Merseyrail (Liverpool) vs Manchester Metrolink (Manchester)

[A60stock]

I wanted to ask how the two systems compare. I appreciate one is light rail and the other traditional heavy rail, however, both intend to serve the same purpose i.e. be the main metro operator for the city.

Do people have a preference? Do they really serve a similar purpose?

I think Manchester wouldn't have an equivalent heavy rail metro service like Merseyrail (which would explain why Metrolink was built) but at the same time, is Merseyrail the reason why Liverpool doesn't have a tram style metro?

I imagine with the new class 777 trains coming in, Merseyrail will start to feel more like the Manchester Metrolink.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are basically the same thing (connecting up urban branch lines) done in two different ways (the T&W Metro being the third possible way, a light rail underground metro). I think Metrolink will develop to be more like Merseyrail - I would be surprised if within say 30 years there wasn't a tram tunnel through central Manchester like the one in Den Haag.

Not sure I'd say I have a strong preference. Each has its strengths.

There was nearly Merseytram - Merseyrail doesn't serve a fairly large chunk of the city in a north-easterly direction - but sadly it got dropped. It was however to have been a traditional street tramway, so quite different from most of Metrolink.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Liverpool did have plans for a tram system, but like those planned for places like Bristol and Leeds, it got cancelled (by Labour) as unaffordable.
Meanwhile Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Birmingham were able to extend their existing tram networks.
Merseyrail's network has also been static since the extension to Chester/EPort (give or take a few new intermediate stations).
Utilising the old rail tunnels under the city to connect Merseyrail into the Chat Moss route is perennially under discussion but no firm project has emerged.
The 777 design at least gives Merseyrail more options for extension elsewhere.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

They are basically the same thing (connecting up urban branch lines) done in two different ways (the T&W Metro being the third possible way, a light rail underground metro). I think Metrolink will develop to be more like Merseyrail - I would be surprised if within say 30 years there wasn't a tram tunnel through central Manchester like the one in Den Haag.

Not sure I'd say I have a strong preference. Each has its strengths.

There was nearly Merseytram - Merseyrail doesn't serve a fairly large chunk of the city in a north-easterly direction - but sadly it got dropped. It was however to have been a traditional street tramway, so quite different from most of Metrolink.

I agree, i can see it happening. Metrolink in my opinion is a very good system but capacity in the city centre is an issue in the medium to long term so i can see a tunnel happening in the future.

 

[A60stock]

How would the tunnel work for metrolink, as i thought it already goes to the city centre? Also, wouldnt the issue be that metrolink already runs in both directions from Piccadilly, unlike one of the lines of merseyrail which is circular?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would the tunnel work for metrolink, as i thought it already goes to the city centre?

Dig a cut and cover tunnel (probably easier than going deeper, and there are roads running on the desired routes you can dig up to put one in) and put the trams through it instead of (or as well as) along the street.

Also, wouldnt the issue be that metrolink already runs in both directions from Piccadilly, unlike one of the lines of merseyrail which is circular?

Why would that be an issue? Merseyrail also has the Link as well as the Loop.

 

[A60stock]

Guess my question is where is the circular tunnel going to be and what service would run on it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Guess my question is where is the circular tunnel going to be and what service would run on it?

Why would it be circular?

 

[frodshamfella]

I think with the class 777 we can hopefully see some extensions over lines which could receive improved services such as Bidston to Wrexham . The other extensions that comes to mind is Skelmersdale. This project has been bubbling along for ages now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think with the class 777 we can hopefully see some extensions over lines which could receive improved services such as Bidston to Wrexham . The other extensions that comes to mind is Skelmersdale. This project has been bubbling along for ages now.

Skem has been needed for years. Since the new town was conceived, really.

 

[Vespa]

Metrolink is the biggest tram sytem in the UK by mileage, connecting the important parts of Manchester region and has stops at the main attractions, it's also has good city centre penetrations via the two city crossings, it's wheelchair friendly, not about the need for a tunnel, a third city crossing certainly for some routes, as a transport system Manchester got it right and is a very successful transport system that will expand further.

