO CARRY PEOPLE AROUND OFF PEAK BUT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TAKE EVERYONE AT PEAK, WHEREAS BUSES DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THIS AT PEAK, AND ARE MUCH LESS FREQUENT, SO BUSES ENCOURAGE CAR USE Most of the passengers get aboard at the park and rides SO WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT IT MEANS THEY CAN GET INTO WORK QUICKLY RELIABLY AND CHEAPLY RATHER THAN GET STUCK IN TRAFFIC JAMS as they live in the countryside but want city wages but aren’t paying WPPL, extra Community charge or anything else towards the cost. SO WHAT – THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE WEALTH OF THE CITY BY WORKING IN BUSINESSES AND ARE PAYING THEIR FAR – THIS IS A STUPID COMMENT
In Beeston the works overran repeatedly and the noise from the trams on bends is incredible, even indoors. THIS ISNT TRUE My brother is a civil engineer and observes that the turns are very tight for the running gear fitted. WELL THAT IS MAYBE A FAULT IN THE DESIGN, NOT A GENERIC REASON TRAMS ARE A BAD THING Beeston is falling further, faster than any other town centre despite huge student numbers shopping locally. AGAIN THIS IS NONSENSE ACCORDING TO MY INFORMANTS WHO LIVE THERE AND THE TRAM HAS IETHE HALTED ANY DECLINE, OR REVERSED IT Additionally it is losing money at a huge level and this has got worse as the system extended. YOUR PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED FOR THAT. ONE COULD SAY THE EDUCATION, POLICE, JUSTICE AND HEALTH SYSTEMS LOSE MONEY – TRANSPORT IS A SERVICE. The trams that stop block the traffic THIS IS ANOTHER STUPID COMMENT – BUSES HAVE TO STOP TRAFFIC WHEN THEY STOP, AND IN ANY CASE TRAMS ONLY STOP FOR 20 SECS. FURTHER MORE TRAMS TAKE OF SUFFICIENT NUMBERS OF EX DRIVERS, WHOSE ROAD SPACE TAKES UP FAR MORE ROAD SPACE THAN THE TRAMS when sharing the road THAT IS A GOOD THING, IT ENCOURAGES CAR DRIVERS TO SWITCH TO THE TRAMS and if one breaks down (almost a daily occurrence) the whole line stops I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE, PLEASE PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE and people are getting onto buses if they’re lucky. THIS IS A LIE THEY DO NOT BREAKDOWN FREQUENTLY
Many of the tram promoters live nowhere near the lines and, in one case at least, urged their supporters to use multiple identities to troll consultation pages. AN UNEVIDENCED CLAIM With Nottingham getting more and more electric buses which are infinitely flexible BUS FLEXIBILITY IS A BAD THING AS IT DOES NOT ATTRACT BUSINESS OR HOUSING ALONG THE LINE the tram is being shown as the obsolete technology it is. THAT IS NONSENSE THAT IS WHY THE FRENCH AND THE SPANISH HAVE REINSTALLED THEIRS, AND THEY ARE UBIQUITOUS IN EUROPE BECASUE THEY ARE THE ONLY TECH THAT HAS SOLVED CONGESTION
If you want a congestion solution then there is an easy one, already working in many cities and one country Luxembourg. ANOTHER STUPID COMMENT AS YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT LUXEMBOURG HAS AN EXCELLENT TRAM SYSTEM Make local public transport free to the passenger, ON ITS OWN THAT MERELY ENCOURAGES NON CAR USERS TO MAKE MORE JOURNEYS, IT IS NOT A GOOD THING remove city centre parking, establish park and ride car parks charging a daily rate and shorter periods ANOTHER STUPID COMMENT – ALL RAIL AND TRAM TERMINALS HAVE PARK AND RIDES, AND ALL EXITS FROM THE MOTORWAY HAVE PARK AND RIDES to ensure that the external users contribute, and set up bus only roads using electric buses. IF YOU TRY TO SOLVE THIS WITH BUSES YOU GET A BUS JAM https://bathtrams.uk/why-you-get-bus-james-if-you-try-to-run-a-large-city-on-buses-alone-not-trams/ Cheaper, BUSES ARE MORE EXPENSIVE OVERALL THAN TRAMS AND HAVE NEVER NEVER ON THEIR OWN SOLVED CONGESTION more benefit, flexible, safer, and more likely to clear the roads of single occupancy SUVs at peak periods. YOUR ARE CLEARLY AN IDIOT WHO IS PROPOSING A SOLUTION, BUSES THAT HAS NEVER WORKED TO SOLVE CONGESTION
Clive Hinchcliffe
Fri, 1 Jul, 17:36 (12 days ago)
to expertsfortrams
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Luxembourg
All the cities in Europe with the highest liveability have tram networks.
ajb@a-b-o-u-t.com
Fri, 1 Jul, 19:27 (12 days ago)
to Clive, Ian, me, Roger, Ian, expertsfortrams
Dave
Whoever he or she is they’re missing the point about Luxembourg
The whole ethos of free PT there is underpinned by the new tramway which has been a huge success (not a PFI of course).
Regards,
Andrew
Pamela Jones
Ohhhh I just think this would be such a good idea…AND a tourist attraction as well!
Brenda Rees
We must not allow 44-ton lorries to use Bath as a shortcut
If this is allowed we will have more and more heavy traffic using the Cleveland bridge.