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

[AutoKratz]

The North East Rail and Metro Strategy is proposing to link the ECML to Newcastle Airport by converting the Tyne and Wear Metro between Regent Centre - Airport (and the Depot Avoiding Line) to heavy rail standard so metro and heavy rail will share the same tracks here.

 

[LLivery]

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.

U-bahn, but using the smaller loading gauge like Berlin U2. If Metrolink ordered longer units (length of a double tram) for the ex-heavy rail routes, and it resulted in the capacity and speeds being reasonably comparable to rapid transit, then I wouldn't be against a pre-metro operation at all.

 

[A0wen]

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.

BIB - I'm not sure how you make that assertion ? In any case that report was written pre Covid, so I'm not sure many of the demands it thinks are needed for 2040 really are any longer.

The North East Rail and Metro Strategy is proposing to link the ECML to Newcastle Airport by converting the Tyne and Wear Metro between Regent Centre - Airport (and the Depot Avoiding Line) to heavy rail standard so metro and heavy rail will share the same tracks here.

One has to wonder why they're bothering ? And surely it'll need to be further than Regent Centre - the ECML goes out through Benton.

So what services do they think would use it ? Won't be LNER or XC - and most of the Northern's don't terminate in Newcastle Central but work through it.

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).

To a point I agree with you.

I think the South Fylde line would be far better served if the tramway were extended onto it near Pleasure Beach and then ran through to Wesham.

On Manchester it's a little less clear cut - Marple Rose Hill keeps coming up but really what that area needs is a link through to Stockport and the line back towards Piccadilly is the Hope Valley to Sheffield.

Hadfield and Glossop are the other ones which keep getting touted, but that becomes quite a long journey on a tram - I pointed this out yesterday, here: https://railforums.co.uk/threads/wh...onverted-into-tram-lines.231857/#post-5664499 - that's almost as far as Hatfield is from Kings Cross or Lichfield from Birmingham NS.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hadfield and Glossop are the other ones which keep getting touted, but that becomes quite a long journey on a tram

It does if you assume M5000s would be used, but it wouldn't have to be those, for example the South Wales Stadler tram-trains look like trams but have a seating layout more designed for longer journeys and will be used on routes comparable to this one.

I don't personally think the M5000 interior is very good, to be honest, even for what they do now, but nothing says a vehicle for longer distance runs like Marple, Hadfield or Atherton wouldn't be rather different.

 

[bramling]

It does if you assume M5000s would be used, but it wouldn't have to be those, for example the South Wales Stadler tram-trains look like trams but have a seating layout more designed for longer journeys and will be used on routes comparable to this one.

I don't personally think the M5000 interior is very good, to be honest, even for what they do now, but nothing says a vehicle for longer distance runs like Marple, Hadfield or Atherton wouldn't be rather different.

In my view the T68 interior layout was better, especially in view of the fact many Metrolink journeys are to/from Manchester. It’s a very radial network.

 

[Dave W]

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.

Is there any evidence to show a 139 isn't a massive saving over a 2-car DMU (remembering with the near-demise of the 153 anything that replaces it will be 2-car minimum) - a lot of weight to be lugging up that hill for not much...

 

[mike57]

Looking at the Manchester situation:

How much might a Vic/Pic tunnel cost and My guess would be eywatering amounts, so why not sort Castlefield and Piccadilly 13/14 out properly with 4 tracking and possibly flying junctions outside Piccadilly to avoid conflicts across the main station throat. It isnt going to cost as much as a tunnel and addresses existing heavy rail problems. Create some West facing bays at Piccadilly in the triangle between Plats 13 and 12. This means that some services can terminate at Pic from the west.

Stage 2 then refurbish Victoria, make it a more pleasent place and try and get two more through platforms to the south of platform 3.

Stage 3 Convert the Bury line back to heavy rail or maybe tram train, and run into Piccadilly via Castlefield into west facing bays. Two advantages, you now have a proper regular Pic - Vic link with heavy rail, which is going to help people arriving into Vic from the NE and wanting the airport and the other connections Piccadilly offers, and you relieve the tram network of some of its load. If you wanted you could use tram-trains and run onwards from Pic rather than terminating there. An alternative would be to provide some West facing bays at Victoria and have a Victoria - Airport shuttle via Piccadilly and leave the Bury as a tram.

