Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40864-021-00163-6 http://www.urt.cn/

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS

Technical Comparison of Commercially Available Trams

and Review of Standardization Frame and Design Principles
Gianluca Megna1 • Andrea Bracciali1

Received: 14 August 2021 / Revised: 6 December 2021 / Accepted: 10 December 2021 / Published online: 3 February 2022
 The Author(s) 2022

Abstract Tram manufacturers have different ways of Keywords Light rail vehicle  Tram  Urban vehicles 
approaching the design of low-floor trams with compact Low floor  Steering vehicles  Tram architecture
and reliable running gears, and therefore several tram designation
architectures can still be found. A complete standardization
of trams is nearly impossible, and technical innovations can
be more easily introduced if compared to conventional 1 Introduction
railway vehicles, but the trend towards large-scale stan-
dardization based on vehicle ‘‘platforms’’ can be seen in In the nineteenth century, tramways quickly developed
recent years. However, the current ‘‘standard’’ tram archi- around the world and remained a backbone of city transport
tecture, which includes only non-pivoting bogies, is not until the advent of the internal combustion engine and
able to solve some typical problems of tram operations, private mobility. Being essentially a local (non-intercon-
such as high wheel and rail wear and high-pitched tonal nected) rail system, nearly each city developed its own
noise (squeal) in sharp curves, which are described in the solutions.
present paper. This research analyses the tram market with Old trams are relatively simple electromechanical
the aim of describing the state of the art of currently machines, and this allowed for the flourishing of many
available products and comparing their main technical local or regional manufacturers. This approach changed in
parameters. The analysis is based on information available recent decades, when the trend towards a slow decay of the
from the literatures (journals, web) where data about the tram system was reversed. A number of manufacturers in
vehicles can be found, while a new designation code (tram fact have started developing ‘‘platforms’’, i.e. trams usable
architecture designation, TAD for short) is specifically in many cities and countries with a limited number of
introduced for easier identification of the different tram variations.
architectures. Even if the complete low floor is still one of The outcome of this trend is analysed in this paper on
the main requested features, several solutions combining the basis of the information available in sector journals and
pivoting and non-pivoting bogies are commercially avail- on the web. The authors analysed the market situation
able, showing a tendency to give more relevance to running within the frame of a larger project aimed at finding the
quality performance with respect to the recent past. optimal architecture to develop a tram with both ‘‘envi-
ronmentally friendly’’ characteristics, with the lowest noise
and vibration impact in densely populated areas, and
‘‘track-friendly’’ characteristics, in order to reduce wheel
& Gianluca Megna and rail wear and therefore maintenance costs.
[email protected] Today, environmental factors are the main parameters
1
considered during the tram selection process, with partic-
Department of Industrial Engineering of Florence, Università
degli Studi di Firenze, Via di S. Marta 3, 50139 Firenze, Italy
ular attention to CO2 emissions [1]. However, power con-
sumption can be optimized by considering regenerative
Communicated by Baoming Han. braking, energy management with hybrid energy storage

123
Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31 17

systems and modern air-conditioning systems [2–4], while architectures mainly because of the low floor requirement
problems like smooth guidance during curve negotiation that has become the preferred solution for tramway systems
cannot be easily tackled with the conventional tram design. all over the world. As it will be shown later, several
This is particularly true for noise and vibrations and their manufacturers only offer fully low floor solutions in their
impact on citizens. portfolio.
The purpose of this paper is therefore to give an over- While low floor solutions improve passenger access to
view of the current structural architecture of commercially the vehicle, especially for people with reduced mobility
available trams, comparing the main parameters for more (PRM), they strongly impact the architecture of running
than 30 trams selected during the review of the light rail gear, forcing manufacturers to design unusual and often
vehicle (LRV) market segment. The comparison considers complex solutions for wheel mounting, motor/transmission
operational parameters, such as low floor percentage, and braking component arrangement. Therefore, standards
accessibility and performances, and technical solutions, for trams cannot prescribe mandatory rules for running
such as the carbody arrangement and bogie and wheelset gears, and often only basic (or ‘‘system’’) requirements are
design principles. An innovative code to easily identify the defined. As an example, basic requirements defined by the
tram architecture is also proposed. The main issues related Italian standard [8] are shown in Table 1, while referenced
to the current technical solutions adopted by tram manu- EN standards are shown in Table 2. To appreciate the
facturers are analysed, describing the possible alternatives difference with the railway case, consider that the wheel
and giving some general guidelines for future tram design profile is not defined, and it should be designed to optimize
and evaluation. the wheel–rail contact.

