Suitable candidates for conversion to light rail

[Route115?]

I've often wondered if there are any obvious candidates for lightly used branch lines to be converted to light rail. We have seem this before with Croydon Tramlink and Manchester Metrolink. Ideally the branch would not have any freight and would see an enhancement in service. The Wimbledon - West Croydon branch went from a train every 45 minutes to a tram every 10 minutes. This is about improving services to worsening them whilst at the same time improvinf economics.

The example I think of Watford Jn - St Albans Abbey which would ideally be extended by street running to the centre of St. Albans. The St Erth - St Ives branch is a possibility and maybe others in the West Country. Any thoughts?

 

[SynthD]

St Albans has steep roads that may prevent street running. A more frequent service by any means would need passing places.

St Ives needs capacity for the summer crowds who came by car. Does light rail improve on the summer timetable?

 

[swt_passenger]

There was a similar thread 6 months ago:

Which heavy rail lines might be converted to light rail (including tram-train) to help meet the Treasury/DfT's financial targets post-Covid?

Lines converted up to now are all in metropolitan areas. Future expansion will probably include tram-trains Manchester - Rose Hill and Sheffield - Doncaster, although the latter looks a long way off. Proposals to convert Watford - St. Albans and the Isle of Wight line were not pursued; one of...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[zwk500]

To make it worthwhile, you don't want lots of disconnected single lines but a proper network. The best candidates are things like the South London heavy rail suburban network, Liverpool-Preston and the CLC line, and Bristol Metro. Maybe Cardiff/Valleys Metro as well.
St Albans Abbey isn't too far out of the city centre, and the city centre itself isn't very suitable for a tram. St Erth to St Ives if it gets converted to anything would be converted to a busway, best option is to leave it as heavy rail for the summer peaks.

 

[Arkeeos]

It's not really a pure conversion but extension of the metrolink from east didsbury to hazel grove.
But I don't really think we should be doing these conversions anymore because they're usually extremely shortsighted, except for obvious cases. Especially in a city like Manchester with a population of 3million, which never really should have turned some of its heavy rail lines into light rail lines, because we can see the overcrowding that happens when light rail takes the role of heavy rail.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

St Albans has steep roads that may prevent street running. A more frequent service by any means would need passing places.

St Ives needs capacity for the summer crowds who came by car. Does light rail improve on the summer timetable?

Trams can cope fine with steep hills. Go to Sheffield or Prague and you'll see that gradients aren't a deal-breaker unless you're talking Clovelly levels of steepness.

 

[zwk500]

Trams can cope fine with steep hills. Got to Sheffield or Prague and you'll see that gradients aren't a deal-breaker unless you're talking Clovelly levels of steepness.

St Albans has other problems with street running though, so even if the gradients are achievable (and you're right, Sheffield isn't exactly a cyclist's paradise and the trams do fine) the Abbey line is going nowhere soon.

It's not really a pure conversion but extension of the metrolink from east didsbury to hazel grove.
But I don't really think we should be doing these conversions anymore because they're usually extremely shortsighted, except for obvious cases. Especially in a city like Manchester with a population of 3million, which never really should have turned some of its heavy rail lines into light rail lines, because we can see the overcrowding that happens when light rail takes the role of heavy rail.

If they hadn't been converted to light rail it's entirely possible they'd have disappeared completely. Yes in some areas the wrong lines have been chosen, or rationalisation went too far (Manchester Victoria a very obvious example) but by and large the heavy rail couldn't serve stations frequently enough or take people to where they wanted to go.

 

[Arkeeos]

If they hadn't been converted to light rail it's entirely possible they'd have disappeared completely. Yes in some areas the wrong lines have been chosen, or rationalisation went too far (Manchester Victoria a very obvious example) but by and large the heavy rail couldn't serve stations frequently enough or take people to where they wanted to go.

I understand that, and it made sense from a pragmatic point of view in the past, but I think we are beyond that point in history now. And if we're being real here, those lines in Manchester should have been converted into a subway.

 

[zwk500]

I understand that, and it made sense from a pragmatic point of view in the past, but I think we are beyond that point in history now. And if we're being real here, those lines in Manchester should have been converted into a subway.

Would a subway in Manchester have achieved the permeability of the city centre that the Trams do? I'm not sure. I also think that given the costs and difficulties building subways this country has had there's a better chance of the project floundering and only half a line being built. Instead we've had expansion of the metrolink on a massive scale as it's gone from success to success. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Gareth]

Subway would have less permeability but would get you into the centre quicker. So, it's in between commuter rail and tram. And if Manchester somehow now has 3 million people, it's expanding at an insane rate, most likely faster than anywhere else in the Western world, and so large infrastructural interventions will seriously need to be considered pronto.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Subway would have less permeability but would get you into the centre quicker. So, it's in between commuter rail and tram. And if Manchester somehow now has 3 million people, it's expanding at an insane rate, most likely faster than anywhere else in the Western world, and so large infrastructural interventions will seriously need to be considered pronto.

