Medium Sized Cities with Heavy Rail Metro Potential

William3000 · 13 Apr 2025

Following the proposal for the Cornwall Metro

Which cities or towns could lend themselves to a metro type service based on a core city or town in a way that could significantly increase passenger usage without having major operational knock on effects?

Southampton and Exeter seem possible contenders with an advanced suburban rail network

Norwich another using mainly existing infrastructure with some new stations, increased frequencies, etc
Line 1: Bittern Line - Norwich to Cromer/Sheringham half hourly (possible new stations at Broadland Business Park and Rackheath) - longer term extension to Holt on heritage line?

Line 2: North Wherry Line - Norwich to Great Yarmouth via Acle half hourly (possible new station at Postwick Park & Ride)

Line 3: North Wherry Line (Berney Arms branch) - Norwich to Great Yarmouth via Reedham (2 hourly)

Line 4: South Wherry Line - Norwich to Lowestoft half hourly with new station at Postwick and additional platform at Oulton Broad North for East Suffolk Line

Line 5: Breckland Line - hourly to Thetford in addition to existing longer distance services but with new east facing bay at Thetford. Then hourly services calling at Norwich Trowse, Hethersett, Wymondham, Spooner Row, Attleborough, Eccles Road, Harling Road, and Thetford. Eccles Rd, Harling Row, Spooner Row would no longer serve Cambridge/Stansted AirPort trains which would continue to stop at Wymondham and Attleborough.

Line 6: Mid Norfolk Line - Norwich to Dereham hourly with trains calling at Norwich Trowse, Hethersett, Wymondham, Thuxton, and Dereham. Non heritage services wouldn’t stop at Wymondham Abbey, Kimberley Park, or Thuxton.

RailUK Forums

Zomboid · 13 Apr 2025

As an Oxford area resident it's occurred to me that if the Cowley branch is reopened and the proposed Witney line is built then a set of local services linking Didcot/ Cowley with Charlbury/ Witney would look nice on a timetable brochure. There's also a non-zero chance of a station to serve a proposed huge development near Kidlington on the Cherwell valley line, so that might want to participate.

As it stands Cowley to OXP may end up with a kind of metro, if the Marylebone trains run down there. And Oxford to OXP will be very frequent once EWR is running in full.

Magdalia · 13 Apr 2025

William3000 said:
Which cities or towns could lend themselves to a metro type service based on a core city or town in a way that could significantly increase passenger usage without having major operational knock on effects?

Southampton and Exeter seem possible contenders with an advanced suburban rail network

Coincidentally I have been thinking about Exeter today, and the progress that they have already made. Reopening Okehampton attracts the attention but the 2tph Exmouth-Paignton service is excellent use of existing infrastructure for a small city. They have already opened new stations with ambitions for more, notably going towards Taunton.

I looked at Southampton recently following a discussion on reopening to Fawley. Southampton already has the lines and stations, it just needs a complete timetable overhaul to give through running from one side of the city to the other.

I am very surprised that you have not mentioned Cambridge. Ely-Cambridge already carries Metro levels of traffic, and the other routes into Cambridge are busy too. The opening of the new Cambridge South station next year brings a Metro running north-south a step nearer, though Cambridge will soon need a fourth station near to Coldham Lane or Barnwell. On the north side a better place to terminate is needed to replace Cambridge North: the new station at Waterbeach or Ely are both options. On the south side terminating facilities for short distance services could be at a new station at Whittlesford or next to the A11 having reopened the first part of the Haverhill branch. The proposals for the Cherry Hinton turnback (in the last East West Rail consultation) also open up the possibility of a south west-east route from Baldock or Royston to Newmarket, with new stations at Cherry Hinton and Fulbourn. This would be a far more realistic objective than the light rail fantasy being promoted by most of the candidates in the forthcoming mayoral election, and would complement the existing and proposed busways.

Dr Day · 13 Apr 2025

Heavy rail metros can only really work properly if there aren’t any other trains to get in the way such as inter-cities or freights, and there is sufficient density of population and employment hence demand and revenue to support the relatively high operating costs of heavy rail compared with buses and trams.