2.2 Evolution of Tram Design

2 Background of the Research
The development of trams over the years has been largely
2.1 Standardization in the Tram Sector driven by the development of smaller and compact bogies.
Conventional tram bogies can be defined considering their
Compared to other means of urban rail transport, such as connection to the carbody, and three main categories can
metros and monorails, tramway systems are still growing be found:
rapidly in Europe [5]. However, a comprehensive European
• Pivoting bogie, with a physical or virtual slewing
technical regulation for LRVs is not yet defined, as the
bearing, located either under a carbody (classical
‘‘Urban Rail’’ working group of the European Committee
for Standardization/Technical Committee 256 (CEN/TC
256) ‘‘Railway Applications’’, established nearly a decade Table 1 Basic requirements for a tram vehicle as defined by the
ago, is still under development [6]. Although many mem- Italian standard [8]
ber states of the European Union still use national regula-
Length of uncoupled vehicle \ 45 m
tions for LRVs (e.g. the BOStrab regulation in Germany
Recommended carbody width 2.3–2.4 m
[7]), European standards developed by CEN for conven-
Running horizontal curve radius B 25 m
tional railway vehicles are often also used for other vehi-
Running vertical curve radius B 350 m
cles such as LRVs.
Running track slope C 5%
As an example, the Italian National Unification (UNI)
Doorstep height B 350 mm
standardization body released two standards defining the
Door width C 1200 mm
essential requirements for trams [8] and metro vehicles [9].
Comfort ratio C 15%
The standards extensively refer to European ‘‘norm’’ (EN)
Floor slope inside the vehicle B 5%
standards, resulting in an increased tendency towards pro-
Longitudinal jerk B 1.5 m/s3
duct standardization. Standardization helps both local
authorities in issuing more accurate tenders and vehicle Noise emission (40 km/h) B 75 dB(A)
manufacturers in developing families of similar vehicles Noise emission (0 km/h) B 68 dB(A)
(often called ‘‘platforms’’), reducing manufacturing costs. Axle load (seats ? 420 kg/m2) B 10 t
The drawback of adhering to standards is the reduced Braking performance (service braking) C 1.3 m/s2
opportunity to introduce innovative technical solutions for Average acceleration between 0 and 30 km/h C 1 m/s2
problems such as wheel and rail wear or flanging and Acceleration on 5% track slope C 0.1 m/s2
squeal noise that are widespread in urban railway systems. Speed C 60 km/h
While the architecture of metro vehicles is similar to
conventional trains, trams show several ‘‘unconventional’’

123
18 Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31

Table 2 EN standards referenced by the Italian standard [8] shown in Fig. 1, while in the early 1980s, prototypes of
EN standard Field of application
modern trams appeared with the introduction of the low
floor requirement. This design principle led to deep mod-
EN 12299 Riding comfort ifications of the classical architecture by lowering the
EN 12663-1 Carbody structural requirements central part of the vehicle to a maximum height of 350 mm
EN 13103 Axle design by the introduction of a central trailing bogie with inde-
EN 13272 Lighting pendently rotating wheels (IRWs). From this single artic-
EN 13452-1/EN 13452-2 Requirements for brake system ulated vehicle, still partly connected to the railway
EN 13749 Bogie structural requirements practice, several different and more complex solutions
EN 14363 Safety on twisted track were developed over the years.
EN 14750-1/EN 14750-2 Air conditioning The central articulation was firstly replaced by a dedi-
EN 14752 Doors cated short module, in which the carbody was fixedly
EN 14813-1/EN 14813-2 Driver cab air conditioning connected to the trailing bogie, articulated with both the
EN 15227 Requirements for crash safety longer front and rear carbodies. Then the fully low-floor
EN 15461 Noise emission concept was developed in the early 1990s, and pivoting
EN 15663 Masses definition bogies, especially if powered, began to face limitations, for
EN 16019 Automatic couplings two reasons:
EN 45545 Fire protection • The aisle width inside the vehicle was limited by the
large bogie rotation during running in small-radius
curves.
railway solution) or at the end of two carbodies (see • The floor level over the pivoting bogies was too high,
Fig. 1 for an example) introducing an obstacle inside the vehicle.
• Non-pivoting bogie (or fixed bogies), bolsterless bogies
directly connected to the carbody by means of a more With further developments for the suspension and motor
or less rigid secondary suspension arrangement, non-pivoting bogies were adopted instead of
• Shared bogie with two carbodies separately resting on pivoting bogies at the ends of the vehicle as well. This tram
the bogie frame (so-called Jacobs bogies) architecture rapidly evolved in the most modern design of
multi-articulated trams with suspended carbodies, which is
An overview of the history of tram design can be found the most common tram architecture nowadays. A synthetic
in Viganò [10], in which the technical solutions adopted overview of this evolution is shown in Fig. 2.
since the development of the first low-floor tram in 1984
and the main features of partial and fully low-floor trams 2.3 Current Tram Issues
are critically discussed. Detailed information about several
trams developed between 1984 and 1992 can also be found As described in the previous paragraph, bogie development
in Hondius [11], in which the author describes the higher has been crucial for the evolution of tram design. However,
costs due to the transition from high or partial to fully low- independently from the connection to the carbody, bogies
floor trams. are made of two wheelsets, conventional or IRWs, con-
In general, the classical design between 1950 and 1980 nected to the bogie frame with a relatively high primary
was derived from conventional train architecture with the yaw stiffness. Therefore, the wheelsets tend to remain
introduction of the articulation between the carbodies, as

Fig. 1 Example of early standardization of a single articulated tram with a fully high floor in Italy (UNI 3192:1952)

123
Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31 19

Fig. 2 Overview of the evolution of tram architecture. From the left: pivoting bogies at the ends, c tram with a fully low floor and three
a tram with central low-floor section above an IRW bogie and non-pivoting bogies, and d tram with a fully low floor, non-pivoting
pivoting bogies at the ends, b tram with central low-floor section bogies and suspended carbodies. Images taken from Viganò [10]
above a non-pivoting bogie attached to a dedicated module and

