budapest`s transport renaissance - All Party Parliamentary Light Rail

BUDAPEST’S
TRANSPORT
RENAISSANCE
A special review in association with
Budapest
A rich transport history and
Budapest’s first fixed Danube crossing, Chain Bridge (Szechenyi lanchid) opened in 1849: tram routes follow both banks at this point.
F
rom a wealth of locations, Europe’s river
cruise operators often lead promotions
with images of Budapest – and with good
reason. Set either side of the wide Danube
(Duna) river in the northern part of central
Hungary, Budapest is hard to resist.
Over a long yet at times tragic history,
the centuries have contributed to one of the
continent’s most attractive cities. When the first
permanent crossing opened in 1849, Széchenyi
Chain Bridge linked the then-separate cities of
Buda on the hilly west bank with the bigger and
mainly level Pest to the east. With Óbuda to the
north-west, the three unified as Budapest in 1873.
By then horse-drawn trams had already operated
for about four years. Electric traction also came
in 1887 in the easier-to-develop Pest, which has
continued as the more populous and economically
active side of the Danube.
The first cross-river tramway used the Margaret
Bridge in 1879, electrified by 1894. Budapest
followed the City and South London Railway (UK)
as the world’s second sub-surface urban railway in
May 1896, still active today as metro line M1.
Titled the Millennium Underground Railway to
celebrate the 1000th anniversary of the area’s
settlement, M1 is included in Budapest’s UNESCO
World Heritage listing. Twentieth Century wars,
uprisings against occupation and economic woes
stemmed development, although Hungary became a
comparatively autonomous part of the Eastern Bloc.
Having a trigger role in the Soviet Union’s
break-up by relaxing border controls with western
neighbour Austria, in May 1990 Hungary held free
parliamentary elections; it prefaced political and
economic realignments that included joining the
European Union in May 2004. This became an
important source of the funding that is helping
to transform Budapest’s public transport, the
rationale being improvements to meet average
standards across the Union.
The EU-supported European Local Transport
Information Service identified that in the 1980s
about 80% of Budapest residents used public
transport for daily journeys. Accelerating with
the demise of Communist control, private vehicle
ownership growth (1990: 212 cars per 1000
inhabitants; 2004: 360 cars per 1000 inhabitants)
saw public transport patronage drop to 60%,
becoming roughly 50:50 by 2010.
Although the narrow streets that contribute to
Budapest’s character abound, arterial roads reach
374 / SEPTEMBER 2014 www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org
into the centre and there are wide arcs around
the eastern side that integrate tramlines. Inviting
road access, capacity limited by Danube bridges
and rising car usage was a recipe for longer
journey times and increased pollution.
An international outlook
Hungary has given the world a wealth of significant
engineers, scientists and artists – one side of an
established two-way process. High on the façade
of Budapest’s biggest railway station, homage is
paid to foreign pioneers of the industrial age with
statues of George Stephenson and James Watt
overlooking the recently rebuilt Keleti forecourt.
In the Hungarian manner of family names before
given names, Clark Ádám tér (Square) honours
the Scottish engineer in charge of building Chain
Bridge (designed by the unrelated English engineer
William Tierney Clark) and Buda tunnel.
Arguably more striking than the British Houses
of Parliament that partly inspired its design, the
Parliament Building on the Danube’s eastern bank
is a key feature in one of Europe’s finest cityscapes.
When Budapest sought to address the capital’s
mobility needs for the 21st Century, after
assessing the very best international systems, it
overcoming modern decline
ABOVE:The northern end of line 2, rebuilt
with the area around the Hungarian
Parliament building.
BELOW: A protected UNESCO site,
M1 infrastructure and rolling stock is very
small by modern metro standards.
was by shared circumstance that a British example
gave reference points for creating an integrated
transport authority. Although on different scales
for population and area, the Hungarian and British
capitals do share high population concentrations
in their respective countries, similarly the role
in their economies. Both feature modern roads
that have been superimposed upon a centuriesold and dense layout. Budapest and London’s
public transport networks also both saw years of
underfunding, with equipment and infrastructure
stretched beyond realistic working lives.
A significant difference is that Budapest has
seen a recent sustained population decline within
the city boundaries, yet this has not made the
transport system any more able to cope as the
distribution of demand has altered, concurrent
with raised public expectations making the
facilities less attractive. With over two million
residents in the late 1980s, political change
triggered Budapest’s 14.3% population fall between
1990 and 2001. The municipality now identifies
1.774 million within its boundaries, with the
metropolitan area (definitions vary) numbering
around 2.5 million, approximately one-quarter of
Hungary’s population.
ABOVE:
Overlooked by
Buda Castle,
Ganz 1318
emerges from
the tightly curved
tunnel beneath
the Chain Bridge
approach.
LEFT: Szabadság
Bridge from a
northbound BKK
Danube ferry, with
Buda (left) and
Pest (right).
www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org SEPTEMBER 2014 / 375
Budapest
BKK: Restructuring
resources and perceptions
L
ooking overseas for reference points
does not indicate a lack of native
expertise or imagination; it was more a
case of Hungary remaining open to the
experiences of others – it also needed to avoid
wasting precious resources on untried methods.