Bristol has some potential for a ‘turn up and go’ metro service (which to me is at least 6 tph) but the infrastructure to support it reliably around everything else and the operating costs may make it a struggle to stack up.

Cardiff is trying but has a lot of ongoing cost now baked into it, which potentially means some of the original ambition may not be realisable.

BranstonJnc · 13 Apr 2025

Magdalia said:
Coincidentally I have been thinking about Exeter today, and the progress that they have already made. Reopening Okehampton attracts the attention but the 2tph Exmouth-Paignton service is excellent use of existing infrastructure for a small city. They have already opened new stations with ambitions for more, notably going towards Taunton.

I looked at Southampton recently following a discussion on reopening to Fawley. Southampton already has the lines and stations, it just needs a complete timetable overhaul to give through running from one side of the city to the other.

I am very surprised that you have not mentioned Cambridge. Ely-Cambridge already carries Metro levels of traffic, and the other routes into Cambridge are busy too. The opening of the new Cambridge South station next year brings a Metro running north-south a step nearer, though Cambridge will soon need a fourth station near to Coldham Lane or Barnwell. On the north side a better place to terminate is needed to replace Cambridge North: the new station at Waterbeach or Ely are both options. On the south side terminating facilities for short distance services could be at a new station at Whittlesford or next to the A11 having reopened the first part of the Haverhill branch. The proposals for the Cherry Hinton turnback (in the last East West Rail consultation) also open up the possibility of a south west-east route from Baldock or Royston to Newmarket, with new stations at Cherry Hinton and Fulbourn. This would be a far more realistic objective than the light rail fantasy being promoted by most of the candidates in the forthcoming mayoral election, and would complement the existing and proposed busways.

Cambridge is absolutely the missing bit. If someone had been smart enough to four-track Shepreth Branch Jn to Cambridge station, you could have opened a station at Cherry Hinton by David Lloyd to terminate up to 12 car trains, and also re-open round the back to Fen Ditton and the A14, also for 12 car trains. That way, nothing either from the West Anglia Main Line, or the Royston route, terminates in Cambridge and continues 'somewhere'.

Cambridge North also available for stuff from the south to run through and terminate, as well as your Birmingham - Cambridge / Norwich - Cambridge stuff. From Newmarket Road, passing Coldham Lane Jn, to Cambridge, to Long Road, have at least three tracks and all fully-flexible to have stuff running all over and not necessarily tangling itself up.

That way you are probably able to get half-hourly to Cherry Hinton, half-hourly to Fen Ditton, half-hourly to Cambridge North (probably all through from London), and leave the shorter bay platforms at the south end for EWR which would be approaching from 'that side' from Shepreth Branch Jn anyway.

Bletchleyite · 13 Apr 2025

If it wasn't for East West Rail, you could build the Denbigh Hall Chord and have a metro style service on the Marston Vale to MKC post HS2. However EWR probably rules that out now, with the "5 stations" plan the most likely one.

William3000 · 13 Apr 2025

I’ve always wondered whether virtually unused platform 2 at Fareham could be the terminus for a cross Southampton service:

Fawley, Hythe, Marchwood, Totton, Redbridge, Millbrook, Southampton Central, St Deny’s, Bittern, Woolston, Sholing, Netley, Hamble, Bursledon, Swanwick, Fareham service.

And could Southampton Terminus be reintroduced into a metro style two platform service with an addition station at St Mary’s Stadium/Northam.

Southampton has so many lightly used suburban stations that could benefit hugely from a more frequent service. All are in heavily populated areas and while it would likely be undesirable to stop long distance services at them, they could form the backbone of a heavy rail metro system similar to that proposed in Bristol.

Magdalia · 13 Apr 2025

Dr Day said:
a ‘turn up and go’ metro service (which to me is at least 6 tph)

That may be an appropriate benchmark in big cities, but it is over ambitious for smaller cities, where the traffic volume is a bit lower and the pace of life is a bit slower.