Den Haag solved this with a tram based solution - add a cut and cover tram tunnel for existing lines. That would turn it into something more like the Newcastle Metro.

 

[Gareth]

I do think something like that is needed, medium term (unless Manchester really does now have 3 million people, in which case, it needs doing immediately). I'd keep it to lines that the are largely old rail conversions, such as Bury and Alty. Obviously, it shouldn't replace the above ground system completely, as it's definitely handy to have but it should seriously be considered over a potential third city crossing.

 

[Arkeeos]

I don’t doubt that it has been a success, but it’s a success in the same way if London only had trams instead of the tube. All of the transport in Manchester is at capacity, the trains and trams are overcrowded with people and the tracks are overcrowded trains and trams.

And to me Newcastle metro is just heavy rail, they’ve ordered similar models of trains to Liverpool, and they run on National rail.

 

[py_megapixel]

It's not really a pure conversion but extension of the metrolink from east didsbury to hazel grove.
But I don't really think we should be doing these conversions anymore because they're usually extremely shortsighted, except for obvious cases. Especially in a city like Manchester with a population of 3million, which never really should have turned some of its heavy rail lines into light rail lines, because we can see the overcrowding that happens when light rail takes the role of heavy rail.

Metrolink, when compared to an hourly or half-hourly DMU service like many Manchester commuter lines have, is a capacity increase not a decrease.

It would be correct to say that overcrowding on these routes at certain times is because of light rail being used rather than heavy rail - but it's not because the light rail doesn't have the capacity to take over the passengers from the previous heavy rail service, it's because it provides a much higher standard of service than what it replaced which has lead to modal shift.

Possibly a heavier metro system might have been more suitable, but it would have been more expensive so fewer lines could have been converted on the same budget. It also would have been more difficult to build some of the more "open" lines, such as Ashton and Trafford Park, which have been very successful.

 

[Arkeeos]

Metrolink, when compared to an hourly or half-hourly DMU service like many Manchester commuter lines have, is a capacity increase not a decrease.

It would be correct to say that overcrowding on these routes at certain times is because of light rail being used rather than heavy rail - but it's not because the light rail doesn't have the capacity, it's because it provides a much higher standard of service than what it replaced which has lead to modal shift.

And I get that but you’re coverting these lines into light rail running 6tph that’s going to be at capacity on opening with no room to expand other than converting them back to heavy rail. And population growth basically a guarantees that demand will only go up.

When you could have just spent the big money and solved the problems affecting the heavy rail which would give you much more room for expansion whether that be in tph or train size.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Would a subway in Manchester have achieved the permeability of the city centre that the Trams do? I'm not sure. I also think that given the costs and difficulties building subways this country has had there's a better chance of the project floundering and only half a line being built. Instead we've had expansion of the metrolink on a massive scale as it's gone from success to success. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.

We're getting into alternative history territory a bit here, but if some form of the Picc-Vic tunnel had happened it would ideally have had a true city centre station between those two main line stations. Something along the lines of Liverpool Central's Northern Line platforms, underneath the Arndale Centre.

Den Haag solved this with a tram based solution - add a cut and cover tram tunnel for existing lines. That would turn it into something more like the Newcastle Metro.

Now that Manchester has the system it has, that would probably be the best solution once the "capacity ceiling" has been hit. However if the planners of the late 1980s (or ideally of the late 1960s) had a bit more ambition (and budget of course) that ceiling would be much higher.

Without getting too far into the weeds, going for low-floor would probably have been smart. For one thing, the idea of sending trams down the Oxford Road corridor would have been more palatable without having to build high platforms on already narrow pavements for the volume of foot traffic they see.

 

[Gareth]

I don’t doubt that it has been a success, but it’s a success in the same way if London only had trams instead of the tube. All of the transport in Manchester is at capacity, the trains and trams are overcrowded with people and the tracks are over trains and trams.

And to me Newcastle metro is just heavy rail, they’ve ordered similar models of trains to Liverpool, and they run on National rail.

There is a technical difference in terms of infrastructure used. Light rail tends have cheaper vehicles with less crash worthiness as they're not expected to be sharing rights of way with heavy rail trains. They're usually run on line of sight (that is driver reaction, like a bus) and this allows things like not needing fencing or over bridges as pedestrians can just cross the track. I'm not sure how much of this applies to the Newcastle Metro but Merseyrail is clearly heavy rail; although you can get very light heavy rail and very heavy light rail, so to speak.