Established as an arm of the Municipality in
October 2010, Budapesti Közlekedési Központ
(BKK), the Centre for Budapest Transport,
acknowledges Transport for London (TfL) as an
approximate model. Although founded as recently
as 2000, the TfL context in-part mirrored that of
Budapest. As once evident in the British capital,
the lack of local centralised power or a planning
and co-ordinating function was not addressing
transport problems, nor did it support the city’s
functioning. On 30 June 2014 the BKK-prepared
mobility plan Balázs Mór Terv (BMT 2014-2030)
was endorsed by the municipal assembly. The plan’s
projections and intentions are to improve the
competitiveness of the city and its surroundings in
an environmentally-sound manner.
BKK’s broad brief is to ensure effective urban
mobility and to unify integrated transport facilities.
This encompasses the modal mix, fares, management
of road space, transport strategies, projects and
funding. Environmental responsibilities include
stimulating cycling and improving conditions for
pedestrians – the manner in which road schemes
were allowed to compromise non-vehicle access
soon becomes evident when walking or transferring
on public transport. BKK also administers
Budapest’s taxis and in 2013 new regulations were
enacted to raise standards. This contributed to a
steep decline in the number of registered taxis, all
of which must now carry a standard yellow livery.
BKK’s headquarters is a short walk from Deák
Ferenc tér, the intersection of the first three
metro lines and a tram terminus. From BKK’s
LEFT: Dávid Vitézy,
Chief Executive of BKK.
BELOW: Space on Károly
körút was reconfigured
to favour pedestrians and
improve appearances;
near the tram terminus
above Deák Ferenc tér
metro interchange.
assumption of responsibilities, the Chief Executive
Officer has been Dávid Vitézy. Budapest-born
in 1985, he displays a clear passion for effective
transport. Operating the services is now the more
tightly defined role of BKV, Budapesti Közlekedési
Zrt., Budapest Transport Company and private
operators selected through competitive tendering.
BKV (www.bkv.hu) was formed in 1968 as a
single entity for management of the city’s trams,
metro, buses, trolleybuses, the suburban railway
and ferries. Previously under state control,
city transport resources passed to Budapest
municipality in 1991 and BKV’s jurisdiction saw
tramway expansion and stock renewal,
rebuilding the original metro and adding two
➤
Adding a new Danube crossing, line 1’s southern extension will add another Kelenföld
connection: the future tram intersection at Etele út/Fehérvári út in June 2014. Courtesy of BKK
376 / SEPTEMBER 2014 www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org
ABOVE LEFT:The governance model of Transport for London and its integration of modes such as metro, tram, bus, ferry and taxi was used
as a model for BKK. ABOVE RIGHT: New information centres are part of the strategy to make the network easier to use.
www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org SEPTEMBER 2014 / 377
Budapest
new lines. By 2009 financial irregularities
connected to transport were making headlines.
BKV’s remit was changed, becoming more
arm’s-length under BKK’s control, remaining
easily the biggest but not the sole operator.
It would be March 2014 and under BKK that
a metro much amended from early planning
opened as line M4.
Despite changes made, underway and
planned by BKK, Mr Vitézy regards the past as
representing the network’s biggest problem.
Although Budapest’s biggest transport event in
years was opening M4, he favours enhancement
over expansion. “There was a lack of investment in
the last few decades; much less than was needed.
There remains a huge need for investment across
the public transport network. Budapest is now
economically stronger, but it is not getting bigger.
We should invest in the current system.”
He points out that until the changes following
Communism’s collapse, the limited supply of
private vehicles had ensured demand for public
transport. With little stimulus for change, the
service was far from user-friendly.
The national population decline that began in
1990 included Budapest, although unlike most
other cities, the capital is now more stable.
Moving out was in part due to there being little
fondness for Budapest’s residential estates, often
built alongside or at the end of the tramlines
installed to support such developments.
Vitézy concludes: “The housing estates that
were built from sections made in factories had
quality problems. Those block houses were
terrible, but for public transport they were good.”
Their location and limited commuting alternatives
ensured demand for trains, trams and buses.
Necessity did not breed affection however.
Post-1990 the opportunities to leave the housing
blocks increased, and many moved to the suburbs
and satellite towns. Some went much further
out where long distance commuting by rail or
road was a realistic option, an overall dispersal
of passenger transport demand that belied
specific modal declines.
Not so fair fares
Along with ageing assets and resources, BKK had
other legacies to address upon its formation, not
least the persistence of falling revenues, as Dávid
Vitézy explains: “Relative to household incomes,
after London, Budapest had the second most
expensive public transport in Europe. Revenue
was dropping although prices were going up we wanted to stop the rounds of fare increases.”
Some in city administration regarded public
transport as troublesome due to the regular
requests for funding to maintain services or
fixing yet another problem. The view was that
if there were bills to be paid, fares should go up
accordingly. In contrast, those then responsible
for the city-owned parking sites were asking for
funding far less often, moreover they kept charges
to the public pegged and therefore the road
users relatively content. It was challenging to
gain acceptance for the notion that fare income
could never meet the full cost of the network’s
existence and operation.
Few would expect policing or education to
be profitable activities, yet public transport
was similarly essential for the city’s well-being.
Overall BKK needed to change perceptions and
show public transport as being valued – and as
representing a valuable asset: “It was important for
us to change the view of transport policy.”
Farebox revenues and other income, including
external funding, goes to BKK. Greater public
transport turnover became the objective, not
through price hikes but by making the offer more
attractive, and to more people. This meant tackling
previous arrangements on several fronts: more
services; faster transit times; more straightforward
or entirely obviated connections; raising vehicle
quality; better information channels; and making it
easier to use the service.