Here in the Fens, I can only think of 3 Cambridge bus routes that have 6 bph.

4 tph is a much more realistic objective. Ely-Cambridge already has that. Royston-Cambridge is now 6 tph morning peak, 5tph evening peak and 4tph all day.

BranstonJnc said:
If someone had been smart enough to four-track Shepreth Branch Jn to Cambridge station

This is in the plan for East West Rail, as set out in the recent consultation. Also an extra through platform 9 at Cambridge.

BranstonJnc said:
you could have opened a station at Cherry Hinton by David Lloyd to terminate up to 12 car trains

This will become an option if the East West Rail proposal for the Cherry Hinton turnback comes to pass, as set out in the recent consultation.

AlastairFraser · 13 Apr 2025

BranstonJnc said:
Cambridge is absolutely the missing bit. If someone had been smart enough to four-track Shepreth Branch Jn to Cambridge station, you could have opened a station at Cherry Hinton by David Lloyd to terminate up to 12 car trains, and also re-open round the back to Fen Ditton and the A14, also for 12 car trains. That way, nothing either from the West Anglia Main Line, or the Royston route, terminates in Cambridge and continues 'somewhere'.

Cambridge North also available for stuff from the south to run through and terminate, as well as your Birmingham - Cambridge / Norwich - Cambridge stuff. From Newmarket Road, passing Coldham Lane Jn, to Cambridge, to Long Road, have at least three tracks and all fully-flexible to have stuff running all over and not necessarily tangling itself up.

That way you are probably able to get half-hourly to Cherry Hinton, half-hourly to Fen Ditton, half-hourly to Cambridge North (probably all through from London), and leave the shorter bay platforms at the south end for EWR which would be approaching from 'that side' from Shepreth Branch Jn anyway.

If the infrastructure permitted, once EWR opened in full, could we have a Cambridge "Metro" with 2 routes every 30 mins?
Route A would be Tempsford-Cambourne-Cambridge South-Cambridge-Cambridge North-Waterbeach-Ely.
Route B would involve a rebuilt Haverhill branch, so Haverhill-Linton-Shelford-Cambridge South-Cambridge-Cherry Hinton (reopened)-Dullingham-Newmarket-(reinstated western curve at Chippenham Junction)-Soham-Ely.
This would seem like a reasonable use of capacity to supplement longer distance EWR services, provide a direct link for the 30k+ within a few miles of a station on the reinstated Haverhill branch into Cambridge, and also provide Soham/Cherry Hinton with a decent link into Cambridge.

brad465 · 13 Apr 2025

Plymouth must be in with a shout. The Gunnislake branch already does this, and if Tavistock ever got reopened that would enhance the branch patronage. Then if a station or two were built at Plympton this could serve as a decent Park & Ride into the city centre, plus potentially reopening the railway to Yealhampton to at the very least serve Plymstock.

Grecian 1998 · 13 Apr 2025

William3000 said:
I’ve always wondered whether virtually unused platform 2 at Fareham could be the terminus for a cross Southampton service:

Fawley, Hythe, Marchwood, Totton, Redbridge, Millbrook, Southampton Central, St Deny’s, Bittern, Woolston, Sholing, Netley, Hamble, Bursledon, Swanwick, Fareham service.

And could Southampton Terminus be reintroduced into a metro style two platform service with an addition station at St Mary’s Stadium/Northam.

Southampton has so many lightly used suburban stations that could benefit hugely from a more frequent service. All are in heavily populated areas and while it would likely be undesirable to stop long distance services at them, they could form the backbone of a heavy rail metro system similar to that proposed in Bristol.

Not much of the railway through Southampton is four track - just the mile or so between Millbrook and Central, and then a short section south of St Denys. Southampton Central itself only has 4 platforms, the centre two of which are used by the Portsmouth stopper and Brighton terminator for layovers. Southampton Tunnel is a major bottleneck. As the routes are used by a lot of heavy freightliner trains in addition to the intensive passenger service, I can't see there being much desire to introduce more stopping services.