Yes it will take a bit longer than a direct tunnel for the Vic - Pic transfer, but will be more convenient than the current options which are tram or walk, as currently the heavy rail is an unreliable half hourly service between the two, pre covid, and this isnt adequate.

While sorting out Castlefield I would also combine and reduce to one station the current Deansgate - Manchester-O-R pair, they are only about 500m apart which is far too close and just creates further operational difficulties.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there any evidence to show a 139 isn't a massive saving over a 2-car DMU (remembering with the near-demise of the 153 anything that replaces it will be 2-car minimum) - a lot of weight to be lugging up that hill for not much...

If the 139s needed replacing, I'm sure Vivarail could come up with a single-car battery-powered cut and shut that would suit, probably cheaper than the "full" D-Train as because it's self-contained crashworthiness is of less importance. Within 10 years or so (the likely life of a 230 etc) it'll probably be clear if the tram will be extended there to replace it or not.

 

[Dave W]

If the 139s needed replacing, I'm sure Vivarail could come up with a single-car battery-powered cut and shut that would suit, probably cheaper than the "full" D-Train as because it's self-contained crashworthiness is of less importance. Within 10 years or so (the likely life of a 230 etc) it'll probably be clear if the tram will be extended there to replace it or not.

I can't see the tram ever going as far as Stourbridge Junction, let alone being added to replace the route down to Town.

For heavy rail, the relative cost of electrifying it when the rest of the Snow Hill Line gets done would be monumental - I don't see how you could avoid using some form of diesel engine on the line on account of the steep gradient.

(I wonder if the branch might end up being one of the few 21st century railway casualties. If we're going to suggest a true economical solution for the Branch, it's replacing the permanent way - double track almost throughout - with a busway feeding into the bus station at the Town end, using electric/hydrogen/etc shuttles and extending other routes (the 6, or the 9, or...)

I'm all in for a single car EMU though

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't see the tram ever going as far as Stourbridge Junction, let alone being added to replace the route down to Town.

For heavy rail, the relative cost of electrifying it when the rest of the Snow Hill Line gets done would be monumental - I don't see how you could avoid using some form of diesel engine on the line on account of the steep gradient.

The relative cost of electrifying it would be tiny - it's so short you could just string it off the mainline, little more than a siding, really. OK, a 3-car unit would be a bit of a waste (there are no 1 or 2-car UK EMUs, and it doesn't seem worth ordering something new and custom from Stadler even though they probably could do it based on the SMILE platform with very short end vehicles and an OHLE powered power module) but that would probably be the cheapest thing to do if keeping it as rail rather than have a diesel island.

(I wonder if the branch might end up being one of the few 21st century railway casualties. If we're going to suggest a true economical solution for the Branch, it's replacing the permanent way - double track almost throughout - with a busway feeding into the bus station at the Town end, using electric/hydrogen/etc shuttles and extending other routes (the 6, or the 9, or...)

Yes, the easiest thing would be to replace it with an electric bus, which might not even require the infrastructure if suitable bus lanes can be put on the roads (I don't know it well enough to say yes or no on that).

I'm all in for a single car EMU though

A single car battery 230 would no doubt handle it fine. You could almost just relocate the entire test charging system and unit being installed for the Greenford branch up there once that's done - that's a trial of the system, not a plan to operate the branch long-term using 230s.

 

[Dave W]

The relative cost of electrifying it would be tiny - it's so short you could just string it off the mainline, little more than a siding, really. OK, a 3-car unit would be a bit of a waste (there are no 1 or 2-car UK EMUs, and it doesn't seem worth ordering something new and custom from Stadler even though they probably could do it based on the SMILE platform with very short end vehicles and an OHLE powered power module) but that would probably be the cheapest thing to do if keeping it as rail rather than have a diesel island.

I take your point on the fact it could be lumped in with the mainline, but actually the rest of what you said here about stock was rather what I was getting at, more than the actual infrastructure cost.

Yes, the easiest thing would be to replace it with an electric bus, which might not even require the infrastructure if suitable bus lanes can be put on the roads (I don't know it well enough to say yes or no on that).

Not a chance, especially in rush hour, although the buses that do run that way tend to stay off the main roads - or did! - I don't think you could do that for a more intensive service. I don't think there's much value in the land, so busway would be a decent middle ground.