Not only had regular fare increases deterred
transit use, they also lowered the temptation
threshold for non-payment – a 2010 study
indicated network fare evasion at 19%.
The rehabilitation began with fares being frozen
for 2012, followed by some targeted increases in
2013, then reducing pass prices by 10% for 2014.
This policy has helped to arrest the fall in ridership
and net revenues, assisted by new measures for
revenue protection. Rising commitment to public
transport use is indicated by BKK now selling
many more monthly passes than before, something
against the grain of Hungary’s other city networks.
Measures have been introduced to restrict leakage
of potential income from the system, including:
R
estricting bus entry to the front door, with
ticket oversight by the driver.
Increasing the scale and visibility of revenue
protection; a total of 600 such staff are now
employed, with 400 normally on duty on
weekdays. Staff are uniformed and armbands
denote their powers. Checks are done in
groups for security, the ability to cover the
entire vehicle and for providing witnesses in
contested disputes.
‘Human gates’ on the otherwise barrier-free
metro. These are private security staff with
limited powers to inspect and direct would-be
travellers to buy a ticket. They can call upon
BKK officers who may instigate action for
non-payment.
In a category described by BKK as
‘demolishing the obstacles to buying a ticket’
are new multi-lingual vending machines,
a round-the-clock service for tickets and
passes. With 140 by July 2014, the target is
300 installations by the first quarter of 2015.
Like many aspects of the network’s operation,
there is detailed information online at
www.bkk.hu/salespoints
Another avenue for selling tickets, prominent
shop-like Customer Service Points are another
innovation. Following the first at BKK’s city centre
headquarters in 2012, others are at principal
transport hubs and more will follow. With few
foreign arrivals likely to speak Hungarian, two
outlets at Budapest Ferenc Liszt International
Airport have finally removed the mysteries of
using public transport for onward travel.
ABOVE: With technical modification,
the ‘Cogwheel Railway’ (line 60) may be
extended over the tramway to Széll Kálmán
tér for better network integration.
LEFT:The M4 terminus is part of the still
developing Kelenföld transport hub in
Budapest’s most populous district.
378 / SEPTEMBER 2014 www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org
Renewal over expansion
T
he CEO’s support of an upgrading
policy, rather than building new lines,
finds expression in projects now building
upon extant infrastructure. History
introduces irony however, M4 was delivered at
a reported HUF452bn (EUR1.5bn); investment
like this would have gone a long way on other
improvements, had the funds been so deployed.
Such was M4’s gestation – planning from the
1970s, feasibility studies completed in 1996, and
construction starting in 2006 – there was no such
opportunity for BKK.
Dávid Vitézy explains: “M4 was a controversial
project – the go-ahead was decided before the
crisis. When it was planned the traffic problems
were greater than when it finally opened.” As an
example he cites that the end-to-end time saving by
the metro over buses was previously much greater,
but traffic management and road improvements
have since made the modes more comparable.
M4 is, however, a substantial and impressive
network addition that has functioned well since
its opening. As a fixed link between Keleti
and Kelenföld main line stations combining
interchanges with M2 (Keleti) and M3 (Kálvin tér),
it has increased the chances of a long-envisaged
closure of the main line south of Kelenföld,
which ends at Budapest’s underused Déli terminus.
If not entirely appreciated by car drivers, a good
example of the new powers improving public
transport came early in BKK’s existence; the
changing of traffic light operation on the Grand
Boulevard route, containing tramlines 4 and 6, in
2011. Trams were not given priority, but changing
to a shorter 60-second cycle gave greater benefit
to trams, making better progress in their own
space and thereby ready to proceed upon getting
the green, unlike queued cars and buses.
For BKK this was a very effective low-cost
project that yielded 90-120 second shorter
end-to-end journeys on lines 4/6. This may
not sound like much, given that few people’s
journeys would extend over the full route, but as
part of additional tram utilisation techniques it
represented a line capacity increase of around 7%.
June 2013’s record-level flooding in Budapest
illustrated other benefits of having centralised
transport powers, this being necessarily more
ad hoc in response to a sudden emergency.
The Danube started to overwhelm flood defences
that had been built around 100 years previously:
properties were inundated, cars were swept
away, streets were blocked and tramlines were
suspended or shortened.
Vitézy told TAUT: “Everything was changing
every hour – we prepared maps showing
new transport arrangements, but they
became outdated as they became available.
Measures were put in place that couldn’t be done
before, like keeping cars out of the city centre.
We put the emphasis on public transport, a
tough decision, but we changed traffic alignments
overnight and new bus lanes were implemented.
It worked and it kept the city moving on all days.”
Much of BKK’s direction was channelled through
social media, concentrating its efforts on Facebook.
For a while BKK’s own website could not cope –
a resource that has since been strengthened.
The flood peaked on 10 June and transport
returned to normal within two weeks, a strategy
that contributed to a Light Rail Award.
ABOVE: Long-term under-investment has created infrastructure needs around the system.
This is Hidegkuti Nándor Stadion, near the intersection of lines 1 and 37.
ABOVE:The Nagykörút/Grand Boulevard names are applied to the inner arc of roads
around central Pest, hosting a regular stream of 54m Combino trams.
ABOVE: Integrated in a redevelopment,
M3 southern terminus Kőbánya-Kispest
connects with many buses including the
airport link.