The Southampton - Portsmouth line isn't as intensively used and isn't very fast due to the multiple sharp curves but still has 2 tph running non-stop as far as Swanwick. Getting services through Southampton Central without delaying express or freight services would seem to be the main challenge given that for long periods each hour only two lines are clear.

Southampton Terminus isn't electrified and there's no realistic chance of extending the third rail. I'm not sure that passenger trains going over the level crossings at Chapel Road and Canute Road would be particularly welcome. There are still some long freight trains trundling over the crossings at 20mph, but I understand they all come to a stop beforehand to ensure the crossing is clear. Not going to be popular on a passenger service.

The Ham · 14 Apr 2025

Creating better connectivity within the Aldershot Urban Area (similar sized population to Plymouth) would be relatively easy.

First step would be a station on the Reading/Guildford line near to Frimley station (probably would need to be paired with electrification) to allow a short walking route between the two.

On the Ascot/Aldershot line there's scope for extra stations at Watchmoor Park and near to Old Dean, both opening up catchments which are otherwise a long way from existing stations.

Once a grade separated junction to allow trains to run between Frimley and Farnborough Main, there's scope to run 2tph between Ascot and Basingstoke. That would give 4tph (with existing services) between Ascot and Frimley as well as (minimum frequency) for the existing stations between Basingstoke and Farnborough Main.

You could then open new stations on the line between Basingstoke and Farnborough Main, these could include Old Basing, Fleet West, Southwood (near BMW's offices).

Whilst you may not want to stop the London services at those new stations (or if you do you may be looking to swap an existing stop for a stop at the new station, for example Winchfield may reduce to an hourly direct service to Waterloo but with a stopping pattern of 3tph) if the wait at Farnborough Main isn't too long it'll still be faster than the current Basingstoke Stoppers.

Of course, as the Basingstoke Stoppers has a near 30 minute turn around at Basingstoke it's possible to add in those three stops anyway (+6 minutes) and still have a greater than 15 minute turn around.

A S Leib · 14 Apr 2025

How difficult would it be to increase the remaining stations near Brighton where it isn't already the case to 4 tph (London Road and Moulsecoomb are 2 tph, Aldrington and Fishergate are 1 tph, East Worthing is 2 tph; I think Hassocks and Preston Park are currently both 2 tph each towards Brighton and Hove and Wivelsfield only having 2 tph excluding Eastbourne services)? The main issue I can think of is slowing down Brighton to Southampton services too much or making them too unreliable.

For Middlesbrough / Teesside, I think the main thing preventing the semi-fast Newcastle service from being hourly is currently a lack of drivers or trains, not infrastructure. Three tph to Saltburn is possible, given that TPE Manchester Airport services (briefly) made it there (and a few per day still do). I'd increase the Newcastle semifast to hourly, have a second Darlington to Bishop Auckland service (I don't know if that would need doubling between Darlington and Heighington or past Shildon), have a second hourly Middlesbrough – Nunthorpe service (either starting there or joined with another) and increase Whitby to Middlesbrough to at least once per two hours. I don't know whether a regular Hartlepool – Darlington service could be fit in on top of those and everything else (Grand Central Sunderland and TPE Redcar services, and intercity routes through Darlington).

Magdalia · 14 Apr 2025

AlastairFraser said:
If the infrastructure permitted, once EWR opened in full, could we have a Cambridge "Metro" with 2 routes every 30 mins?
Route A would be Tempsford-Cambourne-Cambridge South-Cambridge-Cambridge North-Waterbeach-Ely.
Route B would involve a rebuilt Haverhill branch, so Haverhill-Linton-Shelford-Cambridge South-Cambridge-Cherry Hinton (reopened)-Dullingham-Newmarket-(reinstated western curve at Chippenham Junction)-Soham-Ely.
This would seem like a reasonable use of capacity to supplement longer distance EWR services, provide a direct link for the 30k+ within a few miles of a station on the reinstated Haverhill branch into Cambridge, and also provide Soham/Cherry Hinton with a decent link into Cambridge.