parallel to each other in all running conditions, reducing forces when entering small-radius curves, especially if long
the steering ability of the vehicle. The tendency to maxi- driver cabs are installed at the vehicle ends. Figure 4 (left)
mize the free space inside the vehicle and the consequent shows the lateral wheel force while running in a 20 m
extensive adoption of non-pivoting bogies have further radius curve at 15 km/h for a pivoting bogie and a non-
reduced the curving ability of trams, increasing the issues pivoting bogie. It is evident that the rigid connection
of wheel and rail wear, flanging noise and squeal noise. between the bogie and carbody results in higher transient
Examples of design of pivoting and non-pivoting bogies forces in the first part of the curve, exerting severe wheel–
are shown in Fig. 3. Other solutions adopted for motor rail contact conditions. The energy dissipated at the contact
bogies with IRWs can be found in Kolar [12]. can be estimated with Eq. (1), in which X is the longitu-
If trains run reasonably well in curves down to dinal force, Y is the lateral force, cx the longitudinal
approximately 400 m, creepage at the wheel–rail contact creepage and cy the lateral creepage. The ratio between the
becomes serious in metros (curve radius often around total tangential force and the normal force (T/N) is also the
200 m) and severe in trams (curve radius down to friction value f at the wheel–rail contact. If f is higher than
18–20 m). In the latter case, wheel tread taper can be the maximum available friction fa, slip occurs. All these
omitted (there is not enough compensation due to the parameters influence the growth of wear, tear and noise.
steering effect), and wheels are often made independent, Tc ¼ Xcx þ Ycy ð1Þ
although IRWs only eliminate longitudinal creepage. As a
result, rail and wheel wear remains a central issue in Due to the very severe conditions, especially in curves,
modern trams. flanging and squeal noise are still serious problems for
The comparison of running behaviour of trams charac- almost all urban railway systems, affecting citizens in
terized by different technical solutions can be found in densely populated areas. If flanging noise can be tackled
Capek and Kolar [13] and Richter and Vemmer [14], with proper wheel flange lubrication, squeal noise remains
showing how non-pivoting bogies exert higher lateral an erratic and particularly disturbing pollution [15]. It is
due to the stick-slip phenomenon triggered by the ‘‘falling

Fig. 3 Motor bogies for low-floor trams. On the left a pivoting bogie arrangement (available at https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/
with conventional wheelsets and transversal motor arrangement assets/api/uuid:67afff1c-e169-4470-a6a1-bf105db846b1/mors-
(available at http://www.pragoimex.cz/en/download/default/90). On b10025-00-datasheet-bogies-sf35-deenus-144_original.pdf)
the right, a non-pivoting bogie with IRWs and a longitudinal motor

123
20 Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31

Fig. 4 Left: lateral wheel force for a pivoting bogie and non-pivoting bogie while running in a 20 m radius curve at 15 km/h [13]. Right: friction
curve for dry rails and representation of the ‘‘stick-slip’’ behaviour due to the falling friction

friction’’ part of the adhesion curve at the wheel–rail straight track and curved track depending on rail and wheel
contact, as show in Fig. 4 (right), in which the T/N ratio has conditions, and monitoring procedures are still needed to
reached an fa value of 0.5, i.e. dry rails. keep the problem under control [17]. Due to the low
As IRWs only eliminate the longitudinal creepage cx by unsprung mass installed on trams and the requirements for
free relative rotation of the wheels, they are not able to life endurance of the rubber under sever conditions of
solve the problem if they are installed in bogies, especially traction and braking which lead to radial stiffness values
if non-pivoting bogies are used. In fact, even with short- between 20 and 200 kN/mm, the effectiveness of resilient
wheelbase bogies, relevant values of angle of attack wheels against ground-borne vibrations is usually very low,
remain, and therefore lateral creepage is still present. Also, especially for vibrations below 80–100 Hz [16, 18].
IRWs eliminate the natural centring effect of conventional Sometimes old vehicles offer better performance than new
wheelsets, and solutions with a transmission shaft recon- vehicles [19], and wheel properties can be one of the
necting the independent wheels only in straight track via reasons.
self-locking differential gearboxes have been developed Although all the vehicles considered in the following are
[12]. However, the adoption of this solution has been equipped with conventional bogies, solutions for trams
limited by the complexity in terms of operation and equipped with steering mechanisms have been developed
maintenance. in the past to help the vehicle running through a curve. A
The simplest way to mitigate squeal is to avoid the short description is reported in the following.
falling slope of the friction curve either by spraying water The only structural way to definitively solve the prob-
on the contact areas or by using solid or liquid friction lems related to curving is the use of steered axles with
modifiers. In any case, adhesion is necessary on city roads IRWs to eliminate (or to drastically reduce) the angle of
for other users (pedestrians, cars, bikes, etc.), and any kind attack of the ‘‘wheelset’’ that is responsible for large lateral
of ‘‘lubricant’’ must be used with great care to avoid other creepage. Possibly the two most famous examples of trams
problems. with single steered axles and IRWs are the COBRA tram in
Resilient wheels are also used to reduce the noise Zurich [20] and ULF (Ultra-Low Floor) tram in Wien [21].
emitted by LRVs due to their greater damping compared to While the COBRA architecture was already a multi-
monoblock wheels. According to the report by the Federal articulated tram with two suspended carbodies, the ULF
Transit Administration [16], noise reduction up to 2 dB for tram has a completely different arrangement as it is made
rolling noise on tangent track and up to 20 dB for squeal by five carbodies on six axles having a portal frame run-
noise on curved track can be reached with resilient wheels. ning gear with vertically arranged motors and bevel gears,
However, the report states that their cost is about four times for a total length of 35 m. Figure 5 shows the general view
higher than conventional wheels and that their effect is of the tram and a detailed description of the portal frame.
strongly dependent on the rubber configuration and the Secondary suspension, made of helical springs and
compromise between axial and radial stiffness. hydraulic actuators, is located in the upper part of the portal
Resilient wheels are also not very effective at mitigating and can be raised by the driver to increase the ground
another important issue related to urban rail mobility, i.e. clearance. Axles between intermediate carbodies are
ground-borne vibrations. Vibrations can appear on both steered by adjacent carbodies with the TALGO connection,