ABOVE: Flooding closed the lower Pest
embankment in June 2013, threatening
services on tram route 2.The subway below
the tracks was completely flooded. Dávid Nyitrai
www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org SEPTEMBER 2014 / 379
Budapest
Siemens:
At the
forefront
of the
future
Siemens has a long and
valued involvement with
Hungarian transportation
growth, in both metro and
tramway development,
and the latest installation
of Metro line 4 is no
exception.
Budapest Metro line 4: 7.3km (4.5 miles), ten
stations, one depot. A plan that has been decades
in development, it connects the southern boroughs
of Buda with the centre of Pest, important railway
stations Kelenföld and Keleti pályaudvar and
key traffic junctions. It affects the daily lives of
hundreds of thousands, coming to fruition with the
involvement, technology, and know-how of Siemens.
Siemens has always been at the forefront of
Hungarian industrial and transportation growth,
Siemens supplied automation, safety
and power systems to Metro line 4.
Budapest line M4 has
seen collaboration
from Siemens’ teams
from across Europe.
since 1887 when the company introduced the
first electric tramline on the Budapest Grand
Boulevard. State-of-the-art technology in its era,
the first underground railway on the European
mainland – the Budapest Millennium Underground
– was also designed by Siemens & Halske AG.
The full length of the line was 3.7km (2.3 miles),
with a total tunnel length of 3226m (2 miles).
Trains were electrically equipped by
Siemens & Halske, each bogie containing one
electric motor powering the outer axles.
Built in record time, the first railcar-operated
underground railway in Europe was launched on
the afternoon of Saturday 2 May 1896. As well as
the line itself, the rail vehicles were ahead of their
time with modern, innovative solutions. As such,
the Budapest Millennium Underground was a
world pioneer in many respects, rightly enjoying
major international recognition.
Following further automation, signalling, rail
electrification and rolling stock (Eurosprinter
electric locomotives and Desiro diesel multiple
unit) projects, Budapest Transport Company (BKV)
further contracted Siemens to supply a fleet
of 40 54m long, 320mm entry-height low-floor
Combino Plus trams for lines 4-6 running on the
Grand Boulevard, like their early predecessors.
The first vehicles, their bodies constructed of
welded stainless steel in Siemens’ Vienna factory,
were delivered in 2006, and have since satisfied
customers with excellent availability and kept
millions of passengers happy on the most heavilyused tramline in Budapest.
Siemens has also been responsible for designing,
installing and commissioning the signalling and
CBTC train control systems of the refurbished
east-west Metro line M2, including the installation
of onboard equipment on the newly ordered
380 / SEPTEMBER 2014 www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org
vehicles. This installation had to be implemented
in accordance with the continuous operation of
daily services and the original signalling system
during multiple construction periods. The new
CBTC replaced the former Integra system on
8 December 2013.
Line 4
In September 2006, as the next milestone of
Hungarian transport development, the Budapest
Metro line 4 contract – ‘Integrated systems, power
supply system’ – was awarded to a consortium of
Siemens Zrt. Hungary, Siemens AG of Germany,
and Siemens SAS of France.
The scope of the project covers the installation
and commissioning of the power supply and
signalling systems, CBTC train control and the
communication technologies on line 4 – from
Kelenföld station to Keleti pályaudvar, including the
depot area located besides Kelenföld terminus.
Within the frameworks of the power supply
network, traction power supplements, station
power supplements, and medium voltage
energy distribution systems have been installed,
with the use of cast-resin transformers,
rectifiers, circuit breakers and switchgear cells.
The backbone of the system is the city’s 10kV grid
with eight municipal power network supply points.
All ten stations have been built with a
redundant power supply; furthermore, a unique
10kV fire-retardant and resistant cable has been
specially designed and produced by Siemens and
its partners, developed and manufactured
specifically to fulfill the strict fire safety
requirements on M4.Besides the 51km (32 miles)
of this type of special 10kV cable, switchgear
cells were also designed with a reinforced frame
to protect the operators in case of any malfunction
Advertorial
???
leading to explosion inside the cells. A total of
44 cast-resin transformers were manufactured
in the Budapest factory of Siemens Transformer
Division. Satisfying the current environmental
requirements, the power supply supports
recuperation from trainsets, theoretically able
to generate a 40% energy saving.
A driverless ‘first’ for Hungary
For the first time in Hungary and in Central
and Eastern Europe, driverless trainsets will be
operated along line 4 by CBTC-based automated
train control, assisted by other Siemens-built
communication and power-supply systems.
Onboard automated train control equipment
is in continuous communication with its wayside
counterparts, located in technical rooms either
on the line or in the operation control centre
and with the interlocking system among the
tracks. CBTC-based automated train control
ensures the possibility of remote preparation
and stabling of trains in the depot, and the
automated timetable operation on the line.
Part of the signalling system is the PPE
(Passenger Protection Equipment), which
covers radar-based passenger protection
technology. For example, if a passenger falls
from the platform onto the tracks, PPE detects
the incident and cuts the power supply before
an incoming train arrives. As this is first application
of metro automation in Hungary, the intention
of the operator is to run the trains in driverless
mode from the inauguration, however, in the
first operational year, a train supervisor will
remain onboard in the temporary installed
cabin. After this period, the driver cabin walls
are to be removed and automated operation
without a supervisor will be launched.
