Should certain light rail lines be converted back to heavy rail?

[PTR 444]

With all the talk of heavy rail lines being converted for use by trams, perhaps it’s time to turn the question on its head and find out if there are any existing light rail lines that could be converted back to heavy rail.

The routes that most quickly jump to mind are the four Metrolink corridors which were mostly built on old railway alignments, so the Bury, Altrincham, Oldham and East Didsbury routes. If these were converted to heavy rail, connecting with the rest of the National Rail network would be a non-starter due to Castlefield, so a metro-like operation with a city centre tunnel beneath Manchester would make the most sense here.

Are there any other tram or light rail lines which you think would be better off as heavy rail, either as a standalone metro or physically integrated with the National Rail network?

 

[Bletchleyite]

None.

What would make sense, as you say, would be to take Metrolink's "pre metro" nature to the next stage, and put some of the ex-railway routes into a Den Haag style Tramtunnel under Manchester, on a cut and cover basis, and using new 4 car (or even longer) light rail units such as Stadler Metros instead of the trams. This would free up street level capacity for more "street running" type services.

However I would leave them with Metrolink to operate; it is cheaper than heavy rail.

 

[507020]

Yes. Manchester should effectively have a 3 tier system. The existing street-running Metrolink core section for light rail trams on street-running tram lines e.g. Eccles, MediaCityUK, Ashton-under-Lyne, The Trafford Centre, Manchester Airport, the existing lines through Castlefield, Victoria, the Ordsall Chord and the main shed at Piccadilly for only the most prestigious long distance services and a new Picc-Vic tunnel, taking National Rail local stopping services e.g. Southport (and many others but I can’t be bothered listing them all) off Castlefield and putting them into the new tunnel, along with the former heavy rail Metrolink lines to Bury, Altrincham and East Didsbury definitely, which would then have an upgraded higher capacity higher speed service that could carry bikes. Control of these lines wouldn’t necessarily need to be taken away from TfGM. The Oldham loop is more complicated since it has street running sections in Oldham and Rochdale, so either these should be separated to become pure street-running lines or some tram service should be retained in between heavy rail metro services using the original alignment. Another new tier of services could then be overlayed for new HS2/HS3/NPR infrastructure.

 

[Ken H]

Yes. Manchester should effectively have a 3 tier system. The existing street-running Metrolink core section for light rail trams on street-running tram lines e.g. Eccles, MediaCityUK, Ashton-under-Lyne, The Trafford Centre, Manchester Airport, the existing lines through Castlefield, Victoria, the Ordsall Chord and the main shed at Piccadilly for only the most prestigious long distance services and a new Picc-Vic tunnel, taking National Rail local stopping services e.g. Southport (and many others but I can’t be bothered listing them all) off Castlefield and putting them into the new tunnel, along with the former heavy rail Metrolink lines to Bury, Altrincham and East Didsbury definitely, which would then have an upgraded higher capacity higher speed service that could carry bikes. Control of these lines wouldn’t necessarily need to be taken away from TfGM. The Oldham loop is more complicated since it has street running sections in Oldham and Rochdale, so either these should be separated to become pure street-running lines or some tram service should be retained in between heavy rail metro services using the original alignment. Another new tier of services could then be overlayed for new HS2/HS3/NPR infrastructure.

Thats basically what they envisaged for picc-vic in the 60's -70's.
I would see a Y tunnel. One branch towards Salford Crescent. Another branch towards miles platting to take in Staybridge and Rochdale, and also Bury. In the south the lines would go to Stockport and the airport.
Grade separation for Slade lane too.
A bit unbalanced tho...

Crayons away....

