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

[miklcct]

The whole premise of this thread overlooks the fundamental reason why heavy rail lines were converted to light rail in the first place, namely to save money by:

1. reducing running costs; and
2. increasing patronage and thus revenue by better frequency and penetration of urban centres.

These objectives have largely been achieved with the UK examples and those wishing a reversal are living in "la-la" land. The alternative to conversion would have been closure.

If the light rail is overloaded, it should be converted to heavy rail to increase capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the light rail is overloaded, it should be converted to heavy rail to increase capacity.

Would be easier just to run longer light rail units!

 

[miklcct]

Would be easier just to run longer light rail units!

There is a limitation of how long a light rail unit can be, because of level crossing. A longer unit takes longer time to clear a level crossing, and if there are too many long light rail trains, it can cause congestion at level crossings.

Such systems will definitely be needed to convert to a light metro, which by definition is completely segregated from road traffic.

 

[The Planner]

There is a limitation of how long a light rail unit can be, because of level crossing. A longer unit takes longer time to clear a level crossing, and if there are too many long light rail trains, it can cause congestion at level crossings.

Such systems will definitely be needed to convert to a light metro, which by definition is completely segregated from road traffic.

Surely the same applies to heavy rail? Longer trains amd longer barrier down due to the increased strike in times. A tram is going to stop quicker than a D/EMU.

 

[miklcct]

Surely the same applies to heavy rail? Longer trains amd longer barrier down due to the increased strike in times. A tram is going to stop quicker than a D/EMU.

There shouldn't be any level crossing on electrified heavy rails in my opinion. They are just too dangerous.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

Those four Metrolink lines have been extensively modified to light rail standards, such that the cost of converting them back to heavy rail would be eye watering. There are gradients that are too steep and curves that are too tight for heavy rail. Subways and footbridges have been replaced by uncontrolled level crossings, not permitted on a heavy rail line. The original alignment of the Altrincham line at Cornbrook Junction is buried under a main road. On the Oldham line, viaducts and embankments have been demolished to bring the line down to ground level, with road crossings at grade, controlled by traffic lights. The Oldham line has been diverted on street through Oldham town centre and the old tunnel at Oldham Mumps has been backfilled, as has the tunnel at Trafford Bar that used to connect the South District (now E Didsbury) line to Throstle Nest Junction. Additional stations have been built on all the lines, with platforms that are too short for heavy rail trains.

 

[RT4038]

Those four Metrolink lines have been extensively modified to light rail standards, such that the cost of converting them back to heavy rail would be eye watering. There are gradients that are too steep and curves that are too tight for heavy rail. Subways and footbridges have been replaced by uncontrolled level crossings, not permitted on a heavy rail line. The original alignment of the Altrincham line at Cornbrook Junction is buried under a main road. On the Oldham line, viaducts and embankments have been demolished to bring the line down to ground level, with road crossings at grade, controlled by traffic lights. The Oldham line has been diverted on street through Oldham town centre and the old tunnel at Oldham Mumps has been backfilled, as has the tunnel at Trafford Bar that used to connect the South District (now E Didsbury) line to Throstle Nest Junction. Additional stations have been built on all the lines, with platforms that are too short for heavy rail trains.

So the answer is that these Metrolink lines have got to become hugely, hugely busier before conversion (back) to heavy rail could be considered.

 

[A0wen]

If the light rail is overloaded, it should be converted to heavy rail to increase capacity.

But if you used Altrincham as an example, that currently has at least 5 trams / hour heading towards Manchester - if you converted that back to heavy rail at 4 tph, where are you going to send 4 trains to once they get to Cornbrook?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

But if you used Altrincham as an example, that currently has at least 5 trams / hour heading towards Manchester - if you converted that back to heavy rail at 4 tph, where are you going to send 4 trains to once they get to Cornbrook?

Isn't the frequency on the Altrincham Metrolink tram line somewhat more than 5 trams per hour (each way) during the week, isn't it maybe actually twice as much? (Departures every six minutes).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't the frequency on the Altrincham Metrolink tram line somewhat more than 5 trams per hour (each way) during the week, isn't it maybe actually twice as much? (Departures every six minutes).

It's 10 - 5 to Bury and 5 to Piccadilly.