Siemens Combino Plus
low-floor trams on
Grand Boulevard.
Siemens communication subsystems not
only provide passenger information, but also
ensure continuous contact between different
channels of supervisory and operational
systems, as well as interfaces between
subsystems such as trains, control, signalling,
and power supply. Quality communication
is guaranteed by the installed TETRA radio
network, with safety and security assistance
provided by CCTV and fire alarm systems,
again built by Siemens and local partners.
Numerous colleagues from different
countries combined their knowledge and
expertise to fulfill this complex and challenging
project. Thanks to their determination, client
and authority testing began in December 2013
and the inauguration of revenue service and
start of the test-in-traffic operation took place
as planned in March 2014.
Rebuilding Budapest’s tramway
The newest project in the Hungarian capital
is the reconstruction of tramlines 1 and 3.
This major project covers the complete
renovation of the tracks, platforms and
power supply systems, and the long-awaited
extension of line 1 to Buda.
Siemens’ scope in this project is to install the
power supply network, transformers, catenary,
power cabling, point heating, platform lowvoltage equipments and electrical equipments.
State-of-the-art power
supply and safety
systems for Metro line 4.
A vision for the future
As Siemens has always been a pioneering,
permanent and participating partner in
Hungarian infrastructural development, the
company is ready to look to the future with its
knowledge, approach and solutions, covering a
wide variety of emerging infrastructural needs
and complex specifications.
Siemens Zrt.
H-1143 Budapest, Gizella út 51-57, Hungary
info.hu@siemens.com
www.siemens.hu
www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org SEPTEMBER 2014 / 381
Budapest
Budapest’s network
in detail
RIGHT:The future face of
Budapest’s tramway: 47 CAF
Urbos 3 low-floor vehicles are
on order in a contract worth
EUR90m, leaving an option for
a further 77 trams. Courtesy of BKK
Colour-coded BKK network maps distinguish modes; they are available at www.bkk.hu/en/maps. With some variations according
to vehicle age, modes have designated livery colours such as tram (villamos) – yellow; bus (busz) – blue; trolleybus (trolibusz)
– red. Metro (metró) lines are less consistent, with M1 in tram yellow, M3 with the original blue stock, and white Alstom
Metropolis on M2 and M4. Set in Budapest’s core tourism area, the network’s Buda Castle Hill Funicular (Sikló) and three of the
four ‘Duna’ ferry lines have strong reliance upon leisure travel, yet all have good connections with more workaday services.
TRAM
With around 157km (98 miles) of revenue route
and over 30 lines/600 stops, Budapest’s tramway is
of world significance. The 1435mm bi-directional
system with 600V overhead supply is present
on both sides of the Danube. A fifth tram river
crossing using the 1995 Rákóczi road bridge will
be added upon completion of the line 1 southern
extension. There are abandoned sections, including
some deemed superfluous as the metro expanded.
With modernisation bringing better connections,
improved comfort and easier access – and with
lower funding and construction time demands
than a metro – the tramway’s role is again growing.
Vitézy says that “Budapest and BKK are very
pro-tram and we want to move forward
with the ‘tram renaissance.’ There is now the
largest investment in 30 years with new trams,
refurbishment and restructuring. We plan to
have more tramway projects.”
Regular Budapest travellers are now
accustomed to amended journeys or seeing
notices about temporary changes around the
city. Projects behind such disruptions include
infrastructure rebuilding on key routes, like those
on line 1 (the northern 8.3km/5.2 miles of which
was partially handed over by contractors on 24
July 2014) and line 3. The complete closure of line
17 is part of the ‘Interconnected tram system
of Buda’ scheme, designed to reduce the
changes required for journeys on the Danube’s
western bank. Rebuilding and new line connections
were planned from June 2014, but procurement
for civil engineering contracts was delayed and
the prospective opening is now in late 2015 with
construction due to start in the autumn of 2014.
BKK’s 2014-2030 plan indicates extensions
at both ends of line 60, the ‘Cogwheel Railway’
that reaches into the Buda Hills; the 3.7km (2.3mile) rack railway that was rebuilt in 1973 serves
residential areas and is significant for
leisure travel. It also forms part of a circuit
combining the former pioneer training Children’s
Railway overseen by MÁV and tramline 61.
At the city end, line 60 would need to be made
compatible with the present lines 59/61 for access
Buda’s Széll Kálmán tér is
due for drastic rebuilding,
although the sound aspects
of its layout will be retained.
382 / SEPTEMBER 2014 www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org
ABOVE: A pair of ex-Hannover TW6000
trams at Mexikói út, interchange between
the 1973-extended M1 and tramway.
LEFT:The rebuilt tram tunnel at Fővám
tér includes a bigger tram stop and
underground access to the M4 metro
station (left).
ABOVE: Hungária depot’s multi-level inspection area.
from the present Városmajor terminus to Széll
Kálmán tér interchange.
Named Moszkva tér (Moscow Square) for
60 years up until 2011, Széll Kálmán tér is a very
important but run-down network hub set for
imminent rebuilding. The shanty-like accretions
will go, but the fundamentally sound layout that
allows bus, tram and metro passengers to transfer
without crossing road traffic will be retained.
Lost years ago to metro M3 coverage but now
demonstrating demand over the route for shorter
surface journeys, trams may again run north of
Deák Ferenc tér to the Lehel tér interchange via
Nyugati station. A tourist favourite due to views
of the Danube and the area around Parliament
Building, the mainly riverside-running line 2 is also
a principal tram route that may have a long
northern extension and M3 interchange.