123
Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31 21

Fig. 5 Ultra-low floor (ULF) in Wien. Above: external view of the 5 = interior panelling; 6 = lateral damper; 7 = hydraulic height
complete tram. Below: TALGO-like steering mechanism between levelling; 8 = secondary suspension; 9 = portal frame; 10 = vertical
intermediate carbodies and detailed description of the portal frame damper; 11 = carbody; 12 and 13 = carbody connections;
(1 = joint between carbodies; 2 = gearbox; 3 = primary suspension; 14 = brake disc connected to the motor; 15 = magnetic brake).
4 = vertically arranged three-phase asynchronous motor; Images modified from Mattersdorfer [22]

while the front and rear end axles are steered by linkages. previously shown issues. The impact of vehicle architec-
This solution allows for a floor as low as 197 mm [21]. ture on operational and performance parameters is also
Developed in the 1990s and still in service, the pro- discussed.
duction of these advanced trams was stopped, and they are
offered nowadays neither by the respective manufacturers 3.1 Proposal for a New Designation Code for Tram
nor by any other manufacturer. The complexity of running Architectures
gears and maintenance problems may have acted as a
deterrents for further applications. Currently available trams do not fit into the ‘‘standard
designation of axle arrangement on locomotives and mul-
tiple-unit sets’’ historically defined by the International
3 Research Methodology Union of Railways (UIC) [23], which only describes the
number of motors and trailing axles, whether they are
In the present work, a new designation code for tram car- grouped in bogies and whether the bogie is pivoting.
bodies and bogies arrangements is proposed to easily This designation scheme is not suitable for many mod-
compare the different vehicle architectures. The new code ern tram architectures, such that the so-called multi-artic-
was used during the vehicle selection process for a com- ulated tram, which is one of most common solutions today,
parative analysis over the worldwide market and main as the sequence of short carbodies attached to a single non-
manufacturers. pivoting bogie and completely suspended carbodies cannot
The results of this analysis are evaluated to understand be described by UIC designation.
whether the standardization trend that started in the 1990s For this reason, a new unambiguous designation
with multi-articulated vehicles is still dominant, or whether scheme for trams, called tram architecture designation
other solutions have been adopted to mitigate the (TAD), based on carbody typology and support

123
22 Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31

Table 3 Description of Symbol Description Equivalent UIC

symbols for tram carbody TAD
designation. Symbols for Designation of a carbody fully resting on a non-pivoting bogie
different carbodies are separated
M Carbody on motor bogie B or B0
by a space
T Carbody on trailing bogie 2
Designation of carbody ends resting on pivoting bogies, single axles or other carbodies
m Carbody end above a pivoting motor bogie B0 or B00
t Carbody end above a pivoting trailing bogie 20
J Carbody end above a Jacobs motor bogie B
j Carbody end above a Jacobs trailing bogie 2
S Carbody end above a single motor axle A
s Carbody end above a single trailer axle 1
^ Carbody end suspended on an adjacent carbody N/A

arrangement is introduced and compared (Table 3) to UIC longer produced and often survive thanks to their extreme
symbols. Some examples of how the TAD better defines simplicity (it is not unusual to see nearly 100-year-old,
tram architecture are shown in Table 4, where it can be fully electromechanical vehicles still running in Europe,
seen that all four tram arrangements are described by the such as ‘‘Type 1928’’ in Milan [24]), the authors decided to
same UIC designation (B 2 2 B), and it is only possible to conduct a market analysis to explore trams that are cur-
distinguish between pivoting and non-pivoting bogies, rently offered by manufacturers around the globe.
while the new designation gives a unique code for each As an independent and well-known source of data on
vehicle, as it is based on carbody arrangement. market trends, the issues of the international journal Metro
The new designation proposed in this paper also applies Report International [25] published in 2017 and 2018 were
to ULF and similar trams. Referring again to Table 3, the analysed. The selection of the time interval was deemed to
tram shown in Fig. 5 would be classified as sS SS SS SS be sufficient to catch the most important innovations as
Ss. well as ‘‘stabilised’’ portfolios. The analysis of the news on
new tram commissioning was considered as a valid way to
3.2 Vehicle Selection for Comparison identify the most important (or at least the most ‘‘active’’)
manufacturers, without any direct relationship to market
Data selection is crucial for obtaining comparable and volume or presence in the different scenarios.
reliable data, especially given the huge number of different At the end of the process, 25 vehicle manufacturers were
trams operating across the cities in the last century. Instead identified, while browsing the Internet and collecting
of comparing existing vehicles, which in many cases are no information from the authors’ previous experiences helped

Table 4 Example of four different tram architectures described by while red dots identify wheels belonging to non-pivoting bogies.
the same UIC designation, but with unique codes using the TAD Source https://www.skoda.cz/en/products/tramcars/
codification. Green dots identify wheels belonging to pivoting bogies,
Tram architecture UIC TAD

