Douglas Tramway

Summary

A request was made for minutes from a July 13, 2020 meeting regarding the Douglas Bay Horse Tramway signals, which were partially disclosed with some content redacted. The released minutes detail discussions on signal detection methods, supplier options, and the separation of crossing and point operation systems.

Key Facts

• The meeting was held on Monday, July 13, 2020, via videoconference to review Douglas Bay Horse Tram signals.
• Attendees included the Rail Regulator, Department of Infrastructure staff, and representatives from Burroughs Stewart Associates.
• Discussions focused on replacing RF transponder options with simplified hand-held remotes or traffic loops due to cost and reliability concerns.
• It was decided that tram crossing and point operation/signalling should be two independent systems.
• Future actions include identifying a single traffic control supplier for the Castle Mona crossing using ground loop transponders.

Data Disclosed

• 2020-09-09
• 2020-09-30
• 13th July 2020
• 14.00
• 1464573
• 5 pages
• 2 documents
• 01624 686785

Original Request

I seek the publication of the minutes from the meeting held on Monday July 13 to discuss Douglas Bay Horse Tramway. The meeting is referred to in minutes for the promenade Strategic Project Board Meeting held on July 10.

Data Tables (1)

Data Tables (reformatted)

Full Response Text

Appendix 1 CONFIDENTIAL 1

E:\Burroughs Stewart IoM\Highways\Douglas Promenade\Correspondence & Minutes Oct 17\Rail Regulator\1710-200716-ACB-DPR-Review of DBHT Signals 13July20.doc 1710 DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE ACB DOUGLAS PROMENADE REFURBISHMENT

NOTES OF THE MEETING HELD TO REVIEW THE DOUGLAS BAY HORSE TRAM SIGNALS AT 14.00 ON MONDAY 13th JULY 2020 BY VIDEOCONFERENCE

Attendees:

Mr David Keay, Rail Regulator for Isle of Man Government (DK) Mr Ian Longworth, Director of Transport Services, Department of Infrastructure (IL) Mr Gary Saunders, Construction Manager, Department of Infrastructure (GS) Mr Keith Podmore, Contract Project Manager, Department of Infrastructure (KP) , Asset Engineer, Department of Infrastructure

Mr Alistair Burroughs, Burroughs Stewart Associates (ACB) Mr Mike Davies, Burroughs Stewart Associates (MD)

Actions 1.0 ACB explained that he had called the meeting to review the approach to the Douglas Bay Horse Tram (DBHT), he asked to take the meeting through the approach he had derived from, the meeting in early March.

2.0 advised that based on the previous meeting he had developed a proposal that offered a simplified hand held remote operation in lieu of a favoured IL’s RF transponder option. He said that his current investigations and discussions with suppliers revealed that RF transponder systems are expensive and harder to integrate into a bespoke control, and may not always be reliable.

3.0 DS said that he was aware of IL’s concerns about that safety of using a hand held remote and said that it could perhaps be replaced by a treadle activated by the driver.

4.0 DK said that he felt that for tram detection the use of traffic loops, as used as a traditional highway solution might be the way to go, and that the system was presently in use on the Birmingham Tramway. IL mentioned a system that was installed many years ago, that could detect and determine the difference between an emergency vehicle and a bus. It required a passive equipment located on that tram.

5.0 said that he had spoken his traffic colleagues and they had not proposed a solution, he would consult with them again. He had also spoken to Telent, who held the Department’s framework agreement for the supply of traffic equipment, and they too at not been able to help and had also expressed concerns that transponder systems were not always 100% reliable and were costly. ACB and GS that department’s Framework with Telent was not exclusive and other traffic suppliers could be used to provide crossing control, also the equipment could be brought through the Contract

6.0 IL said that the RF Lag, used by buses / trams to operate the lights were not battery operated, and were reliable to use. Both DK and IL thought that there were cost effective traffic transponder detection equipment available that would be suitable. Certainly a pole with switch in the middle of the road was a non-starter, as it would be knocked over within minutes.

25252525252525 25 25 25 25 CONFIDENTIAL 2

E:\Burroughs Stewart IoM\Highways\Douglas Promenade\Correspondence & Minutes Oct 17\Rail Regulator\1710-200716-ACB-DPR-Review of DBHT Signals 13July20.doc 7.0 DK advised that Peek were the suppliers of the equipment in Birmingham and they would be worth talking to, he would also see if there was other manufacturers that might be considered. IL suggested that may like to make contact with Siemens. LS

DK

8.0 explained that he was proposing Bar signals for the operation of the trams. It was suggested that an LED light should display before the bar moved.

9.0 IL confirmed that he was happy to use line side, pole mounted tag readers for point operation.

10.0 said he was concerned about the available time, not only did the system have to be designed it then had to be made, integrated, installed and tested, in this respect familiarisation and development of the system control equipment needed to be prompt.

11.0 said that he would work with the Department’s Traffic Team to find a supplier, which could provide a holistic tram crossing control using transponders for detection. GS agreed to set up a meeting, , GS and and revert back. GS

12.0 Post Meeting Note:

Going Forward :

 The tram crossing and point operation / signalling are to be two independent systems.  Identify a single traffic control supplier to provide a solution for the Castle Mona crossing, which will utilise ground loop transponders for automatic operation.  Points to be operated using H&K controllers linked to a purpose built signal controller, which is triggered by line side tag readers.

Circulation:

As Present 25 25 25 25 25 2525 25252525252525

Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF

Contact: FOI Response Team/TS/DWG Telephone: (01624) 686785 Email: dpo-doi@gov.im

Our ref: 1464573 30 September 2020

Dear ###

We write further to your request which was received on 9 September 2020 and which states:

"I seek the publication of the minutes from the meeting held on Monday July 13 to discuss Douglas Bay Horse Tramway. The meeting is referred to in minutes for the promenade Strategic Project Board Meeting held on July 10."

We attach the information in Appendix 1. Please note that we have redacted the names of third parties. This is because section s.25 (absolutely exempt personal information) of the Act applies to that information. The reasons why that exemption applies are that: • The Department of Infrastructure is satisfied that the information amounts to personal data of which you are not the data subject|; and • The Department of Infrastructure is satisfied that disclosure of the information would contravene one of the data protection principles as set out in Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation as it applies in the Isle of Man pursuant to the Data Protection (Application of GDPR) Order 2018, namely that the Department of Infrastructure can only disclose the information where it would be fair, lawful and meet one of the conditions for lawful processing in Article 6 and in this case, none of those conditions have been met. Please quote the reference number 1464573 in any future communications.

Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact us and we will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.
In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im. Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi. We will now close your request as of this date.

Yours sincerely

FOI Response Team