Lines 1 and 3 are also candidates for extension.
Renumbering is expected with the scale of
changes due on the tram system.
The modernised 8.5km (5.3-mile) Grand
Boulevard route and related 2006-07 acquisition
of 40 54m Siemens Combino Supra Budapest
NF12B remains something of a showpiece.
It demonstrated how trams could handle the
scale of demand often associated with metros,
and at street level.
Effectively paired three-car units, each with
its own pantograph and running back-to-back,
Combino Supras were Budapest’s first, and into
ABOVE: Line and tram stop rebuilding at Örs vezér tere.
2014 only, low-floor trams. They are concentrated
on lines 4 and 6, the latter also the only tram
section of the night network. All are allocated
to Hungária depot, sited near the line 1 and 37
intersection in Pest. It is one of nine depots on
the system. Retaining the original architectural
style, Hungária was modernised and expanded to
receive the Siemens fleet. During 2014 it added six
TW6000 to the allocation and is a base for some
of the active heritage fleet.
Initially beset by issues, the Combinos are
now held in high regard by maintenance staff.
Once down to 38 vehicles due to damage, they
were able to meet the target 36 needed for peak
demand, being the mornings and evenings when
schools and colleges are open.
Away from the Grand Boulevard route, services
are operated by several groups of high-floor
vehicles with varying levels of modernisation.
With over 300 examples, the most numerous tram
type is the Czech ČKD Tatra T5C5 from the early
1980s. The next largest category – around 130 and
with some from the 1960s the oldest – in normal
service are locally-produced Ganz vehicles.
From 2001 BKV introduced around 100
(including donor vehicles) ex-Hannover Düwag/
LHB TW6000 cars (built 1975-82) with batches
coming directly from Hannover or via Den
Haag. Compatible with the German city’s dual
platform height Stadtbahn, the high-floor TW6000
was already suited to Budapest’s street or low
platform boarding. The fleet is mainly deployed
around the tramway’s outer reaches.
In March 2014 a EUR90m contract was signed
between BKK and CAF to supply 37 fully lowfloor Urbos 3 vehicles, since raised to 47 under
the original option for 87 more. Hungary’s second
city Debrecen introduced the Urbos in 2013;
the new fleet for Budapest will initially displace
the Ganz trams.
To meet Budapest delivery deadlines in the
largely EU-funded procurement that was delayed
by an unsuccessful appeal by competitor Škoda,
construction will partly be at the Bombardier
MÁV Dunakeszi plant just north of Budapest.
This has raised the possibility of Hungarian tram
manufacture returning on a more permanent
basis. Spanish-based production should begin in
September 2014, with 30 vehicles available by
the end of 2015. The 12 longer 56m, nine-section
versions (again making Budapest the home of the
world’s longest passenger trams) with a capacity
of over 550 passengers will be introduced on the
rebuilt and extended line 1.
The central of the three eastern orbital
routes, line 1 will initially see one-in-three peak
and one-in-two other services handled by the
new trams. Lines 3, 61 and the forthcoming
integrated Buda routes will be amongst the users
of the 34m, five-section version. Going to several
depots, CAF fleet maintenance will be at the
rebuilt Budafok depot.
➤
www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org SEPTEMBER 2014 / 383
Budapest
METRO
Most of the metro system’s revenue track is below
ground. The lines are not connected, each having a
surface depot. Resembling a sub-surface tramway,
the cut-and-cover built ‘Földalatti’ (Underground)
M1 was restructured and extended by one stop
at its eastern end in 1973. Complete renovation
came for the centenary in 1996, including
restoration of historic decorative features.
A feasibility study was completed for extending
the present 4.4km (2.8-mile) M1, mainly beyond
Mexikói út. The 21 Ganz-MÁVAG three-section
articulated vehicles from 1973 are amongst the
network’s many renewal candidates.
The third-rail ‘red line’ M2 (1970) and ‘blue
line’ M3 (1976) respectively run east-west and
north-south, initially similar and owing much in
design and equipment to Soviet practice.
The 1972 extension of M2 to a total 10.3km
(6.4 miles) was the first metro presence in Buda,
also connecting two of Budapest’s three main line
termini. With the longest surface presence on the
system, M2 was rebuilt from 2004 and the original
Metrovagonmash fleet fully replaced with 22 fivesection Polish-built Alstom Metropolis by 2013.
M3 is Budapest’s longest metro line, reaching
16.5km (10.3 miles) and 20 stations in stages
between 1976 and 1990. At its southern end,
Kőbánya-Kispest has BKK’s biggest park-and-ride
facility and is the line 200E airport bus transfer
point. More serious than M3’s worn and dowdy
surroundings, the infrastructure and vehicles
have deteriorated to a condition now giving
the authorities cause for concern. A renewal
programme costed at EUR600m including stock
awaits finance and approval.
The twin-bore 7.3km (4.6-mile) section of M4
that opened on 28 March 2014 is the first phase
of a line envisaged as extending in both directions
– such expansion does not appear in the new
mobility plan and now seems a distant prospect.