B’ 2’ 2’ B’ mt tm

B’ 2’ 2’ B’ m^ tt ^m

B’ 2 2 B’ m^ T ^^ T ^m

B22B M ^^ T ^^ T ^^ M

123
Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31 23

Fig. 6 News about new tram

commissioning published in
Metro Report International [25]
in 2017 and 2018 grouped by
vehicle manufacturers. Further
manufacturers (on the right)
were included after a World
Wide Web search

to identify further manufacturers that were not found in the The percentage of low floor is for obviously one of the
analysis described above. These manufacturers were main parameters on which this research is based. In fact,
included as well, and their products were analysed even if most of the vehicles today are based on the 100%
according to the information publicly available on the web. low-floor philosophy, there are still solutions using a lower
A comparative analysis was therefore performed for 32 percentage. It should be noted that the selection of a fully
vehicles chosen from the portfolios of the whole set of low-floor or a partially low-floor architecture is often based
manufactures, shown in Fig. 6, in which the largest share of on non-technical arguments.
news was about Alstom, mainly due to the news related to Other parameters used in this comparison are related to
catenary-free systems, which is about 30% of the total the passenger transport capacity, such as the number of
number of news for this manufacturer. seats per meter, the standing passengers per meter and
Considering the difficulties in obtaining a complete set their ratio, i.e. the comfort ratio, and accessibility, which is
of data and the low availability of accessible sources, the a central issue in trams, as stops must be shortened as much
set of vehicles selected for the comparison is considered a as possible, offering wide and spacious entrance/exit areas
valid sample for analysing the state of the art of the tram to the vehicle (therefore limiting the number of seats).
architectures. The list of the vehicles chosen for the anal- Doors also represent a central issue for reliability, and their
ysis is shown in the Appendix, in which the architecture is design requires a careful evaluation. Therefore, the number
described according to the new designation code. The year of single doors, the number of double doors and the mean
of the order, the reference city and the track gauge are also distance between doors are considered as important
shown, describing an important variety of systems chosen parameters in the work.
throughout the world. General architecture parameters as well as operating
parameters were also considered in this research. The
3.3 Main Parameters for Comparison vehicles were then compared considering the mean length
of carbodies and the number of bogies. The axle load in the
Comparison of existing trams is crucial for selecting condition of 4 pax/m2 (280 kg/m2) and number of traction
meaningful parameters, and a short description of selected motors leads to power for unit of mass, while performance
parameters is presented in this section, while a compre- is also evaluated considering the maximum speed, starting
hensive discussion of the outcomes of the comparison is acceleration and maximum running slope.
presented later. To locate the selected parameters more As an overhead line is often criticized as having high
easily, they will be listed hereinafter in italics. visual impact, especially in historical cities, several energy

123
24 Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31

supply systems are also available today as alternatives to for almost all vehicles, but the conditions for obtaining this
the standard catenary–pantograph system. The offer of value are rarely clearly stated. The maximum value can be
catenary-free vehicles has grown over the years, including maintained only until a certain speed, generally between 30
the following: and 40 km/h, and the mean acceleration in the full range of
speed and fully loaded is about 0.7 m/s2.
• Ground-level power supply (GPLS) such as APS from
Also, the performance is not strictly related to the
Alstom and Tramwave from Ansaldo STS
architecture of the vehicle. All the trams have a maximum
• Onboard energy storage system (OESS) using batteries
speed of 60–80 km/h, while the maximum design slope is
and supercapacitors charged at defined stations, such as
in the range 6–9%. The adhesion ratio, i.e. the ratio
the PRIMOVE system from Bombardier
between the number of motor bogies and the total number
• Onboard power generation system (OPGS) using diesel
of bogies, varies from 0.5 and 1, and the most frequent
engines or, more recently, fuel cells
values are 1 (38%) and 0.67 (35%). The power per unit of
A description of the state of the art with a list of tram- mass is quite variable, with a mean value of about 8.5 kW/
way lines using catenary-free systems can be found in t.
Swanson and Smatlak [26], and advantages and drawbacks
of the aforementioned technologies are explained. The 4.2 Kinds of Bogies
systems are also described in Guerrieri [27], in which a
comparison was performed between two different systems The renaissance of pivoting bogies emerges from this
(APS and PRIMOVE) considering their possible applica- research, as different solutions adopted for the running gear
tion for new tramway lines in Italy. The research showed technologies were found. The range of solutions extends
how the APS system is financially more feasible. from the more standard multi-articulated vehicle with only
non-pivoting bogies to combinations of pivoting, non-piv-
oting and Jacobs bogies. An example is the Sˇkoda ForCity
4 Results and Discussion Plus for Bratislava with a TAD of m^ M ^^ T ^m, shown in
Fig. 9. The vehicle is designed for a 1000 mm track gauge,
4.1 General Considerations and it has 90% low floor with three different types of
bogies: two motor pivoting bogies at the end of the vehicles
As shown in Fig. 7, in which an analysis of the sample of (two steps are used over these bogies) with 1.8 m wheel-
vehicles chosen for the comparison is presented, most of base, one non-pivoting trailer bogie with 1.8 m wheelbase
the trams are shorter than 35 m, with the larger proportion and one non-pivoting motor bogie with 1.9 m wheelbase.
(43%) falling in the range of 30–34 m, even if in many Only conventional wheelsets with longitudinally arranged
cases the architecture is modular, and shorter (or longer) motors and gearboxes are used, and non-pivoting bogies
trams are theoretically possible. Nearly all the vehicles can elastically rotate about ± 2.
(72%) offered today have a 100% low floor, but it is worth The use of pivoting bogies at the end of the vehicle is a
highlighting that half of the considered vehicles in the clear trend, showing a return to older design philosophies.
cases are not related to multi-articulated trams, with the Pivoting bogies are installed near the driver cab, where a
tram having at least one pivoting bogie and no suspended reduction of about 10–20% of the fully low floor and the
carbodies. For the multi-articulated architecture, about aisle width inside the vehicle are not an issue. In many
30% of the vehicles have two suspended carbodies, but cases, the low floor extended for a limited length (from 70
modularity of the platform is again a key factor for this to 95% of low floor) of the vehicle is often considered a
parameter. sufficient solution for passenger comfort inside the vehicle.
The average length of the carbodies appears to be a In some cases, users have shown a preference for ‘‘high-
significant parameter useful for comparing all the proper- level’’ seats, especially for longer travels, as they are per-
ties of the selected vehicles. It can be seen that the multi- ceived as quieter. As a result, these seats are often readily
articulated architecture enables a reduction of this param- occupied at the terminus.
eter, which becomes smaller as the number of suspended Obviously, the use of several different kinds of running
carbodies increases with the same overall length of the gears could be a problem for the maintenance costs, also
tram, as shown in Fig. 8. considering a higher number of spare parts.
Regardless of the architecture, all trams exploit the same All the considered vehicles are equipped with bogies
kind of service, characterised by low average speed (nor- with primary and secondary suspensions. The bogie
mally below 20 km/h in most cases), short distance wheelbase is always between 1.7 and 1.9 m, with shorter
between stops, and high acceleration and braking. Maxi- values (1.6 m) only for some trailer bogies, and IRWs are
mum starting acceleration is declared to be about 1.2 m/s2 mainly used with resilient wheels and longitudinally