Absolutely, though I would do it somewhat differently.

The EWR proposals in the last consultation would deliver 4 tracks Shepreth Branch Junction-Cambridge, a new through platform 9 at Cambridge, and the potential for restoring double track on the Newmarket line. Taken together, I think this makes a Cambridge Metro feasible.

My north-south route would be Ely or Waterbeach-Cambridge North-Cambridge-Cambridge South-Shelford-Sawston-Babraham. This involves reinstating about 5 miles of railway, where most of the trackbed is still intact. Going further towards Haverhill gets very expensive because of the cost of crossing the A11 and the amount of development on the trackbed in Linton and Haverhill. Alternatively trains could run through to/from a rebuilt Whittlesford Parkway. Sawston (which is one of Cambridgeshire's biggest villages) would still get a station, though on the other side of the village.

My west-east route would be Baldock or Royston-Meldreth-Shepreth-Foxton-Cambridge South-Cambridge-Cherry Hinton-Fulbourn-Dullingham-Newmarket. Going beyond Newmarket is not going to be feasible because of the single track Warren Hill tunnel. It is also important to have Royston-Meldreth-Shepreth-Foxton in the Metro. I would also have a parkway station near the A11 at Six Mile Bottom if Whittlesford is favoured over Babraham at the south end of the other route.

I would keep EWR out of the Metro, especially as the only stations out of Cambridge City will be Cambourne and Tempsford. As has been suggested above, the EWR trains are ideal for the south end bays at Cambridge.

I would also have another new station in Cambridge either near Coldham Lane or near Barnwell. The former has the advantage of serving both Waterbeach/Ely and Newmarket routes.

Sad Sprinter · 14 Apr 2025

Damn where are my Google Earth maps…

Dore to Doncaster has potential. As does the corridor through Leicester

Maltazer · 14 Apr 2025

I came up with this crayon-special a few years ago (before EWR spoiled things by choosing the other route into Cambridge)

The distances involved might be a bit far to count as a Metro though!

AlastairFraser · 14 Apr 2025

Magdalia said:
Absolutely, though I would do it somewhat differently.

The EWR proposals in the last consultation would deliver 4 tracks Shepreth Branch Junction-Cambridge, a new through platform 9 at Cambridge, and the potential for restoring double track on the Newmarket line. Taken together, I think this makes a Cambridge Metro feasible.

My north-south route would be Ely or Waterbeach-Cambridge North-Cambridge-Cambridge South-Shelford-Sawston-Babraham. This involves reinstating about 5 miles of railway, where most of the trackbed is still intact. Going further towards Haverhill gets very expensive because of the cost of crossing the A11 and the amount of development on the trackbed in Linton and Haverhill. Alternatively trains could run through to/from a rebuilt Whittlesford Parkway. Sawston (which is one of Cambridgeshire's biggest villages) would still get a station, though on the other side of the village.

My west-east route would be Baldock or Royston-Meldreth-Shepreth-Foxton-Cambridge South-Cambridge-Cherry Hinton-Fulbourn-Dullingham-Newmarket. Going beyond Newmarket is not going to be feasible because of the single track Warren Hill tunnel. It is also important to have Royston-Meldreth-Shepreth-Foxton in the Metro. I would also have a parkway station near the A11 at Six Mile Bottom if Whittlesford is favoured over Babraham at the south end of the other route.

I would keep EWR out of the Metro, especially as the only stations out of Cambridge City will be Cambourne and Tempsford. As has been suggested above, the EWR trains are ideal for the south end bays at Cambridge.

I would also have another new station in Cambridge either near Coldham Lane or near Barnwell. The former has the advantage of serving both Waterbeach/Ely and Newmarket routes.

Some of your ideas are decent (new stations at Fulbourn+ Coldwell Lane), but the reason for direct services to Haverhill is the poor quality of the roads nearby mean that you have to build to at least the fringes to see a decent enough journey time reduction to attract enough passengers.