Over such a short line, the ten M4 stations
are close by metro standards, with some sections
between stations at under 500m long. The Danube
tunnel contributes to riverside Szent Gellért
ABOVE: Blaha Lujza tér, one of several metro/tram Grand Boulevard route interchanges.
tér and Fővám tér stations featuring spectacular
escalator access to their deep platforms.
All stations are spacious and bright, with some
elaborately decorated in a style particular to that
one location, contrasting greatly with the faded
‘production line’ features on the intensively used
M3. Details of individual M4 stations and technical
aspects – including an English version – are
available at www.metro4.hu.
The M4 operational base is in a compound
a short walk from the developing Kelenföld
transport hub in Budapest’s heavily populated
District 11. The three main buildings are devoted
to vehicle storage, maintenance and administration
including the lines’ control centre. Track enters the
compound from a tunnel portal by ramps leading
from near the metro station. With only 500m of
surface test track and a 40km/h (25mph) limit, full
vehicle testing is at night over the service lines.
Twelve of the 15-strong four-section,
810-capacity Alstom Metropolis fleet are needed for
peak 2.45-minute frequency; the off-peak interval
is five minutes. Siemens-supplied automatic train
operation is overseen onboard by drivers; from
M4’s opening, the transition to driver-free will be
between eight months and two years, upon which
the temporary cabs will be removed. The Siemens
system would allow a 90-second headway.
There are 400 cameras on the M4 system
including station oversight and aboard trains.
Monitored from the Kelenföld base, normally
there are four staff on duty overseeing traffic,
and one for technical aspects. It is possible to
remotely control trains from the centre.
➤
ABOVE: Szent Gellért tér is the deepest station on M4. Artist Tamás Komoróczky
designed the stunning mosaic decoration of the inner platform area. Varius
LEFT: Access to the deep-level Fővám tér M4 station.
384 / SEPTEMBER 2014 www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org
In an area commemorating the
Polish pope, II. János Pál pápa
tér M4 station is amongst those
with a free-standing entrance.
ABOVE: M2 modernisation brought
replacement of original stock with five-car
Alstom Metropolis: Pillangó utca, one of the
metro’s few surface stations.
ABOVE:Tram and metro-linked railway terminus Deli station in Buda may be nearer to
closure with improved connections down the line at Kelenföld.
ABOVE:The M4 control centre in Kelenföld.
www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org SEPTEMBER 2014 / 385
Advertorial
Creating inspirational spaces
on Budapest Metro4
Zoltán Erő, architect at Palatium Studio, showcases the architectural design that
brought light, style, and individual character down to Budapest Metro line 4.
Szt. Gellért tér
Just three months have passed since Budapest’s
metro line 4 opened, the ten new stations the
result of five co-operating architectural offices
and engineers experimenting with space, structure
and light.
Following a national competition in 2004,
Palatium Studio led the design of the ten stations
for Metro line 4. The architects’ aim was an
attractive, appealing layout for a series of new
public spaces in Budapest through high-quality and
thoughtful design. This aim met the expectations of
the client from the first moment.
A unique style
Although the architects used a common design
language across the whole line, each station is
individual, due to different physical circumstances
and the creativity of the diverse personalities
involved in the project.
We can look at the complex as a building of
ten wings. The underground boxes of the stations
provided an enormous amount of space with
structural elements, such as the large horizontal
supports with their rough, characteristic shape,
being visible. Fair-faced concrete is widely used
for the primary structures, while those elements
closer to the system’s passengers are finished to a
finer degree.
During the design process, the architects made
a real effort to find optimal solutions to the
requirements of construction and transportation
technologies and the creation of artistic spaces.
People using the line in the first days have
given very positive feedback about their spatial
experiences that define the architectural character.
The main construction technologies have been
cut-and-cover boxes bordered by diaphragm walls,
divided into two or more levels by horizontal
supports in the form of beams, slabs, or pressed
rings. To maximise the potential of these large open
spaces, there are a range of different sized openings
to allow natural light from above, ensuring that
stations enjoy a free and airy atmosphere.
Nevertheless, it is functionality that basically
defined our solutions. Considerations of passenger
flow to and from station exits along with the most
important transfer points on the surface defined
the general layout of stations. Certain stations
were even redesigned for a better solution to flow.
For example, the western terminal station
Kelenföld vasútállomás is one of the most
important intermodal exchange points of the
capital, providing direct access via interurban
and commuter trains, interurban and local buses,
and the Metro line 4. Due to construction of
the underground station, the railway station
could be rearranged and renewed as well, making
it an important development area for future
urban projects.
At other important junctions, such as Móricz
Zsigmond körtér and Kálvin tér, the renewal of
the public urban spaces on the surface could bring
new elements for the pedestrian network. In this
way, together with other urban programs, the
construction of line 4 could serve as an essential
element of urban renewal in the inner city areas,
too; Kálvin tér and Fővám tér became new
entrance gates to the historic core of Pest.
Kálvin tér is a junction between line 3 and line 4,
using a connecting tunnel built in the late 1970s.
Similarly, preparations have been made to provide
connections at the same place for the station of a
future underground line 5.