123
Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31 25

Fig. 7 Analysis of the sample chosen for the comparison, considering the total length of the vehicle, the low-floor percentage and the number of
suspended carbodies

reducing wheel and rail wear in sharp curves, and lowering

manufacturing and maintenance costs. An example of a
pivoting motor bogie with a 610 mm wheel diameter and
1.78 m wheelbase is shown in Fig. 3 (left), which is rela-
tive to the single-carbody mm vehicle EVO1 from Pragoi-
mex shown in Fig. 10. The height over the two motor
bogies is only 500 mm.
Direct drive traction can also help to reduce the avail-
able space by removing gearboxes, which are often noisy
and difficult to maintain. Research has shown only one
vehicle with direct drive, which is applied to the fully low-
Fig. 8 Correlation of number of suspended carbodies (0 = no floor tram ForCity Alfa 15T from Škoda [12]. The bogie is
suspended carbodies) with mean length of the carbodies shown in Fig. 16, and it is worth highlighting that in order
to further increase the space, hydraulic braking is applied
arranged traction motors. However, the use of small-di- directly to the tyres of the resilient wheels. Jacobs motor
ameter wheels between 600 and 680 mm (and conse- bogies with a double articulation are used for the connec-
quently low axle height above top-of-rail level) has made it tion of the intermediate carbodies (Fig. 11).
possible to reduce the floor height above motor bogies from
900 mm to about 500–600 mm. This reduced height can be 4.3 Masses and Axle Loads
handled in the vehicle by smooth slopes instead of steps,
avoiding obstacles incompatible with wheelchairs for Compared to other architectures, multi-articulated trams of
example. This solution allows the use of more standard the same length have the advantage of using a lower
solutions for running gears, including conventional number of bogies. As a result, the mean distance between
wheelsets and gearboxes grouped in pivoting bogies, the bogies is greater, resulting in a higher axle load

123
26 Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31

Fig. 9 Škoda ForCity Plus for Bratislava with three different kinds of bogies. Modified from Hondius [28]

Fig. 10 Single-car tram EVO1 from Pragoimex. The vehicle can be accommodated by a smooth transition. Source http://www.pragoimex.
considered 100% low floor, as the height of the floor over the bogie is cz/en/page/barrier-free-tramcar-evo1-276
only 500 mm, and the difference with the doorsteps at 350 mm is

(Fig. 12). The axle load is always lower than 10 t/axle, but floor), which have the same concept but with four bogies
all the multi-articulated trams have an axle load in the and three carbodies.
range of 8–10 t. This means that values greater than 10 t A similar solution but with two Jacobs bogies was
are achieved in the exceptional loading conditions of adopted by Škoda for the tram ForCity Alfa, which has an
6 pax/m2, i.e. 420 kg/m2. axle load of 6.8 t (Fig. 14). This solution also allowed the
The lightest tram (6.2 t/axle) is the Leoliner, developed installation of six double doors with only 5.2 m of distance
by HeiterBlick for Leipzig (Fig. 13). The vehicle, with between doors. Also, the single carbody tram EVO1 has a
three pivoting bogies with conventional wheelsets, two very low axle load, i.e. 6.6 t.
carbodies and a 70% low floor (the height over the motor It is worth highlighting that the mass per unit of length
bogie is 900 mm), has been in service since 2006, and the of the empty vehicles is always in the range 1.2–1.4 t/m,
manufacturer has launched two subsequent models, the independently from the carbody material, i.e. steel or alu-
Vamos 70 (70% low floor) and the Vamos 95 (95% low minium. Considering that, as shown in Fig. 15, 6 pax/m
can be considered for all vehicles, the payload can be

123
Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31 27

Fig. 11 Pivoting bogie of the Škoda ForCity Alfa for Prague (left) and detail of the direct drive arrangement (right) [28]

Fig. 12 Mean distance between bogies (left) and axle load (right) versus average length of carbodies

Fig. 13 Leoliner tram from HeiterBlick. Source https://www.heiterblick.de/fileadmin/template/downloads/Produktblaetter/LeoLiner.pdf

Fig. 14 ForCity Alfa from Škoda. Source https://www.skoda.cz/data/catalog/6/99/888.pdf