Merseyrail is much older and carries over many legacies in infrastructures and rolling stock, not wheelchair friendly without assistance, it does have a major advantage in that it's a self contained system with no outside train companies taking up blocks in the track capacity, it's one of four cities with underground stations, had Merseytram been built it could have been linked up with merseyrail to improve cross transport flexibility.
There is a proposal open new underground stations and open up Bootle to Aintree track link, possible expansion to the city line via a tunnel portal that has been prepared near Central station.
The new class 777 is tramlike in layout and set up, to break out of the tunnel and run on the street Metrolink style will require some modifications, Liverpool airport has no rail connection to the city, a major ommission.

Glasgow used to have a very extensive tram system that complimented the Glasgow subway, with the trams gone, the subway does seem isolated and is some distance from attractions and near others, it has never expanded since it's been built.

 

[Djgr]

I would see the main difference being the fair degree of street running on the Manchester system (mainly in the centre but also elsewhere e.g Ashton). This has the advantage of providing greater proximity to the system but it can be irritatingly slow on occasions.

 

[daikilo]

I wanted to ask how the two systems compare. I appreciate one is light rail and the other traditional heavy rail, however, both intend to serve the same purpose i.e. be the main metro operator for the city.

Do people have a preference? Do they really serve a similar purpose?

I think Manchester wouldn't have an equivalent heavy rail metro service like Merseyrail (which would explain why Metrolink was built) but at the same time, is Merseyrail the reason why Liverpool doesn't have a tram style metro?

I imagine with the new class 777 trains coming in, Merseyrail will start to feel more like the Manchester Metrolink.

Taking the original question which is actually very well phrased, both Liverpool and Manchester in the mid-20th century had heavy rail lines running into "peripheral" stations (Liverpool: Central, Lime Street, Exchange; Manchester: Piccadilly, Central, Victoria).

In the case of Liverppol, Wirral lines had a low-level station in Central whereas Manchester did not have a truly central station. In addition, the geography of the cities is different with the Nort-East of Liverpool being on sloping ground unlike the essentially flat Manchester.

What happened was then (1970s) that Liverpool modified and developed its heavy-rail "commuter" lines under the city whilst Manchester converted some heavy-rail radial lines to light-rail and connected them through the city centre. Previously, both cities had extensive street tram networks but both had been abandoned about twenty years previously.

Both certainly serve a similar purpose although the Manchester network is both more extensive and has an overall denser station spacing. Note that Metrolink has high platforms which makes "stops" more like stations than many other tram networks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 777 of course will make Merseyrail "level boarding" the same as Metrolink, though some stations remain inaccessible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Both certainly serve a similar purpose although the Manchester network is both more extensive and has an overall denser station spacing. Note that Metrolink has high platforms which makes "stops" more like stations than many other tram networks.

This is partly the case because low floor trams weren't really a thing when it was being built (plus they already had the high platform stations and it was originally very much built on the cheap). I suspect that is now very much regretted.

Interestingly city centre stations used to be partly high, partly low, and the T68s had extending steps.

 

[Llandudno]

When comparing the two systems, I guess it depends on how far you are travelling.

If you are travelling short distances like within Manchester City Centre or out to say, Old Trafford, Etihad etc then the tram wins hands down. But if you are travelling a long distance then Merseyrail is better, imagine travelling by tram from Liverpool all the way to Chester or Southport.


Evening and Sunday frequencies are better on Metrolink, I think it is a shame that most Merseyrail frequencies drop to half hourly after 1900, this really ought to be extended to at least 2000 as most shops in Liverpool City Centre are open until 2000.

Last trams on Metrolink tend to run a little later into the evening than Merseyrail also.
Merseyrail last trains from the City Centre are between 2330-2359, but disappointingly the last train from Chester to Birkenhead and Liverpool is as early as 2300 for some reason.

 

[Mojo]

The better staffing on Merseyrail making the stations more of a community hub is probably a better thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you are travelling short distances like within Manchester City Centre or out to say, Old Trafford, Etihad etc then the tram wins hands down. But if you are travelling a long distance then Merseyrail is better, imagine travelling by tram from Liverpool all the way to Chester or Southport.