And speaking of very heavy light rail: could not such a thing be considered for small branch lines or potential reopenings where the case for heavy rail is somewhat borderline? I'm thinking they'd still be part of the national rail network but run by light rail units or tram-trains where there's any through-running. They could be electrified at 1500 VDC, have level crossings and no need for fencing and, to the layman, would probably just been seen as a train.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There is a technical difference in terms of infrastructure used. Light rail tends have cheaper vehicles with less crash worthiness as they're not expected to be sharing rights of way with heavy rail trains. They're usually run on line of sight (that is driver reaction, like a bus) and this allows things like not needing fencing or over bridges as pedestrians can just cross the track. I'm not sure how much of this applies to the Newcastle Metro but Merseyrail is clearly heavy rail; although you can get very light heavy rail and very heavy light rail, so to speak.

And speaking of very heavy light rail: could not such a thing be considered for small branch lines or potential reopenings where the case for heavy rail is somewhat borderline? I'm thinking they'd still be part of the national rail network but run by light rail units or tram-trains where there's any through-running. They could be electrified at 1500 VDC, have level crossings and no need for fencing and, to the layman, would probably just been seen as a train.

We tried "lightweight, low-cost" solutions back in the 1980s... and we ended up with Pacers!

 

[snowball]

There is a technical difference in terms of infrastructure used. Light rail tends have cheaper vehicles with less crash worthiness as they're not expected to be sharing rights of way with heavy rail trains. They're usually run on line of sight (that is driver reaction, like a bus) and this allows things like not needing fencing or over bridges as pedestrians can just cross the track. I'm not sure how much of this applies to the Newcastle Metro but Merseyrail is clearly heavy rail; although you can get very light heavy rail and very heavy light rail, so to speak.

I think Newcastle metro has heavy rail standards of signalling and certainly isn't line-of-sight. Its OLE is twice the maximum voltage allowed on street-running tram lines. However it doesn't have heavy rail crashworthiness, and I believe it has to have special double-blocking arrangements where it shares heavy rail tracks on the Sunderland line.

 

[Gareth]

Thanks for the info. So, it's pretty much "heavy light rail" as I described above...

...and not comparable to a Pacer, for goodness sake.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And to me Newcastle metro is just heavy rail, they’ve ordered similar models of trains to Liverpool, and they run on National rail.

Newcastle Metro is a light rail metro, a textbook German U-Bahn, which is little more in concept than high floor trams in a cut-and-cover tunnel.

Merseyrail is a heavy rail metro, a textbook German S-Bahn, which is a proper railway shoved underground. A bit like Thameslink but smaller.

It so happens that the Stadler Metro product line somewhat overlaps between "the light end of heavy rail" and "the heavy end of light rail", thus they were ordered for both. Though Merseyrail might well be the first heavy rail application for them?

 

[Ex-controller]

I think Newcastle metro has heavy rail standards of signalling and certainly isn't line-of-sight. Its OLE is twice the maximum voltage allowed on street-running tram lines. However it doesn't have heavy rail crashworthiness, and I believe it has to have special double-blocking arrangements where it shares heavy rail tracks on the Sunderland line.

That’s interesting, and should probably put to bed any idea of converting the Cathcart Circle lines in Glasgow to a similar set up. They’re needed as diversionary routes for the WCML which would require to be be given up to be workable.

 

[cle]

Manchester's surburban rail is pretty poor. And Alty/Bury would be similar. How could you have 12tph from Alty into town via Castlefield? That's basically the whole capacity. People need to move on.

Not to mention light rail having multiple city stations and distributing people more evenly - and thus jobs/economic activity.

There is no argument that the Met hasn't been a huge success, and instigated the overcrowding we see today - that is proof of its success and heavy rail could not now augment that. There will never be a tube line, for instance. Or a Crossrail.

The more heavy rail in Manchester which can go onto the Met, the better. Liverpool and Glasgow have proper networks. Manchester has a few unloved suburban stations on the radial routes out to regional and long-distance places, very different.

Wigan via Atherton and a Deansgate routing. More options for relieving the city centre routes. Integration (fares, connectivity, mode agnosticism) with rail. Something out east, like Glossop or Marple - which frees up more platforms and paths for more rail towards the Hope Valley etc etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There will never be a tube line, for instance. Or a Crossrail.

But I'd be surprised if in 20 or 30 years' time there wasn't a cut and cover tram tunnel a la Den Haag, which would be an excellent option for moving towards a faster Metrolink service through the centre. Obviously some street running would remain.

 

[Arkeeos]

Manchester's surburban rail is pretty poor. And Alty/Bury would be similar. How could you have 12tph from Alty into town via Castlefield? That's basically the whole capacity. People need to move on.

Not to mention light rail having multiple city stations and distributing people more evenly - and thus jobs/economic activity.

There is no argument that the Met hasn't been a huge success, and instigated the overcrowding we see today - that is proof of its success and heavy rail could not now augment that. There will never be a tube line, for instance. Or a Crossrail.