 

[A0wen]

Yes. Manchester should effectively have a 3 tier system. The existing street-running Metrolink core section for light rail trams on street-running tram lines e.g. Eccles, MediaCityUK, Ashton-under-Lyne, The Trafford Centre, Manchester Airport, the existing lines through Castlefield, Victoria, the Ordsall Chord and the main shed at Piccadilly for only the most prestigious long distance services and a new Picc-Vic tunnel, taking National Rail local stopping services e.g. Southport (and many others but I can’t be bothered listing them all) off Castlefield and putting them into the new tunnel, along with the former heavy rail Metrolink lines to Bury, Altrincham and East Didsbury definitely, which would then have an upgraded higher capacity higher speed service that could carry bikes. Control of these lines wouldn’t necessarily need to be taken away from TfGM. The Oldham loop is more complicated since it has street running sections in Oldham and Rochdale, so either these should be separated to become pure street-running lines or some tram service should be retained in between heavy rail metro services using the original alignment. Another new tier of services could then be overlayed for new HS2/HS3/NPR infrastructure.

A recipe for 20 years of complete and utter disruption to Manchester with a bill which makes HS2 look like small change for negligible benefits.

 

[bramling]

None.

What would make sense, as you say, would be to take Metrolink's "pre metro" nature to the next stage, and put some of the ex-railway routes into a Den Haag style Tramtunnel under Manchester, on a cut and cover basis, and using new 4 car (or even longer) light rail units such as Stadler Metros instead of the trams. This would free up street level capacity for more "street running" type services.

However I would leave them with Metrolink to operate; it is cheaper than heavy rail.

The Manchester situation is an awkward one to be honest.

Metro link is certainly successful and popular, but it has certain drawbacks - it’s not quick (especially now it has further transitioned from being a light rail rapid transit system to more of a tramway), and it isn’t great from a capacity point of view either. Pre-Covid at least it was common for people to have to stand for journeys as long as Radcliffe to Manchester, and on top of that there’s little room for belongings.

So good though Metrolink is, something like Merseyrail is a million times better.

But short of building something like the Picc-Vic tunnel, trashing what’s been done over the last three decades, and designing an urban/suburban rail network from a clean start at massive cost, I’m not sure what could really be done. On that basis Metrolink seems here to stay.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail is certainly better, but it also eats subsidy at one of the highest rates per passenger kilometre in the whole country, only I think second to Island Line. Metrolink by contrast breaks even. Thus if you accept Metrolink you can do a lot more for the same money.

 

[507020]

A recipe for 20 years of complete and utter disruption to Manchester with a bill which makes HS2 look like small change for negligible benefits.

How would the benefits of reducing the Castlefield problems we have now be negligible. The only solution is additional infrastructure.

Merseyrail is certainly better, but it also eats subsidy at one of the highest rates per passenger kilometre in the whole country, only I think second to Island Line. Metrolink by contrast breaks even. Thus if you accept Metrolink you can do a lot more for the same money.

In what way is a Merseyrail type operation more expensive to run than a Metrolink one? The 507/508/777 vehicles aren’t actually any heavier than T68/M5000 ones and they run similar distances on rails etc.

 

[A0wen]

In what way is a Merseyrail type operation more expensive to run than a Metrolink one? The 507/508/777 vehicles aren’t actually any heavier than T68/M5000 ones and they run similar distances on rails etc.

Staffing - Merseyrail trains are 2 man operation, whereas Metrolink is 1 man.

Stations, most of Metrolink's stations are unstaffed whereas most of the Merseyrail network stations are staffed. Also Metrolink's newer stations tend to be of a "low maintenance" variety in terms of buildings shelters etc, whereas Merseyrail is very much heavy rail in terms of most of its buildings.

Power draw - the M5000s have a power output of 640hp, the 777s are about 2000hp.

Weight wise the M5000s are lighter - a single M5000 is about 40 tonnes a 4 car 777 is ~100 tonnes, so even if you doubled up an M5000 it's about 20% lighter.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Merseyrail is certainly better, but it also eats subsidy at one of the highest rates per passenger kilometre in the whole country, only I think second to Island Line. Metrolink by contrast breaks even. Thus if you accept Metrolink you can do a lot more for the same money.

They should reintroduce Wolverton-Newport Pagnall as a tram

 

[A0wen]

They should reintroduce Wolverton-Newport Pagnall as a tram

Which since the topic thread is :

Should certain light rail lines be converted back to heavy rail?​

And Wolverton - Newport Pagnell doesn't even exist as anything - your post seems a bit OT ?

 

[Ken H]

Staffing - Merseyrail trains are 2 man operation, whereas Metrolink is 1 man.