Same with the direct link to Soham. It may mean slower journey times if you had to path around that single track tunnel, but the direct service is crucial to attract enough passengers to make the investment worthwhile.

brad465 · 14 Apr 2025

Reading (technically a town but larger than other cities suggested) with the following suggestions:

- Double the frequency to Bracknell from 2-4tph, with the additional 2tph terminating there. Bracknell is a large town with a poor service for its patronage, so would benefit from a better link to Reading (more paths to London probably don't exist). Also improves the frequency at Wokingham to 6tph.
- Make Didcot, Newbury and Basingstoke outer limits. The former two already have 2tph stopping, with some non-stop runs on top), the latter could become 2tph stopping all day if electrification/battery stock and faster accelerating BEMUs are deployed to the route.

AlastairFraser · 14 Apr 2025

brad465 said:
Reading (technically a town but larger than other cities suggested) with the following suggestions:

- Double the frequency to Bracknell from 2-4tph, with the additional 2tph terminating there. Bracknell is a large town with a poor service for its patronage, so would benefit from a better link to Reading (more paths to London probably don't exist). Also improves the frequency at Wokingham to 6tph.
- Make Didcot, Newbury and Basingstoke outer limits. The former two already have 2tph stopping, with some non-stop runs on top), the latter could become 2tph stopping all day if electrification/battery stock and faster accelerating BEMUs are deployed to the route.

Sadly capacity on the GWML/SWR Reading line is the limiting factor here. I suspect you could increase the frequency on the North Downs line as far as Farnborough or North Camp to provide better journey opportunities Reading to Wokingham and the Blackwater Valley.

brad465 · 14 Apr 2025

AlastairFraser said:
Sadly capacity on the GWML/SWR Reading line is the limiting factor here. I suspect you could increase the frequency on the North Downs line as far as Farnborough or North Camp to provide better journey opportunities Reading to Wokingham and the Blackwater Valley.

Where is the capacity problem on the SWR Reading line? There's not really much if any freight through there, and I've deliberately avoided going too far east to become a capacity problem with other services into Waterloo. Granted Bracknell would probably need a new platform in my hypothesis, but between Ascot and Wokingham is only 2tph in each direction currently. If you think there is space on the NDL for additional services south, then Wokingham-Reading section but can't be at capacity currently.

PGAT · 14 Apr 2025

brad465 said:
Where is the capacity problem on the SWR Reading line? There's not really much if any freight through there, and I've deliberately avoided going too far east to become a capacity problem with other services into Waterloo. Granted Bracknell would probably need a new platform in my hypothesis, but between Ascot and Wokingham is only 2tph in each direction currently. If you think there is space on the NDL for additional services south, then Wokingham-Reading section but can't be at capacity currently.

I’m almost certain 4tph to Reading existed pre-covid

cle · 14 Apr 2025

brad465 said:
Reading (technically a town but larger than other cities suggested) with the following suggestions:

- Double the frequency to Bracknell from 2-4tph, with the additional 2tph terminating there. Bracknell is a large town with a poor service for its patronage, so would benefit from a better link to Reading (more paths to London probably don't exist). Also improves the frequency at Wokingham to 6tph.
- Make Didcot, Newbury and Basingstoke outer limits. The former two already have 2tph stopping, with some non-stop runs on top), the latter could become 2tph stopping all day if electrification/battery stock and faster accelerating BEMUs are deployed to the route.

Reading (along with Brighton) sort of has what the OP asked for. Bays for local stoppers (terminus for Brighton technically!) and local service groups for which Reading/Brighton are the main draws. Whereas some of the Cambridge, Oxford, etc ones are really making hay out of the tail end of London services. Much riskier for delays too.

Reading could in theory have 2tph Newbury/Bedwyn, 3tph Basingstoke, 2tph Didcot/Oxford slow... plus SWT (those are London services) - but the North Downs could really be seen as a commuter route too. Several stitched together really.