123
28 Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31

Fig. 15 Number of passengers per meter (left) and comfort ratio (right) versus average length of carbodies

developed by Siemens for Munich, shown in Fig. 17, is a

single-articulated vehicle, and each carbody is supported
by a central non-pivoting bogie. The length of the car-
bodies is 9.3 m, allowing for the installation of two double
doors, and the mean distance between doors is only 4.6 m.
However, the secondary suspensions of the bogies are
designed to guarantee a relevant angle during curve
negotiation. The bogies are able to rotate up to 4.5 with
respect to the carbody [31]. The evolution of the Avenio,
i.e. the Avenio M shown in Fig. 18, is in fact developed
using the multi-articulated concept with suspended car-
bodies. For these trams, values no lower than 5 m can be
Fig. 16 Average distance between doors versus average carbody
length
reached if the suspended carbodies are long enough for the
installation of two double doors. However, in multi-artic-
evaluated at about 0.42 t/m, resulting in an average mass ulated trams, the fully low-floor design often requires the
per unit of length of 1.72 t/m. addition of doors near the driver cab at both ends of the
vehicle, increasing the overhang with respect to the posi-
4.4 Passenger Capacity and Accessibility tion of the non-pivoting bogies. The overhang can be
reduced using single doors, which are normally sufficient
All the vehicles are 2.3–2.6 m wide and 3.4–3.9 m high due to the limited number of passengers passing through
over the top of the rail (without pantograph). It is not these end doors.
surprising, therefore, that passenger capacity is clearly not
influenced by tram architecture. The number of passengers
per meter in fact remains nearly constant, i.e. 6 pax/m, 5 Conclusions
regardless of the mean length of the carbodies, and there-
fore the comfort ratio is always about 30% (Fig. 15). The technical comparison of currently available trams
However, as the length of the carbodies decreases, the described in the paper shows that, while different solutions
number of doors per meter also decreases, and therefore the exist, most of the tram designs still belong to the category
mean distance between the door increases in the range of of fully low-floor vehicles with multi-articulated architec-
4–8 m, as shown in Fig. 16. The tram with the shortest door ture, in which small-length carbodies and a limited number
distance (3.8 m) is the single-carbody vehicle EVO1 of bogies are used. With this solution, manufacturers tend
(Fig. 10), with a length of 15 m, one single door and three to develop ‘‘platforms’’ to achieve standard and modular
double doors. solutions that can be used in many situations, thereby
Similar values with shorter carbodies can be achieved drastically reducing selling prices and delivery times.
with vehicles with twice-supported end carbodies arranged In the LRV sector, as a consequence of the current
as m^, as up to three doors can be installed. Examples are standardization frame in which only general rules and
the Moderus Gamma from Modertrans in Poznan [29] and essential requirements are given, there is considerable
the Nevelo from Newag in Krakov [30], both reaching a freedom to introduce both unconventional and innovative
mean distance between doors of 4.6 m. The Avenio solutions in the tram design. As an example, smaller

123
Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31 29

Fig. 17 Avenio tram from Siemens with two double doors for each carbody. Adapted from Schnaas and Karl [31]

Fig. 18 Avenio M from Siemens with multi-articulated vehicle concept. Adapted from Späth and Walcher [32]

running gears are available today, allowing designers to higher axle load and lower ability for curve negotiation due
take advantage of pivoting bogies on low-floor vehicles, to non-pivoting bogies. Trams with pivoting bogies placed
once again making old-fashioned architectures competitive at the ends of the vehicle, coded m^ by TAD, are again
against multi-articulated trams in order to reduce the issues very commonly used to improve the steering ability in
of urban rail operations. especially in very low-radius sharp curves and accessibility without reducing the low-
curves. floor extension inside the vehicle.
However, vehicles with steering axles and indepen- Conversely, passenger transport capacity in terms of
dently rotating wheels, which could be the only structural passengers per meter and comfort ratio are not clearly
way to eliminate wear and noise problems related to sharp affected by the particular architecture, while from the
curves, are no longer available on the market, probably performance point of view, all the trams show similar
because of their lower modularity and high manufacturing values in terms of maximum speed and power per unit of
and maintenance costs. Examples are the COBRA and the mass.
ULF trams, which are briefly described in the paper.
The research, based on publicly available information Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
sources considered 32 vehicles selected from a set of 32 adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
manufacturers identified by a worldwide market analysis. long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
The vehicles were compared using a selection of the main source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
parameters in terms of performance, capacity and acces- if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
sibility, while a new designation code, called tram archi- indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
tecture designation (TAD), was proposed for easier included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
identification of the tram architecture. Unlike the UIC use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
designation historically used for railway vehicles and based use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
on bogies, the TAD is based on carbodies and their sup- org/licenses/by/4.0/.
ports, providing a unique code for all tram arrangements.
Combinations of pivoting bogies, non-pivoting bogies
and Jacobs bogies are proposed as the multi-articulated Appendix: List of Vehicles and Features
architecture, which is identified in the simple case by a Compared in the Analysis
tram coded M ^^ M using TAD, is often not the best
solution because of the greater distance between doors,