It's not really all that much different, journey-time wise, from going from Manchester to Rochdale. And the interiors of the Stadler units aren't much different from Metrolink trams.

 

[Llandudno]

It's not really all that much different, journey-time wise, from going from Manchester to Rochdale. And the interiors of the Stadler units aren't much different from Metrolink trams.

But have you endured Metrolink to Eccles!

 

[Bletchleyite]

But have you endured Metrolink to Eccles!

That is grindingly slow, but mainly because it only went to Eccles because that was how they unlocked EU funding for what they really wanted - Salford Quays. Quickest public transport from Manchester to Eccles (other than heavy rail) is the bus by a considerable margin, I believe.

It's not however an issue with the vehicle itself, just the route!

 

[Efini92]

Dig a cut and cover tunnel (probably easier than going deeper, and there are roads running on the desired routes you can dig up to put one in) and put the trams through it instead of (or as well as) along the street.



Why would that be an issue? Merseyrail also has the Link as well as the Loop.

I think they’d have to be deep tunnels as there’s already a massive network of tunnels and old canals under the city centre.

 

[py_megapixel]

The M5000s are excellent vehicles for what they do. The fact that TfGM keep ordering new batches of the same model is a testament to that. They ride well, accelerate quickly, are spacious, modern-feeling and accessible. They also aren't horribly built on the cheap and unreliable, unlike the T68s...

 

[Altfish]

I don't think the trams will go underground; it somewhat defeats the idea. 3rd and 4th City Crossings hopefully.
Manchester could also do with a north/south u/g heavy rail link to take the pressure off the Oxford RD/Deansgate/Castlefield bottleneck

Similarly Liverpool could do with trams.

 

[py_megapixel]

I don't think the trams will go underground; it somewhat defeats the idea

In what way does it defeat the idea?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

3rd and 4th City Crossings hopefully.

Where would a 3rd and/or 4th City Crossing be most useful on the Manchester Metrolink system?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think the trams will go underground; it somewhat defeats the idea.

How?

Similarly Liverpool could do with trams.

It could certainly do with something to fill in the significant gap in a roughly north-easterly direction from the city centre.

 

[urbophile]

Both systems are compromises. Manchester struggles with drawing more distant places into the network because commuter rail and urban metro have different needs: reasonably fast journey times and comfortable seating vis à vis frequent service with many stops. Liverpool, with a more outer-suburban commuter focus to the network anyway, is facing pressures to extend even further geographically despite present termini being more or less at the limit for journey times – semi-fast services would complicate matters - and toiletless trains. At the same time there are plans for more inner city stations which would tend to push it more towards the metro end of the spectrum. I suppose it's the same problem faced by LU, but only the Metropolitan Line appears to have solved the compromise by running semi fast services (and diverting urban services onto the Jubilee Line).

 

[Ianno87]

Where would a 3rd and/or 4th City Crossing be most useful on the Manchester Metrolink system?

I'd say North West-South East

 

[Bletchleyite]

Both systems are compromises. Manchester struggles with drawing more distant places into the network because commuter rail and urban metro have different needs: reasonably fast journey times and comfortable seating vis à vis frequent service with many stops. Liverpool, with a more outer-suburban commuter focus to the network anyway, is facing pressures to extend even further geographically despite present termini being more or less at the limit for journey times – semi-fast services would complicate matters - and toiletless trains. At the same time there are plans for more inner city stations which would tend to push it more towards the metro end of the spectrum. I suppose it's the same problem faced by LU, but only the Metropolitan Line appears to have solved the compromise by running semi fast services (and diverting urban services onto the Jubilee Line).

You could run Merseyrail semifasts (e.g. on the Ormskirk line perhaps an all stations Maghull service, then one fast from Kirkdale to Maghull and on to Ormskirk), but most people would probably say they would prefer 4tph slower than effectively 2tph faster. Also usage on Merseyrail is different from the Met Line - quite a lot of people use it for local journeys, which is much less pronounced on the Met.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I'd say North West-South East

Not a bad shout. Which route(s) through the City Centre, and where to/from once outside the City Centre?

When the system originally opened in 1992, street running into the City Centre was a plus point.