AlastairFraser · 14 Apr 2025

brad465 said:
Where is the capacity problem on the SWR Reading line? There's not really much if any freight through there, and I've deliberately avoided going too far east to become a capacity problem with other services into Waterloo. Granted Bracknell would probably need a new platform in my hypothesis, but between Ascot and Wokingham is only 2tph in each direction currently. If you think there is space on the NDL for additional services south, then Wokingham-Reading section but can't be at capacity currently.

I think the issue is with terminating platform and crossovers at Bracknell.
If you built that, then sure, otherwise the services would have to go further towards London and end up exacerbating the existing problems with level crossings in the Feltham and Staines area.
The reason I suggested sending them down to North Camp is the potential for an M3 Junction 4 parkway at Hawley with a bay for terminating services to siphon off traffic that would head towards Reading from J3 on the A322/A329(M) and get stuck in queues at Cemetery Junction. Continuing one junction further south west and then parking up at this station with a sub 30 min journey time into Reading would seem sensible.

Magdalia · 14 Apr 2025

AlastairFraser said:
the reason for direct services to Haverhill is the poor quality of the roads nearby mean that you have to build to at least the fringes to see a decent enough journey time reduction to attract enough passengers.

I don't agree, because it isn't just about Haverhill. What needs to be on the Metro also include Sawston village, Granta Park, Babraham Institute, and an A11 parkway. Haverhill will be served more cost effectively by a busway to the A11 parkway.

AlastairFraser said:
Same with the direct link to Soham. It may mean slower journey times if you had to path around that single track tunnel, but the direct service is crucial to attract enough passengers to make the investment worthwhile.

I disagree here too. The tunnel does not have sufficient capacity to serve both towards Bury and Ipswich, and towards Soham and Ely, especially if Felixstowe to East West Rail becomes an important route for freight. Newmarket stands on it own without Soham (which is only a bit bigger than Sawston) because of proposed developments at Cherry Hinton, Capital Park at Fulbourn, and traffic from/to Newmarket.

Grimsby town · 14 Apr 2025

A S Leib said:
For Middlesbrough / Teesside, I think the main thing preventing the semi-fast Newcastle service from being hourly is currently a lack of drivers or trains, not infrastructure. Three tph to Saltburn is possible, given that TPE Manchester Airport services (briefly) made it there (and a few per day still do). I'd increase the Newcastle semifast to hourly, have a second Darlington to Bishop Auckland service (I don't know if that would need doubling between Darlington and Heighington or past Shildon), have a second hourly Middlesbrough – Nunthorpe service (either starting there or joined with another) and increase Whitby to Middlesbrough to at least once per two hours. I don't know whether a regular Hartlepool – Darlington service could be fit in on top of those and everything else (Grand Central Sunderland and TPE Redcar services, and intercity routes through Darlington).

I think Middlesbrough is a no brainer for metro system based on the heavy rail network. Most of the local rail network is lightly used and doesn't rely on using major intercity routes. My preference would be for a heavy rail metro service using tram trains to allow for future extensions but conventional battery EMUs could be an option. I'd electrify Saltburn to Hartlepool as part of the project. I'd run the follow services:

2 tph Nunthorpe to Hartlepool
4 tph Saltburn to Darlington

So not overly ambitious frequencies to begin with so that it could be largely accommodated with existing or planned infrastructure with limited additonal interventions above new rollingstock and electrification. This would allow acceleration of Whitby/Newcastle to Middlesbrough services.

swt_passenger · 14 Apr 2025

Grecian 1998 said:
The Southampton - Portsmouth line isn't as intensively used and isn't very fast due to the multiple sharp curves but still has 2 tph running non-stop as far as Swanwick. Getting services through Southampton Central without delaying express or freight services would seem to be the main challenge given that for long periods each hour only two lines are clear.

The Southampton to Fareham section via Netley has longer than normal 2 aspect signal sections and I believe since the second fast SN service was added, and with the existing GWR fast service, then there is no space for another all stations service. Even if you could achieve a second stopper somehow that’s hardly a metro service.