123
30 Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31

123
Urban Rail Transit (2022) 8(1):16–31 31

References 17. Fidler PRA, Hartley S, Talbot JP (2017) Project VIMTO: a new
system for the vibration and impact monitoring of tram opera-
1. Görçün ÖF (2021) Evaluation of the selection of proper metro tions. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on struc-
and tram vehicle for urban transportation by using a novel inte- tural health monitoring of intelligent infrastructure, December
grated MCDM approach. Sci Prog 104:1–18 5–8, Brisbane, Australia
2. Kulesz B, Sikora A (2018) Comparison of different tram cars in 18. Suarez B, Chover JA, Rodriguez P, Gonzalez FJ (2011) Effec-
Poland basing on drive type, rated power and energy consump- tiveness of resilient wheels in reducing noise and vibrations. Proc
tion. MATEC Web Conf 180:02006. https://doi.org/10.1051/ Inst Mech Eng Part F J Rail Rapid Transit 225:545–565
matecconf/201818002006 19. Cik M, Lienhart M, Lercher P (2016) Analysis of psychoacoustic
3. Xiao Z, Sun P, Wang Q, Zhu Y, Feng X (2018) Integrated and vibration-related parameters to track the reasons for health
optimization of speed profiles and power split for a tram with complaints after the introduction of new tramways. Appl Sci
hybrid energy storage systems on a signalized route. Energies 6(12):398. https://doi.org/10.3390/app6120398
18:478. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11030478 20. Kummer M, Krause S (1993) ‘‘Cobra’’—ein neues Konzeptfür
4. Liu J, Wu X, Li H, Qi L (2020) An optimal method of the energy Niederflur-Straßenbahnfahrzeuge. Schweiz Eisenb Rev
consumption for fuel cell hybrid tram. Int J Hydrog Energy 4:174–183
45:20304–20311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.135 21. Siemens AG (2013) Tram System—ULF Vienna. Siemens AG
5. Pyrgidis C, Tsipi D, Doliantis A, Barbagli M (2021) An overview product brochure. https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/
of metros, trams and monorails in revenue service and under api/uuid:bab137c522d71edd55d4aafaf7e50f07656ba37a/ulf-bro
construction worldwide at the end of 2019. Ingegner Ferrov chure-en.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2021
2:101–122 22. Mattersdorfer P, Niederflurstraßenbahn ULF, Bahn-im-Film-
6. Standardization in the field of Urban Rail—UITP information Videoproduktion, C. Pühringer, 2009. ISBN: 3950225072
session. https://www.cencenelec.eu/news/brief_news/Pages/TN- 23. UIC Leaflet 650. Standard designation of axle arrangement on
2012-003.aspx. Accessed 24 July 2021 locomotives and multiple-unit sets. 5th edition of 1.1.83
7. Verordnung über den Bau und Betrieb der Straßenbahnen 24. ATM Class 1500. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATM_Class_
(BOStrab). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/strabbo_1987/ 1500. Accessed on 24 July 2021
index.html#BJNR026480987BJNE000902124. Accessed on 24 25. Metro Report International. https://www.railwaygazette.com/
July 2021 metro-report. Accessed 28 July 2021
8. UNI 11174:2014 Rolling stock for tramway and light rail sys- 26. Swanson J, Smatlak J (2015) State of the art in light rail alter-
tems—General requirements and performances native power supplies. APTA/TRB Light Rail Conference. http://
9. UNI 11378:2017 Rolling stock for metropolitan railways—gen- www.heritagetrolley.org/images/State_of_the_Art_in_Light_
eral requirements and performances Rail_Alternate_Power_Supply_11-13-15.pdf. Accessed 28 July
10. Viganò S (2010) Pavimento tutto basso, ne vale sempre la pena? 2021
4 Convegno Nazionale Sistema Tram. http://www.tramroma. 27. Guerrieri M (2019) Catenary-free tramway systems: functional
com/common/letteratura/docs/vigano.htm. Accessed 28 July and cost-benefit analysis for a metropolitan area. Urban Rail
2021 Transit 5:289–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40864-019-00118-y
11. Hondius H (1993) The development of low-floor trams. J Adv 28. Hondius H (2021) ForCity Family spreads its wing. Metro Report
Transp 27:79–102 International. Spring 2021
12. Kolar J (2015) Design of a wheelset drive. Trans Electr Eng 29. New Polish tram debuts in Poznan. https://www.railtech.com/
4:11–19 rolling-stock/2019/08/05/new-polish-tram-debuts-in-poznan/.
13. Capek J, Kolar J (2007) Optimal design of low-floor tram. In: Accessed 28 July 2021
Proceedings of From horse-drawn railway to high-speed trans- 30. First autonomous tram tested in Poland. https://www.railtech.
portation systems, April 17–19, Prague, Czech Republic, com/digitalisation/2020/01/30/first-autonomous-tram-tested-in-
pp 27–30 poland/. Accessed 28 July 2021
14. Richter W, Vemmer F (2007) Gute laufeigenschaften – nur eine 31. Schnaas J, Karl B (2016) Avenio T1—the new tram for Munich.
drehgestellfrage? Einfluss des fahrzeugkonzepts am beispiel der Siemens AG technical article. https://assets.new.siemens.com/
neuen budapester niederflur-strassenbahn. In: Proceedings of 7th siemens/assets/api/uuid:d3d852aaaf03a04a
international conference on railway bogies and running gears, c459ef4b97f3802e22b527fc/aveniot1-munich-technical-article-
Sept. 3–6, Budapest, pp 33–42 en.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2021
15. Panulinová E, Harabinová S, Argalášová L (2016) Tram 32. Späth J, Walcher M (2016) Avenio M. Technical article for
squealing noise and its impact on human health. Noise Health Eurotransport. Siemens AG technical article. https://assets.new.
18:329–337 siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:c92813ee7bbb340ac1677
16. FTA Report No. 0123, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact f1ecdb2934ab8989177/avenio-m-technical-article-en.pdf. Acces-
Assessment Manual, September 2018 sed 28 July 2021

123