A single car battery 230 would no doubt handle it fine. You could almost just relocate the entire test charging system and unit being installed for the Greenford branch up there once that's done - that's a trial of the system, not a plan to operate the branch long-term using 230s.

I'd forgotten about the Greenford thing, actually. There's an idea... The frequency might take a hit though as it'd probably need a while to charge. Then again, you could have one at either end, build in some energy storage per the 139 and largely "freewheel" down the hill, using the combined 5 minutes on the "juice" to do the 2 minutes back up the bank. Ad infinitum... Ish.

 

[MattRat]

Is there any evidence to show a 139 isn't a massive saving over a 2-car DMU (remembering with the near-demise of the 153 anything that replaces it will be 2-car minimum) - a lot of weight to be lugging up that hill for not much...

Well the hybrid 168 looks pretty economical. And that hybrid system could be used if some other units, like a 171 that is better suited to commuter work (from what I've been told).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd forgotten about the Greenford thing, actually. There's an idea... The frequency might take a hit though as it'd probably need a while to charge. Then again, you could have one at either end, build in some energy storage per the 139 and largely "freewheel" down the hill, using the combined 5 minutes on the "juice" to do the 2 minutes back up the bank. Ad infinitum... Ish.

Fairly sure regen into batteries is standard on any 230 fitted with them including the Welsh hybrid ones.

I expect you could drop it from 6 to 4tph without it being too annoying, particularly if rather than just blindly running every 15 you made it connect with specific trains.

Other other option would be to dig up the sports field, install a curve facing Birmingham and run a through service from Brum, though while there is only a sports field in the way of that and not e.g. housing or business premises, the curve radius may be too tight for it to work.

 

[Dave W]

Last thoughts from me:

There *did* used to be a Birmingham facing chord onto the branch here, per old map (1901 OS from NLS attached - the station had just been moved at this point I think), and you can just make it out on the satellite (highlighted):


(image shows satellite with annotated example of former north facing curve to Stourbridge Town Branch Line)

In fairness, this could facilitate a tram extension if there ever was one - tighter radius curves would allow straight platforms with a short link to the Junction's platforms, possibly along the old alignment to the Junction's branch platform past the disused signalbox. Assuming it could run to the west of the Chiltern depot of course. But then I'm rather disproving my own argument

 

[43096]

there are no 1 or 2-car UK EMUs

Those 456s and 466s say hello…

Presumably you meant to add for 25kV AC?

 

[yorksrob]

I think there's a case for the section between Altrincham and Manchester being re-signalled again (they were there and out of use last time I was on it) so that heavy rail trains from Chester could share it with Metrolink.

 

[JamesT]

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.

I assume this mostly refers to how trams are driven on sight, so you don’t need most of the complicated signalling infrastructure that heavy rail uses.

 

[AndyB28]

I don't personally think the M5000 interior is very good, to be honest, even for what they do now, but nothing says a vehicle for longer distance runs like Marple, Hadfield or Atherton wouldn't be rather different.

Totally agree. I think the Sheffield system is much better with a centre car all-seater and all the prams, wheelchair, cycles etc in the two end cars. Certainly the seats the M5000's do have are very unpleasant for the longer routes (if you're 'lucky' enough to get one)!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Totally agree. I think the Sheffield system is much better with a centre car all-seater and all the prams, wheelchair, cycles etc in the two end cars. Certainly the seats the M5000's do have are very unpleasant for the longer routes (if you're 'lucky' enough to get one)!

Yep, that's a really good layout, which echoes a common layout on Swiss narrow gauge railways!

 

[Arkeeos]

Looking at the Manchester situation:

How much might a Vic/Pic tunnel cost and My guess would be eywatering amounts, so why not sort Castlefield and Piccadilly 13/14 out properly with 4 tracking and possibly flying junctions outside Piccadilly to avoid conflicts across the main station throat. It isnt going to cost as much as a tunnel and addresses existing heavy rail problems. Create some West facing bays at Piccadilly in the triangle between Plats 13 and 12. This means that some services can terminate at Pic from the west.

4 tracking Castlefield has already been ruled out.

The only long term solution for it is an underground tunnel, the area has been underfunded enough. And honestly, I don't think it would be crazy expensive, a 3 mile tunnel with 3 or 4 stations, that seems reasonable for a city of 3million people.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I think there's a case for the section between Altrincham and Manchester being re-signalled again (they were there and out of use last time I was on it) so that heavy rail trains from Chester could share it with Metrolink.