I’m also not convinced there’d be any point in looking at improving the service frequency at Redbridge and Millbrook, they don’t really serve the wider named areas as they’re hard up against the docks and are both on the wrong side of the A35. Even with Fawley reopened I doubt they’d ever be busy stations.

The exile · 14 Apr 2025

Dr Day said:
Heavy rail metros can only really work properly if there aren’t any other trains to get in the way such as inter-cities or freights, and there is sufficient density of population and employment hence demand and revenue to support the relatively high operating costs of heavy rail compared with buses and trams.

Bristol has some potential for a ‘turn up and go’ metro service (which to me is at least 6 tph) but the infrastructure to support it reliably around everything else and the operating costs may make it a struggle to stack up.

I think in a heavily congested city a heavy rail metro - with the implication that the distances likely to be travelled on it are that much further - can easily consider a 15 (or even 20) minute frequency "turn up and go". It's the next level down - underground or tram-network, sadly lacking in most UK cities - where the closer spacing and shorter journeys raise passenger expectation that much more about what a decent frequency is.

The exile said:
I think in a heavily congested city a heavy rail metro - with the implication that the distances likely to be travelled on it are that much further - can easily consider a 15 (or even 20) minute frequency "turn up and go". It's the next level down - underground or tram-network, sadly lacking in most UK cities - where the closer spacing and shorter journeys raise passenger expectation that much more about what a decent frequency is. If we're really serious about getting people of of their cars in a big way, then we've got to bite the bullet and set about providing all large conurbations with a comprehensive network at that "middle level". As things stand, not even Greater Manchester is getting close...

Dr Day · 14 Apr 2025

In relation to the ideal frequency, much depends on the journey time into the city centre. Folk can argue the relationship but for roughly 45 minutes away from the centre 2tph ‘feels’ reasonable, but for a five minute hop just missing one and then having to wait 30 minutes for the next one feels disproportionately infrequent, and buses may be a better choice both for the funder and the user depending on local circumstances.

IMHO Metro networks tend to work better if the closer-in places are served by more than one route, and destinations in their own right.

Personal opinion again, but I’m sure I’m not alone amongst ‘normals’ with the word ‘metro’ setting off images in my head of the Parisian underground hence a typically non-public timetable service where if you just miss a train another one will be along in a few minutes, not 2 tph or even 3tph where you would want to be aiming for a specific timed departure.

cle · 14 Apr 2025

Where geography (natural, or bad/no roads/strategic rail bridges) make sense, you can see quite 'metro' style uptake of routes into not-huge places. Wellington NZ is a great example - smaller place (admittedly a capital - big fish / small pond) where rail follows valleys and in the case of Masterton, is lucky enough to benefit from a tunnel that roads can't compete with.

Our problems are more narrow / older road networks, ringroads and park & rides which mean car commuting (and bus jams) are terrible ideas for some of our quainter, older and desirable smaller cities - Oxford, Cambridge, Bath, Norwich, York, Chester to a degree. Caveat of some having the railway a bit out of the centre.

Or if part of a mainline, and there is a default TUAG service. Haywards Heath / Burgess Hill into Brighton, for instance. Worthing and Lewes - Brighton corridors also have this, for instance - augmented by shuttles and some London service along the corridor.

Magdalia · 14 Apr 2025

cle said:
Where geography (natural, or bad/no roads/strategic rail bridges) make sense, you can see quite 'metro' style uptake of routes into not-huge places.

I agree that geography is a significant factor.

Getting around Cambridge is very heavily constrained by geography. The old City is effectively enclosed by the river and the railway, with only a limited number of bridges, that might as well be gates in a city wall. Furthermore, almost all roads are single carriageway and some of a width only really suitable for horse powered transport. The rail network is the only way of cutting through this (apart of course from cycling, which has many more river bridges, and an additional rail bridge).

Southampton and Brighton are other good examples of small cities with big geographical constraints.

Medium Sized Cities with Heavy Rail Metro Potential

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member