Stations, most of Metrolink's stations are unstaffed whereas most of the Merseyrail network stations are staffed. Also Metrolink's newer stations tend to be of a "low maintenance" variety in terms of buildings shelters etc, whereas Merseyrail is very much heavy rail in terms of most of its buildings.

Power draw - the M5000s have a power output of 640hp, the 777s are about 2000hp.

Weight wise the M5000s are lighter - a single M5000 is about 40 tonnes a 4 car 777 is ~100 tonnes, so even if you doubled up an M5000 it's about 20% lighter.

surely the big cost increase is the fact that merseyrail is in deep tunnels, therefore requiring staffing. But there again the Brussels pre-metro stations seem to manage being largely unstaffed. But they are subsurface - dunno if that matters.

 

[A0wen]

surely the big cost increase is the fact that merseyrail is in deep tunnels, therefore requiring staffing. But there again the Brussels pre-metro stations seem to manage being largely unstaffed. But they are subsurface - dunno if that matters.

Well, 5 of Merseyrail's 68 stations are in tunnels - so the vast majority are not. Staffing 5 stations probably doesn't cost a huge amount in the scheme of things, staffing 68 does.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In what way is a Merseyrail type operation more expensive to run than a Metrolink one? The 507/508/777 vehicles aren’t actually any heavier than T68/M5000 ones and they run similar distances on rails etc.

A few things.

• Traincrew: Metrolink is DOO and drivers are not particularly well paid compared with Merseyrail
• Station staffing: Metrolink none, Merseyrail for full period of service at almost all stations (2 shifts at each I think, possibly 3?)
• Cheaper infrastructure
• No tunnels

You could of course deal with the first two on Merseyrail, but just wait until the RMT hear about it

surely the big cost increase is the fact that merseyrail is in deep tunnels, therefore requiring staffing. But there again the Brussels pre-metro stations seem to manage being largely unstaffed. But they are subsurface - dunno if that matters.

More that the law is different in different countries. Hamburg's U-Bahn has no staffed stations whatsoever, for instance, and some (e.g. U2) are in deep tunnels.

They should reintroduce Wolverton-Newport Pagnall as a tram

It would be cool, but the money would be better spent on giving MK something vaguely approaching an acceptable bus service; it's not like there's a major congestion problem, and in the small number of places where there is bus lanes would fix it.

 

[bramling]

Merseyrail is certainly better, but it also eats subsidy at one of the highest rates per passenger kilometre in the whole country, only I think second to Island Line. Metrolink by contrast breaks even. Thus if you accept Metrolink you can do a lot more for the same money.

Merseyrail is one of the few rail systems outside London that actually has the feel of a London-style operation. The only others I would include in this are Strathclyde, and - to a lesser extent extent - West Yorkshire. In terms of quality, this is streets ahead of Manchester.

Metrolink is a good thing, but it’s still very much a half-hearted substitute for a proper suburban rail network. Really the population density and economics of Greater Manchester should be able to justify something better.

As I said before, Metrolink has changed significantly since inception. When it was run by T68s, largely segregated outside the centre, and signalled, it gave the feel of a rapid transit network that just happened to cross the city centre on tram lines. By contrast the whole network has got bigger, but now feels like a tramway. A network of heavy rail lines feeding into a central core through the city would be far better, albeit - as you say - massively more expensive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail is one of the few rail systems outside London that actually has the feel of a London-style operation. The only others I would include in this are Strathclyde, and - to a lesser extent extent - West Yorkshire. In terms of quality, this is streets ahead of Manchester.

Don't forget the Tyne and Wear Metro, which is basically a textbook German style U-Bahn (the original vehicles even look German U-Bahn in style despite being British built by MetCamm) and would be more than acceptable for Manchester, and no doubt far cheaper (for the above reasons) than Merseyrail. It also has a similar feel to the DLR to give you the London connection.

 

[507020]

• Cheaper infrastructure
• No tunnels

You could of course deal with the first two on Merseyrail, but just wait until the RMT hear about it

Staffing I’ll take but this is what I don’t understand. In what way is the infrastructure cheaper? There are actually very few tunnels on Merseyrail and the ones that there are have proved much cheaper to operate than the bombed out remains of the Liverpool Exchange and Central termini. Third rail is also cheaper to maintain than overhead.