The more heavy rail in Manchester which can go onto the Met, the better. Liverpool and Glasgow have proper networks. Manchester has a few unloved suburban stations on the radial routes out to regional and long-distance places, very different.

Wigan via Atherton and a Deansgate routing. More options for relieving the city centre routes. Integration (fares, connectivity, mode agnosticism) with rail. Something out east, like Glossop or Marple - which frees up more platforms and paths for more rail towards the Hope Valley etc etc.

Why not just improve the suburban rail routes instead of downgrading them to be lower capacity? And why cant Manchester have a tube line? there are smaller cities with similar setups, here and abroad.

I just don't see why we are aiming to essentially handicap lines to be a situation where they are grossly unfit for the current, never mind the future, demands of the city.

 

[cle]

Why not just improve the suburban rail routes instead of downgrading them to be lower capacity? And why cant Manchester have a tube line? there are smaller cities with similar setups, here and abroad.

I just don't see why we are aiming to essentially handicap lines to be a situation where they are grossly unfit for the current, never mind the future, demands of the city.

They are ostensibly suburban rail lines, with street running/tram nature in the centre. The line to Alty shifts!

The answer is obvious if you know the railways of Manchester. It's full, it's a mess, it's massive overdeveloped, it's built on old-ass viaducts with shaky ground, canals/rivers and chords all over the place.

These routes all run 5tph, and many run 10tph. That is more than suburban rail ever would, more than Merseyrail etc etc - more than most London routes. It's way more capacity, even if the vehicles are smaller. Frequency is freedom, as patronage proves.

Heavy rail might enable 6 or 8 car trains, but 1-2tph. That is not better for within a city. That's regional stuff.

 

[snowball]

These routes all run 5tph, and many run 10tph.

That's the outer parts. The shared bits in the middle run several times that.

 

[cle]

That's the outer parts. The shared bits in the middle run several times that.

Yep definitely, was thinking branches as would equate to suburban rail. There aren't that many trunk parts, but yes down to St Werburghs for example, you have 15tph which is more than many tube lines, and any suburban rail anywhere in the UK. Pomona and Trafford Bar, more so.

Now that Cornbrook has an exit - and a ton of development - that has Victoria-line level frequency!

Whereas only Salford Crescent has anything like this. The routes east out Piccadilly (towards Marple, New Mills, Guide Bridge) all have differing stopping patterns so there is no frequency or core/trunk route with any critical mass.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whereas only Salford Crescent has anything like this. The routes east out Piccadilly (towards Marple, New Mills, Guide Bridge) all have differing stopping patterns so there is no frequency or core/trunk route with any critical mass.

The odd stopping patterns out that way seem to be based around the idea of the services being operated by old, sluggish power-trailer Class 101 sets. Presumably if all used 195s (which some of those services now do) the acceleration would be good enough to have all non-TPE services call at all stations on a more Merseyrail like basis? Though it always struck me as odd that the services operated by high acceleration EMUs (the Hadfields) don't do Gorton or Fairfield, with those done by the sluggish old DMUs that barely reached 30mph before they had to slow for the next stop.

Wouldn't be a patch on Metrolink, of course, but then the Lime St regional services aren't a patch on the Northern and Wirral Lines either.

 

[Chester1]

Subway would have less permeability but would get you into the centre quicker. So, it's in between commuter rail and tram. And if Manchester somehow now has 3 million people, it's expanding at an insane rate, most likely faster than anywhere else in the Western world, and so large infrastructural interventions will seriously need to be considered pronto.

I do think something like that is needed, medium term (unless Manchester really does now have 3 million people, in which case, it needs doing immediately). I'd keep it to lines that the are largely old rail conversions, such as Bury and Alty. Obviously, it shouldn't replace the above ground system completely, as it's definitely handy to have but it should seriously be considered over a potential third city crossing.

I don’t doubt that it has been a success, but it’s a success in the same way if London only had trams instead of the tube. All of the transport in Manchester is at capacity, the trains and trams are overcrowded with people and the tracks are overcrowded trains and trams.

And to me Newcastle metro is just heavy rail, they’ve ordered similar models of trains to Liverpool, and they run on National rail.

Passenger numbers are still well below pre pandemic levels. The Ashton - Media City service is still suspended and the Trafford Park service still terminates at Cornbrook. That is capacity for 10tph through city centre with space reserved in time table. With further improvements to electricity system and additional trams all services could all be double sets, instead of maybe half.

Wigan to Bolton and Victoria to Stalybridge are finally being electrified which will improve rolling stock and journey times. Hopefully Oxford Road and Victoria will be improved. The bus network is being taken over by TfGM over the next two years and there is massive investment in seperated cycle lanes. There is no need for a mega public transport project for the city centre yet.