If you wanted to increase capacity substantially, the way to go with most Metrolink lines wouldn't be to go back to heavy rail, but rather to stick it underground in the city centre and run much longer light rail trains, as you would no longer have the constraint of needing them shorter for street running. Most German U-Bahnen run light rail trains that would be equivalent to 8.M5000 in the peaks. Even on the street running sections you could bring in longer trams with better seating capacity, or at least buy more M5000s so everything is a double set.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Even on the street running sections you could bring in longer trams with better seating capacity, or at least buy more M5000s so everything is a double set.

Agree with you there, but I'd be right in saying that much of the Manchester Metrolink system hasn't been built to cope with anything longer than 4 car trams?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree with you there, but I'd be right in saying that much of the Manchester Metrolink system hasn't been built to cope with anything longer than 4 car trams?

4 car is probably the most you can reasonably do due to street running, and so yes, all the stations were built for 4-car max. However what I more meant was single-unit 4-car trams so everything would be 4-car; there's still a fair bit of 2-car running.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

There shouldn't be any level crossing on electrified heavy rails in my opinion. They are just too dangerous.

The 3rd rail route between Brighton and Havant is bestrewn with level crossings. How many deaths have there been in the past few years?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 3rd rail route between Brighton and Havant is bestrewn with level crossings. How many deaths have there been in the past few years?

Level crossings are probably the most dangerous aspect of heavy rail, but that's in the context of heavy rail being a very, very safe mode of transport. It makes sense to progressively remove them but not to panic over it.

 

[MarkyT]

Level crossings are probably the most dangerous aspect of heavy rail, but that's in the context of heavy rail being a very, very safe mode of transport. It makes sense to progressively remove them but not to panic over it.

Exactly, and risk is variable based on local characteristics. Where all trains stop and supervision of full barriers by CCTV, a local attendant or train crew is implemented, the risk is significantly lower than (say) a busy main road AHB on a 100mph mainline or an unprotected occupation or footpath crossing.

4 car is probably the most you can reasonably do due to street running, and so yes, all the stations were built for 4-car max. However what I more meant was single-unit 4-car trams so everything would be 4-car; there's still a fair bit of 2-car running.

South Wales Metro is planning to run tram-trains up to 100m long, admittedly on fully segregated infrastructure, initially. That sort of length can be compatible with light rail style grade crossings and roadside operation. It's mainly where lanes are shared with other road traffic, and the resulting potential blocking back through closely spaced junctions where length problems arise.

 

[Greybeard33]

South Wales Metro is planning to run tram-trains up to 100m long, admittedly on fully segregated infrastructure, initially. That sort of length can be compatible with light rail style grade crossings and roadside operation. It's mainly where lanes are shared with other road traffic, and the resulting potential blocking back through closely spaced junctions where length problems arise.

In Manchester city centre, there are road crossings controlled by traffic signals where consists longer than the current 56m would be problematic in respect of the time a slow moving tram takes to cross the road. It is these crossings, particularly Peter Street/Oxford Street, that ultimately limit the capacity of the city centre tracks. Analysis has shown that with more than about 45tphpd, it would not be possible to get enough road traffic over the crossing without excessive delays to the trams.

In crowded pedestrianised areas of the city centre, long, frequent, slow moving trams are a barrier to pedestrian circulation and can tempt impatient people to dash across the tracks, assuming that the driver will be able to give way to them.

 

[Purple Orange]

If a light rail metro line has been proven to he a success after conversion from heavy rail, I see no reason to change it back.

I would not change the Tyne & Wear metro lines at all. Instead I'd seek to expand the network.

The Manchester Metrolink, as others have alluded to, could be changed, but not back to heavy rail. If anything that network should be converted to a cross between the Tyne & Wear Metro for the Altrincham, East Didsbury, Bury lines with the addition of Glossop, Marple, Wigan via Atherton and Warrington. It would need two tunnels under Manchester city centre.

The remaining metrolink network should continue using the on-street network with tram-trains. Therefore you end up with a joined up network using two types of fleet (light rail metro trains and tram-trains).

 

[Gareth]

I do think a split where the more rail-like lines go into a tunnel and the rest become a more traditional tramway could be the way it evolves, long term. Ideally, the latter would be converted to low floor but that'd be some task.

 

[BingMan]

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.