Prerequisites for design
Only partially visible from the stations’ passenger
areas, large ventilation and smoke exhaust systems
were decisive during the spatial design. It is not
surprising that for safety reasons, fire prevention
386 / SEPTEMBER 2014 www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org
Metro line 4 station design
General design:
FŐMTERV – PALATIUM – UVATERV Consortium
General architect responsible for the stations:
PALATIUM Studio
Architects for Kelenföld vasútállomás, Bikás
Park, Újbuda-központ and Kálvin tér stations:
PALATIUM Studio,VPI Építész
Architects for Rákóczi tér station:
Budapesti Építőművészeti Műhely
Architects for II. János Pál pápa tér station:
Puhl és Dajka Építésziroda
Architects for Szt. Gellért tér and Fővám
tér stations: Sporaarchitects
Architects for Móricz Zsigmond körtér and
Keleti pályaudvar stations: Gelesz és Lenzsér
Architects for special solutions:
Mérték Stúdió, Stokplan
became one of the most important issues of
underground architectural work. Each station has
three independent exhaust systems and there
are many built-in water mist fire extinguishing
systems. The very strict fire prevention
regulations already existed in the selection of
building materials.
It is not only natural light that can specially
define architectural spaces, but we have employed
a series of innovative and specific solutions
for artificially lighting the station areas as well.
A high level and a high temperature of general
illumination provides a clear and clean feeling,
while the use of additional coloured lights
results in special effects that give the stations
a unique character.
PALATIUM Studio Ltd
H-1113 Budapest, Badacsonyi u. 13.
studio@palatiumstudio.hu
www.palatiumstudio.hu
HÉV (SUBURBAN RAILWAY)
Connecting Budapest and surrounding districts,
these BKV-operated 1000V standard-gauge
railways are independent of the national MÁV
network. The five HÉV lines with around 98km
(61 miles) of route and 70 stations are known by
their outer destinations, since 2011 designated
as H5-H9. All are on the Pest side except for
riverside H5 with its underground Batthyány tér
terminus in Buda. The oldest stock, Hungarianbuilt, is from the early 1960s. With deliveries over
the next two decades, the majority was by LEW
Hennigsdorf (Berlin) in the former East Germany.
Outdated in most respects, including stepped
access, they are in a generally dilapidated state.
HÉV’s evolution means that they end around
the city centre’s edge and have connection with
trams; the converse view is that they force a
mode change frustratingly close to the centre.
High loadings preclude turning the HÉV lines
into tramway extensions, although BKK identifies
metro integration in its 2014-30 projection.
The strongest case is for the H8 Gödöllői and
H9 Csömöri lines joining metro M2 with a
tunnelled connection. Their surface termini are
now set diagonally across the busy crossroads at
Örs vezér tere, also used by trams and with an
adjacent bus and trolleybus terminus.
In the south of Budapest, extending a combined
southerly H6 Ráckeve and H7 Csepel lines would
need a new underground extension into the centre.
BUS
In 2010 Budapest had the oldest urban bus fleet
in Europe, with an average age of 17 years for
around 1360 vehicles. There are two shades of
blue on city buses: generally the elder are dark
blue and grey; the newer light blue.Yellow or white
buses are regional services extending inside the
city. Around a third of services are now run by
non-BKV operators, with BKK allowed to tender
a two-thirds maximum. Irrespective of operator, all
are in BKK colours, with the private concerns paid
according to distance operated. Through tendering
BKK has been able to hasten the increase of low-
ABOVE: Ending at Boráros tér interchange, HÉV line 7 is the rail link for the populous
northern end of Csepel Island.
floor buses. The aim is for an all low-floor bus fleet
by 2018; 600 high-floor remained in summer 2014.
Budapest will have its first hybrid bus fleet, 28
articulated Volvo buses, entering regular revenue
service in the autumn of 2014 to be operated by a
private operator. The procurement procedure has
also recently closed for a fleet of fully electric buses
to serve the historic Buda Castle district by 2015.
There is a policy of mixing old and new buses
on routes. This enables inserting some low-floor
access onto a route (shown on the timetable), also
to even out the benefits and drawbacks rather than
areas having wholly high or low quality vehicles.
This policy may be extended to the tramway, with
the possibility of the Combinos seeing wider use
and some line 4/6 services reverting to older stock.
TROLLEYBUS
Introduced in 1933, there are 15 trolleybus lines in
Budapest’s 73km (45-mile) system, all on the Pest
Set in the Buda Hills, the elegantly styled Hűvösvölgy
interchange acts as a tramway railhead for commuters.
side of the Danube and including the city
centre. In 2011 the trolleybus fleet amounted to
5.6% of the total vehicles in the city network
and carried a similar proportion of its passengers.
As with trams and buses, good quality
second-hand trolleybus stock has been used to
maximise the network budget.
In 2012 BKV bought 14 Gräf & Stift/
MAN trolleybuses from the Eberswalde
system in north-eastern Germany; procurement
of new vehicles was delayed following a challenge
by Škoda, but the process for an initial 24
vehicles has now been re-started. Like the
rail modes, BKV will remain the sole
trolleybus operator.
The mode has a definite future in Budapest,
however, with Dávid Vitézy summarising the
policy: “We will be expanding the network
with some extensions, but not in a big way.
It’s not viable to build a new system, but
maintaining and improving what you have
makes sense.”
T5C5 tram 4287 and Ikarus trolleybus 253, both built in the 1980s at
Lehel tér, a location that may regain a tram service from the city.
All words and images by Neil Pulling unless otherwise stated.
Grateful thanks are due to Dávid Vitézy and Tamás Kajdon of BKK and Áron Pálvölgyi of BKV in the preparation of this special supplement.
www.tramnews.net . www.lrta.org SEPTEMBER 2014 / 387