Could heavy rail trains cope with the "dive under" now located between Trafford Bar and Cornbrook stations?

 

[yorksrob]

Could heavy rail trains cope with the "dive under" now located between Trafford Bar and Cornbrook stations?

I was expecting them to either regain NR (or the reopened Central as per my thread).

I don't know whether the diveunder could be avoided.

 

[A0wen]

4 tracking Castlefield has already been ruled out.

The only long term solution for it is an underground tunnel, the area has been underfunded enough. And honestly, I don't think it would be crazy expensive, a 3 mile tunnel with 3 or 4 stations, that seems reasonable for a city of 3million people.

And what is your definition of "crazy expensive" out of interest?

 

[Starmill]

The general principle of the tunnel is considered to be still on the table at TfGM.

Their responsibility for strategic planning includes Metrolink, and it is clear from the modelling that simply extending the Trafford Centre services to Crumpsall will not be able to offer sufficient capacity for the 2040s. Obviously, a range of ideas are on the table to further expand capacity including new longer units or a third city centre tramway route, and soft options such as using more buses and managing prices carefully, but the tunnel is likely to be more cost effective. As to covid - why would that have resulted in less demand for Metrolink? It caters to shorter average journey lengths at what are now lower prices than the national rail services. Long term there won't be a large negative effect on growth, although it is possible that it may delay the worst of the capacity crisis by one to two years.

 

[A0wen]

Could heavy rail trains cope with the "dive under" now located between Trafford Bar and Cornbrook stations?

I'd be slightly more intrigued as to how any train could fit in among the Metrolink schedule at Trafford Bar.

According to TFGM the frequency on each line is every 12 mins, so that's 5 tph. At Trafford Bar there are 5 lines:

Purple: Altrincham - Piccadilly
Blue: Airport - Victoria
Pink: Didsbury - Rochdale

So they're putting 15 tph through there off peak. And at peak there is additionally:

Green: Altricham - Bury
Grey: Didsbury - Shaw

Which makes 25 tph - only the tube beats that and that's usually on a single line / route, not with 4 different routes.

 

[Starmill]

I'd be slightly more intrigued as to how any train could fit in among the Metrolink schedule at Trafford Bar.

According to TFGM the frequency on each line is every 12 mins, so that's 5 tph. At Trafford Bar there are 5 lines:

Purple: Altrincham - Piccadilly
Blue: Airport - Victoria
Pink: Didsbury - Rochdale

So they're putting 15 tph through there off peak. And at peak there is additionally:

Green: Altricham - Bury
Grey: Didsbury - Shaw

Which makes 25 tph - only the tube beats that and that's usually on a single line / route, not with 4 different routes.

Peak is slightly misleading, they run interpeak as well as AM and PM peak. It's only evenings and Sundays when they don't run.

There is no possibility of train services again between Old Trafford and Cornbrook.

Tram trains for Metrolink would enable a return to double track between Timperley and Altrincham though which would be a big improvement for reliability.

 

[A0wen]

Peak is slightly misleading, they run interpeak as well as AM and PM peak. It's only evenings and Sundays when they don't run.

There is no possibility of train services again between Old Trafford and Cornbrook.

Tram trains for Metrolink would enable a return to double track between Timperley and Altrincham though which would be a big improvement for reliability.

But that double track would also have to accomodate the mainline passenger services and freight, plus you'd also be blocking the Altrincham bound Metrolink line when a Manchester bound mainline service passed.

I assume you're suggesting it would be 1 track in each direction, not bi-di?

 

[Arkeeos]

And what is your definition of "crazy expensive" out of interest?

Put it this way, the Battersea power station tube extension cost £1.1bil for 2 stations and 3km of track. So based off those figures £2.5bil seems like a reasonable figure for the cost of a 3 mile rail tunnel with 4 stations, and that doesn’t seem too bad, to me at-least.

 

[Recessio]

Wimbledon to West Croydon: there's no street running (right up until WC but that could be reimplemented to the platforms), and the stations are still mostly spaced out like NR stations, not short frequent tram/bus stops.

Then use the saved trams to improve frequency on the rest of the Croydon Tram network.

 

[daodao]

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.