AS one who remember travelling on trams in Leeds in my youth I think of trams as replacements for buses not heavy rail. The fact that they run on steel rails doesn't make them railway engines.

Indeed, looking at tramways around the country, I often wonder why such an inflexible system has been chosen over, for example, trolley buses or guided buses

 

[Howardh]

The Manchester situation is an awkward one to be honest.

Like London, any map of our confusing mess of systems, not to mention fares, would bemuse a visitor. In a relatively small area (compared to London) we have bus, heavy rail, trams and guided busways and the map looks a dog's breakfast. Add to that metrolink is being extended year-on-year.

Not sure of Burnham's future plans r/e ticketing, but I would like metrolink stations to be treated like BR ones, so you can have a return ticket from Westhoughton to Bury for example.

Bury itself needs reconnecting to the National rail (IMO) and speakign to locals at the football they seem a bit fed up with metrolink - "slow", "unsafe" (both stations and units) and also "expensive" and I'm sure many want heavy rail back, which to Victoria I would think is possible.

On the plus side it's easy to get from Bury around Gtr Manchester (but not Bolton!) using Metrolink but the longer distance journeys take ages, and many involve a change anyway, so no different from changing from a train at Victoria.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Not sure of Burnham's future plans r/e ticketing, but I would like metrolink stations to be treated like BR ones, so you can have a return ticket from Westhoughton to Bury for example.

You can already effectively buy a return ticket from Westhoughton to/from Bury Mtlk. See following link...

Look up fares for any train journey in Britain

Full details of all British rail Single, Return & Season tickets and Travelcards. Built-in Season Ticket Calculator.

www.brfares.com

 

[Howardh]

You can already effectively buy a return ticket from Westhoughton to/from Bury Mtlk. See following link...

Look up fares for any train journey in Britain

Full details of all British rail Single, Return & Season tickets and Travelcards. Built-in Season Ticket Calculator.

www.brfares.com

I put Westhoughton to Bury in NRE and Northern's ticket engines and it simply won't allow - wants me to choose Bury St Edmunds instead. And I don't think my railcard would be valid between Victoria and Bury? If there is a ticket available I wouldn't know how to obtain it without - basically - your depth of knowledge!

 

[daodao]

I put Westhoughton to Bury in NRE and Northern's ticket engines and it simply won't allow - wants me to choose Bury St Edmunds instead. And I don't think my railcard would be valid between Victoria and Bury? If there is a ticket available I wouldn't know how to obtain it without - basically - your depth of knowledge!

A System One 1 day Any Train & Tram Adult (Off Peak) Travelcard ticket is available, current price £9-50. It can be used from 09:30am Monday to Friday & all day at weekends & Bank Holidays, but not on trains timed to depart between 16:00 and 18:30, Monday to Friday excluding bank holidays. A combined train/tram return ticket can also be bought, provided the rail station is in Greater Manchester (as Westhoughton is).

Train and tram return combined peak ticket (adult)

You can buy tickets that combine Metrolink tram trips with Greater Manchester train journeys, instead of getting two separate tickets

tfgm.com

I have bought a similar all day return ticket in the past to travel from Altrincham to Horwich Parkway and back, via Victoria.

 

[Howardh]

A System One 1 day Any Train & Tram Adult (Off Peak) Travelcard ticket is available, current price £9-50. It can be used from 09:30am Monday to Friday & all day at weekends & Bank Holidays, but not on trains timed to depart between 16:00 and 18:30, Monday to Friday excluding bank holidays. A combined train/tram return ticket can also be bought, provided the rail station is in Greater Manchester (as Westhoughton is).

Train and tram return combined peak ticket (adult)

You can buy tickets that combine Metrolink tram trips with Greater Manchester train journeys, instead of getting two separate tickets

tfgm.com

I have bought a similar all day return ticket in the past to travel from Altrincham to Horwich Parkway and back, via Victoria.

You can't get those on the app, or even a from a machine last time I tried! Ridiculous these days that apps can't be programmed to take day/weekly cards. Plus the "peak hours" complicates things further for the occasional passenger. On the plus side I think there are plans to increase the coverage of contactless to Manchester rail (anyone??) as you can on the trams, and work out the fare for you, but even so how those of us with railcards will cope I don't know.