Don't forget the Tyne and Wear Metro, which is basically a textbook German style U-Bahn (the original vehicles even look German U-Bahn in style despite being British built by MetCamm) and would be more than acceptable for Manchester, and no doubt far cheaper (for the above reasons) than Merseyrail. It also has a similar feel to the DLR to give you the London connection.

Again I don’t understand why the Merseyrail is any different to the Tyne and Wear Metro, let alone the Metrolink. They have both ordered the same replacement rolling stock, despite one being “light” and the other being “heavy” with no distinction.

 

[A0wen]

A few things.

• Traincrew: Metrolink is DOO and drivers are not particularly well paid compared with Merseyrail
• Station staffing: Metrolink none, Merseyrail for full period of service at almost all stations (2 shifts at each I think, possibly 3?)
• Cheaper infrastructure
• No tunnels

You could of course deal with the first two on Merseyrail, but just wait until the RMT hear about it

Bit in bold - you sure about that ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bit in bold - you sure about that ?

OK, there are a very few (just the Bury line?). Perhaps I should have said "no lengthy underground sections with underground stations".

 

[tomuk]

Don't forget the Tyne and Wear Metro, which is basically a textbook German style U-Bahn (the original vehicles even look German U-Bahn in style despite being British built by MetCamm)

"Metro-Cammell responded by forming a liaison with Duewag in order to access those elements of vehicle technology not then in use in the UK "
P H Watts
GEC Alsthom Metro-Cammell Limited, Washwood Heath, Birmingham

 

[willgreen]

None. The level of contempt for light rail on this forum is baffling, especially from people who don't live in the area but are disappointed that they can no longer get a through ticket to x destination. Light rail conversions have provided a service improvement - in terms of frequency, stock, and accessibility - that heavy rail simply couldn't within a reasonable budget, and it's not worth spaffing hundreds of millions up the wall so that Bury can simultaneously remain on the national rail network and have a train every 12 minutes.

 

[Arkeeos]

In Manchester I think it is inevitable that the old heavy rail lines are converted into a proper metro, with underground tunnel. since the city centre is already crammed with trams and its not like Manchester's population is going to get any smaller.

A tram tunnel has also been mentioned in the 2040 transport strategy report, so the lines getting "heavier" again is likely to happen.

 

[bramling]

None. The level of contempt for light rail on this forum is baffling, especially from people who don't live in the area but are disappointed that they can no longer get a through ticket to x destination. Light rail conversions have provided a service improvement - in terms of frequency, stock, and accessibility - that heavy rail simply couldn't within a reasonable budget, and it's not worth spaffing hundreds of millions up the wall so that Bury can simultaneously remain on the national rail network and have a train every 12 minutes.

Having used the various provincial systems over the years, there’s a number of elements to them I find less satisfactory:

* Lack of capacity - it’s not uncommon to find trams absolutely crush-loaded at times, and this is absolutely no joke if you have belongings with you - there is very little space for belongings, and little room to move around once the tram is crowded
* Lack of capacity - even a double tram formation on Metrolink doesn’t provide a massive amount of capacity, especially in terms of seats
* Speed - with the exception of Tyne & Wear all the systems are quite slow in terms of journey time.

Don't forget the Tyne and Wear Metro, which is basically a textbook German style U-Bahn (the original vehicles even look German U-Bahn in style despite being British built by MetCamm) and would be more than acceptable for Manchester, and no doubt far cheaper (for the above reasons) than Merseyrail. It also has a similar feel to the DLR to give you the London connection.

Yes fair point about T&W, that had slipped my mind. Indeed there’s even a question mark about whether they are light rail at all - they’re more akin to heavy rail in most ways.

 

[willgreen]

Having used the various provincial systems over the years, there’s a number of elements to them I find less satisfactory:

* Lack of capacity - it’s not uncommon to find trams absolutely crush-loaded at times, and this is absolutely no joke if you have belongings with you - there is very little space for belongings, and little room to move around once the tram is crowded
* Lack of capacity - even a double tram formation on Metrolink doesn’t provide a massive amount of capacity, especially in terms of seats
* Speed - with the exception of Tyne & Wear all the systems are quite slow in terms of journey time.

