The problem with Coventry’s Very Light Rail
Earlier this month, Coventry City Council unveiled the test runs of their first-of-a-kind ‘VLR’ (Very Light Rail). Featuring battery-powered carriages (a tram), 30cm-deep road rails (again…a tram), and a capacity of around 50 passengers per vehicle (no, seriously – this is a tram), the one-of-a-kind travel network promises to link some lucky Coventry citizens by December 2026 in a development described as ‘revolutionary to transport’.
Eager to uncover more about this electric ‘revolution’, I delved deep into VLR research, uncovering news articles dating back to 2018, when the University’s very own Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG) originally unveiled the network development plan. My plans for this to be the first article lauding the new golden era of modern transportation were unfortunately thwarted when I discovered that this ‘VLR’ was little more than a glorified tram.
A tram is defined as a vehicle that operates electrically on public roads; Coventry’s VLR seems to be just this. A ‘light rail system’ is a vehicle that operates on specially built ‘road rails’ (embedded into the road). The ‘light’ description comes from the lower operating costs alongside the diminished speed and passenger capacities of these vehicles. The only difference from the humble tram, popularised in cities such as Manchester, is that the VLR does not require overhead electrical cables. While the lack of cables is an environmental win and makes for a quicker development process (putting HS2 to shame), one can hardly feel it makes up for the cons of the Very Light Rail.
Many Coventry residents seem to believe their money would be better spent elsewhere – on nicer buses, more lights for street safety, or perhaps on the filling of potholes
The recent light rail showcase saw Coventry City Council invite its citizens to clamber aboard for ‘test runs’, an invitation which was met with clamours of unrest and negative opinion. Some felt the Very Light Rail project would not alleviate but contribute to Coventry’s travel problem, adding unwanted congestion onto already crowded roads. Combined with Coventry’s infamous bus network and a relatively well-linked railway station, the Very Light Rail seems to be a clever, if unnecessary service duplicate, hidden beneath the façade of being ‘one-of-a-kind’. Despite costing significantly less than a new train network, the facts and figures don’t lie, with this tram-bus hybrid setting the Department of Transport back a whopping 12 million pounds. Many Coventry residents seem to believe their money would be better spent elsewhere – on nicer buses, more lights for street safety, or perhaps on the filling of potholes (I hasten to add here the likelihood of this happening is zero, and I for one will not be the person to create false hopes in these trying times).
However, the project still manages to highlight a few positives. Coventry has a history of being left behind and is perhaps stuck in limbo as a city, it is smaller than metropolises like Birmingham, Manchester, and London, and yet also struggles to find commonality in the countryside aesthetics of Warwick and Stratford-upon-Avon. In this sense, then, they’re updating what they do have and trying to breathe new life into a city that’s so often overlooked. Moreover, the VLR would undoubtedly add to the local economy, alongside giving Coventry City Council ownership rights to a new type of transport allowing them to sell the idea to other councils and inject even more money into the local area.
As Kylie said in her hit ‘The Loco-Motion’, ‘I know you’ll get to like it if you give it a chance now’. Perhaps this is what we should be striving to do with Coventry’s VLR
This is truly applaudable. However, ignoring the localised grievances of potholes and street safety (Coventry Telegraph illustrated these sentiments with the colourful headline ‘a totally unnecessary project’) makes the project seem little more than an overly expensive novelty. In fact, Coventry’s current travel links are relatively up-to-speed, providing crucial London-Euston and Birmingham New Street connections. The proximity to these larger and obviously more connected cities highlights the potential uselessness of the project.
As Kylie said in her hit ‘The Loco-Motion’, “I know you’ll get to like it if you give it a chance now”. Perhaps this is what we should be striving to do with Coventry’s VLR. Maybe the beauty of this travel experience is in its unique ineptitude – both as a way of spending council funds and as a hopelessly inadequate piece of competition for the nearby railways. Coventry’s VLR should best be enjoyed for what it truly is – a glorified, slow, and overly expensive tram. All aboard everybody – ‘let’s do the slow-comotion’…
Comments (4)
The key innovation is the lighter tram cars on a track built on pre cast concrete slabs that is only 30cm deep into the road. This is in contrast to regular tram cars and tracks that are 100cm deep into the road. This massively cuts construction costs as relocation of utilities such as gas, electrical, water, and sewers is no longer necessary in most cases.
Another innovation is that the wheels are all individually steerable, so when the tram goes around a corner the wheels on the outside curve (which is longer) can rotate faster and at a different angle to the inside track wheels. This should eliminate most of the screech from wheel slippage that regular trams experience.
The only “mistake” of the design of the VLR is to use batteries rather than overhead cables, this leads to charging time problems at the rail yard with vehicles out of action for long times, plus yards not being able to charge all vehicles at the same time at night due to the massive power draw. Cheaper overhead cables with actively articulated robot arms connecting to overhead wires only on straighter bits of road might be a better solution:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288350895.pdf
This is clearly written by somebody who knows absolutely nothing about light rail.
The point of the project is that it is a tram. You call it overly expensive, but it is literally the budget alternative – priced at up to 10x less than other tram systems!
I don’t know what you mean by “the figures dont lie” but the price of £12 million is extremely low for a rail system – take a look at the £1 billion Edinburgh trams pricetag. You clearly do not understand the scale of government spending and are trying to make people scared of big numbers that are actually very reasonable.
It isn’t competing with heavy rail as the point is to serve destinations that don’t have railway stations – which you would know if you have seen the maps of potential routes.
You also seem unaware that battery power is not unique to VLR as west midlands metro’s trams also have battery power. And it is quite strange to claim battery power is more environmentally friendly than overhead lines? When the exact opposite is true – again, this author clearly does not understand railway technology yet feels they can write about it.
There is also no evidence that the system will be slow, in fact the trial runs have been noted as being quite speedy! And it takes corners much faster than many current tram systems.
This article should really be retracted for it’s factual errors and key misunderstandings.
I think you’ve missed the point in some respects. Firstly, it is of a size that can be used in Coventry and other smaller towns and cities in the UK and beyond that can’t support a big tram. Secondly, the aim is for it to be low cost, maybe a fifth the cost of a big tram. Thirdly, by being lightweight and battery powered the track slabs can generally be installed within the tarmac in a road, massively speeding up construction by leaving utilities where they are in most cases. And fourthly, if the VLR system is proven, jobs and income for Coventry could be forthcoming, either by manufacturing or licensing the manufacture of the precast slabs and vehicles via the patents owned by the Council.
Waste of money poll tax will rise to fund the rail and Coventry residents will have to pay what a wasted money