Both of these points are fair but they're also both true of heavy rail, and the slower light rail systems / lines are typically ones built on-street (e.g. Nottingham) and so aren't directly comparable to heavy rail systems either.

 

[MattRat]

Some might say it's not light rail, but I'm putting it forward anyway because why not: The Stourbridge Town Branch line, operated by the class 139.

It's a novelty and non standard design. On paper it might look good, but a 153 would have done the job just fine, and did so before the 139s entered service.

While the 153 might also end up being considered non standard of course, it does at least share a lot of parts with other Sprinters, and even if you discount the 153, any 2 car DMU could do the job, even if currently (emphasis on currently) it might be slightly overkill.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes fair point about T&W, that had slipped my mind. Indeed there’s even a question mark about whether they are light rail at all - they’re more akin to heavy rail in most ways.

It's a fairly arbitrary distinction really that's of little interest to most normal customers. There is a kind of convergence occurring anyway in vehicle designs, with 'heavy' vehicles becoming lighter while the heavier end of the 'light' world becomes heavier through tram-train products. T&W original cars were based mechanically entirely on the well-established German 'Stadtbahn B' design used on partially segregated high or mixed floor light rail routes. The body and cab design was adapted by Metro Camell for the non street-running Metro application; a little wider than typical light rail to suit the preexisting traditional UK platforms, and having no street-legal running and turn signal lights, nor wheel-covering lower bodyside skirts. The extension to Sunderland, interrunning with other heavy rail traffic including freight, can be considered to be the UK's first de facto 'tram-train' implementation, as the Metro vehicles are definitely tram-based, even if they can't go on the road.

 

[javelin]

The OP illustrates the issue. The few lines that are now light rail are generally more appropriate as metro lines rather than part of the national network.

The question is if government is going to fund the infrastructure required for a frequent heavy metro operation outside London. QTWTAIN.

Another issue is by the time a light rail network has developed to sufficient size, extracting lines from the system and converting them to metro gets more complicated. Ultimately tram-train operation might make the gradual conversion easier by maintaining interoperability.

 

[LLivery]

I was just looking at the Brierley Hill extension, and I can't help but think a high-frequency (6tph) LO-style service from Brownhills/Walsall to Stourbridge Jun would've been better. I might change my mind if they end up tram-training up to Walsall and down to Stourbridge, however.

I wouldn't reconvert any Manchester routes back, but I wouldn't keep converting them to light rail either. I think Gtr. Manchester is 'grown up' enough for a Kleinprofil rapid transit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Gtr. Manchester is 'grown up' enough for a Kleinprofil rapid transit.

If by that you mean an U-Bahn, then converting more lines to Metrolink but putting the faster ex-rail ones underground still using light rail vehicles is likely to be the better way. Metrolink is in many ways more a pre-metro than a pure tramway, and so it can naturally become an actual metro.

 

[daodao]

With all the talk of heavy rail lines being converted for use by trams, perhaps it’s time to turn the question on its head and find out if there are any existing light rail lines that could be converted back to heavy rail.

The routes that most quickly jump to mind are the four Metrolink corridors which were mostly built on old railway alignments, so the Bury, Altrincham, Oldham and East Didsbury routes. If these were converted to heavy rail, connecting with the rest of the National Rail network would be a non-starter due to Castlefield, so a metro-like operation with a city centre tunnel beneath Manchester would make the most sense here.

Are there any other tram or light rail lines which you think would be better off as heavy rail, either as a standalone metro or physically integrated with the National Rail network?

NO, NO, NO, NO.

A recipe for 20 years of complete and utter disruption to Manchester with a bill which makes HS2 look like small change for negligible benefits.

Well said.

The priority should be more heavy to light rail conversions, in particular the ex-GC suburban lines to the SE of Manchester (linking in with the tram services currently termination at Piccadilly), and the South Fylde line (south of Starr Gate/Squires Gate).